Ok... so I actually NEVER ate tuna before 1 month ago. Now its a blessing. A quick and easy meal that I have maybe 4 days a week. The other day I was talking with some people and they said that people die from the Mercury in tuna. Does anyone have a clue about this topic or the valididty of their statement?

Ok... so I actually NEVER ate tuna before 1 month ago. Now its a blessing. A quick and easy meal that I have maybe 4 days a week. The other day I was talking with some people and they said that people die from the Mercury in tuna. Does anyone have a clue about this topic or the valididty of their statement?

check this out, Mr. Bush doesn't care, atleast EPA might keep him on his toes.

http://www.gotmercury.org/

You're talking to the wrong guy about our great President but thank you very much for that site. I checked it out and man oh man do I have too much mercury.

I'm sorry... I don't buy it. I don't care where THEY claim the numbers come from (and incidentally, at least one set is from a data sheet that has yet to be released!)... those exposure levels for as little as 8oz seem WAY too high.
Seawater and freshwater concentrations are also going to vary by region.

1 - If levels were actually that high, AND those levels are dangerous, we'd be seeing far more health effects... especially those of us who consume 24+oz of seafood per week.

2 - WTH does Bush have to do with it? Previous administrations have been no better, and the old California administration was perfectly happy to increase toxic release level permits in exchange for contributions.
Nope... can't blame this one on Bush.
Current mercury levels are the result of industrial waste from the last 200+ years. One administration is not going to make a dent in 4 years, and even if it were to impose and enforce a 100% prohibition on mercury release, it would do nothing to prevent pollution from other countries, which is where the bulk of untreated discharge is coming from already.

I've read that you'd have to eat like 15 ounces a day to feel any effects (if you aren't pregnant). I'll stick with my tuna.

French Spirit, where did you hear that from?

It's difficult for me to believe in any of these things, especially that link to the calculator thing, unless it comes directly from a health professional or something of that sort.

French Spirit, where did you hear that from?

Agreed.
Being a heavy metal, the effects are cumulative. 15oz a day over what time period? Same for the calculator... 150% of the EPA's allowed dosage over what time period? Lifetime exposure? Daily exposure limits, assuming equal exposure every day for life?

That being said, I am not a big fan of the EPA's ability to do anything right to begin with.

You really got me worried about this so I looked at WebMd.

Here is an article about it (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/41/1671_52439.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348})

Basically it says that you shouldn't eat more than 7oz of Tuna a week but canned tuna has less mercury than fresh.

I am switching to lean chicken for the majority of my meals :(

check this out, Mr. Bush doesn't care, atleast EPA might keep him on his toes.

http://www.gotmercury.org/

Consider your source and their motives. My prof, in his first statistics lecture, said something along the lines that you can use statistics to to prove anything you want, and with the same set of data you can prove opposing hypotheses (the point was to be very skeptical of other peoples data). The key was defining "proof". IE how sure you want to be that something is true. Thats really the only thing you can ever tell from scientific data. A true statement looks like: I am xx% sure that the population average is greater than something.

Then there are normative arguments. Which is where almost any data coming from a lobbying group fails. That goes along with sampling; where the data came from, how their samples were treated (did the guy who on the fishing boat change a light bulb, then handle the samples?) In ecological studies; did they look at the whole system and control everything but the variable in question. What were their testing methods. Were their samples significantly dispersed (geographically). how close to random did they get?

Since they don't have any links to the actual PUBLISHED peer reviewed studies, I wouldnt trust it. Besides, looking at the actual data from the FDA website, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood1.html the whole got mercury website is based on like 11 data points. Out of tens of millions of cans of tuna. I'm just not worried. and you shouldn’t be either.

I would also like to note that the only link that worked for me was the home page, where they tell you that you are going to die from this horrible problem (http://www.gotmercury.org) , and the one where you can give them money to protect you (http://www.gotmercury.org/support.htm).

If the FDA came out and said I ( a healthy adult male) should only eat so much tuna per week, I would listen. Right now they say only young children and preagnant/nursing women should limit their consumption. FDA Advisory (http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/mercury/backgrounder.html)

A couple of highlights from the FDA, who used the same data set as 'got mercury'...

"The purpose of the advisory is to inform women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and the parents of young children on how to get the positive health benefits from eating fish and shellfish, while minimizing their mercury exposure."

"Fish and shellfish are important parts of a healthy and balanced diet. They are good sources of high quality protein and other nutrients."

"...following these 3 recommendations for selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women and young children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury...Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury"

"Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. "

You guys can read the rest...

It smells a little fishy, and its making me hungry. I think I'm going to prove to myself that there's nothing to worry about, and have some tuna.

I used to eat a lot. I don't eat much now, but it's not really because of this, but just I"m sick of it. Personally I have read some of the literature on it and I'm ok with a few cans of tuna/week. If I was having two day I may worry, although that's not to say it would be harmful necessarily. The jury really is still out on this one, but even the pessimists are going to be relaxed with a few cans a week.

You really got me worried about this so I looked at WebMd.

Here is an article about it (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/41/1671_52439.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348})

Basically it says that you shouldn't eat more than 7oz of Tuna a week but canned tuna has less mercury than fresh.

I am switching to lean chicken for the majority of my meals :(

not belabor the point, but she was talking about a 7 year old girl.

"The tuna your daughter is eating is not as concentrated a source of this toxic metal as is fresh tuna; however, the frequent consumption and the lack of variety in her diet could be a concern. Tuna is a great source of protein, some vitamins and minerals, and the omega-3 fatty acids so important for health. Two tuna sandwiches a week as part of a varied diet is fine, but two every day means your daughter might be consuming too much mercury and is missing out on the other foods necessary for optimal health. An 11-year-old needs daily: five or more fruits and vegetables, six or more grains (preferably whole grains), three glasses of low-fat milk, and two servings of meat, chicken, or fish. So, let her have a tuna sandwich or two during the week, but encourage a greater acceptance and appreciation for other wholesome foods, too. "

The doctor, it seems to me, was also concerned about the lack of variety in her diet, not just the mercury in her tuna fish sandwiches.
"...however, the frequent consumption and the lack of variety in her diet could be a concern."

I also havent seen anywhere on the FDA website that
"Everyone else, including your daughter, should limit those fish to seven ounces a week"
...doctors do make mistakes and give you their opinions quite often.

I also havent seen anywhere on the FDA website that
"Everyone else, including your daughter, should limit those fish to seven ounces a week"
...doctors do make mistakes and give you their opinions quite often.

I agree that the average person could probably eat a lot more than 7 ounces a week. I am cutting back a good amount because I was eating over 40 ounces a week and like canned chicken as much as canned tuna

I wouldn't put all of my stock in the FDA though. Lobbyist have a lot of power (I don't know if there is a Tuna Lobby)

For instance the FDA bans stevia (sp) but allows aspartame (sp) and saccharine (sp). I have not seen any study that would suggest that there is a medical reason for this. Instead it is likely lobbying

Sorry I know I butchered the spelling.

I made a post on this several weeks ago I suggest you read on this same exact topic. I eat MUCH more tuna than you (pretty much daily).

http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=6816&highlight=mercury+poisening

Consider your source and their motives. My prof, in his first statistics lecture, said something along the lines that you can use statistics to to prove anything you want, and with the same set of data you can prove opposing hypotheses (the point was to be very skeptical of other peoples data).

I always tell others that come to me with reports and such that you can get a report to say whatever you want it to say providing you have enough green. And that's that.

I always tell others that come to me with reports and such that you can get a report to say whatever you want it to say providing you have enough green. And that's that.

Ok, so why believe anything you hear/read/think/etc.?
You could get a report to say that cigarettes are 100% healthy and not addictive either. You can also get a report to say that they cause lung cancer. If you have "enough green" you can get the report to say whichever you prefer, so how do you know what to believe? How could you decipher which to believe if its all just motivated by who has more money...

My point here is not so much a flame of your overgeneralization, as it is a case of defending research. Certainly I'll agree with you that some "research" is nothing but crap spewed out on paper, but that doesn't mean the goals aren't productive and the methods always biased. Just because research says something you don't believe, don't believe in, don't value, or disagree with doesn't mean that its A) not true and B) has no value. Someone got sick. The person ate food X each day several times. Is there a correlation? Maybe, maybe not...should we find out? I believe we should.

I'm an environmental engineer, so I deal with historical and current industrial pollution statistics every day, as well as EPA recommended levels and warnings. I can tell you that ALL of the EPA's warning concentrations and such have factors of safety on top of factors of safety in them.
Some of the warnings on pollutant concentrations are what it would take for you to increase your risk of cancer (or whatever) by 1 in 100,000 if you ate the material in question POUNDS a day EVERY day for your ENTIRE life. I'm not saying you should just ignore it, but the factors of safety built in are pretty dramatic.

I eat tuna almost everyday.