By Yoji Yamaguchi, ZAGAT.com staff editor
"Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette."
photo: MGM Grand
A tart comment from a disgruntled Zagat surveyor? Not exactly. Those are the words of Eli Saddler of the public health advocacy group Gotmercury.org, whose controversial study was the subject of a March 6, 2006, Los Angeles Times story about the high levels of mercury found in seafood purchased at local restaurants. Gotmercury.org tested a total of 10 samples of tuna from five of the top Zagat-rated sushi restaurants in metro Los Angeles. According to their results, three of the samples contained levels of methylmercury (the organic form of mercury present in the Earth's waters) that the FDA deems unfit for consumption. The rest of the samples were significantly higher in methylmercury than the agency's established averages for those respective species of tuna.
Highly toxic, methylmercury can damage nervous systems and cause profound disabilities in newborns. Because it can be especially harmful to young children and fetuses, the FDA
and EPA recommend that women considering pregnancy, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children avoid eating king mackerel, shark, swordfish or tilefish. These at-risk groups should eat no more than two six-ounce servings of seafood lower in mercury content, such as salmon, shrimp, catfish or canned light tuna, a week. Albacore (white) tuna should be limited to one serving per week.
As nutrition and public health scholar Marion Nestle, author of the recently published What to Eat: An Aisle-to-Aisle Guide to Savvy Food Choices and Good Eating, notes, "how much [methylmercury] it takes to cause visible harm is not known. If it is like lead, there is no safe level of intake." This uncertainty surrounding the potential risks of mercury has not been lost on the public. In a quick poll Zagat conducted shortly after the Times story ran, more than a third of respondents reported either cutting back on seafood or eliminating it from their diets altogether (see graphic below).
Given that and the Gotmercury.org findings, what – if anything – can chefs do to ensure the safety of the seafood they serve? We talked to three noted seafood chefs to find out their reactions to the study and how they approach the issue.
Mark Franz, chef/co-owner of San Francisco's Farallon, first became aware of the mercury warnings when he and his wife were expecting their now 16-year-old son. Her doctor advised her to limit her tuna consumption during pregnancy. According to Franz, his coastal cuisine menu reduces mercury levels by emphasizing smaller fish such as halibut. The higher you go up the food chain, the more methylmercury you find. Large predatory species with long life spans, such as shark or swordfish, have the highest levels of mercury, while smaller, shorter-lived fish and shellfish have the lowest. Also, because the species on his menu are relatively small, entree portions are not outsized and closer to FDA-recommended servings. "You won't find any big slabs" of fish on his tables, says Franz. Tuna is "not totally taboo," but it's served "only in small quantities," usually as an appetizer such as ahi tartare.
In addition to offering safer seafood choices and portion control, restaurants are doing more to educate the public. California restaurants with 10 or more employees are required to post warning signs about the presence of harmful compounds such as mercury in the food they serve. Chefs are also taking the initiative by informing their colleagues and distributors. The Farallon staff is well versed in the mercury issue and can answer patrons' questions and make appropriate menu suggestions. Also, "our buyers know our concerns and are careful" in the seafood they select, says Franz.
Cornelius Gallagher, executive chef of NYC's Oceana, echoes this sentiment. He feels his "first responsibility is to provide quality, healthy fish from the best waters." Oceana purchases seafood from 19 purveyors all over the world. Gallagher has not modified his menu with mercury specifically in mind, but believes that "if you follow quality, everything falls into line."
But adopting such cautionary measures doesn't make these uncharted seas any easier to navigate. Rick Moonen, chef-owner of restaurant rm in Las Vegas, is a longtime proponent of sustainable cuisine. He was not surprised by the Times story. Mercury in fish is "no news to me. It's about time everyone knew about it," he says. Still, Moonen points out, he's "in the business of selling seafood." If he wanted to keep mercury off his menu, he notes wryly, "I'd be selling tofu in 10 years." Simply put, mercury-free seafood does not exist on this planet. All sea creatures contain some amounts. And in any case, he thinks "restaurants have no way of testing" fish routinely.
That may be true, but if three American companies have their way, certified low-mercury fish may someday join grass-fed beef and free-range chicken on the menus of fashionable restaurants.
Earlier this year Sacramento-based Pacific Seafoods became the first wholesaler to begin testing fish for mercury at its warehouse, utilizing a computerized system called Safe
Harbor, created by Micro Analytical Systems Inc. (MASI). Malcolm Wittenberg, CEO of MASI, says the Safe Harbor standards are stricter than the FDA's and only half of the fish tested pass muster. Those that do earn the Safe Harbor label. Rejected fish are still sold, but without the certification. The testing takes only minutes and costs $0.30 per test for each fish that gets the Safe Harbor label.
At least two other businesses are marketing certified low-mercury seafood to consumers: Wild
Planet of McKinleyville, CA, and the Portsmouth, NH–based EcoFish, a distributor of environmentally sustainable seafood.
Would certified low-mercury seafood, like cage-free eggs, be sold at markup prices? For now, Holiday Markets, the California supermarket chain carrying the Safe Harbor line, is keeping the price of its low-mercury fish in line with non-certified fish. But a six-oz. can of Wild Planet minimal-mercury albacore tuna costs between $5.20 and $5.80. Of course, that tuna comes in medallions that are more presentable than your garden-variety chunk light. But it remains to be seen whether cost-conscious consumers will bite at the higher price tags of such products.
Further complicating matters are the increasingly conflicted messages the public hears about seafood. Experts from the FDA to the American Heart Association agree that fish is an important part of a balanced diet, a rich source of nutrients such as protein and beneficial Omega-3 fatty acids. How do consumers square that information with the methylmercury risk?
Twenty years ago, Steven Denning, chairman of the equity firm General Atlantic, thought he was making a healthy diet change by cutting out red meat and eating more fish. At one point, nearly half his meals included seafood. In 2004, however, his neurologist gave him startling news: the mercury level in his blood was three times higher than what is considered safe. After he swore off seafood for 18 months, the mercury is all but gone from his system and he doesn't appear to have suffered any lasting effects. Now the 57-year-old executive only eats small fish, such as Dover sole, twice a month. "It's crazy that the government doesn't test fish" for methylmercury, says Denning.
Some critics still insist the very question of mercury is much ado about nothing. Congressmen Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Jim Gibbons (R-NV) charge that environmentalists have "shamelessly used [the EPA/FDA] fish advisories to further their political agenda" of regulating mercury emissions from power plants, and that "scaring people away from consuming fish is creating a public health crisis in its own right."
Still, in Marion Nestle's view, until we know more about the effects of low-level exposure to methylmercury, "avoiding fish containing it seems like a good idea, especially for groups that are most vulnerable – [pregnant women] and young children. The EPA and FDA standards seem like a reasonable compromise between complete avoidance and anything goes."
Resources
Sam Roe and Michael Hawthorne, "Toxic Risk on Your Plate" in Chicago Tribune, December 11, 2005, http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-mercury-3-story,1,6231518.story
"Seafood FAQs April 2004: Methylmercury Poses Conundrum for Consumers" in SeaFood Business News, http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archives/searchframe.asp. (Search under "Seafood FAQs April 2004.")
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish," March 2004, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html.
Dulce Zamora, "Is It Still Safe to Eat Seafood?" in www.webmd.com, 11 Sept. 2003, http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/73/88943.htm.