For Omega-3's, choose low-mercury fish species

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration drew another round of criticism from scientists and safety experts commenting on a draft report that weighs the benefits of omega fatty acids against the risks of mercury in fish. Critics, including Consumers Union, argue that the approach the agency is considering represents yet another attempt to weaken the critical guidance consumers need to avoid the health risks of mercury in fish. 

The conclusions of the draft report, issued for public comment in the final days of the Bush Administration, suggest that the benefits of omega fatty acids in fish outweigh the risks from mercury that often is present at high levels in such popular species as swordfish, shark and tuna. This position is misleading and not supported by science, argues Consumers Union and other public interest groups. 

As we've reported many times before,  while fish are an important part of a healthy diet, the benefits of omega 3's can be offset, and in some cases eliminated altogether, in people who eat a frequent diet of high-mercury fish. Consumers can instead choose such low-mercury species as sardines, salmon, herring and pollock to both minimize mercury risks and maximize the benefits of omega fatty acids.

For more guidance on low mercury fish choices, read "Low-mercury seafood: How much is safe?" For more information on mercury in fish, read this Q&A from Consumer Reports Health.org.

Comments

[Craig Weatherby]

This statement is completely misleading: "The conclusions of the draft report ... suggest that the benefits of omega fatty acids in fish outweigh the risks from mercury that often is present at high levels in such popular species as swordfish, shark and tuna."

The FDA assessment raises serious warnings about frequent consumption of high-mercury species like shark and swordfish.

But FDA also cited the preponderance of literature, showing that the benefits of omega-3s in low- to moderate-mercury species (including tuna) far outweigh the risks of their mercury.

When you say, "This [FDA] position is misleading and not supported by science ..." you fail to note that your position cherry-picks the science, as did the NRC in its unfortunately influential report.

CR, EWG, and others continue to hide from their readers the inconvenient existence of the compelling Seychelles Islands study, or to note the utter lack of evidence of actual harm in the US population, which eats far less fish than people in the Seychelles do.

In fact, the FDA draft assessment -- which stresses the danger of eating high-mercury species frequently -- is a much better reflection of the state of the ALL of the science, compared with the EPA's response.

EWG, CR, Jane Hightower and other mercury alarmists need to read the literature, interpret it fairly, as the FDA did, and stop the fear-mongering.

I grow weary of refuting such distortions over and over again.