Mercury In Tuna

This is very very disturbing and frightening as well. Bumble Bee, Chicken of The Sea or Starkist are brand names and they are on every supermarket you can think of. Guess, how much mercury we have been consuming unknowingly because Bush & Co. has been thrashing any effort to make these dangerous revealation public!! I shudder to think how much more danger this administration will put Americans in just to cover the behinds of big businesses?? Have you had Tuna lately??

•  Spare me the hysteria

  The levels of mercury in tuna are public information, and recommendations for those most at risk----pregnant women and young children---are out there.
  I believe for those groups not more than 1 serving of canned tuna per week should be eaten.

  I don't have a problem with you pointing out the conflict between CA and the FDA. I think CA should have the right to require the labels.
  I only object to your "sky is falling" tone.
  

  by BoringDem on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:35:29 PM PDT

  •  Oh Yeah!!

    Public Information eh?? Pray, tell me where these information be found?? Is it on CNN or NBC? Which website save FDA or WebMd carry this public information? I work with web 12 hours a day and I have never found a single link on a prominent website which carries this label. Hey, to think of it and following your argument, we all know that nicotine is bad for your health, then why bother with SG's warning on cigarette packs??

    by Shuvo Dutta on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:41:26 PM PDT

    •  if you don't know the risk

      Don't you think you should stop waving your hands and yelling?
      This diary would be helped if you linked to some information on the risks of mercury in tuna, such as they are. It would take you easily under 5 minutes to do this.
      

      by BoringDem on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:45:58 PM PDT

      •  I thought

        I am trying to get public attention by "yelling and waiving hands"!! Hey, how many people you meet in a supermarket actually know about the fact that eating tuna can produce serious health problems?? I eat tuna, I love tuna and I didn't know it?? We eat so many different kinds of food, how many people can know ahead of time what kind of health hazard those food carry?? I can tell you, probably one in a hundred!! So, if CA's AG is trying to get that fact public and Bush is trying to squash it by siding with Big Food and I am trying to make that story a bigger news than it currently is you should be thanking me!!

        by Shuvo Dutta on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:58:01 PM PDT

        •  Put up or eat this tuna casserole!

          I think you have a very vague idea of the risks of eating tuna. You would do yourself and this diary a service by posting some accurate information. Otherwise, you might as well flush it.

          by BoringDem on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:03:26 PM PDT

          •  Why don't you?

            Hey BoringDem, Why don't you put some accurate information for the rest of us and do us a real favor? But before you do that,  you explain to me why Bush/FDA is trying to "squash"(CA's AG's words, not mine) it before the trial?

            So, either you put up and provide some "real info" or shut up.

            by Shuvo Dutta on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:28:04 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, why don't I do your work for you

              I was trying to provide helpful criticism.
              Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant rather than do 2 minutes of research into a subject you claim to be very concerned about.

              by BoringDem on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 01:39:49 PM PDT

  •  No doubt

    The main thrust of the article seems to have been completely ignored.  

    by BarbinMD on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:18:18 PM PDT

    •  What do you think

      the main thrust of the article ( I am assuming you are refering to the original article at Yahoo and not my hiccups in this forum) is?

      by Shuvo Dutta on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:29:38 PM PDT

      •  First let me say...

        ...that when you put up a diary, you can expect some people to disagree with your point of view, etc., and they will respond.  Your defensive attitude and bold face really aren't necessary.  JMHO  That said...

        The point of the article was a battle of state's rights versus federal law.  You didn't mention the statement made by the attorney general of California in response to a warning from the FDA:

        "The federal government has no authority to prevent California, or any state, from requiring warnings that provide truthful, important information to consumers," said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

        You didn't mention the FDA's asinine reasoning:

        The letter says the FDA has determined that the best way to warn consumers about health risks is with advisories, targeted to particular audiences, delivered by doctors or specific media outlets. General warning labels can overexpose consumers to warnings, or scare the wrong audience away from food they should be eating, the letter says.

        You might even have been able to find examples where needed public health alerts from the FDA didn't reach their targets because of a lack of access, etc.

        You didn't mention the unarguable response by the California AG:

        Dresslar said many people never see FDA advisories, and providing a posted warning in a supermarket or a label on a can would inform many more people about potential reproductive problems from mercury.

        Those were some important points...

        by BarbinMD on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 04:16:36 PM PDT

        •  I actually did

          cover pretty much all the points (without getting into details about the conflict between state and federal laws) in my posts in response to BoringDem. I mentioned the fact that some of the FDA warnings targeted towards a specific audience are not adeqauate because most people never get to see any of them. I thought those were minor points compared to the real issue: FDA/Bush (both controlled primarily by Big Business) are tyring to suppress real health hazard warnings to the public. For me, that is real issue, not a technical discussion about the jurisdiction of state of federal governments. I see a pattern of abuse consistent with Bush doctrine and this is only another example of it. That is all.

          by Shuvo Dutta on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 05:25:34 PM PDT

          •  Actually...

            I was talking about your diary.  And that may be the main issue for you, but it wasn't what the article you linked was about.  And finally, do you think you are the first to see a "pattern of abuse" from this administration?  I myself have written a diary on the doctored EPA report regarding mercury in our waters, and it was just one out many diaries on mercury-related subjects.  But this article was about the fight between the FDA and the California AG's office.  btw, if you want to present a case for a "pattern", don't you think you should offer other examples?  God knows, there are plenty of them out there.  And once again, the bold font is unnecessary.  

            by BarbinMD on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 05:43:09 PM PDT

  •  non-scientific assertions vs. empirical evidence

    You take a laissez-faire attitude and claim the warnings are clear "public information."  I disagree.  

    First, the science isn't even clear. What is the exact risk to a fetus of neurodevelopmental problems when a pregnant woman eats a lot of tuna, or other mercury laden fish?  How many IQ points do you lose exactly if your mom ate a lot of tuna during pregnancy?  Do you have a survey that shows most pregant women in the US and around the world are aware of these risks?  How about the risks to others from loading up on mercury?

    Second, a for public information, at this point we have enough to warrant large, red-lettered labels on tuna cans, not to mention sushi restaurant menus) comparable to cigarette warning labels for pregnant women.  
    

    by markymarx on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:52:55 PM PDT

•  My understanding

  My understanding is that there is no risk to adult males posed by tuna.  

  by pontificator on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:37:29 PM PDT

  •  Oh yeah,

    I cut myself while opening a can once.

    by mike101 on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:57:44 PM PDT

  •  I love tuna!

    I love sushi. Tuna, maguro, bluefin is my favorite thing to eat. I love it almost as much as I hate Bush. I have paid attention to the stuff about mercury in tuna and as an adult male, I still think it prudent not too eat too much. Fortunately, I can't afford to eat it more than once every two or three weeks.

    I do think this diary is bit overblown but if people are still ignorant enough to support Bush then they must still be ignorant of the levels of mercury in fish. I think that should end the debate on whether tuna should be labelled.

    Are any of my fellow Kossacks aware of the presence of an arsenic containing compound that is fed to chickens? It's called roxarsone and it contains about 35% by weight of arsenic. About 1 gram of roxarsone is fed to most of the 8 billion (yes that's billion) chickens produced in the US each year. My theory on the health effects of mercury in tuna and arsenic in chicken holds that one should always eat chicken and tuna at the same time so that the arsenic in the chicken chelates the mercury in the fish and thus both are flushed from the body when copius quantities of Kirin Ichiban are consumed.

    That being said, I have to agree that the thrust of the article was about state vs. federal rights. Now, who in the tuna industry has been talking to Karl Rove?

    by duhnonymous on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 05:14:51 PM PDT

  •  Not.

    See this article.

    by YellowDogBlue on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 06:23:00 PM PDT

•  I love the taste of cinnabar with my tuna

  by cskendrick on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:38:15 PM PDT

  •  Me ... I prefer wasabi with my tuna <n/t>

    by Glinda on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:06:56 PM PDT

•  There's tuna in my Mercury? Ick!

  Note to self: Leave the windows open.

  by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:14:25 PM PDT

•  I'm Surprised

  That tuna hasn't been all fished out. Anyway, those animals are at the top of the oceanic food chain, so it is reasonable to believe they're full of all kinds of crap.

  As a 8-year vegetarian, I can say I've tried Tuno and it is awful!

  by GW Chimpzilla on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:40:33 PM PDT

  •  Tuno

    I checked out the link to that Tuno stuff.  Maybe someone should inform that store that Tuno would be bad for cats because it contains onion powder.  Cats can't have onion powder because it is bad for them causing their little red blood cells to burst.  

    by libnewsie on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:57:44 PM PDT

•  Tuna

  One thing important to know about tuna is that the fancy albacore tuna is very high in mercury where as the cheaper chunk light tuna is much lower.  So you pay more for the mercury in the tuna. ;)

  I don't eat albacore anymore and have switched to the light tuna instead after reading about the mercury levels in tuna.  I feel relatively safe about the levels in chunk light tuna.  Swordfish is super high in toxins so I leave that alone.  

  by libnewsie on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:53:39 PM PDT

•  No need for hysteria, but...

  I'd like to see further efforts to reduce mercury in the environment, so I wouldn't need to worry about eating more than two servings of fish a week.  There are other contaminants to worry about too, of course.

  But I would like to see labeling recommending no more than a certain number of ounces per week of the fish in question.  It only makes sense to warn consumers openly about the health risks of a fish-heavy diet.

  by daxie on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 04:11:37 PM PDT

•  I quit eating

  tuna and stick to the smaller fish [like sardines] that don't have time to build up mercury like tuna does.

  Last year, I ate tuna all of the time because it's quick and easy and I was very busy during the election season.  When election season was finally over, I looked forward to relaxing.  Then I had trouble sleeping [as in staying up all night, several nights in a row] and developed anxiety--where I actually felt fear for no explainable reason. Then I got sick for several weeks and couldn't recover since I couldn't sleep. Don't think I fully recovered until mid-summer.

  Anyway, insomnia and anxiety are symptons of mercury poisoning.  It would probably be a good idea to just stay away from the tuna altogether.  

  by dfarrah on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 04:48:59 PM PDT

•  Mercury.

  Believe me, mercury isn't limited to just tuna. The League of Conservation Voters is working on a letter writing campaign to Senate members urging them to support S.730, a mercury reduction bill introduced by Senators Leahy and Snowe. I'm a member of the LCV and I'm passing this info on wherever I can. Please write your senators too. The links below will help:

  Press release and overview of S.730 from Senator Leahy's office

  LCV Action Request: Contact your Senators to support the mercury bill

  Thanks!

  by pattyp on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 07:30:13 PM PDT

•  Thanks

  Thanks to the commenters who did this diary much better than the diarist.

  by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 07:45:45 PM PDT

•  A couple of good sources, or eat young fish

  This is definitely a problem, as coal plants produce residual mercury in the environment. Mercury has very identifiable effects on all living things, including homo sapiens. A quote:

  Mercury contamination is a worldwide problem. It can come from many sources. It occurs naturally in the environment in rocks, soils, water and air.  Volcanoes may also be a source of mercury in the environment.  It can come from industrial pollution, especially the burning of coal and other fossil fuels and from burning household or industrial wastes. From http://www.doh.wa.gov/fish/FishAdvMercury.htm

  Long-living fish tend to pick up the most, as it accumulates over time. Well, long living mammals, too, but we don't eat them much. Our food is much younger.

  Anyway, here is a link with a nice list of parts per million in fish (click on the type of fish popup): http://www.gotmercury.org/

  Here is a link to FDA surveys from 1990-2003: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

  My feelings (and I love tuna) are that it is an issue, and the cheaper, younger fish are much safer.

  by bewert on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 08:53:38 PM PDT

•  Mercury is liberated by the wholesale burning

  of coal, vaporizing the mercury which then falls
  as toxic rain, and poisons our food supply.  Why
  must we all wait until we are all poisoned by mercury.  Because the vested interests in fossil
  fuel value greed over life.  so much for "moral
  values".  The Hiroshima bomb led to the black rain.  Mercury poisoning is just the same thing in slow motion.  Maybe it will poison our offspring, but as Bush puts it "history? we'll
  all be dead by then."

  by object16 on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 09:36:56 PM PDT