Connect with Us:

The Power of Information

Facebook Page Twitter @enviroblog Youtube Channel Our RSS Feeds

At EWG,
our team of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers pores over government data, legal documents, scientific studies and our own laboratory tests to expose threats to your health and the environment, and to find solutions. Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know.

Privacy Policy
(Updated Sept. 19, 2011)
Terms & Conditions
Reprint Permission Information

Charity Navigator 4 Star

sign up
Optional Member Code

support ewg

Tuna warning: FDA must make risks more widely known


Published September 2, 2002

Fish, as everyone knows, is good for you. It's nutritious, low in harmful fats and high in beneficial fats that do everything from maintaining healthy hearts to assisting in fetal brain development.

The above statement was unequivocally true until modern times, when poisonous mercury _ produced mainly by runoff from coal-fired plants _ began polluting this once pure food. Now, while fish is still good for you, there are some caveats. Pregnant women, especially, must avoid eating too much fish with high mercury levels so as not to endanger their unborn babies' developing brains. Shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish seem to carry the most mercury risk.

But how about the most popular fish of all _ tuna?

In recent months, the Food and Drug Administration, consumer and environmental groups, scientists and fish industry officials have been embroiled in a controversy over what to tell pregnant women about the advisability of eating tuna, particularly canned tuna.

Environmental organizations, headed by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, allege that the reason tuna was left off a recent fish advisory list for pregnant women is that the FDA bowed to fish-industry pressure. That's a serious accusation that remains in dispute. One good thing to come out of the controversy is the establishment of an independent FDA advisory panel to look into tuna risk.

In July, the panel said the FDA should tell pregnant women to limit their tuna intake but not eliminate the nutritious fish entirely. It suggested that two cans of tuna per week would be fine if that is all the fish pregnant women eat; or a single can if other seafood is consumed.

The FDA should quickly issue a new fish advisory based on the panel's findings. Without such an advisory, pregnant women will be left without information that could affect their unborn baby's health.

But not even an updated FDA advisory can fix a great environmental tragedy: The continuing poisoning of the water and seafood that are mainstays of human life.