Trial Starts That Could Determine The Future Of Canned Tuna In California ff

Opening statements were presented in a landmark case that could shape the face of healthy eating in California. The lead attorney representing three canned tuna companies forcefully laid out their case to San Francisco Superior Court Judge Robert Dondero, demonstrating how Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s lawsuit calling for Proposition 65 warnings on canned tuna would create harm for Californians by discouraging consumption of a healthy and safe food.

”In our case we will show the conflicts and inconsistencies of the case put forth by the Attorney General, since canned tuna does not violate Proposition 65 standards,” said Forrest Hainline, who is representing U.S. Tuna Foundation members Bumblebee, Chicken-of-the-Sea, and Starkist. “In addition, what the Attorney General is ignoring in this case is that canned tuna provides enormous benefits for the people who eat it. As our expert toxicologist will testify, the only warning that would be appropriate for canned tuna would be: Warning, not eating enough of this product could be hazardous to your health.”

Attorney General Lockyer filed suit against the three tuna canners in 2004, claiming that all tuna products sold in California should carry a Proposition 65 warning because of trace amounts of naturally occurring mercury. Defense attorney Hainline explained to the court how the proposed State warnings for canned tuna would conflict with federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formal guidelines that call for educating consumers on both the potential risks and the overwhelming benefits of eating seafood.

”The Attorney General is attempting to set dangerous precedents on several fronts for this case,” said David Burney, Executive Director for the U.S. Tuna Foundation. “Not only would this be the first case where Proposition 65 would be applied to a safe and healthy food, but the court would have to embrace science that has never been used before to determine Proposition 65 standards. This could have a profound impact on healthy eating habits for Californians.”

The beginning of the trial coincides with the release of several studies that show seafood is a critical dietary component for people of all ages. A recently released study by researchers at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that decreased fish consumption because of unfounded warnings could cause damage to several population groups. Another recent study by Harvard researchers showed the overwhelming benefits of seafood consumption during pregnancy. Yet another study published in the Archives of Neurology showed that seafood consumption could slow cognitive decline in older individuals.

”With so much evidence mounting about seafood being a necessary component of a healthy diet, we have to be sure to encourage people to eat more seafood, not less,” Burney said. “The efforts of the Attorney General will only hinder those efforts to promote healthy eating.”