***CORRECTION: This Daily article failed to address subsequent articles, published after the Jan. 23 New York Times article, that addressed inaccuracies in “High Mercury Levels Are Found in Tuna Sushi." Please see The Daily's Letter to the Editor published on March 12 ["Errors in mercury story harm public health"].***

For those not in the know, there’s a new health scare on the horizon. As if avian flu and mad cow disease were not enough, now we must contend with toxic fish. Move over, Jaws — this time, it’s the killer chicken of the sea: tuna.

Students who read The New York Times may already be aware of a recent news article entitled “High Mercury Levels Are Found in Tuna Sushi” [Jan. 23]. According to this article, “Recent laboratory tests found so much mercury in tuna sushi from 20 Manhattan stores and restaurants that at most of them, a regular diet of six pieces a week would exceed the levels considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA].” In fact, mercury levels in fish from five 20 stores proved for the EPA to take legal action to get rid of them.

Unfortunately, reports like this, which prescribe healthful foods or condemn unhealthy ones, appear with such regularity that it’s difficult to know when to listen. New studies appear almost daily, announcing the latest wonder food that’s going to help with that diet or even stave off cancer. Carbs are no longer verboten, and a little wine with dinner is good for you. Don’t bother asking about butter versus margarine unless you can handle a migraine. So is it worth listening to this new report at all?

For some students, it’s a definite yes.

“I used to eat tuna rolls almost every day for lunch, the way I did all last year and last quarter,” said Jenny Wolochow ‘10. “But now I’ve definitely changed my eating habits.”

Although Wolochow is aware that the high mercury levels were reported only on the East Coast, she’s not taking any chances.

“I don’t know if it’s valid to change my eating, but I do it just in case,” she said. “I don’t think it’s affected me yet, but I’m worried about long-term effects.”

Nor is tuna sushi the only concern. Canned tuna may also contain unsafe levels of mercury.

“Mercury in fish affected my eating habits somewhat, although not with sushi,” said Max Libbrecht ‘11. “I used to eat a lot of canned tuna, which is very high in mercury. I still eat it sometimes, but I try not to have more than a can or two a week.”

While some students share these concerns, many are ambivalent regarding the subject. During Wednesday’s Hip-Hop Sushi Nights at the Axe and Palm, many people happily chowed down on spicy tuna rolls, recently changed to spicy salmon rolls. Most students polled reported being aware of the tuna situation but did not regard it as a serious threat to their health.

When asked if they had ever changed their eating habits as a result of articles like the one recently printed in The New York Times, the students in attendance mostly responded in the negative. In fact, most cited health reasons as the only reason they’d ever changed the way they eat.

“In the past few years,” Janessa Nickell ‘11 said she has changed her meat intake with regards to “just poultry and fish, but more for health reasons in general, not necessarily risks regarding disease.”

Others students were of a similar bent. “I tried eating vegetarian before, but just for health reasons,” said Helen Chen ‘11. Although none elaborated on the meaning of “health reasons,” it was clear that most students considered their current eating habits to be healthier than whatever diet they’d been on in the past.

Of course, some students did cite food-borne diseases as a factor in choosing what they eat.

“I definitely think I have decreased my tuna consumption. And I was wondering about that artificial crab,” said Sean Follmer ‘09. “Also, I haven’t eaten beef for the last four years. Mad cow disease . . . people won’t realize for another 20 years. I also don’t eat gelatin anymore cause I don’t know where the bones come from.”

One major factor in choosing sushi or steering clear is the myth surrounding it. Paras Fatemi ‘10 said that she ate sushi, but “heard it was bad for pregnant woman to eat mercury-containing fish.” But according to The New York Times, around 85 percent of seafood-related illnesses are not caused by fish at all but rather by raw mollusks such as oysters and clams.

A 1991 study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that the risk of getting sick from eating seafood is approximately one in two million servings (chicken is 1 in 25,000). More recently, the FDA revealed that eating sushi may be unhealthy for moms but that eating fish is generally good for you, thanks to those Omega-3 fatty acids.

Obtaining mercury-free tuna could prove next to impossible. Again, according to The New York Times, roughly two-thirds of the mercury in the atmosphere is a product of industrial sources — something that’s not likely to change anytime soon. The mercury settles into the water and finds its way into bacteria, which makes its way into fish and finally up to us. As yet, there’s no way to prevent it.

Stanford Dining, however, assures students that the tuna served on campus is no cause for alarm.

“All sushi preparation and service is driven by FDA guidelines and the materials served on campus are within the federal safety regulations with no record of exception,” said Christopher Cason, communications and strategic initiatives manager, in a email to The Daily.

So there you have it. Another inconclusive verdict on what constitutes healthy food.