The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have joined to issue draft guidance on mercury levels and fish consumption, directed at pregnant women and guardians of young children. Recommendations include eating 8 to 12 ounces (two to three servings) of low-mercury fish like tilapia, catfish, cod, salmon, and shrimp as well as avoiding four fish high in mercury (shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico) and limiting albacore tuna intake to less than 6 ounces per week. The conclusion of the comment period has not yet been announced. More information on FDA’s updated guidance appears in Issue 525 of this Update. Issue 526
Tag Archives fish
Responding to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Mercury Policy Project (MPP), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will soon update guidance on the permissible levels of mercury in seafood and the associated potential risks for pregnant women and young children. While CSPI and MPP urged the agency to mandate mercury-level labeling on seafood and at fish counters in grocery stores, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said that labels would not be mandated under its forthcoming guidelines. Previous guidance issued in 2010 indicated that pregnant women should limit seafood intake to less than 12 ounces weekly and discouraged consumption of shark, swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel. See Associated Press, May 30, 2014. Issue 525
A recent review has reportedly identified several flaws in the widely cited 1970s study which found that diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids could help fight coronary artery disease (CAD). George J. Fodor et al., “‘Fishing’ for the origins of the ‘Eskimos and heart disease’ story. Facts or wishful thinking? A review,” Canadian Journal of Cardiology, April 2014. In the original study, Danish researchers examined the diet of Greenland Eskimos and linked the high amount of fish oil to the purportedly low incidence of CAD. A team of researchers has reexamined the original study as well as more recent studies on the Eskimo population and found that Eskimos actually suffer CAD at the same rate as Caucasians. The 2014 study identifies several reasons why the original study’s source for CAD rates in the Greenland Eskimos—the annual reports produced by the Chief Medical Officer of Greenland—were likely insufficient, including poor reporting…
Research presented at the Experimental Biology 2014 meeting has apparently confirmed the importance of dietary long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), concluding that lower intakes of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA) were predictive of cognitive decline. According to an April 27, 2014, press release, scientists with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University used food-frequency questionnaires to assess the consumption of omega-3 PUFAs among 895 study participants, who also completed cognitive testing over a two-year follow-up period. The results evidently showed that participants in the lowest four quintiles of EPA and DHA consumption showed more signs of cognitive decline than those in the highest quintile. “While more research is needed to determine whether intake of fatty fish such as salmon, tuna and trout can help prevent against cognitive decline, our preliminary data support previous research showing that intake of these types of…
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final rule, effective April 14, 2014, amending its food additive regulations to allow the use of ionizing radiation on crustaceans (e.g., crab, shrimp, lobster, crayfish, and prawns) to control foodborne pathogens and extend shelf life. In response to a petition first filed in 2001, FDA concluded that use of irradiation to treat chilled or frozen raw, cooked or partially cooked crustaceans, or dried crustaceans, with or without spices, minerals, inorganic salts, citrates, citric acid and/or calcium disodium EDTA used in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, is safe, provided that the absorbed dose does not exceed 6.0 kGy. At this dose, FDA notes, ionizing radiation will reduce but not entirely eliminate, the number of illness-causing microorganisms in or on crustaceans. The agency also observes that irradiation is not a substitute for proper food-handling practices and that crustaceans treated with ionizing…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Mercury Policy Project have sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking a declaration that the agency’s delay in responding to their citizen petition on labeling fish with high levels of mercury is unreasonable and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. CSPI v. FDA, No. 14-0375 (D.D.C., filed March 10, 2014). Further details about the petition, which seeks labeling on seafood packaging and point-of-purchase signage, appear in Issue 401 of this Update. The plaintiffs also seek an order compelling the agency to issue a final response by a court-imposed deadline. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs submitted the petition to FDA in July 2011 and received a tentative response from the agency beyond the 180-day limit required by FDA regulations. The plaintiffs claim that they have not received any communication from FDA since then…
The company that has developed a genetically modified (GM) salmon has reportedly filed an application with Health Canada seeking its approval to market the fish for human consumption. AquaBounty received the approval of Environment Canada in November 2013 to produce GM salmon fish eggs at its Prince Edward Island hatchery—a decision that has been challenged by three environmental groups—and is still awaiting U.S. approval before its fish and eggs can be sold there. The company said that it “currently expects to market AquAdvantage Salmon in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Chile, and China following receipt of required regulatory approvals in the applicable jurisdiction.” See The Canadian Press, March 11, 2014. Issue 517
A federal court in New York has refused to dismiss claims alleging that Bumble Bee Foods is strictly liable for and was negligent in failing to warn about the mercury in its products in a lawsuit alleging personal injury from excessive consumption of the company’s tuna products, which contain methylmercury. Porrazzo v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 10-4367 (S.D.N.Y., order entered February 27, 2014). An earlier ruling in the case is summarized in Issue 413 of this Update. The plaintiff, who apparently consumed one to two cans of tuna daily for more than two years and was diagnosed with dangerously high levels of mercury in his body, also brought claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and violations of certain state statutory provisions involving agricultural and business law. The court found that the issues argued in Bumble Bee’s motion for summary judgment involved genuine issues of material fact that…
According to a coalition of environmental organizations, service has been effected on the defendants to their court application challenging the legality of the Canadian government’s decision to allow AquaBounty Technologies to commercially produce genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Ecology Action Centre v. Minister of the Env’t, No. T-2114-13 (Fed. Ct., filed December 23, 2014). They contend that Minister of the Environment Leona Aglukkaq and Minister of Health Rona Ambrose failed to assess under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act whether GE salmon “could become invasive, potentially putting ecosystems and species such as wild salmon at risk.” Alleging several statutory and regulatory violations, the organizations seek a declaration that the ministers acted unlawfully and without jurisdiction, their toxicity assessment is invalid and unlawful, or they unlawfully or unreasonably failed to conduct a lawful and complete toxicity assessment. AquaBounty CEO Ron Stotish has reportedly indicated that the legal action is without merit. See Ecology Action Centre…
A federal court in California has granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by Bumble Bee Foods in a putative class action alleging that certain labeling claims either deceived consumers or violate state and federal law. Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12 1828 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 2, 2014). Information about the complaint is included in Issue 436 of this Update. The court agreed with Bumble Bee that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding her standing to pursue consumer-fraud claims based on the company’s purported statements about vitamin A and iron, because those statements were made on the nutrition information panel, which the plaintiff “does not claim to have read in connection with purchasing the product.” Other similar statements appeared on the company’s Website, and “Ogden concedes that she did not visit this website prior to purchasing the Sardines Mediterranean…
