Hi All,
LOL! I watched a segment that ran on a video clip from a news program on the computer yesterday --- regarding the Fish/Mercury issue.
A very “knowledgeable” woman who was being interview on this topic spoke in very important terms about analysis of fish from
“streams” which contain high levels of Mercury. And she emphasized again these fish being analyzed “were only from
‘streams’ – i.e.: not commercially grown fish.” Then she went on to name the worst offender which was swordfish. I can’t recall all the fish that she named but she included Mackerel, and Tuna. No mention of trout, or bass, or even pike mind you. All she talked about were types of fish that live in the seas and oceans.
Now … I do not qualify as a real fisher person.

But I grew up on the largest lake on the Mississippi River and am pretty sure no one has ever caught a Swordfish or a Mackerel or a Tuna in that lake, much less the streams that feed such rivers and lakes!!
While it is probably quite true that many of the ocean fish today contain quantities of Mercury (+ what else we have to wonder), when you hear someone talking such absolute nonsense, with such authority, it has to make one wonder.
Possibly she was mis-speaking the term ‘streams’ when she meant ‘seas’?, but if so, the interviewer (another woman) never caught it.
Gloria,
For what it’s worth ,,, According to this person being interviewed (can we believe her?) Tuna tends to contain lesser amounts of Mercury than other fish she was mentioning, but also, according to her, Albacore (white meat tuna) contains more Mercury then dark meat Tuna – which I assumed to be all tuna other than Albacore?
Best,
Gayle