California Appellate Court Rejects Desperate Attempt To Stigmatize a Health Food
SAN FRANCISCO, March 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today the First Appellate Court of California upheld the original verdict in a 2006 case which established that the trace levels of mercury in canned tuna are naturally occurring, and too insignificant to require warning labels. A three-judge panel heard oral arguments on January 27, when Deputy Attorney General Sue Fiering argued that the labels should be required under California's "Proposition 65" law despite scientific evidence that 95 to 100 percent of mercury traces are naturally occurring.
David Martosko, the Director of Research for the Center for Consumer Freedom, reacted to the news with this statement:
"The Appellate Court outcome is another huge victory for consumers in this case. For the second time, judges have rightly decided that giving fish the skull-and-crossbones treatment would cause more harm than good.
"California is so nuts for warning labels that the Attorney General wanted to put it on a health food. Oily fish is full of omega-3 fatty acids, which are something of a super-nutrient. And in study after study, scientists are rediscovering that the health benefits of eating fish far outweigh any hypothetical risks."
In a report titled "Tuna Meltdown" the Center for Consumer Freedom found that over a quarter-million underprivileged American children were born at risk of having abnormally low IQs since the year 2000 because their low-income mothers were scared to eat fish during their pregnancies. This, says CCF, is partially the result of exaggerated government mercury warnings.
A case summary and other details about today's consumer victory on People ex rel. v. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC et al. is available on the California Appellate Courts website under case number A116792.
|SOURCE Center for Consumer Freedom|
Copyright©2009 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved