.

""Studies show that if they don't eat fish, including tuna, their children will suffer," said Forrest A. Hainline"". (Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer, Fish canners challenge mercury-labeling suit / State wants makers to warn of dangers on tuna packages, SFGate, 22 Mar 2006)

This is a total lie. There are no such studies.

Not one.

While fish do contain Omega-3 fatty acids, so do "soy, walnuts, canola oil, flaxseeds and their oil, hempseed oil, camelina oil, and chia seed oil". http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/omega3

Forrest Hainline knows all about this. But he's been paid to claim that tuna is a "must".

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WANTED WARNINGS FOR CONSUMERS

California "state attorneys claim that big canners are breaking the law by failing to tell consumers about mercury in tuna fish." "The state sued in 2004 under Prop. 65 to force the tuna canners to warn of the risks of mercury, a potent neurotoxin. The companies already face penalties of $2,500 a day per violation dating back to June 2000, and the amount is growing every day as they refuse to warn, state attorneys say." (Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer, Fish canners challenge mercury-labeling suit / State wants makers to warn of dangers on tuna packages, SFGate, 22 Mar 2006)

THE STATE JUST WANTED FULL DISCLOSURE

""Prop. 65 warnings would frighten people away," said Hainline." (Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer, Fish canners challenge mercury-labeling suit / State wants makers to warn of dangers on tuna packages, SFGate, 22 Mar 2006)

If they were true.

THE SCIENTISTS WANTED WARNINGS

"Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers suggested that the general public should be advised against eating fish with high levels of mercury. "Exposure to methylmercury is currently a concern in specific high-risk groups, such as pregnant women and women of childbearing age who may become pregnant but this warning should perhaps be extended to the general adult population."" (Warning over fish mercury levels, BBC, 28 Nov 2002)

FORREST HAINLINE WANTS TO BE AN EXPERT SCIENTIST

The scientists say there should be warnings. But Forrest Hainline claims: "We have a healthful product that everyone should eat, including pregnant women and women of child-bearing age." (Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer, Fish canners challenge mercury-labeling suit / State wants makers to warn of dangers on tuna packages, SFGate, 22 Mar 2006) "More than half of canned tuna samples from a local grocery store failed to meet the strict Environmental Protection Agency safety level for mercury in fish, according to a new study by University of Nevada, Las Vegas researchers." (Keith Rogers, Study: Mercury in canned tuna high, Las Vegas Review Journal, 29 Jan 2010)

Vegetarians? "Doctor Hainline" (he wishes) says you gotta have it.

And this man has some credentials? His education consists of a "third degree black belt". (see graphic at left from http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Forrest-Hainline/286244091)

So he can kick and chop. But has NO BUSINESS trying to make authoritative pronouncements on health.

"The British Heart Foundation, which part-funded the study, backed that view.

""Whilst the benefits of eating fish are well known, this research confirms that this can be counteracted by mercury which the fish accumulate," said Belinda Linden, its head of medical information." (Warning over fish mercury levels, BBC, 28 Nov 2002)

THE TOXIN DIDN'T COME FROM HUMAN POLLUTION

"The appeals court concluded that there is substantial evidence that virtually all the methylmercury found in canned tuna occurs naturally, independent of human activity. In fact, the court found that methylmercury, the type of mercury found in fish, is not emitted by pollution. And when a naturally occurring contaminant appears in a product—such as tuna fish or dietary supplements—Proposition 65’s warning requirement does not apply." (Tuna’s Prop 65 Win Could Help Supplement Firms in Their Own Lawsuits, Nutrition Business Journal, 7 Apr 2009)

TOXICITY IS UNDISPUTED

Everyone agrees that mercury is a toxin. The scientists wanted warnings. "The study recommends clearly stating the risks of mercury poisoning to consumers." (Keith Rogers, Study: Mercury in canned tuna high, Las Vegas Review Journal, 29 Jan 2010) The attorney general wanted warnings. But the corporations thought the warnings could reduce their profits.

SLICK MANIPULATOR

So they found a lawyer who used a loophole in the law to deny consumers fair warning.

But that's what lawyers do.

But then to go and lie and claim there are studies showing that children are damaged by not eating tuna?

This is no justification (other than Forrest Hainline's greed) for this deception.

Even though this poison is so dangerous (Ivan Camilleri, High mercury in fish is main food safety hazard, Times of Malta, 27 Jul 2012),

ANOTHER BRAZEN LIE

Forrest Hainline claims "Consumers are really the winners in this case" (Marla Cone, Judge rejects warning label on tuna cans / Calif. court: Advisory on mercury unneeded, Chicago Tribune, 13 May 2006), when the real winner is Hainline, who collected a bundle of cash for depriving consumers of life-saving information.

RELATED READING:

Why Mercury Tuna Is Still Legal The Bush FDA helped industry suppress the bad news about mercury. Still want fish for dinner?

Canned tuna exceeds guidelines on mercury: CBC investigation

Government of Pennsylvania: Human Health Hazards Caused by Mercury

CDC on Mercury as Toxin

Forrest Hainline EXPOSED Lies about "Studies", covers up Mercury Hazards