The tuna it is one of the most consumed fish in Europe, but it hides some pitfalls. A recent report by BLOOMtitled “TunaGate: Chronicle of a Health Scandal,” revealed the pervasive mercury contamination some cans of tuna.
The tuna market is worth it beyond 40 billion dollars per year and according to the complaint there are 40 billion “good” reasons to sacrifice public health in the name of profit. The analysis has indeed revealed that every can of tuna contains mercury, and in many cases, levels exceed the established limits by European legislation. Limits which, in turn, have already been set in favor of the industry. The tuna-gate is potentially explosive, but the producers are asking for avoid alarmism and respond by denying the investigation’s accusations.
Presence of mercury: the study on cans
There BLOOM conducted an investigation on 148 cans of tuna coming from five European countries: France, Italy, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. The results are worrying, because it emerges that the 100% of the cans warheads contained mercury.
The study revealed that 57% of the cans even exceeded the maximum mercury limit set by European legislation, which is 0.3 mg/kg. One sample in particular, purchased at a Carrefour in Paris, showed a record level of 3.9 mg/kg, i.e 13 times higher to the permitted limit.
These are results that not only indicate a widespread contaminationbut they also raise questions about the quality and safety of the food that reaches Europeans’ tables.
The investigation asks whether the regulatory methods currently in place are sufficient to protect consumers. “The health regulations have been set in such a way that allow the sale of the majority of contaminated products,” they write in the report. If true, it means that i maximum mercury limits were established to ensure that as many tuna as possible can be marketed, thus neglecting the potential health risks of children and adults.
What are the risks of contamination
The mercuryparticularly in its methylated form, is a neurotoxic known for its harmful effects on human health. According to theWorld Health Organization (WHO):
The mercury it is one of the ten substances of greatest public health concern.
Its presence in tuna therefore represents a non-negligible threat, in particular for vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women. For this reason there are studies on the maximum contamination limits, within which a product is considered suitable for consumption. But the BLOOM study also casts doubt on these values.
Over time, research has shown that exposure to methylmercuryeven in small doses, can cause damage to the neurological development of fetuses and children. Further studies of children exposed to mercury during pregnancy showed that those with the highest levels of exposure were four times more likely to have an IQ below 80, indicative of an intellectual disability. Furthermore, some research shows that prenatal exposure to methylmercury has been associated with behavioral and cognitive disorders long term. In adults, however, the accumulation of mercury in the body can lead to a variety of health problems, including neurological, cardiovascular and immunological disorders.
Finally, it is important to note that the mercury it is not the only contaminant present in fish. As we read: “Mercury is rarely found in isolation, it is often accompanied by other pollutants such as lead And cadmium“. In this way, what is known as the “cocktail effect” is created, where the combined effects of multiple contaminants can be additive or even multiplicative, further complicating risk assessment.
Profits before health: the complaint
The most critical and worrying aspect of the BLOOM report is another, because it not only highlights the contamination, but also denounces the way in which health regulations have been influenced by commercial interests. In one passage he mentions: “Regulations on maximum mercury levels have been set for maximize tuna sales contaminated.” Hence the complaint that the rules on limits do not reflect the real risk to health, but rather one commercial logic which prioritizes profit over consumer protection.
Currently, the mercury limit for tuna is three times higher than for other, less contaminated fish species. This is a paradoxical situation in which “tuna, one of the most contaminated fish, has maximum tolerances that cannot be justified by health reasons”. This would demonstrate, from what can be seen from the report, a clear conflict of interest on the part of thefishing industrywhich has put pressure on decision makers to maintain these lenient standards.
Furthermore, the report highlights how controls on tuna are minimal and insufficient. “In France, the health authorities have not planned tuna can inspections” and only conduct a limited number of tests on fresh fish, which leaves consumers exposed to “unacceptable risks.”
What is the role of lobbies?
It is not the first time that BLOOM has denounced pressure from industry lobbies. Let’s go back to 2015, when the European Union doubled the size of its delegations, going from 22 to 40 average delegates. This increase coincided with pressure from coastal countries in the Indian Ocean for a more equitable distribution of resources. “European industrialists – we read – in collusion with public authorities, have blocked any progress towards sustainable management of marine resources”.
The lobbies, in particular the UAPF (Union des Armateurs à la Pêche de France), have demonstrated that they have enormous power in defining regulations in favor of their interests.
Fueling doubts about the management of resources and the importance of health is the lack of transparency of data from institutions such as SCoPAFFThe “Standing Committee on Plantsanimals, food and animal feed”. The mission of this committee is, among other things, to define precisely the maximum contaminant thresholds authorized in food products.
It is made up of representatives of the Member States of the European Union, but operates in total opacity: the identity of its members and the results of the votes are not known and the detailed content of their exchanges remains hidden.
The interconnection between lobbying and health
BLOOM’s investigation examines decades of standards development by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), organizations that have strongly influenced, for years, European regulations. By studying their documents, BLOOM has determined that several members of the Joint FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (Jecfa), which is supposed to ensure food safety, are affected by conflicts of interest.
BLOOM reports that even the Codex Alimentarius, launched in 1963 by the FAO and the WHO to set international food standards, it is under the influence of the tuna lobby. The group responsible for monitoring food contaminantsthe Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCCF), for example, is driven by Netherlandsone of the main players in the industrial fishing sector. Furthermore, the tuna giants are regularly directly represented in the national delegations that participate in CCCF meetings, unlike NGOs.
Italian producers deny it
In response to the concerns raised by the BLOOM report and other non-governmental organizations, theAncit (National Association of fish and tuna canners) declared that “quality, food safety and wholesomeness of the canned tuna they are an absolute priority for the Italian canned fish industry”. The association clarified that canned tuna marketed in Italy “respects European Union legislation on food safety” and meets the legal requirements imposed by European legislation regarding the presence of mercury.
“There is no risk of mercury non-compliance in canned tuna marketed on the Italian market,” added Ancit. Furthermore, according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the consumption of fish in the range of 2-4 portions per week provides net health benefitsregardless of the risk resulting from exposure to methylmercury.
