Fishing for some clarity


Leaping Salmon

One debate about the modern seafood industry focuses on heavy metals and other toxins in the fish we eat, especially large predators such as tuna. The press’s alarmist coverage suggests that we should all stop eating tuna salad sandwiches and toro sushi.

After much hue and cry, the public has been left with a murky understanding of the key facts in this discussion. Environmental toxins such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are mainly relevant to women in their childbearing years, pregnant women, breastfeeding women, babies, and young children. Why? Because these compounds affect fertility, gestation, embryogenesis, and early childhood development.

In these at-risk groups, exposure to high concentrations of mercury or methylmercury (MeHg), both potent neurotoxins, can result in mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and seizures.

But outside of the demographic I mention above, these compounds do not significantly affect our population.

In the end, it’s about running the calculus of risk assessment. Pregnant women should avoid tuna and other fish from the top of the food chain. They should avoid wild fish native to the polluted fresh waters of the US and other countries. They should eat fish that are harvested at a young age, such as salmon. Fish such as tuna and swordfish are taken from the sea after years of exposure to and accumulation of toxins from the fish they eat.

Even following these guidelines (more can be found at the links below), pregnant women should eat these fish in measured doses, eat a wide variety of protein and omega-3 containing foods, and pay close attention to the source of their food.

If you want “cleaner” seafood, farmed fish can be a healthy option if you find a fishery that buys certified toxin-free fish feed, which is very expensive. Farmed fish that eat ground-up and toxin-rich fish-based feed, the majority of farmed fish aquaculture, become toxin sponges. Wild fish might potentially have fewer heavy metals but there is never a 100% guarantee that your particular fish didn’t grow up on the wrong side of the tracks. Fish-by-fish testing is just not available to the retail-level consumer.

If you are not a female of childbearing age, pregnant, or breastfeeding, eat that tuna without much guilt, but don’t feed tuna, swordfish, tilefish, shark, and other large fish to your kids. (See this link for a listing of fish and their mercury content)

Please wait until their little brains have had a good chance to develop properly. While it is not clear when neural development is no longer susceptible to injury due to mercury exposure, it is clear that critical development continues well into the teen years.

Do what you can to help young women, pregnant mommas, and children in your life move away from these food sources.

Resources for Learning:

Got Mercury?

FDA: Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish Updated February 2006

FDA: What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish - 2004 EPA and FDA Advice For: Women Who Might Become Pregnant, Women Who are Pregnant, Nursing Mothers, Young Children

EPA: Fish Advisories

EPA: Mercury information site

Without getting too political about the effect that the current administration has had on the integrity of certain government agencies, remember to never rely on a single source of information.

Note that organic definitions don’t exist for fish. The USDA has not advocated for organic standards in the past, but policy makers have co-opted the term to ease the way for non-organic food producers to capitalize on this market niche.

A source for Organically fed Farm Fish:

Black Pearl Natural Choice brand (at some Whole Foods Markets)



Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
France recognizes five new food AOCs
Pili Nuts : The Next Macadamia? (Part 1)

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

Frustratingly, what “women in their childbearing years” means is unclear. Does it mean “women who are considering bearing children in the near future”? More likely, it means all women who are post-menstrual and pre-menopausal. That’s a lot of women - all the ones between ages 12 and 60 or so. When discussing to whom food is dangerous, clarity matters!

testing - comment not getting through

(system is messing up my comment - its in several parts)

This is a common term. Childbearing years = those years in which one is capable of conceiving. It has nothing to do with an intent to have children. Biology doesnt care if you planned a pregnancy or not.

(more)

(part 2)

Not sure how this term is vague. Across a population there is variety but for each individual it is discrete. Each woman/young woman likely knows (better know) if she is in her childbearing years. If she is capable of conceiving and finds herself in a situation where conception is possible, her prenatal nutrition status has an enormous impact on the health of her child.

will finish comment some other time because the system is not accepting my text.

But I’d assume that if a woman never intends to have children, she’s outside of the demographic. Is that right?

Yeah, if she is not going to have little ones, then she doesnt have to worry about exposing her children to toxins in utero.

what is considered as “acceptable” ppm mercury level?

Mercury can have a degenerative effect on neurons. Methylmercury accumulates in the brain and can lead to mental degeneration in adults. Also farmed fish don’t offer omega 3 benefits unless they are specifically fed marine algae or kelp.

“Experimental studies have found that even smallest amounts of mercury but no other metals in low concentrations were able to cause all nerve cell changes, which are typical for Alzheimer’s disease.”

From:

Alzheimer Disease: Mercury as pathogenetic factor and apolipoprotein E as a moderator

Joachim Mutter*, Johannes Naumann*, Catharina Sadaghiani*, Rainer Schneider*1 & Harald Walach*1

Neuroendocrinol Lett 2004; 25(5):331–339