I thought something smelled fishy about the press releases and news reports this week urging pregnant women to eat more fish.
As it turns out, the "health" advice from the "National Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition," was part of a public relations effort funded in part by the seafood industry, as the Bloomberg news service reports.
"A nonprofit group backed by the seafood industry urged pregnant women and nursing mothers to eat more fish than recommended by U.S. officials concerned that mercury contamination can hurt babies," Bloomberg reports.
"The group, the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition, said women who avoid seafood to limit exposure to mercury deprive their babies and themselves of essential nutrients... Child-development and nutrition specialists produced and promoted the report, with $74,000 from the seafood industry's advocacy arm, the National Fisheries Institute."
The fact that the advice was coming in part from an industry that would benefit from the advice was not immediately apparent to the public or to reporters. The Sun didn't publish a story on the report, but The Washington Post did -- and it didn't disclose the fishery industry funding.
This is a growing problem for reporters. The public relations industry is becoming increasing well funded and sophisticated, as the number of professional journalists declines. Fewer reporters have less time to check things out -- meaning the world is increasingly dominated by "news" that is really just someone's ad.
Several times a week, I receive glossy magazines -- many very slick and authoritative-looking -- or emailed press releases about new "reports" that seem to be coming from environmental groups or health organizations. They frequently want to put global warming "in perspective." Or they want to tell me the good news about how clean our nation's air is. Or about how the Endangered Species Act is actually hurting endangered species.
The first thing I do is ask these groups who funds them. But they seldom give a straight answer. So I try to operate with an excess of caution. Caveat emptor.
READER GREG CHAMBERS REPLIED: "You know, I'm less worried about $74,000 from the seafood industry, and more worried about $20 million from the Pew Charitable Trusts going to fund anti-fishery green groups. If this is a David & Goliath battle, it's industry that's being outspend. By a mile."
I aksed Chambers if he really thought the environmental groups were "anti-fishery" or genuinely concerned about the effects of mercury on the brains of developing children. Because of pollution from coal-burning plants, fish around the world have mercury in them -- and the government has warned that eating too much can be dangerous for pregnant women and young children.
Chambers replied: "If they really believe that, they're idiots. (I'm a heavy metals toxicologist.) I think it's possible that Pew is anti-fishery, since its money is 100% tied up in oil investments, and petroleum companies historically compete with fisheries for offshore "real estate." It's also highly likely that they're against coal-burning for power generation, for a variety of (probably virtuous) reasons. But methylmercury isn't a threat to any people anywhere, and the collateral damage is going to be measurable in IQ points as women stop eating fifsh and deny their babies the omega-3 fats. Just my Ph.D.'s two cents' worth."
