Opinion Article
Mercury Madness
(By Henk Brus, December 17, 2003)
This year the discussion in the U.S on
mercury in tuna has reached a situation, wherein environmental protection groups and the
press have pulled the issue totally out of proportion. This is not any longer a discussion
about protecting the future health of unborn babies, or infants, but about reaching
political goals, which are not related to tuna at all.
Two important environmental groups, with admirable goals, are involved in stirring up the
campaign against tuna : the California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, and the
Mercury Policy Project. You wonder what sea turtles have to do with mercury in tuna ?
Well, the Sea Turtle group concluded that if they can reduce albacore tuna consumption in
the States, then demand for albacore would fall, this could reduce albacore fishing along
the U.S west-coast, and would result in less sea turtles being hooked by albacore
long-liners.
The Mercury Policy Project is trying to reduce the amount of mercury in our environment,
and the human exposure to it. Great ! But if they want to make America a healthier place,
why do they use canned tuna the prime subject of their campaigns ? Most mercury pollution
takes place in fresh water lakes throughout America, no tuna’s swim there.
The Mercury policy Project knows very well that canned tuna has been for decades
America’s favorite seafood. So when they direct a campaign against tuna, they know
that they will get the full attention of the American press. How different it would be if
they would issue a press release on some less popular fresh water fish, heavily loaded
with mercury. Hardly anybody would be publish it, and their organization and their issues
would get minimum exposure.
In the past also some dolphin protection groups supported a mercury-in-tuna campaign,
because they believed it could enable them to reduce or stop the import of large yellowfin
tuna which are often associated in the Eastern Pacific Ocean with dolphins.
I have taken a lot of time this year to read just about everything available on mercury in
tuna and exchanged emails with the world scientists on the issue in Europe and the USA.
One thing has become clear to me : There is plenty of evidence that eating tuna is far
more healthy, then not eating it !
What I find most frustrating is that the whole assumption that mercury in tuna causes
toxic effects with humans is hardly based on facts. The facts – scientific evidence
– show exactly opposite – here below some conclusions of scientific studies :
- Methyl Mercury has been in the ocean environment for millions of years
- The main source of
methyl mercury in tuna is not pollution, but most likely coming from natural hydrothermal
vents and deep ocean sediments.
- The amount of methyl mercury in yellowfin tuna has not risen over the
last 27 years, while the mercury pollution of the oceans has risen 26 %.
- Large tuna do not swim in coastal surface waters mostly affected by
mercury pollution, but are swimming at depths of 75 to 100 meters deep at the high seas.
- Man has been eating tuna for millions of years, often daily and in
large portions.
- Never any evidence has been revealed that our tuna-eating forefathers
suffered from brain damage, because of tuna consumption.
- About 60 % of the tuna consumed and canned in the world is skipjack
– small tuna with a very low level of mercury.
- A grown up man needs to eat about 3 cans of yellowfin or albacore tuna
– weekly – year around - to be theoretically be affected by methyl mercury.
- Even if people would consume so much tuna and be affected by it, then
still the mercury would disappear from their body within the year, leaving no bad effects.
- There have been no people found in the world who have been
scientifically proven to be suffering from mercury poisoning from tuna ( only in Japan
once after a spill by a mercury plant in coastal waters)
- In the Seychelles 779 mother- infant pairs who consumed an average of
12 fish meals (also tuna) a week were intensively monitored and no sign of any neuro-
developmental risk could be found.
- There has been no scientific evidence of any children in the USA or
elsewhere with neuro-developmental problems due to tuna consumption (not even a claim law
suit !)
- There is growing evidence that tuna does not contain the toxic
compound methyl mercury chloride, but much less toxic methyl mercury cysteine.
- In the USA out of every 100 food related deaths, less then 1 person
dies because of food unsafety ( food poisoning, toxic food etc). The other 99 die because
of unhealthy food, or wrong eating habits.
- The USA has currently 293 million inhabitants, and has yearly 6.3
million pregnancies, resulting in almost 4 million births. This means new born babies are
1.36% of the American population ( how many of these mothers consume 1-2 cans a week ?)
- Average U.S tuna consumption per capita is yearly 1.6 kgs or about 10
cans of tuna per year ( how much is that daily ??)
- Japanese research shows that those who consume fish DAILY have the
highest life expectancy ( average 85.2 for females and 78.1 years for males)
Based on this information, I believe it is better to look at the advisory of the American
Heart Association to eat at least 3 seafood meals per week to prevent heart disease, the
country’s no: 1 cause of death. The Heart Association especially promotes tuna which
is high in Omega –3 and DHA. Libraries full of scientific reports support that
statement.
Therefore labeling – as is now obligated for fresh tuna steaks in some U.S states
– that a high consumption of tuna is harmful to pregnant mothers and their unborn
babies as well as infants, could have a strong adverse effect on the American health.
It is hard to believe that the environmental groups, and some state officials pushing the
mercury issue in the U.S press and government are really concerned with the health of the
majority of the American people. It seems the result of their pressure on the FDA and the
press exposure will be that many new-borns and their young parents will be taught to look
at tuna with lots of suspicion, and will be forced to turn to less healthy alternatives
instead. This way an extremely healthy and very environmental friendly form of food is
taken away from future generations. Sadly the effects will likely be seen in more food
related deaths – but definitely not to mercury in tuna !!
Copyright © 2012. All rights reserved Atuna. support@atuna.com