The press release drips with dread: “Attention, college students cramming between midterms and finals: Binging on soda and sweets for as little as six weeks may make you stupid.”

So, was this a survey of students’ performance on their final exams after drinking some cola? Maybe it was a randomized controlled trial of a sugar-reduced diet on performance on a standardized test? Wrong and more wrong. No, this study — that a university press office said should lead students to reconsider cola and chocolate — was a study of rats in isolation running mazes. Strike one.

Additionally, the press office’s basic scientific literacy was awful. The press release says that the researchers “zeroed in on high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid six times sweeter than cane sugar, that is commonly added to processed foods […].” Of course, the only part of that that’s true is that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a fairly inexpensive liquid ingredient.

Oddly for a study ostensibly examining its effects, the terms “high fructose corn syrup” or “HFCS” don’t appear in the full text of the article. A quick read of the experimental methodology shows that the rats were given fructose solution, not high-fructose corn syrup (which is not pure fructose, but 42 or 55 percent fructose, comparable with table sugar). The AFP notes that the authors gave no estimate of the human-equivalent amount of fructose the rats were fed. Strike two for the press office.

And then strike three: the claim that high-fructose corn syrup is “six times sweeter than cane sugar.” The high fructose corn syrup used in soda (the 55-percent-fructose kind) is formulated to be only as sweet as cane sugar (sucrose). It makes sense when you think about it, since the two sugars are almost chemically identical. You’d think they’d have learned from columnist Kathleen Parker.

The real takeaway from the actual study is that a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids is good for memory. Of course, that’s been common knowledge for some time, which is why Americans are encouraged to eat their fish. (Seafood is a good source of dietary omega-3 fats.) But restating stuff people already know isn’t going to snag headlines. Striking out sometimes does.

The New York Times

So, with the self-respecting omnivores smelling a vegetarian rat, the “defense of meat” was left to—drum roll, please—Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, among others, who said she’d only eat meat grown in a petri dish. (Don’t call it pink slime.) She didn’t say whether she’d retract comparing humanity to a “cancer” or whether she regretted funding arsonists, but perhaps the Times will have other essay contests yet.

Of course, what the Times called “a powerful ethical critique” of omnivorous eating could better be called “nonsense.” The Times’ vegetarian public editor conceded that the essays were “pretty narrow” and acknowledged criticism from a former Stanford professor who reminded the urban elite that Inuit and grassland nomadic peoples need to eat meat to survive. And more simply, who really believes that animals are humanity’s equal? Certainly not the indigenous Americans who killed and ate them. Even PETA doesn’t seem to buy that line.

Not to mention that those “cruelty-free” vegetables come from farms from which a myriad of insects and invasive rodents have been driven out or killed. (That goes for the “organic” farms, too.) And some writers now suggest that plants can even “talk” or “howl.”

So, vegans, what separates “talking peas” from “food with a face”? We find this a very powerful critique, at least if you don’t think humans are “the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”

According to the latest study: you shouldn’t eat fish

Download MP3

Imagine a situation in which an activist group with certain political ambitions and close ties to a computer manufacturer engaged in a campaign of threats against specific retailers.

Targeted retailers were told that they must buy computers from only a select manufacturer (the one closely associated with the activist group) and no other, to the detriment of the retailer, market competition and consumers at large. If retailers dared to purchase from any other computer manufacturer, the activist group would continue a campaign to spread misinformation, harass and embarrass the retailer, and sully its name brand.

If this fictional scenario were made real, it would likely be cause for an investigation. In the world of organized crime, this type of strategy has a name: racketeering.

Yet when my former colleagues at Greenpeace employ a similar strategy to target Indonesian forest product producers (albeit without the threat of violence often associated with racketeering), they’re hailed as leaders by their fellow environmental activists.

We suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that Greenpeace may be muscling around businesses. After all, this is a group that vandalized a crop experiment in Australia earlier this year (thankfully, the police raided its offices). And given all the recent noise about tuna fishing, we have to wonder whether Greenpeace is planning a similar campaign aimed at grocery seafood aisles. Greenpeace publishes a “red list” of species and fisheries that the group feels are not harvested in a sustainable fashion.

Could a Forest Stewardship Council-like scheme be in the making for fish? Greenpeace states that “no fully credible certification system for sustainable seafood currently exists,” so it seems possible. Greenpeace may not have any plans for “threatening name-brand retailers and manufacturers who do not agree” to its fisheries policy (although curiously the bottom five retailers graded “fail” in this report were the only ones not to reply to Greenpeace’s questionnaire), but given Moore’s revelations about the organization’s forestry policy consumers would be wise to consider the source of any environmental rating they choose to follow.

The scientists investigated what effects cooking fish and consuming coffee or tea at the same time as eating fish had on mercury exposure. They found that broiling or frying fish such as tuna and mackerel reduced mercury exposure by 40 to 60 percent, and that drinking coffee or tea while eating raw fish reduced exposure by 50 to 60 percent. The two methods together (for cooked fish) essentially eliminated exposure to mercury.

So what’s the word from the professional fear industry? So far we haven’t seen any response from PCRM or Greenpeace, who scaremonger about mercury in fish to push their respective animal-rights and fringe-environmental agendas.

Harvard scientists found that eating fish reduced individuals’ risk of premature death from coronary heart disease by 17 percent. Eating fish during pregnancy also shows benefits: one Lancet study showed that children born to mothers who ate no fish during pregnancy were 29 percent more likely to have low IQs and a Harvard study found that women who ate the most fish (even oft-falsely-maligned canned tuna) during pregnancy were more likely to score well on cognitive tests at age three.

Scientists have already shown that the selenium in fish (an essential nutrient) can protect against hypothetical mercury exposure. Now they’ve found that having a cup of tea with your favorite sushi can further reduce this hypothetical risk. It’s past time for the FDA and EPA to rethink their advisory about fish consumption. 

Note: This article was updated to correct a misinterpretation associated with translating an article in English.

And no, it’s not a coincidence:

"Humans hook, spear, maim, and kill fish for 'sport' every day," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "The most dangerous predator of all is the one holding the fishing rod or standing at the 'all you can eat' seafood buffet." The organization said fish are aware of their surroundings, have complex nervous systems, and feel pain.

In a Skype interview, Campaign Director Ashley Byrne said, "We are very glad that Mr. Wickersham [the shark-attack victim] is going to be ok, but we do hope that this painful and frightening experience makes him think about the pain and fear that he’s causing to fish — and other fisherman are causing to fish.” 

Fish may well be aware of their surroundings, but apparently PETA is not. The victim’s mother was not impressed by the publicity stunt, declining to dignify the campaign with a comment and instead focusing on the recovery of her son. Two summers ago, the group caused an uproar in Jacksonville, Fla., over another veganism-pushing billboard that compared overweight women to whales. Floridians would probably appreciate it if PETA stopped picking on them and left the state.

Also joining the feeding frenzy is the Humane Society of the United States’s own California state director Jennifer Fearing, who tweeted a few weeks ago a recommendation to sharks that “this would be good week [sic] to avoid biting any humans, much as we may deserve it.”  We’ve always known that HSUS is just PETA in a suit and tie, but it’s disturbing to see a moral compass so far out of whack at a group that’s supposedly “mainstream.” Does the next 8-year-old who has an arm bitten off “deserve it,” HSUS?

A note to the animal-rights lobby: Jaws was not the good guy. And rooting for the shark to win shows how out of touch these groups are with ordinary people.

On Radio Australia, the ISSF Scientific Advisory Committee Chair states that Greenpeace is exaggerating its claims about by-catch, which refers to non-target animals caught during fishing (“purse seine” refers to a method of fishing that scoops up fish with a purse-shaped net):

Host: And another of the comments made by [Greenpeace’s] Casson Trenor [is] that they have evidence that turtles are killed by purse seiners that are caught up by accident in their fishing processes and also photos finning sharks. You disagree with that?

ISSF: Well, the catch of turtles in purse seine fisheries is very minor. It's in the dozens a year and most of them are released alive. The mortality of those turtles is very, very small and it's almost insignificant compared to the mortality of turtles from other fishing activities, such as long lining or from other human activities, such as building hotels near nesting beaches and so on.

Greenpeace would prefer it if fishermen caught tuna using pole-and-line methods. But as the tuna industry notes, only 2% of the canned tuna consumed is currently caught this way. It’s less efficient than using methods like purse seine, which begs the question: Wouldn’t fishermen have to dispatch more boats to catch the same amount of tuna going by this supposedly more “sustainable” method, resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions? Probably—but that handy problem would give Greenpeace something else to complain about, another way to try to put the fishing industry out of business, and of course, something to fundraise on.

(And speaking of sustainability, Bittman notes that most canned tuna is skipjack—which is not a threatened species.)

Canned tuna is a source of protein and omega-3 fatty acids that’s easily affordable for lower-income Americans. Omega-3s are linked not only to better heart health, but also better brain development in children. Studies already indicate that some 4.4 million lower-income households stopped purchasing canned tuna between 2000 and 2006, no doubt mostly due to the mercury-in-fish scare campaigns from environmental groups that, unsurprisingly, failed on scientific merit. A full-on boycott of this cheap source of omega-3s might serve Bittman’s self-righteousness, but it wouldn’t help the average family.

Maybe next time Bittman shouldn’t rely so much on a “ratbag rabble of intellectual cowards intent on peddling an agenda.” Or better yet, maybe he can go back to simply serving up new recipes.

In a recent episode, Oz reports results from apple juice samples his show sent to a laboratory for testing. He states that some of the samples contained arsenic in levels surpassing the FDA’s maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water.

Sounds scary, right? Read on.

The FDA wrote The Great Oz to take issue with his presentation. One senior FDA science advisor told Oz (before the show aired): “The FDA believes that it would be irresponsible and misleading for The Dr. Oz Show to suggest that apple juice contains unsafe amounts of arsenic based solely on tests for total arsenic.” That’s because there are two forms of arsenic—organic and inorganic—and only the latter is toxic to people.

Moreover, the FDA later performed its own testing—from the same lot that yielded Oz’s highest levels of arsenic—and got much lower results. “In short, the results of the tests … do not indicate that apple juice contains unsafe amounts of arsenic,” the FDA told Oz in a second letter.

Oz went forward with the show anyway, despite the FDA’s initial warnings. (The juice industry didn’t feel like going on Oz’s show—who can blame them, given Oz’s past anti-business tone—so Oz brought on an environmental activist. Classy.) To be fair, Oz gave a mealy-mouthed disclaimer on air that parents shouldn’t worry about one box of apple juice. Um, okay, then why all the hype?

Fortunately, Oz is still taking heat. ABC News’s Dr. Richard Besser told Oz that this reminds him of “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater.” And Stanford’s Dr. Henry Miller had this to say: “Unless there is evidence that a substance is present at sufficient exposures and levels to cause harm, warnings about its presence in food (or in our bodies, for that matter) is irresponsible alarmism. This is the same sort of rubbish peddled by radical environmental activist organizations about pesticides.”

Ah yes—the mere presence of a substance doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily harmful. That’s the big con of the environmental movement in particular, which ignores the centuries-old adage that “the dose makes the poison.” Ignoring this also apparently makes for good, but irresponsible, TV drama.

You’ll probably recall that this maxim applies to seafood, too. There are trace amounts of mercury in fish, but despite the blusters from environmental and animal-rights groups, we’re generally not eating enough to be at a legitimate risk. In fact, we could often be eating more and enjoying more of the well documented benefits of omega 3s for hearts and brain development. (Check out our handy seafood calculator for more information.)

Congrats to Dr. Oz on producing a modern-day Alar-in-apples scare. Anytime Oz wants to cut out the nonsense and strive for credibility, though, he’s welcome to. In fact, we’d dance and be merry, and life would be a ding-a-derry.

In honor of this moment, we’d like to take a chance to remind readers of a few facts about Greenpeace they may not know:

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the group years ago, recognizing what’s all too apparent these days: that Greenpeace has run off the rails. Moore has called the group “anti[-]technology and anti-science”; “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; and even “basically anti-civilization.” He later wrote, “My former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”

Greenpeace blindly opposes genetically modifying crops to improve their nutrient content or resistance to drought, crying wolf over and over again about alleged health risks that haven’t come to be in the many years these foods have been on the market.

This ridiculousness reached new heights this summer when Australian authorities raided Greenpeace offices after its activists recorded themselves destroying a crop experiment featuring genetically modified wheat.

Tanzania’s Dr. Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network) has written, “By Greenpeace's scientifically illiterate standards, all foods should now be banned.”

Norman Borlaug, the late father of the Green Revolution, slammed the elitism of Greenpeace and other radical environmentalists, saying, “Our elites live in big cities and are far removed from the fields. Whether it’s … the head of the Sierra Club or the head of Greenpeace, they’ve never been hungry.”

Greenpeace’s alarmism doesn’t just stand to harm impoverished Third World countries, but also the poor here at home. Greenpeace scaremongers about the hypothetical risks of mercury in fish, such as tuna. Canned tuna is one of the cheapest sources of omega-3s (which boost brain development in kids), but about 4.4 million low-income households stopped buying canned tuna between 2000 and 2006, in the midst of many activists' fish-fear campaigns.

What do the next 40 years stand to bring? Hopefully, Greenpeace going bankrupt. But if not, we’ll be sure these zealots will provide plenty of future examples of “anti-human,” “anti-science” campaigns.

On FoodConsumer.org, he writes:

There are times when supplements can be quite useful, and I believe that some supplements, such as a high quality animal-based omega-3 supplement, for example, are essential for nearly everyone. This is because the main source of animal based omega-3 fats in your diet comes from fish – most of which is now so grossly polluted with heavy metals, PCBs and other environmental toxins I can no longer recommend eating fish for optimal omega 3 levels. Another supplement that many people need is vitamin D3, unless you can get sufficient amounts of safe sun exposure year-round, or use a safe tanning bed.

We couldn’t agree more that omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D3 are essential parts of the human diet, and many Americans are lacking in both. But to advocate taking expensive fish-oil supplements over getting these nutrients from a diet rich in oily fish – which is an excellent source of both – is both elitist and incorrect.

For starters, mercury scaremongering in the early part of the 2000s caused approximately 4.4 million U.S. households earning $30,000 or less to completely eliminate their consumption of canned tuna. And it’s no coincidence that during those years, the nearly 260,000 children born to those families were 29 percent more likely to have abnormally low IQs. That’s because inexpensive canned tuna was the only source of omega-3 fatty acids their mothers could afford to buy.

Overblown warnings of mercury in fish have had a direct and lasting effect on these children’s development, and all over a hypothetical health risk. Mercola is doing no one any favors by continuing the mercury charade.

Most unforgivable of all? His advice seems calculated to lead his audience directly to the line of fish-oil supplements bearing his name. That is shameful behavior for a doctor. It’s also worth noting, separately, that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has previously warned Mercola to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his site. And that’s not the only time he’s been in trouble with the FDA, either.

There are plenty of ways that concerned consumers can ensure they are getting enough omega-3s and vitamin D3 through seafood without putting themselves at risk for mercury poisoning. Our website HowMuchFish.com is an excellent place to start.