| More
Home / Seafood / Headlines


April 24, 2007
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish ... Yellow Journalism

When the Chicago Tribune printed a story this month advising pregnant women not (we repeat, not) to remove fish from their diets, it wasn't exactly front-page news. But it should have been. Sixteen months ago, the Tribune ran a high-profile and irresponsible week-long series titled "The Mercury Menace." Reporters Sam Roe and Michael Hawthorne warned ominously that Chicagoans were playing "tuna roulette" by eating fish "tainted" by "dangerous levels of mercury." The National Press Club gave them an award for their (mis)reporting. It's time for the Tribune to send that trophy back.

The good news is that the Tribune has officially reconnected with reality, reporting on a landmark study in which "[t]he less seafood a pregnant woman ate ... the greater her risk was of having a child with more verbal, social and behavioral problems." The not-so-good news is that neither Roe nor Hawthorne could be bothered to write about findings that so clearly blew their "Mercury Menace" series out of the proverbial water. (A Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter did their job for them.)

But we'll give credit where credit is due. At least one editor at the Tribune (the one handling letters) saw a glaring inconsistency between Roe and Hawthorne's reporting and level-headed science about the harmless, trace levels of mercury that have always been in fish.

Our letter, which ran last weekend, noted:

[N]ow that mercury science has matured, we're learning that the health benefits of eating fish far outweigh any hypothetical risks, even for those considered the most vulnerable. What a difference 16 months can make. Americans are becoming reacquainted with the idea that fish -- mercury traces and all -- is actually a health food.

Knee-jerk fish fears, especially during pregnancy, can have negative public health consequences far worse than anything our national mercury scare has sought to help us avoid. Environmental groups spinning tales of brain-damaged children and endangered pregnancies should give their mercury campaigns a rest, read the scientific literature and issue us all an apology.

email us comments




printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Daily Headlines

  • TIME Trawls for Tuna Terror
    Posted On: Wednesday 2/24/2010
  • Fishy Trade Maneuvers
    Posted On: Wednesday 2/3/2010
  • Don't Have a Cow, Vegans
    Posted On: Tuesday 11/24/2009
  • Will PETA Protest Itself?
    Posted On: Friday 11/20/2009
  • CSPI’s Latest Dietary Flip-Flop
    Posted On: Thursday 10/15/2009
  • Jeremy Piven, Back On the Hook
    Posted On: Thursday 10/1/2009
  • Gutting Fishy Scaremongering
    Posted On: Thursday 7/30/2009
  • New Online Seafood Calculator is a Hit
    Posted On: Monday 7/13/2009


  • Activist Cash

    SeaWeb
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    What can you say about a group of alarmist publicity-seekers whose greatest passion is “saving” fish species that aren’t even endangered? Sadly, SeaWeb is just one in a long line of recent entrants into the food-scare industry. read more here »

    Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    Though self-named a “Conservation Society,” Sea Shepherd is a violent organization. “We’re not a protest organization, we’re a policing organization,” Paul Watson has said of his organization, however its purpose is to ram and sink ships making it more of a pirate crew. read more here »

    OpEds

    Fishy Omega-3 risks
    If the FDA's report becomes official policy, the conventional wisdom urging women of childbearing age to eat less fish will be turned completely upside-down. read more here »

    Poor Children Suffer From Tuna Fears
    Seafood warnings are hurting, not helping, America’s most vulnerable kids. Sad? Yes. Shameful? Absolutely. read more here »


    Copyright © 1997-2010 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.