Thanks (I think) to Hugh Joseph for forwarding the YouTube video, “The guy from CSPI.” When I see things like this, I assume they are bought and paid for by the Center for Consumer Freedom, but it doesn’t say who made it or who paid for it. I’m curious: how much does it cost to produce something like this, and who paid for it? Anybody know?
Eating Liberally has been following this week’s discussion of the Center for Consumer Freedom (see comments to my previous post) and asks: What’s the story on that group? The group denies that the tuna industry funds its pro-methylmercury campaign. OK. Who does fund it?
If you would like to know how the Center for Consumer Freedom operates, here is an e-mail message that I just received from David Martosko, who identifies himself as the Director of Research for the Center. I reproduce it here in its entirety (Here’s the post he refers to. For more information about how this group operates, follow the links on one of my previous posts). I should add that Mr. Martosko called me at 3:00 p.m. today to say “I don’t care how famous you are. We intend to take legal action.” I didn’t think I was so famous. I guess I should be flattered. Here’s the written threat:
Dear Dr. Nestle,
In a blog posting on January 24, you wrote that “the tuna industry is fighting back through its public relations agency, the Center for Consumer Freedom.” You also wrote that “Every word CCF says is paid for, and some tuna association pays it to say that methylmercury is not a problem.” (source: http://whattoeatbook.com/2008/01/24/methylmercury-in-big-expensive-tuna/ )
These statements are false, and they seem calculated to do harm to our reputation.
You are free to speculate about the sources of support that our public-education efforts receive. You are not free, however, to assert things that are not true in an attempt to discredit our work. The above examples have clearly crossed the line into libel territory, and could lead to legal action.
If you have documentation that you believe substantiates your claim, I would be very interested to see it. But I am quite certain that you do not. I advise you to either post a correction or withdraw your January 24 piece entirely.
Sincerely,
David Martosko
Director of Research
Center for Consumer Freedom
cc: Richard Berman, Executive Director
So yesterday’s New York Times report on methylmercury in sushi tuna–a shocker because the most expensive tuna has the most of this toxin (of course it does; it’s bigger and accumulates more)–is now experiencing the expected backlash. Sushi eaters don’t seem to care much, and the tuna industry is fighting back through its public relations agency, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). What is a tuna lover to do? If you aren’t pregnant, about to become pregnant, or a very young child (if you are, you should avoid big predatory fish like king mackeral, swordfish, tilefish, shark, and albacore tuna) the FDA and EPA say up to 6 ounces a week is OK. That leaves plenty of room for spending a fortune on sushi.
Here’s what Newsweek has to say about the CCF complaints. It’s great to see a news magazine blow the whistle on that group. Every word CCF says is paid for, and some tuna association pays it to say that methylmercury is not a problem.
Whenever I get comments like those on the previous post (not yours Anna, the others), I’m pretty sure that the Center for Consumer Freedom has been tracking my work and has just said something about it. The Center advertises itself as a consumer advocacy group but is really a public relations agency for food companies and trade associations hired to attack critics. The Center does not disclose its funders because it is set up in a way that permits that information to be kept secret. SourceWatch, however, describes how this group operates and lists some of its funding sources. It is an interesting list. The Wikipedia entry is also worth a look.
Does anyone else know anything about this group? Do share.
