26 Jan 2009: Opinion

A Call for Tougher Standards
on Mercury Levels in Fish

In response to industry pressure, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has failed to set adequate restrictions on mercury levels in fish. Now the Obama administration must move forcefully to tighten those standards and warn the public which fish are less safe to eat.

by jane hightower

Nine years ago, dozens of patients — some my own, some referred by fellow San Francisco physicians — began showing up in my office with similar symptoms that included fatigue, hair loss, headache, muscle and joint pain, and various neurological ailments. My effort to solve this medical mystery, and discover the thread that united these people, has led to a decade-long investigation of one of the most toxic substances on the planet — methylmercury — and a slowly growing realization that the U.S. government has taken woefully inadequate steps to safeguard Americans from this health threat.

The common link among all these patients was a regular diet of fish — and an inordinately high level of mercury in their bodies. When they stopped eating fish, their mercury levels returned to normal, and nearly all reported that their symptoms disappeared

Yet even today, after other cases of mercury toxicity from consumption of predatory fish, the public remains largely in the dark about the dangers of methylmercury and the government is considering loosening, not tightening, its already weak standards on mercury in fish. The U.S. Food
FDA inaction has exposed the public to a roulette game of mercury doses and leaves the heavy fish consumer at risk.
and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued only one advisory on the subject, which recommends that women of childbearing age, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and infants limit their consumption of fish to 12 ounces a week. The FDA has decreed that fish is safe to eat if its flesh contains less than 1 microgram per gram of mercury — a level that many scientists consider too high and that was established using questionable data. In Japan, for example, where per capita fish consumption is high, the government has advised consumers who regularly eat fish to restrict their fish consumption to species with less than 0.3 micrograms per gram of mercury.

And even as the American public is being urged to eat more fish as a heart-healthy alternative to meat, the FDA still has not issued any guidelines about which types of fish are relatively low in mercury — sardines, anchovies, herring, sole, wild salmon — and which have high levels: swordfish, shark, sea bass, tilefish, and some species of tuna. This failure has exposed the public to a roulette game of mercury doses and leaves the heavy fish consumer at risk for excess mercury and adverse health effects. Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate that as many as 600,000 babies are born each year at risk of neurological and developmental problems because their mothers have high blood mercury levels from fish consumption.

The Obama administration now has a chance to take action on an important environmental and public health issue that has only worsened in recent years. During the Bush administration, the fishing industry and the utility industry — whose coal-burning power plants emit most of the mercury that winds up in the nation’s waterways and oceans — fought hard
During the Bush administration, the fishing and utility industries fought hard to loosen standards governing methylmercury.
to loosen standards governing methylmercury. Under industry pressure, the EPA ignored its own independent scientific study about the risks of mercury poisoning to human health and issued rules that effectively exempted mercury emissions from the Clean Air Act, launching instead a system that would have allowed power plants to slowly reduce mercury emissions over decades. Fortunately, last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the EPA rule, saying it ignored scientific studies and endangered human health.

In the final weeks of the Bush administration, the FDA attempted to weaken its lone mercury advisory by issuing a draft report saying that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in fish far outweigh the risk of mercury and that pregnant women should eat more fish than the currently recommended 12 ounces per week. That risk assessment did not rely heavily on the current literature, nor did it fully address the extent of mercury effects on human health. In fact, the report stated that the FDA’s risk assessment relied “heavily” on data from a massive mercury poisoning in Iraq in 1972, studies of which recommended levels of mercury in humans that far exceed what doctors now consider safe.

That FDA draft report on weakening mercury standards for pregnant women is still under consideration. And if President Obama intends, as he promised in his inaugural address, to “restore science to its rightful place,” one of the first steps his FDA regulators should take is to shelve that draft as part of a sweeping effort to at last begin reducing mercury emissions from power plants and establishing safe mercury levels in fish and in humans.

When the first mercury poisoning patients arrived in my office nine years ago, little did I know that my efforts to diagnose and cure them would lead to a decade-long odyssey during which I would discover just how little our public health system has done to protect the American people from mercury. I am an internal medicine specialist and diagnostician known by my colleagues as someone who likes the challenge of solving medical riddles. This mystery, however, was not that difficult to unravel. When I took a history of the patients, the common denominator among them was their high consumption of certain kinds of fish — swordfish, sea bass, halibut, ahi tuna, and other larger, long-lived species — that accumulate mercury over the years from the smaller prey they consume.

Knowing how mercury “bio-accumulates” in fish, I of course began to
When the patients removed fish from their diets, their symptoms gradually receded in nearly all cases.
suspect the toxic substance as a culprit and ordered blood tests. Nearly all the patients had high mercury levels, with one woman showing blood levels more than 20 times the accepted standard and one boy with mercury levels in his hair 15 times the safe standard. When the patients removed fish from their diets, the symptoms gradually receded in nearly all cases.

Conflicting information about methylmercury in fish was so extensive, it piqued my interest. I therefore went on a quest, which I describe in Diagnosis: Mercury: Money, Politics and Poison, to find out why no one really could agree on what symptoms constituted mercury toxicity, what the treatment was, and how much mercury a person could tolerate before he or she sustained irreversible damage. I initially recognized that my patients had generally shown mild to moderate symptoms of mercury poisoning, but soon learned that other conditions can also be linked, including tremors, permanent brain damage, cardiovascular disease, infertility, and autoimmune antibodies.

The harmfulness of mercury has long been known — the expression “mad as a hatter” stems from brain damage sustained by 19th-century hatmakers who used mercury to soften felt — but when it comes to regulating a product or practice, history indicates that little or nothing is often done for years.

The most severe instance of mercury poisoning from ingesting fish occurred in Minamata and Niigata, Japan in the 1950s and 1960s, when chemical plants dumped mercury-contaminated waste into a bay where people caught and ate fish, killing scores and leaving hundreds with grave neurological illnesses. In Canada, the Ojibway people of Ontario were poisoned with methylmercury when chemical factories and pulp and paper mills dumped their effluent into the lakes and streams.

The largest mercury poisoning to date occurred in Iraq in 1972 when Saddam Hussein, then vice president of Iraq, oversaw the delivery of a huge shipment of grain — which had been sprayed with a mercury-laced fungicide — to restive Iraqi provinces, particularly Kirkuk. The initital death toll from the suspicious poisoning, which the Ba’athist government said was an accident, was 450. But my book research showed that the death toll was far higher, with thousands more sickened.

In 1969, the FDA set a standard for safe levels of mercury in fish at below 0.5 micrograms per gram. Because the amount of methylmercury in swordfish on average was 1.0 microgram per gram, most swordfish were
Our current action level of 1.0 microgram of mercury per gram of fish is based on data from a poisoning that occurred at the hands of Saddam Hussein.
deemed unfit for sale. The fishing industry set to work to loosen the standard to 1.0 microgram and helped fund studies of mercury toxicity. Scientists traveled to Iraq to research the poisoning, and at a 1977 trial to determine safe levels of mercury in fish, the main evidence presented by the fishing industry was from the study in Iraq. The judge presiding in the case accepted that evidence and ruled to loosen the standard, which means that our current action level of 1.0 microgram of mercury per gram of fish is based entirely on data from a poisoning that occurred at the hands of Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath government, and that allows for a human blood mercury level of 400 micrograms per liter — a level 80 times that currently recommended by the EPA.

The biggest blowback to the notion that methylmercury in fish can be harmful to human health has come from lobbying groups affected by mercury regulation. These include the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), the U.S. Tuna Foundation, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), which represents operators of coal-fired power plants. These organizations have their own set of scientists and have funded studies that, not surprisingly, have routinely recommended lax action levels for mercury in fish.

With the arrival of the Obama administration and a hoped-for revival of respect for science at the FDA and EPA, I recommend the following steps:


If the fishing industry continues to push its product, regardless of mercury content, as a “miracle nutrient,” and the FDA fails to advise consumers about mercury content, we will see many more victims. But I am hopeful that, with thorough scientific study and responsible regulation, we will finally come up with a rational solution to this serious public health issue.

POSTED ON 26 Jan 2009 IN Biodiversity Climate Oceans Oceans Policy & Politics Policy & Politics Pollution & Health Antarctica and the Arctic North America North America 

COMMENTS


People worried about mercury ingestion from fish can estimate exposure by entering their weight, fish choice and serving size into the new gotmercury.mobi calculator for cell phone browsers. It’s based on current U. S. EPA and FDA guidelines, weak as they are. Learn more about mercury-laden fish at http://www.gotmercury.org or http://www.diagnosismercury.org
Posted by GotMercury on 26 Jan 2009


In response to 'With the arrival of the Obama administration and a hoped-for revival of respect for science at the FDA and EPA'...'Launch efforts to sharply reduce mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants in the U.S.'. This statement has over tones that the Bush administration had no or at least little respect for science and the EPA. Be it known that the Bush administration's efforts to reduce mercury emissions were historic. Legislation was proposed and implemented and then subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court in early 2008 citing reduction standards were not 'effective enough'. The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) would have reduced mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utilities by 70% by 2015 with future targets set for 2018. Don't be fooled into thinking the Obama administration will save us all from mercury; I'm sure they'll face similar struggles. I would ask the question of the Supreme Court...isn't any mercury reduction strategy better than our current federal strategy i.e. none at all? At 21 states see the bigger picture and have implemented mercury limits and reduction strategies…funny thing is most (if not all) of which are predicated on the now vacated CAMR. Feel free to be further informed of the federal mercury legislation that is no longer at:
http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm

Posted by Trey Lightsey, Sr. Environmental Specialist on 27 Jan 2009


The lack of connection with mercury levels to a specific disease (tobacco/lung cancer) has hampered liable enforcement from any amount of exposure. Neurological impairment or compromised immune system are too nebulous. Never the less, it would seem that at least a Mercury Monitor/Study Task force is required. Recent concerns about significant levels in high frutose corn syrup add to the list of potential daily exposures.
Posted by Craig Collier on 29 Jan 2009


The link between mercury pollution and levels in fish is complicated, with many confounding factors. For example scientists are begining to revisit the interaction of selenium with mercury, both in reducing mercury toxicity within the body or cell, as well as in the enviroment in attenuating rates of bioaccumultion. The link from air emmisions to water, to fish, to the dinner table are that much more complicated. Still we know that mercury is bad, a potent toxin. At the end of the day we all should ask "Is adding more mercury to the environment a good thing?" I believe the honest answer for anyone is no. This should lead us, especially regulators, to the conclusion, as Trey Lightsey suggets, that any mercury reduction strategy is better than no strategy.
Posted by Don A. Essig on 27 Feb 2009


Mercury in Fish, yet another consequence of the 70's anti Nuke campaign. Thank you "anti Nuke folks" for preventing our country from building any nuclear power plants in the last 30 yeasr. I did not see it in the article but the largest source of mercury pollution is coal fired power plants which contribute over 40% of all mercury pollution in this country.

Because of you we annually kill at least 10,000 american's with particulate pollution from power plants, we have also had acid rain, smog, rising CO2 levels and mercury in our BASS.

Thanks again, and congratulations. I can only dream of a country where electricity costs less than 4 cents a kilowatt hour and the air is clean and the fish are healthy. Your hard work and stubborn unwillingness to admit you were wrong continues, to kill americans and poision our enviroment.
Posted by f1fan on 04 Mar 2009


fifan, nuc plants was not the answer. the answer has always been solar, wind & geo thermal. nuc plants = uranium poisoning which is just as bad as mercury. It will take a visionary administration to move us toward a solar/wind/geo future. geothermal is esp. cheaper in the long run and abundant energy!

Posted by cat on 07 Aug 2010


Comments have been closed on this feature.
jane hightowerABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jane Hightower, M.D., the author of Diagnosis: Mercury: Money, Politics & Poison, is a board certified internal medicine physician in San Francisco and is on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Medical Society. She is the author of a landmark study that brought the issue of mercury in seafood to national attention.

 
 

RELATED ARTICLES


What’s Killing Native Birds in
The Mountain Forests of Kauai?

Biologist Eben Paxton is sounding the alarm about the catastrophic collapse of native bird populations on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. His group's research has uncovered the culprit: disease-carrying mosquitoes that have invaded the birds' mountain habitat.
READ MORE

Exploring How and Why
Trees ‘Talk’ to Each Other

Ecologist Suzanne Simard has shown how trees use a network of soil fungi to communicate their needs and aid neighboring plants. Now she’s warning that threats like clear-cutting and climate change could disrupt these critical networks.
READ MORE

Wildlife Farming: Does It Help
Or Hurt Threatened Species?

Wildlife farming is being touted as a way to protect endangered species while providing food and boosting incomes in rural areas. But some conservation scientists argue that such practices fail to benefit beleaguered wildlife.
READ MORE

Science in the Wild: The Legacy
Of the U.S. National Park System


READ MORE

Rocky Flats: A Wildlife Refuge
Confronts Its Radioactive Past

The Rocky Flats Plant outside Denver was a key U.S. nuclear facility during the Cold War. Now, following a $7 billion cleanup, the government is preparing to open a wildlife refuge on the site to the public, amid warnings from some scientists that residual plutonium may still pose serious health risks.
READ MORE

 

MORE IN Opinion


As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears,
Global Climate Impacts Intensify

by peter wadhams
The top of the world is turning from white to blue in summer as the ice that has long covered the north polar seas melts away. This monumental change is triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system.
READ MORE

Why We Need a Carbon Tax,
And Why It Won’t Be Enough

by bill mckibben
Putting a price on carbon is an idea whose time has come, with even Big Oil signaling it may drop its long-standing opposition to a carbon tax. But the question is, has it come too late?
READ MORE

Floating Solar: A Win-Win for
Drought-Stricken Lakes in U.S.

by philip warburg
Floating solar panel arrays are increasingly being deployed in places as diverse as Brazil and Japan. One prime spot for these “floatovoltaic” projects could be the sunbaked U.S. Southwest, where they could produce clean energy and prevent evaporation in major man-made reservoirs.
READ MORE

Point/Counterpoint: Should
Green Critics Reassess Ethanol?

by timothy e. wirth and c. boyden gray
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth and former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray argue that environmental criticisms of corn ethanol are unwarranted and that the amount in gasoline should be increased. In rebuttal, economist C. Ford Runge counters that any revisionist view of ethanol ignores its negative impacts on the environment and the food supply.
READ MORE

The Case Against More Ethanol:
It's Simply Bad for Environment

by c. ford runge
The revisionist effort to increase the percentage of ethanol blended with U.S. gasoline continues to ignore the major environmental impacts of growing corn for fuel and how it inevitably leads to higher prices for this staple food crop. It remains a bad idea whose time has passed.
READ MORE

How Satellites and Big Data
Can Help to Save the Oceans

by douglas mccauley
With new marine protected areas and an emerging U.N. treaty, global ocean conservation efforts are on the verge of a major advance. But to enforce these ambitious initiatives, new satellite-based technologies and newly available online data must be harnessed.
READ MORE

Why Supreme Court’s Action
Creates Opportunity on Climate

by david victor
The U.S. Supreme Court order blocking the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan may have a silver lining: It provides an opportunity for the U.S. to show other nations it has a flexible, multi-faceted approach to cutting emissions.
READ MORE

With Court Action, Obama’s
Climate Policies in Jeopardy

by michael b. gerrard
The U.S. Supreme Court order blocking President Obama’s plan to cut emissions from coal-burning power plants is an unprecedented step and one of the most environmentally harmful decisions ever made by the nation’s highest court.
READ MORE

Beyond the Oregon Protests:
The Search for Common Ground

by nancy langston
Thrust into the spotlight by a group of anti-government militants as a place of confrontation, the Malheur wildlife refuge is actually a highly successful example of a new collaboration in the West between local residents and the federal government.
READ MORE

Beyond Keystone: Why Climate
Movement Must Keep Heat On

by bill mckibben
It took a committed coalition and the increasingly harsh reality of climate change to push President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. But sustained public pressure will now be needed to force politicians to take the next critical actions on climate.
READ MORE


e360 digest
Yale
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies
.

SEARCH e360



Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter


CONNECT


ABOUT

About e360
Contact
Submission Guidelines
Reprints

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


DEPARTMENTS

Opinion
Reports
Analysis
Interviews
Forums
e360 Digest
Podcasts
Video Reports

TOPICS

Biodiversity
Business & Innovation
Climate
Energy
Forests
Oceans
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology
Sustainability
Urbanization
Water

REGIONS

Antarctica and the Arctic
Africa
Asia
Australia
Central & South America
Europe
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

“video
Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.

e360 MOBILE

Mobile
The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.

e360 PHOTO ESSAY

“Alaska
An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

“Ugandan
Ugandan scientists monitor the impact of climate change on one of Africa’s most diverse forests and its extraordinary wildlife.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Colorado wildfires
An e360 video goes onto the front lines with Colorado firefighters confronting deadly blazes fueled by a hotter, drier climate.
Watch the video.

e360 SPECIAL REPORT

“Tainted
A three-part series Tainted Harvest looks at the soil pollution crisis in China, the threat it poses to the food supply, and the complexity of any cleanup.
Read the series.

OF INTEREST



Yale