Too much tuna?

xzanti

A friend of mine was horrified recently when I told her I'd been eating tuna salads for dinner a few times a week.. I've been trying to eat healthy and tuna is so quick, easy and filling so for me it's the perfect addition to a salad or some rice and veg.. She reckons there's too much Mercury in it and that it's very bad for me to eat it more than once a week??? Is there any truth in this?

I've been eating it for a good while now and I feel just fine..

partyguinness

Did she have the tuna you were eating tested?

Truth is every type of fish has got some trace metals in it. I love tuna loads of protein and essential oils. What is her background?

To be honest I would be more worried about the car fumes walking by the quays.

xzanti

She's fairly into nutrition, she's no expert afaik but she eats healthy from what I can see and keeps in good shape.. Maybe she's just misinformed.. She said that Tuna generally swim close to the sea bed where there's loads of mercury.. And that fish like salmon would be better... I thought it sounded a bit mad, but don't want to risk my health if there is any truth in it.. Sure you don't know what to believe these days.. :rolleyes:

sgross75

xzanti wrote: »

She's fairly into nutrition, she's no expert afaik but she eats healthy from what I can see and keeps in good shape.. Maybe she's just misinformed.. She said that Tuna generally swim close to the sea bed where there's loads of mercury.. And that fish like salmon would be better... I thought it sounded a bit mad, but don't want to risk my health if there is any truth in it.. Sure you don't know what to believe these days.. :rolleyes:

I have been told the same thing that eating tuna often is bad ....and when I ask why, the answer is 'eat everything in moderation....I say eat as much of the tuna as you wnat to..

partyguinness

She is right in that tuna wld contain mercury..but to be honest you wld want to eat a serious amounts of it to see any ill effects..I mean several pounds of the stuff everyday for years and years...

Sure 99.9% of the food we eat is full of crap that is bad for us so where do you draw the line?

Mascara contains mercury..FFS..

giddybootz

this is true and relativly well known. see here http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/tuna.asp

i think that really you are not meant to eat tuna more than 3 times a week approx.

xzanti

I've only been eating the small little cans of it... Anyone know what the harmfull effects are as a result of 'over dosing' on it??

Edit: It's ok I found it...

Mercury and Human Health

Humans risk ingesting dangerous levels of mercury when they eat contaminated fish. Since the poison is odorless, invisible and accumulates in the meat of the fish, it is not easy to detect and can't be avoided by trimming off the skin or other parts.

Once in the human body, mercury acts as a neurotoxin, interfering with the brain and nervous system.

Exposure to mercury can be particularly hazardous for pregnant women and small children. During the first several years of life, a child's brain is still developing and rapidly absorbing nutrients. Prenatal and infant mercury exposure can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. Even in low doses, mercury may affect a child's development, delaying walking and talking, shortening attention span and causing learning disabilities.

In adults, mercury poisoning can adversely affect fertility and blood pressure regulation and can cause memory loss, tremors, vision loss and numbness of the fingers and toes. A growing body of evidence suggests that exposure to mercury may also lead to heart disease.



Huh....
:eek:

cozmik

xzanti wrote: »

I've only been eating the small little cans of it...

Tell your friend there isn't a problem eating a small tin a few times a week. Now if you were eating 3+ cans a day, you may need to worry about mercury poisoning.

The_Conductor

Ps- eating salmon isn't a whole lot better.......

Salmon, and other fish higher up the food chain, tend to accumulate the toxins that the fish lower down the food chain have been exposed to. In salmon the problem relates to organochlorine toxins- the most dangerous of which are the PCBs. Ironically farmed salmon tend to have much higher levels of toxins than wild salmon.......

Link here

S.

lisajane

While checking out the internet about yeast infections, i found a little bittle of info regarding mercury:

http://www.yeastinfectionadvisor.com/mercurypoisoning.html

I was never worried about eating tuna before until i read this. But then i never knew about mercury. And i have been eating tuna about 5 times a week and i have been for months, thinking it was good. Think il give it a break and give it up for a while. Would those products that flushes out mercury be any good? The site also gives symtoms of mercury poisoning.

lisajane

Salmon would be ok to eat. But what about canned salmon?

The_Conductor

lisajane wrote: »

Would those products that flushes out mercury be any good? The site also gives symtoms of mercury poisoning.

Ignore the products that advertise that they flush out mercury- they are total nonsense. Mercury accumulates in your fatty tissue and in your liver- it will dissipate over time- but don't bother with the quack products, at best they'll have no effect whatsoever.......

The_Conductor

lisajane wrote: »

Salmon would be ok to eat. But what about canned salmon?

Depends......
If its wild- its less likely to have the same level of toxins. Salmon however is at the top of the food chain- so even wild salmon will have toxins associated with it (albeit at lower levels than farmed salmon). Wild salmon also tastes ten times nicer than farmed

dioltas

People have warned me about this before. At times I'd eat over 3 big tins a day. Haven't died yet. Cutting down now a bit alright, because of the paranoia. It's a balls though, because tuna is such a handy source of protein. You'd think if there really was an issue they're would be a need for a warning on the tin.

zreba

dioltas wrote: »

You'd think if there really was an issue they're would be a need for a warning on the tin.

There's also no warning on chocolate boxes about harming your nervous system:

During the last several decades the scientific literature has pointed to chocolate for its alleged role in many body maladies. They have discovered that chocolate can cause migraines, acne, obesity, dental cavities, heartburn, rectal itching, and coronary problems. And a new study implicates two chemicals in chocolate - theobromine and caffeine - as villains in a disorder known as fibrocystic breast disease. This benign ailment is characterized by fibrous tissue and cyst fluid in the breasts. Chocolate also contains methylxanthines which accelerate chemical activity involved in the body's cellular metabolism and can cause certain sensitive tissues to proliferate. WOMEN WITH FIBROCYSTIC BREAST DISEASE ARE FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP BREAST CANCER AS NORMAL WOMEN.

Chocolate also is loaded with another chemical, phenylethylamine, a compound related to amphetamine. This can lead to emotional problems such as feelings of anger, irritability and confusion, depression, hyperactivity, hallucinations, and even violent behavior. Dr. Marshall Mandell, in his book "5-Day Allergy Relief System", noted that milk chocolate caused impaired memory and deteriorated penmanship as well as mental confusion for a nine-year-old boy.

Frequent consumption of chocolate leads to addiction, and many people are allergic to chocolate and don't realize the symptoms they have are caused by it. Psychiatrists have pointed out that people resort to chocolate binges when they are depressed.

cozmik

dioltas wrote: »

You'd think if there really was an issue they're would be a need for a warning on the tin.

Warnings wouldn't be good for business. It's up to people to educate themselves.

The_Conductor

Most things have serious side effects if you over indulge.
There is an assumption (often misplaced) that people are intelligent enough to make reasonable decisions regarding their food and their lifestyle- and its simply not fair to assume that simply because there is no warning on the label that its safe to consume a couple of pounds of chocolate a week, a few tins of tuna a day, a daily breakfast roll etc- without some side effects eventually making themselves known.

Tuna has heavy metal. Its not got the highest concentrations of heavy metal in commercially fished species- wild salmon and indeed some of the crustaceans tend to be higher (which is why there are designated no-go areas for fishermen (they're not all conservation related)).

It should be apparent that people should educate themselves about their food- be it via internet, like here- or via speciality books, such as "Not on the label by Felicity Lawrence"- which also goes into the ethics of food production (there are loads of books out there).

SMcCarrick

Cloudinsane

I eat Tuna quite often. To be honest, with all of the possible side-effects of various packaging in other products, Tuna is the least of anyones worries.

flywheel

xzanti wrote: »

She reckons there's too much Mercury in it and that it's very bad for me to eat it more than once a week??? Is there any truth in this?

(from previous post on Fitness a while back so hopefully links still work ok):

DubWireless wrote: »

the topic of mercury in fish pops up here from time to time. the US FDA and Health Canada have both issued advisories on it, Health Canada more reacted to one of the national TV station's news teams expose on the levels of mercury in canned tuna earlier in 2007

fyi the US and Canadian advisories:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/2007/2007_14_e.html

i'd suggest it is something to read up on, taking into account most of the groups the advisories focus on are expectant / nursing mothers and children, but anyone consuming a lot of fish should educate themselves taking into consideration the findings presented