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.

The movie’s official website boasts that the documentary “examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of animal-based and processed foods.” But such a laughable assertion deserves its own examination. (We couldn’t help but notice the filmmakers do not address the fact that a vegan diet can have serious health risks of its own, particularly for pregnant and nursing mothers.)

First of all, quite a few members of the documentary’s cast and crew have landed in our crosshairs at one point or another for being on the fringe. No vegan documentary would be complete without Neal Barnard, the founder of the PETA-linked “Physicians Committee” for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and author of multiple vegan self-help books. His good friend and fellow PCRM board member T. Colin Campbell is also a star. There’s vegetarian activist Rip Esselstyn, who wants restaurants to have meat-eating sections so that he doesn’t have to watch people enjoying their cheeseburgers. And then there’s Caldwell Esselstyn, who is Rip’s father and another advisory board member for PCRM.

That should be enough to convince most people that Forks Over Knives is little more than a PCRM propaganda piece. And yet, the filmmakers are already trying to get the Oscar buzz going.

Need more evidence that PCRM is a scam with a stethoscope? Check out our article “7 Things You Didn’t Know About PCRM.”

As reported on the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) website, UEP members had already been discussing adopting the new cages well before HSUS came along to claim victory:

Prior to the negotiations between the HSUS and UEP, the UEP had been considering adding European-style enriched housing similar to that described in the deal with the HSUS as an approved option for the UEP Certified program. Gregory said the UEP contacted [HSUS CEO Wayne] Pacelle about the enriched housing option, and discussions began among teams from the organizations.

Within the UEP, the deal was arranged by its 34 board members, who were tasked with representing the interests of more than 200 member organizations, Gregory said.

More to the point, prior to the “truce,” HSUS was very reluctant to endorse enriched housing – despite the fact that many legitimate animal-welfare activists had embraced the new standards. The American Humane Association, AVMA, and renowned activist Temple Grandin have all supported the benefits of the new European-style furnished cage systems for more than a year now. It was only after UEP approached Wayne Pacelle with an offer of a collaborative effort that HSUS did an about-face on the issue.

Reviewing the evidence (and its stated purpose of abolishing American egg production), it’s easy to see HSUS is simply taking credit for a change egg farmers had been planning to implement all along. Is that really a victory worth clucking about?

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.

"Industrial agriculture is a part of the problem,” Gore said Friday during an interview with FearLess Revolution founder Alex Bogusky. “The shift toward a more meat-intensive diet,” the clearing of forest areas in many parts of the world in order to raise more cattle and the reliance on synthetic nitrogen for fertilizer are also problems, he added.

Synthetic nitrogen isn’t a mere problem, as reported—Gore flat-out stated that “the reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is a Faustian bargain, kind of like steroids.” Well, that clears things up: The former vice president believes that modern farming is a deal with the devil. We wonder what millions of people in the Midwest think about that. (But we digress.)

Let’s humor him for a moment and assume that we overhauled the entire farming sector by reducing the number of livestock raised for food as well as stopping crop farmers from using synthetic nitrogen, which are suggestions that usually only come from fringe environmental activist groups.

For one, if synthetic nitrogen didn’t exist, animal manure will be used as an organic source of nitrogen. And agronomist Vaclav Smil has calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock).

Yes, that’s the irony: We’d have to cut down swaths of wilderness to make room for all these animals (if we could), plus make room for crops to feed them. In the case of the US going completely organic, we’d need landmass roughly the size of the lower 48 states. (Smil elsewhere argues that the Haber–Bosch process enabling development of synthetic nitrogen is the most important development of the 20th century. And it’s no wonder why.)

Moreover, the entire agriculture sector is responsible for just 6.4 percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA. Animal agriculture specifically provides just 4 percent of emissions.

Perhaps Gore should adopt a new mantra: Everybody else should farm as efficiently as Americans. Meanwhile, we’re going to enjoy a nice steak. We're super-duper serial.

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.

She writes:

Myths about the dire effects of genetically modified foods on health and the environment abound, but they have not held up to scientific scrutiny. And, although many concerns have been expressed about the potential for unexpected consequences, the unexpected effects that have been observed so far have been benign. Contamination by carcinogenic fungal toxins, for example, is as much as 90 percent lower in insect-resistant genetically modified corn than in nonmodified corn. This is because the fungi that make the toxins follow insects boring into the plants. No insect holes, no fungi, no toxins.

Yet today we have only a handful of genetically modified crops, primarily soybeans, corn, canola and cotton. All are commodity crops mainly used for feed or fiber and all were developed by big biotech companies. Only big companies can muster the money necessary to navigate the regulatory thicket woven by the government’s three oversight agencies: the E.P.A., the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

The last point is particularly noteworthy because these big companies are so often the target of activism. They were a major source of hyperventilation in the documentary Food, Inc. and a favorite punching bag of the green fringe like Greenpeace, despite the vast potential that biotech holds for solving world hunger. Yet if the most ardent activists could admit to that much, the “regulatory thicket” would perhaps be more easily navigable for scientists who could put their energy toward finding real solutions to such major problems.

To begin by judging the book by its orange cover, the program purports to “boost metabolism, lower cholesterol, and dramatically improve your health.” It does not mention that to achieve such lofty health goals, Barnard’s program mandates giving up milk, eggs, salmon, shrimp, chicken breast, pork, and dozens of other low-calorie lean protein sources that are part of the typical weight-loss canon. There’s also no credible evidence that a diet that contains meat and dairy poses any undue health risk, though it could lead to serious vitamin deficiencies.

Sound like strange advice from a weight-loss doctor? That might be because he is not a registered nutritionist or bariatric surgeon but a psychiatrist by training.

So why doesn’t Barnard come out and admit on the cover that this book is just another vegan manifesto wearing a veneer of health? It’s the same reason PCRM doesn’t openly advertise its past links to PETA and to FBI-designated domestic animal-rights terrorist groups: because that would expose the group’s true animal-rights agenda. (Barnard himself has been PETA’s medical advisor and president of the PETA Foundation. We bet that didn’t make it onto the book jacket, either.)

And finally, we believe the majority of people picking up this book as a quick fix will be sorely disappointed in the results. Long-term weight management requires a total lifestyle approach – not a scientifically flimsy diet you only have to stick to for 21 days. And that is ultimately what makes this just another weight-loss gimmick that will line the bargain bin in a few months.

Every year EWG releases a “Dirty Dozen” report highlighting the 12 foods to avoid due to pesticide residue and generating needless, fear-mongering news stories about how apples and celery are harming us. But what do credible scientists have to say? Researchers with University of California-Davis’ Department of Food Science and Technology analyzed EWG’s 2010 “Dirty Dozen” report, and found that (unsurprisingly) EWG fails basic science.

They write:

The methodology used to create the 'Dirty Dozen' list does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures….

Results from this study strongly suggest that consumer exposures to the ten most common pesticides found on the “Dirty Dozen” commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect. …

In summary, findings conclusively demonstrate that consumer exposures to the ten most frequently detected pesticides on EWG's “Dirty Dozen” commodity list are at negligible levels…

This isn’t the first time a EWG campaign has strained credulity. The group's formula to a scare campaign is to point to the presence of a chemical without credibly establishing that there’s any actual harm (which is what really matters). It’s the dose that makes the poison.

EWG runs the so-called Campaign for “Safe” Cosmetics, which recently found that levels of lead in some lipstick exceed federal limits for lead in candy. Notice the bait-and-switch: We eat candy, but (hopefully) nobody noshes on lipstick. Nonetheless, it provided EWG another platform to recklessly frighten consumers.

“These things sound terribly scary, but there’s a massive disconnect between how toxicologists evaluate risks and how activist groups evaluate risk,” Trevor Butterworth of George Mason University’s Center for Health and Risk Communication told The New York Times. Sixty-six percent of the members of the Society of Toxicology disagreed that cosmetics were a “significant source of chemical health risk.”

And that’s what it comes down to: Alarmist activists versus trustworthy scientists. We can’t be the only ones hoping for an end to EWG’s Reign of Error.

As part of the deal, UEP said it would endorse federal legislation to move hens out of “battery” cages and into the roomier accommodations by the end of 2029. In return, HSUS promised to shut down its $10 million ballot campaigns in Washington and Oregon. But UEP was already a step ahead of HSUS on the enriched-cage issue when the deal was struck.

The Oregonian reports:

Bob Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, said despite assumptions that farmers were forced into the agreement, many producers already have been looking to make the switch without affecting their profits and the affordability for consumers.

"It's the only way we can see to move forward as a group on a fair and equitable basis," Krouse said.

In other words, Big Egg took to heart the American Humane Association’s finding last year that enriched cages for egg layers are indeed "humane." The legendary animal welfare expert Temple Grandin agrees that these new cages are a big improvement.

More surprising is HSUS’s about-face on the issue. Just one day before the news about the truce broke, HSUS’s front group Oregonians for Humane Farms argued that a law requiring enriched cages would be “an illusion of reform and only barely improves the quality of life for hens.” (And HSUS’s statement against enriched cages, dated last July, is still up on its website.) That’s a harder-nosed approach than what animal-welfare experts have been saying for the past year.

At best, HSUS is a Johnny-come-lately on the enriched-cage question. At worst, the animal-rights group is taking credit for a change egg farmers had been intending all along. And with HSUS’s stated agenda for ending egg production in the United States, does it really deserve the benefit of the doubt?