Consumer Reports Finds Eating Tuna Too Risky for Pregnant Women
Eat more fish. It’s a ubiquitous bit of dietary advice you hear over and over. For pregnant and nursing mothers, it’s something that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifically recommends. To lots of people, “fish” equals tuna. It’s canned. It’s cheap. It’s easy. But new analysis from one of the country’s most trusted resources when it comes to product safety, Consumer Reports (CR), concludes that tuna’s high levels of mercury outweigh its potential benefits for expecting mothers.
The report, The Great Fish Debate, relies on data from the FDA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but directly conflicts with the agencies’ latest recommendations on seafood, which state that a medium amount of tuna is okay for consumption as the health benefits outweigh the effects of consuming mercury. It’s a touchy subject for the agencies, which recently set a minimum level for the amount of fish people should consume weekly. In fact, after CR pointed out to the FDA that its own data indicated elevated risks, the agency replaced a chart that ranked seafood according to mercury levels with a new one that lists species in alphabetical order, in what would seem to be an attempt to obfuscate the contradictory data.
The central issue here centers on brain development in fetuses and young children. Tuna and other fish are high in omega-3 fatty acids, which play an important role in the formation of a healthy, powerful brain. Unfortunately, because of increasing amounts of mercury in our oceans, tuna and other predatory fish are now laced with methlymercury, a neurotoxin that can permanently damage the brain, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Considering tuna is the second most popular seafood in the U.S. next to shrimp, it is no wonder that CR is concerned.
Why now? What happened? The answer is actually a perfect example of the inter-connectivity of the relationships between our food, water and energy systems, what we call the nexus. The mercury issue exemplifies the ways in which our energy choices directly affect water quality and by extension, the food we eat.
How does mercury get into seafood?
Basically, coal-fired power plants and other power sources continue to pump mercury into our atmosphere, which then makes its way into large bodies of water via precipitation. Mercury (not extremely dangerous) in the water gets processed by bacteria into methlymercury (very dangerous), which then makes its way up the food chain, from the smaller fish to the largest ones. Each step of the way up, the levels get more concentrated. Result: Bluefin and Albacore tuna with 54-58 micrograms of mercury per four cooked ounces (which is very high compared to salmon’s two micrograms per the same amount).
And the next step up on the food chain? Us. So, how do we reduce the amount of methlymercury in our fish? Read more about mercury in fish and efforts at reduction.
In many ways the “to-eat-or-not-to-eat” question comes down to whether the risks outweigh the benefits and whether the benefits are cumulative, because mercury is a cumulative toxin. Everyone involved (CR, FDA and EPA) agrees there is a continuum between what types of seafood are beneficial and what types are too risky, but the groups disagree on where to draw the line. The FDA and EPA recognize that people—especially expecting mothers and those who breastfeed—should not eat large, predatory fish species such as shark, tilefish from the Gulf, swordfish and mackerel, but for whatever reason, have decided that tuna and other fish are fine to eat.
CR’s report makes it clear that tuna is not safe at all for expecting mothers and that it should be cut out of the diet of anyone who eats more than 24 ounces of seafood per week. CR’s reasoning for its tuna classification is partially based on the EPA’s own guidelines for safe consumption. For instance, the FDA instructs women to eat up to six ounces of albacore or white tuna weekly, yet a 125-pound woman exceeds the EPA’s “safe” limit by eating only four ounces. A 48-pound child surpasses the EPA’s limit at about a third of a can a week. To make matters even worse, the amount of mercury found in each can of tuna can vary wildly. The FDA’s own data showed that 20 percent of the cans tested since 2005 contained almost double the average level of mercury the agency lists.
Lots of families on tight budgets look to cans of tuna as an affordable way to get important omega-3s in their kids’ diets. Proponents of the tuna industry would say that CR’s decision to take tuna off the table (literally) limits lower-income families’ options. Luckily though, there are tons of other foods that are high in omega-3s and aren’t laced with neurotoxins, many of which are as cheap as tuna. There are vegetables like cauliflower and edamame, greens like purslane, grains like wild rice and nuts like walnuts. Grass-fed beef and bison are a great source because grass is actually a good source of omega-3. Canola and flaxseed oil contain a lot of omega-3. Plus there are many omega-3 enriched products including eggs and juices. Then of course there are the supplements.
Seafood lovers looking to decrease their mercury intake can eat lower on the food chain by replacing tuna with sustainably procured mussels, clams, oysters and shrimp. Eating these smaller species not only cuts out most of the mercury in your diet, it’s also much more sustainable, because—for one—it reduces your water footprint. If you want finfish, there are many low-mercury species, such as salmon, tilapia, haddock and hake. All of the above-mentioned seafood has fewer than six micrograms of mercury per four ounces, meaning most contain less than five percent of the mercury found in tuna.
There are also fish on the market that contain almost no mercury because they were raised on farms. While some fish farms are not sustainable and still sell fish with high levels of mercury, there are many amazing farms that use highly sustainable recirculating techniques. The Recirculating Farms Coalition has more information about these innovative farms.
For concerned parents and mothers, there are many available resources that teach you all you need to know about seafood safety and sustainability. Food and Water Watch’s Smart Seafood Guide and the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program are both invaluable resources to learn about purchasing sustainable, safe seafood.
Considering all of the safe options for ensuring omega-3 is included in your diet, it’s a wonder that the FDA still lists tuna as safe for consumption, especially when it comes to the health of an infant’s brain. For us, we’re going with CR’s recommendation—even if it means turning all of those cans of tuna in our cupboard into cat food. That is, just as long as the cat isn’t expecting.
YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The Washington Redskins will retire their controversial name and logo, the National Football League (NFL) team announced Monday.
By Alyssa Murdoch, Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle and Sapna Sharma
Summer has finally arrived in the northern reaches of Canada and Alaska, liberating hundreds of thousands of northern stream fish from their wintering habitats.
A Good News Story?<p>On the surface, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13569" target="_blank">results from our study</a> appear to provide a "good news" story. Warming temperatures were linked to higher numbers of fish, more species overall and, therefore, potentially more fishing opportunities for northerners.</p><p>Initially, we were surprised to learn that warming was increasing the distribution of cold-adapted fish. We reasoned that modest amounts of warming could lead to benefits such as increased food and winter habitat availability without reaching stressful levels for many species.</p>
Photo of Arctic grayling (left) and Dolly Varden trout (right). Alyssa Murdoch / Lilian Tran / Nunavik Research Centre and Tracey Loewen / Fisheries and Oceans Canada<p>Yet, not all fish species fared equally well. Ecologically unique northern species — those that have evolved in colder, more nutrient-poor environments, such as Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden trout — were showing declines with warming.</p>
Fish Strandings and Buried Eggs<p>Recent news headlines run the gamut for Pacific salmon — from their increased escapades <a href="https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/more-pacific-salmon-showing-up-in-western-arctic-waters/" target="_blank">into the Arctic</a> to <a href="https://www.juneauempire.com/news/warm-waters-across-alaska-cause-salmon-die-offs/" target="_blank">massive pre-spawning die-offs</a> in central Alaska. Similarly, results from our study revealed different outcomes for fish depending on local climatic conditions, including Pacific salmon.</p><p>We found that warmer spring and fall temperatures may be helping juvenile salmon by providing a longer and more plentiful growing season, and by supporting early egg development in northern regions that were previously too cold for survival.</p><p>In contrast, salmon declined in regions that were experiencing wetter fall conditions, pointing to an increased risk of flooding and sedimentation that could bury or dislodge incubating eggs.</p>
Headwaters of the Wind River within the largely intact Peel River watershed in northern Canada. Don Reid / Wildlife Conservation Society Canada / Author provided<p>Interestingly, we found that certain climatic combinations, such as warmer summer water temperatures with decreased summer rainfall, were important in determining where Pacific salmon could survive. Summer warming in drier watersheds led to declines, suggesting that lowered streamflows may have increased the risk of fish becoming stranded in subpar habitats that were too warm and crowded.</p>
The Fate of Northern Fisheries<p>The promise of a warmer and more accessible Arctic has attracted mounting interest in new economic opportunities, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103637" target="_blank">including fisheries</a>. As warming rates at higher latitudes are already <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" target="_blank">two to three times global levels</a>, it seems probable that northern biodiversity will experience dramatic shifts in the coming decades.</p><p>Despite the many unknowns surrounding the future of Pacific salmon, many fisheries are currently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1374251" target="_blank">thriving following warmer and more productive northern oceans</a>, and some <a href="https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic68876" target="_blank">Arctic Indigenous communities are developing new salmon fisheries</a>.</p><p>As warming continues, the commercial salmon fishing industry is poised to expand northwards, but its success will largely depend on extenuating factors such as <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060023067" target="_blank">changes to marine habitat and food sources</a> and <a href="https://www.yukon-news.com/news/promising-chinook-salmon-run-failed-to-materialize-in-the-yukon-river-panel-hears/" target="_blank">how many fish are caught during the freshwater stages of their journey</a>.</p><p>Even with the potential for increased northern biodiversity, it is important to recognize that some northern communities may be unable to adapt or may <a href="https://thenarwhal.ca/searching-for-the-yukon-rivers-missing-chinook/" target="_blank">lose individual species that are associated with important cultural values</a>.</p>
- New England Fishing Communities Being Destroyed by 'Climate ... ›
- Shrimp Fishing Banned in Gulf of Maine Due to Ocean Warming ... ›
- Atlantic Salmon Is All But Extinct as a Genetically Eroded Version of ... ›
A heat wave that set in over the South and Southwest left much of the U.S. blanketed in record-breaking triple digit temperatures over the weekend. The widespread and intense heat wave will last for weeks, making the magnitude and duration of its heat impressive, according to The Washington Post.
- Hot Weather and COVID-19: Added Threats of Reopening States in ... ›
- 50 Million Americans Are Currently Living Under Some Type of Heat ... ›
- Second Major Heat Wave This Summer Smashes Records Across ... ›
By Joni Sweet
If you get a call from a number you don't recognize, don't hit decline — it might be a contact tracer calling to let you know that someone you've been near has tested positive for the coronavirus.
Interviews With Contact Tracers<p>Contact tracing is a public health strategy that involves identifying everyone who may have been in contact with a person who has the coronavirus. Contact tracers collect information and provide guidance to help contain the transmission of disease.</p><p>It's been used during outbreaks of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Ebola, measles, and now the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.</p><p>It starts when the local department of health gets a report of a confirmed case of the coronavirus in its community and gives that person a call. The contact tracer usually provides information on how to isolate and when to get treatment, then tries to figure out who else the person may have exposed.</p><p>"We ask who they've been in contact with in the 48 hours prior to symptom onset, or 2 days before the date of their positive test if they don't have symptoms," said <a href="https://case.edu/medicine/healthintegration/people/heidi-gullett" target="_blank">Dr. Heidi Gullett</a>, associate director of the Center for Community Health Integration at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and medical director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Health in Ohio.</p>
“You’ve Been Exposed”<p>After the case interview, contact tracers will get to work calling the folks who may have been exposed to the coronavirus by the person who tested positive.</p><p>"We give them recommendations about quarantining or isolating, getting tested, and what to do if they become sick. If they're not already sick, we still want them to self-quarantine so that they don't spread the disease to anyone else if they were to become sick," said Labus.</p><p>Generally, the contact tracer won't ask for additional contacts unless they happen to call someone who is sick or has a confirmed case of the virus. They will help ensure the contact has the resources they need to isolate themselves, if necessary. The contact tracer may continue to stay in touch with that person over the next 14 days.</p><p>"We follow the percentage of people that were contacts, then converted into being actual cases of the virus. It's an important marker to help us understand what kind of transmission happens in our community and how to control the virus," said Gullett.</p>
Why You Should Participate (and What Happens If You Don’t)<p>A <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30457-6/fulltext" target="_blank">Lancet study</a> from June 16, which looked at data from more than 40,000 people, found that COVID-19 transmission could be reduced by 64 percent through isolating those who have the coronavirus, quarantining their household, and contacting the people they may have exposed.</p><p>The combination strategy was significantly more effective than mass random testing or just isolating the sick person and members of their household.</p><p>However, contact tracing is only as effective as people's willingness to participate, and a small number of people who've contracted the coronavirus or were potentially exposed are reluctant to talk.</p><p>"Contact tracers have all been hung up on, cussed at, yelled at," said Gullet.</p><p>The hesitation to talk to contact tracers often stems from concerns over privacy — a serious issue in healthcare.</p>
- Anti-Racism Protests Are Not Driving Coronavirus Spikes, Data ... ›
- Cell Phone Tracking Analysis Shows Where Florida Springbreakers ... ›
NASA scientists say that warmer than average surface sea temperatures in the North Atlantic raise the concern for a more active hurricane season, as well as for wildfires in the Amazon thousands of miles away, according to Newsweek.
By Andrea Germanos
Oxfam International warned Thursday that up to 12,000 people could die each day by the end of the year as a result of hunger linked to the coronavirus pandemic—a daily death toll surpassing the daily mortality rate from Covid-19 itself.
- These 6 Men Have as Much Wealth as Half the World's Population ... ›
- Climate Change Forces 20 Million People to Flee Each Year, Oxfam ... ›
By Jun N. Aguirre
An oil spill on July 3 threatens a mangrove forest on the Philippine island of Guimaras, an area only just recovering from the country's largest spill in 2006.
- 15,000 Gallon Oil Spill Threatens River and Drinking Water in Native ... ›
- Mysterious Oil Spill on Massachusetts' Charles River Spurs Major ... ›
- Disastrous Russian Oil Spill Reaches Pristine Arctic Lake - EcoWatch ›