Fishy marketing, bad science

Such facts suggest ethical lapses in financing the report; worse, material used in its preparation was flawed. The key study it cited to undermine warnings about mercury-laden fish consumption was an analysis, published this year in the medical journal Lancet, of data gathered in 1992 by the University of Bristol about local children whose mothers ate fish while pregnant. Yet that study's methodology and conclusions were subsequently challenged in the Lancet by experts with New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection and Maine's Department of Health and Human Services.

And finally, the researchers who developed the report for Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies didn't bother to vet its decidedly contentious findings and advice with the coalition's wider membership before public release. Members such as the March of Dimes and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently said they stood by the earlier FDA and EPA guidelines, essentially disavowing the report and its recommendations.

The misleading report is a classic example of industry-driven marketing under the cloak of scientific research. Fortunately for consumers, however, the FDA and EPA have just repeated their strong stance on the dangers posed by overconsumption of certain fish, which should help derail the effort to promote sales over children's health.

Not all fish are equal in nutritional benefits. And the selective repackaging of science, combined with slick marketing to sell more fish to pregnant women and women of childbearing age, show the height of corporate irresponsibility. This is one fishy marketing scheme that consumers should throw back.