The Fearmongers

Chicago Tribune reporters Michael Hawthorne and Sam Roe

SCARE: Self-described as “one of the nation's most comprehensive studies of mercury in commercial fish,” a December 2005 Chicago Tribune report from Michael Hawthorne and Sam Roe claimed that a number of popular fish sold in Chicago markets and restaurants were “so tainted that federal regulators could confiscate the fish for violating food safety rules.” In a later editorial complaining about “Tuna Roulette,” the Tribune warned of “dangerous levels of mercury that can be found in many commonly consumed fish varieties” and called for an increase in FDA testing and food warning labels.

FACT: This report completely ignored the reality of the safety margins that are built into the FDA’s consumer advice. Fish samples exceeding the FDA’s mercury Action Level are not inherently unsafe to eat. According to Hawthorne and Roe, the highest mercury reading in its survey was a swordfish whose concentration was 3.07 parts per million. Considering the Action Level’s built-in safety factor, this is less than one-third of the level that might be harmful. No other species averaged above 1.0 part per million.

FACT: Despite their headline hyperbole, Hawthorne and Roe were unable to find a single sample of tuna that exceeded the mercury Action Level, which is itself just ten percent of what might be harmful.
Consumers Union
SCARE: The July 2006 issue of Consumer Reports (a publication of the Consumers Union of the United States) drastically departed from widely accepted fish-consumption safety standards by advising that “pregnant women avoid canned tuna entirely.” The report’s author claimed that there is “enough uncertainty about the safety of even brief exposure of the fetus to such higher mercury levels that a more cautious approach is warranted.” After providing readers with a litany of dietary advisories even more conservative than the FDA’s already hyper-precautionary standards, the report recommended that the FDA require mercury warnings “on canned-tuna labels and in stores and restaurants that sell or serve fish.”

FACT: The FDA’s comprehensive testing of canned light tuna has found an average mercury content of 0.12 parts per million, or barely one-eighth that agency's mercury “Action Level” -- a number which itself is just one-tenth the level associated with theoretical health risks. That amounts to an 800 percent cushion between canned light tuna levels and an amount that would justify actual concern. The FDA's latest report found that the average amount of mercury in canned albacore is 0.35 parts per million, putting canned albacore tuna at the same level as widely -- and safely -- consumed seafood like Chilean sea bass (0.38 ppm), bluefish (0.34 ppm), and lobster (0.31 ppm).

FACT: In response to the hand-wringing July 2006 piece, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Louis Sullivan said that Consumer Reports made “sweeping and potentially damaging claims, without subjecting its findings to serious scientific review ... Canned tuna is an excellent source of protein that has the added benefits of including high levels of omega-3 fatty acids that are recognized as having multiple health attributes. Scaring consumers away from this healthy food choice is irresponsible.”

SCARE: Back in 1992, Consumer Reports confidently advised that "the amount of mercury in the typical American diet -- even a diet that includes a serving of tuna practically every day -- poses virtually no risk to the average healthy adult." But by 2001, when the magazine had adopted a more political attitude toward food, it began carping that the FDA's very conservative "Action Level" for mercury in fish was "too high to protect [Americans] adequately." By 2003 Consumers Union was boldly advising the federal government to warn "women who may become pregnant" to completely avoid nine species of fish (including red snapper, orange roughy, albacore tuna, and swordfish).

FACT: The Food and Drug Administration's dietary advice for pregnant women and small children is based on the EPA's "Reference Dose" -- the most hyper-conservative and restrictive standard in the world. And like this Reference Dose, the FDA's "Action Level" for mercury in fish has a ten-fold margin of safety built-in. So Consumers Union was essentially complaining that a 1,000-percent cushion wasn't enough to protect us from ourselves.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
SCARE: During the 2005 Seafood & Health Conference, CSPI issued a press release calling on the FDA to replace its “very complex” fish advisory should be expanded to include mercury “warning” signs at every grocery counter where fish is sold. Even though just a very small segment of the population (notably pregnant women and infants) are targeted by current FDA advisories, CSPI reasoned that all consumers needed to warned away from eating swordfish, shark, king mackerel, and tilefish, and tuna.

FACT: The FDA has already ruled that nationwide government-mandated mercury warning labels would be misleading. In an August 24, 2005 letter to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, then-FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford warned against issuing dire-sounding warnings to consumers without providing any information about just how much of a food it would take to bring about a health risk. The very plan CSPI is endorsing, Crawford wrote, would be “without any scientific basis as to the possible harm caused by the particular foods in question, or as to the amounts of such foods that would be required to cause this harm.” Crawford also said such warnings would cause tuna fish to be “misbranded under federal law.”

SCARE: In an alarmist January 2001 letter, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal demanded that Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala "protect all Americans -- particularly sensitive populations -- from the dangers of exposure to methyl mercury." In an accompanying press release, DeWaal complained: "Countless children may needlessly suffer because their parents were never told about the consequences of consuming mercury-tainted fish."

FACT: Americans are not in danger of health hazards associated with methyl mercury (the organic mercury compound found in fish). Judging from the Benchmark Dose Lower Limit (the real harm threshold for mercury), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data don't identify any Americans with enough mercury in their bloodstream to result in negative health effects.

SCARE: In July 2002, the Scripps-Howard News Service reported that CSPI "recommended that the FDA include warning labels on canned tuna � similar to the warning labels targeted to pregnant women that are on alcohol and cigarettes."

FACT: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Reference Dose" for mercury, which includes a 10-fold margin of safety, is by far the strictest (and least realistic) standard in the world. CSPI's long-term strategy to frighten Americans about fish (along with meat and dairy foods) may have something to do with its plan to launch an "Eating Green" project, which will encourage Americans to adopt a "largely plant-based" diet. Marginalizing the health benefits of fish may be one piece of that puzzle.
Earth Share and the Ad Council
SCARE: Earth Share is a national network of environmental groups that gets its financial backing from workplace giving campaigns. The Ad Council is America's most prolific pay-for-play producer of "public service announcements," like the "Take a Bite Out of Crime" spots and the messages urging 18-year-olds to register for the Selective Service.

When the two got together in 2005, the result was a factually-challenged broadcast ad -- produced with EarthShare contributions and played for free on hundreds of radio stations -- needlessly scaring American mothers about mercury in fish. The ad's script includes this chilling and misleading scenario:

"Do you remember what you had for breakfast this morning? Do you remember where you're supposed to be this afternoon? Do you remember the first question? Our children -- your child -- may not. Because every day, the chances of becoming a victim of mercury poisoning increase. Mercury poisoning may cause neurological damage that impairs learning, language development, vision and memory. And mercury itself has become part of our everyday lives. Absorbed by certain fish. Taken into our bodies. And passed on to our children like the common cold."
FACT: Whatever minuscule chance there is of mercury poisoning from fish hasn't increased in 100 years. When today's fish are measured against samples from between 25 and 125 years ago, most of the comparisons show that our fish-eating ancestors took in more mercury than we do.

FACT: There has been no scientifically documented case of mercury poisoning from fish since the 1960s. And those cases resulted when fish in Japan were massively contaminated by a chemical spill.

FACT: While extreme mercury poisoning may indeed cause "neurological damage that impairs learning, language development, vision and memory," recent government health data indicate that no Americans have anywhere near the amount of mercury in their bloodstreams that could even remotely result in this sort of harm.
Environmental Defense
SCARE: With a $42 million budget, green behemoth Environmental Defense is perfectly positioned to panic Americans about trace levels of mercury in fish. Its "Oceans Alive" website warns that babies and children "may suffer brain damage and learning disabilities" from small amounts of mercury." Environmental Defense's mercury-pollution literature and viral e-mail campaigns also claim that "more than 600,000 newborns each year are put at risk of brain damage and learning disabilities." In July 2004 comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Defense alleged that "thousands of Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of methyl mercury" from the fish they eat.

FACT: Although Environmental Defense may have been preaching to the choir with its comments to the Environmental Protection Agency, the group knows full well (as does the EPA) that no Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of mercury from the fish they eat. This fiction originated when the EPA issued a "Reference Dose" for mercury with a 10-fold margin of safety built-in. Then green groups like Environmental Defense began using this Reference Dose to scare Americans -- without telling them that the real danger level (called the Benchmark Dose Lower Limit) is 1,000 percent higher.

FACT: The claim that "more than 600,000" American children are born "at risk" of mercury poisoning every year is pure bunk. It's based on a calculation made by a single EPA employee, Kathryn Mahaffey. She observed that 7.8 percent of women tested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had blood-mercury levels higher than the EPA's "Reference Dose," and then figured out how many babies would be born (on average) to this number of women. But when the CDC did its testing, absolutely no women tested anywhere near Benchmark Dose Lower Limit (the closest thing the United States has to an actual risk level). And almost all of those who tested above the Reference Dose (which is ten times lower) were only slightly above it anyway.
Environmental Working Group
SCARE: In March 2004 the Environmental Working Group (EWG) held a press conference to proclaim that "unsafe" mercury levels in fish were endangering pregnant women and their children. That same month, in cooperation with the political group MoveOn.org, EWG produced and distributed a television advertisement claiming that mercury "gets into the air, the water, and then into the fish we eat, causing brain damage in children." The spot warned that without political changes in Washington, children will "go on eating mercury in their tuna, risking brain damage."

FACT: The 2004 EWG press event and the subsequent TV ads were developed and organized by Environmental Media Services, an advocacy arm of the Washington, DC public relations firm Fenton Communications. This firm used the phony 1989 "Alar-on-apples" food scare to make money for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of its paying clients.

SCARE: EWG operates an online "tuna calculator" that needlessly scares Americans (particularly women of childbearing age) away from eating tuna. EWG has promoted its calculator in newspaper and magazine articles, and on daytime talk shows viewed disproportionately by women.

FACT: There is no scientific consensus to support the opinion that mercury, in the tiny levels that naturally occur in tuna fish, causes brain damage. EWG purposely confused the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury "Reference Dose" with a level that might actually cause harm. But that Reference Dose is ten times lower than the real harm threshold. Dr. David Acheson, the Food and Drug Administration's chief medical officer, told The Washington Times: "We know there will be people above the Reference Dose, above the tenfold safety factor. But not far above it. They will be in the zone of safety."

SCARE: In 2001 EWG issued a report called "Brain Food," claiming that pregnant women should not eat "any quantity" of 13 types of fish, and strictly limit consumption of 10 others, including canned tuna.

FACT: The Environmental Working Group's "tuna calculator" conveniently uses the EPA's mercury "Reference Dose" as its measuring stick. EWG undoubtedly knows that the EPA standard has a built-in ten-fold margin of safety, but the group continues to mislead Americans by claiming that this Reference Dose defines what is "safe" and "unsafe." This may be one reason why some in Washington refer to EWG as the "Environmental Worrying Group." Click here to test-drive a calculator that uses a more realistic definition of "harm" from mercury in fish.

SCARE: In December 2004, EWG claimed publicly that mercury in fish was putting American children at increased risk of developing autism.

FACT: Many studies have shown no link between mercury (from both fish and routine immunizations) and autism, including a comprehensive 2004 report from a U.S. Institute of Medicine committee. One member of that committee, Johns Hopkins Medical School professor Dr. Steven Goodman, told the Reuters News Service that EWG's claim about mercury and autism "doesn't remotely establish what is cause and what is effect."
Friends of the Earth
SCARE: In March 2004, Friends of the Earth ran a sensationalistic full-page ad in USA Today, demanding changes in the federal government's policies toward coal-burning power plants. The ad featured pictures of three infants and the headline "Your kids are being poisoned by deadly mercury." It also promoted two phony claims:
- "One in six American women of childbearing age has absorbed enough mercury to endanger a developing fetus."
- "630,000 babies are born each year with dangerous levels of mercury in their blood."
Friends of the Earth took the low road, ignoring the role that the EPA's "Reference Dose" plays in these frightening (and phony) statistics.

FACT: In the latest CDC survey of mercury in Americans' blood, the women with the highest mercury levels were still protected by a 400-percent margin of safety. Not a single one "absorbed enough mercury to endanger a developing fetus."

FACT: In that same CDC survey, zero 1- to 5-year-old children had mercury levels above the EPA's Reference Dose. And even if some children had reached this level, they would still be shielded by the EPA's built-in 10-fold margin of safety.
Greenpeace
SCARE: In April 2004 Greenpeace began selling mercury test kits on its Internet website. For $25, Greenpeace will send a hair sample to a North Carolina laboratory and add the results to its national database. In October 2004 the group warned journalists that "twenty-one percent of women tested nationwide have mercury levels higher than [the] EPA limit."

FACT: The North Carolina scientists Greenpeace contracted for their analysis told The San Francisco Chronicle that their study wasn't designed to estimate what percentage of the U.S. population may exceed the EPA mercury guidelines. One told the Chronicle: "I would expect there to be some bias in our survey because the participants were self-selected." That's a technical way of noting that since Greenpeace had a hand in selecting the test subjects, we shouldn't be surprised that the results fell in line with the group's prejudices.

FACT: Greenpeace's own data show an average mercury level nearly one-third lower than the EPA's hyper-conservative "Reference Dose." Only eight out of 50 states had averages above the Reference Dose, and then only slightly. The highest average (1.29 parts-per-million) came from the state of New York (the EPA's Reference Dose is 1.0 parts-per-million). At this level, New Yorkers are still protected by a 775% cushion, since the EPA's Reference Dose is set at a level ten times lower than the amount that might be harmful to your health. If New Yorkers ever reached 10 parts-per-million, that would be worth a press release.
Illinois Public Interest Research Group
SCARE: In 2006, Illinois PIRG released a “Risky Fishing” report claiming that “potentially dangerous levels of mercury contamination are widespread in Illinois.” In a study of fish caught in Illinois lakes and rivers, its researchers claimed that 39 percent of the fish exceeded the “US EPA�s safe limit for women” for mercury. In light of these alarming findings, ILPIRG called on state lawmakers to mandate a 90 percent reduction in coal-fired power plant mercury emissions.

FACT: ILPIRG based its trumped-up warnings on the EPA�s “Ambient Water Quality Criterion” (AWQC), a measurement intended to determine water pollution levels, not food safety. The AWQC is 70 percent lower than the FDA�s more appropriate Action Level -- which itself includes a 1,000-percent safety factor.

FACT: ILPIRG found a sample of only one fish species (out of 32) that exceeded the FDA�s hyper-cautionary mercury Action Level, but no mercury measurements even approached the level -- ten times greater -- which would justify health concerns. The highest mercury reading, in a largemouth bass whose mercury level was 1.40 parts per million, is 714 percent lower than the real harm threshold.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

SCARE: In January 2009, the Minnesota-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) released the results of a laboratory study that detected minute traces of mercury in 17 out of 55 foods and beverages purchased from grocery stores. In a report titled “Not So Sweet,” IATP wrote that since high fructose corn syrup was “the first or second ingredient on the label” in every product its researchers tested, the sweetener “appears to be a significant additional source of mercury, one never before considered.”

FACT: IATP researchers failed to include a “control” group in the study, which raises serious doubts about whether the tiny traces of mercury came from a source other than high fructose corn syrup. IATP tested only samples containing high fructose corn syrup, ignoring the fact that (in the words of Duke Medical Center scientist Woodall Stopford) “mercury is found naturally in all living things, including all categories of foods and beverages.”

In fact, a 2003 study conducted by scientists at Health Canada (Dabeka et al, Food Additives & Contaminants) found measurable mercury levels in dozens of common foods, including baby formula, broccoli, carrots, celery, blueberries, grapes, peas, raisins, raspberries, rice, strawberries, and tomatoes. Mercury levels in canned mushrooms tested for that study were between 5,100 and 16,000 parts per trillion.

FACT: IATP maximized the public over-reaction to its mercury testing study by failing to put its measurements into context. The trace levels of mercury found in 17 of its 55 samples were measured in parts per trillion and pose no harm to human health. According to data from the World Health Organization, one liter of clean and safe drinking water typically contains more mercury than any of the grocery items IATP tested. (“Mercury in Drinking-water,” 2005).

Putting this in perspective, in January 2009 the independent scientific consulting firm ChemRisk looked at the beverage in IATP’s survey that had the highest measured mercury level. “a person would have to drink 64 liters in one day … to equal the amount of mercury in two liters of tap water at the EPA-recommended limit.” ChemRisk also noted that “more than two-thirds of the samples analyzed by IATP had no detectable level of mercury at all.”

FACT: Experts have questioned the wisdom of relying on a “Minimum Detection Level” for reporting mercury testing results, as IATP did. The lab used by IATP did not specify a “Minimum Reporting Limit” (see glossary), a more reliable benchmark. This raises doubts about whether IATP’s reported results were essentially “false positives.”
Maryland Public Interest Research Group (MaryPIRG)
SCARE: In the spring of 2006, Maryland PIRG examined state-compiled data from 1,939 fish and claimed that “59 percent of the fish contained enough mercury to present a potential health risk.” Based on their findings, Maryland PIRG researchers recommended a litany of state actions and new regulations.

FACT: The risk standard used in this study, the EPA�s “Ambient Water Quality Criterion” (AWQC), is meant to measure water pollution levels, not health risks for people. The official food safety standard, the FDA�s Action level, is both 70 percent higher than the AWQC and ten times lower than the lowest mercury level associated with health risks.

FACT: Maryland PIRG found only two species of fish (out of 36) that tested above the FDA�s safety-adjusted Action Level. The highest mercury level of 2.08 parts per million, found in a largemouth bass, still provides consumers with a 481-percent safety margin.
Mercury Policy Project
SCARE: In June 2003 the Vermont-based Mercury Policy Project (MPP) issued a frightening report claiming that tuna it bought from U.S. grocery stores were "dangerous' to eat because they exceeded the Food and Drug Administration's "Action Level" for mercury. "Parents," warned MPP executive director Michael Bender, "are unknowingly exposing their children to high mercury levels."

FACT: In its 2003 report, MPP found a whopping total of 3 cans of tuna whose mercury was above the FDA Action Level of 1 part-per-million. But the average mercury level in this small sample was less than half the Action Level. And the FDA has written that its mercury Action Level was designed to include a 10-fold safety cushion. So even if a can of tuna tested at twice the Action Level (which none in this pseudo-study did), it would still be 5 times lower than the mercury level that the FDA says we might want to worry about.

SCARE: In September 2005, MPP (along with the activist group Oceana) released a report claiming that swordfish and tuna bought at major grocery chains in 22 states contained 'hazardous' levels of mercury. Only "warning signs in grocery stores where these fish are sold," said MPP executive director Michael Bender, would keep the public safe.

FACT: MPP's love affair with warning labels makes no sense. The FDA's "Action Level" for mercury in fish has a ten-fold built-in margin of safety, just like the EPA's "Reference Dose." The highest concentration of mercury in the 2005 MPP/Oceana survey was a single fish that measured 2.33 parts-per-million, which is still more than four times lower than what the FDA describes as "the lowest levels associated with adverse effects."

FACT: Despite its impressive sounding name, the Mercury Policy Project is a one-activist outfit managed by San Francisco's secretive Tides Center. Michael Bender, the group's sole on-site staffer, is a 10-year veteran of what the MPP website describes as "the municipal hazardous waste management field." During a 2002 FDA hearing, one neurologist queried Bender about a chart that measured methyl mercury in "milligrams per kilogram," asking "How does that come out in parts-per-million?" Bender, who readily conceded that "yes, I don't have a science background," couldn't answer. [Milligrams per kilogram is exactly the same as parts-per-million].
National Environmental Trust
SCARE: In February 2002 the National Environmental Trust (NET) launched a multi-million-dollar "Take a Pass on Chilean Sea Bass" campaign, which aimed to convince American restaurants to stop serving the �ber-popular fish. NET's website warned that "Chilean Sea Bass is on the verge of commercial extinction and its very existence is threatened." NET also predicted that it "may be commercially extinct within five years," and concluded in a 2004 report that Chilean Sea Bass should be classified as "endangered."

FACT: Nearly four years into NET's five-year extinction timetable, there's no evidence indicating that Chilean Sea Bass are in any graver danger than they were in 2002. But don't give NET credit for this. One month after the group's "Take a Pass" campaign started, a joint statement from the U.S. departments of State and Commerce acknowledged that the United States only accounts for "between 15 to 20 percent" of global Chilean Sea Bass consumption. So removing the fish from a relative handful of U.S. restaurants is just nibbling around the edges. The same U.S. government statement asked a very important question -- "Is Chilean sea bass an endangered species?" -- and answered it in a single word: "No."

FACT: The National Environmental Trust is essentially a subsidiary of the activist-oriented Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew set it up and remains its biggest donor by far (over $35 million to date). And perpetuating food scares is nothing new for Pew, which also donated more than $7 million dollars to fund the equally unnecessary "Give Swordfish a Break" campaign.
Natural Resource Defense Council
SCARE: A March 2004 advertisement funded by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the political group MoveOn.org claimed that mercury "is swallowed up by fish, and could wind up on your plate. Exposure to mercury can cause learning disabilities and neurological damage in kids and the developing fetus." Predictably, the ad included a tear-off coupon for financial contributors.

FACT: Judging from the mercury levels that the federal government actually believes to be "unsafe," most Americans would have to eat a massive amount of fish before they'd be in any real danger. (How much? Try our mercury calculator to find out.) What NRDC calls a "dangerous level of mercury" is actually the EPA's "Reference Dose," which is ten times lower than the government's theoretical risk level.

SCARE: NRDC's website includes a section about mercury, including this dubious claim: "Humans risk ingesting dangerous levels of mercury when they eat contaminated fish."

FACT: The levels of mercury in Americans' bloodstreams are far lower than those in other countries whose citizens eat more fish than we do. For instance, 87 percent of Japanese men, women, and children (compared to less than 10 percent of Americans) have mercury levels that are above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Reference Dose." And given Japanese kids' track record of outperforming Americans in math and science, it would be hard to argue that millions of Japanese children suffer from "learning disabilities and neurological damage."
Oceana
SCARE: On its website and in its direct-mail fundraising letters, Oceana warns that mercury is "showing up in dangerously high concentrations in the fish we eat � hundreds of thousands of newborns could be handicapped by mercury from the very beginning of their lives." And in September 2005, the group (along with activists at the Mercury Policy Project) released a report claiming that swordfish and tuna bought at major grocery chains in 22 states contained 'hazardous' levels of mercury. Oceana turned this into a loud, public demand for "warning signs in grocery stores where these fish are sold."

FACT: Oceana's ridiculous demand for warning labels was based on the Food and Drug Administration's "Action Level" for mercury in fish -- which has a ten-fold built-in margin of safety similar to the cushion built into the EPA's "Reference Dose." The FDA acknowledges that its "Action Level" (the level Oceana claims some fish exceeded) is "10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects" to people's health. Oceana didn't find any fish that genuinely qualified as "dangerous." The highest concentration of mercury Oceana found was a single fish that measured 2.33 parts-per-million, which is still more than four times lower than the "lowest levels associated with adverse effects" described by the FDA.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
SCARE: From its "Fishing Hurts" campaign to its "Fish Empathy Project," People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) makes no bones about its belief that tuna, bass, and bottom-feeding carp deserve the same rights as people. PETA even makes a quasi-religious effort to convince Christians that the Biblical "loaves and fishes" episode really involved bread and seaweed. So it comes as no surprise that the group's website includes a warning that "Fish consumption poses serious health risks to women and children, and we all gamble every time we sit down to a meal of fish sticks or flounder." One page titled "Deadly Poisons From the Deep" is headlined: "Think Fish is a Health Food? Think Again."

FACT: Literally dozens of scientific studies have demonstrated that the very real health benefits of eating fish far outweigh the hypothetical health risks from trace amounts of mercury and other toxins. Remember: The dose makes the poison.

FACT: In November 2004, when PETA introduced the "Deadly Poisons From the Deep" section of its website, PETA vegetarian campaign director Bruce Friedrich admitted his strategy to an animal-rights e-mail list. "For people who don't care about the suffering of fish," Friedrich wrote candidly, "I suspect this will terrify them into not eating them."

FACT: In 2003 PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk publicly described her organization's goal as "total animal liberation." PETA's absurd position, that fish should be completely off-limits for human consumption, makes the group's scare tactics particularly transparent.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
SCARE: The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is an animal rights group with legal connections to PETA, but it masquerades as a mainstream medical health charity. In fact, more than 95 percent of the members of this "physicians committee" never graduated from medical school. In its Autumn 2004 newsletter, PCRM complained that the government wasn't doing enough to steer people away from "polluted foods" like fish. Food with a face, of course, is a big animal-rights no-no.

FACT: There is no commercially available fish that can cause mercury poisoning in people who eat 8 to 9 ounces of it each week. The closest thing to this level of concern is whale meat, which Americans don't typically eat.

SCARE: In a May 2004 Washington Post ad, PCRM claimed that "8 to 9 ounces of fish a week [is] an amount that will put your health at risk," and alleged that "More than 600,000 babies are born every year at risk of mercury-related birth defects." Click here to see an ad that the Center for Consumer Freedom ran in response to this deceptive animal-rights campaign.

FACT: PCRM's claim about 600,000 babies being born "at risk" annually is based on the wrong-headed belief that anyone who exceeds the EPA's "Reference Dose" for mercury is in danger. But the Food and Drug Administration has written that the government's mercury guidelines were "established to limit consumers' methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects." So-called "responsible" physicians should have known this. It's likely that they did. Propaganda works that way.
Physicians for Social Responsibility
SCARE: In 2004 the medical activist group Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) issued an online "guide to safe fish consumption." The organization warned that mercury is "linked to learning and memory problems in children, heart problems, and possibly cancer" -- and that "millions of American women and their children are at risk." Just a few months earlier, PSR's Environment and Health program director had blasted the Food and Drug Administration for offering "false reassurance to the American public that most fish are safe to eat � it is completely misleading and irresponsible for FDA to advise that it is 'safe' to eat up to 12 ounces of a variety of fish per week." [Emphasis in the original.]

FACT: The Environmental Protection Agency's "Reference Dose," which Physicians for Social Responsibility treats as a bright-line danger level, is anything but. Government scientists adjusted this number downward by a factor of ten before releasing it to the public. So the level of mercury that the EPA actually believes might be harmful (the Benchmark Dose Lower Limit) is at least 1,000 percent higher. Suggesting that children whose mercury levels are above the Reference Dose risk losing IQ points is incorrect and reckless. If this were true, most Japanese kids wouldn't be outperforming American children in math and science. Fully 87 percent of Japan's citizens, including 74 percent of women of childbearing age, exceed our EPA's Reference Dose without any harm.

SCARE: Physicians for Social Responsibility insisted in 2003 that all health advisories about fish consumption "must be based upon the EPA's established RfD [Reference Dose]." As recently as September 2005, the group wrote in a Tallahassee Democrat op-ed that this Reference Dose is "a level associated with the loss of [children's] IQ � This damage to our nation's 'intellectual capital' will be costly."

FACT: It's reckless to claim that, for health reasons, Americans should eat less than 12 ounces of fish per week. Even if a 105-pound woman ate 12 ounces of swordfish and shark every week (fish that contain relatively higher, but still tiny amounts of mercury), her mercury intake would still be below the EPA's "Benchmark Dose Lower Limit" level -- the government's theoretical harm threshold that environmental scare groups don't like to talk about. The FDA's chief medical officer, Dr. David Acheson, told a Washington Times columnist in 2004: "We believe two servings a week, or 12 ounces a week, will offer benefits. Most people do not eat two servings of fish a week. If we can get people to eat two servings a week, that would be great � It is important for people to understand fish is good for you."
Sierra Club
SCARE: In an April 2004 television advertisement run in Michigan, a Sierra Club spokeswoman lamented: "I do everything I can to keep my daughter safe. The food I put on her plate shouldn't be a danger, and with the mercury in fish, it is. It's especially harmful to the brain, for the developing fetus, to the nervous system." A month later the Sierra Club organized a "Mother's Day Stroller Brigade" protest in front of the White House. The event was advertised with flyers featuring a photo of a pregnant woman and the warning: "One in six moms needs to be worried about toxic mercury."

SCARE: In a January 2004 Washington Post advertisement the Sierra Club claimed that "high mercury levels [in fish] can cause birth defects and learning disabilities," and added that "five million American women of childbearing age have dangerous levels of mercury in their bodies."

FACT: The latest and most thorough science examining the possibility of a link between fish consumption and the health effects of mercury among children found no connection. Scientists at the University of Rochester Medical School have been tracking a group of over 700 children in the Seychelles Islands for fifteen years, and they have found no risk from mercury exposure through eating fish -- even the fish eaten by their mothers. The average Seychelles Islander routinely eats 12 fish meals per week.

SCARE: In a politically charged 2004 statement about the Bush Administration's position on pollution management, Sierra Club president Carl Pope claimed: "One in six American women has mercury levels in her blood high enough to leave her baby at risk from mercury poisoning. That puts nearly 630,000 newborns at risk each year from neurological disorders such as cerebral palsy, delayed onset of walking and talking, and learning disabilities."

FACT: The Sierra Club's claim that 5 million U.S. women (or "one in six moms") carry dangerous mercury levels in their blood -- like their adoption of the baseless 630,000-babies statistic -- is rooted in misunderstood or intentionally distorted science. A 2003 study of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 7.8 percent of 1,709 U.S. women had enough mercury in their blood to put them over the EPA's "Reference Dose." The Sierra Club applied this percentage to the whole U.S. population and came up with "5 million." But the Reference Dose doesn't indicate the amount of mercury that might produce any real health risks. That number, called the Benchmark Dose Lower Limit, is ten times greater. No women in the CDC's survey exceeded that number. The Sierra Club either didn't do its homework or chose to ignore this important fact.
Turtle Island Restoration Network (a.k.a. Sea Turtle Restoration Project)
SCARE: Based on a conspicuously small number of samples (12) in a 2006 survey of Los Angeles Japanese restaurants, a researcher with the Turtle Island Restoration Network warned that “women and children should not eat tuna served as sushi or sashimi” and called on the FDA to require seafood outlets to post warning signs.

FACT: The average mercury level for the sushi samples was .721 parts per million, which is 25 percent below the FDA�s Action Level. The highest mercury level in this survey was 1.01 parts per million, representing barely one-tenth the level that would justify alarm.

SCARE: In May 2006, the Turtle Island Restoration Network conducted a similar investigation of ten popular San Diego sushi restaurants and, based on its findings, claimed that 20 percent of the sampled fish were “unsafe for women and children to consume.” The Network called for strengthened warnings regarding tuna consumption by women and children and increased testing of fish and shellfish.

FACT: The Network�s investigators invented their own food-safety standard. None of the tuna samples studied in this investigation had mercury levels above the FDA�s Action Level (the highest sample was 0.967 parts per million), which is itself a small fraction of the level that potentially poses a threat to women and children.

SCARE: In October 2005, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors entertained the idea of forcing grocers to add mercury warning labels to fresh fish. An attorney from the Turtle Island Restoration Network appeared front-and-center to promote the idea, calling it "a groundbreaking initiative that should be replicated across California and nationwide." Earlier in 2005, the group bought full-page ads in The New York Times and other top-tier newspapers in an attempt to pressure large grocery chains to warn consumers about "mercury poisoning" that it claimed could cause "learning disabilities and developmental delays in children." One ad claimed that "swordfish [and other fish] contain enough mercury to harm the central nervous system." Another claimed (without offering any evidence) that "even at very low exposures, mercury permanently harms the sensitive, developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants and young children." The press release issued to announce these ads warned that eating swordfish could lead to "illness and possible death."

FACT: It may be less than obvious why a group whose stated mission is saving sea turtles would get worked up about human health. But judging from the group's website and past ad campaigns, the Turtle Island Restoration Network aims to destroy the global swordfish market because of the belief that fishing for swordfish threatens the survival of leatherback turtles. At the October 2004 "Liberation Now" convention, Turtle Island campaigner Dr. Robert Ovetz told a crowd of young animal-rights activists that swordfishing amounts to "genocide in our oceans." He also acknowledged that his group's strategy is to "alert the public to their own self-interest -- if you eat these fish, you are poisoning yourself and your children -- as a way to convince the public to eat less fish. You should not be eating fish at all"

SCARE: The Turtle Island Restoration Network operates an Internet "mercury calculator" designed to show consumers how easy it is to exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury "Reference Dose." The group warns users: "It is well established that eating seafood that contains mercury is hazardous to our health."

FACT: Grocery stores are in the business of providing Americans with a wide range of food choices, not scaring them to death with meaningless warning labels. The FDA writes that its "Action Level" for fish sold in grocery stores "was established to limit consumers' methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects." In other words, the only way the fish in your supermarket could be considered dangerous is if you multiply the risk by ten. Warning labels would only serve to steer people away from food with documented health benefits.

FACT: The Turtle Island Restoration Network's "mercury calculator" applies a meaningless standard to whip up people's emotions. Click here to try a mercury calculator that measures what might (hypothetically) be harmful, instead of using the EPA's artificially low yardstick.

FACT: Even in California, where the Turtle Island Restoration Network has some influence, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has disputed the idea that regular seafood consumption can lead to health hazards or death. In 2003 the agency wrote: "The levels of methyl mercury in California fish are much lower than those that occurred in Japan. We are not aware of any cases of overt poisoning in California, nor would we expect them."
Water Keeper Alliance
SCARE: During a 2006 lecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, claimed that “Wisconsin is one of 19 states where it is unsafe to consume freshwater fish caught in any state lake because of high levels of mercury.” Kennedy added that that his own mercury levels are “two-and-a-half times the level the EPA considers safe � Women with those levels will give birth to children with brain damage.”

FACT: It is unclear what “level” Kennedy is referring to, but most likely it�s the EPA�s “Reference Dose,” which actually includes a ten-fold margin of safety. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention periodically measures mercury in thousands of Americans, and it has never found anyone whose levels would actually pose a health risk.

FACT: The best and most recent science indicates that increased fish consumption by pregnant mothers will not endanger the mental well-being of their unborn children. In a landmark 2006 study, researchers in the Seychelles Island found that children of mothers who eat ten times as much fish as American women perform just as well (and sometimes better) on cognitive tests as those whose mothers had less mercury in their systems.

Women of child-bearing age in Japan also eat nearly ten times the amount of fish as American mothers, and Japanese children routinely outperform American kids in math and science.

FACT: We�ve heard warnings like this from Kennedy before. And it turned out that he was completely off base. In a 2002 Iowa stump speech about the microorganism pfiesteria piscicida, Kennedy claimed (without offering any evidence) that “people get brain damage from stepping into the Neuse River. Even bridge workers who got wet, people who handle fish, come out with measurable brain damage.” But in April 2006, government scientists confirmed that pfiesteria was not responsible the fish-kills that sent Kennedy off the deep end in the first place.