A respected independent study organization has concluded that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration guideline on mercury content in fish "ensures" public safety, and that basing regulations on any stricter standard would be "neither necessary nor prudent." Doing so, it added, "would most likely produce high costs for little benefit."
The U.S. Tuna Foundation, which advocates the FDA figure, applauded the recommendations contained in a white paper by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Safety. "When you apply solid science -- and a basic amount of common sense -- to this entire situation, you come to the same conclusion that our industry has for the past 100 years," said Melanie Miller, communications director of the foundation.
The Annapolis Center is a non-profit educational organization that promotes responsible environmental, health, and safety decision-making that is based on comparative risk, as determined by science. Its study, "Mercury in the Environment: The Problems, Risks, and Consequences," was released recently by the center's president, Dr. Harold M. Koenig, former Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy.
Although the FDA regulates the food industry, some activists feel producers should be held to the mercury content guideline of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is higher than that of the FDA. However, after analysis of available science, the Annapolis Center disagrees.
"With the uncertainties in our knowledge of models of the environmental fate and atmospheric deposition of mercury ... we should use the FDA Action Level for guidance in our nation's environmental regulations and standards for mercury," the center found.
The center's study concluded that until those "gaps" in knowledge are filled, "the need for burdensome and costly regulations to reduce a yet uncertain risk to public health is neither necessary nor prudent." It added that basing environmental laws on the EPA mercury content standard "would most likely produce high costs for little benefit."
Mercury appears naturally in the world's oceans and their fish, with some species containing more than others. The smaller species of tuna used by the canning industry are particularly low in mercury content, significantly below the FDA guideline.
"There is no safer fish meal than canned tuna. When you balance that with the many health benefits of tuna, the conclusion is a slam dunk," said USTF's Miller.
The FDA, American Heart Association, and other health organizations have recognized canned tuna as a healthy food choice and an important part of a balanced diet. As a rich source of protein and helpful omega-3 fatty acids, canned tuna can lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, ease the pain of arthritis, help control cholesterol levels, add vitamins and minerals, and more.