We are having something of an unprecedented heat wave here on the East Coast (and it's not even officially summer). Yesterday it was 96 degrees and they are predicting that it will top out right around 100 degrees today (and with the humidity, that means it feels more like 105). I have a brisket in defrosting in my fridge, but the last thing I want to do is turn my oven on long enough to get it cooked (it will just have to wait until Wednesday, when the heat breaks).

On nights like this, I turn to cool summer greens from the fridge and cans from my pantry. I always keep black beans, pickled beets, garbanzo beans, artichoke hearts and tuna in olive oil in the kitchen cabinet, so that I can augment veggies with much-needed (at least for me) protein. I create a table top salad bar with the beans, tuna, diced tomato, sliced cucumber, grated cheese, carrot rounds and anything else I can find and go to town. If you need a carb with your meal, add some crackers or bread from a local bakery.

That's my basic meal for those nights when I can't bear to heat up my apartment. How do the rest of you beat the heat in the kitchen*?

*I know that those of you out on the West Coast are freezing and still wearing your winter coats. What are you eating these days?

Cook's Country had an interesting taste test in this month's issue. They pitted canned tunas against the newer pouch-packaged tunas. The pouch tunas claim to be fresher and less processed, though in all likelihood, the amount of processing that goes into each product is probably similar. Pouches may take up less room in the lunch bag, but cans also have the advantage of being recyclable. With plusses and minuses on both sides, Cook's Country looked for the brand that tasted the best.

Eight brands of solid white albacore packed in water, the most popular tuna variety, were sampled and canned tuna took four of the five top spots. The primary reason was that canned tuna offered bigger and meatier chunks of fish, while the smaller and less-supportive pouches offered a mushier, less appealing, texture. In general, tasters preferred tuna with a mild flavor, too, and their preference reflects in the rankings:

Top Picks

• Chicken of the Sea, canned
• Starkist, canned

Runners-Up

• Starkist, pouch
• Geisha, canned
• Diamonds, canned
• Chicken of the Sea, pouch

Don't Bother

• Bumble Bee, canned
• Bumble Bee, pouch

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."