Reporters Warned; Consumer Reports has long history of agenda-driven tuna reports that fly in the face of decade’s worth of independent, peer-reviewed science.
Washington, DC August 20, 2014 – Consumer Reports is set to publish a recommendation that pregnant women avoid all canned tuna, advice that flies in the face of more than a decade of independent, peer-reviewed, published science that resulted in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updating its advice to pregnant women to eat more fish, including canned tuna, to realize the health benefits for baby and mother.
Consumer Reports has long history of intentionally mischaracterizing tuna.
NFI warned on June 25 that Consumer Reports was gearing up for another tuna story and it’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the group has produced yet another tuna tale with a disproportionate focus on mercury and out-of-step nutrition recommendations.
With hyperbolic scare-stories rife with misinformation, Consumer Reports continues to marginalize itself and ends up at odds with the larger group of legitimate nutrition and public health experts. More evidence CR should stick with advice that doesn’t have the potential to harm unborn babies: reviews of stereo equipment, their core competency.
Though we urged CR to do a thorough, balanced and science-based job, that obviously did not happen. Minimal research would have presented reporters literally hundreds of independent seafood studies from the FDA to the World Health Organization that clearly demonstrate the net benefit gained from eating seafood, like tuna.
While it’s convenient and doesn’t take much thought or understanding, publishing a “report” that ultimately harms the health of pregnant women and children is irresponsible.
If you are interested in this report, please keep these notes in mind and feel free use the National Fisheries Institute as a resource.