2024-11-02 06:51:00
An in-depth investigation by the BLOOM organization has uncovered a large-scale health scandal: mercury contamination of cans of canned tuna sold throughout Europe. BLOOM analyzed nearly 150 cans of tuna from five European countries, revealing that each contained traces of mercury, a neurotoxic substance classified among the most dangerous by the World Health Organization (WHO). This discovery highlights the influence of the tuna lobby, which, with the complicity of public authorities, would have imposed contamination standards allowing the sale of tuna at risk for the health of consumers.
Mercury, an omnipresent and dangerous poison
Mercury is a chemical element that is extremely toxic to the human body, particularly in its methylated form, methylmercury, which accumulates in marine food chains. The emission of mercury into the environment has increased significantly over the last two centuries, resulting in its increased presence in the oceans. As a large marine predator, tuna concentrates these heavy metals through accumulation in its body, reaching much higher levels than in smaller species. Consumption of tuna therefore represents a significant source of exposure to mercury for Europeans, who consume on average 4.9 kg of tuna per person each year in France.
Methylmercury is particularly harmful, even at low doses, to the neurological development of fetuses and young children. By accumulating this contaminant over the years, the risks to human health become a concern, making regular consumption of tuna potentially dangerous.
Alarming results: all cans of tuna contaminated with mercury
BLOOM had 148 cans of canned tuna purchased randomly in Germany, England, Spain, France and Italy analyzed, revealing that 100% of them contained mercury. Of these cans, 57% exceeded the limit of 0.3 mg/kg, a standard applied to other fish such as cod. The analysis highlighted extreme cases: a can of the Petit Navire brand contained 3.9 mg/kg of mercury, or 13 times the strict standard for other fish. Faced with these results, BLOOM believes that all cans with a content exceeding 0.3 mg/kg should be withdrawn from the market. Nevertheless, these products remain accessible, exposing consumers to continued risk.
Inadequate health standards to protect the interests of the tuna industry
BLOOM’s investigation reveals a disturbing reality: the mercury thresholds authorized for tuna are three times higher than for less contaminated species, without health justification. Set at 1 mg/kg, these levels do not reflect a concern for safety but a desire to allow the sale of the majority of tuna products. According to BLOOM, European and international authorities have thus aligned themselves with the highest contamination observed in tuna, guaranteeing the marketing of 95% of production. By doing so, the authorities would allow contaminated products to be sold legally.
Mercury is a powerful neurotoxicant that binds to the brain and is difficult to eliminate. BLOOM emphasizes that this management of standards goes against public health, leading people to believe that consuming tuna is safe when the risks are real.
The determining influence of the tuna lobby in establishing standards
The influence of the tuna industry on health standards appears at each stage of the regulatory process, notably through the Codex Alimentarius, created by the FAO and the WHO to define international food standards. The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants is chaired by the Netherlands, a leading industrial fishing country, and includes representatives of the tuna industry in its national delegations. This level of influence is worrying for BLOOM, which denounces the under-representation of NGOs in discussions and conflicts of interest within the FAO-WHO committee, where some members have links to the tuna sector.
These constant interactions between the industry and regulatory authorities contribute to shaping more permissive standards, which ignore health risks and prioritize the economic interests of tuna producers.
The SCoPAFF, an opaque committee at the heart of the scandal
One of the key players in this affair is the SCoPAFF (Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed), a European committee which establishes the admissible contamination thresholds in food. Made up of representatives from European Union member states, SCoPAFF operates in an opaque manner, refusing to reveal the identity of its members, the details of its deliberations, or the results of votes. BLOOM criticizes this lack of transparency, emphasizing that the European Parliament itself is kept out of decisions, despite its attempts to obtain more control over health standards.
This lack of transparency prevents the public and NGOs from verifying the real criteria underlying the setting of mercury thresholds, thus perpetuating vague and possibly dangerous regulations.
Insufficient and ineffective controls
Monitoring of tuna contamination in Europe is rare and insufficient. In Seychelles, a major center of tuna fishing for the European market, only around ten tests are carried out each year to verify the conformity of millions of kilos of exported tuna. In France, checks on cans of canned tuna have ceased since 2023, and only around fifty fresh tuna are tested annually. This situation fuels an illusion of safety, while consumers are exposed to sometimes very high levels of mercury.
The few existing controls are based on standards set to ensure that few tests are non-compliant, a framework which offers reassuring coverage without real security. As a result, the majority of contaminated products go unnoticed, reinforcing a misleading impression of safety.
Mobilization for stricter health measures
Faced with this scandal, BLOOM and foodwatch, an NGO specializing in consumer protection, are calling on the authorities to adopt rigorous measures. Together, they launched a campaign to raise awareness and demand stronger regulation of mercury in tuna. Among the main requests are:
Alignment with the standard of 0.3 mg/kg : The European Commission must establish a mercury threshold for tuna comparable to that applied to other fish.Application of a safeguard clause by Member States : European states must prohibit the marketing of tuna products exceeding the limit of 0.3 mg/kg.The exclusion of tuna from eating places for sensitive populations : Products containing tuna should be banned from establishments serving vulnerable populations, such as schools, hospitals and retirement homes.
Read also: “Poison in the fish”: two NGOs warn of mercury contamination of tuna in Europe
At the same time, BLOOM and foodwatch also initiated a petition addressed to the main European brands, including Carrefour, Lidl, and Edeka, asking them to act immediately to protect their customers.
Source : bloomassociation.org
1730980153
#Mercury #contamination #BLOOM #reveals #public #health #scandal #unprecedented #scale
Dr elena Martinez red Sea
**Interview with Dr. Elena Martinez, Environmental Health Expert and Advocate at BLOOM Organization**
**Interviewer:** Dr. Martinez, thank you for joining us today. Your recent investigation unveiled alarming levels of mercury in canned tuna sold across Europe. Can you share some of your key findings?
**Dr. Martinez:** Thank you for having me. Indeed, our investigation revealed that every single one of the 148 cans of tuna we tested contained mercury. Notably, 57% of these cans exceeded the 0.3 mg/kg limit, which is already the standard for less contaminated fish like cod. In one shocking instance, a can from Petit Navire contained a staggering 3.9 mg/kg—13 times the limit.
**Interviewer:** That sounds incredibly concerning. How does mercury end up in the tuna, and what are the potential health impacts?
**Dr. Martinez:** Mercury, particularly in its methylated form, accumulates in marine food chains. As a large predator, tuna absorbs these toxic substances over its lifespan. Consuming tuna can pose significant health risks, especially for vulnerable populations like pregnant women and young children, as even low levels of methylmercury can harm neurological development.
**Interviewer:** BLOOM asserts that the current mercury limits for tuna are excessively high—three times higher than for other fish. What justification do authorities provide for this?
**Dr. Martinez:** Unfortunately, there’s little justification from a health perspective. The levels have been set to favor the tuna industry’s economic interests rather than consumer safety. The 1 mg/kg threshold is not based on public health but on allowing the majority of tuna products to remain on market shelves. This is an alarming compromise.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned the influence of the tuna lobby on establishing these standards. How does this lobbying affect public health policies?
**Dr. Martinez:** The tuna industry’s influence is pervasive at both national and international levels. The Codex Alimentarius, which sets food safety standards, includes representatives from the tuna industry in its committees. Such conflicts of interest often lead to more lenient regulations that overlook the serious health risks associated with mercury contamination.
**Interviewer:** What actions do you believe need to be taken to address this situation?
**Dr. Martinez:** It’s imperative to advocate for stricter monitoring and enforcement of food safety standards. We’re calling for the withdrawal of any canned tuna exceeding safe mercury levels off the market. Transparency in the regulatory processes, especially from committees like SCoPAFF, is crucial. Additionally, increased independent testing of tuna products is needed to hold the industry accountable.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Martinez. Your insights highlight a crucial issue regarding food safety that impacts many consumers. How can the public help advocate for change?
**Dr. Martinez:** Public pressure is vital. Consumers should inform themselves about the health risks associated with high mercury intake and advocate for stricter regulations by reaching out to local representatives and supporting organizations like BLOOM. Collective voices can drive significant change in food safety policies.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your valuable insights, Dr. Martinez. We appreciate your efforts in shedding light on this critical health issue.
