ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Cell Phone Radiation Blog Series - All In One Place
Rubber Ducky: You're so not the one
Epigenetics hits the mainstream
Cosmetics Safety Series - Part 2: Mind the (data) gap
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Are you addicted to plastic? | Main | Green chemistry happens; Olestra finds a new use »
Mercury & fish: Why does the debate go on?
Special to Enviroblog by Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Analyst.
The topic of mercury and fish is once again in the news. This time it was prompted by public comments submitted to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) about its controversial (hurry-up-and-get-it-out-before-George-leaves) mercury report, which largely concludes that the toxic effects of mercury in fish are mostly overcome by the beneficial fats in fish. Here at EWG an eyebrow or two (OK, more than that) were raised when these "findings" were released.
The problem with FDA's guidance? Bad science
FDA's new guidance is based on a fatally flawed model leaked last fall that was blasted by mercury experts at the Environmental Protection Agency - who cautioned against releasing it, citing scientific flaws and inadequacies.
The current draft, released minutes before the Inauguration, has slightly less outrageous language, but the basic findings remain the same. Recent public comments submitted by EWG, scientists and advocates identified the huge deficiencies in the modeling, which (not surprisingly) cast FDA's conclusions in serious doubt.
FDA presents the hazards of mercury and benefits of fish as a "he said, she said" type of argument, which could lead a rational adult to conclude that there is a legitimate scientific conflict about the issue. Which of course, there's not.
While it is true that the beneficial Omega-3 fats and other nutrients in fish appear to ameliorate or off-set some of the adverse impacts of mercury to the brains of the developing fetus and child, and does actually reduces risks to patients with heart disease. But. The conversation is skewed by the longstanding efforts of the fishing industry to downplay mercury risks.
Industry says... mercury ain't so bad
FDA scientists are not the first to fall for the industry's line on mercury. But as a government agency advising pregnant women and people with heart disease, they are taking dangerous risks with our health.
Comments supporting FDA's flawed work largely came from those with clear industry ties, like the National Fisheries Institute, StarKist, Seafood Producer's Association, Center for Consumer Freedom, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Shelf-Stable Food Producers Association. But you need a bit of a history to distinguish some other characters.
One bizarrely strong fish supporter
One commenter, Ashley Roman, presented herself as "a mother and physician." She neglected to mention she was an 'expert-for-hire' for the fisheries-industry sponsored Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, which has concluded that pregnant women were not eating enough fish. No, really.
Dr. Roman's opinion on mercury is less restrictive than even FDA's (a bit shocking). She told the Washington Post in 2007 that she recommended her pregnant patients eat at least 3 servings of fish a week - a clear violation of the FDA and EPA's guidance for pregnant women. Dr. Roman added that "fish intake in pregnancy has never been linked with mercury toxicity" in fetuses or newborns. Huh?
The truth about mercury toxicity: it's not good for pregnant women
Assertions like these, echoed in FDA's draft report, are completely untrue. Mercury toxicity is known to overwhelm the benefits of fish fats in several international studies. And Dr. Roman need look no further than Massachusetts or Manhattan for evidence that exposure to even low levels of mercury during pregnancy has a negative effect on infant development.
The FDA should take a long, hard look at mercury
As it stands, the 2009 FDA draft is a relic of a previous Administration in which scientific findings could be stretched to defend nearly any policy decision.
We urge the new FDA to take a fresh look at the risks and benefits of mercury and seafood. There are likely some fish - with low mercury levels and lots of good fats - that can be eaten in large quantities with little risk. There are also some bad fish, like shark, tilefish, swordfish, mackrel, and others that are unsafe for at-risk groups. Consumers are hungry for clear guidance, and it just takes the right group of committed scientists to provide it. We're waiting.
In the meantime, check out our safe fish list for women.
An interesting article, and informative. I applaud all the work you do in the area of mercury, BPA, and other toxics' effects on humans.
One small issue, the photograph of a scantily clad "model" is irrelevant to your blog post and detracts from your message. The random insertion of objectified women into blog posts about science is something I am starting to see more often and it is a disquieting trend that I thought was confined only to mass media!
There is an intersectionality of many issues we as environmentalists deal with every day, be they environmental health issues, social justice issues, gender issues, and racial issues and it behoves us to be aware of them all. Concern for women needs to extend to their portrayals in the media in addition to their health.
Also the use of unattributed images is not very good form for a blog.
Keep up the good work. It is hard to convince people that low levels of endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins affect people and ecosystems at a fundamental level, but you folks do it day in and day out.
Anon, Good catch re the image citation. We have lots of bloggers here at EWG and this one slipped by. As for the image selection, thanks for sharing your viewpoint, it is always helpful to get feedback from readers on how our work comes across; we do carefully select images and appreciate your input; we will take that perspective into account as we choose images going forward. And finally, thanks for the kind words and for taking the time to share all 3 points.
Safe seafood is still available for the everyday consumer. For the first time there is a company that doesn’t rely on only the age or location of the fish caught to claim that it is lower in mercury than FDA action levels. Safe Harbor guarantees that the fish it certifies is lower than FDA action levels because it tests every large fin fish released under the Safe Harbor brand. For the first time I am 100% confident about the safety of the seafood I eat and buy for my family. In addition, this company works with seafood processing and distribution facilities to try and obtain solely sustainable seafoods! All their mercury certification levels are available online, along with details about their testing process and where their product is available at http://www.safeharborfoods.com
Check them out and enjoy the health benefits of seafood without worry!
Why is there little or no mention of the mercury used as a preservative in flu vaccines recommended for pregnant women and young children. If mercury ingested by mouth is dangerous, isn't injecting it with flu vaccines potentially dangerous as well?