Seafood NET

In response to the mercury advisory from the FDA/EPA, the National Fisheries Institute has developed a couple of documents to inform the seafood eating public about mercury: a position statement and a fact sheet of talking points. This website coordinator, Dr. Jon W. Bell, is a technical member of the NFI Mercury Task Force, but was not involved in the drafting of the two NFI documents.

The NFI position statement can be found at:
http://www.nfi.org/?a=news&b=eMedia+Kit&c=&x=3050

The fact sheet presents information that attempts to present information on the health benefits and risks to eating seafood and inherent mercury risk.

Download: Talking Points from the National Fisheries Institute about Eating Seafood and the FDA & EPA Revised Consumer Advisory on Methylmercury in Fish (86KB PDF document)

A Health Educator's Viewpoint on Mercury Risk

Written by a health and nutrition educator, who is also a
registered nurse, Mothers, Babies, and Mercury is an attempt to
fairly and scientifically evaluate the findings of several studies
and publications on the health risk associated with mercury from
eating seafood. This article was written to try to condense this
complex issue into a concise review in straightforward language
while maintaining an open and science-based viewpoint.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/041604D.html

Concerns with the Estimated Health Risk
of Methylmercury Associated with Eating Seafood

The issue of seafood consumption and an inherent health risk of methylmercury ingestion is a complex and somewhat contentious one. A serious concern involves the use of data by the National Academy of Science to develop the reference dose (RfD) for the EPA. An RfD is an estimate of daily exposure limits which is unlikely to cause an appreciable risk of negative effects during a lifetime, or more simply put, a level of safe daily consumption.

One large study of human exposure to methylmercury through seafood consumption, referred to as the Seychellesstudy, has been accepted as appropriate and well-conducted by the scientific community, and the NAS. However, the NAS chose not to utilize these data and findings, because this study did not find a relationship between methylmercury levels and illness in the mothers nor harm to the development of their infants and children.

Since an RfD is needed to determine an exposure limit or control, a study showing no link between exposure and risk or harm is not useful. Another well-conducted and accepted study, the Faeroes study, did find a link between methylmercury levels and harm (delays in development) to nervous systems in infants. This data and study was strongly relied upon to develop the reference dose and risk analysis for the EPA. However, the seafood consumption
of the individuals involved in the Faeroes study included the eating of whale meat, which is known to contain higher levels of methylmercury, as well as PCBs and other environmental pollutants.

Another issue of concern is that of individuals may read or hear of the FDA/EPA advisory, and cease eating seafood altogether. This change of food selection and consumption would result in the loss of the accepted, strong health benefits associated with eating seafood. This issue is addressed in the above documents from the NFI.

A third issue is that some lay organizations may have a hidden agenda, which is to reduce the mercury emissions of burning fossil fuels and the resulting addition of mercury to our environment. However beneficial this goal may be, attempting to alarm individuals to this environmental issue and promote this
position through the selective and potential over-statement of the estimated health risks of mercury exposure through seafood consumption is inappropriate. This promotion risks preventing general consumers as well as the targeted sensitive population of pregnant mothers and their developing children from gaining the beneficial health aspects and nutritional impact from eating seafood.

In discussions of health risks of mercury ingestion and eating seafood with consumers and colleagues, I often mention my concern of the lack of effort or emphasis to compare eating seafood with other health risks and putting it into some context that be understood and used on a daily basis.

The common question that usually I ask is, "is eating seafood and ingesting very low amounts of methylmercury, below 1ppm, through seafood riskier than driving a vehicle in rush hour traffic in a big or small town or city?" I realize that pregnant and women with infants are not going to give up their automobile/SUV and we can accept the benefits of driving in our society. However, if avoiding the
roads between 7:30 - 9:00am and 4:00 - 6:00pm would decrease the risk of harm to mother and child (a statistical, epidemiological-based exercise), would the EPA or anyone else actually officially advise it?

The FDA has also added or updated 4 new documents concerning methylmercury in seafood on their "Seafood Information and Resources" website (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood1.html). To view this additional and background information from the FDA, please see the following sites.

One specific attribute to note in the two information and advice documents, is that the FDA & EPA use the terms "may be prudent" and "may harm" to describe potential actions and health risks concerning mercury in seafood, while stating in conclusive terms that fish and shellfish are important parts of a healthy and balanced diet.

As an example of the complexity of this issue, the advisory from the Food Standards Agency of the United Kingdom reflects a different conclusion from analysis of mercury and risk data by the independent expert Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). This advisory indicates a less restrictive guidance on eating canned tuna and
tuna steaks than the revised FDA/EPA advisory, while having similar advice to avoid shark and swordfish.