Submitted by Denise Recalde, Jan 28, 2008 11:35

Look guys, the associate director of the American Council on Science and Health, Jeff Stier, a perfectly independent and neutral source, came against the NYTimes piece, and rightly so. I write for a global fisheries news service (www.fis.com) and unlike 99.9% of the people out there, I read and write about tuna and other commercial fish species day in and day out. Ive had the unique privilege to judge both sides of the issue.

Its completely true about the precautionary gap the FDA takes into account when it issues safety levels. You can go to the FDA site and check it out for yourself. Its common sense that the FDA would calculate mercury-in-seafood limits with a comfortable cushion gap. They are not going to wait and see if ppl die from mercury poisioning before raising limits. I mean, duh.

Further, a 2006 Harvard study stated that the benefits of eating tuna - eating fish just twice a week can cut your heart disease risk by 36% (also verifiable) - vastly outweighs the risk of mercury-poisoning from tuna.

In fact no one in all of the United States has ever died from methyl mercury poisoning in its entire history. Seriously.

Mercury-in-seafood is also naturally occuring. It comes from underwater sea activity and not from pollution, but of course this isn't the kind of information related in the news out there. Nobody in the NYTimes staff actually reads science reports, it seems.

The worst thing is that sll this histeria is terrible ultimately for the public health. As everyone knows, tuna is the only source of seafood for most poor americans, and making them believe that they should stay away from it is beyond irresponsible.

Its sad but one shouldnt always trust what environmental people say about certain issues. They often willfully misinterpret, outright distort or simply insinuate connections that simply isn't true all in a bid to get you, the consumer, from eating fish and wrecking havoc on the world's stocks. While the decline in stocks issue IS a major problem, blatantly distorting information as the NYTimes journalist did is outrageous. Its simply NOT true. Go to the FDA or American Council on Science and Health sites to judge for yourself.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.