Should ENGO's provide dietary advice?

Odd Grydeland
Published Modified

Odd Grydeland

"New "pocket guides" on sushi from the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Blue Ocean Institute and the Environmental Defense Fund are inaccurate and apparently designed to alarm consumers into making irresponsible choices", states a Media Advisory issued by the National Fisheries Institute and Salmon of the Americas last month. The advisory continues: "Since the guides were created with little or no independent oversight and or uniformity, reporters and editors are urged to press these activist groups on accuracy and the consequences of misleading consumers. Specifically:

• Why is nutritional guidance being given to the public without any peer review or even the availability of the underlying medical assertions?

• Since the guides conflate "mercury and other contaminants" – even citing fish like salmon with scant trace amounts, how can consumers avoid confusion about the specific health threats being alleged?

• If these guides actually dissuade some consumers from eating seafood altogether, as the federal government has warned can occur from alarmist nutritional information, wouldn’t that deny Americans proven and vital health benefits of eating fish?

• Is it appropriate for environmental lobbying groups to be providing nutritional advice to the public in the first place?"

The advisory concludes by urging reporters "to consult with members of the seafood community to provide a fuller picture of the issues involved". Many international governmental health and diatery organizations around the world came out in favour of regular consumption of farmed salmon following a much publicized report in the normally respected Science magazine in January, 2004 that suggested farmed salmon should not be consumed more than once a month.

news archive