December 6, 2010 Washington, D.C. – Consumer Reports (CR) latest scare story on canned tuna is simply a retread of a 2006 report that does a disservice to its readers by using the same sleight of hand to exaggerate concerns about mercury in fish. 

• Consumer Reports should have led its report with the fact that none of the canned tuna it tested exceeded the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) allowable limit for mercury.  In fact, its own study found average mercury levels in light tuna were lower than the average found by the FDA. 
• Throughout the article, Consumer Reports refers to FDA limits but applies an EPA consumption metric in order to suggest consumers should eat less canned tuna. It is an old trick that exposes Consumer Reports’ willingness to use misdirection in order to get the results it wants.  
• The article announces “new tests” found white tuna usually contains more mercury than light tuna. Not news. That’s publically available information that has been known since mercury in fish was first studied. Rather than taking 42 cans to a lab, Consumer Reports could have used Google to find that out. 
• Peer-reviewed science shows that pregnant women who limit or avoid seafood may actually be introducing risks from omega-3 deficiency.  Advising pregnant women to cut canned tuna completely out of their diet and for others to limit their consumption is irresponsible.

Despite all the hand wringing about tuna at Consumer Reports, MediaPost reports it didn’t stop them from serving tuna to their employees and their guests at the magazine’s recent Holiday Party.