Mercury in that Tunafish Sandwich

Anyone reading the series on mercury in fish in the Tribune? Sort of cuts down on our choices for "healthy" seafood, doesn't it?

I'm bummed. Anyone else?

Funded by the salmon lobby? God knows soccermoms need to eat more salmon.

HI,

It has always been my understanding the mercury stays in the fatty area in the skin around the vital organs. Trim it away and most of your heavy metal contaminents are gone.

It also suggests eating a variety of foods is better than concentrating in a narrow selection. While interesting to the palate it also spreads the risk.

Regards,

Larger fish accumulate more toxins per oz. than smaller fish. Herring, anchovies, and sardines are very safe. Go to Tre Kroner to get herring six ways.

Jesper

Cathy2:

I used to think that, too. But from the Tribune's article I learned that while PCBs stay in the fat of fish, mercury is spread throughout the flesh of the fish.

It's well worth reading the article to see just how seriously dangerous eating fish is these days. I thought we could get away with eating chunk light tuna, but even that is dangerous, according to the Trib.

Cathy2 wrote:HI,

It has always been my understanding the mercury stays in the fatty area in the skin around the vital organs. Trim it away and most of your heavy metal contaminents are gone.

It also suggests eating a variety of foods is better than concentrating in a narrow selection. While interesting to the palate it also spreads the risk.

Regards,

The location of mercury and other toxins (PCB's, for example) is indeed concentrated in the fatty areas of the fish. This would be more relevant, though, if it weren't for the fact that the mercury levels in tuna reported in the article were based upon supermarket cans of tuna and not whole fish. There is no opportunity for a consumer of canned tuna to excise problem areas of the fish. I find it especially troubling that there are allegations that the FDA was aware of the fact of the higher mercury levels of canned tuna but did nothing so as not to disrupt the tuna market.

I'm not a hand-wringing the world is poisoning me sort - as an angler I'm pretty familiar (sadly) with the levels of toxins in fish and make my choices and live with them. I'm not a pregnant mother nor am I a developing child (though some might give vigorous argument about the latter) so am not in the high-risk category for mercury consumption. That said, though, there are an awful lot of people that have - based upon government advice - assumed that light canned tuna was relatively safe to consume. The possibility that a pregnant mother could have put her child at risk by following FDA guidelines - when the FDA knew better - is as appalling as if that same mother were given medications that the FDA had deemed safe but knew weren't and kept quiet for the benefit of the pharmaceutical firm.

Some useful material from the Natural Resources Defence Council:

Guide to Mercury in Fish

Canned Tuna Safety Calculator

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

This table gives the actual amounts detecting in testing various types of seafood over the years.

I don't like the idea that there's an "acceptable" amount of mercury that I could be ingesting each week or month. From all I've read, mercury is a very nasty substance that can cause nerve damage in adults, and a lot more.

I'm going to pass on the tuna for a while.

LAZ wrote:Some useful material from the Natural Resources Defence Council:

Guide to Mercury in Fish

Canned Tuna Safety Calculator

But these referenced sources are basing their safety of tuna on the same categorizations that the Tribune articles allege to be incorrect. Specifically that the 'light' tuna classification is not uniformly followed and that larger, more mercury prone tuna variety like yellowfin are sold in tuna tins as 'light' in the same manner that smaller, less mercury prone tuna variety like skipjack are also sold as 'light'. The referenced charts make no mention of this and merely parrot the government advice that is under scrutiny in the Trib articles.

Artemesia wrote:http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

This table gives the actual amounts detecting in testing various types of seafood over the years.

I don't like the idea that there's an "acceptable" amount of mercury that I could be ingesting each week or month. From all I've read, mercury is a very nasty substance that can cause nerve damage in adults, and a lot more.

I'm going to pass on the tuna for a while.

Then honestly be prepared to pass on all fish for not just a while but forever. It's a sad fact but if zero mercury (and other contaminants) is your measuring stick for fish then you really won't find a commercial source of fish that will meet that standard. Your lowest mercury (and other contaminants) contents will be, typically, found in smaller freshwater fish that are surface based - basically panfish. Of course those panfish would need to be sourced from a clean water (so, ummm, stay the heck away from Benton Harbor for example).

This was also a very substantial concern in the '60s, and I had no idea it had ever gone away; I'm glad the Trib is pointing it out to a new generation. Even before I developed my allergy to seafood in my teens, and during the time the Vatican insisted its flock eat fish on Fridays, we moved away from tuna to other fish.

The Trib's coverage, for what it's worth, has included the presence of mercury in a number of areas that affect us, including fillings. If you suspect you have a sensitivity to mercury, you might well want to search for mercury on their site to read up on the coverage.

hi all,

Since i sell fish, these articles hit close to home.

First of all, there has NEVER been a documented case of mercury poisoning by fish in the US. The only known cases of mercury poisoning by fish are in asia in the 60s, where a chemical plant dumped TONS of mercury into the bay. A few people and many cats died.

Second, the government issues lightweight advisories because they WANT the public to keep eating fish as PART of a healthy diet. If they had a laundry list of fish with allowances for weekly or monthly servings, the public would become OVERLY cautious about eating fish, or worse, obstain altogether. Fish has WELL DOCUMENTED health benefits, and ZERO documented health risks. The entire reason we have these advisories is to be overly cautious: the government does not think that mercury in fish poses a health risk to humans at the consumption levels that are reality, and science has yet to document any health risks from elevated levels of mercury from fish.

Third, the FDA/EPA reference dose, or maximum allowable dose, is one thousand percent below the lowest dose that has ever been documented to affect humans. thats a one thousand percent (10x) margin for error. I would have to eat more than 3 pounds of the high mercury tuna a week to reach a hypothetical health risk, or at least a pound and a half of the highest documented mercury fish, swordfish. The advisory is based on a WEEKLY consumption...thats EVERY week, one high mercury week would not deposit enough lingering mercury to matter. I sell fish and eat some most days...i have had MAYBE 2 or 3 pounds of ANY type of fish in the last two or three weeks. It would be crazy to eat enough fish to exceed the government recommendations. at six ounce servings, thats four servings of swordfish a week.

next, the only credible study of mercury from fish and its effect on humans is a ten year study of the seychelles islands, where the inhabitants eat ten times the amount of fish that americans do, and also indulge in a significant amount of super-high mercury whale blubber. the scientists went into the study to prove the negative effects of fish-mercury on a population, fully expecting to find some. BUT, NO negative, and SOME positive effects where found vertically (in children) and in the adult population. The vast majority of the seychelles population exceeds the FDA/EPA reference dose, and also have what we would consider dangerously high levels of mercury. Why dont they have health problems from mercury? the jury is out on that one, but one promising study in hawaii postulates that the type of methylmercury found in fish is not dangerous to man, and may be a result of natural volcanic activity.

it seems that the trib articles are more a shot at the FDA than a shot at fish, certainly they say nothing about the fish itself. they present no new information, present no evidence concrete or otherwise, and rely heavily on editorial opinion of "how safe the population should be." The articles are the same arguements we have been kicking around in the industry for the last fourty years, dressed up nicely to look like it is groundbreaking. The PCB study that the NYT published about farmed vs. wild salmon a couple of years ago? Widely considered to be junk science. i would have to eat ONLY 150 lbs of highly contaminated salmon to reach my weekly limit...i easily eat that much every day, dont you?

bad news is good news...but dont believe the hype.

here is a good website.

www.fishscam.com

Erik.

SushiGaijin wrote:here is a good website.

www.fishscam.com

Erik.

Of course, fishscam.com is brought to you by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which has been discussed quite a lot here before.

They're hardly nonpartisan in the debate, and they're hardly scientists just looking for truth and educating the masses.

Which is not to say that I disagree -- or agree -- with their claims. Just sayin', I'd trust an article in JAMA or Lancet or something quite a lot more.

SushiGaijin wrote:Fish has WELL DOCUMENTED health benefits, and ZERO documented health risks.

Are you including fugu in that statement?

SushiGaijin wrote: First of all, there has NEVER been a documented case of mercury poisoning by fish in the US.

This in itself I find to be a meaningless argument. The hazardous effect of mercury is well documented. It is also known that it accumulates. So of course, excessive fish intake cannot be good, especially if the fish has high mercury levels. Larger fish have been documented to contain elevated levels of mercury. That said, I do find it true that in general Americans eat less fish. The health benefits of fish are also well documented. I do find it a bit sad however that canned tuna is a (almost seems to be the) solution to increasing the fish intake for Americans (though there may be redeeming economic reasons). The Tribune article was interesting in that it raised the concern of mislabeling that the FDA was apparently not aware of.
I’m not about to stop eating fish (and I eat a fair amount, but not just tuna or canned, sometimes even raw ). Still I am concerned that the FDA warnings* are seemingly altered by lobbying by the tuna industry, so that other fish but not tuna was included in the warning list.

SushiGaijin wrote:here is a good website.

www.fishscam.com

sourcewatch wrote: The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' "

I’m not sure who/what sourcewatch represents.
Sooo much rhetoric from all sides. These days my salt intake is rather high (uh oh)

*But not surprising. The FDA and its operation has not been inspiring of late; planB for example, but let’s not go there.

sazerac wrote:I’m not sure who/what sourcewatch represents.

Sourcewatch is a wiki. Anyone can edit it, but, then again, anyone can edit your edits.

Here's the history page.

That being said, most of the people maintaining the page (protecting it from vandalism, updating it, etc) are affiliated with prwatch.org. prwatch is also the host/owner of sourcewatch.

But, again, it's a wiki. Edit it with corrections and back them up with citations and it should be fine.

Fishscam IS a special interest website, but most of the propoganda today is from the other side of the spectrum. I liken it to the Foie gras debate: PETA and other special interest groups are hard at work to destroy foie, but i've never seen an unhappy foie goose. unhealthy maybe, but they LOVE to eat. consider fishscam to be the other side of the debate; It is more of a catastrophe that people STOP eating fish than it is that they keep eating fish. The EWG is the same special interest group that sponsored the PCB study, now widely accepted as supermarket science.

As far as mercury goes, the evidence suggests that fish-mercury is NOT dangerous to humans. The seychelles island study is the ONLY credible, peer reviewed study that has been done, but we do know that countries with higher fish intake than the US, live longer and do not experience mercury related problems even with ten times our fish consumption. The Government doesnt warn us about the mercury in fish because it is not a threat to the general population.

Erik.

SushiGaijin wrote:Fishscam IS a special interest website, but most of the propoganda today is from the other side of the spectrum. I liken it to the Foie gras debate: PETA and other special interest groups are hard at work to destroy foie, but i've never seen an unhappy foie goose.

Yes, but where PETA is a bunch of crazies (I really dislike PETA, for various reasons), Fishscam and the CCF are just fronts for huge corporations and industry lobbying groups.

I said it in the previous thread, but I'd rather take someone lying or misleading because of their misguided beliefs than someone lying or misleading to keep their quarterly earnings high.

I think most people, including me, should eat way more fish than they currently do. I'm not particularly concerned about causing myself harm by eating mercury-laden fish. I am, in general, concerned about mercury pollution. But there are different interest groups, on both sides of the debate, to handle that issue.

But there are different interest groups, on both sides of the debate, to handle that issue.

that is the crux of the arguement here!! Fish is becoming a scapegoat by groups like the EWG to push lower mercury emission standards and environmental standards. now, i think it is safe to say we ALL would like to see lower mercury in the environment, but maligning fish for dubious health reasons is total BS. This is the kind of PR agenda they are pushing; why would environmental groups give two poops about human health? Fish is the easiest way for them to get into our homes, and our lives. the fish lobby is VERY weak compared to other big business, it did not even really exist until about 10 years ago. The fish industry is not able to defend itself, and you can see for yourself how well it worked...we are all talking about mercury now, it has become a household issue.

Why not just say that the environmental mercury is too high? because it doesnt sell newspapers or scare people as much as something they can hold onto, like fish.

Erik.[/quote]

SushiGaijin wrote:As far as mercury goes, the evidence suggests that fish-mercury is NOT dangerous to humans.

I think "Fish-mercury" would be as harmful to humans as mercury from any other source. It is a matter of concentration and amount - eating fish is certainly less harmful than a snacking on a (mercury) thermometer. It is eating fish in excess, particularly larger fish such as some varieties of tuna (and other large fish as well) that will result in ingestion of mercury in greater than acceptable levels. What is acceptable is also subject to scientific inquiry and debate, sure, but defined acceptable levels have been set. These current standards should then be followed.

SushiGaijin wrote: The Government doesnt warn us about the mercury in fish because it is not a threat to the general population.

I thought that was what the goverment was doing - warning us about the risk of mercury from eating certain types of fish which are known to contain certain levels of mercury. What is disturbing is that the warning did not include tuna for non-scientific reasons, as well as the issue of apparent mislabelling by sections of the tuna industry.

SushiGaijin wrote:Since i sell fish, these articles hit close to home.

Erik,

It may be too early to gauge, but have you noticed any hiccup in business for you since the story ran?

As I think somebody else mentioned, the story mostly reinforced for me the benefits of eating a wide variety of foods (within and between species).

Zee

In honor of this thread, I had a cup of soup and 1/2 tuna fish sandwich for lunch today. So far I have not noticed any ill effects...except that I am now able to tell the temperature to within .5 degree

Zeeshan wrote:

SushiGaijin wrote:Since i sell fish, these articles hit close to home.

have you noticed any hiccup in business for you since the story ran?

I'll bet you start getting more requests for fresh (non-canned) sardines!

Erick:

Did you even read the articles in the Tribune? All three days of them?? It doesn’t sound like it, from what you have been writing here. They DO discuss an example of a child being treated for mercury poisoning, hardly a novel event these days. They also provided some very convincing empirical data as to why this stuff's so dangerous – done by scientists who have nothing to gain from any corporate or industry lobby. They bring to light the questionable relationship between the FDA and the fish industry, and the resulting changeable levels of safe fish consumption and mercury contamination over the past 35 years. (You know, given the climate in Washington these days, this wouldn’t be the first instance of this occurring…)

Another point that the article makes is that until there is some kind of consensus and control of mercury pollution by all of the countries in the world, we will never be safe because that fish you’re eating might have come from countries most guilty of mercury pollution, because of our modern global economy.

Knowing all this, it might not be a bad idea to err on the side of safety here and eat less fish, and then, only specifically tested types that are least affected by the mercury.

Erick wrote:

“This is the kind of PR agenda they are pushing; why would environmental groups give two poops about human health?”

I can’t even believe you wrote that. That just boggles the mind.

SushiGaijin wrote:

But there are different interest groups, on both sides of the debate, to handle that issue.

that is the crux of the arguement here!! Fish is becoming a scapegoat by groups like the EWG to push lower mercury emission standards and environmental standards. now, i think it is safe to say we ALL would like to see lower mercury in the environment, but maligning fish for dubious health reasons is total BS. This is the kind of PR agenda they are pushing; why would environmental groups give two poops about human health? Fish is the easiest way for them to get into our homes, and our lives. the fish lobby is VERY weak compared to other big business, it did not even really exist until about 10 years ago. The fish industry is not able to defend itself, and you can see for yourself how well it worked...we are all talking about mercury now, it has become a household issue.

Why not just say that the environmental mercury is too high? because it doesnt sell newspapers or scare people as much as something they can hold onto, like fish.

Erik.

Erik, I agree with this (somewhat) - I hadn't seen this when I was typing my post above. There is of course as you point out, the selling papers issue. Tuna is very recognisable and therefore a target (notwithstanding the tuna industry's seeming seemingly misguided (my opinion) ways of avoiding it).
Envirnonmental issues are a problem - especially it seems lately because of the EPA or those that have control over it.

That said, I doubt that your business would suffer from the article (at least, it shouldn't). Hopefully people will have the good sense to understand the issues, though that is less often the case than it needs to be.

Still, the Trib article was informative and at the very least will generate discussion (as it has).

Artemesia wrote:Erick:

Erick wrote:

“This is the kind of PR agenda they are pushing; why would environmental groups give two poops about human health?”

I can’t even believe you wrote that. That just boggles the mind.

I'd have to agree with Artemesia on this one; I support various environmental groups (Sierra Club; Greenpeace; Montana Wilderness Society -- it's really pretty there) not just so that I'll have nice postcards to send in years hence but because I believe that protecting the environment is all about about protecting human health. Clean air, clean water, population control, pesticide use, toxic dump cleanups -- it's hard to think of an environmental issue that isn't connected to the fate of humans on the planet (remember wetlands erosion and the impact that's had on the Louisiana coast? That certainly had a big effect on human health, in the most direct sense.) And in fact, I would think that someone connected to the fishing industry, and all those who love to eat fish, would see the big picture here -- if we want to eat healthy foods we have to fight to ensure a healthy environment for those foods to develop in. Individual decisions to pick and choose among food groups might make us momentarily more comfortable about our meals but won't do much to increase (or at least maintain) the healthy food choices available to us. Only collective political action will do that. So I'll keep eating those tuna sandwiches when I feel the urge (though I might cut back on my kids' intake) but I'll also increase my yearly donation to the Sierra Club. And maybe go to a meeting next year.

i guess i missed a point in my posts. Fish-mercury may not be the same type of mercury that is harmful to humans, even though it is a form of methyl mercury. not all mercury is created equal, and not all mercury is dangerous to man. this is the groundwork for the data being collected in hawaii. It is interesting to note that mercury levels in fish have DROPPED in the last 100 years, although environmental mercury has increased. it is quite possible that we could have unlimited exposure to fish mercury and never see any ill effects, and have only limited exposure to methyl mercury and lose our minds.

Dr Hightower and her Fish mercury diagnosis is widely seen as skewed science. she LOOKS for high fish diets with high mercury levels, and fails to include the multitudes of cases that do not fit her hypothosis. There are NO KNOWN cases of mercury poisioning in the US that have implicated fish. http://fishscam.com/activists.cfm

I read the articles, and my business IS indeed down. it doesnt matter to me, i make the same salary regardless of business...but, it DOES bother me that people are avoiding one of the most healthy sources of protein available because of conservation groups scaring people into submission.

Conservation groups DONT care about people's health, it goes directly against their mission statement...i should know, i sit on the board of a conservation group (www.chicagoherp.org) and i work avidly for the conservation of reptiles and amphibians. We use the same techniques to conserve venomous animals; venom has many untold and useful contributions to medicine...its a good line to get people to conserve venomous animals, but in the end it's about the animals and NOT the people. Thats not to say that we dont personally care about people's health, but the bottom line is that we do what is best for the animals...and sometimes we have to sell the issue because people just dont seem to give a damn unless it directly effects them. The minute that we drive it home...that venom might just help your ailing heart, is the minute that people actually start to listen...its the same issue here with fish; drive the message home and people might start to care.

edit: as i sit here and get more fired up, i realized what i was missing...that conservation groups widely see people as nature's biggest enemy. many conservation groups privately see humans as the biggest blight on the planet, and most of the conservation scientists are now only interested in documenting what they can before it is gone. I used to think differently, i used to think that people could co-exist with nature...then i met Daniel Bennet, one of the great varanid experts in the world (monitor lizards). His opinion, based upon what he was witnessing in indonesia, was that nature would be completely wiped out in short order. He is right, unfortunately. It isnt fishing that will wipe out hte sea turtles, it is the resorts that take over their nesting beaches. It isnt pollution that will destroy the last gorillas, it is man's need for more condominiums and water. it is our own success that is our undoing...our own expansion that will be our demise. conservation groups dont care about people, they care about animals. it is a mutually exclusive relationship.


erik.

SushiGaijin wrote:i guess i missed a point in my posts. Fish-mercury may not be the same type of mercury that is harmful to humans, even though it is a form of methyl mercury. not all mercury is created equal, and not all mercury is dangerous to man.

Sure, not all forms of mercury are not toxic, mercury amalgam is approved for use in gold teeth (though some concerns have been raised by a few) and small amounts of specific mercury compounds are part of medicinal preparations even.
However, organic mercury compounds, usually alkylmercury compounds are toxic. Particularly, the environmental pollutant, (mono)methyl mercury (bromide or chloride salt, usually) is extremely toxic.(1),(2)

Fish are tested for methylmercury (as well as total mercury levels, possibly). The greatest proportion of Hg in fish is in the form of methylmercury (sometimes as high as 95%) (from 3; I have not double checked the primary reference)

See also this recent Canadian study - methylmercury levels were tested, although canned tuna is suggested to be alright (4).

***FDA links***
Overview of the Draft FDA/EPA Methylmercury (MeHg) Consumer Advisory (posted 12-11-2003)

[url=http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/mercury/backgrounder.html]Backgrounder for the 2004 FDA/EPA Consumer Advisory:
What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish[/url]

Fish is an Important Part of a Balanced Diet

***

SushiGaijin wrote:Conservation groups DON’T care about people’s health, it goes directly against their mission statement...
<snip>
conservation groups widely see people as nature’s biggest enemy. Many conservation groups privately see humans as the biggest blight on the planet
<snip>
Conservation groups don’t care about people, they care about animals. It is a mutually exclusive relationship.

This may be partly true, but IMO misguided. Sure, people are stupid. Take me for example, I am a dumbass: for four years I had no idea BAs was maybe a fifteen minute drive and in that time I ate ribs from Ribs&Bibs, Kenny’s (please, don’t be concerned, my exposures were at less than permanently harmful doses). But educate them, give them information (reliable, not BS) and then you can hope to make a difference. (thanks to LTH, I am eating much better, though my status as a dumbass may not have changed if you ask my wife).

I find it sad that as a board member of a conservation group you think your group doesn’t care about people and that the relationship is mutually exclusive. I find it hard to fathom the long term vision of such a group. This is of course a separate matter which is best left outside this board.

Over & out,
I have fish to eat


(1)

(3 (pubmed linked)) wrote:The toxic effects and metabolic behaviour of mercury is largely dependent on its chemical form. Alkylmercury compounds are of special concern because of their easy penetration through biological membranes, efficient bio-accumulation, high volatility and long-term elimination from tissues. Monomethylmercury (MMHg) is by far the most toxic and the most commonly occurring organo-mercury compound, and is recognized as a major environmental pollution issue and health hazard for humans. MMHg is biomagnificated through the trophic chain and, as a result, the average proportion of MMHg over total Hg in fish tissues can be up to 95%

(2) http://mercuryexposure.org/index.php?page_id=62

(3) Nevado, J. J. B., R. C. R. Martin-Doimeadios, et al. (2005). "Determination of mercury species in fish reference materials by gas chromatography-atomic fluorescence detection after closed-vessel microwave-assisted extraction." Journal of Chromatography A 1093(1-2): 21-28.

(4) Forsyth, DS., et al. "Methylmercury levels in predatory fish species marketed in Canada." Food Addit Contam 2004 Sep;21(9):849-56.(pubmed link)
Abstract: Mercury was detected in all analysed samples of swordfish, marlin, shark and tuna purchased from major supermarket outlets and fish retailers in three cities across Canada. Total mercury and methylmercury levels ranged up to 3845 and 2346 ng g(-1), respectively. Swordfish contained the highest levels, followed by shark, fresh/frozen tuna and marlin. Levels in canned tuna were considerably less than the other examined samples. Methylmercury was extracted with toluene from enzymatically hydrolysed samples after the addition of sulphuric acid and potassium bromide. An L-cysteine back-extraction was used to separate the methylmercury from most organic co-extractives. Analysis of methylmercury (as methylmercury bromide) was by gas chromatography with pulsed discharge detection.