Michael Bender
Unlike the Princeton University professor of the same name, Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project does not have a Ph.D in geosciences, nutrition sciences, or any sciences. But that hasn’t stopped this Michael Bender from doling out nutrition advice to government agencies and consumers in the U.S. and abroad:
“The FDA needs to do a much better job of informing Americans about the risk of mercury exposure from fish consumption… (January 23, 2008, press release in conjunction with Oceana)
“While it’s recognized that fish is an important source of protein, especially for pregnant women, this new emphasis on eating more than 12 ounces of fish per week, without mention of the need to avoid mercury contaminated fish, appears to throw the baby out with the bath water.” (October 7, 2007, Reuters News Service)
“The problem with the [Institute of Medicine’s] recommendation for children is that it is based on the same portion size as adults rather than being adjusted for body weight … for the IOM to make the same recommendations for kids as for adult women is irresponsible.” (October 17, 2006, press release in conjunction with the Center for Science in the Public Interest)
“I strongly recommend that the government explore alternative animal protein substitutes to tuna for the federally subsidized school lunch program and the federal women, infant and children food package.” (July 5, 2006, press release in conjunction with Defenders of Wildlife)
“The [UK Food Standards Agency] needs to take the next step and recommend a proper limit for the amount of tuna children can eat.” (August 7, 2005, London’s Sunday Times)
“Pregnant women and young children should be advised to avoid consuming albacore white tuna.” (August 7, 2005, press release)
“[W]e strongly recommend that white albacore canned tuna be eliminated from the Women, Infant, and Children food package.” (October 26, 2004, press release)
What qualifies Michael Bender to evaluate the health risks and benefits of eating fish? How is he equipped to advise pregnant women about what to eat, and federal regulators about what to put in school lunches? And what gives Bender the authority to evaluate the public health policies of the Food and Drug Administration, the Institute of Medicine, and the UK Food Standards Authority?
Nothing. Michael Bender’s qualifications are restricted to waste and resource management, not nutritional science. He is not a Registered Dietitian, and he has no similar nutrition credentials. No professional experience in health care. No degree in microbiology or nutrition. Bender has a B.A. in “General Studies” from the State University of New York, an M.S. in “Resource Management and Administration” from Antioch New England Graduate School, and a decade of experience in the field of “municipal hazardous waste management.”
In 2002, Bender himself admitted to the FDA’s Food Advisory Committee on Methylmercury that he doesn’t have a “science background.” This was after he was unable to answer a question about the difference between “milligrams-per-killogram” of mercury and “parts-per-million.” (There is no difference.) But despite his lack of basic scientific competence, Bender appears to believe he knows better than the tens of thousands of credentialed nutrition professionals who recommend seafood as part of a healthy diet.
Contrary to what its website implies, Bender’s “Mercury Policy Project” is a one-man show managed by the secretive Tides Center. This San Francisco activist-group incubator extends its nonprofit status to “projects” like Bender’s, which often wouldn’t qualify for federal tax-exempt status on their own. It also helps to conceal the nature of his organization’s funding.
Caroline Smith DeWaal
A look at Caroline Smith DeWaal’s résumé is enough to make one wonder whether this self-appointed food safety czar has a personal vendetta against seafood. DeWaal has been warning consumers that they “play roulette each time they eat seafood” since the early 1990s, as Director of Legal Affairs for a group called Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. And in addition to spearheading the mercury-in-tuna scare for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), she spreads needless alarm about eating oysters. With over fifteen years of experience, DeWaal among the elite seafood-scaremongering leaders. But she lacks the basic credentials to make any pronouncements about healthy eating.
De Waal is an expert in food regulation, not dietetics. She has a law degree from the now nonexistent Antioch School of Law in Washington, DC. Her undergraduate degree was a B.A. in political science (not nutritional science) from the University of Vermont.
Of course, there’s no real prerequisite for starting a career in Public Health. But there is an important difference between trying to improve the national food safety system and telling consumers what they should and shouldn’t eat. Undeterred by the fact that she has no nutritional credentials whatsoever, DeWaal has taken to doing both.
“[H]ere is our advice to pregnant women, those planning a pregnancy, and those serving young children: Eat fish, but avoid shark, swordfish, and king mackerel. Limit consumption of tuna to an occasional sandwich, and avoid all albacore and light tuna brands where the fish comes from Latin America.” (July 11, 2006, CSPI statement)
“Seafood is the leading cause of exposure to methylmercury, which can cause neurological damage to the developing fetus and young children. Women can easily avoid this risk by steering clear of fish containing high levels of mercury for 12 months before becoming pregnant and while pregnant or breastfeeding.” (July 6, 2006, CSPI press release)
“Pregnant women and children should limit canned tuna consumption and avoid fresh tuna steaks and sushi.” (July 26, 2002, press release in conjunction with Mercury Policy Project)
“This [mercury] is a significant potential health risk for the children of pregnant women.” (January 14, 2001, The New York Times)
Considering the fact that CSPI has an entire program devoted to “integrity in science,” it’s surprising that DeWaal has such a poor record of meeting the standards her own organization so aggressively demands. It’s only fair to expect that the first step in guaranteeing scientific “integrity” is ensuring that actual scientists (with relevant qualifications) are doing the talking when the public’s nutritional health is on the line.
Caryn Mandelbaum
Career activist Caryn Mandelbaum has spent the last decade campaigning for Cuban solidarity, the end of “corporate globalization,” and mandatory labels on genetically modified foods. But her latest cause, protecting sea turtles, has inspired her to take on the role of “environmental health analyst.” Despite the fact that she has no nutrition or medical credentials, Mandelbaum is quoted regularly on her assessment of the human-health impact of eating seafood. The stated mission of her group (the Turtle Island Restoration Network, also known as the Sea Turtle Restoration Project and “GotMercury.org”) is to save sea turtles. But at least one of its spokesmen has publicly admitted that it also aims to convince the public to “eat less fish.”
Yesterday, [GotMercury.org] stood by the [New York] Times article. “It accurately portrays the prevalence of mercury in our nation’s premiere restaurants,” an environmental health analyst for the group, Caryn Mandelbaum, said. (January 24, 2008, The New York Sun)
“Eating tuna sushi in New York has moved from fashionable dining to a high-risk sport… We’re trying to be healthy by eating fish. But if we’re not eating the right types of fish, or varying the types of sushi we’re eating, we’re actually causing pernicious health effects by trying to eat healthy.” (August 29, 2007, The New York Sun)
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is spoon-feeding Americans half-truths about mercury contamination.” (March 29, 2007, Sea Turtle Restoration Project press release)
With a law degree from UCLA under her belt, Mandelbaum is well-qualified to protect sea turtles by practicing environmental law. But in the realm of seafood nutrition, she’s an imposter.
Not only does Mandelbaum lack the academic and professional experience required by the American Dietetic Association (ADA) for giving out nutrition advice, but her seafood recommendations set off a several junk-science “red flags” compiled by the ADA with the Food and Nutrition Science Alliance:
- Red Flag: “Recommendations that promise a quick fix”
In a 2008 report called “Mercury in Seafood: No Fair Warning,” Mandelbaum claimed that the “failure to post adequate mercury-in-seafood advisories is threatening people’s health.” Her recommendation? “The solutions are simple: require mercury testing and ban products that exceed safe standards while requiring signage and labeling.” - Red Flags: “Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen” and “Lists of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods”
Ignoring the advice of actual scientists and dieticians about eating fish in moderation as part of a healthy diet, the mandatory sign Mandelbaum recommends for all grocery-store seafood counters begins with a giant red “Warning!” telling women who may become pregnant and young children not to eat swordfish, shark, king mackerel, and tilefish. The word “Warning!” and the list of “bad” fish take up most of the page. - Red Flags: “Recommendations based on a single study” and “Recommendations based on studies not peer reviewed”
In a 2006 report, the Turtle Island Restoration Network used just 12 samples it collected from Los Angeles restaurants to conclude that “women and children should not eat tuna served as sushi or sashimi.” Mandelbaum also stood by a similarly reckless and statistically limited fish-testing experiment conducted by The New York Times in January 2008. - Red Flag: “Statements refuted by reputable scientific organizations”
In a 2008 report, Mandelbaum claimed there is “compounding evidence of human harm from mercury ingestion.” Similarly, her organization claims that “mercury contamination of seafood is a widespread public health problem.” But in fact, the medical literature contains absolutely no medically documented cases of mercury toxicity in the United States from eating fish. As Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of the Harvard Medical School points out, “the real danger in this country, the real concern, is that we’re not eating enough fish.”
Before re-inventing herself as an amateur dietitian, Mandelbaum was quite successful in the world of environmental and anti-globalization activism. She was the Cuba Campaign Coordinator for Global Exchange, the anti-capitalist organization at the forefront of the 1999 World Trade Organization street clashes in Seattle. While at Global Exchange, Mandelbaum also helped organize a cyber-campaign against the 2001 nomination of John Negroponte as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and submitted FDA docket complaints demanding the labeling of genetically modified foods on grocery shelves. She was also an intern with the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment in 2003.
But nowhere in her résumé will you find anything that qualifies Caryn Mandelbaum to dispense public-health or nutrition advice. No training toward Registered Dietitian certification. No healthcare or nutrition background. No advanced coursework in food science. She’s clearly an aggressive attorney, but so what? We wouldn’t take dietary advice from Johnnie Cochran, and neither should you.
Jacquie Savitz
Jacqueline “Jacquie” Savitz is in the business of giving out flawed health advice to save sea creatures. With an extensive background in marine biology and environmental activism, Savitz’s efforts to merge the two disciplines comes as no surprise. Why Savitz is quoted so often as an expert in seafood nutrition, however, is a mystery.
“If seafood is on the Lent menu, wild salmon or tilapia might be a safer choice so women and kids can get the nutritional benefits of fish without the risks.” (January 23, 2008, press release in conjunction with the Mercury Policy Project)
“If we could just get the stores to post the FDA advice, warning people to avoid swordfish, shark, tilefish and king mackerel, and to limit albacore tuna and tuna steaks to six ounces per week, that would go a long way to help people get the benefits without the risks.” (February 19, 2006, The Associated Press)
“We wanted to let anglers know which fish are high in mercury, and which are lower, so they can decide what they want to bring home for dinner.” (February 16, 2005, Consumer Affairs)
In response to a report saying women in coastal communities have higher mercury levels: “It reaffirms there’s a strong connection to ocean fish, but that’s not to say non-coastal residents are safe. Alarms should really be sounded for everyone.” (September 23, 2005, The Washington Post)
Savitz has a B.A. in “Marine Science and Biology” from the University of Miami and a M.S. in “Environmental Science” from the University of Maryland -- neither of which is sufficient for her to sound any public health alarms or recommend what families should put on their Lenten menus. She’s also a consistent critic of grocery chains that have decided against scaring their customers away from the seafood counter, despite a lack of professional competency in any scientific discipline that might help her understand the unintended consequences of her demands.
Beth Trask
Eco-activist Beth Trask manages the Corporate Partnerships Program for Environmental Defense. She has previously moonlighted as an expert on eco-tourism, ocean conservancy, sustainable agriculture, immigration, and even cell-phone recycling programs. But not as a nutritionist. That actually requires professional credentials.
While her Masters of Public Affairs degree from Harvard may well qualify her to manage various corporate outreach programs for environmental groups, giving parents advice about what to feed their kids isn’t covered in the Public Affairs curriculum (even at Harvard). And yet Trask has been dispensing dietary advice for years.
In a column in the November/December 2007 issue of Mothering magazine, Trask claimed that figuring out how much fish to feed your kids was confusing because federal fish consumption guidelines apply only to adults. But a year earlier, she’d had no trouble telling a reporter exactly how much fish kids should eat:
“The federal government’s seafood advisory for mercury … does not explain how to scale the recommendations to a child’s body weight—leaving parents to guess at this critical variable for calculating safe levels of mercury consumption.” (November/December 2007, Mothering)
“Younger kids… [should] limit white tuna consumption to one 3-ounce serving per month.” (November 25, 2006,New York Daily News)
A quick look at the federal government’s guidelines reveals that they specifically apply to “women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children.” There is no need to “scale the recommendations,” as Trask insists. And her advice about how much white (albacore) tuna to feed kids—3 ounces a month—is one-eighth of what the government actually recommends, and literally 80 times lower than the lowest consumption level associated with adverse health effects.
In that same Mothering column, Trask wrote:
“[S]eafood presents some of the more daunting food choices for families who care about the environment and are concerned about limiting their children’s exposure to toxic pollutants.”
Conflating an environmentalist agenda -- making sure that all of our fish comes from sustainable and eco-friendly sources -- with children’s public-health issues seems to be Trask’s stock in trade. She can crusade all she wants to make sure that the salmon and tuna we eat is line caught or eco-farmed, or that Mexican fisherman use “sustainable” methods. But passing out advice about how parents should feed their children (based on activist politics, not nutritional science) is just plain wrong.