Quantcast
Skip to main content
Environmental Health Perspectives Podcasts - The Researcher's Perspectives
Full
About EHP Publications Past Issues News By Topic Authors Subscribe Press International Inside EHP Email Alerts spacer
Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content is free online. Print issues are available by paid subscription.DISCLAIMER
spacer
NIEHS
NIH
DHHS
spacer
Current Issue

EHP Science Education Website




Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD)

spacer
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 117, Number 2, February 2009 Open Access
spacer
Quantitative Approach for Incorporating Methylmercury Risks and Omega-3 Fatty Acid Benefits in Developing Species-Specific Fish Consumption Advice

Gary L. Ginsberg and Brian F. Toal

Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, Connecticut, USA

Abstract
Background: Despite general agreement about the toxicity of methylmercury (MeHg) , fish consumption advice remains controversial. Concerns have been raised that negative messages will steer people away from fish and omega-3 fatty acid (FA) benefits. One approach is to provide advice for individual species that highlights beneficial fish while cautioning against riskier fish.

Objectives: Our goal in this study was to develop a method to quantitatively analyze the net risk/benefit of individual fish species based on their MeHg and omega-3 FA content.

Methods: We identified dose–response relationships for MeHg and omega-3 FA effects on coronary heart disease (CHD) and neurodevelopment. We used the MeHg and omega-3 FA content of 16 commonly consumed species to calculate the net risk/benefit for each species.

Results: Estimated omega-3 FA benefits outweigh MeHg risks for some species (e.g., farmed salmon, herring, trout) ; however, the opposite was true for others (swordfish, shark) . Other species were associated with a small net benefit (e.g., flounder, canned light tuna) or a small net risk (e.g., canned white tuna, halibut) . These results were used to place fish into one of four meal frequency categories, with the advice tentative because of limitations in the underlying dose–response information. Separate advice appears warranted for the neurodevelopmental risk group versus the cardiovascular risk group because we found a greater net benefit from fish consumption for the cardiovascular risk group.

Conclusions: This research illustrates a framework for risk/benefit analysis that can be used to develop categories of consumption advice ranging from "do not eat" to "unlimited," with the caveat that unlimited may need to be tempered for certain fish (e.g., farm-raised salmon) because of other contaminants and end points (e.g., cancer risk) . Uncertainties exist in the underlying dose–response relationships, pointing in particular to the need for more research on the adverse effects of MeHg on cardiovascular end points.

Key words: , , , , , . Environ Health Perspect 117:267–275 (2009) . doi:10.1289/ehp.11368 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 3 September 2008]


Address correspondence to G.L. Ginsberg, Connecticut Department of Public Health, 410 Capitol Ave., Mail Stop 11CHA, Hartford, CT 06134 USA. Telephone: (860) 509-7750. Fax: (860) 509-7785. E-mail: gary.ginsberg@po.state.ct.us

The research and opinions are those of the authors and do not represent official positions of the State of Connecticut.

The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

Received 13 February 2008 ; accepted 3 September 2008.


The full version of this article is available for free in HTML or PDF formats.
spacer
 
Open Access Resources | Call for Papers | Career Opportunities | Buy EHP Publications | Advertising Information | Subscribe to the EHP News Feeds News Feeds | Inspector General USA.gov

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files located on this site.