Tuna Canners Open Defense With Scientific Fact and Federal Law.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Defense Takes Center Stage After Prosecution Rests Without Presenting Any Compelling Evidence in Proposition 65 Trial That Has Significant Implications for the Health of All Californians

Attorneys for three tuna canners opened their defense in the two-week-old Proposition 65 case by citing proven scientific fact and pre-emptive federal law. The compelling testimony comes as a stark contrast to five days of arguments made by State prosecutors that were short on science and long on speculation.

The trial being heard in San Francisco Superior Court is the result of Attorney General Bill Lockyer's ill-advised attempt to force warning labels on canned tuna because of the methyl mercury that occurs naturally in all seafood. If Lockyer is successful, it would counter a flood of recent studies that show seafood consumption should be encouraged, and that unscientific warnings -- such as a Proposition 65-like label -- would cause more harm than good by needlessly scaring consumers from seafood.

"I'm confident the court will recognize that science and nutrition are on our side," said Forrest Hainline, attorney for Bumblebee, Starkist, and Chicken of the Sea, all members of the U.S. Tuna Foundation. "For starters, canned tuna has already been proven to be safe and in no way violates Proposition 65. In addition, what the Attorney General is proposing directly conflicts with federal law. The FDA created a targeted and nuanced warning intended to convey the benefits of seafood, which they believed to be a necessary aspect of the advisory."

To help a narrowly defined population group -- women who are pregnant, nursing or who may become pregnant and very young children -- choose fish that are low in mercury, FDA and EPA identified five commonly eaten fish with very low mercury levels: shrimp, salmon, Pollock, catfish and canned light tuna. According to the government's advisory, pregnant and nursing women, women who might become pregnant and young children should eat up to 12 ounces a week of these types of fish for the benefits they provide.

Beyond the underlying conflict with Federal law, the Attorney General admits that the science used in his case bears only a tenuous connection to tuna.

Lockyer's science is based on studies of people in Denmark who ate pilot whale meat and blubber, which are both very high in naturally occurring mercury, in addition to chemicals like PCBs. The level of mercury in both pilot whale meat and blubber are exponentially higher than that found in tuna.

"What we've learned from the first full week in this trial is that Lockyer's case would be much more appropriate for whale meat than canned tuna," said David Burney, Executive Director of the U.S. Tuna Foundation. "Warning labels would cause real harm as people would be discouraged from eating a food that science has time and again shown to have overwhelming benefits for people of all ages. The Attorney General has one study underpinning his entire case, and it involves whales, not tuna."

More information about canned tuna and its health benefits is available at the U.S. Tuna Foundation Web site, www.tunafacts.com.