Was the change in fish…

Was the change in fish consumption recommendations influenced by cash? Until recently, experts recommended women of childbearing age eat no more than 12 ounces of fish a week, and no more than 6 ounces of canned albacore tuna, because of high levels of mercury. But recently a new recommendation was released encouraging the consumption of at least 12 ounces of fish a week, the logic being that omega-3 consumption was important and outweighed the possible mercury risks. Now the New York Times is reporting that money from the seafood industry may be behind the new recommendations. Guh, and I was just about to go back to eating the nice albacore tuna too.

6 thoughts on “Was the change in fish…

  1. If the motivation behind the new suggested serving size is money-related, that is really quite disturbing! I can’t believe how people are willing to sacrifice their morality for some green paper. Ugh!

  2. It is irresponsible of the coalition that put out this advice to urge pregnant mothers to eat more fish than the FDA recommends without any advice to avoid high mercury fish. Decades of scientific research on the toxicity of methylmercury suggest that it harms healthy fetal development. According to http://www.Seafood.com, the National Fisheries Institute partially funded this latest campaign to urge expectant women to consume more fish and seafood.
    I also learned from other news organizations that the March of Dimes still endorses the original FDA fish consumption guidelines for expectant mothers and the American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with the so-called new advice. And most importantly, none of the federal agencies knew in advance about this “new advice” nor did they support it!
    In fact, a few recent studies suggest that the benefits of fish consumption during pregnancy, such as improving infant gestation length and neurodevelopment, may be erased when the mother’s mercury levels are high.
    Women of childbearing age need to select their fish wisely. The FDA advice should be posted at fish counters to help end this confusion. Here’s the website to an organization that is trying to get grocery stores to post this important advice.

  3. I find that consumers tastes are constantly being manipulated in a variety of ways (not just advertising)– product placement in supermarkets (making certain products hard to find), secretly funding “scientific” studies the support certain products. etc. etc. There’s not much an individual can do but try to be aware of what’s going on in the food industry.

  4. Please, pregnant women in Japan have been eating fish for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It’s clear they’re poppin’ out smart kids generation after generation…. so it’s time for America to catch up. [/end sarcasm]
    But seriously, every regulation in this country changes or is altered in some way by that industry’s lobby. Is that really news to anyone? I’m surprised if it is…..

  5. Why would the food industry all of a sudden change the recommendations for pregnant women? Something as sensitive such as a pregnancy shouldn’t be toyed with for a greater flow of income. That just goes to show you how important our well being matters the corporate America. Good find though. I’m a sea food fanatic, but I just lost my appetite.

  6. how’s the mercury content in the fish around japan? part of the problem is the pollution in the waters around the US, it’s not the fish themselves.

Comments are closed.