A Quantitative Risk–Benefit Analysis of Changes in Population Fish Consumption

The Scientific Paper:

Joshua T. Cohen, David C. Bellinger, William E. Connor, Penny M. Kris-Etherton, Robert S. Lawrence, David A. Savitz, Bennett A. Shaywitz, Steven M. Teutsch, and George M. Gray. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (Am J Prev Med) Nov 29 (4) pp. 325-334. 2005.

Review This Scientific Paper’s Abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=
Bellinger+DC%5Bau%5D

The Purpose of this Study:

• This peer-reviewed, scientific paper was published in 2005.
• These scientists wanted to learn the impacts on U.S. public health of certain, recent, U.S. government recommendations about eating fish.
• The scientists looked at the combined impacts of possible changes caused by Americans eating less fish. They did this by looking at the mental development of unborn children, deaths caused by a certain type of heart disease in adults, and stroke in adults.

Some Background, Methods, Results, Caveats, and Other Select Points:

• Fish are a rich source of certain, good, fatty acids that may give several, good, health benefits. However, some fish contain the chemical pollutant methylmercury, which may harm the unborn child and/or the nursing child.
• The U.S. government recommends that women of childbearing age eat less of certain fish known to contain higher levels of methylmercury. At the same time, the government encourages the general population to eat fish because of it is good for you.

A Bottom Line:

• Women of childbearing age who ate less of certain fish with high methylmercury levels - and instead ate more fish with low methylmercury levels - received real benefits for their mentally-developing unborn - and young nursing - children. There were few negative impacts on these women and/or their children as a result of eating these different types of fish low in methylmercury.
• However, if these women of childbearing age instead eat less fish altogether, then the bad effects caused by eating less fish substantially reduced the net benefits of a lower methylmercury exposure.
• There is an overall, negative, public health impact if adults - other than pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, nursing mothers, and also their young children - choose to eat less fish.
• Public health suffers when everyone eats less fish.
• There are public health benefits when everyone eats the proper amounts of certain types of fish.
• Good fish (those low in methylmercury) eaten in proper amounts is good for you.
• Bad fish (those high in methylmercury) eaten in improper amounts is bad for you.
• U.S. government personnel responsible for recommending how much of what certain types of fish certain people should eat must take extra care that the general public receiving these important recommendations don’t misunderstand what is being said.
• These particular U.S. government personnel must redouble their efforts to consider:
  
  1. How will the U.S. public react upon hearing these government recommendations about eating fish?
  2. Will these public reactions harm good public nutrition, even though at the same time the public may have less exposure to methylmercury?
  3. How will public reactions to fish eating recommendations actually affect U.S. public health?

Find This Scientific Paper for Your Review:
A Quantitative Risk–Benefit Analysis of Changes in Population Fish Consumption. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (Am J Prev Med) Nov 29 (4) pp. 325-334. 2005.