As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans.
The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.
The argument is based on consumer complaints of nausea and dizziness after consumption of canned tuna. But chemists have tested some samples of canned tuna and have reported that they are free from any chemical which can pose a health risk. In response to the complain of the customers, some eight million cans of tuna has been sent and tested by the chemists of Promofoods. The chemists reported that the canned tuna are free from the five out of the eight chemicals which can cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea. And the other three cannot be blamed because they are naturally found in all types of canned food.
But the results of the test do not provide strong evidence to proof that the canned tuna is free from chemicals which can pose health risk. The chemists have reported that the three chemicals found in canned tuna are found in other canned food also. So, they are harmless. But we should remember that chemicals in contact with different substances behave differently. So, the three chemicals might become harmful when they come in contact with tuna. So, the chemists must have tested how these chemicals behave when they are present in canned tuna.
Again, a substance might be harmless when it is present in small amount. But the same substance might be harmful when it is present in large amount. So, while testing the chemists should have determined the percentage of these chemicals in canned tuna. The test reports are being based on the tests done on the eight million samples but not on those which actually caused the customers to complain. The consumed cans should have been brought and tested in order to proof with stronger evidence the safety in consumption of canned tuna.
Again, the chemists have concentrated only on the eight chemicals which can cause dizziness and nausea. But there are chemicals too which can cause these effects in the consumers. Therefore, the chemists should not totally ignore the presence of other chemicals. In short, we see that the tests conducted by Promofoods have failed to provide sufficiently strong evidence that can proof that the canned tuna was not responsible for causing dizziness and nausea among the consumers. It should have performed more detailed analysis of the consumed cans and reported the results with stronger evidence and precision.