Tuna

Should I Eat Canned Tuna?

Posted by

0


It’s not the sexiest fish in the sea. But tuna—even once it’s caught, frozen, thawed, cooked, chopped and canned—still gets a nod of approval from most of our experts. Still, some aren’t pulling out their can openers anytime soon.

First, though, some tuna praise. A typical five-ounce can of light tuna has 28 grams of protein, an impressive 56% of your daily requirement.

“I specifically recommend light canned tuna in water, which provides good omega-3 fatty acids,” says study author Asim Maqbool, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Another plus: Light tuna isn’t as high in mercury as albacore tuna, Maqbool says—it packs about half the mercury of albacore.

Mercury is the primary concern in big fish like tuna. Pollution releases mercury into the air, and as it accumulates in the ocean, fish absorb it from the waters and their mercury stores build up,according to the FDA. When you eat certain kinds of fish—especially big, fatty fish like tuna—mercury can build up in your bloodstream over time, too.

Canned tuna has lower mercury levels than tuna steaks and sushi, and two canned tuna meals a week is a safe threshold, the FDA says. The agency is currently revising its guidelines about pregnancy and fish consumption; they hope to encourage more pregnant woman and children to eat fish for its many nutritional benefits. At 13 mcg per 4 ounces, light canned tuna lands in their “lower mercury” category, along with others like salmon (2 mcg of mercury for 4 ounces) and shrimp (less than 1 mcg per 4 ounces).

But Philippe Grandjean, MD, a toxin researcher and adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health, contends there’s no room for any kind of canned tuna in the diet. “Canned tuna contributes more than one-third of the mercury exposure of the average American,” he says. “About one in six women in coastal U.S. populations have elevated mercury exposures that could cause harm to the fetus.”

He urges people to eat salmon, mackerel and shrimp, which have considerably less mercury than tuna. That recommendation is echoed by Michael Gochfeld, MD, PhD, professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Rutgers University. “Pregnant women should not eat canned white tuna and should limit canned light tuna,” he says. “They would be much better off choosing canned salmon instead, which is very low in mercury and much higher in beneficial omega 3s.”

Mercury isn’t the only contaminant of concern. The chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, is an endocrine disruptor often present in the linings of canned foods. “Especially in children, diet is the major source of BPA exposure, with the predominant source being canned food consumption,” says Leonardo Trasande, associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine at New York University School of Medicine, and author of several recent papers on the health costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Studies show that eating canned foods can increase BPA levels, while eating more fresh food can reduce it.

Switching to BPA-free cans might not offer enough protection, though. Alternative linings like oleoresin don’t have enough safety data behind them, Trasande says, and sometimes, the chemicals substituted may be worse than BPA. “Increasingly the synthetic chemical BPS is being used as a substitute for BPA, and studies suggest that BPS is as estrogenic and even more persistent in the environment,” he says. “BPS may therefore actually be more problematic from a health perspective.”

Still, the health benefits of canned tuna outweigh potential contaminant risks, says David Katz, MD, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center. “All studies comparing the inclusion versus the exclusion of fish show better health associated with the inclusion of fish in the diet,” he says. “Those contaminants are unfortunate—but that’s the reality in a world we haven’t treated all that well. Perfectly ‘pure’ food no longer exists on this planet.”

canned tuna

59% of the ‘Tuna’ Americans Eat Is Not Tuna.

Posted by

0


Story at-a-glance

  • DNA testing of US seafood samples revealed that 59 percent of tuna and 87 percent of snapper were mislabeled
  • At sushi restaurants, 74 percent of fish samples were not the fish they were labeled to be
  • 84 percent of “white tuna” sold in sushi venues was actually escolar, a fish associated with acute and serious digestive effects if you eat just a couple of ounces
  • You can help to avoid fraudulently labeled seafood by asking questions about its origin, avoiding cheaply priced seafood (if the price seems too good to be true, it probably is), and purchasing the whole fish whenever possible.

tuna

When you eat tuna, there’s a good chance you’re not actually eating tuna. Instead, the majority of fish labeled ‘white tuna’ may actually be escolar, a type of fish that can cause serious digestive effects, including oily anal leakage.

Oceana, the non-profit ocean protection group that revealed the findings, further found that nearly 60 percent of ‘tuna’ sold at restaurants and grocery stores is another type of fish entirely – and the results fared worst for sushi restaurants.1

Love Sushi? Skip the So-Called ‘Tuna’ (Ahi)

Oceana conducted DNA testing on more than 1,200 fish samples across the US and found that one-third were mislabeled. While red snapper had the highest mislabeling rates (87 percent of ‘red snapper’ samples were not actually red snapper), tuna was a close second, with 59 percent mislabeled.

At sushi restaurants, however, 74 percent of fish samples were mislabeled. This included every single sushi restaurant from which samples were tested, even in major metropolitan areas like Chicago, Austin, New York and Washington DC.

According to Oceana’s 69-page report,2 in many cases the mislabeled fish had been substituted for cheaper, less desirable and/or more readily available fish varieties. The results showed that:

·         Mislabeling was found in 27 of the 46 fish types tested (59 percent)

·         87 percent of fish sold as snapper was actually some other type of fish

·         59 percent of tuna was some other type of fish

·         84 percent of “white tuna” sold in sushi venues was actually escolar, a fish associated with acute and serious digestive effects if you eat just a couple of ounces

·         Grouper, halibut, and red snapper were sometimes substituted with king mackerel and tile fish, two types of fish the FDA advises pregnant women and other sensitive groups to avoid due to dangerously high mercury content

Only 1 Percent of Imported Seafood Is Tested for Fraud

How are so many seafood retailers getting away with selling mislabeled fish? To put is simply, no one is minding the store…

More than 90 percent of the seafood consumed in the US is imported, yet only 1 percent of imports are inspected for fraud, which may explain this clearly out-of-control situation. Oceana reported:3

“Our findings demonstrate that a comprehensive and transparent traceability system – one that tracks fish from boat to plate – must be established at the national level.

At the same time, increased inspection and testing of our seafood, specifically for mislabeling, and stronger federal and state enforcement of existing laws combatting fraud are needed to reverse these disturbing trends.

Our government has a responsibility to provide more information about the fish sold in the U.S., as seafood fraud harms not only consumers’ wallets, but also every honest vendor and fisherman cheated in the process – to say nothing of the health of our oceans.”

Another Reason to Avoid Tuna: It’s Typically Loaded With Mercury

Fish has always been the best source for the animal-based omega-3 fats EPA and DHA, but as levels of pollution have increased, this health treasure of a food has become less and less viable as a primary source of beneficial fats. This is particularly true for tuna, which tends to be a higher mercury fish.

One study from the U.S. Geological Survey found that ALL tuna tested contained fairly high amounts of mercury. The contamination may be even worse in restaurants, again confirming that eating restaurant tuna is a risky proposition.

Further, according to a separate study, toxicological testing revealed that tuna sold in restaurants actually contained HIGHER amounts of mercury than the store-bought variety.4 The reason for this is because restaurants tend to favor certain species of tuna, such as bluefin akami and bigeye tuna, which had significantly higher levels of mercury than bluefin toro and yellowfin tuna. 

Unfortunately, mercury tends to accumulate to a greater degree in muscle than in fat, rendering these highly prized, leaner species of tuna more susceptible to high contamination.

Another explanation is that restaurants tend to buy larger sized fish, which in turn contain larger concentrations of mercury due to their size. Remember, the larger the fish the longer it has lived, and the more time it has had to bioaccumulate toxins like mercury from the ocean.

Up to 80 Percent of Salmon May Also Be Mislabeled.

It’s not only tuna and red snapper that is commonly mislabeled. In the video above, I interview Randy Hartnell, founder-president of Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics. He explains that as much as 70 to 80 percent of the fish marked “wild” salmon were actually farmed. This includes restaurants, where 90-95 percent of salmon is farmed, yet may be mis-listed on the menu as “wild.” The following tips can help you determine whether the salmon is authentic:

1.    Canned salmon labeled “Alaskan Salmon” is a good bet, as Alaskan salmon is not allowed to be farmed.

2.    In restaurants, mislabeled salmon will typically be described as “wild” but not “wild Alaskan.” This is because authentic “wild Alaskan” is easier to trace. The term “wild” is more nebulous and therefore more often misused. In many ways, it is very similar to the highly abused “natural” designation.

3.    Whether you’re in a grocery store or a restaurant, ask the seafood clerk or waiter where the fish is from. If it’s wild, they will have paid more for it, so they’re likely to understand the value proposition. Since it’s a selling point, they will know where it came from. If they don’t have an answer for you, it’s a red flag that it’s farmed, or worse… The US Food and Drug Administration is moving forward with approving genetically engineered salmon to be sold, and as you know, GE foods still do not need to be labeled in the US.

4.    Avoid Atlantic salmon, as all salmon labeled “Atlantic Salmon” currently comes from fish farms.

5.    Sockeye salmon cannot be farmed, so if you find sockeye salmon, it’s bound to be wild. You can tell sockeye salmon from other salmon by its color. It’s bright red as opposed to pink. The reason again for this bright red color is its superior astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon has one of the highest concentrations of astaxanthin of any food.

Three Ways to Help Determine if Seafood Is Mislabeled

For the average diner, it can be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to determine if the tuna or red snapper in your sushi is actually what it’s claimed to be. That said, there are some ways to protect yourself against rampant seafood fraud:5

1.    Ask questions. Consumers should ask more questions, including what kind of fish it is, if it is wild or farm raised, and where, when and how it was caught

2.    Check the price. If the price is too good to be true, it probably is, and you are likely purchasing a completely different species than what is on the label.

3.    Purchase the whole fish. When possible, purchase the whole fish, which makes it more difficult to swap one species for another.

Are You a Seafood Lover? Use These Tips to Stay Healthy

Aside from the fraud issue, which is clearly prevalent, most major waterways in the world are contaminated with mercury, heavy metals, and chemicals like dioxins, PCBs, and other agricultural chemicals that wind up in the environment. This is why, as a general rule, I no longer recommend getting your omega-3 requirements from fish, but rather from a high-quality, animal-based omega-3 supplement like krill oil. However, I do make two exceptions.

One is authentic, wild-caught Alaskan sockeye salmon, the nutritional benefits of which I believe still outweigh any potential contamination. The risk of sockeye accumulating high amounts of mercury and other toxins is reduced because of its short life cycle, which is only about three years. Additionally, bioaccumulation of toxins is also reduced by the fact that it doesn’t feed on other, already contaminated, fish.

Whenever I consume fish, I make sure to also take chlorella tablets. The chlorella is a potent mercury binder and if taken with the fish will help bind the mercury before you are able to absorb it, so it can be safely excreted in your stool.

The second exception is smaller fish with short lifecycles, which also tend to be better alternatives in terms of fat content, so it’s a win-win situation — lower contamination risk and higher nutritional value. A general guideline is that the closer to the bottom of the food chain the fish is, the less contamination it will have accumulated. So if you’re a seafood lover, try to choose most of your fish from this group, which includes:

·         Sardines

·         Anchovies

·         Herring

If you insist on eating typical, store-bought fish and want to know more about the extent of your mercury exposure, I urge you to check out the online mercury calculator6 at GotMercury.org to get an idea of the risks. Additionally, as mentioned above, you may want to consider taking a natural mercury chelator with any fish dinner. In addition to chlorella, this also includes zeolite (green clay) and fermented vegetables. Since larger fish tend to live longer and have the highestcontamination levels, they should be avoided entirely. These include (please note this is not an exhaustive listing):

Tuna (tuna steaks, sushi, and canned)

Sea bass and largemouth bass

Marlin

Halibut

Pike

Walleye

Shark

Sword fish

White croaker

 

PLEDGE: Join us in telling StarKist, Bumble Bee, and Chicken of the Sea to stop making deceptive claims to consumers about the dolphin-safety and sustainability of their tuna products.

Posted by

0


The environmentally devastating practices, including practices that can lead to dolphin mortality, of these companies are not “sustainable” or “dolphin-safe.” These claims are deceptive and constitute false advertising to consumers, who rely on the accuracy of such representations to make informed purchasing decisions.

Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea claim to be “100% dolphin-safe,” and all three of the suppliers state they will not purchase tuna caught in association with dolphins—a significant concern because tuna often swim together with dolphins. Dolphins can be traumatized, netted, injured, and killed by typical tuna fishing practices, including the use of giant “purse seine” nets, which capture dolphins along with tuna. Yet while approximately half of tuna consumers believe the dolphin-safe label means no dolphins died for the tuna in their can, the number of dolphins killed or injured by “certified” dolphin-safe tuna fishing methods in reality could number in the thousands every year. According to Greenpeace, around 300,000 cetaceans—whales, dolphins, and porpoises—die as bycatch each year.[1]

Meanwhile, on their packaging and their websites, the top three tuna suppliers all outline their commitment to “sustainable” fishing practices—ones that won’t deplete resources or harm the natural cycles of tuna or other marine life. However, the longlines and purse seine nets used to catch approximately 75% of the world’s tuna—including tuna sold by Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist—kill millions of non-target marine animals as “bycatch” every year, including sharks, sea turtles, dolphins, whales, and even sea birds. Some of these populations have been so decimated by commercial fishing that they are now critically endangered.

Longline fishing and purse seine fishing are not “sustainable.” These companies need to stop using greenwashing to deceive well-meaning consumers. If you agree, boycott all three!

Since practices required for ‘dolphin-safe’ certification don’t provide a 100% guarantee that dolphins are not harmed, the best way to be fully assured of dolphin-safety is simply not to eat tuna—this is best for the tuna, as well! However, some fishing practices—like use of giant purse seine nets—are clearly more environmentally devastating, and dangerous to dolphins, than others. If you choose to eat tuna, you can contact tuna companies to find out if their suppliers use purse seine nets.

Source: Greenpeace international