More on tuna

Life is a multi-Regression equation is one of my favorite quotes. It means that you take the good (positive coefficients) with the bad (negative coefficients).

That was the first thing I thought of when I got the following today from the US tuna

Dear Colleagues:

The tuna industry has again been the target of misinformation by organizations whose agendas we believe do not serve public health and may have unintended but serious consequences for millions of Americans. The best way for consumers to receive credible dietary and health advice is to rely on credible public health and scientific authorities. At the same time, it is incumbent upon our industry to routinely communicate with key audiences about the safety and quality of our products, as well as our sustainable business practices. For these reasons, I am forwarding this statement to you in the hope that you will read it and share it with your members.

Sincerely,

Anne Forristall Luke
President
U.S. Tuna Foundation

and in the attached PDF file:

"Harvard Center for Risk Analysis concluded after a comprehensive study, the benefits of fish consumption FAR outweigh the risk of any harm from the trace amounts of mercury present. In fact, the Defenders of Wildlife acknowledges on its Web site the “well-known health benefits to eating light canned tuna.”"

and also:

"A.C. Nielsen data shows that, in fact, more than 11 million low-income American families – including a high proportion of those at greatest risk for obesity, diabetes and heart disease – have stopped eating canned tuna . Canned tuna has no peer when it comes to the combination of affordability and quality lean protein and heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, so when millions of Americans at high risk for heart disease, obesity and diabetes stop eating it, the adverse impact on public health can be expected to be significant.

The members of the U.S. Tuna Foundation – Bumble Bee, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea -- stand by the quality, safety and nutritional benefits of our products.

We advocate responsible government testing of canned tuna for mercury content as well as educating the public. The public can have confidence in the FDA’s comprehensive testing program. In contrast to the Defenders of Wildlife 164-can sample, which is statistically insignificant, the FDA tested more than 10,000 cans of tuna before it developed the FDA/EPA advisory that offers guidance to women who are or might become pregnant and small children. The FDA advises this group on the need to safely incorporate fish and canned tuna into their diets and reap its nutritional and developmental benefits. The FDA encourages all other groups to eat more fish, including canned tuna."

I do agree that there are many very good points about canned tuna (positive coefficient). However, mercury contamination is a concern that does need to be considered (like any negative coefficient). Indeed, it might be useful for the tuna industry to report on each label (on a day by day basis plant by plant basis) the average amount of mercury in their product. At least it would let consumers know what they were getting and they could then make an informed decision. And it would likely lead to cleaner oceans as well! :)