Real nutrition experts are clear when they urge Americans to eat more lean, nutrient-dense foods like canned tuna to jump-start New Years Resolutions. But Prevention magazine is doing just the opposite for its readers by promoting out of step messages about canned tuna that are sure to confuse and unnecessarily concern. Thanks Prevention.

Prevention claims that canned tuna can be riddled with unsafe levels of mercury. However, if they did minimal fact-checking, they would find the FDAs limit for mercury in seafood is 1.0 parts per million (ppm), with a ten-fold safety-factor built in, meaning a fish would actually have to exceed dose levels of 10.0 ppm to approach any adverse effects. According to the FDA, canned light tuna has 0.128 ppm and canned white tuna has 0.35 ppm, far below the FDAs threshold and any levels associated with harm. The FDA even promotes canned light tuna as a good source of low mercury seafood.

Prevention goes on to promote a tuna brand, Safe Catch, that will apparently solve all of tunas (non-existent) problems. [It] will actually be the first of its kind test every single fish it uses for mercury levels before a tuna gets anywhere near a can. A helpful bit of information for Prevention to know is that all ocean-going seafood has trace amounts of mercury, and has since the beginning of time due to underwater volcanic vents along the seabed. So, spoiler alert, each tuna they test will have trace amounts of mercury. However, fish, such as canned tuna, is eaten as a whole food, and the vast benefits of vitamins and minerals like B vitamins, iron, and selenium, along with essential omega-3 fatty acids and high-quality protein outweigh those trace amounts of mercury. In fact, levels of mercury in commercial seafood are just the same as they were nearly 100 years ago and no one is getting sick.

Prevention ends by crediting this new tuna brand as being the first (once on the market) that will meet Consumer Reports criteria for low mercury, a standard pure enough for pregnant women and small children.

Why does Prevention rely on a consumer electronics magazine, with a core competency in rating refrigerators and radios, for important nutrition standards?

And why does Prevention neglect to tell its readers that the FDA blasted Consumer Reports for its irresponsible advice on canned tuna?

“the methodology employed by Consumer Reports overestimates the negative effects and overlooks the strong body of scientific evidence published in the last decade.

–FDA

In fact the FDA updated its advice to pregnant women this summer, urging them to eat at least 2-3 seafood meals per week, including canned tuna.

Prevention: starting the year on a low-note.