I have a can of Wild Planet tuna, that says on the label:

Research shows that smaller albacore, such as used by Wild Planet, contains less mercury than larger albacore.

Their web-site has a FAQ that makes a similar claim:

The average mercury content of tuna rises with the age and size of the fish. Wild Planet only sources pole and line caught tuna, which are the younger and smaller migratory tuna that are caught at the surface. These fish have accumulated lower levels of mercury as compared to older and larger tuna and our annual testing protocol, summarized in the accompanying document, verifies that Wild Planet tuna products average 0.076PPM for Skipjack and 0.219PPM for Albacore.

It has a reference that doesn't seem to directly explain this.

Is it true that smaller albacore have a lower levels of mercury by weight/parts-per-million?

  • 1
    I would suspect, like all creatures, toxins in tuna tend to accumulate is certain tissues, so there may be differences among brands just because of butchering and selection procedure. Why not attack the implicit claim that Wild Planet tuna has less mercury? – fredsbend Apr 2 '17 at 23:08
  • @Oddthinking - Wow. Look at the edits you've made to the original question. As it stands now it looks NOTHING like the original question. If you want to ask a completely different question, you should post your own question asking that, not edit the question until it bears no resemblance to what was asked. There was nothing in what the person was asking about that specified concentration. Indeed, the original question was asking if the claim was concentration or if it was gross mass. You're not tweaking the question, you are completely changing it in your own desired image. – PoloHoleSet Apr 4 '17 at 13:28
  • @PoloHoleSet: See my comment on your now deleted question. Would you rather I closed the question, or brought it into scope. I think the essence of this question now matches what the OP wanted to ask, but that's something only the OP can answer. – Oddthinking Apr 4 '17 at 13:43
  • @Oddthinking - I saw it, but I can't invite you to chat from a closed answer, so I added it to our other chat. Closing the question vs editing it until it bears not even a passing resemblance to the original question is really a distinction without a difference. What the OP was asking has been obliterated, either way. What you are doing goes way beyond "moderation." Or perhaps your moderation needs moderation. What you think he is asking is entirely un-notable as well. There's nothing questionable, novel or controversial about larger fish accumulating higher concentrations of mercury. – PoloHoleSet Apr 4 '17 at 13:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .