Berman's PR campaign against Mercury Warnings

[bloom]

...Berman's latest campaign is to convince the public that fears about toxic levels of mercury in tuna are wildly overblown. According to a spokesman at the Center for Consumer Freedom, of which Berman is the executive director (he also heads the PR firm Berman & Co.), overly cautious federal agencies are to blame for understating the amount of mercury-tainted fish a pregnant woman would have to eat before putting her fetus at risk for brain damage. For years, the FDA and the EPA have cautioned children, pregnant women, and those who might become pregnant to avoid eating more than about one serving of white albacore tuna a week and to abstain altogether from four types of large, predatory fish that test high in mercury...

But if you go to fishscam.com, a well-designed, content-heavy website, you'll find a mercury calculator that allows you to type in your body weight and click on the kind of fish you want to eat. The calculator does the math based upon the BDLL "to demonstrate the actual dose of mercury in tuna and other fish that's completely safe to eat." According to Berman, a 160-pound pregnant woman could safely eat up to 3.2 pounds of albacore tuna a week. That's a lot more than the FDA recommends....

Berman is also fighting health advocates who want sodas and sugary snacks removed from schools, and just about anyone else who seeks to curtail what Berman calls personal freedom and responsibility in the name of the public good. His campaigns can seem so over-the-top that many activists laugh when his name comes up.

Still, it would be a mistake to underestimate the lobbyist, whose message may be hitting home with Congress. On December 15 the House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved HR 4167, a measure that would prevent states from placing food warnings stricter than federal warnings. If the National Food Uniformity Act is passed, supermarket shoppers in states like California that have for years required mercury warnings on fish will be affected.

http://villagevoice.com/people/0603,hunter,71775,24.html

[trotsky]

1. Some interesting studies on Berman's site

One team of researchers compared 21 specimens of Atlantic Ocean blue hake preserved during the 1880s with 66 similar fish caught in the 1970s. They found no change at all in the concentration of mercury.

In another study, Princeton scientists compared samples of yellowfin tuna from 1971 with samples caught in 1998. They expected to find a mercury increase of between 9 and 26 percent, but they found a small decline instead.

And in a unique experiment, curators of the Smithsonian Institution tested tuna samples that were archived between 1878 and 1909, and compared them with similar fish tissue from 1971 and 1993. They found significantly less mercury in the more recently caught fish. In some cases, the difference was more than 50 percent.

There's even some evidence that human beings are exposed to less mercury today than in the past. Alaska's Public Health Department, for example, reports that when the hair of eight 550-year-old Alaskan mummies was tested for mercury, the results showed levels averaging twice the blood-mercury concentration of today's Alaskans.

However, I don't see any links to these studies, so at this point they're unconfirmed. One thing's for sure, mercury has ALWAYS been in our environment, so it's exceedingly difficult to know what level is safe and what's not.

[bloom]

2. So are you falling for their disinformation campaign?

A lot of people will. I have no doubt.

I expect they will put a lot of money into it.

[trotsky]

3. Quite the contrary.

I specifically said:

I don't see any links to these studies, so at this point they're unconfirmed.

I would appreciate you not assuming I'm "falling for" anything at this point.

[bloom]

4. well you know

you seem to like to give these kinds of things the benefit of the doubt or something.

[trotsky]

5. "These kinds of things"

Yeah, if it's an actual scientific study, I do.

[bloom]

6. Studies

"...The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?th&emc=th

Apparently BushCo is putting out a more US friendly study through:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

Hansen's study is here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

-------------

If you don't take into account that the government is doing disinformation studies and what the gov't stands to benefit or lose - you might not be getting the true information - the "actual scientific study".

It also follows that the gov't would have a lot to gain by fudging up mercury studies. As would the tuna industry - obviously.

Some of us are just more "skeptical" than others. :)

[trotsky]

7. Studies will stand or fall on their own merits.

That's why I said it was inconclusive.

BTW, it doesn't make one "skeptical" to assume bias against one's position in anything that doesn't support one's views.

But there is something worth thinking about - the Japanese DO eat a lot more fish than we do, so according to the mercury crusaders, we should see a lot more incidence of the diseases they associate with mercury poisoning there than we do here.

Do we?

[bloom]

8. Do you have stats

showing that they eat a lot more Tuna or Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish than Americans?

And that they are NOT affected by it? (Or are you just making assumptions ? )


They may eat very little of the larger higher mercury containing fish - and more of smaller sea life.

[trotsky]

9. Probably could dig it out of here:

http://www.aboutseafood.com/media/facts_statistics_detail~id~0.cfv

According to the Annual Per Capita Consumption of Fish and Shellfish for Human Food, by Region and Country, 1999-2001 Average table, the Japanese eat three times more fish and shellfish per capita than we do. And I assure you, a great deal of that will be larger fish. Ever heard of sushi?

On edit, found this:
http://www.pic.or.jp/jp/jmi/013.htm
Japan is the world's largest market for tuna used to make sashimi.

[bloom]

12. That doesn't address the consequences...

"...Findings like these have led British authorities to recommend that pregnant women abstain from eating any fish at all. In Japan, where per-capita fish consumption far outpaces that in the United States, researchers are just beginning to investigate the effects of chronic, low-level mercury exposure. Studies have repeatedly shown elevated mercury levels among the Japanese as well as medical problems in some people. However, a Health Ministry spokesman said the Japanese government does not issue any consumption guidelines for specific foods."

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/100902_great_lakes1.htm



On Edit:

Just a note - that the two links you offered were Seafood industry sites. They are not oriented toward offering up information about potential problems. (Just like Berman).


http://www.aboutseafood.com/about_NFI/who_we_are.cfm

The National Fisheries Institute
The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is the nation's leading advocacy organization for the seafood industry. Its member companies represent every element of the industry from the family fisherman at sea to the national seafood restaurant chains. This water-to-table diversity allows NFI to speak with authority to decision makers in Washington, D.C., and impact public policy that will help secure a healthy future for all Americans...



&

http://www.pic.or.jp/en/index.htm

Aims The PIC is dedicated to the following aims:
To promote trade between the FICs and Japan.
To promote investment from Japan to the FICs.
To vitalise tourist traffic from Japan to the FICs.


6. Industry Contacts

Japan Marine Products Importers Association
1F Kamakurabashi Bldg., 1-6-1 Uchikanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0047
TEL: [phone]

Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations
The Katsuo-Maguro Hall, 2-3-22 Kudankita, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0073
TEL: [phone]

[trotsky]

13. "as well as medical problems in some people"

Can that get any more vague? LOL

This just confirms what I've been saying throughout this thread - this is worthy of investigation. Certainly with a fish consumption three times that of the average American, there should be significant data coming out of the Japanese population on the effects of mercury on the system.

[bloom]

15. I think it was pretty clear

that they haven't been looking.


But I think YOU should eat a can of tuna a day for a few years - and you can report back later. :)

[trotsky]

16. What is it with this all-or-none thinking?

Seems to be very common among the crusaders.

[bloom]

17. You mean that the Berman people say there is NO problem

and anyone who thinks they should limit their tuna and other large fish intake are the wackos? That "all-or-none thinking?"

What IS wrong with those PR people - those anti-intelligence crusaders? If that is what you are saying - I agree with that.



If you are trying to put down people who expect our gov't to have some food standards and warn people about eating too much mercury - I say "what the hell is YOUR problem?" And if you don't care about health any more than that - why are you posting in the health forum?


And if you don't care about health any more than that - go eat your mercury, er tuna.

[trotsky]

18. Berman isn't saying that - YOU'RE spinning.

And I don't necessarily think that he's a decent guy or all that he does is good.

But again we see this compulsive need to describe this in black and white. Goverment, Berman, and industry are all bad, and crusaders like yourself are all good.

I just don't see things that way. Sorry. That's what being a skeptic is all about.

[bloom]

19. bye

:hi:

[MrMonk]

10. Preserving the hake

The study compares preserved fish to recently-caught fish
and concentrations in hair to concentrations in blood.

I'd be curious about the methods used for preservation and sample preparation, and the basis for comparing results between hair and blood.

[MrMonk]

11. Berman radio spots

Heard a radio spot this morning mocking scientific studies on behalf of
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

which is one of Berman's many many front groups.

For more info, see:

http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2005/04/lobbyists-in-sheeps-clothing.html

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/ddam.html

and others.

[bloom]

14. Interesting how they mock studies

esp. independent ones.


A couple tidbits from the fanatic cook site worth noting:

Wednesday, January 18

Mercury Limits in Fish

The current U.S. do-not-sell limit is 1.0 ppm - that's 1.0 parts of mercury per million parts of fish tissue.

The limit was 0.50 ppm in the 1970's, during which time canned tuna was found to surpass that amount. Subsequently, 12 million cans of tuna were recalled - and the limit was quickly raised. Canada's limit is still 0.50 ppm.

------------------
Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em: Fish

Chicago Tribune's investigative report on mercury in fish.

In summary:

Reporters working for the Chicago Tribune conducted an 8-month investigation of mercury in fish.

They tested 144 fish samples from the Chicago area - "one of the nation's most comprehensive studies of mercury in commercial fish".

"The testing showed that mercury is more pervasive in fish than what the government has told the public."

"Regulators do not inspect seafood for mercury - not in ports, processing plants or supermarkets." In fact, "no federal testing program exists for mercury."

Even when found, "The government does not seize high-mercury fish that violate U.S. limits."