PDA

View Full Version : Tuna??? Mercury??



fatsoPanda
02-22-2003, 10:43 PM
I just found out if you eat too much Tuna you can get Mercury poisoning!?!?!?!? What the?!?!? I never heard this before... I assume it's probably very rare and you'd have to eat incredible ammounts but, i also heard doctors tell expecting mother's to lay off of tuna because of this. Anyone have some insight on this?? And how much is too much???

Calipso
02-22-2003, 11:34 PM
If thats true, I'm a human thermometer.

-Calipso

MJ23
02-22-2003, 11:49 PM
Its true.........i would eat two cans of tuna a day (not to excessive i thought).....and my roomate took a urin sample from me......it turned out that my mercury levels were pretty high.....probably not a good thing.

PeaceBeWithYou
02-23-2003, 01:11 AM
Is that why it tastes like ****?

restless
02-23-2003, 02:52 AM
No, it's not why it tastes like ****.


Unfortunatelly it's true, all the fish placed high in the food chain is contaminated with mercury. The problem with mercury is not really the accute poisoning possibility, as I doubt you'll ever get that from tuna (you can get it from a single dose of whale's liver though) but some kind of chronic poisoning. Some have suggested that the alhzeimer (speeling?) and Parkinsons epidemic tht has been going on may be related to this as mercury works as a neurotoxin.

I've cut to 2 or 3 cans of tuna per week at the most and in my opinion, eating tuna everyday is asking for trouble these days.

Tbizz
02-23-2003, 03:14 AM
Hey!!!
Watch your mouth, Albacore Solid White Tuna by BumbleBee tastes like chicken :drooling:

aka23
02-23-2003, 04:27 AM
FDA toxicologists found that there are adverse effects of mecury in fish at doses of 10 ppm. They set their s limit at 1ppm to have a wide safety margin. There are a couple types of fish that been known to exceed 1ppm mecury such as swordfish and shark. Generally predatory species that consume smaller fish have high levels. Adult tuna fits in this category, but the immature tuna that is used in canned products does not. Canned tuna has been measured to have an average mecury level of 0.17 ppm (would take about 6 cans to reach 1 ppm limit). Some groups feel this level may be harmful to developing brains when eaten on a regular basis, so limits may be placed for special groups like pregnant women and small children.

There are a wide variety of recommendations of acceptable levels for adults. One of the most common figures is no more than 7oz of fish containing 1ppm mecury per week, or no more than 14oz of fish conataining 0.5 mecury per week. Using mathematics, the equivalent weekly serving for canned tuna would be no more than 8.2 six oz. cans (5 oz solid) of tuna per week, or an average of no more than 1.2 cans per day (assuming that one is not eating other fish containing mecury on a regular basis). To be on the safe side, one might want to avoiding eating fish on a daily basis. Most experts agree that fish is safe and healthy when eaten a few times per week as part of balanced diet.

restless
02-23-2003, 05:12 AM
For those who have the time and the patience, a 349 pages report on the effects of methylmercury on humans:

Report. (http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/reports/volume5.pdf)

fatsoPanda
02-23-2003, 08:01 PM
I see.....so what do you guys think of Salmon (the canned type)?? Is there mercury in that too?? I heard not, but just wanna check.

aka23
02-23-2003, 08:06 PM
Salmon generally has much lower levels than tuna. The table at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html lists mecury content of tuna, salmon, and many other fish. They say canned salmon has an average level of ND, which stands for Not Detectable.

fatsoPanda
02-23-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by aka23
Salmon generally has much lower levels than tuna. The table page at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html lists mecury content of tuna, salmon, and many other fish. They say canned salmon has an average level of ND, which stands for Not Detectable.


good deal!!!

thanks aka23:bow:

restless
02-24-2003, 01:33 AM
On the other hand, farmed salmon has little omega 3 in it. Make sure you get wild fish.

Ti1301
02-25-2003, 02:37 AM
Watch your mouth, Albacore Solid White Tuna by BumbleBee tastes like chicken

Actually I like bumblee the best, despite how chicken of the sea was voted best tasting.
To me chicken of the sea tastes like chicken.

WaterWalker
02-25-2003, 07:40 AM
QUOTE]Originally posted by restless
Make sure you get wild fish. [/QUOTE]

Where do you find wild fish? Does it say on the package?

fatsoPanda
02-25-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by WaterWalker
QUOTE]Originally posted by restless
Make sure you get wild fish.

Where do you find wild fish? Does it say on the package? [/QUOTE]


i think he means "fresh" fish

bradley
02-25-2003, 11:12 AM
The only place I know of to purchase wild salmon is in a seafood market or at the fresh seafood dept. at local supermarkets. All of the frozen that I have seen is farm raised and I would assume that the canned salmon is farm raised also.

raniali
02-25-2003, 11:43 AM
i would also like to point out that the recommendations for minimizing the amount of canned tuna you eat applies to higher risk individuals: namely, pregnant women and young children, or others with specific medical issues.

Madd Hatter
02-25-2003, 12:20 PM
I've seen this thread a dozen times on half a dozen boards, and this is the first time that the general consensus seems to be "don't walk, run from it" instead of "screw that, eat all you want". Usually there'll be guys who eat 3-4 cans of tuna a day and say no worries. I eat 2 almost every single day, and when I bump up my intake in a few weeks, I was gonna eat three. Then this thread comes along and makes me wonder about the whole thing.

restless
02-25-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by fatsoPanda


Where do you find wild fish? Does it say on the package?



i think he means "fresh" fish [/B]

No, I meant wild fish. Sarmon has a high omega 3 content due to ooit's natural diet and when they're fed the crap they are fed in those fish farms they start having a fatty acid profile not to different from beef.

aka23
02-25-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by restless
On the other hand, farmed salmon has little omega 3 in it. Make sure you get wild fish.

I have heard similar statements. However the USDA database indicates that both farmed and wild sources are excellent sources of omega 3. The confusion may be related to farmed fish having more total fat that wild fish. A smaller percentage of the total fat is omega 3 in farmed fish, but there is more fat total.

Below is the Omega 3 content in a 6oz portion of various types of salmon, according to the USDA database listing:

Salmon, Atlantic, farmed -- 3.6 grams
Salmon, pink, canned, solids with bone and liquid -- 2.8 grams
Salmon, sockeye, canned, drained solids with bone -- 2.0 grams
Salmon, Coho, farmed -- 2.2 grams
Salmon, Coho, wild -- 1.8 grams



Originally posted by bradley
The only place I know of to purchase wild salmon is in a seafood market or at the fresh seafood dept. at local supermarkets. All of the frozen that I have seen is farm raised and I would assume that the canned salmon is farm raised also.

Most canned salmon is also wild, since the softer texture of farmed fish makes packing difficult.

restless
02-25-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by raniali
i would also like to point out that the recommendations for minimizing the amount of canned tuna you eat applies to higher risk individuals: namely, pregnant women and young children, or others with specific medical issues.

Yes, but the question is if the FDA really does put your health above the interests of the food industry....

raniali
02-25-2003, 12:40 PM
maybe the fda actually cares about unborn fetuses and young, developing children.

but then again, maybe i am having a pipe dream (if that's possible for a girl).

restless
02-25-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by raniali
maybe the fda actually cares about unborn fetuses and young, developing children.

but then again, maybe i am having a pipe dream (if that's possible for a girl).

Well, I admit I do have an atraction to conspiracy theories in general....

restless
02-25-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by aka23


I have heard similar statements. However the USDA database indicates that both farmed and wild sources are excellent sources of omega 3. The confusion may be related to farmed fish having more total fat that wild fish. A smaller percentage of the total fat is omega 3 in farmed fish, but there is more fat total.

Below is the Omega 3 content in a 6oz portion of various types of salmon, according to the USDA database listing:

Salmon, Atlantic, farmed -- 3.6 grams
Salmon, pink, canned, solids with bone and liquid -- 2.8 grams
Salmon, sockeye, canned, drained solids with bone -- 2.0 grams
Salmon, Coho, farmed -- 2.2 grams
Salmon, Coho, wild -- 1.8 grams




Most canned salmon is also wild, since the softer texture of farmed fish makes packing difficult.

All i can provide at this point is a reference someone posted on another board to a study that found that farmed salmon does have a worse n3/n6 ratio than wild fish.

And also this:

"Development of farmed fish: a nutritionally necessary alternative to meat.

Sargent JR, Tacon AG.

Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, UK. jrss1@stir.ac.uk

The projected stagnation in the catch from global fisheries and the continuing expansion of aquaculture is considered against the background that fishmeal and fish oil are major feed stocks for farmed salmon and trout, and also for marine fish. The dietary requirement of these farmed fish for high-quality protein, rich in essential amino acids, can be met by sources other than fishmeal. However, the highly-polyunsaturated fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) and docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3) present in high concentrations in fish oil are essential dietary constituents for marine fish and highly-desirable dietary constituents for salmonids. Currently, there is no feasible alternative source to fish oil for these nutrients in fish feeds. Vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid (18:2n-6) can partially substitute for 20:5n-3 and 22:6n-3 in salmonid and marine-fish feeds. However, this is nutritionally undesirable for human nutrition because the health-promoting effects of fish-derived 20:5n-3 and 22:6n-3 reflect a very high intake of 18:2n-6 relative to linolenic acid (18:3n-3) in Western diets. If partial replacement of fish oils in fish feeds with vegetable oils becomes necessary in future, it is argued that 18:3n-3-rich oils, such as linseed oil, are the oils of choice because they are much more acceptable from a human nutritional perspective, especially given the innate ability of freshwater fish, including salmonids, to convert dietary 18:3n-3 to 20:5n-3 and 22:6n-3. In the meantime, a more judicious use of increasingly-expensive fish oil in aquaculture is recommended. High priorities in the future development of aquaculture are considered to be genetic improvement of farmed fish stocks with enhanced abilities to convert C18 to C20 and C22 n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, enhanced development of primary production of 20:5n-3 and 22:6n-3 by single-cell marine organisms, and continuing development of new species."

I find very hard to believe that they're actually feeding fish oils to farmed fish, but they seem to suggest they do.

restless
02-25-2003, 02:48 PM
And also of interest:

Consumer labs on fish oils. (http://consumerlab.com/results/omega3.asp)