The Consumer Reports article in its July 206 issue, is old wine in even
older bottles. There is nothing new here, except that CR apparently wants
media attention and has used the tried and true tactic of scaring people.
They advise pregnant women to avoid canned tuna altogether. Given that US
women have among the lowest seafood intakes in the world, it is
irresponsible, in my view, to advocate that pregnant women shun all canned
tuna.
CR's anonymous "experts" tell readers that "studies have not established
that there's any minimal frequency, duration or amount of mercury exposure
that is safe for the fetus." Well, of course not. Science does not
"establish safety," it can only show absence of harm. This it has done
repeatedly. Instead of telling readers that, CR told them that safety hasn't
been established. In fact, in the absence of any data indicating or even
suggesting harm from current mercury expsoure in US women, CR takes it upon
itself to tell pregnant women to avoid canned tuna entirely.
Long-term prospective data from the Seychelles Island, where fish
consumption is 12 servings or more per week, as contrasted with one meal or
less per week in the U. S., have found no evidence of harm to women or their
fetuses from high levels of fish consumption. The same is true in Japan,
where interestingly enough, Japanese children seem to excel in cognitive and
school performance. Regular consumption of seafood has not impaired their
intelligence, it appears. And the Japanese know a thing or two about excess
mercury exposure.
The most egregious aspect of CR's report is its failure to point out that
the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids found in canned tuna and other seafoods
are essential for optimum brain growth and development in fetal life and
early infancy, at least through 2 years of age. Scaring people away from
eating seafood, including canned tuna, serves mainly to reduce Americans'
already very low intakes of these critical nutrients. It has been
demonstrated in many studies that the fetus avidly prefers preformed
long-chain omega-3 fatty acids over the 18-carbon precursor which is
minimally converted to the long-chain forms in humans. So, the implications
of frightening people, especially pregnant women away from consuming any
canned tuna, is potential public health harm. There is already one published
report that mercury scares serve to reduce seafood consumption among
pregnant women.
FDA and EPA have reasserted their support for the 2004 fish consumption
advisory for pregnant women. The advisory states that pregnant women may
safely consume up to 12 oz. per week of a variety of low-mercury fish
including canned light tuna and up to 6 oz./week of albacore tuna, which has
more mercury than light tuna. Let's encourage pregnant women to use their
their forks and their brains to enhance the development of their fetus'
brains by consuming low-mercury fish regularly.
In the interests of full disclosure, as part of my consulting practice, I
provide nutrition advice to the US Tuna Foundation, the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute and others with the purpose of providing sound
scientific information and dispelling the misperceptions about seafood
consumption and its many health benefits. The real risks associated with
seafood consumption relate to microbiological hazards and allergies, not
excess methylmercury consumption.
Joyce
Joyce A. Nettleton, DSc, RD
ScienceVoice Consulting
Editor, PUFA and Fats of Life Newsletters, http://www.fatsoflife.com
2931 Race Street
Denver, CO 80205
Tel: 303-296-9595
Fax: 303-298-1542
Email: sciencevoice@mindspring.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2006 - 10:50:28 PDT