In December 2009, Edward Groth approached the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) in the hope that NFI would hire Groth Consulting Services.

Groth wrote in a letter to NFI President John Connelly, “I’m hoping we can discuss the possibility of my working with NFI on risk communication about mercury in seafood.” He wasn’t shy about it either, noting, “I’ll attach some personal references, should you decide to check me out further.” To assuage any fears we might have about working with him he assured us that, “it may surprise you that our perspectives have much in common.”

Despite all of his talk about sharing goals and working together, we did not respond to his proposal. So, Groth went to work for an organization that takes the inverse view of the mainstream scientific community’s view we at NFI promote.

That’s right. First he was for the accepted science we promote… then we wouldn’t hire him… and now he’s against that science. Got all that? Good, because it might give you a sense of just who this “consultant” for the Mercury Policy Project is that is now asking the USDA to change the new 2010 Dietary Guidelines.

Lest we forget that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) reviewed more than five years of science to come up with its conclusions. Lest we forget that the committee was comprised of a nutrition all-star team of leading experts from around the country. Lest we forget the process was a transparent, formal, public effort that took two years to complete. But since Groth and a handful of his cronies disagree with the avalanche of science that says they’re wrong, the USDA should drop everything and rewrite the Guidelines five months after they were published?

He does make the point that, “the 2010 Guidelines have failed to consider critical recent evidence on the risks associated with exposure to methylmercury”—I’ll assume that evidence is found hidden somewhere outside the 175 articles on the topic of the risks of seafood consumption that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee considered, before honing in on 7 primary articles and 2 review articles identified as scientifically sound and relevant. 

He also makes the point that following statement “distorts what the scientific committee recommended and what the DGAC report actually said,” -- “The Committee emphasized that, even for pregnant women, the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks.”

 Okay, let’s take a look at what the scientific committee actually said: “Moderate, consistent evidence shows that health benefits derived from the consumption of a variety of cooked seafood in the US in amounts recommended by the Committee outweigh the risks associated with methyl mercury (MeHg) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) exposure, even among women who may become or who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and children ages 12 and younger."

Ahhhhhhhh… now I see. Really? It “distorts” what the report actually said?

But wait just a minute folks-- Groth’s got a dozen signatures on his letter. That’s got to mean something right?As soon as the FDA gets done sorting through the 130-plus MDs, Phds, RNs and RDs that signed a  petition in 2010 led by two of the world’s top experts on brain health that says the exact opposite of Groth, then perhaps they should take a look at this latest missive.