Mercury poisoning does not only afflict egotistical actors trying to get out of Speed-the-Plow performances, but New York men who devour 10 cans of tuna every week for two years. And the latter variety may decide to sue tuna makers for their troubles.
The New York Post reports a mercury-poisoned man who obsessively ate tuna is suing Bumble Bee Foods for breach of warranty and negligence. He’s also going after Stop & Shop for selling the product.
The story says experts warn not to eat more than five ounces of tuna a week to avoid thermometer-like mercury levels.
Bumble Bee, though, seems to claim its tuna is mercury-free, in a statement from a spokesperson, semi-paraphrased by the Post:
There’s never been a case of mercury toxicity from eating commercial seafood in the US” and that “alarmism” on this issue “can have an adverse impact” on people’s health.
I had a tuna meltdown [New York Post]
(Thanks, David!)
More From Consumerist
-
All-You-Can-Eat Crab Legs Are Probably Not Worth 3 Months Of House Arrest
-
Man Wins Bug-Eating Contest To Get Free Snake, Then Collapses And Dies
-
We Would Like To Shake The Hand Of The Man With A Credit Score Of 848
-
Want Tinted, Flavored Cereal Milk All Year? Start Stockpiling Franken Berry & Count Chocula Now
-
The Luxury Repo Men Are Here To Take Back Your Yacht
Who eats TEN CANS A DAY of tuna? That’s just weird.
Probably a cat in disguise
Okay, I giggled at that comment.
I thought “Whiskers J. Meowington, the third” sounded a little bit suspect also.
On the odd chance I ever get a cat, Its going to be named Caleb P. Purrington – which is the actual name of one of the founders of my town
Does it help you out any that the name Caleb means dog in Hebrew?
I had a Hamster named Barnaby Baxter Biggleton
Barnaby Baxter Biggleton Crown Prince of Hamtonia
someone trying to get mercury poisoning to prove a point or get a big settlement
Certainly not the guy in the article. He did eat TEN CANS A WEEK though.
That would be crazy… But from what I see above, it is 10 cans per week…
Ahh ic, from the comment below it looks like there may have been some headline tampering..
Apparently not the gentlemen in the article. He was eating 10 cans per WEEK, so about 1.4 cans a day.
Reading is HARD!
Bodybuilders. People who train their muscles and need the cheap protein from food.
Like Mimet said Bodybuilders will normally eat Tuna like that because its normally cheaper than Chicken Breast.
The headline is incorrect. The NYP story says he ate 10 cans of tuna WEEKLY, the headline here days he ate 10 cans DAILY.
Huge difference, although even 10 cans a week seems a bit excessive for anyone other than a BMW salesman of course.
Fcts wrng? N rsrch dn? fnd tht hrd t blv! Wh wrt ths pc? h. Nvrmnd. blv t. wndr f Th Cnsmrst s “tkng t vr srsl” whn ths fctll ncrrct psts g p ll th tm?
yeah, i’ve tried not to get on the “phil’s articles stink” bandwagon but it’s like he just skims them and writes something up quickly without going back and reading what he wrote.
and don’t you guys have editors?
Phil is an editor.
well that’s encouraging….
I just emailed all the editors because I’m getting tired of these incorrect stories. It’s in the second sentence of the linked article! It’s not that hard to read it was weekly, not daily. If they want us to give them money to support the site then they need to act like professionals and correct things that are wrong in a timely manner. Of course, these shouldn’t even happen if they (Phil) would read an article and re-read his story and check the facts before posting it.
To be fair, these posts are written very late at night/early in the morning: http://becauseitoldyouso.blogspot.com/2010/03/day-in-life.html Hopefully the nocturnal enuresis problem has cleared itself up.
9 AM isn’t that early…
If I read it correctly, it’s 9pm. While that’s also not usually in the fringes of the day, he also points out the routine of being woken up between 2-4am and using that excuse to write Consumerist posts as well
You’ve been RTFA’d!
Mh. H’s prfssnl wrtr? jrnlst? nd stll gts s mn fcts wrng? f w’r gng t s “h, t’s K tht Phl s bd t hs jb, snc h’s gt prsnl stff gng n!” thn shldn’t w jst cls ths st nd s “H, w knw tht ppl r ppl, bt lts f mplys hv kds nd prsnl lvs, nd t’s nt fr t hld cmpns rspnsbl fr nythng snc whvr dd whtvr r cm p wth whtvr plc prbbl dd s whl trd r lt t nght…”? f scrwd p t m jb n dl bss, ‘d b frd. nstd, th bn n nd ll cmmntrs tht cmpln bt Phl’s prfrmnc (r lck thr f).
Quote of last sentence in dbeahn’s troll post: “(or lack there of).”
Yes, dbeahn, you obviously know a lot about writing as evidenced by your ridiculous spelling error. I won’t even correct it for you. You should look it up, troll, and stick to what you do best, which is obviously not writing.
dn’t clm t b prfssnl wrtr. Phl, n th thr hnd, ds. fnd t qt msng tht n rnt b m bt hw Phl dsn’t gt hs fcts rght tht th mst y cn fnd t rp n n m pst s smpl spllng rrr. T sm p: Phl’s Prfssnl wrtng: Bg glrng rrrs n fcts nd cntxt. M nn-prfssnl wrtng: Mnr spllng rrrs.
Thnk y, zkbllsy, fr mkng m fl prd tht m wrtng s sprr t tht f mn tht mks hs lvng s wrtr!
Well said sir.
Actually, it’s a grammar error, not a spelling error.
What spelling error? Is “there” or “of” spelled wrong? Perhaps the author is blind or has no use of their arms, and uses a program to dictate what they say. Shame on you!
And there it is. Anyone who complains about the integrity of the site is labled a “troll”. I’m sorry that you are such a fanboy that you dont care about getting little things like “facts” and “information” correct, but I come to this site to hopefully gain an edge as a consumer. It seems that this is not really a priority for the site anymore, or people like you. Let me spell it out for you. People that disagree with your views are not trolls. They are probably more aware of the big picture than you are.
Wow. He has such terrible eating habits.
Folks, let’s keep comments on topic here. Slamming the writer isn’t appropriate or called for.
Calling attention to a mistake is fine, but it’s long since been corrected and veered well into just being insulting.
To be fair? Its a news and consumer blog that basically reports stories second hand. How late in the day do you have to write a story to get facts that have already been verified correct?
Looks like Phil is overworked. His wife seems to have it pretty easy.
To be fair, I don’t believe they make money off of the website. Normally I’d point out that an article generates ad revenue for the website, but they don’t run ads on Consumerist.
Plus after reading SteveDave’s comment and the linked blog post below, I can see that this isn’t Phil’s day job. I half-ass my own hobby website sometimes, so I can relate.
They might not make money, but they are very clear its affiliated with the Consumers Union and Consumer Reports magazine. Donations are solicited on this website. It makes one wonder how carefully the guys are Consumer Reports are actually reviewing things if their coworkers at Consumerist can’t bother to get headlines correct.
Ah okay. I can’t open the story here. Thanks for clearing that up.
Still, that’s a lot of tuna.
Don’t forget this tidbit as well:
Wow. Ten cans in two years? Crazy.
I love how he updates it, but doesn’t post “Edited to correct mistakes” or anything else that would indicate that this is no longer the original story.
Y t’s Phl dd y xpct smthng mr?
To be completely honest, I’m actually sort of shocked that he did correct it. That’s more effort than he usually puts in.
Phil does a *great* job (my opinion) on the morning deals, which makes his lack of attention to details for his other posts all the more frustrating for me.
*sigh*
Can’t win ‘em all.
This is Phil.
I love Phil. He inspired my avatar.
Don’t you have a special line for celebrities or emergencies?
I eat about that much tuna. It’s delicious. I swear to [insert deity here], I actually carry a fork and a can opener with me everywhere, and if I’m feeling hungry, I’ll duck into a grocery store for some tuna. Beats buying a big mac.
Really? It’s: “10 cans of tuna a week for nearly two years”
That should cause a concern. 10 cans a day for two years is excessive. 10 cans per week, while moderately excessive, is not outrageous.
Thank god I am allergic to seafood. Don’t want to suffer from Mad Hatter’s when I get old.
Revenge of the long-lived and high on the food chain fish, the new hit movie from the film division of Bumble Bee Foods.
I like tuna and all…but that is nuts!
I think that anyone who eats 10 cans of tuna a day for 2 years has more problems to worry about than just mercury poisoning…
Turns out it was weekly, not daily, so he probably had tuna for lunch every day and also for breakfast or dinner two days as well. The article says he figured it was a clean (I wonder if the reporter misheard that and he was actually saying ‘lean’) source of protein. It was also really cheap.
It’s still a lot but if he’s a body builder trying to eat healthy on the cheap it at least makes sense.
Yeah my brother did competitive body building for a few years, and practically all he ate was tuna and egg whites. (He really went overboard, it wasn’t healthy.) I’m betting this guy was a body builder or athlete looking for lean protein.
Or maybe he just really liked tuna…
Bodybuilders often use the phrase “eating clean” or “clean protein” … but I think you’re right that it doesn’t mean anything much different from “lean”.
It is the sweetest of the transition metals.
+1 that made me lol
Fix the headline, Phil! It’s weekly, not daily, quit trying to sensationalize it.
Phil feels like he doesn’t have to hear you out! Phil will do whatever he feels like doing !
- Respectfully Yours,
Phil @ Consumerist & Posse
There are genetic factors as to who quiclky you body can process mercury. If this guy was in the “unlucky” group that processed it very poorly (i.e. slowly) then he could experience quite a cumulative effect.
Is there an error tracker on Phil’s posts? It’s WEEKLY, which makes it FAR less ridiculous than daily.
Actually, it bolsers his case. 10 cans a day is clearly excessive. 10 cans a week is just some guy who really loves tuna salad.
I suppose you could argue that the limit on how much tuna to eat a week should be on the containers but I don’t see how he’s going to win the suit against the store for selling it.
“There’s never been a case of mercury toxicity from eating commercial seafood in the US”
That statement is wrong. Several years ago there was a case of mercury poisoning in New Jersey when a woman who ate a can of tune every morning for several years developed mercury poisoning symptoms and it was verified in hospital. The source was detemined to be the canned tuna.
10 cans of tuna PER WEEK isn’t all that much for people who are big workout nuts and want the protein.
(BTW, Reading comprehension is your friend Phil.)
Its obviously Phil’s enemy.
i agree… 2 cans a day for me 3-4 times a week is how i get protein… i guess i should cut back and go elsewhere for it :-
Beans, other Legumes (lentils are great for protien and fiber), nuts of all sorts (avoid peanuts), other lean meats such as pork, chicken, and grass-fed beef.
Beans are cheaper than tuna, but then the other meats start getting more expensive.
LOL, real workout nuts get their protein from mercury free whey protein shakes.
Bumble Bee does NOT claim to be mercury-free. The article doesn’t mention Bumble Bee saying this, nor can you infer that from the spokesperson’s quote.
From the Bumble Bee FAQ: “Many types of seafood contain minute amounts of mercury called “methyl mercury,†including tuna. The mercury level depends on the size and age of the fish, and the area of the catch. Commercial tuna is caught in the ocean far away from coastal areas where industrial discharges or emissions and the use of chemical compounds containing mercurials can pollute the waters. That fact, combined with the essentially constant levels of mercury in tuna over the past 100 years, suggest that the miniscule amount of mercury that does exist in tuna is naturally occurring.”
If you eat 10 cans a week for two years, then the mercury will build up. This guy has no case. He didn’t do sufficient research – he went by the ads and ate a ton of tuna because he thought it would be healthy.
He didn’t do sufficient research
To be fair, I doubt that most people do research on all of their food to make sure that eating it daily won’t cause some kind of poisoning.
It’s his body, so as long as the product didn’t claim to be something it’s not, then it’s his responsibility.
How is eating less than 1 and a half cans of tuna a day eating tuna “in excess?” I used to have a nutritionist when I was trying to lose weight, and she highly recommended tuna as a post-workout snack when I was starving, because it was high in protein, easy (all you have to do is open the can and get a fork) and affordable for me (I’m relatively low-income). I would eat a can of tuna a day, and then occasionally I’d have tuna on my salad for lunch. It never occurred to me that it might be dangerous since it’s supposed to be a great source of low-fat protein and good for you – guess I’m irresponsible, too!
I think you’re twisting words a bit.
I’m saying you’re “responsible” for your body in a manner that means you are ultimately accountable for your body and have to live (or die) with the result. Being “irresponsible” doesn’t seem relevant here.
So if that makes it easier to understand, replace “responsible” with “ultimately accountable”.
Do you personally feel “ultimately accountable” for what you eat?
IMO people who produce the food shold list what is in the food regardless the miniscule amount. You are trying to give a pass to the business side where they don’t deserve one. If FDA didn’t mandate putting poison in food, would it be ethical just because FDA didn’t force it? Cmon, these industrialists are people that are supposed to have human decency.
I’ve made it clear in other comments that I’m glad to have nutrition facts and ingredients printed on food products, and I’m appreciative of what the FDA does (well I appreciate most of what they do, but I’ll admit I wish they’d reign in the words “natural”, “fresh”, etc.). What the FDA does though is just a “perk” of living in the United States. It could be considered a core principle in how we call ourselves “civilized”, and that’s great.
I agree 100% that if Bumble Bee were trying to hide the fact that their product contains mercury, that’s completely unethical. Their website has an FAQ that seems to suggest that some mercury is naturally occurring in tuna, but as far as I’m concerned the jury is out on that.
As an aside, having experienced both sides (poor college student and working for large companies) I don’t have an innate distrust of big business anymore.
I’m not trying to make a point about that though. My final and only point remains the same: What you put into your face is on you.
I’m not sure how you could be alive in 2010 in America and not have heard about how tuna contains mercury and you shouldn’t eat it at every meal.
But if you didn’t know about the mercury would it have occurred to you to research it?
People tend to think that food is safe for them unless told otherwise. If someone who’s never had raisin bread before decided to try it they probably wouldn’t bother doing a Google search on the toxicity of raisin bread first.
Besides, I don’t think it’d make a very good defense for the company to just say that the plaintiff should have just heard of it before because a lot of other people do.
To me this seems painfully obvious but I can also see that it could be considered an opinion.
“People tend to think that food is safe for them unless told otherwise.”
This is akin to a person buying and eating a pound of butter a day and suing the butter company and store when he has adverse health effects down the road.
I don’t see how a food producer can be held responsible for someone assuming their food is safe unless otherwise noted. I mean sure we put warning labels on cigarettes, and I like that they’re there, but I still don’t fault a cigarette company if you willingly choose to use their product the same way I don’t fault Bumble Bee or the grocery store for this guy’s mercury poisioning.
Consider personal responsibility. A person is responsible for what they eat (assuming this man has the money to make a choice of foods). A person is responsible for their own actions. It doesn’t matter to me whether or not it’s a commonly helf belief that tuna contains mercury. As long as that can of tuna does not have on its label (or in the case of the store, no claim on the shelves) “mercury free” or “guaranteed safe to eat in excess”, then it’s this guy’s fault he has mercury poisoning.
This is akin to a person buying and eating a pound of butter a day and suing the butter company and store when he has adverse health effects down the road.
No it isn’t because 1) the amount of fat (with breakdowns of sat, unsat, and poly) is on the label and 2) fat is not a poison.
I’ve yet to see anyone claim that they regularly look up their foods to make sure that they don’t contain enough cyanide and lead to make eating more than a certain amount dangerous.
You’re missing the point here and making it clear that you’re adopting an entitled attitude and refusing to assign responsibility to a person (and that you don’t understand what poison is).
“No it isn’t because 1) the amount of fat (with breakdowns of sat, unsat, and poly) is on the label and 2) fat is not a poison.”
The fat is clearly labeled on the package, yes, but here’s the point I’m trying to make: The package doesn’t claim to have any more or less fat than what is reported. The same applies to the tuna, since it doesn’t claim to be “mercury free”. As far as I know, the FDA doesn’t require mercury content to be reported, so it isn’t.
Bumble Bee makes no fallacious claim of the mercury content just like the butter manufacturer makes no fallacious claim of the fat content.
Also, everything is poison. If you drank enough water without eliminating it from your body, you’d die of water poisoning. The only differences among substances is the dose at which it harms you.
I’ve yet to see anyone claim that they regularly look up their foods to make sure that they don’t contain enough cyanide and lead to make eating more than a certain amount dangerous.
Of course! I’d venture to say most people don’t look up the cyanide or lead content of their food, BUT that doesn’t make it anyone else’s responsibility. Cyanide and lead are extreme examples at best, but the idea of expecting someone else to be responsible for what you choose to eat is nothing short of entitled and arrogant. The FDA’s nutrition labels are great (I’m thankful to have them) but they’re by no means a right guaranteed to every living person. Look at nutrition labels in Europe, they have much less stuff on them.
What the FDA does is a service, and I appreciate it greatly, but in the end, what I eat is my responsibility.
lolwut…..it’s ENTITLEMENT to assume that the food you eat, cleared by the FDA, DOESN’T contain deadly poisons? That, sir, is a very ignorant statement
No, not at all. It’s entitlement to think that someone else should do your thinking for you.
The FDA has been wrong many times before, and if you can believe it, there was once a time when there was no FDA.
A bit of healthy skepticism and rational inquiry into what you’re eating is worthwhile.
Exactly. I don’t ‘research’ food. But I’d have to live under a rock to avoid this common knowledge.
“Bumble Bee, though, seems to claim its tuna is mercury-free, in a statement from a spokesperson, semi-paraphrased by the Post:”
Nonsense. Bumble Bee does not claim its tuna is mercury free! Read their FAQ.
http://www.bumblebee.com/FAQ/
“Nearly all fish contain traces of methyl mercury. Canned tuna meets all health and safety standards set by the FDA, which has established the maximum safe level of methyl mercury allowed in commercial seafood at 1.0 parts per million. In the latest product survey by the FDA, canned light meat tuna averaged less than an eighth of that amount, and canned albacore tuna averaged about a third of the maximum safe level set by the FDA.”
Read that carefully, though. as BB is not saying how much Mercury is in BB tuna.
This does not establish what levels of mercury are acceptable nor how much is actually in their tuna. So a cunsumer is not warned at what maximum they can consume on a weekly basis.
So it seems he has a case. Similarly to the man who ate several bags of microwave popcorn a day and got “popcorn lung” and sued. He won.
Methyl mercurcy is incredibly toxic. If it built up in the body at even a slow rate, even eating 1/8 of 1 ppm it wouldn’t take too long to get a toxic dose.
I do like that the doctor “ordered a heavy metals blood test.” Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor AAHHHHHHH! lol
ONE!
Nothing wrong with…oh wait…
The most dismaying thing about this post is that THAT is the song you associate with “heavy metal.”
+1
Heavy Metal Blood Test is actually the name of my Quiet Riot cover band.
This is pretty bogus. Go to today’s Junkscience.com
http://www.junkscience.com/
You do know that JS web-site is a right wing site that has funding from Corp groups looking to increase THEIR views.
So, it’s just like all the left-wing sites that claim outrageous things that are usually backed by the same companies looking to promote their eco products?
Milloy is the guy who runs junkscience.com
“Milloy’s close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.”
From wikipedia
We’re talking about the quality of sources, and we bring wikipedia in as the voice of reason? Surely, I’m not the only one who sees comedy in that.
http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706
To be honest, I’m a leftie mclefterson and not a corporatist, but I agree that there’s very little science behind the arbitrary mercury limits, it’s fearmongering to prevent birth defects in women who don’t know they’re pregnant, your average to extreme tuna-eater isn’t going to get poisoning.
Oh yes, and Jeremy Piven is a lying fake, but that’s obvious.
I eat about 6-10 cans a week because I like plain tuna from the can and its filling. Most nutrition books I read contradict each other on mercury poisoning from tuna so Im not sure if I should be worried or not. I just wish the tuna I liked wasn’t so dang expensive. $1.40 per can. I cant eat the store brand ones cuz they just dont taste the same.
The cats have learned to spell properly! Everyone, run!
I like plain tuna too. I don’t eat 10 cans a week though.
My 8 year old son loves it and wants to eat it every day, but I restrict him to once a week. Even then I worry…How do I know If his system can detoxify it?
“My 8 year old son loves it and wants to eat it every day, but I restrict him to once a week. Even then I worry…”
Once a week? Is he pregnant? You can give him much more than that.
“How do I know If his system can detoxify it?”
It is naturally released from his system (if slowly), the only people that claim otherwise are lying to sell their snake oil “chelation” products.
1.40 per can – you’re probably eating the albacore?
I don’t think it has nearly as high mercury levels as does plain chunk.
Try to vary it up, your body will thank you. Beans, legumes (lentils are win for protein and fiber!), other lean meats.
Actually albacore has more mercury than regular chunk light tuna.
http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115662.htm
“Most nutrition books I read contradict each other on mercury poisoning from tuna”
It’s primarily idiots lying to the public instead of being honest about targeting “pre-pregnant” women. The risk of anyone actually being poisoned with average consumption of tuna fish is nil, barring genetic predisposition.
Besides the headline, did anyone else notice the “5 ounces a of tuna a week” part? A can of tuna is 7-8 ounces. A decent piece of tuna in a restaurant is easily over 5 ounces. And don’t get me started on grandma’s tuna casserole.
In what decade was a can of tuna “7-8 ounces”? Tuna has been in 5 oz cans for well over a year now, maybe 2.
Not only has the grocery shrink ray hit tuna cans multiple times, but the amount remaining more resembles watery cat food than the tuna I remember.
Cat food was never that watery
I think the brand name tunas are in 5oz cans, but if you buy store brand, sometimes they are 7oz cans, I know the Wegmans brand and Costco’s brand (Kirkland) were 7oz cans.
On a side note, if “experts warn not to eat more than five ounces of tuna a week to avoid thermometer-like mercury levels.” they are doing a really crappy job at letting the world know, I wouldn’t say that is common knowlege. And 10 cans per week is a lot, but it isn’t obscene, if you make a large sandwich for lunch each day, that could be a can per sandwich.
I just checked my cans and they were 7oz. Costco is trying to give me mercury poisoning!
Besides the headline, did anyone else notice the “5 ounces a of tuna a week” part? A can of tuna is 7-8 ounces. A decent piece of tuna in a restaurant is easily over 5 ounces. And don’t get me started on grandma’s tuna casserole.
Yeah, I thought that was a little strange. I’ve read up to 2 cans of chunk light a week is acceptable for pregnant women.
Cans have shrunken to 5oz.
Until the shrink ray hit everything, Tuna cans were standardized at 6oz and 10oz I believe.
So those 7 oz cans are missing 3 oz and the smaller ones are missing 1.
Tuna cans used to be 7 oz, from the time I could make my own sandwiches, say the early 70′s, until I left College in the late 80′s.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo…………….. this is HIS video???????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvC3M-cscV8
Anyone concerned for cats who eat maybe a can of tuna each day?
Most cats probably get their nutrition from crappy cat food that’ll kill them rather than tuna that’ll kill them.
Yes, but not because of mercury poisoning. Tuna lacks the essential nutrients cats need. Sure they like it because it tastes good, but they’re going to die of malnutrition if you don’t start them on real cat food very soon.
Even if you’re feeding it as a treat, 1 whole can a day is FAR TOO MUCH.
“Essential nutrients”? What, do you work for Purina? Can you be more specific?
I don’t have a dog in this hunt (although I do have two cats), but I think the “essential nutrients” may be referring, at least partially, to taurine, an amino acid that is essential for cats. Without it, cats’ retinas deterioriate and blindness results. Also, it’s important for regulating heartbeat and other functions. There is no taurine in tuna; in nature, it is found only in meat. Thus, when brands like Trader Joe’s make canned tuna for cats, they supplement it with taurine (and maybe other essentials as well) to ensure that it provides the proper nutrients a cat needs. In fact, the prevailing suggestion is that people should avoid feeding regular tuna (i.e., “people food”) to cats, or at any rate, only feed it occasionally or as a treat.
Also, for exra credit, the AAFCO is an org (not governmental but widely accepted as authoritative) that certifies that pet foods contain the minimal essential nutrition that the animals need to thrive and stay healthy.
There is *a lot* more to this question (i.e., essential nutrients for cats, and dogs too, I suppose, and how the AAFCO determines its standards) and endless discussion about it online. But basically, suffice it to say that even though most of us know that cats eat mainly, or even exclusively, animal-based protein – not every protein is sufficiently nutritionally complete.
Sometimes, when I dish out dinner to my cats that probably costs more, pound for pound, than what the humans are eating, I wonder how cats managed to survive, and, clearly, procreate prodigiously, when all they got to eat were scraps put out by the kitchen door.
Trader Joe’s has the nutrients in, it’s not pure Tuna Fish.
I should be more specific. My feline masters adore “Tuna For Cats” by Trader Joes. Ingredients: Tuna, water, various supplements (AAFCO sorts of stuff). They’d eat it day and night if I permitted it.
No, I’m not. I feed mine several cans a week, and it’s still much less likely to poison them than the melmanine-tainted crap you buy in a grocery store. (The rest I get from Trader Joe’s and Mud Bay.)
i’d be worried. Tuna actually isn’t as good for cats ppl think. And neitehr is pretty much ANY of the typical commerical dog/cat food. Just look it up, purina, beneful, science diet, iams… ALL filled with fillers. Wellness and the those foods are good. Feeding raw is even better (I know for dogs it is, not sure bout cats… Look up BARF diet).
oh, and cats arent supposed to get milk either. THey are pretty lactose intolerant after they stop breastfeeding…
This is a frivolous lawsuit, and he will never win.
How does he know it was the tuna that gave him poisoning.
I don’t know where Phill is getting that Bumble Bee is mercury-free. They never said it was. What she said was
“there’s never been a case of mercury toxicity from eating commercial seafood in the US and that “alarmism” on this issue “can have an adverse impact” on people’s health.
I always said before, if the plaintiff loses, they would have to pay the defendant attorney cost and lost time from work.
That would stop lots of these frivolous lawsuits.
He has a better case than those people who have won suing tobacco companies. Where is the warning label on tuna?
Too much of any one things usually proves harmful. Tuna is known (by most, anyway) to naturally contain tiny amount of mercury. A casserole on occasion or a few cans a month a — even once a day for a short time — is unlikely to be harmful, but averaging over a can a day, EVERY DAY, for two years? Hardly surprising.
And of course, the courts will probably shrug off personal responsibility and stick it to “big tuna.”
How does this person prove he did consume stated tuna. And don’t be so quick to dismiss this case as frivilous. Remember the incident where a woman spilled McDonald’s coffee on her lap and won her lawsuit?
This is something that the anti-vaccine idiots should remain aware of – there is more mercury in a single tuna fish sandwich than a flu shot.
I eat a lot of tuna. Oddly enough, when it is warm out, I get taller. Related?
I just failed at keeping my mind out of the gutter. Apologies!
What can he sue over? Tuna naturally has mercury in it. It’s not some by product added in.
If tune needs a warning label, that is the government’s job to require. Bumblebee has nothing nothing wrong, because you cannot blame them for nature.
If tune needs a warning label, that is the government’s job to require.
Why?
Seriously, I’m not being snarky. Why does the fact that the mercury is naturally occurring mean that the company doesn’t have to put a warning on it without the government requiring it?
may be he thought it was chicken
Hmm. There’s no comment at all indicating the difference between albacore and light tuna. If you eat light tuna, you can safely consume a higher quantity per week. See here:
http://ewg.org/tunacalculator
Wait, doesn’t mercury accumulate in the body? We don’t have a way of reducing mercury levels, do we?
If that’s true, and this guy got poisoning after only about 100 cans, does that mean that we can’t eat more than 100 cans of tuna?
“We don’t have a way of reducing mercury levels, do we?”
Yes, we do release mercury.
Well that’s a relief.
Also, I meant “1000″ cans, obviously.
Staged case. The guy knew he would get Hg poisoning. Who the hell eats 10 cans of tuna a week anyway?
I’m divieded. My knee jerk reaction was that this is just another stupid suit, but if the quote is accurate and he took it to heart, i feel for the man
Minamata.
Sounds like a lot of tuna… but I’ve done it. Cheap generic-brand tuna ($.45/ea) with a little Parmesan cheese (all warmed up, of course) was pretty much my lunch staple for a long time. I got my food budget down to about $60-$80/mo by living off tuna, the cheapest chicken available, frozen veggies, and cheap yogurt. It got pretty bland and repetitive, but the bills got paid. Just glad I didn’t accidentally poison myself.
Oh no…! I certainly eat more than 10 cans a week.
Luckily correlation always proves causation, so we can all be sure that the tuna caused the mercury poisoning.
I got mercury poisoning… and I eat way less than the recommended amounts. I rarely ate tuna.