This New York Times Article on Tuna May Be the Worst Of All Time

The New York Times’ recent article “The Truth about Tuna” by Eric Vance poses several questions near the top: “[Is tuna] good for you? Should you be worried about its mercury content? And what about the health of our oceans?”

The Times would have done a far greater service to readers by merely answering those questions: “Yes, it is. No, you shouldn’t. And tuna stocks are currently stable, healthy, and sustainably fished.”

Unfortunately, Vance and the Times don’t stop there, and instead regurgitate lazy and unsupported myths about one of the most affordable, nutritious, and widely available sources of protein in America, contributing to an ongoing public-health disaster.

First, credit where it’s due: The Times and its sources note tuna is “packed with protein, minerals and vitamins” and “has more selenium than just about any other meat.” But then things go off the rails.

“Tuna’s one big health drawback, experts say, is the risk posed by mercury, a neurotoxin. This heavy metal enters the ocean mostly from human activities like burning fossil fuels. It’s absorbed by small organisms and works its way up the food chain and accumulates in bigger, longer-lived species — like sharks, swordfish and, yes, tuna.

In high enough concentrations, mercury can cause serious health problems. Cases of mercury poisoning are rare in the United States, but experts worry about the long-term effects of mercury on the brain — and elevated levels are often more common among urban and coastal populations that eat more seafood.”

Nearly every sentence in this excerpt is false or misleading. In order:

“This heavy metal enters the ocean mostly from human activities like burning fossil fuels.”

That’s the opposite of the truth. No less than the UN reports that only about 30 percent of mercury in oceans comes from unnatural sources. In fact, the story the Times links to in this sentence to support this assertion (naturally, it’s another Times story) actually undermines it. It reports that despite massive declines in manmade mercury emissions over the last century, levels in the ocean have remained stable. That’s suggests most mercury that exists in the oceans comes from natural sources like volcanic activity.

“[Mercury] works its way up the food chain and accumulates in bigger, longer-lived species — like sharks, swordfish and, yes, tuna.”

It’s wildly irresponsible to lump tuna into this category. The most cautious government advice for the most vulnerable populations – pregnant and breastfeeding women – recommends that those groups avoid shark and swordfish (which are rarely consumed by Americans anyway) but it specifically recommends yellowfin tuna, albacore tuna, and skipjack tuna like the kind used in canned and pouched products as “good” and “best” choices to eat.

“Cases of mercury poisoning are rare in the United States…”

That actually understates the truth, which is that there has never been a case of mercury poisoning from the ordinary consumption of commercial seafood reported in a peer-reviewed journal. Ever. In other words: There is no evidence that anyone has ever been “poisoned” from eating tuna. That’s not rare, it’s nonexistent.

“[E]xperts worry about the long-term effects of mercury on the brain — and elevated levels are often more common among urban and coastal populations that eat more seafood.”

According to NOAA’s most recent data, Americans’ per capita seafood consumption is already far below the recommendations in the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines, and it’s falling.

That’s in large part due to fear-mongering bad science like the kind pushed by this article.

The reality is that other parts of the world consume far more seafood than Americans – even our “urban and coastal populations” – do. Mediterranean, east Asian, and island populations for instance. And there is no evidence to date that any of them experience negative effects from that consumption.

On the contrary, high rates of seafood consumption are associated with cognitive development (including higher IQ) and cardiovascular health. One metastudy which included over 191,000 participants from 58 countries, found that consuming at least two servings of fish per week was associated with a significantly lower risk of major cardiovascular events and total mortality, especially in individuals with pre-existing vascular disease.

Ironically, the Times piece mentions that tuna is high in selenium. Researchers actually believe it's this very nutrient that binds to mercury and offsets prevents it from causing harm.  Mature science has moved on from looking at mercury in isolation and begun examining the ratio of mercury to selenium, known as the Selenium Health Benefit Value. 

In light of all this evidence, the Times piece giving air to the thought that pregnant women and children under 12 should “avoid [tuna] altogether” is not just wrong it’s scandalous—even dangerous. Again, Americans are already eating too little seafood, foregoing heart and brain benefits.

Pregnant Americans are even more seafood deficient. The Times notes they should cap their seafood consumption at 12 ounces per week. That shouldn’t be too hard, because their average consumption is current 1.8 ounces per week.

Again, we have scientifically ignorant clickbait like the Times story to thank for this massive, harmful public-health disaster.

The Times goes on to make even more outrageous and unsupported claims about the sustainability of tuna and give bad advice for how to shop for and purchase so-called “better” tuna. But in an article full of so many falsehoods, those claims will have to wait for their own post.