Posted by johnlagrange at 10/6/07 9:58 p.m.

I Don't know if Sally Squires had a bad day, but she did a better job of reporting than Lisa Stiffler did. Lisa claims "The updated advice comes not from a study... that mercury is less harmful than believed" Wrong, that is exactly where the advice is coming from. The study, funded by the National Institute of Health was published in the "Lancet" Vol 369, issue 9561 Feb 2007 titled "Maternal Seafood Consumpton in Pregnancy and Neurodevelopmental outcomes in Childhood" By Joseph R Hibbelin et al. The study found that women who stayed within the U.S. guidelines for fish consumption during pregnancy increased the risks of neurological problems in their children compared to women who exceeded the guidelines. The finding surprised the authors who then checked the finding by looking at mercury levels in the mothers as an independent measure of fish consumption. The results were the same- the women who had higher mercury levels, indicating more fish consumption, had better outcomes for their children. Exactly why should the fishing industry not pay to have this information put out to the public?

Posted by Jeremy Brown at 10/7/07 10:43 a.m.

Last december we had a similar discussion on this site, based on reluctance to accept compelling scientific work. Since then there continue to be more studies supporting increased seafood consumption, including the gold-standard Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children http://www.alspac.bris.ac.uk/ which shows a clear consistent and direct relationship between increased seafood consumption and infant and child developement.
Perhaps Ms Stiffler can cite credible clinical research that shows otherwise?
Going after funding sources is a cheap and shabby way of discrediting otherwise robust science. Unfortuneately, Ms Stiffler, no 'fishy money' backed any of the research. NFI merely paid to help publiscize this information, which can scarcely taint the value of the research itself. Indeed, given its pubilic education mandate, NFI would be remiss were it not to make every effort to publiscize this information.
I hope we can all look forward to the recently announced UW studies which will ask many of the same questions about nutrition and child developement.
Ms Stiffler, I will wager you the best seafood dinner Seattle can offer- Flying Fish, lark, Ray's- your choice, that the UW results will support and not contradict the present state of the science, that present maternal seafood consumption of less than 12 oz per week, is insufficient for optimal infant neurodevelopement.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/7/07 3:09 p.m.

It's a shame that we even have to wonder whether the mercury, PCBs, and other chemicals in fish makes the fish unhealthy to eat. Really, we shouldn't even be talking about pregnant moms with high levels of mercury. I think we can all agree that if we had a choice, we would rather have our fish without toxic chemicals. We need to adopt policies that will eliminate toxic chemicals from the environment so that there is no question whether our food is safe to eat.

It's high time the fishing industry, which has historically campaigned against or at the best remained neutral in efforts to eliminate toxic pollution, take a stand against the chemicals that are contaminating their product.

Posted by Lisa Stiffler at 10/8/07 12:27 p.m.

The National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition announcement might have been informed by the Lancet study, but their press release justifying the recommendation to eat more fish cited only a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and a 2007 study led by Dr. William Goodnight from the Medical University of South Carolina that both looked at how much fish women were eating, not the effects of fish consumption and fetal development.

Posted by fishfood at 10/9/07 7:32 a.m.

Sally Squires did a horrible job of reporting. She does not differentiate clearly between low mercury fish and high mercury fish.

It is irresponsible to urge pregnant mothers to eat more fish than the FDA recommends without any advice to avoid high mercury fish. Decades of scientific research on the toxicity of methylmercury suggest that it harms healthy fetal development. And you're right, according to www.Seafood.com, (and other sources) the National Fisheries Institute partially funded this latest campaign to urge expectant women to consume more fish and seafood

In fact, a few recent studies suggest that the benefits of fish consumption during pregnancy, such as improving infant gestation length and neurodevelopment, may be erased when the mother's mercury levels are high.

Women of childbearing age still need to select their fish wisely. The FDA advice should be posted at fish counters to help end confusion. Here's the website to an organization that is trying to get grocery stores to post this important advice.

oceana.org/greenlist

Posted by Joel Kawahara at 10/9/07 1:20 p.m.

"Unregistered" states " It's high time the fishing industry, which has historically campaigned against or at the best remained neutral in efforts to eliminate toxic pollution, take a stand against the chemicals that are contaminating their product."

I am a board member of the Washington Trollers Association (commercial salmon fishermen) but only speak for my self in this post.

As a fisherman, I can not support any pollution of the waters ( or air above) that will impact the products I sell to consumers. In fact, I am totally against toxic pollutants because I eat more fish than any one in any average study group, thus subjecting myself to higher doses.

But consider the sources of pollutants past and present. PCBs came primarily from electric transformers until the oils were changed in recent years. No one knew, or at least no one was saying, that PCBs were a potent and long lasting carcinogen. Freon (CFCs), dioxins, halogenated hydrocarbons like penta chlorophenol, and PDBE flame retardants have been discovered to be harmful, but by chemists and epidemiologists, not fishermen. To my knowledge, the Washington Trollers Association never opposed any of the changes to industral users of these chemicals. Again, because so many fishermen eat so much fish they want to see the end of these pollutants.

The world's worst mercury poisoning episode was Minamata village in Japan. These were fishermen... and they did protest as loudly as they could against the company that was dumping Hg into the bay. Does anyone think fishermen now support mercury pollution?

Oil pollution and spills have affected more fishermen than any other industry, and I am certain the fishing industry is unanamously for rigorous safety standards for the transport of all petroleum products. During the Exxon Valdes oil spill, Alaska Department of Fish and Game closed commercial harvest in areas affected (to the west of Price William Sound) by oil. Yes fishermen did not want to stop fishing, but everyone did because no one wanted to sell an oiled fish.

Also in Alaska, it was a coalition of conservation and fishing groups fighting Governor Murkowski's proposal to expand "mixing zones" for mining discharges in salmon bearing streams. Likewise the fishing industry strongly protested the proposed use of aerial spraying of herbicides on Southeast Alaska.

I believe that the fishing industry does not support any laws that reduce the safety of fish as food. To imply that fishermen want to sell dirty fish is incorrect. Fishermen recognize that the fish they sell is only as clean as the water it lives in. I am, and I believe all fishermen are in support of keeping our fish and waters as clean possible.

And finally, thanks to Lisa Stiffler for continuing to examine and report of issues of water quality. Her efforts to keep water quality in the public's eye goes a long way towrds helping fishermen keep clean fish in the public's stomach.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/9/07 10:27 p.m.

Fishfood might want to check his/her sources- "In fact, a few recent studies suggest that the benefits of fish consumption during pregnancy, such as improving infant gestation length and neurodevelopment, may be erased when the mother's mercury levels are high."
The only credible research that has indicated negative effects, Grandjean et al, aka "Faroes" initially failed to seperate out Pilot Whale consumption, which has significant Hg and low Selenium. When Grandjean factored out the pilot whale, which few people outside the Faroes eat in any quantity, quess what? Positive outcomes!
Big Green set itself up here- gambling that raising hysteria about some of our most valued food would create the critical back-pressure for action on pollution. It is not the fault of the fishermen that Big Green played a hand that was subsequently not entirely supported by science.
Pollution is still bad. But the current state of the science, as relayed by the Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, is that the benefits of seafood consumption outweigh the risks.

Posted by concerned_mom at 10/12/07 11:57 a.m.

Hurrah for good reporting Lisa Stiffler. It is sad to see how far the National Fisheries Institute (no reason to blame individual fishermen here) is willing to go in their misinformation campaign.

I have to correct Johnlagrange who has been making the rounds of blog comments touting the Lancet study. The Lancet study has been challenged by Alan Stern and Deborah Rice for poor mercury ascertainment. (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611179/fulltext)

"In light of this inability to draw reliable inferences about the relation between methylmercury exposure and developmental outcomes, we believe that Hibbeln and colleagues' advice implying the inappropriateness of existing US FDA guidance on fish consumption is irresponsible. The responsible advice should be to eat fish, but to choose those low in mercury."

In addition to the Lancet studies plenty of studies show adverse health effects of mercury during pregnancy. A michigan cohort found women who delivered before 35 weeks gestion were significantly more likely to have high mercury levels--due to fish. (Xue F, Holzman C, Rahbar MH, Trosko K, Fischer L. Maternal fish consumption, mercury levels, and risk of preterm delivery.Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Jan;115(1):42-7.)

I could go on, but I imagine that most of your informed readership understands the bottomline. There are plenty of ways for pregnant and nursing mothers to get Omega-3s from low mercury fish and non-fish sources. No one should be advising we add more tuna and mackerel to our diets.