Article Title
People of the State of California vs. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC ET AL.—The Necessity of Local Law to Protect Citizens from Harmful Tuna Sales
Abstract
To date, the tuna industry successfully has kept tuna from being classified as a high mercury fish and has aggressively lobbied for the right to emphasize the health benefits of tuna on the label. The findings of the most recent studies make clear that information about mercury exposure risks should be available at the point of sale—warnings should appear on canned tuna labels and in stores and restaurants where fish is sold. Consumers also need to know where their food comes from, and country-of-origin labeling requirements should apply to all commercial fish, including canned varieties. The authors concur with the Defenders of Wildlife study recommendations in their entirety, including the imperative to reevaluate the current Advisory. In addition, the outcome of the pending Tri-Union Seafoods case is critical. In order to protect public health and vulnerable populations, states must be able to promulgate their own advisories and to conduct educational campaigns. The trial court’s embrace of the tuna industry’s arguments is unsupported by the weight of scientific evidence and by law. On appeal, the decision should be overturned in favor of the state.