Environmental health should equal public health, right?
December 23, 2008
Few would argue that we need a lot more Omega-3 fats in our diet, not to mention finding a protein source with less fat overall. But, it seems that there is something even more important than public health, and that is fund-raising by so-called "environmental" organizations.
For years, I've been warning people to beware of the supposedly simon-pure motives of outfits such as Greenpeace and the Environmental Working Group, who are only too willing to bend the facts to keep the checks coming in.
Greenpeace is running TV spots decrying the ruination of the Alaska pollock population, even though this is utterly false, according to nearly every marine authority. As it is, the National Fisheries Institute was able to get Reuters (not exactly a rock-ribbed conservative outfit) to rewrite a story, that originally read like a Greenpeace press release.
True enough, there ARE sustainability problems in the fishing biz, such as the Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean. In contrast, the Alaska pollock is one of the best managed stocks in the world. But, how much money would you send to Greenpeace if you received an appeal letter stating that American fisheries have no sustainability problems?
As to the Environmental Working Group, they and others have pounced on a leaked draft (probably leaked by EPA, which is also working on the draft) from the FDA saying that the benefits of eating seafood, greatly outweigh the risks from mercury. It seems that the FDA reviewed many recent studies, and came to this conclusion based on the science. Here again, what kind of appeal letter or website posting could these organizations have made with "Eat more seafood--it's good for your health"?
The biggest laugh in all this is EPA claiming that FDA does not match EPA's scientific rigor. Of course, that's true, but not in the way EPA meant it.
Read all about it, in my latest HND piece, and please beware of the Eco Poseurs.