Just in the past couple days, a man in New York sued "BumbleBee" tuna after medical tests revealed that he had metal poisoning from the mercury content in the cans that holds the tuna. His mercury levels were more than double the normal amount.
The man, Lee Porrazzo, apparently ate about 10 cans of tuna a week for a couple of years. He is suing BumbleBee for negligence, as well as the fact that the cans of tuna were priced at $1, which made it easy for Porrazzo to buy in bulk. Porrazzo has stated that he started eating the tutna because BumbleBee labeled it as "heart healthy."
Now, most websites that are reporting this story are doing so in a quite sarcastic tone, more or less scoffing at the lawsuit. However, I implore you to take another look. People, at the most basic level, deserve the right to do what they want (don't give me that crap about "oh, so do I get to murder people?); In this sense, Porrazzo has all the right in the world to eat what he wants without having to worry about his health. Remember, the company did label the tuna as benefiting the heart. You don't see McDonalds widely advertising the Big Mac as healthy, do you? BumbleBee was misleading, plain and simple. And they should pay.
And yes, yes, I admit, the pricing aspect of the lawsuit is mildly ridiculous; however, BumbleBee must be held accountable for its negligent and misleading labeling of the tuna. Eating this tuna leads to metal poisoning, not healthy hearts. Porrazzo's lawsuit must be successful.
9 comments:
I am downright disgusted with Bumblebee. It's negligence has lead to health risks for a loyal consumer of its product. The company not only had the audacity to sell such tainted tuna, but also chose to label it as "heart healthy".
To me, this story reminds me of the Gilded Age, where corporate interests took greater importance compared to the safety of workers and consumers. I completely agree 100% with Ryan's brilliant analysis; Porrazzo deserves to win this lawsuit.
I hope someone else shares my sentiments...
It's not as if the company knew about it, let alone purposely contaminated their tuna. At most this represents negligence in meeting food standards (which is indeed a bad thing, I'm not disputing this). But I feel that some aspects of this case ("heart healthy", the $1 pricing) that are tangential, if not completely irrelevant, are being overblown, and that this is what is being mocked in said website articles.
The mercury should be dealt with. But the other things don't have to do with the core of the issue.
I agree with Anthony in the respect that some aspects, especially the fact that the company labeled their tuna "heart healthy" (which is, in fact, a correct statement. omega-3 fatty acids, anyone?), are being overblown and the websites reporting this incident have every right to sarcastically comment on this. Just how Ryan asked people not to respond with the ever-irritating "oh, so I'm free to kill people?" question, the same could be applied to public knowledge about mercury. Just because something says "heart healthy," there's no need to eat it in excess. After all, if this guy was eating 10 cans/week for several years, then it probably can't be too surprising that his mercury levels are high. It's not the company's fault. There have been multiple articles put out on the web that talk about the dangers of eating too much of various types of fish due to the mercury levels in such fish, tuna being one of them.
So, yes, it's the guy's right to sue, but I think it's really split down the middle in regards to "who is responsible." The company should put a warning in fine print, and the guy should use a little more common sense.
I am shocked by this story. I think the man has the right to carry on with the lawsuit because the tuna he ate affected him negatively and it cause him health issues. If this were to happen to me or anyone I know, I would also carry on with a lawsuit or I would encourage the person to carry on with a lawsuit. I hope the company suffers the consequences for its actions and learns from its mistakes, especially because it affects the company in a bad way and it could potentially hurt their profits.
I agree that Porrazzo has the right to be able to sue the BumbleBee tuna company. They misadvertized their product saying it was healthy, but isntead poisnted the people who would consume it. But I believe that Porazzo doesn't have the right to sue because he bought the tuna for a dollar a can meaning he would buy a lot of it. It was his choice to buy the food, but the tuna company should only pay for having mercury in their tuna. I also dissaprove with how the media is not taking this story seriously, it is important for people to know that there is mercury in the cans that hold the tuna.
I am ashamed that companies such as Bumblebee are still running profit-only businesses without regarding the safety of the customer, I mean, the guy was ONLY eating 10 cans of tuna a week, what is the world coming to! If the sarcasm in the statement above was not apparent let me put things this way. Just because my doctor tells me that vitamins are good for me, and that sleeping tablets help me to sleep better does not mean that I should OD by eating a whole bottle of either tablets. There is a fine line between frivolous lawsuits and actually valid ones. The man was eating loads of fish for a period of years, if he had eaten any sort of fish 10 times a week for a certain number of years I would expect the mercury level in his system to be the same, if not higher. If anything, Porrazzo should be indicted for being a classic example of how ignorant and greedy humans can be. In response to an earlier(rhetorical) question, no you don't see McDonalds advertising Big Macs as healthy, just as you don't see Bumblebee telling their consumers the common knowledge that all fish contain mercury and gouging 10 cans of tuna a week could probably lead to mercury poisoning.
Now before all of you go too gung-ho on Bumblebee tuna why don't you slow down and look at this a little more rationally. I mean first of all they aren't falsely advertising when saying their product is heart healthy because it is. It contains Omega-3 Fatty Acids which studies have proven to be heart healthy and helpful in controlling cholesterol levels. Now as for the Mercury let me say this ALL FISH contains some minuscule level of Mercury in it especially Tuna but it is negligible unless you eat an absurd amount of fish such as say 10 CANS OF TUNA A WEEK. I mean really maybe Bumblebee should warn people a little more but do we put on other items "Beware eating an absurd amount of this may cause you bodily harm." No because then we would have to label everything like that. Life in moderation people. I mean overall I think its sad someone can sue a company for something like this. But then this is America where you can sue someone successfully for breaking into their house and getting injured! May we continue to have a ridiculous amount of freedom for years to come! (and if you don't like this post beware i may just call my lawyer...)
I agree that this is shocking, and that Bumblebee looks very much at fault, but in a sense, Bumblebee shouldn't really take the blame. I haven't eaten much tuna in my life as my parents never buy it, because tuna is known for mercury contamination.
Our coasts are constantly being contaminated by human waste and industrial byproducts such as mercury, which is churned out by "coal-burning power plants, incinerators and chlorine-producing plants" (according to www.sciencedaily.com). The awful thing about mercury is that it accumulates throughout the food chain. What this means to tuna, who are at the top of the food chain, and who have to eat a lot to live, is that all the mercury that accumulated in this tissues of smaller animals is now accumulating in the tissues of tuna in much larger amounts. And because mercury cannot be excreted from an animal or broken down, the mercury stays in animals and follows them up the food chain.
What does this mean for those of us who do eat tuna? We get quite large doses of mercury because we are at the very top of the food chain and are thus eating all the mercury that the animals below us in the food chain also ate.
This is considered a serious problem, serious enough for the National Resources Defense Council to publish a guide to eating tuna! To find the entire table detailing how much tuna you can safely eat according to your weight, go to... http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/tuna.asp. It's kind of scary, at least to me, that the amount of tuna we eat should be regulated as much as the NRDC recommends, with babies having to wait 10 weeks in between eating cans of white albacore tuna. As one gets older, the recommended time in between eating tuna gets smaller, but I still think the whole idea of poisoned food is a little shocking.
So while I agree that the man should find fault with Bumblebee, I think we should blame the company less and blame those mercury-depositing industrial plants more for dumping toxic chemicals into our oceans.
Sorry, that was Alice as in Alice Bebbington.
Post a Comment