Is FishScam.com a scam?

Posted by Chris Schults (Guest Contributor) at 11:24 AM on 08 Apr 2006

Read more about: mercury | toxics | oceans | food

I was reading the April 10th edition of The New Yorker this morning (for the cartoons, I'll admit). As I was flipping through the pages searching for the next illustration, I came across this full page ad that featured a message that caught me completely off guard.

The smaller text reads as follows:

Environmental scares about trace amounts of mercury in fish rely on a study of island natives who eat huge amounts of whale meat. However, scientists who study heavy fish-eaters find no health risks from mercury. So unless you're lunching on a Moby Dick sandwich, there's no reason to worry.

Fish is good for you. Baseless anxiety (or whale blubber) isn't.

No health risks from mercury? No reason to worry? Now, I don't eat fish, so I haven't researched this issue myself, but something fishy seems to be going on here.

Head on over to FishScam.com to get the background on this campaign. I'd be interested to read what y'all think of this.

For story: Is FishScam.com a scam?
8 Comments | Post a Comment

of course!

"About US:
FishScam.com is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition dedicated to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices."

Center of Consumer Freedom!!! Red Flag. i don't know the specifics but I THINK I remember they have some kind of link to the food industry. So, they don't want to lose money, now do they? So they gotta try and fool the gullible. They got something against PETA too.

mmmm... chestnuts.

by chinkinthelink at 12:12 PM on 08 Apr 2006

What the EPA has to say about fish consumption

Now the EPA is not my source of choice for cautious environmental advice, but they're not exactly coming out bullish on fish. The following is from from the EPA's " What You Need to Know about Mercury in Fish and Shellfish" at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html

Nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. Yet, some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child's developing nervous system. The risks from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish and shellfish. Therefore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are advising women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.

By following these 3 recommendations for selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women and young children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.

Do not eat Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury.

Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.
Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish.
Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.

Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but don't consume any other fish during that week.

by Kif Scheuer at 12:22 PM on 08 Apr 2006

Center For Consumer Freedom is a front organizatio

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

by arborlaw at 1:54 PM on 08 Apr 2006

mercury contamination

I wish we had a simple test for mercury; didn't I read in an article that some fish markets have such a worth-its-weight-in-gold test for mercury and actually do test their fresh-from-the-sea fish and display the results?
They wouldn't do that if there wasn't concern about mercury.
I would like to take Omega 3 from fish oil but am concerned about mercury so was eating a lot of walnuts that contain lots of Omega 3 even though it is a different source, vegtable. Lo and behold I discovered that the body has preferences and will only use the energy intensive to process vegtable source when you're pregnant!
So, I am once again looking for a safe source of Omega 3 from fish.
I am a northern Wisconsin resident and if you care to examine the DNR website, you will be as astounded as I was at the number of lakes in WI that carry a mercury contamination of do-not-eat-the-fish warning.
This mercury is from our energy plants, which is why the Sierra Club is energetically pursuing a policy of eliminating the mercury from the exhaust smoke stacks. If it wasn't for the bacteria that process the harmless mercury to deadly mercury we might not have to worry but they do and we do.

by katesisco at 3:13 PM on 08 Apr 2006

Lake Superior

I wonder what mercury levels fish from the biggest lake contain Kate? I have the impression it is safer, maybe not?

I have mainly eaten medium sized panfish from the lakes here, they are younger and contain less mercury.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 11:16 PM on 08 Apr 2006
[ Parent ]

Center For Consumer Freedom

I'd just like to re-post the link to Source Watch about the Center For Consumer Freedom, that was posted above. This organization also runs petakillsanimals.com and is backed by Philip Morris. I'd like to see grist.org do a write-up on this group.

by erick at 12:56 PM on 10 Apr 2006

scam-o-rama

Thanks, Erick and Arborlaw. Those Consumer Freedom people are simply ruthless barracudas, taking no thought for the world in which their children and grandchildren are to grow up in; they are only interested in what they can bite off and swallow right now.

(Meaning no disrespect to real barracudas, of course. Though I would not want to meet one.)

How I miss eating tuna! How I miss eating swordfish! But really, those species are in a precarious situation, and it is up to us to refrain, not on account of our health, but on account of their survival.

I, and my husband (I think), and Little White Dog all used to take a fish oil capsule more or less daily. No more, however. We stopped, not out of fear of mercury poisoning (which, I agree, is not a fear that should be put aside), but out of resentment that we cannot find out the source of the fish oil.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 3:25 PM on 10 Apr 2006

Poor little fishies

Another good reason to get off the omega 3 craze -- that fish oil could very well be coming from Chesapeake Bay menhaden, which are being overharvested by Omega Protein Corp. See this Daily Grist entry for more info.

Or...get your omega 3 from bacon. Mmmm, bacon.

Emily Gertz Journalist & Editor egertz AT oneatlantic DOT net http://www.apartmentecology.com/

by Emily Gertz at 5:59 PM on 10 Apr 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.