Saving Seafood

Scott Pruitt pushes back on finding that would restrict pesticides’ use to protect fish

February 5, 2018 — For months, chemical companies have waged a campaign to reverse findings by federal fisheries scientists that could curb the use of pesticides based on the threat they pose to endangered species. They scored a major victory this week, when Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced he would press another federal agency to revisit a recent opinion triggering such restrictions.

The struggle over an arcane provision of the Endangered Species Act, in which the EPA must affirm that the pesticides it oversees do not put species’ survival in jeopardy, has become the latest front in the battle over a broad-spectrum insecticide known as chlorpyrifos. Pruitt denied a petition to ban its agricultural use after questioning EPA scientists’ conclusions that exposure impedes brain development in infants and fetuses.

Speaking to the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture on Wednesday, Pruitt said he plans to inform the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Fisheries Service “that there needs to be a consultation because we have usage data, frankly, that wasn’t considered.”

NOAA Fisheries issued a Biological Opinion on Dec. 29, which was publicly released Jan. 9 by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, finding that the current use of chlorpyrifos and malathion “is likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of 38 species of salmon and other fish in the Pacific Northwest and destroy or harm the designated critical habitat of 37 of those species. It found another pesticide, diazinon, could jeopardize the continued existence of 25 listed fish species and could harm critical habitat for 18 of them.

In allowing chlorpyrifos to stay on the market — the product is already prohibited for household products — Pruitt cited concerns raised by the Department of Agriculture, pesticide industry groups and an EPA scientific review panel about studies the agency used to conclude that the pesticide poses a serious enough neurological risk to ban its use on dozens of crops. One study, by researchers at Columbia University, found a connection between higher exposure levels to chlorpyrifos and learning and memory problems among farmworkers and children.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

 

News media sound the alarm on mercury in seafood during pregnancy — was it a false alarm?

April 28, 2016 — A recent 20-page policy report from the Environmental Working Group included alarming news: According to a study they conducted, “nearly three in 10 of the women had more mercury in their bodies than the EPA says is safe,” and rates were highest among women who ate seafood frequently.

Based on this, they issued a news release with the alarming headline of “U.S. Seafood Advice Could Expose Women And Babies To Too Much Mercury, Not Enough Healthy Fats.”

That sounds like important–and clicky–news, and the media acted accordingly: At least a dozen different news outlets wrote about the study, including high-profile publications like The Washington Post (“Why it’s still so hard to eat fish and avoid mercury”), TIME Magazine (“Canned Tuna Is Too High In Mercury for Pregnant Women: Health Group”), and CNN. (“Study of mercury in fish brings call to strengthen government guidelines”)

Seafood industry fires back hostile response that, well, partially made sense

The seafood industry trade group National Fisheries Institute caught wind of the report and resulting news coverage, and fired back big time, with a news release, “Mercury ‘Study’ Out of Step with Real Science.”  They didn’t stop there, turning their ire specifically at TIME Magazine, asking “Seriously….what is wrong with TIME Magazine?”

While it’s debatable whether this miffed tone helps or hurts the trade organization’s public relations effort, NFI does have a point: The news coverage, in general, could have been stronger.

Before we get into what journalists could have done differently, we do want to stress that EWG’s study conclusions–that mercury contamination in fish is more widespread than government agencies acknowledge–very well may be true. It’s just their report doesn’t prove this, certainly not on its own.

Read the full story at Health News Review