Self magazine recently published an extensive article titled “How Worried Should I Really Be About Mercury in Tuna?” At almost 2,000 words it’s a behemoth of a report. It’s pretty clear the reporter did a lot of research and provides at least some balance on a retread topic that’s primarily driven by unnecessary hand wringing and hyperbole.
In the end there are too many holes to unpack here but as an example of how the article magnifies the misunderstandings and fails to provide readers with an accurate perspective, the reporter provides a list of fish and their mercury content in parts per million. Skipjack, tuna or light tuna, is listed at 0.13 parts per million (ppm.) What the reporter doesn’t tell you is that the FDA limit for mercury in fish is 1.0 ppm. So, for instance, if that limit were a speed limit, light tuna would be traveling 5.5 mph in a 55mph zone.
However, there’s an even more exact perspective than that. While the FDA limit for mercury in seafood is 1.0 ppm, it’s important to note that FDA scientists find adverse effects from mercury have only been seen above 10.0 ppm. So the Food and Drug Administration limit includes a ten-fold safety-factor built in, meaning a fish would have to exceed 10.0 ppm to approach levels of concern. Therefore, light tuna would be traveling .55 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone. That’s right… half a mile per hour in a 55. That’s a very different risk proportion than the tone of the article suggests. An important perspective that is never explained.
What’s more, she misses another key piece of information. While the article goes to great lengths to discuss how to avoid mercury from fish it never lets readers know that there are no cases of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood found in published peer reviewed science. None. Period. So, 2000 words later she’s having readers work really hard to avoid, what? Theoretical risk?
