The canned tunaone of the most popular foods on our tables, is known to contain mercury, which is extremely harmful to human health. In the past, various studies and tests had already detected the presence of this neurotoxic substance in tuna but now a new investigation, conducted at European level, confirms that the problem is far from solved.
After 18 months of investigation, Bloom, an NGO specializing in marine conservation, launches a real bomb. In his report he reveals not only that all cans of tuna tested in Europe contain mercury but also that public authorities and the powerful tuna lobby have consciously chosen to favor the economic interests of industrial fishing, to the detriment of the health of millions of consumers.
Bloom explains that:
These cynical pressures have led to the setting of an “acceptable” mercury threshold three times higher for tuna than for other fish species such as cod, without there being the slightest health justification for a differentiated threshold. The authorized mercury contamination in tuna was not set arbitrarily: it corresponds to the highest levels of contamination found in tuna. In other words, the danger threshold was not set with the aim of protecting human health but only the financial interests of the tuna industry. The thresholds, set by public authorities in complicity with the tuna lobby, therefore generate widespread contamination of populations with potentially serious consequences for health.
The investigation into mercury in tuna
But let’s start from the beginning. Bloom’s investigation involved 148 cans of tuna from Germany, England, Spain, France and Italy. The fish was tested by an independent laboratory and, surprise (or maybe not), 100% of the sample was contaminated with mercury.
But that’s not all. More than one in two cans tested (57%) exceeded the maximum mercury limit applied to other fish species (0.3 mg/kg). Of the 148 boxes, one pack of the Petit Navire brand, purchased in a Parisian Carrefour City, had a record content of 3.9 mg/kg, i.e. 13 times higher than 0.3 mg/kg.
But why so much mercury in tuna? This fish, as a predator located at the top of the food chain, accumulates heavy metals from its prey and therefore has ten times greater mercury contamination than smaller species. Own the tunahowever, it is the best-selling fish in Europe and the risks are known, especially for some categories of people.
Bloom experts write:
Regular ingestion of methylmercury represents – even in small quantities – a serious health hazard, particularly (but not only) for the brain development of fetuses and young children.
But let’s now come to the most burning and controversial issue on which Bloom points his finger: the granting too high limits of mercury in tuna and the motivation for this choice.
Why does tuna have higher mercury limits than other fish?
A concrete example clarifies the situation: in fresh tuna a maximum mercury limit of 1 mg/kg is allowed (according to Bloom’s calculations, this is equivalent to approximately 2.7 mg/kg in canned foods), while for cod it is of 0.3 mg/kg. But what is the real difference in risk, considering that both fish are consumed and that tuna is even more popular? In fact, there is no significant difference. According to Bloom, it appears that the issue was treated exclusively in economic terms.
As stated in the investigation:
Our investigation reveals that No method that takes health consequences into account is used to define maximum mercury levels in tuna of adults and children. European public authorities, on the contrary, choose an approach that is completely at odds with the duty to protect public health: they start from the actual mercury contamination of tuna to establish a threshold that guarantees 95% commercialization.This is why tuna, one of the most contaminated species, is assigned a maximum tolerance to mercury three times higher than that of less contaminated species (1 mg/kg versus 0.3 mg/kg for cod, for example) . No health reason justifies this difference: mercury is no less toxic if ingested through tuna.
A very serious accusation indeed. But there’s more.
Bloom’s investigation also delved into decades of food safety standards development by the FAO and WHO, organizations that have significantly influenced European regulations for years. By analyzing official documents, the NGO highlighted that several members of the joint FAO-WHO committee on food additives (JECFA) – responsible for ensuring food safety – are linked to conflicts of interest.
The Codex Alimentarius, created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to establish international food standards, is also the subject of strong pressure from the tuna lobby. The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCCF), responsible for regulating contaminants, is led by the Netherlands, a major player in the industrial fishing sector. Furthermore, large tuna companies regularly have direct representation in national delegations attending CCCF meetings, whereas NGOs do not.
Things have to change
There is no doubt that something must be done, which is why Bloom and the Foodwatch association have launched an initiative calling for changes in regulation and to protect public health.
To stop large-scale exposure to mercury, the two associations make very specific requests to public authorities:
The two organizations have also initiated an international petition aimed at 10 of the major European retailers, including Carrefour, Intermarché and Leclerc in France; Carrefour, Mercadona and Lidl in Spain; Conad, Coop and Esselunga in Italy; Edeka, Rewe and Aldi in Germany.
Large-scale retail brands are asked to assume their responsibilities and adopt concrete measures to protect consumer health, including blocking advertising and promotion of tuna (it will be really tough!).
You can sign the petition HERE.
