Are Fish A Safe Source Of Omega3 Oils?
[Karl Note: There are some very important issues here. I would note that Dr. Gordon comments in one of his recorded lectures that oral EDTA is quite effective in removing mercury, contrary to popular misconceptions, and that taking the oral chelation formula gives you powerful protection against the mercury that is probably in most fish. He does mention specifically that a pregnant or nursing mother should not use any suspected fish source of oils. Thus, someone taking an oral chelation formula with adequate amounts of EDTA may well be able to eat virtually any fish, seeking the natural oils in it, with no danger.]
Fish Consumption, Fish Oil, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and Cardiovascular Disease
Fish is rich in omega-3 fatty acids believed to lower the risk of heart disease, however a new study questions whether consuming fish contaminated with mercury may actually increase the risk of heart disease as well as reduce other potentially healthy benefits.
A previous study found a link between heart disease and increased mercury levels in men who ate contaminated fish. The new study, which involved 684 men who had previously had a heart attack and 724 men who had not, investigated this further. Levels of the omega-3 fatty acid DHA were measured from fat tissue and mercury levels were measured from toenail clippings.
It was found that men who had had a heart attack had 15 percent higher mercury levels than men who had no history of heart disease. Also, men with the highest mercury levels were more than twice as likely to have had a heart attack as compared with men with the lowest mercury levels, according to the study.
After mercury levels were adjusted for, it was found that the higher a man’s DHA levels, the lower his risk of having a heart attack. The study points out that this furthers the accepted notion of the protective benefits of consuming fish.
However, researchers point out that pregnant women, or those who may become pregnant, are currently advised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to not consume fish with high mercury levels such as shark, swordfish and mackerel. They study suggests that this advice may also benefit the general adult population.
The New England Journal of Medicine November 28, 2002;347:1735-1736, 1747-1754, 1755-1760
|
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: |
Further compelling evidence to heed the mercury warnings I have posted for some time now.
Although omega-3 fat with DHA and EPA fatty acids, naturally found in fish, is one of the most important elements of high-quality nutrition -- and sorely lacking in the American diet -- our culture has long since passed the point where it is healthy to obtain omega-3 from most commercially available fish. I now highly recommend routinely consuming fish oil/cod liver oil, instead, as they are purified of mercury and other toxins.
Mercury is rampant in the waterways of the world, and, as the article expresses, mercury is not just in the fat of the fish -- it is in all of the tissues.
Clinically, I use hair analysis on most of my patients as a way to determine mercury levels. While many view this as a controversial test, very few would deny its utility as a sensitive screen for heavy metal exposure. A person's mercury level in their hair is almost always related to their consumption of fish.
There are exceptions, of course, as there are other environmental exposures to mercury. I recently tested a dentist who was not eating fish but was still actively removing mercury amalgams, and he had very high mercury levels in his system. This is not typical, though, as the mercury measured in the hair analysis is usually related to mercury exposure in the last three months, and most mercury from a person's amalgams is low level and will not exceed that consumed in fish.
Nonetheless, the mercury from amalgams is still a problem as it accumulates over time, but it rarely shows up in the hair unless you have had amalgams removed in the three months prior to the hair analysis and a large mercury exposure resulted from the removal.
It is a tragedy that we have virtually devastated fish, previously one of the healthiest foods on the planet, with mercury toxicity. We have polluted the environment with hundreds of millions of tons of mercury by burning coal for electricity. The mercury eventually finds its way into the waterways where it is bio-accumulated to very high levels in most fish. Generally the larger the fish, the more mercury it contains. In fact, some mercury levels in fish have been unbelievably high.
Tragedy is an understatement.
Some fish have less mercury than others, but nearly all fish are contaminated with mercury. I have done thousands of hair mineral analyses on patients and can confidently state this as truth. Patients who don't eat any fish are the only ones who have immeasurable levels of mercury in their hair. In my experience, anyone eating fish has mercury in their system, and it is nearly always in direct proportion to the frequency of their fish consumption.
So here is my recommendation:
Avoid eating all fish, unless you know the fish has been tested and shown not to contain harmful levels of mercury and other toxins.
Almost all fish has mercury that will absolutely compromise your health. The one apparent exception are very small fish like sardines or anchovies that haven't been in the ocean long enough to accumulate much mercury. Presently, I am also searching the market for safe sources of other fish, perhaps those caught from more pristine water sources that may still exist.
We all need the omega-3 fats found in fish -- in the case of most Americans, in fact, omega-3 is desperately needed -- but you should get them from a clean source. Most fish oil supplements, like the Carlson brand of fish oil/cod liver oil that I highly recommend and offer on this site, go through a molecular distillation process to clean out the mercury. The Carlson brand is also routinely tested using standard international protocols in an independent, FDA registered laboratory; this testing not only ensures freedom from detectable levels of mercury, but also cadmium, lead, PCBs and 28 other contaminants. If you are using a brand besides Carlson, you should definitely contact the manufacturer to confirm they go through this process and testing.
Toxic waste generated by U.S. industry jumped more than 25 percent in 2000, according to data released on May 21, 2002 by the U.S. EPA.
The data, part of the federal Toxics Release Inventory, established by Congress in 1986 as the nation's community right-to-know program, show about 38 billion pounds of toxic waste managed in 2000, with another 7.1 billion pounds released directly to the air, land and water. Louisiana led the nation in toxic waste generated, with more than nine billion pounds generated.
Analysis by U.S. PIRG, a public interest advocacy organization, showed that current Bush administration proposals to weaken environmental protections would hinder progress toward reducing this toxic pollution and in some cases would exacerbate the pollution. The group argued that billions of pounds of toxic chemicals released show the problems with current law that make it nearly impossible to remove harmful chemicals from the market.
Industries released 4.3 million pounds of mercury and mercury compounds to the environment and generated 4.9 million pounds of mercury compounds in toxic waste.
By comparison, a teaspoon of mercury deposited every year can contaminate a 20-acre lake to the point that fish are unsafe to eat. A 2001 report by U.S. PIRG and the Environmental Working Group found that fish contamination is already so high that eating fish exposes 1 in 4 pregnant women to levels of mercury that could threaten a developing fetus.
Metal mining and utilities were identified as the nation's biggest polluters, with 3.4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals released by mines, nearly half of total chemical releases, and 1.2 billion pounds released by the utilities and by mines.
The Toxics Release Inventory reflects only a fraction of the toxic hazards in the environment. The program does not include releases from significant pollution sources like oil wells, airports, and waste incinerators, nor does it include significant sources of exposure to chemicals, such as chemicals placed in products.
In addition, the TRI represents only a fraction of the chemicals on the market. While there are approximately 80,000 chemicals on the market, according to EPA and American Chemistry Council studies, gaps in toxics laws mean that at least some of the data needed to perform a basic screen for health and environmental effects were not publicly available for more than 90 percent of the chemicals.
U.S. PIRG is the national lobbying office for the state Public Interest Research Groups. State PIRGs are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy groups.
U.S. PIRG May 23, 2002
Why the FDA is Not Telling You to Avoid Fish
Mercury is toxic to the developing fetal brain and is a poison of growing concern to health authorities nationwide. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's latest health advisory for mercury in seafood was issued in January 2001, the agency came under immediate fire from independent scientists and public health activists for failing to adopt the recommendations of a National Academy of Sciences study on mercury (NAS 2000), and for not providing pregnant women with complete information on what fish to avoid during pregnancy - particularly tuna.
Speaking to the press in May 2001, Dr. Robert Goyer, chairman of the NAS committee on mercury toxicity, criticized the Agency's health advisory for mercury, saying "The F.D.A. should be providing people with the best information and let them be the judge. The F.D.A. has stopped short of what it should have done."
Newly available, internal FDA documents obtained by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveal that FDA, under pressure from the seafood industry, is deliberately withholding critical information from pregnant women on mercury-contaminated tuna and other fish, and using "focus group" sessions as a justification.
In May of 2001, FDA's Director of the Division of Risk Assessment, Michael Bolger, told the press that the agency had conducted focus groups and concluded that if women were given a more comprehensive list of fish that should be avoided or eaten only in moderation during pregnancy, they would simply not eat fish at all. To investigate this claim, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) obtained and analyzed 1,036 pages of focus group transcripts under the Freedom of Information Act.
We found that the word-for-word account of focus group discussions flatly contradicts Bolger's assertion. We also found compelling evidence that the agency is failing to protect the public from mercury-contaminated seafood. Internal FDA focus group transcripts considered together with publicly available FDA documents, show that the agency is failing to regulate mercury levels in seafood, has shut down its mercury monitoring program, has not issued an enforceable limit for mercury in fish, and has not implemented the mercury education program that it promised.
Stunning admissions by FDA official in focus group transcripts
FDA's own focus group transcripts directly refute Dr. Bolger's claim that women would stop eating seafood if given detailed information on mercury levels. In fact, when presented with draft health advisories, an overwhelming majority of the participants said that they would keep eating fish but avoid those with high mercury levels (30 of 37 individual comments) - exactly the behavior that the FDA was aiming for (Table 1 and Table 2).
But beyond what FDA officials were told by consumers are several stunning admissions FDA officials made to participants during those same sessions. EWG's detailed review of 1,036 pages of word-for-word transcriptions of 11 FDA-sponsored focus groups in Denver, Boston, and Calverton, Maryland conducted in October and November 2000, reveals:
1. FDA is withholding from pregnant women information on their need to limit consumption of tuna in order to protect their babies. The agency's January 2001 advisory contains no mention of tuna, yet in the documents obtained by EWG, a senior FDA scientist reveals that:
"... the dilemma that we have is that to lower the action levels, so they're protective of fetuses, it would actually put the availability of certain kinds of fish in question. We would lose some fish." Then he is asked: "Like King Mackeral [sic], shark, and swordfish?" He replies, "Well, those in particular, but also tuna." (emphasis added, Macro International, Inc. 2000i - Boston, November 8, 8 pm, pg 65).
2. Seafood that is technically "safe" according to FDA's mercury action level is actually endangering public health.
A senior FDA scientist admits to a Boston focus group that supposedly safe seafood could put a fetus at risk for neurological damage: "... the action levels that we have in place for fish are not protective enough for this - the fetuses..." (Macro International, Inc. 2000i - Boston, Nov 8, 8 pm, pg 65).
FDA scientists acknowledge the health risks during the focus groups. At one point during the focus groups, a woman whose child has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder pressed an FDA scientist: "I mean, now you find a lot of Attention Deficit Disorder and they're really not saying where it is coming from... But maybe it could be coming from eating too much fish - you know - I mean, is that a possibility?" The scientist replies, "Yes, that's why we're - yes, that is a possibility. That is why we're interested in this." "So my daughter is on medication, now, because I ate fish... ," she asks. FDA's scientist responds, "- now that we have this research, that now is a possibility." (Macro International, Inc. 2000i - Boston, Nov 8, 8 pm, pp 70-71)
3. FDA initially mentioned tuna in its draft mercury advisory but then dropped it after three meetings with the seafood industry.
The agency's draft focus group materials contained warnings for pregnant women such as: "Tuna steaks can be eaten three times a month... You can eat one and a half six-ounce cans of tuna every week with no problems." (see, for example, Macro International, Inc. 2000j - Calverton, MD, Nov 14, 6 pm, pp 32). At the Calverton session, an FDA senior scientist reiterates the potential hazards tuna poses to pregnant women and extends the warning to toddlers and even adult males:
"The advice for pregnant women is once a month or less for things like king mackerel, tuna steaks, whatever." (Macro International, Inc. 2000k - Calverton, MD, Nov 14 2000, 8 pm, pp 45-46)
"It is prudent, particularly for pregnant women to avoid these high mercury fish and moderate their tuna fish consumption..." (Macro International, Inc. 2000j - Calverton, MD, Nov 14, 6 pm, pg 72).
"I have a fifteen month old and he loves tuna. I would want to know, should I be limiting the amount of tuna that I give him?" asks a focus group member. FDA's scientist replies, "It would be, you know, prudent to cut back if he's eating more than a can and a half a week." She asks for clarification: "So, it's the same can and a half for a fifteen month old as it is for him, you know, for an adult male?" He replies, "That is our - yes. It would be the same. It depends on how much you're doing." (Macro International Inc. 2000k - Calverton, MD, Nov 14, 8 pm, pp 48-49).
While crafting language for the advisory, FDA met privately three times - September 25, November 6, and November 22, 2000 - with Chicken of the Sea, StarKist, Bumble Bee, U.S. Tuna Foundation, and National Food Processors Association (FDA 2000a, 2000b, 2000c). The agency's final advisory, issued January 12, 2001, was stripped of any reference to tuna (FDA 2001a).
4. FDA official admits that the agency will rely on the seafood industry, not doctors, to educate women about the hazards of mercury in fish.
The seafood industry, however, has yet to warn women of the potential dangers of mercury. In fact, the industry used a recent study on the benefits of fish consumption (specifically, of Omega 3 fatty acids) to promote tuna consumption for pregnant women: "...this new study adds to the long list of startling health benefits scientists believe Omega-3s fatty acids provide to pregnant women and small children. The most convenient, economical source of Omega-3s for moms and kids is, quite simply, canned tuna!" (U.S. Tuna Foundation, 2001). This press release provides a clear indication that the tuna industry has no plan to protect its customers from the dangers of mercury by steering them toward safer fish.
Mercury In Your Fish
Fish is beyond compare as a source of many nutrients vital to the developing infant, some of which may actually enhance development of the nervous system in babies and young children.
Widespread contamination of fish with toxic mercury, however, has cast a shadow over the nutritional benefits of fish.
Exposure to mercury in the womb can cause learning deficits, delay the mental development of children, and cause other neurological problems. Mercury consumed by a pregnant woman through contaminated fish can cross her placenta to damage the brain of her baby.
As a National Academy of Sciences panel definitively warned last year, some children exposed in utero by their mothers' fish consumption are at risk of falling in the group of children "who have to struggle to keep up in school and who might require remedial classes of special education."
Combustion in power plants of coal containing mercury is the major source of environmental pollution.
40 Tons of Mercury are released into the US EVERY year by this method.
Mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants moves through the air, is deposited in water and finds its way into fish, accumulating especially in fish that are higher up the food chain. Fish like tuna, sea bass, marlin and halibut show some of the worst contamination, but dozens of species and thousands of water bodies have been seriously polluted.
As a result, women who eat a lot of fish during pregnancy, or even as little as a single serving of a highly contaminated fish, can expose their developing child to excessive levels of mercury. The toxic metal can cross the placenta to harm the rapidly developing nervous system, including the brain.
In this report, EWG researchers for the first time attempt to characterize just how common such exposures are in the U.S. population, and the associated risks.
One key to the analysis is a much more refined representation of differences among women - their size, metabolism of mercury, blood volume, and many other biological variables. Government assessments use "averages" or constants for all of these factors, missing profound differences across the population of women of child bearing age.
EWG analysts also assembled the most extensive database ever developed on mercury levels in various species of fish, drawing on federal, state and other government sources, some 56,000 records in all.
That exercise revealed major variations in mercury contamination across fish species, yielding vital, highly practical information women can use while pregnant to reduce mercury exposure dramatically, while still enjoying the nutritional benefits of fish.
Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration came up with its own list of fish that pregnant and nursing women, along with infants, should avoid. Based on our analysis of much more extensive fish contamination records, the list presented in this report is more complete.
By analyzing these two data sources in combination, the study is able to provide new insights into how women can avoid excessive mercury exposures during pregnancy.
Researchers at US PIRG Education Fund, co-authors of this study, made another vital contribution. PIRG painstakingly combed through hundreds of "fish advisories" issued by state agencies to warn people about mercury levels in sport and game fish in literally thousands of US lakes and rivers.
What they found is disturbing: while some states are doing a better job than others, virtually no fish advisories for mercury contamination are adequately protective of human health when judged against current scientific knowledge.
The importance of this new understanding about mercury risks was evidenced in a landmark study on blood levels of mercury and other toxins, released by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March, 2001.
While "average" blood mercury levels among women were not of concern, the data indicate that in fully 10 percent of American women --roughly 7 million women--mercury levels were above the dose that may put a fetus at risk for adverse nervous system effects.
Those women surely don't need more mercury in their system, least of all if they are already pregnant or nursing. As this report recommends, the government must start monitoring such exposures, and any possible effects, much more energetically. This is a simple, common sense matter of public health.
In the longer term, the solution is to halt mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants and other sources so the contamination of fish is avoided in the first place. Fuel switching--from coal to renewable energy sources--along with aggressive deployment of conservation measures, makes sense for any number of reasons.
Fish free of mercury --the way they used to be-- is just another one.
Executive Summary
On January 12, 2001, government health officials issued new advisories warning women to limit fish consumption during pregnancy to avoid exposing their unborn children to unsafe levels of methylmercury.
Methylmercury can cross the placenta and cause learning deficits and developmental delays in children who are exposed even to relatively low levels in the womb. The principal exposure route for the fetus is fish consumption by the mother.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates commercially sold fish, recommends that pregnant and nursing women and young children not eat any shark, swordfish, tilefish, or king mackerel, but then recommends 12 ounces per week of any other fish.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which makes recommendations to states about safe mercury levels in sport fish, allows up to 8 ounces of any fish per week for pregnant women with no prohibitions on consumption of any individual fish caught recreationally.
These restrictions are steps in the right direction, but they need to be tightened significantly to adequately protect women and their unborn children from the toxic effects of methylmercury.
The nutritional benefits of fish complicate the task faced by health officials when protecting the public from methylmercury. Protein, omega-3 fatty acids, Vitamin D, and other nutrients make fish an exceptionally good food for pregnant mothers and their developing babies.
At the same time, there is no doubt that methylmercury is toxic to the fetal brain and nervous system, and that many beneficial fish species are contaminated. EPA's safe exposure estimate for methylmercury has dropped twice in the past 16 years, as new science has identified adverse effects in children exposed in the womb at lower and lower doses.
Emerging evidence indicates that the safe dose may drop even lower in the future (NAS 2000). Just how long a fetus can tolerate a dose of methylmercury above a "safe level' with no observable adverse effects is a matter of ongoing debate.
Compounding this uncertainty is the lack of effective education and outreach to pregnant women about methylmercury risks and the near total absence of information for pregnant women on the levels of mercury in the fish they buy. New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that about 10 percent of all women of childbearing age have blood methylmercury levels above the dose that may put their fetus at risk for adverse neurological effects (CDC 2001).
If these women were to increase their consumption of
certain fish species in hopes of benefiting their babies during pregnancy,
they could expose their fetuses to potentially hazardous levels of
methylmercury.
FDA's Protections Fall Short
FDA's methylmercury safeguards are designed to protect an average-sized woman eating an average fish contaminated with an average amount of methylmercury that decays in her body at an average rate. These assumptions rarely apply to the risks faced by any individual.
Instead, risks are unevenly distributed throughout the population, with a small but significant number of pregnancies exposed to far higher and potentially unsafe levels of methylmercury than the average fetus. The 10 percent most-heavily exposed American women already have blood methylmercury levels that would increase health risks to their fetuses if they became pregnant (CDC 2001). FDA's health advisory, based on average exposures, does little to protect these children.
The Environmental Working Group assessed fetal exposure to methylmercury taking into account a host of real world differences in individual exposure, including a mother's body weight and blood volume, varying methylmercury absorption and distribution rates, and variable rates of methylmercury decay in different pregnant women (Stern 1997, CDC 2001, NAS 2000).
These biological differences were matched up with a unique database of fish contamination that contains 56,000 records of methylmercury test results from seven different government sources. Fish consumption, fish contamination levels, and biological variables were matched thousands of times to create a distribution of blood methylmercury levels in women similar to that occurring in the general population.
This distribution was compared to the benchmark dose of
methylmercury recommended by the Committee on the Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2000).
FDA's recommendation of 76 6-ounce fish meals during pregnancy could
actually be detrimental to the health of unborn children. Fish are an
important part of a healthy diet and women should be encouraged to eat fish
with low methylmercury levels during pregnancy.
But if American
women ate a varied diet of FDA's recommended 12 ounces of fish a week (and
none of the four prohibited fish) they would expose more than one-fourth of
all babies born each year (1 million infants) to a potentially harmful dose
of methylmercury for at least one month during pregnancy.
About 20,000 of
these children would be exposed to a dose of methylmercury that increases
the risk of adverse neurological effects for the entire pregnancy.
The EPA and state fish advisories for
sport fish
EPA provides guidance on safe methylmercury exposure levels to state officials who in turn issue consumption advisories for sport fish caught by recreational anglers. State authorities typically post fish advisories for individual water bodies where fish are contaminated with methylmercury at a level that they deem unsafe for women of childbearing age.
Some states have done a better job than others in protecting their populations from methylmercury, but an analysis by US PIRG and the State PIRGs shows that only Massachusetts has adopted health safeguards that protect all women and children.
The broader issue with recreational fish, however, is
whether these advisories translate into conscious choices by pregnant
mothers to avoid eating contaminated fish. There is a substantial body of
evidence indicating that they do not (Golden et al 2001).
Recommendations
Fish provide important health benefits to the
developing fetus, and pregnant women should be encouraged to eat fish with
consistently low methylmercury levels. With too many species, however, these
nutritional pluses are outweighed by the hazards of methylmercury.
Federal health authorities need to take much stronger
steps to protect a far greater portion of the population. They must move
beyond their antiquated safeguards designed to protect an average woman from
an average amount of methylmercury in fish and take a realistic and
protective stance against dietary exposure to methylmercury.
Fish Advisories
FDA
There are three ways that the FDA methylmercury health advisory must be improved:
1. The list of fish to avoid during pregnancy must be expanded.
By advising against the consumption of just four types
of fish, FDA allows heavy consumption of many fish that have unacceptably
high methylmercury levels. To protect women and their babies from
methylmercury, the FDA must add the following species to the list of seafood
that should not be eaten by pregnant women, nursing women, and women
considering pregnancy:
Tuna steaks
Sea bass
Oysters (Gulf of Mexico)
Marlin
Halibut
Pike
Walleye
White croaker
Largemouth bass
2. FDA's recommendation that pregnant women eat 12 ounces a week of any fish (except the four that are not allowed) must be radically revised.
Ten percent of American women enter pregnancy with
elevated methylmercury levels, and current FDA safeguards, which are based
on average exposures, do almost nothing to protect these high exposure
pregnancies. If these women follow FDA's advice of 12 ounces of any fish a
week, they could easily expose their fetuses to a level of methylmercury
that presents a real risk of adverse neurological effects. To protect women
and children, FDA must restrict consumption of the following fish to
no more than one meal per month, for all
species combined:
Canned tuna
Mahi mahi
Blue mussels
Eastern oyster
Cod
Pollock
Salmon from the Great Lakes
Blue crab from the Gulf of Mexico
Channel catfish (wild)
Lake whitefish
Trout (farmed)
Catfish (farmed)
Shrimp * (see sidebar)
Fish Sticks
Flounder (summer)
Salmon (wild Pacific)
Croaker
Blue crab (mid Atlantic)
Haddock
It was not possible for EWG to assess the methylmercury risk from every recreational fish caught in every lake in every state in the country. A review of the available data, however, shows that several large predator sport fish are so universally contaminated that FDA should add them to the list of fish that women should completely avoid during pregnancy.
After analyzing the results of more than 10,000 samples
from 792 lakes and rivers nationwide, we recommend that FDA add the
following species to their health advisory:
walleye, northern pike, and largemouth bass.
While FDA has no authority to regulate methylmercury levels in freshwater
fish, they do have a responsibility to provide critical health information
to the public. It is important that women receive a consistent message from
one source, and the FDA is the appropriate agency to deliver this message.
Improve monitoring of fish for
methylmercury contamination
A major flaw in FDA's system is the agency's own lack of comprehensive data on methylmercury in fish. In January 2001, FDA recommended that pregnant women avoid consumption of king mackerel based on methylmercury levels from a study published in 1979. There are many other species where the data on methylmercury contamination are similarly outdated, but where the available information indicates a potential problem.
FDA must immediately expand its methylmercury sampling program to include a host of fish where the data indicate that pregnant women and their babies could receive a potentially unsafe exposure from a relatively small amount of fish.
These include:
|
Sea bass
|
Atlantic cod
|
Grouper, black
|
Orange roughy
|
|
Bluefish
|
Pacific cod
|
Grouper, red
|
Sand perch
|
|
Bonito
|
Pollock
|
Red snapper
|
White perch
|
|
Porgy
|
Yellowtail
|
Rockfish
|
Dover sole
|
|
Halibut
|
Lake trout
|
Flounder, various species
|
Consumers have a right to know about
contamination of the food supply, and FDA must be responsive to this right.
Currently they are not. EWG had great difficulty obtaining relatively simple
information about fish contamination from the agency through the Freedom of
Information Act. FDA currently posts the results of its Total Diet Study on
the web, and there is no reason that all of the agency's mercury
contamination information could not be posted as well.
Improve risk assessments
FDA needs to move beyond its antiquated and biologically implausible risk assessment methods based on average people and average fish and adopt state-of-the-art risk assessment techniques that provide a much more realistic picture of mercury exposure and risk as it is distributed throughout the population.
It is not sufficient to protect the population from
average exposures when it is clear that many individuals have far greater
than average exposures for extended periods of time.
Reduce Mercury Pollution at its Source
Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the largest man-made source of environmental mercury, are currently completely unregulated. Federal decision-makers should require power plants to reduce their mercury pollution by 90% and ultimately move away from polluting sources of power.
|
Two
of the 26 liver samples examined contained over 1970 micrograms of
mercury per gram of liver. That is nearly
5000 times the Japanese
government's limit for mercury contamination,
0.4 micrograms per gram.
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.