The last scenario had women of childbearing age increasing fish consumption. As a result, a minor decrease in heart disease and mortality was seen. There was also a slight decrease in IQ, approximately .07 points per child.
The researchers agree that because of the nutritional value of fish, communicating risk efforts to women of childbearing age is paramount. It is important that they alter the type of fish they eat, rather than the amount. In addition, communicating this risk while maintaining or increasing fish consumption in other populations is ideal. The researchers go on to say that if somehow all adults, even women of childbearing age consumed eight ounces of salmon a week, annual heart disease would drop by nearly 20,000 cases. On top of that, eating this low methylmercury fish would contribute to a drop in nonfatal strokes by 4,000 and a 0.5 IQ point increase per child. In all likelihood, women of childbearing age will probably associate dangers of mercury in all fish and therefore decrease total fish consumption. If the elderly decrease their fish consumption, then the risk of heart disease and stroke, as noted in scenario three, would increase by 17%. To reach these conclusions, the researchers convened a panel of experts who measured QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). This mathematical model measures life years gained or lost due to the shifting consumption of fish and is used as a common metric to make the findings comparable. The researchers do admit that each scenario could be under or over estimated as it relates to actual numbers but they are confident of the fact that the trend does support their argument. The researchers couldn't overstate enough that risk managers need to be careful when issuing warnings about fish consumption.
Since it has been well reported that catches of wild fish are near or at maximum, in order to sustain this increase in fish consumption, aquaculture must be the vehicle. This method of production does have many potential environmental impacts. Shrimp farms have taken an enormous toll on coastal habitats with mangrove swamps being cleared for production in Africa and Southeast Asia. Aquaculture can also lead to water pollution as fish feces, uneaten food, and organic debris can cause algal blooms in nearby coastal and river waters. Methods are improving and new technologies are constantly being brought to light to combat this problem.
Based on the research findings, the U.S. Tuna foundation, in a press release, has called for an end to the "politicization" of the mercury issue stating that scaring people away from eating fish is detrimental to overall public health. They feel the benefits of including seafood into a healthy diet far outweigh any potential risk of methylmercury.
The public is concerned with high mercury levels in fish such as tuna, swordfish, and shark which could hinder prenatal brain development. However, eating fish is a part of a healthy lifestyle that includes the substantial benefits garnered from Omega-3 Fatty Acids. A diet void of Omega-3 Fatty Acids could be a risky adventure leading to heart disease and/or stroke. Pregnant women can consume low mercury level fish such as salmon and shrimp as an alternative to some of the high level species. Men and women in other age groups should be aware of the nutritional benefits of fish, specifically the role Omega-3 Fatty Acids play in disease prevention.
Eating fish is an important part of our diet, unfortunately as a society we are polluting this important resource via mercury laden emissions from our coal fired power plants, factories, etc. (related article). People shouldn't be forced to choose between the health risks associated with toxins released via industrial pollution and the nutritional benefits from things like Omega-3 Fatty Acids in the foods we eat. As a society we must demand greater accountability with our industrial practices and take seriously the damage we are doing to our environment and our long term health.
Species | Mercury Concentration (PPM) | # Samples | Source of Data | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MEAN | MEDIAN | MIN | MAX | |||
Fish and Shellfish With Highest Levels of Mercury | ||||||
MACKEREL KING | 0.73 | NA | 0.23 | 1.67 | 213 | Gulf of Mexico Report 2000 |
SHARK | 0.99 | 0.83 | ND | 4.54 | 351 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
SWORDFISH | 0.97 | 0.86 | 0.10 | 3.22 | 605 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
TILEFISH (Gulf of Mexico) | 1.45 | NA | 0.65 | 3.73 | 60 | NMFS Report 1978 |
Fish and Shellfish With Lower Levels of Mercury | ||||||
ANCHOVIES | 0.04 | NA | ND | 0.34 | 40 | NMFS Report 1978 |
BUTTERFISH | 0.06 | NA | ND | 0.36 | 89 | NMFS Report 1978 |
CATFISH | 0.05 | ND | ND | 0.31 | 22 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
CLAMS | ND | ND | ND | ND | 6 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
COD | 0.11 | 0.10 | ND | 0.42 | 20 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
CRAB 3 | 0.06 | ND | ND | 0.61 | 59 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
CRAWFISH | 0.03 | 0.03 | ND | 0.05 | 21 | FDA Survey 2002-03 |
CROAKER (Atlantic) | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 21 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
FLATFISH 2 | 0.05 | 0.04 | ND | 0.18 | 22 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
HADDOCK | 0.03 | 0.04 | ND | 0.04 | 4 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
HAKE | 0.01 | ND | ND | 0.05 | 9 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
HERRING | 0.04 | NA | ND | 0.14 | 38 | NMFS Report 1978 |
JACKSMELT | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.50 | 16 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
LOBSTER (Spiny) | 0.09 | 0.14 | ND | 0.27 | 9 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
MACKEREL ATLANTIC (N. Atlantic) | 0.05 | NA | 0.02 | 0.16 | 80 | NMFS Report 1978 |
MACKEREL CHUB (Pacific) | 0.09 | NA | 0.03 | 0.19 | 30 | NMFS Report 1978 |
MULLET | 0.05 | NA | ND | 0.13 | 191 | NMFS Report 1978 |
OYSTERS | ND | ND | ND | 0.25 | 34 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
PERCH OCEAN | ND | ND | ND | 0.03 | 6 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
PICKEREL | ND | ND | ND | 0.06 | 4 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
POLLOCK | 0.06 | ND | ND | 0.78 | 37 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
SALMON (Canned) | ND | ND | ND | ND | 23 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
SALMON (Fresh/Frozen) | 0.01 | ND | ND | 0.19 | 34 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
SARDINE | 0.02 | 0.01 | ND | 0.04 | 22 | FDA Survey 2002-03 |
SCALLOPS | 0.05 | NA | ND | 0.22 | 66 | NMFS Report 1978 |
SHAD (American) | 0.07 | NA | ND | 0.22 | 59 | NMFS Report 1978 |
SHRIMP | ND | ND | ND | 0.05 | 24 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
SQUID | 0.07 | NA | ND | 0.40 | 200 | NMFS Report 1978 |
TILAPIA | 0.01 | ND | ND | 0.07 | 9 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
TROUT (Freshwater) | 0.03 | 0.02 | ND | 0.13 | 17 | FDA Survey 2002-03 |
TUNA (Canned, Light) | 0.12 | 0.08 | ND | 0.85 | 131 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
WHITEFISH | 0.07 | 0.05 | ND | 0.31 | 25 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
WHITING | ND | ND | ND | ND | 2 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
Mercury Levels of Other Fish and Shellfish | ||||||
BASS (Saltwater)1 | 0.27 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 35 | FDA SURVEY 1990-03 |
BLUEFISH | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.63 | 22 | FDA Survey 2002-03 |
BUFFALOFISH | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.43 | 4 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
CARP | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 2 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
CROAKER WHITE (Pacific) | 0.29 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.41 | 15 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
GROUPER | 0.55 | 0.44 | 0.07 | 1.21 | 22 | FDA Survey 2002-03 |
HALIBUT | 0.26 | 0.20 | ND | 1.52 | 32 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
LOBSTER (Northern/American) | 0.31 | NA | 0.05 | 1.31 | 88 | NMFS Report 1978 |
MACKEREL SPANISH (Gulf of Mexico) | 0.45 | NA | 0.07 | 1.56 | 66 | NMFS Report 1978 |
MACKEREL SPANISH (South Atlantic) | 0.18 | NA | 0.05 | 0.73 | 43 | NMFS Report 1978 |
MARLIN | 0.49 | 0.39 | 0.10 | 0.92 | 16 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
MONKFISH | 0.18 | NA | 0.02 | 1.02 | 81 | NMFS Report 1978 |
ORANGE ROUGHY | 0.54 | 0.56 | 0.30 | 0.80 | 26 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
PERCH (Freshwater) | 0.14 | 0.15 | ND | 0.31 | 5 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
SABLEFISH | 0.22 | NA | ND | 0.70 | 102 | NMFS Report 1978 |
SCORPIONFISH | 0.29 | NA | 0.02 | 1.35 | 78 | NMFS Report 1978 |
SHEEPSHEAD | 0.13 | NA | 0.02 | 0.63 | 59 | NMFS Report 1978 |
SKATE | 0.14 | NA | 0.04 | 0.36 | 56 | NMFS Report 1978 |
SNAPPER | 0.19 | 0.12 | ND | 1.37 | 25 | FDA Survey 2002-03 |
TILEFISH (Atlantic) | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.53 | 17 | FDA Survey 2002-03 |
TUNA (Canned, Albacore) | 0.35 | 0.34 | ND | 0.85 | 179 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
TUNA (Fresh/Frozen) | 0.38 | 0.30 | ND | 1.30 | 131 | FDA Survey 1990-02 |
WEAKFISH (Sea Trout) | 0.25 | 0.16 | ND | 0.74 | 27 | FDA Survey 1990-03 |
Based on table from FDA/Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html) Notes
Source of data
|
If you need to cite this page, you can copy this text:
Tim Fitzpatrick. Mercury in Fish vs. Omega-3 Fatty Acids Health Benefits . EnvironmentalChemistry.com. Dec. 3, 2005. Accessed on-line: 11/21/2024
https://EnvironmentalChemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200511mercuryvsomega-3fattyacids.html
.
If you would like to link to this page from your website, blog, etc., copy and paste this link code (in red) and modify it to suit your needs:
<a href="https://EnvironmentalChemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200511mercuryvsomega-3fattyacids.html">echo Mercury in Fish vs. Omega-3 Fatty Acids Health Benefits (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)</a>- In spite of the health benefits provided by omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oils, people are decreasing fish in their diets due to high levels of mercury found in some fish.
.
NOTICE: While linking to articles is encouraged, OUR ARTICLES MAY NOT BE COPIED TO OR REPUBLISHED ON ANOTHER WEBSITE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
PLEASE, if you like an article we published simply link to it on our website do not republish it.