Recently, the news has been full of reports about the dangerous levels of mercury found in fish. For women in their childbearing years, this news is very concerning, especially coupled with reports that came out last year about how the oils in fish were really good for fetus development. So, do you eat fish or cut it out?

Luckily, there's web site that wants to help you make some sense out of the issue, at least when it comes to tuna fish. Simply punch your weight into the Tuna Calculator and it will give you a recommended weekly amount of tuna that you can safely consume. What will they think of next!

[via Parent Dish]

We've all heard the warnings that pregnant women should steer clear of fish because of mercury concerns. The FDA recommends that pregnant and breast feeding women eat no more than 12 ounces of fish a week. Most of my pregnant friends have heeded that advice, giving up tilapia, salmon and trout almost entirely until their children are weened. However, the Washington Post reported today that a group of scientists from both the public and private sectors are planning to announce that they believe that pregnant women should eat AT LEAST 12 ounces of fish per week.

The issue comes down to mercury concerns verses nutrients in fish being excellent for brain development. Since the FDA issued the fish warning, mothers and mothers-to-be have dropped their fish intake to the point where they are no longer getting enough of the Omega-3 oils that are so helpful for baby development and the prevention of postpartum depression. So, what's the answer? At the present time, it's murky at best.

The fatty acid Omega-3 has been the topic of discussion ranging from a treatment for prostate cancer to treatment of mood disorders. Although numerous wide-reaching studies have shown positive and negligible results, grants for studies and participants roll on.

Why? It has been proven that Omega-3 fatty acids, particularly as found in fish like mackerel (highest content/weight ratio) and salmon, prevent and aid those who have cardiovascular disease. When you start throwing the human heart into the fray of what's good for it, and there's a compound isolated proven to help keep it healthy, there will be no shortage of interest. What's good for the heart may good for all the heart supports: the brain, the rest of the vital organs, the health of our blood itself.

The problem with relying on fish for our daily intake of Omega-3 is that today's fish have much higher levels of mercury than those that our ancestors ate. So, where can you get your Omega-3?

The big hullabaloo about mercury levels in tuna didn't really include canned light tuna, because, presumably, it has always had a much lower mercury content than white tuna. However, Consumer Reports analyzed the FDA data of canned light tuna and found that some canned light tunas do indeed have at least as much mercury as the regular white tuna.

While most canned light tunas have only about 1/3 the mercury of regular albacore tuna, 6% of the CR's samples had the higher levels, which could pose a health threat to pregnant women and developing fetuses. The FDA has not warned consumers about this potential risk because they do not see it as a problem.

Consumer Reports answers ten crucial questions regarding the mercury levels in canned tuna, and also offer some fish alternatives that have little to no mercury risk.

The warnings abour high levels of mercury in fish such as tuna have been hitting the foodie airwaves for a few months now, even affecting sushi consumption in local restaurants. However, the warning about mercury levels won't appear on canned tuna after Judge Robert L. Dondero of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the tuna canners -  mercury levels are not high enough to to require printed health warnings on the product. Furthermore, tuna is exempt from such health warnings because mercury is naturally occurring in fish.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Deputy State Attorney General Susan Fiering say that the ruling is dangerous because poorer women who don't know about the FDA Advisory warning about mercury and who do not have access to information via the Internet will not be aware of the mercury danger.

The tuna companies, however, believe that the ruling favors consumers because such a warning might scare consumers away from a "healthy, economical food."

On its way to the Senate, after getting approved by the house, is a bill that would require all states to have uniform food labeling laws. In addition to the standard information that is nationally regulated, like calories, fat and trans-fats, states can currently pass laws to require food produced in their state to have additional information on the packaging. Uncommon allergens, potentially toxic substances and various food additives are commonly required to be revealed in this way.

Food producers and grocers support the bill because they would have a standard set of expectations to meet, but some consumers are unhappy that some information currently on their state's food labels will be removed. Opponents of the bill say that it will affect as many as 200 state laws across the country. While an amendment has already been added to keep mercury warnings in place, there are 16 states that have shellfish regulations and Arkansas and Illinois have egg-safety laws, none of which would still be required. On the surface, it seems to be a certainty that any regulations stripped from the states will be reinstated at a later time, but going through the federal process is likely to take longer and face more opposition from large lobbies than with in-state legislation. Some warnings may not make it back onto labels for a number of years, if ever, even though consumers in some states will find themselves with new warnings on their packaging.

A study done by the Sea Turtle Restoration Project looked at tuna samples from 6 of the most popular sushi restaurants in Los Angeles and found average mercury levels of 0.721 parts per million. The group is claiming that these mercury levels are dangerously high and describing the risk of eating it as a “new Russian roulette.”

However, other sources, like the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom, say that the group’s study is deeply flawed. For example, the FDA’s maximum allowable level of mercury in tuna is 1 part per million, a level that is above the average found in the study.

Not only was most of the tuna below the federal mercury standard, but the standard is based on a number that is 10 times less than the amount that is associated with health risks. Mercury does, however, remain in the body and builds up over time. While the risk of eating a piece of sashimi may not be as high as the Sea Turtle Restoration Project claims, it is still fact that consuming a lot of tuna can increase your risk for mercury related health problems, which can include memory loss and damage to the nervous system. Other concerns about the study stem from the possible ulterior motives of the Sea Turtle group. Because it is not a consumer health group but an environmentalist organization, they may be hoping to stop certain areas from being fished rather than actually looking out for the safety of sushi eaters.

To persuade those worried about the levels of mercury in seafood to buy more fish, one of the nations largest fish wholesalers has introduced a line of low-mercury fresh fish under a brand called Safe Harbor. San Francisco’s Micro Analytical Systems (MAS) has developed a scanning system that tests the mercury levels in fish, comparing the levels present to the USDA standards. Previously, fish retailers had to send samples of fish off to a lab to have it tested for mercury in a process that could take seven days. The MAS process takes about 40 seconds. A representative from the company said that probably half of all fish tested would be rejected and not sold under the Safe Harbor Brand.

The USDA states that all fish mush have mercury levels under 1 part per million to be sold. There is a database that lists the averages, highs and lows of mercury content for different species of fish and the Safe Harbor brand fish will have mercury contents below the average for their species. The low-mercury fish is currently on store shelves in Northern California.

Canned tuna has been tested safe by the FDA. After hearing increasing warnings about the levels of mercury in seafoods - particularly canned tuna - the United States Tuna Foundation (USTF) has reported that Food and Drug Administration tests have proven that canned tuna contains less mercury than the national allowance. It is recommended that no more than 1 part per million (ppm) of mercury should be consumed daily, and the canned tuna tested averaged 0.12 ppm, approximately 8 times less than the limit for commercial fish. The USTF director, David Burney, said that the "FDA's latest findings about mercury levels in canned tuna should end the debate over whether canned tuna is a safe and healthy food for all Americans. No one is at risk from the minute amounts of mercury in any form of canned tuna."

Tuna is high in omega-3 fatty acids and is an excellent source of lean protein. It is also a good source of a variety of minerals and nutrients, including selenium, magnesium, potassium, niacin, folic acid, B1 and B6. The national dietary guidelines and organizations such as the American Heart Association advocate eating at least two servings of fish per week, and canned tuna is perhaps the most convenient way of having it.