State regulators have been tough on food companies selling seafood. They have asked them to put mercury levels information on tuna cans to avoid any further complications. The Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency already advise consumer to avoid eating the fish because of its high levels of mercury that can cause brain damage in babies. But the federal government doesn’t require tuna companies to place consumer warning labels on their products.
Last week an effort by California to require labels was back in state court. The California Attorney General’s Office argued that state law requiring warning labels on products containing chemicals shown to cause cancer and birth defects means tuna should be labeled. It was in 2006 when a trial judge threw out a lawsuit California filed two years earlier pushing for labels. The judge sided with the tuna companies and scientists who argued that 95 percent of the mercury found in tuna comes from natural sources.
Justice Ignacio Ruvolo told the government’s lawyer that the key finding is that wherever it’s coming from, it’s naturally occurring and not man-made. It is found that the judges panel didn’t indicate which way they were leaning. A decision is due within 90 days and is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Deputy Attorney General Susan Fiering argued that the trial judge incorrectly discounted the state’s scientific conclusions that more man-made mercury is found in tuna than the companies’ claim. The companies explained that regulators need to consider how much tuna a pregnant woman consumes over time, rather than at one sitting, when measuring the health effects of the remaining five percent of the mercury caused by pollution.
