Sunday, May 21, 2006
Sacramento -- In a stunning blow to California attorney General Bill Lockyer and over-reaching environmental activists everywhere, a California Superior Court Judge has decided that trace levels of mercury in tuna do not require warning labels under the state's notorious Proposition 65 law.
Judge Robert L. Dondero ruled that "virtually all the methylmercury in tuna is naturally occurring"; that tuna companies would be in violation of federal law if they were required to issue Proposition 65 warnings to consumers; and that the amount of mercury in canned tuna is already lower than the arbitrary limits established by Proposition 65.
David Martosko, Director of Research at the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom, made the following statement:
"With all the over-the-top rhetoric about mercury in fish, this common-sense ruling should finally stop most of the self-appointed food activists from frightening consumers. Scientifically-challenged environmental activists and litigation-hungry attorneys have been exaggerating the impact of mercury in fish for years. It's about time they backed off."
"americans are going to learn how mercury fears have been manufactured and hyped, and they're going to be quite angry. This legal decision will remind everyone that fish is, indeed, brain food. No one's health is in danger from the fish we eat. The real public-health catastrophe would come if people were too scared to eat fish. Thankfully, attorney General Lockyer wasn't able to make that happen."
"attorney General Lockyer is targeting French fries and potato chips next, because they contain naturally-occurring trace amounts of a chemical called acrylamide. The judge in that case will soon learn from scientists that it takes 182 pounds of fries -- every day, for life -- to harm anyone's health."
For more information about the junk science behind mercury and other fear campaigns, visit the Center for Consumer Freedom at www.fishscam.com.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement