From the huffington post

New research from Consumer Reports shows that pregnant women should avoid all tuna, contrary to the Food and Drug Administration’s description of light canned tuna as a fish “lower in mercury.”

“Tuna happens to be one of the fish that can be very high in mercury, and some types of tuna have higher levels than others,” Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiative at Consumer Reports told The Huffington Post. “The type that tends to get used in sushi is often very high, but even canned light tuna, which tends to average pretty low levels and is generally one of the safer fish to eat, occasionally has these spikes of high levels of mercury.”

Because pregnant woman can’t tell which individual cans may have higher levels of tuna, Consumer Reports recommends that pregnant women simply skip all tuna throughout their entire pregnancy.

The findings were published online Thursday on online and will appear in the Oct. 2014 issue of the nonprofit’s magazine, Consumer Reports.

The FDA’s advice on light canned tuna is from 2004, and the federal agency is poised to overhaul all its advice on seafood consumption soon, reports the Wall Street Journal. But a draft of the new recommendations, subject to final approval, still lists light canned tuna as a low-mercury fish for vulnerable groups.

Seafood contains nutrients like protein, iron and omega-3 fatty acids, which are especially vital for the growth and brain development of fetuses, breastfeeding babies and young children. But certain kinds of seafood, especially larger fish, can contain a neurotoxin called methylmercury (commonly referred to as simply “mercury”) that can cause severe birth defects like blindness, deafness and mental retardation if fetuses are exposed to the metal in utero

full article

Mercury vs. Omega-3s for Brain Development

Risk/benefit analysis of 33 fish species contrasts the brain boosting effects of DHA with the brain damaging effects of mercury to determine the net effect on intelligence (IQ).

But JESUS Ate Fish!


Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Fish: An Interview with Dr. David Jenkins

The Page below is not my work it is taken directly from J. Morris Hicks  blog  and the full version  can be got directly at


While millions of Americans have given up red meat, chicken and turkey — rare is the person who has completely given up fish. Even Bill Clinton, who credits Dr. Esselstyn with perhaps saving his life, does not take his advice when it comes to fish – saying that he still eats a piece of fish “occasionally, but not very often.”

Part of our reluctance to give up fish completely is more than likely due to our lifetime of brainwashing about the importance of animal protein in our diet. Most dieticians continue to recommend seafood in the diet, even though Dr. Colin Campbell and many “enlightened M.D.’s” have reported that the animal protein from fish is just as damaging to the human body as the animal protein from cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep and turkeys – they all are associated with heart disease and all forms of cancer.

So why doesn’t Bill Clinton and millions of others believe them? One hyphenated word – “Omega-3.” Another successful brainwashing campaign has most Americans believing that they truly “need” to eat fish for the healthy omega-3’s that they contain. It’s true that they contain omega-3s, but they also contain high levels of fat, cholesterol, pollutants, not to mention the animal protein mentioned earlier. We do need omega-3s, but we can get plenty from healthy plant sources like flax seeds and walnuts.