| Most Recent |
|---|
|
|
"Dose makes the poison."Chicago Tribune: Announcing the change in the Federal Register in 1979, the FDA said new data showed that consumers were not exposing themselves to as much mercury as officials had estimated when they set the more stringent 0.5 guideline a decade earlier. The FDA said the new data came from a report by the National Marine Fisheries Service, an arm of the Commerce Department. ... The report proved to be prophetic. With the relaxed rules in place, the seafood industry boomed. After decades of stagnant growth, fish consumption grew 20 percent from 1980 to 1990. (December 12, 2005) Response: An absence of concern
The fact that fish consumption has “boomed” may well be explained by the boom in research revealing just how vital fish nutrition is for total physical and mental wellness (see Sec. 1). The advent and dissemination of this knowledge, not any FDA actions, is more likely responsible for a rational increase in fish consumption rates by Americans -- although still far below world standards for recommend nutritional needs. In "Making Sense of State Fish Advisories" we thoroughly discuss FDA and EPA fish mercury guidelines. FDA legal guidelines, that commercial fish mercury content is not to exceed 1 ppm, is not a bright line for safety. The FDA, joining with EPA, issued a cautious fish consumption advisory (March 2004) calling for optimal consumption of low-mercury fish of about 12 oz. per week. Such advisory seems sensible in light of the analysis in Carrington et al. (2004), cited in Sec. 4. Fig. 12-A shows the available U.S. fish consumption data from 1980, updated through 2004. It posses the question as to why CT specifically ignored data from 1991 through 2004 when flagging a 20% growth in fish consumption from 1980 to 1990. While total per capita consumption of commercial fish and shellfish in the U.S. shows an even higher value by 2004, Americans still fall far short of recommended intake of omega-3 fatty acids (see Sec. 14).  In short, it remains rather troubling that CT seems intent on discounting the good faith of both the FDA and seafood industry while intimating a lack of concern about the need for increased fish consumption levels in Americans. |
||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
