Logic Of California Mercury Case Based On Whale Blubberff

In a landmark case that could impact the healthy diets of all Californians, attorneys representing StarKist, Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee brands of canned tuna today exposed a startling flaw in California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s Proposition 65 suit against them.

Forrest Hainline, lead attorney for the tuna canners -which are members of the U.S. Tuna Foundation- said Monday that the Attorney General’s claim against canned tuna is based on studies of people who primarily ate whale meat and blubber, not tuna. Naturally occurring methylmercury is present in all seafood. However, compared to other seafood, whale meat and blubber contain much higher concentrations of methylmercury and other chemicals, such as PCBs and DDT, which have been shown to impact childhood development.

Hainline explained that the methylmercury study Lockyer has based his entire suit on was conducted in the Faroe Islands, where residents regularly consume whale meat and whale blubber as part of a normal diet. The PCBS and DDT found in very high levels in whale meat, likely played a significant role in testing in the Faroe Islands study, he added.

”What we have on our hands is a case of manufacturing science to fit a particular conclusion,” Hainline said. “People have a right to know that the Attorney General is using studies of whale meat and whale blubber in an attempt to make a case about canned tuna. What science has shown us time and again is that canned tuna is safe and healthy, and that warnings will negatively impact health by needlessly scaring away consumers.”

A different study in the Seychelles Islands, ignored by Lockyer for this case, found no impact from methylmercury in seafood, even for pregnant women who ate 12 regular seafood meals per week.

The Attorney General's suit would use voter-approved Proposition 65 to place warnings on all seafood products, even as evidence continues to mount that seafood can help with a number of health issues. One example is a recently release Harvard study pointing to seafood as an important component in fetal eye and brain development.

”Our families deserve to have the most complete nutrition information, not warnings based on a food they will never eat,” said David Burney, Executive Director of the U.S. Tuna Foundation. “The Attorney General might think there is no harm in issuing blanket warnings based on these whale meat studies, but canned tuna is just the type of food that the FDA and EPA have encouraged all people to eat because of its overwhelming benefits.”

To help a narrowly defined population group -women who are pregnant, nursing or who may become pregnant and very young children- choose fish that are low in mercury, FDA and EPA identified five commonly eaten fish with very low mercury levels: shrimp, salmon, Pollock, catfish and canned light tuna. According to the government’s advisory, pregnant and nursing women, women who might become pregnant and young children should eat up to 12 ounces a week of these types of fish for the benefits they provide.

Canned tuna does not violate Proposition 65 standards and Lockyer’s suit is the first of its type to invoke Proposition 65 on a scientifically-proven safe and healthy food.