Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Monday, April 07, 2008 11:56 AM

Mark Penn: Neurotoxins as Health Food

Sharon Begley

I’ll leave it to political reporters to explain why, of all the cringe-inducing business dealings that Mark Penn kept his hand in as chief executive of the PR titan Burson-Marsteller even as worked for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, it was his work on behalf of Colombia to secure passage of a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. that led to his downfall. Yesterday he quit as Clinton’s chief political strategist, though he’ll stay on as a pollster.

I have no idea whether a Colombian trade agreement would be good for the U.S. But I do know that Burson-Marsteller’s work on behalf of the high-mercury fish industry is an excellent way to get even more neurotoxins into babies’ developing brains. Burson-Marsteller has worked tirelessly to persuade people—especially pregnant women—that the mercury that tuna (especially albacore) is laced with is nothing to worry their pretty little heads about.

Last year, the New York Sun reported that it had obtained Penn’s internal blog entries, including one from Dec. 20, 2006, in which he brags about landing the U.S. Tuna Foundation’s PR business. His company pitched “ideas for how to act like a political campaign by neutralizing the negatives and bringing out the heart healthy benefits of tuna,” Penn wrote, according to The Sun.

Advertisement

The issue of mercury in tuna makes the industry apoplectic (as you can see from its response to an earlier blog item). But Clinton had, as a senator, stood with those trying to protect children, not the industry, when she signed a 2004 letter criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for soft-pedaling its own advisory about mercury in fish (especially albacore tuna, since canned tuna is the fish Americans eat more of than anything other fish besides pollock), which “specifically informs women that they and their young children should limit consumption of tuna.”

Burson’s efforts on behalf of mercury hit a high point—or maybe it’s a low point—last fall when it handled the campaign of the National Fisheries Institute (another industry group) to get pregnant women and nursing mothers to eat lots of fish. The industry used something called the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition, to which it wrote a five-figure check to support an "educational campaign" on the issue; it also bankrolled a meeting in Chicago so a committee could hammer out a position statement on pregnant women and fish. Result: a recommendation that pregnant women consume more fish (12 ounces per week) than U.S. government guidelines call safe.

Some of the coalition's members were dumbfounded when it recommended eating all that fish, mercury be damned. Several denounced the report, sticking to their recommendations that pregnant and nursing women eat no more than 6 ounces of canned albacore tuna a week. As NPR reported:

“ ‘We are members of the coalition, but we were not informed of this announcement in advance, and we do not support it,’ says Christina Pearson, spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services. Pearson says neither the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nor the Food and Drug Administration knew about the announcement.”

No one ever accused Burson-Marsteller, let alone Penn, of knowing anything about science. But they sure know PR, having successfully confused untold numbers of women about the health effects of mercury on the developing brain.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: science lover (April 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM)

Isn't it funny how risk-deniers so often start off with (and in Sheldon's case, also end with) an ad hominem attack? When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and call your opponent names....

Sheldon, you are seriously confused. First, the FDA initially issued fish consumption advice, not the EPA. FDA and EPA jointly issued the current advice. And it doesn't just warn about four very high-mercury fish; the current advice also says to limit consumption of albacore tuna, and to choose a variety of low-mercury fish. FDA also publishes mercury data so people can tell what's a low-mercury fish and what's not. Halibut and sea bass, as well as albacore, are definitely not.

Second, if you don't trust the government, how about the National Academy of Sciences? In 2000, an NAS committee said that the EPA had used the best available science and sound assumptions in setting the Reference Dose for methylmercury. In 2006, another NAS committee assessed risk-benefit issues associated with fish consumption and recommended that women and children eat low mercury fish.

Those "psychosomatic" effects apparently show up in infants (age 6 months) and 3-year-olds, the subjects of research by Oken et al. (the study Martosko loves to cite inaccurately). Their research showed adverse effects on cognitive development in kids whose mothers ate fish just twice a week or more. Measured by objective testing, by the way. Not subjective symptoms at all. Not severe, devastating effects like in Minamata. Subtle effects on learning ability. But effects nonetheless, which if they occurred in a large population would represent a significant publicv-health impact.

Most published case histories of methylmercury poisoning don't involve pregnant women or kids--they involve adults, mostly men, who eat a lot of fish. You mentioned sea bass, as it happens, one of the Wisconsin cases was a lawyer who ate Chilean sea bass two or three times a week. Certainly, those individuals are out at the end of the curve in terms of how much fish they eat. But if they represent the one person in a thousand who eats more fish than the other 999 people, there are some 300,000 such "extreme" individuals in the US population of 300 million.

The so-called "10-fold safety factor" is a myth. When it set the Reference Dose, the EPA started with a "benchmark dose," one that had clear-cut adverse effects on brain development, and then applied an "uncertainty factor" of 10 to define a level it deemed "safe enough." That's called an uncertainty factor because there is a lot of uncertainty. The measurement of the benchmark dose was not very precise. There is a lot of known variation in sensitivity among individuals. A 10-fold margin is presumed to protect most people--but it's still uncertain. The argument that there is no risk until you exceed the Reference Dose by a factor of 10 is nonsense. Risk increases with dose, and it's not zero, even at the Reference dose (especially with the recent findings from Oken et al. factored in, which were not available when EPA set the RfD.) At 10 times the RfD, the risk is 10 times higher. When to start worrying is a personal choice, but many people would prefer to take reasonable steps to minimize their risk, wherever they are on the continuum.

There is no evidence that women or any other groups are eating less fish because of mercury warnings. The National Marine Fisheries Service publishes per-capita fish consumption data, and as of 2006 (latest data available) Americans were consuming just 0.1 pound per year less than the all-time high (achieved in 2004). 2006 consumption of fresh and frozen fish, fish fillets and steaks, and shrimp each hit new all-time highs in 2006. Consumption of one fish product--canned tuna--has been declining for years. But in general Americans have gotten the message to "eat more fish" and are increasing, not decreasing their consumption. As that 2006 NAS report said, Americans' fish consumption is changing. We are eating more, higher-quality and higher-priced fish products. Not eating less fish. Sorry, that's another myth.

The idea that risks don't matter because there are also benefits is just plain illogical. We can have benefits and avoid risks simply by choosing low-mercury fish!  What's so hard about that?

Why are these commenters trying to twist the choice into "Eat fish or die young?" And why do they keep repeating false stories about looming disasters caused by an honest discussion of risk and how easily it can be managed?

What, exactly, are you afraid of?


Posted By: David_Martosko (April 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM)

Yep ... I'd also like to know the identity of this "science lover" who doesn't seem to know much about his own passion. How about it? You know who I am. Do you have the courage to put your name behind your ill-advised opinions?

Oken's study showed, among other things, that children of the women with the highest-measured mercury levels performed BETTER than those of the women who ate no fish. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

And my "theme" has never changed. None of the cases in the Knobeloch study was medically documented. Not a single one of them. There are too many confounders available to explain the symptom claims, and unless a qualified physician wants to roll up his or her sleeves to investigate, what you have is a VERY TINY epidemiological study.

Regarding Morel's work, you're missing the point. There's a huge difference between marine fish and freshwater fish in terms of the genesis of methylmercury. Morel's work doens't apply to lakes and streams very well, but it neatly explains MeHg in ocean fish. Including the tuna, which has been the focus of so much needless hand-wringing.

I'm done jousting with you unless you'd like to unmask yourself and put a name behind your silly musings.

David Martosko

Director of Research

Center for Consumer Freedom


Posted By: Sheldon PhD (April 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM)

You've got to love this "science lover" phony. Would love to know which mail-order college he went to. My twin PhDs are from Princeton, by the way.

He's completely misinterpreting the available science on the subject. Even the EPA -- which has historically over-reacted to a few doom-and-gloom studies while completely ignoring science that suggests no reasonable harm -- has only identified four fish (just four) that anybody should trim back on. And then, only pregnant women, women who may be pregnant, and very very small children. Note that tuna fish isn't on the "bad" list. Neither is halibut. Neither is sea bass.

Sure, if you're pregnant and you want to feel better (because the health threat is all psychosomatic -- it's certainly not biochemical), go ahead and swear off shark, tilefish, king mackerel, and swordfish. No big deal. But if you're not pregnant, if you're a man, if you're over, say, 4 years old, NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO YOU ANYWAY.

And the EPA had to build in a 10-fold safety margin just to frame the issue as a health threat in the first place. So this is a prime example of toxicologists doing what toxicologists do -- over-protecting the public. Which makes abundant sense if you're talking about asbestos or lead paint. But it makes no sense where there are health BENEFITS in the equation.

And there is plenty of evidence that women are eating less fish in general as a result of the government's scary warnings. You don't need the CDC to tell you about it. Ask any grocery store manager for his sales figures on fresh and canned fish. The whole segment has been in free-fall since 2001.

I would really, really like to know who this "science lover" guy is. Really. Someone should revoke his GED.


 
The Peek
 
 
SPORTS

Speedo's new and controversial high-tech LZR suit is helping swimmers smash dozens of records. How the company plans to capitalize on Olympic gold.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu