The following appeared in a business magazine."As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded

Promofoods conclude that their tuna do not pose a health risk to its consumers. They support their assertion based on the fact that their chemists did not find large amounts of the chemicals which usually cause nausea and dizziness. Whilst this argumenty may seem plausible at first glance, closer inspection reveals that key elements of the discussion have been left out and as a result there are many questions left to address.

First and foremost, the chemists of the study are too narrow in their search for answers and fail to consider the fact that there may be many culprits responsible for the symptoms of the consumers. it is all well and good to test for traces of the most common chemicals that cause sickness, but what about the uncommon ones? What if the culprit is not chemical but bacterial in nature? If this is in fact the case then whatever is the cause of the customer’s symptoms may have gone unnoticed during the inspection. Thus the tuna cans may very well be housing something that is causing sickness, it may just be that the scientists have not found it.

Secondly, the company assumes that because the remaining chemicals were found in small amounts means that they are harmless to humans. What is the maximum recommended amount that can be safely ingested? The effect of a chemical cannot always be judged simply by the amount present. For example small amounts of niacin are lethal to human beings but harmless for many other animals. Thus even though they are not present in large quantities, the three chemicals that were found may indeed be responsible for the sickness that consumers experience. Thus to strengthen their argument the company must provide evidence to show that the quantity of chemicals found (per can) are unlikely to lead to illness when ingested.

Lastly, there is no mention as to what conditions these tuna cans were stored in. Were they stored properly so as to prevent the growth of bacteria? Can the chemicals in the tuna react to produce toxins in certain temperatures? These are important questions that must be addressed as the quality of food is to a large extent determined by how and for how long it is stored. If proper food handling measures were not used, the tuna may very well pose a risk to consumers as the scientists have failed to check for the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms.

In conclusion there is not enough evidence to make a claim as bold as that of Promofoods as one must have knowledge of all aspects of a situation before statements can be made. Unless these isues are addressed the argument seems more of wishful thinking as opposed to one that can instill confidence ints customers.