In This Article
Subscribe to Health Updates
Times Sushi Story Smells Fishy to Some
by
findingDulcinea Staff
Critics say a New York Times story about mercury levels in tuna is sensationalist. A Harvard researcher says the benefits of fish outweigh the risks.
30-Second Summary
The New York Times is drawing criticism over a story about mercury levels in sushi-grade tuna sold around Manhattan. In October, the newspaper took samples from 20 restaurants and stores and had them tested.
The results, according to the article, showed that mercury levels exceeded government safety levels.
But the Center for Consumer Freedom, a food company and restaurant-backed group, has demanded a retraction. The article, according to the center, didn’t take into account that the government’s part-per-million mercury limit is set at ten times the lowest amount that has been linked to health problems.
“In reality, the highest-mercury sample reported by the Times (1.4 ppm) contains less than one-seventh the amount of mercury that might be a cause for health concern,” said CCF officials in a press release.
Similarly, the National Fisheries Institute called the article “sensational” and highlighted several alleged mistakes.
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and Harvard’s School of Public Health, told Time magazine that people should continue to eat fish. The health benefits, including omega-3 fatty acids and a link to reduced heart disease, outweigh the possible effects of mercury.
For women who are pregnant or nursing and young children, however, the recommendations are different.
A 2004 Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet advises women in this group to avoid shark, king mackerel, swordfish and tilefish, which contain the highest levels of mercury.
Pregnant and nursing women were advised to eat up to two meals, or 12 ounces, of fish or shellfish with lower mercury levels each week.
The results, according to the article, showed that mercury levels exceeded government safety levels.
But the Center for Consumer Freedom, a food company and restaurant-backed group, has demanded a retraction. The article, according to the center, didn’t take into account that the government’s part-per-million mercury limit is set at ten times the lowest amount that has been linked to health problems.
“In reality, the highest-mercury sample reported by the Times (1.4 ppm) contains less than one-seventh the amount of mercury that might be a cause for health concern,” said CCF officials in a press release.
Similarly, the National Fisheries Institute called the article “sensational” and highlighted several alleged mistakes.
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and Harvard’s School of Public Health, told Time magazine that people should continue to eat fish. The health benefits, including omega-3 fatty acids and a link to reduced heart disease, outweigh the possible effects of mercury.
For women who are pregnant or nursing and young children, however, the recommendations are different.
A 2004 Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet advises women in this group to avoid shark, king mackerel, swordfish and tilefish, which contain the highest levels of mercury.
Pregnant and nursing women were advised to eat up to two meals, or 12 ounces, of fish or shellfish with lower mercury levels each week.
Headline Links: ‘High Mercury Levels Are Found In Tuna Sushi’
Tests of sushi from 20 Manhattan stores and restaurants showed that, in some cases, mercury levels were high enough to warrant action from the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Michael Gochfeld, the environmental and occupational professor at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School who conducted the testing for The New York Times, told the paper that “no one should eat a meal of tuna with mercury levels like those found in the restaurant samples more than about once every three weeks.” A separate 2007 study conducted by New York City showed that the mercury levels in city residents’ blood is three times the national average.
Source: The New York Times
Reaction: Demands for retraction and skepticism
The Center for Consumer Freedom has called on the Times to retract its mercury story. “The mistakes are too serious to paper over with a series of quiet corrections. The Times should do the responsible thing and retract the whole article,” said CCF Director David Martosko in a news release. Some of those mistakes, say CCCF officials, include a misunderstanding of the government’s mercury limits: “In reality, the highest-mercury sample reported by the Times (1.4 ppm) contains less than one-seventh the amount of mercury that might be a cause for health concern."
Source: The Center for Consumer Freedom
The National Fisheries Institute called the Times story “poorly-sourced” and “sensational.” The institute goes on to argue that the fact that Dr. Gochfeld treats patients with mercury-related problems, and could thus potentially benefit from the Times story, means he cannot be considered an "objective clinician." The institute also decried the article as "one-sided," arguing that it omitted the ten-fold safety cushion.
Source: National Fisheries Institute
Japanese officials weren’t concerned about the Times report, according to the Bloomberg news agency. The country is the world’s biggest market for tuna. Though a Japanse government-sponsored study warned pregnant women not to eat too much tuna, another study “found ingesting as much as 100 micrograms of mercury each week presented no risk to health for a person weighing 50 kilograms.” Officials in Japan have yet to set a parts-per-million limit similar to that of the in the United States. “The newspaper is exaggerating the risk,” Teruo Tagaki, chief of the Fisheries Agency product safety office, told Bloomberg.
Source: Bloomberg
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and Harvard’s School of Public Health, told Time magazine that the health benefits of fish outweigh the low risks of mercury consumption. “The real danger in this country, the real concern, is that we're not eating enough fish. That is very likely increasing our rates of death from heart disease,” Mozaffarian said. “I know I sound like I'm trying to downplay the risk but I really think we are experimenting with people’s lives when we give recommendations or write stories or reports that make people eat less fish. We know from very good human studies that fish intake reduces the risk of dying from a heart attack by about a third.”
Source: Time
Slate Press Box columnist Jack Shafer highlights past clinical studies into the effects of mercury on humans. One study was conducted in the Pacific Seychelles, where women eat fish about a dozen times per week. According to developmental and neurological tests conducted on a sample of children from the age of six months to five years found that “no ill effects on the children or mothers have been discovered in the ongoing study,” Shafer wrote.
Source: Slate
Reference: Advice from the EPA
According to the EPA, pregnant or nursing women and young children should limit their consumption of fish to two meals a week. They should also avoid fish with high mercury levels, such as Tilefish, shark, swordfish, and King Mackerel. Fish sticks and fish sandwiches found in fast food restaurants are made with fish that have low mercury levels. However, the EPA makes a point to underscore the overall health benefits of eating fish: “A well-balanced diet that includes a variety of fish and shellfish can contribute to heart health and children's proper growth and development. So, women and young children in particular should include fish or shellfish in their diets due to the many nutritional benefits.”
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
