Rossputin
12/17/05

Fish, mercury, and pregnancy

see "Junk Science on Mercury Debunked" (Heartland Institute, 12/12/05)
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18186

Thanks to "Environment and Climate News", published by the Heartland Institute, for bringing to my attention the recent (and not-so-recent) scientific studies which point to an excessive and maybe even counter-productive worry in the US about mercury levels in fish.

Given that my wife is due in two weeks with our first child and that she is a "vegaquarian", i.e. eats a vegetarian diet (including dairy) as well as fish (the only real animal protein she'll eat), I wish I had heard this before.

This article is a good brief summary:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18129

A relevant section, a good example of what I wish we would have known for the past 9 months:
Importantly, the University of Rochester scientists raised the possibility that mothers who avoid fish while pregnant in response to unwarranted mercury advisories may cause their children more harm than good.

"The findings from the Seychelles have led the team to weigh the benefits of nutrition from fish against the risks of small levels of exposure to mercury," noted the University of Rochester news release. "Is it possible that avoiding fish during pregnancy could hurt children more than any risk from mercury?"

"I would counsel the American public to not be afraid of eating fish, despite the allegations of advocate groups and some of our government agencies," Ross advised. "These are merely hypothetical risks. In contrast, fish consumption has empirically proven to be very beneficial. Among other benefits, fish consumption helps combat heart disease, arrhythmias, and cognitive decline in old age."

I can't say that I am surprised by "interest groups" (I'm not sure what the interest is other than a combination of insufferable do-gooder-ness and a fascination with junk science) causing public fear about something in our diets. They do the same thing with genetically-modified food. (Note the story you can find at the Heartland site about our very high corn yields this year despite very low rainfall because of biotech enginnering.)

And I'm not surprised by the acceptance by the public and mainstream media of chicken-little science. That sort of stuff sells, particularly to those who don't do their own homework.

What I am surprised and disappointed by is that I didn't do my own homework sooner. It may have been that I heard the mercury fear from people I naturally trust (like my mother, a pediatrician). In any case, my wife has probably missed the healthiest and most enjoyable pregnancy she could have had.

On the bright side, now I know...and if we have another child, Kristen will eat more fish during the pregnancy. (Just to be clear, I'm not going to suggest she have an all-fish diet, but we'll certainly not be so fearful of that occasional tuna steak.)

1 comment

# Lucy Stern on 12/18/05 at 13:12
Ross, You should do some research on this because it is important. It seems that I read that you can eat certain kinds of fish that don't get exposed to as much mercury. I think wild salmon is good to eat for this reason. Tuna is more suspect. Good luck with the delivery.

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)

Politics, economics, current events, philosophy and more, with a focus on free minds, free markets, and free people.

I Am John Galt

Following Obama's Economic Policies

Following Obama

Poll

Which of these recently passed-away celebs will you miss the most?

View Results

Obama Gone

July 2009
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Search

Blogroll

XML Feeds

Contents

powered by b2evolution