Advice on Tuna Consumption If you bump up your fish intake to get more vitamin D, there's one potential drawback: mercury content. No doubt, this is a dilemma. And if you go looking for information that will help you avoid high-mercury fish, you might come across the July 2004 issue of Consumer Reports (CR), which carries an article titled "Is the Government too Lax in Advice on Tuna Consumption?" CR's assessment is that the government IS too lax - as if we're all waiting breathlessly to find out if the FDA might lower their recommendation about how much tuna pregnant women should eat. Do we really need the FDA's official ruling to know that pregnant women and young children should go easy on tuna intake? I don't think so. But I have another fish to fry here (and yes, that pun was completely intended - forgive me). The CR article notes that the government advises young children and women of childbearing age to avoid eating king mackerel, shark, swordfish, or tilefish. Meanwhile, as much as 12 ounces of lower-mercury fish each week is okay. Naturally this begs the question: What fish are low-mercury? And the answer: farm-raised catfish and trout, haddock, salmon, and flounder. THAT, however, is NOT the answer that CR gives. Here's CR's suggestion for low-mercury fish: fish sticks. Fish sticks! Holy mackerel! That's CR's idea of sound nutrition? They also suggest that "fish sandwiches typically served in restaurants" contain low-mercury fish. So if I'm eating 12 ounces of McDonald's filet-o-fish each week, that's healthy? I have to say that the editors of Consumer Reports are models of consistency. When it comes to health and nutrition, they miss by a mile nearly every time. My advice to CR: It's summertime, guys. Give us some ratings on air conditioners and barbeques. If we need nutrition recommendations we'll rely on real nutritionists. Source:
"Is the Government too Lax in Advice on Tuna Consumption?" Consumer Reports, July 2004, consumerreports.org
| 
