Seattle sushi eaters, rejoice.
Mercury levels found in tuna at local grocery stores and restaurants are lower than in other cities. Seattle performed much better than tests conducted in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Diego.
Why?
More restaurants are staying away from bluefin tuna. The bluefin is a very large predatory fish that accumulates lots of toxins including mercury. According to many environmental experts, the bluefin population also has been depleted due to overfishing.
Every restaurant or grocery store owner I spoke with was well aware of the mercury issue.
Many have stopped selling bluefin.
The other thing to remember is that just like tuna, mercury accumulates in your body. And according to state toxicologists it can stay in your body for up to six months. Women of childbearing age and children are most at risk from mercury exposure.
Fish is still a good, healthful food to eat.
Experts say if you are going to eat it, change it up a bit. Try different types of fish.
Two questions: Was this the first time you had heard of the mercury in tuna issue?
And if you did know the risks, have you made changes in your diet due to those concerns? Full story.
3 Comments
karl said:
What good are your published results? 4 of your samples (including the lowest and highest mercury concentrations) came from the same seafood wholesaler.....No, not really; How would I know? but apparently, you don't know either. That scenario is highly likely. There are so many more variables, habitat of the fish (fishery), age/size of fish etc. etc. Naming one result from one sample at one store has absolutely no value except to inflame the general public.
Scott said:
I must agree with the above comment. When were the fish caught, where, how were they processed, etc, etc. This was not a test of fish in the Puget Sound area. Multiple samples taken from multiple sources (wholesale and retail) over several months to years would provide reliable information about the safety of our seafood. Your tests and follow-on story does more harm than good. Viewers may assume shopping for sushi at the QFC at Mercer store is safe when, it is quite possible, you received an abnormal sample from that store. While you had a toxicologist review your results, I would strongly suggest you have an epidemiologist take a look. This is dangerous, misleading and lazy reporting.
Steve said:
Your report, and others on the east coast,seems to target Sushi (raw) products. Why just Sushi or raw fish? What about the "fact" that mercury is found in fish no matter if you eat it raw or cooked. Just because it is cooked does not mean the fish has any less mercury.
On the point of "information" why not offer the public a link to other sites that have information on the "other" side of the coin? Such as www.mercuryfacts.org
The report offered a sensationalistic view that not only hurts the retailers but the public as well. Reporting should offer the general public information with perspectives as its agenda...not ratings.
What good are your published results? 4 of your samples (including the lowest and highest mercury concentrations) came from the same seafood wholesaler.....No, not really; How would I know? but apparently, you don't know either. That scenario is highly likely. There are so many more variables, habitat of the fish (fishery), age/size of fish etc. etc. Naming one result from one sample at one store has absolutely no value except to inflame the general public.
I must agree with the above comment. When were the fish caught, where, how were they processed, etc, etc. This was not a test of fish in the Puget Sound area. Multiple samples taken from multiple sources (wholesale and retail) over several months to years would provide reliable information about the safety of our seafood. Your tests and follow-on story does more harm than good. Viewers may assume shopping for sushi at the QFC at Mercer store is safe when, it is quite possible, you received an abnormal sample from that store. While you had a toxicologist review your results, I would strongly suggest you have an epidemiologist take a look. This is dangerous, misleading and lazy reporting.
Your report, and others on the east coast,seems to target Sushi (raw) products. Why just Sushi or raw fish? What about the "fact" that mercury is found in fish no matter if you eat it raw or cooked. Just because it is cooked does not mean the fish has any less mercury.
On the point of "information" why not offer the public a link to other sites that have information on the "other" side of the coin? Such as www.mercuryfacts.org
The report offered a sensationalistic view that not only hurts the retailers but the public as well. Reporting should offer the general public information with perspectives as its agenda...not ratings.