Mercury in Commercial Fish: Optimizing Individual Choices to Reduce Risk

The Scientific Paper:

Joanna Burger, Alan H. Stern, and Michael Gochfeld. Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) Vol. 113, No. 3. 2005. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/7315/7315.html

Review This Scientific Paper’s Abstract:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/7315/7315.html

The Purpose of this Study:
These scientists investigated mercury levels in various types of commercial fish eaten in the United States.

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

• This peer-reviewed, scientific paper was published in 2005.
• Most attention to the risks from eating fish has focused on recreational fishermen and on fish caught by individuals, but the majority of fish that people eat are purchased from commercial sources such as the local supermarket.
• These scientists examined methylmercury levels in three types of fish (tuna, flounder, and bluefish) commonly available in New Jersey stores. They sampled different regions of the state in communities with high and low per capita incomes, and in both supermarkets and specialty fish markets.
• These scientists were interested in fish species-specific levels of methylmercury in New Jersey fish - and whether these methylmercury levels were similar to data generated nationally by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA; mainly from 1990 to 1992) on the same types of fish.
• These scientists were also interested in whether methylmercury levels in these three common types of fish differed by region of the state, economic neighborhood, or type of store.
• The tuna evaluated in this study is not canned tuna, but tuna steaks and tuna for sushi.
• There were no significant differences in methylmercury levels as a function of type of store or economic neighborhood. There was only one regional difference: flounder from fish markets along the Jersey shore had higher methylmercury levels than flounder bought in other markets.
• These scientists also examined methylmercury levels in six other commonly available types of fish and two types of shellfish from central New Jersey markets. There were significant differences in availability and in methylmercury levels among these sampled fish and shellfish. Both shrimp and scallops had low total methylmercury levels. Large shrimp had significantly lower levels of methylmercury than did small shrimp.
• For tuna, sea bass, croaker, whiting, scallops, and shrimp, the levels of methylmercury were higher in New Jersey samples than those reported by the FDA.
• Consumers selecting fish for ease of availability (present in > 50% of markets) would select flounder, snapper, bluefish, and tuna (tuna had the highest methylmercury levels here), and those selecting only for price would select whiting, porgy, croaker, and bluefish (all with average methyl mercury levels).

A Bottom Line:
These scientists found significant fish species differences, with tuna having the highest methylmercury levels and flounder the lowest methylmercury levels of the very few types of fish they studied for this study.

These scientists suggest that state agencies responsible for protecting the health of their citizens should obtain information on fish availability in markets and fish preferences of diverse groups of citizens and use this information to select fish for analysis of contaminant (including methylmercury) levels. Providing data on the most commonly eaten types of fish will help people make informed decisions about the risks from eating certain types of fish.

Find This Scientific Paper for Your Review:
Mercury in Commercial Fish: Optimizing Individual Choices to Reduce Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) Vol. 113, No. 3. 2005. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/7315/7315.html