It is no longer news that Tuna is dangerously high in mercury. But, what's worth remarking is that tuna has remained off consumer watch lists for mercury toxicity due to the influence of the tuna industry on the FDA. The eco-blog Treehugger just commented on an article from Mother Jones uncovering why toxic tuna is still legal.
The article explains that tuna is a huge business in the U.S., and that it's the country's second most popular seafood. The FDA and US Department of Agriculture actually encourage school lunch programs and the federal food program for poor women and children to eat cans of tuna. They promote the fact that it's low in fat, high in protein, and contains lots of omega-3 fatty acids. If some canned tuna receives the American Heart Association seal of approval, can the fact that it has high levels of mercury be so bad?
The issue is that the doctors who flaunt the health benefits of tuna work within the industry. And, the truth is that the health benefits can not outweigh the health hazards of mercury, which over the long-term include damage to the heart, nervous system, and kidneys. The Mother Jones article tells the story of Deborah Landvik-Fellner, a woman who had been eating a can of albacore tuna for 12 years and ended up with shaky hands and a staggering gait. The scary thing about her lawsuit is that the FDA posed the biggest obstacle. After not eating tuna for a year, her symptons went away.
Second Helping of Slashfood - June 19
Competitive-Eating Contest to Pit Humans Against Elephants
The Backyard Boom - The Hungry Bride
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-07-2008 @ 2:40PM
Big John said...
Newsflash: high quantities of *any* food over time is going to have an adverse affect on your health. You're probably neglecting other food groups, containing essentials for you.
A balanced diet. So simple, yet so painfully difficult for people to understand sometimes.
Reply
9-07-2008 @ 3:39PM
Rt said...
I just want to know how that woman made that can of tuna last 12 years :)
Reply
9-07-2008 @ 5:01PM
Bernie B said...
The FDA protects us? I thought they were a completely reactionary organization.
Reply
9-07-2008 @ 10:51PM
christopher said...
I agree with Bernie - the FDA doesn't have a great track record of having my interests in mind.
I am yet to be convinced that we understand the mercury issue beyond that there is mercury in fish because we dump it in the ocean - why not stop doing that? Studies on mercury content** show that the levels vary from *fish* to *fish* within the same species and the sample sizes are statistically insignificant. There won't be enough wild fish to eat for much longer so the problem will take care of itself.
**that I've seen, please enlighten me if you know otherwise
Reply
9-08-2008 @ 3:23AM
Berkana said...
@BigJohn:
You can eat as much chicken as you want, and it won't cause any accumulation of mercury in your body. It's not just about balance; if the FDA isn't honest with us when we depend on them to safeguard our food supply, how can we make informed decisions about the safety of our food? At this point in time, people are depending on the FDA less and less because of their record of corruption, but that is no excuse for what they've done.
Reply