Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Tucker Carlson owns PETA nutjob


Westbrook36

Recommended Posts

Figured this owning deserved it's own thread even though it's on the subject I posted yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10265078/

TUCKER CARLSON: I'm offended by this. I can't believe actually that you put this out. This is an attack on fathers aimed at children. How could you do this?

BRUCE FRIEDRICH: Well, Tucker, it's not an attack on cruelty to animals, and our point is very, very serious. If you fish, I can see how you'd be offended by it, because fishing supports cruelty to animals. If you wouldn't take a hook and put it through a dog's mouth and drag that animal behind the car, you shouldn't do that to fish.

CARLSON: Well, there are so many false statements in your last sentence, let me just pick them apart one by one.

First, I want to talk about this comic book ... "Your Daddy Kills Animals." In here you have lines like this, "Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next."

I assume you have no children, right? You couldn't. Nobody with children would put this out, because that's the kind of thing that gives kids nightmares. I mean, seriously, your daddy's going to kill your dog? Come on.

FRIEDRICH: Tucker, we focus grouped the ad. Kids get it. If you watch MTV, you go to the web sites that kids like, even watch Saturday morning cartoons, this is the sort of hyperbole that kids really like. But it makes a serious point, scientifically, biologically. Fish feel pain in the same way that dogs and cats feel pain. Cruelty to fish is no more morally justifiable than is cruelty to dogs or cats.

CARLSON: What about cruelty to children and their fathers? I'm serious. I'm totally serious. Why go -- why go after kids? Why go after kids? Why? You have an adult point to make. Why not change adult minds?

FRIEDRICH: Well, I think it's important to go after both, but kids get it. We focus-grouped the comic book with kids. Kids, to a kid, thought that it was fantastic. And unlike a lot of the other things that were being focused-grouped, kids could, after reading it, they remembered what they had read, because it was appealing and it was interesting.

CARLSON: Bruce, even in Washington, a focus group is not a moral justification. I don't care what your focus group said. How about common sense? How about you don't accuse parents of wanting to kill the family pet? I mean, that's so sick. That's so over the top. Totally serious, actually.

FRIEDRICH: I know you're totally serious, but you're underestimating these kids. I worked for more than six years in a homeless shelter for families. I spend a lot of time around kids. You're underestimating them.

CARLSON: I've got four kids. Don't lecture me about kids. I know I would-if someone slipped this under my door, I'd punch them out. I couldn't handle it.

FRIEDRICH: You as a fisherman don't like it.

CARLSON: Hold on, first of all, I'm a fisherman who doesn't ever kill fish. I not only unhook the fish on barbless hooks, but I you know, do my best not to kill them, and they rarely die. I'm not attempting to justify my own fishing. I don't need to.

Here's the point I want to make, though, and it's a public policy point. Fishermen help and save fish populations. Where do you think the money from fishing licenses goes? It goes to save wetlands, inland wetlands in this country, and it goes to repopulate streams, brooks, and lakes with fish. That's why we have a lot of fish because of fishermen, period. It's true.

FRIEDRICH: Tucker, fish feel pain in the same way as dogs and cats. Impaling them on hook supports cruelty to animals, and it's not justifiable. Additionally, eating fish rots your brain. The Environmental Protection Agency says that if you eat fish as few as two times...

CARLSON: You're switching from topic to topic.

FRIEDRICH: Yes, but if we're going to be talking about what we should be offended about, we should be offended that the Environmental Protection Agency isn't telling you that if you're feeding your kid fish, you're feeding them poison.

CARLSON: Hold on. Hold on. Without getting, if you feed your kid poisoned fish, you're feeding them poison.

FRIEDRICH: No.

CARLSON: If you're feeding them unpoisoned fish, you're not. But look, I don't...

FRIEDRICH: If you're feeding your kid tuna or salmon or fish sticks, you're feeding your kid poison.

CARLSON: Now you're attacking. Now you're attacking.

FRIEDRICH: The 'Wall Street Journal' front page piece about a kid who was eating tuna sandwiches on a daily basis. He went from being an honor student to being in remedial reading. He went from being a jock to being unable to catch a football. Front page, "Wall Street Journal," August 1.

CARLSON: It must be true. It was in the newspaper. Of course it's true. Come on, Bruce, you know that. It's axiomatic.

FRIEDRICH: Tucker, it's based on the Environmental Protection Agency saying that if you eat any fish as few as two times a week, you will have measurable decrease in your cognitive function.

CARLSON: I guess I'm just amazed, as I have been before. I've interviewed Ingrid Newkirk, the head of your organization. And I'm sympathetic. I love animals. I have a lot of animals.

FRIEDRICH: Thank you.

CARLSON: Unlike Ingrid Newkirk, who has no animals, incidentally.

FRIEDRICH: The point is, she cares for...

CARLSON: Yes, she cares, but she doesn't have any. The point -- the point I'm making, you're very concerned about the feelings of fish. But you don't care at all about the feelings of kids, or their parents.

FRIEDRICH: That's not fair.

CARLSON: No, it's totally fair. You're putting out this garbage. If you cared, you wouldn't.

FRIEDRICH: Tucker, kids like it. You're underestimating them. Kids like it. It's focused on kids age 12 and up, and it speaks to them in a language that they understand. No kids are going to be traumatized by this. Kids, to a kid, think it's fantastic and retain the information.

CARLSON: Don't send it to my house, Bruce.

FRIEDRICH: OK, I won't.

CARLSON: I wouldn't care for it one bit. I appreciate you coming on anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The large predatory sea fish can contain mercury. I believe the EPA recommended limiting the amount of Tuna fed to small children. But I'd have to go google search to be sure. But to tell people not to eat all fish is just so wrong. Americans should put down the steaks and eat more fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the EPA's statement.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html

Fish and shellfish are an important part of a healthy diet. Fish and shellfish contain high-quality protein and other essential nutrients, are low in saturated fat, and contain omega-3 fatty acids. A well-balanced diet that includes a variety of fish and shellfish can contribute to heart health and children's proper growth and development. So, women and young children in particular should include fish or shellfish in their diets due to the many nutritional benefits.

However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. Yet, some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child's developing nervous system. The risks from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish and shellfish. Therefore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are advising women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.

By following these 3 recommendations for selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women and young children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.

1.

Do not eat Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury.

2.

Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.

*

Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish.

*

Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.

3.

Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but don't consume any other fish during that week.

Follow these same recommendations when feeding fish and shellfish to your young child, but serve smaller portions.

Frequently Asked Questions about Mercury in Fish and Shellfish:

1.

"What is mercury and methylmercury?"

Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and can also be released into the air through industrial pollution. Mercury falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and oceans and is turned into methylmercury in the water. It is this type of mercury that can be harmful to your unborn baby and young child. Fish absorb the methylmercury as they feed in these waters and so it builds up in them. It builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than others, depending on what the fish eat, which is why the levels vary.

2.

"I'm a woman who could have children but I'm not pregnant - so why should I be concerned about methylmercury?"

If you regularly eat types of fish that are high in methylmercury, it can accumulate in your blood stream over time. Methylmercury is removed from the body naturally, but it may take over a year for the levels to drop significantly. Thus, it may be present in a woman even before she becomes pregnant. This is the reason why women who are trying to become pregnant should also avoid eating certain types of fish.

3.

"Is there methylmercury in all fish and shellfish?"

Nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of methylmercury. However, larger fish that have lived longer have the highest levels of methylmercury because they've had more time to accumulate it. These large fish (swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish) pose the greatest risk. Other types of fish and shellfish may be eaten in the amounts recommended by FDA and EPA.

4.

"I don't see the fish I eat in the advisory. What should I do?"

If you want more information about the levels in the various types of fish you eat, see the FDA food safety website www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html or the EPA website at www.epa.gov/ost/fish.

5.

"What about fish sticks and fast food sandwiches?"

Fish sticks and "fast-food" sandwiches are commonly made from fish that are low in mercury.

6.

"The advice about canned tuna is in the advisory, but what's the advice about tuna steaks?"

Because tuna steak generally contains higher levels of mercury than canned light tuna, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of tuna steak per week.

7.

"What if I eat more than the recommended amount of fish and shellfish in a week?"

One week's consumption of fish does not change the level of methylmercury in the body much at all. If you eat a lot of fish one week, you can cut back for the next week or two. Just make sure you average the recommended amount per week.

8.

"Where do I get information about the safety of fish caught recreationally by family or friends?"

Before you go fishing, check your Fishing Regulations Booklet for information about recreationally caught fish. You can also contact your local health department for information about local advisories. You need to check local advisories because some kinds of fish and shellfish caught in your local waters may have higher or much lower than average levels of mercury. This depends on the levels of mercury in the water in which the fish are caught. Those fish with much lower levels may be eaten more frequently and in larger amounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy from PETA is a nutball loser, but Carlson hardly "owned" him. If anything, it showed Carlson for the petulant baby and lousy interviewer that he is. A true reporter would have pointed out inconsistencies and let the guy hang himself, not said he would "punch you in the face." For that matter, a skilled viewpoint commentator like Sean Hannity or Al Franken would have eaten this guy and spit out the bones without coming across looking like a baby himself. No kudos for anyone on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These PETA people are nut jobs! If you want to see a good show on Peta watch Bullshi# on Showtime. Penn and Teller show Peta and have interviews with members and people who were members. It's amazing what these people will do to save animals, they will actually kill humans if it means they can save animals?? Makes sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't get it directly, but here's a reprint of the article:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:hZ8onqzGw18J:www.post-gazette.com/pg/05213/547155.stm+Mercury+and+Tuna+Wall+Street+Journal&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Mercury and tuna: U.S. advice leaves lots of questions

Monday, August 01, 2005

By Peter Waldman, The Wall Street Journal

SAN FRANCISCO -- One by one, Matthew Davis's fifth-grade teachers went around the table describing the 10-year-old boy. He wasn't focused in class and often missed assignments, they said. He labored at basic addition. He could barely write a simple sentence.

"Our jaws dropped," says his mother, Joan Elan Davis, describing a teachers' meeting she had requested in late 2003, when her son abruptly lost interest in homework. Matthew had always excelled in school. In the fourth grade, he had written and illustrated a series of stories about a superhero named Dog Man.

Ms. Davis noticed something else: Her son's fingers were starting to curl, as if he were gripping a melon. And he could no longer catch a football.

A neurologist ordered tests. They showed Matthew's blood was laced with mercury in amounts nearly double what the Environmental Protection Agency says is the safe level for exposure to the metal. Matthew had mercury poisoning, his doctors said.

The Davises had pinpointed the suspected source: tuna fish. For a year or so, starting in late 2002, Matthew had gobbled three to six ounces a day of white albacore tuna. Based on Food and Drug Administration data for canned albacore, he was consuming a daily dose of mercury at least 12 times what the EPA considered a safe level for a 60-pound child. The Davises' doctors' prescription was simple: Matthew should stop eating canned tuna.

Ms. Davis, an artist, says she and her husband, a corporate executive, had been proud of their son for choosing tuna over junk food. Now, she asks herself: "Was I a bad parent? Was it my fault I didn't know there was mercury in tuna?"

One reason she didn't know was that the government had never said so. The FDA had known for many years that canned tuna contained mercury, which studies link to learning impairment in children. Consumer groups long urged the agency to address the issue. But it wasn't until March 2004, after regulatory tussles between health advocates and the tuna industry and between clashing scientists for the FDA and EPA, that those agencies issued a mercury advisory that cited tuna. That joint EPA and FDA advisory urged limits on how much tuna children and some women should eat.

But the limits set in the advisory may exceed safe levels for some people, judging by a mercury risk assessment that the EPA produced on its own years earlier.

The federal advisory said that nursing mothers and women who are pregnant or may become so should eat no more than 12 ounces of chunk light tuna a week. For solid white albacore, which is higher in mercury, it set a six-ounce weekly limit. Young children, it said, should eat "smaller portions." No advice was given for men or older women.

The maximum mercury ingestion the EPA deems safe is one microgram a day for each 22 pounds of body weight. If a 130-pound woman ate as much albacore tuna as the joint federal advisory allows, she would exceed that safe level by 40 percent.

If the joint advisory had been available in 2003 and the Davises, following its advice about "smaller portions" for children, had given Matthew just half a can of albacore a week, he still would have consumed 60 percent more mercury than the EPA can say with confidence is safe.

"This is a glaring example of shutting out science," says Vas Aposhian, a University of Arizona toxicologist. He quit the FDA's Food Advisory Committee in early 2004 because he felt the agency ignored the panel's instructions to hew closely to the EPA's mercury maximum.

Senior EPA and FDA officials deny the advisory is unscientific. The EPA's daily limit for mercury intake, called a "reference dose," isn't some "bright line" that distinguishes safe from unsafe, officials of both agencies say. To provide an ample margin of safety, the EPA had set the limit at just one-tenth of the mercury level that had been found to affect children's learning.

And the EPA limit is extra-cautious in another way, says David Acheson, the FDA's director of food safety and security. It was based on a study of prodigious fish eaters in the Faroe Islands of Denmark that found neurobehavioral effects, such as learning and language deficits, in children who'd had high bloodstream mercury at birth. But those effects were "subtle" and insubstantial, Dr. Acheson emphasizes, not "clear, long-lasting mental disability."

The struggle to find the right balance on mercury is part of a larger issue: How to deal with dozens of industrial chemicals now known to linger in the environment and the human body in trace amounts. Mercury emissions, about 40 percent of which in the U.S. come from coal-fired power plants, settle into oceans, lakes and rivers. Then people take in mercury by eating large fish that have accumulated an organic form of the metal in their flesh by consuming smaller fish.

People vary in how they react to mercury they ingest and how fast they purge it. The EPA's exposure limit is based on its calculation that mercury above 5.8 parts per billion in young women's bloodstreams may pose a danger to their babies. By this measure, 5.7 percent of U.S. infants, or 228,000 a year, could be at risk of mercury poisoning during gestation, based on the latest blood survey of women of childbearing age by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The maximum safe level might be lower still, says the EPA's top mercury risk assessor, Kathryn Mahaffey, based on recent evidence that fetuses concentrate more mercury in their blood than do their pregnant mothers.

Former EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt says the reason the government didn't make the mercury-in-fish advisory tougher was to avoid scaring people away from fish. "Mercury is bad and fish is good. We needed to choose the right words that would give people a sense of knowledge without creating unwarranted fear," says Mr. Leavitt, now head of the Health and Human Services Department. He adds that scientists, not bureaucrats, worked out the guidelines, reconciling the varying views of FDA and EPA researchers.

The EPA senior scientist handling that reconciliation, Rita Schoeny, says there is no way to know for sure whether people who follow the fish advisory and consume more mercury than the EPA's limit are actually safe. Asked whether she agreed with what the advisory said about tuna, she didn't respond except to say: "I think what we have in the advisory is good public-health advice."

At Bumble Bee Seafoods, executive vice president John Stiker acknowledges the federal tuna-eating advice could lead some people to exceed the EPA safe level for mercury. But he says it's not a big problem because the average American eats only 10 servings of tuna a year, and just 35 percent of that is the higher-mercury type, albacore.

Food companies have long lobbied to mitigate any FDA action on canned tuna, one of the top-grossing supermarket items in revenue per unit of shelf space. Five years ago, after risk assessments by the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences raised fresh worries about mercury, the FDA began preparing to revise a 1979 advisory that said it was all right to consume four micrograms of mercury a day per 22 pounds of body weight -- four times the EPA's maximum.

Food companies urged the FDA not to single out canned tuna. In private meetings with FDA officials in fall 2000, industry and agency documents show, the industry argued that health data were inconclusive, that citing canned tuna would drive down its consumption by 19 percent to 24 percent, and that seafood producers "would face the distinct possibility of numerous class action lawsuits."

A strict advisory "could have an irreversible impact on American dietary habits, profoundly affecting consumers and producers of seafood and resulting in significant segments of the population turning away from the proven health benefits of fish consumption," said a 2000 letter to an FDA commissioner from three trade groups: the National Food Processors Association, the National Fisheries Institute and the U.S. Tuna Foundation.

When the FDA issued a revised mercury advisory in 2001, it urged women of childbearing age to shun four high-mercury species: swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico. It didn't mention tuna. Yet cumulatively, according to data provided by the EPA, the four species it urged avoiding account for less than 10 percent of Americans' mercury ingestion from fish, while canned tuna accounts for about 34 percent of it.

Echoing industry arguments, FDA scientists also rejected the study of fish eaters in Denmark's Faroe Islands, saying dietary differences made the data inapplicable to Americans. The FDA stood by its 1979 mercury-consumption limit that was much higher than the EPA's.

Some EPA scientists griped that FDA officials were coddling food companies. "They really consider the fish industry to be their clients, rather than the U.S. public," charges Deborah Rice, a former EPA toxicologist now working for the state of Maine. The FDA's Dr. Acheson denies that commercial concerns played a role in the agency's decision making.

In April 2003, his agency changed course, following years of prodding by health advocates, some members of Congress and the agency's own outside food advisory panel. The FDA said it would base future mercury warnings on the EPA's stricter limit. Late in 2003, FDA and EPA officials proposed their first joint mercury advisory at a meeting of the FDA's Food Advisory Committee.

At the hearing, FDA scientists said they had put fish in three categories: high in mercury, medium and low. The level for the low-mercury group was that of canned light tuna, explained FDA official Clark Carrington. "In order to keep the market share at a reasonable level, we felt like we had to keep light tuna in the low-mercury group," he said, according to the meeting's official transcript.

Later, the FDA's Dr. Acheson reiterated that point. He told the meeting the fish categories "were arbitrarily chosen to put light tuna in the low category."

Says Maine's Dr. Rice: "Here's the FDA making what are supposed to be scientific decisions on the basis of market share. What else is there to say?"

Asked about this, Dr. Acheson gives a different reason why the low-mercury group was pegged to light tuna. He says it was because a woman weighing 140 pounds could eat 12 ounces of it a week and stay at or below the EPA reference dose.

The FDA's outside advisory panel asked the agencies to rework the advisory, saying it didn't adequately spell out mercury risks from canned tuna. In particular, members of the panel urged a specific warning about the higher-mercury albacore tuna.

But food processors lobbied the administration. At the White House, they implored officials not to single out albacore. They said doing so would only drive people, especially the poor, to eat more junk food, says a scientist who was there.

In meetings with companies, there are indications administration officials sometimes expressed views not in sync with those of all agency scientists.

At the EPA, three companies met with Steve Johnson, then deputy administrator, on Feb. 23, 2004. The three were the StarKist unit of Del Monte Foods Co.; Chicken of the Sea, part of Thailand's Thai Union Frozen Products PCL; and Bumble Bee, which is owned by Connors Bros. Income Fund in Toronto.

The three companies later wrote to then-EPA chief Mr. Leavitt that Mr. Johnson -- who now heads the agency -- had assured them that "the EPA did not consider any children to be at risk from mercury poisoning." An EPA spokeswoman denies Mr. Johnson said that. Asked about the denial, Bumble Bee's Mr. Stiker said, "I was at the meeting. It was clear that that was said at the meeting by Steve Johnson and others in that room. ... We were assured the EPA did not consider any U.S. children to be at risk of mercury poisoning."

The FDA tested the planned advisory with focus groups of women of childbearing age, the target of the warning. Some complained they didn't understand the vague advice to give kids "smaller portions." Others said the advisory was ambiguous because it encouraged them to eat fish but not too much.

Like many parents, the Davises in San Francisco always thought fish was great. They knew it was high in omega-3 fatty acids, which they understood could help brain development. They were delighted, Ms. Davis says, when Matthew started eating what she calls "his brain food" for lunch and snacks.

It struck Matthew that something was wrong one day at recess, he says, when his buddy Zach could suddenly catch and throw a football much better than he could. He remembers his father, a little while later, getting frustrated when his son couldn't hit a baseball. "I kept telling Dad I was rusty," Matthew says.

After the meeting with his teachers, the Davises spent thousands of dollars on tutors, but still Matthew struggled. A specialist gave him a diagnosis of "mixed learning disability," which just made his parents mad because they had watched him do so well in school before.

Then Matthew's father happened to read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle describing adults with similar problems as a possible result of eating too much swordfish, tuna steaks and other high-end fish in restaurants. Ms. Davis remembers bolting to the pantry and throwing away eight pouches and 20 cans of StarKist albacore tuna.

Spokeswomen for StarKist and Chicken of the Sea referred questions to the U.S. Tuna Foundation. The trade group's executive director, David Burney, says the study of mercury in heavy fish eaters of the Faroe Islands had found only minor effects in kids. It wasn't as if they "couldn't function in school," he says, adding: "There is no connection between a learning disability and mercury."

The notion that chronic, low-level mercury exposure can diminish children's learning capacity was affirmed in 2000 by a panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences. Citing "a large body of scientific evidence showing adverse neurodevelopmental effects" on children from mercury, the NAS panel endorsed the EPA's choice of the 1997 Faroe Islands study, led by Philippe Grandjean of Harvard, as the basis for the agency's reference dose.

It noted that a similar study of fish eaters in the Seychelles Islands in 1998 hadn't found any effects on childhood development from mercury-tainted fish, but concluded the Faroe Islands results were more reliable because they were firmly supported by other studies.

Matthew Davis's symptoms -- declines in concentration, coordination and learning ability -- were classic signs of mercury toxicity, says one of his doctors, Jane Hightower, who has published studies of such toxicity in her patients. She notes that in some kinds of fish, mercury content varies widely, exposing diners to random spikes. In chunk light tuna and snapper, some samples had seven times as much mercury as the average for the species, as measured by the FDA. Certain samples of canned albacore tuna showed a spike to 2 1/2 times the average.

As for the fresh and frozen tuna found in tuna steaks, its mean mercury level was comparable to that of canned albacore.

The tuna industry has continued to aim some marketing at pregnant women and kids. An ad sponsored by the U.S. Tuna Foundation last year, which specified the new federal consumption guidelines, reassured "pregnant and nursing women and young children" that canned tuna "is absolutely safe to eat." Extolling the benefits of fish's omega-3 fatty acids for babies' eyes and brains, the ad said: "No government study has ever found unsafe levels of mercury in women or young children who eat canned tuna."

By "unsafe levels," says the foundation's Mr. Burney, the ad wasn't referring to mercury above what the EPA declares safe, but to the actual blood-mercury level of Faroe Islands infants. That level is 10 times as high as the EPA's safe level.

Mr. Burney maintains that no Americans come close to having a toxic level of mercury in their blood. Accordingly, he rejects the notion that Matthew Davis or anyone else could get mercury poisoning from eating canned tuna. "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life," Mr. Burney says.

Bumble Bee's Mr. Stiker, when told of Matthew's problem, said it didn't make sense to him because only early-childhood development can be affected by trace amounts of mercury. "The hype has far outstripped the science" on mercury in fish, he said, with the result that canned-tuna sales are falling more than 10 percent a year. "We're getting killed because of this perception," he said.

Today, nearly two years after Matthew quit eating albacore tuna, his blood-mercury level is zero and his condition is dramatically improved. Although his doctors don't know if he had any permanent damage, signs so far are that he didn't. Sports and homework come much easier again. Matthew played the lead in a local performance of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." He is writing stories again.

His mother wrote about her son's struggle for the school newsletter. The family hasn't consulted a lawyer and doesn't plan to sue anyone, Ms. Davis says. But "I think about what I could have lost, and it makes me angry," she says.

The American Medical Association called on the FDA a year ago to consider requiring stores to post warnings and mercury-content data wherever fish is sold. Dr. Acheson of the FDA says the agency opposes mandated warning labels or market postings. "We feel the best way to get the word out is via the advisory," he says, calling it "an optimal balance between the benefits of eating fish and the risks of mercury."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy from PETA is a nutball loser, but Carlson hardly "owned" him. If anything, it showed Carlson for the petulant baby and lousy interviewer that he is. A true reporter would have pointed out inconsistencies and let the guy hang himself, not said he would "punch you in the face." For that matter, a skilled viewpoint commentator like Sean Hannity or Al Franken would have eaten this guy and spit out the bones without coming across looking like a baby himself. No kudos for anyone on this one.

I'd have to agree with you on that, Predicto.

Neither of these guys came away from this (at least looking at the transcript) looking good.

Though, if I ever found that some PETA advocate had given my kids a similar piece of worthless, spiteful propaganda -- well, I think fish feeling pain would soon be the least of their concerns. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if a toddler eats 20 pounds of 5 different fishes its bad :) gotcha.. idiot.

totally misrepresented what the EPA said and didn't get called on it.

totally misrepresented what the WallStreet Journal says. (The boy was eating 6x the amount for 3 years)...

I wouldnt fish if I wasn't going to eat it but I'm not a big fan of fish till lately for diet reasons...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next."

Wow. With America's families being stronger than ever, turning kids against parents sounds like a swell idea. Talk about evil ways to manipulate a fragile child's mind.

What's next? Child Protection Services comics???

"Since your daddy won't let you have any more ice cream, you should teach him a lesson. Grab your doggies and kittens and give us a call. He is so hooked on punishing you, soon enough he will stop feeding you at all. You can stay with us until he learns to value his kids."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PETA's propaganda is inexcusable but I wouldn't call their ideas insanity. If you are under the premise that thinking beings that can feel ought to not be killed then you could easily work with PETA. I tend to see things in degrees (ie it is ok to eat a stupid fish, but not a thinking human being).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats it, I am having tuna for dinner tonight.

The connections that these PETA people try to make to anything that could be called a cognative thought is amazing. "Kids liked it." Kids also like eating candy til they vomit, doesn't make it right or good. Carlson was right in calling him out saying that he is dragging down fathers by making the connection that they would kill the family pet. But his defense was flimsy, only saying that they focus grouped it, which means that it is marketable, not that it is sending out the right message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have something for Peta. They are based in the downtown Norfolk area. 30 minutes from me. I thought i might go down there and fire up the Barbeque in their parking lot. Maybe grill up some ribs and hot dogs. Mmm mmm good. these peta people are stupid. You know they were in the news here recently for taking dogs from North Carolina shelters, killing them, then dumping their bodies illegally in commercial dumpsters. Talk about cruel and stupid. And another thing fish tastes good. I want to propose this to Peta," A proposal to Government legislators to ban sharks from eating surfers". It is cruel and unusual punishment to attack us defensless surfers. The surfing community is fed up with the shark attacks. Bring the sharks to justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy from PETA is a nutball loser, but Carlson hardly "owned" him. If anything, it showed Carlson for the petulant baby and lousy interviewer that he is. A true reporter would have pointed out inconsistencies and let the guy hang himself, not said he would "punch you in the face." For that matter, a skilled viewpoint commentator like Sean Hannity or Al Franken would have eaten this guy and spit out the bones without coming across looking like a baby himself. No kudos for anyone on this one.

agreed, Carlson, despite his political leanings, is a whining little pube.

The fish guy was commical and ridiculous.

The mercury fish issue is real. The main cause is coal burning electrical power plants/acid rain, that refuse to install pollution equiptment in accordance with the Clean Air Act 1986, which was gutted by Bush in the 1st 90 days of his first term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy from PETA is a nutball loser, but Carlson hardly "owned" him. If anything, it showed Carlson for the petulant baby and lousy interviewer that he is. A true reporter would have pointed out inconsistencies and let the guy hang himself, not said he would "punch you in the face." For that matter, a skilled viewpoint commentator like Sean Hannity or Al Franken would have eaten this guy and spit out the bones without coming across looking like a baby himself. No kudos for anyone on this one.

Spot on, great post :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed, Carlson, despite his political leanings, is a whining little pube.

The fish guy was commical and ridiculous.

The mercury fish issue is real. The main cause is coal burning electrical power plants/acid rain, that refuse to install pollution equiptment in accordance with the Clean Air Act 1986, which was gutted by Bush in the 1st 90 days of his first term.

Would you support nuclear powerplants to replace coal-fired plants?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...