Evaluating the Scare Tactics
about Consumption of Fish

On occasion we hear about someone's concerns that the marine fish we eagerly consume are not safe to eat. Some "experts" occasionally warn pregnant women not to eat fish because of concerns about mercury or PCB content, and to keep this food away from young children. Should we give up marine fish as a frequent diet choice? IWMC does not advocate such an approach.

The London Observer recently cited the opinions of three scientists whose expertise is in evaluating levels of toxics, pesticides, mercury and other substances in fish commonly consumed by people. All these experts are of the opinion that the health benefits of including fish in the diet far outweigh any risks from the pollutants commonly cited by Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund as posing significant health risks.

In fact, the scientists cited have repeatedly noted that the levels of contaminants are actually miniscule, occurring in fractional percentages far below levels considered to be harmful. The Center for Consumer Freedom is an organization that frequently exposes the scaremongering tactics of such groups as the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, which scientists have criticized for overstating health risks in fish and other foods.

We have to ask ourselves: Why are some "environmentalist" groups picking on the fishing industry and trying to adversely impact the marketing success of those who distribute millions of tons of fish to consumers all over the world? Why do they want to see the fishing industry suffer extreme loss of business due to their unfounded health risk claims?

We do not think that groups such as Greenpeace, WWF and the EWG are particularly concerned about the health risks to humans who consume fish. We think they are concerned about their own credibility and donor support, and want to keep their image up front in global media. One way to accomplish this is to claim that there is extreme bad news about a common food, in order to demonstrate the power of their public relations efforts. If the general public anywhere is persuaded not to consume this food, the anti-use movement can use this impact as a power demonstration to governments, as they attempt to force governments to follow their direction on public environmental policies in the future. Claims of support from the general public are often used by such groups to persuade governments that their policies must be opposed to the use of common fish and wildlife resources by people. Perhaps they want us all to eat soybeans and wheat, unmodified, of course, by selective breeding and genetic engineering that would render them resistant to pests and diseases, and perhaps, enhanced with vitamins through scientific research.

IWMC encourages everyone to keep supporting reputable science as the standard through which food safety decisions are made, for the public good and because foods such as fish and whole grains are beneficial and necessary parts of the diets of millions of people.