NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
3,017 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Article in Commercial Fisheries News

"The New Year started off with a sickening jolt for the seafood industry when one of the most powerful newspapers in America, the New York Times, printed a story strongly suggesting that fresh tuna was dangerous to eat.

Within days, the price of all tunas ? bigeye, yellowfin, bluefin ? sold on the New York market dropped $3 a pound."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Obtuse -

You have a problem with either the CFN article or the BWFA release that it quoted. Being somewhat involved in the process that resulted in them, and for my own future reference, I'd really appreciate your pointing out what you regard as the factual errors in either that you find objectionable.

Thanks,
Nils

By the way, I had thought that you could eat all of the asbestos fiber you want with no ill effects and that the problems (asbestosis, mesothelioma) resulted from the stuff getting into your lungs.

This post edited by NilsS 10:45 PM 04/23/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,017 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
you sure about that?

obtuseangler wrote:
Please, not all of us were born yesterday

I find it funny that you say something like that as you simultaneously (apparently) eat up the anti-fishing propaganda spilling out on this issue from the enviros.

I was going to ask you to explain what about that article is wrong because I thought it was accurate and well written, but Nils beat me to the punch, so I will be awaiting your repsonse. Please enlighten us all.

You should open your eyes to the fact that the whole 'don't eat fish' campaign is driven by those fighting to stop fishing. They obviously think that they can help stop fishing by making people think that eating fish is bad for you. Its reckless what they are doing as fish is one of the healthiest things you could possibly eat. They are playing politics with peoples health and that is scary. And on top of that they are needlessly hurting the fishing industry at the same time. Its all sickening to see.

Believe what you want though, I wont tell you what to eat. I know that I am going to continue to eat as much fish as possible because I know that their 'don't eat fish' campaign has NOTHING to do with improving peoples health, but is about ending fishing.

This post edited by twofinbluna 12:51 AM 04/24/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Obtuse -

Thanks, but as I had asked, "I'd really appreciate your pointing out what you regard as the factual errors in either (the CFN piece or the quoted BWFA release) that you find objectionable."

There are two significant factors that are totally ignored in the linked CA, NRDC and EPA pages (and in the Burros' NY Times article that started all this): the effect of selenium in "detoxifying" mercury and the beneficial effects of Omega 3s (particularly from fish). That's valid and valuable information that every consumer has to be aware of before making an informed decision on eating or foregoing any fish dish. That's also information that the antis don't mention, and they don't mention it because it doesn't further their agendas (and yes, Virginia, gov't. bureaucracies can have agendas as well.)

The science is there - people should be made aware of it so that they can make informed decisions. That was BWFA's goal. It blatantly wasn't Ms. Burros'.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
obtuseangler wrote:
Or how about the National Freewheelers that say the fun of driving a motorcycle with a baby in your lap far outweigh the risks?

(I made that up, just like most paid "science" is made up)

So you don't trust the National Academy of Science? But you do trust the Natural reources defense council? :rolleyes:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
From the NAS to your ear Mike:

Neurotoxicity in children exposed in utero is the health outcome selected by EPA for the current MeHg RfD. The RfD is based on data from the Iraqi poisoning episode, where the population consumed high levels of MeHg from treated seed grain. The critical study for the RfD conducted by Marsh et al. (1987) identified 81 children who had been in utero during the episode and examined their neurodevelopmental outcomes. Maternal-child pairs were selected from one of five Hg-hair-concentration groups, and the combined incidence of developmental effects (late walking, late talking, mental symptoms, seizures, or increased neurological score) was determined for each group. Exposure levels measured by maternal-hair concentration and combined developmental effects were used to estimate a benchmark dose. The benchmark dose of 11 ppm of Hg in hair was calculated as the 95% lower confidence limit on the maternal-hair concentration corresponding to a 10% extra risk level (Crump et al. 1995). In this report, the lower confidence limit is referred to as the BMDL. The following section describes how EPA derived the current RfD from that value.

A ratio of 250:1 was used to convert hair Hg concentration (mg of Hg/kg of hair) to blood Hg concentration (mg of Hg/L of blood) to derive the RfD critical dose (EPA 1997c):

11 mg/kg of hair would correspond to 11/250 = 44 µg/L of blood.

The following equation was used to obtain a daily dietary intake of MeHg that results in a blood Hg concentration of 44 µg/L:

where

d = daily dietary intake (micrograms of MeHg per kilogram of body weight per day),

C = concentration in blood (44 µg/L),

b = elimination constant (0.014 days-1),
V = volume of blood in the body (5 L),

A = absorption factor (expressed as a unitless decimal fraction of 0.95),

f = fraction of daily intake taken up by blood (unitless, 0.05), and

bw = body-weight default value of 60 kg for an adult female.

Using that equation, the total daily quantity of MeHg ingested by a 60-kg female to maintain a blood Hg concentration of 44 µg/L or a hair Hg concentration of 11 ppm would be

A composite uncertainty factor (UF) of 10 was used in the derivation of the RfD to account for human-population variability, lack of a two-generation reproductive study, and lack of data on sequelae resulting from longer durations of exposure (EPA 1997c):

As the calculation shows, the application of UFs has a major influence on the quantification of the final RfD. Although the scientific rationale for the application of these factors is strong, it must be recognized that choosing the ultimate magnitude of the UFs is a policy decision, which is influenced by professional judgment, public-health goals, and the regulatory mandates of EPA.

EVALUATING THE RfD?END POINTS OF MeHg TOXICITY
The committee reviewed human epidemiological results and animal
toxicity data to examine potential human health effects and evaluate the use of neurotoxicity in children exposed in utero as the health end point for the derivation of the RfD. Other end points evaluated are carcinogenicity and immunological, reproductive, renal, and cardiovascular toxicity. Chapter 5 presents an in-depth presentation of the health effects of MeHg. The following is a summary of major findings.

Carcinogenicity
Studies in humans of the carcinogenic effects of MeHg are inconclusive. Although no studies have found an association between MeHg and overall cancer death rates in humans, two studies (Kinjo et al. 1996; Janicki et al. 1987) have found associations between Hg exposure and acute leukemia. Interpretation of these findings is limited because of small study populations and lack of control for other risk factors. Renal tumors have been observed in male mice (Mitsumori et al. 1981; Hirano et al. 1986) but only at or above the maximum tolerated dose. Hg has also been shown to cause chromosomal damage and aneuploidy in a number of in vivo and in vitro systems. On the basis of the available human, animal, and in vitro data, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and EPA have classified MeHg as a ?possible? (EPA Class C) human carcinogen (EPA 2000).

Immunotoxicity
Occupational studies suggest that Hg exposure can affect the immune system in humans (Dantas and Queiroz 1997; Moszczynski et al. 1999). In vitro and animal studies have shown that Hg can be immunotoxic. They suggest that exposure to MeHg can increase human susceptibility to infectious diseases and autoimmune disorders by damaging the immune system (Ilbäck et at. 1996). Animal studies have also shown that prenatal and perinatal exposure to MeHg produce long-term effects on the developing immune system (Wild et al. 1997). Immunological studies in animals are summarized in Table 5-3.
Reproductive Effects
The reproductive effects of MeHg exposure have not been evaluated in humans. However, an evaluation of the clinical symptoms and outcomes of over 6,000 MeHg-exposed Iraqi citizens found a low rate of pregnancies (79% reduction) among the exposed population (Bakir et al. 1973). That provides suggestive evidence of an effect of MeHg on human fertility. Animal studies, including work in nonhuman primates, have found reproductive problems, including decreased conception rates, early fetal losses, and stillbirths (Burbacher et al. 198
.

Renal Toxicity
The kidney is sensitive to inorganic Hg exposure, and renal damage has been observed following human ingestion of organic forms of Hg. Renal effects from organic Hg exposure have been observed only at exposure levels that also cause neurological effects. Renal damage was observed in the victims of the Iraqi poisoning, and an evaluation of death rates in an area of Minamata City, which had the highest prevalence of Minamata disease, found an increase in deaths from renal disease among women but not men (Tamashiro et al. 1986). Several reports of animal studies have also described MeHg-induced renal toxicity.

Cardiovascular Effects
The cardiovascular system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in humans and animals. Blood-pressure elevations have been observed in occupationally exposed men (Höök et al. 1954) and in children treated with mercurous chloride for medical conditions. More recently, there is evidence that suggests effects at low levels of exposure. A recent study of 1,000 children from the Faroe Islands found a positive association between prenatal exposure to MeHg, and blood pressure and heart rate variability at age 7 (Sørensen et al. 1999). A Finnish cohort study of 1,833 men linked dietary intake of fish and Hg concentrations in hair
and urine with increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease (Salonen et al. 1995). Men who consumed at least 30 g of fish a day had a 2.1 higher risk of AMI. Cardiovascular effects have also been observed in several animal models of MeHg toxicity.

Central-Nervous-System Toxicity
The toxic effects of MeHg in the brain have been well documented in human and animal studies. Although both the adult and fetal brains are susceptible, the developing nervous system is more sensitive to the toxic effects of MeHg than is the developed nervous system. It should be pointed out however, that few studies of MeHg effects in adults have investigated the sensitive and subtle types of neurologic endpoints recently examined in children exposed in utero. Studies of Minamata victims indicate that prenatal exposure caused diffuse damage in the brain and adult exposure caused focal lesions. About 10% of the total body burden of MeHg is found in the brain. After ingestion, MeHg accumulates in the brain where it is slowly converted to inorganic Hg. On the basis of available studies, neurodevelopmental effects appear to be a sensitive end point for MeHg toxicity. There is an extensive human data base on neurodevelopmental effects, including studies of populations following high-dose poisonings and chronic low-level Hg exposure. In general, experimental animal studies have reported a continuum of neurodevelopmental effects similar to those reported in studies of humans exposed to MeHg. Of the three major long-term prospective studies, the Faroe Islands study reported an effect of low-level prenatal exposure on children's performance on neurobehavioral tests particularly in the domains of attention, fine-motor function, confrontational naming, visual-spatial abilities, and verbal memory. Similar effects were not found in the main Seychelles study; however, the smaller New Zealand study found effects on standardized tests of cognitive and neuromotor function that were similar to those administered in the main Seychelles study, and there was preliminary evidence of similar effects in the Seychelles pilot study.
SELECTION OF THE END POINT FOR THE RfD
The findings of the committee regarding the end points of MeHg toxicity support the selection of neurotoxicity in children exposed in utero as a suitable end point for the development of the RfD based on the available data. These effects have been well documented in a number of investigations, including prospective epidemiological studies examining low-dose chronic exposure through consumption of contaminated fish and seafood. Evidence from animal studies is consistent with the neurotoxicity findings in humans.

Given the limits of the available data, developmental neurotoxicity is the most sensitive, well-documented health end point. Therefore, its use as the basis for the RfD should be protective for other adverse effects that occur at higher doses of exposure. However, there is emerging evidence of potential effects on both the immune and cardiovascular systems at low doses of exposure. Although these effects are not well understood, emerging data underscore the need for continued research and raise the possibility of adverse effects to other organ systems at or below the current levels of concern for developmental neurotoxicity.

EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL STUDIES FOR THE RfD
The traditional approach to development of an RfD and other public-health-based risk guidance numbers is to select a critical study that is well conducted and provides the most sensitive, or lowest, no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), or a lower 95% confidence limit on the benchmark dose (BMDL). The relevance of the study exposure levels and pathways to the population of concern should also be considered.

The current EPA RfD is based on developmental neurotoxic effects in children exposed in utero to high-level episodic exposure from bread made with grain treated with MeHg as a pesticide (Marsh et al. 1987). Although that study was judged the most appropriate at the time of the development of the current RfD, a number of recognized sources of uncertainty, including possible selection bias in the cohort, cannot be controlled. In addition, the exposure scenario in Iraq is not comparable

and on and on and on.....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Obtuse -

I think the last para you posted says it all: "the current EPA RfD is based on developmental neurotoxic effects in children exposed in utero to high-level episodic exposure from bread made with grain treated with MeHg as a pesticide (Marsh et al. 1987). Although that study was judged the most appropriate at the time of the development of the current RfD, a number of recognized sources of uncertainty, including possible selection bias in the cohort, cannot be controlled. In addition, the exposure scenario in Iraq is not comparable..."

It seems to be accepted now that selenium counters the effects of Hg exposure, and there was no selenium associated with the exposure of the children on which the reference dose was based (from a 1987 study).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
NilsS wrote:
Obtuse -

I think the last para you posted says it all: "the current EPA RfD is based on developmental neurotoxic effects in children exposed in utero to high-level episodic exposure from bread made with grain treated with MeHg as a pesticide (Marsh et al. 1987). Although that study was judged the most appropriate at the time of the development of the current RfD, a number of recognized sources of uncertainty, including possible selection bias in the cohort, cannot be controlled. In addition, the exposure scenario in Iraq is not comparable..."

It seems to be accepted now that selenium counters the effects of Hg exposure, and there was no selenium associated with the exposure of the children on which the reference dose was based (from a 1987 study).


OK Nils, If you have kids, volunteer them for as test subjects and get back to me on this in 30-40 years. Until then keep spreading your paid messages like you do so well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Obtuse -

If you are in an at-risk group or are concerned about those that are, by all means recommend that they go by the most stringent guidelines, or even go beyond them. But I trust you wouldn't suggest that they avoid all fish.

It's a personal choice, but it should be an informed personal choice. I would be secure in eating swordfish or tuna a couple of times a week if quality fish was available down here. But even when I lived back in the world, worked for longliners and could have all that I wanted of the highest quality and at an extremely reasonable price, I doubt I often went above two or three meals a month. No qualms or compunctions, just that life's too full of good things to eat, even on a low cholesterol diet, to go overboard with any particular product.

As far as what I'd do with my own kid, were he at an at risk age - when he was, all he wanted was Chef Boyardee canned reddish glop, fast food burgers, Tater Tots and pizza (he's better now.) I would have had to force feed him any fish if it wasn't breaded and fried a la Gorton's, and they don't do sword or tuna. Sushi into a three or four or five year old? Not likely. I have nieces and nephews whose parents ask me about fish in their diets and I lay out what I know and they then make their own decisions. Thats' how it's supposed to work.

It's all about getting the information out there and letting the folks make choices based on as much knowledge as possible, not about scaring them away from eating fish. I've tried to reflect that in everything I've written on the subject, and I think I've been fairly successful at it. And I think that Rich Ruais' commentary reflects that as well.

(And you still haven't shown what it is in it that you disagree with.)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
and on and on and on.....

obtuseangler wrote:

and on and on and on.....

From - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9899&page=304

The exposure scenarios in Iraq are not comparable to the low-level chronic exposures in North America. In addition, there are well-recognized uncertainties concerning exposure and response classification in the Iraq study. The New Zealand, Faroe Islands, and Seychelles studies are well-designed epidemiological investigations in which prenatal MeHg exposures were within the range of at least some U.S. population exposures. Any revision of the RfD or other exposure standards should consider the findings of these studies. After considering the weight of evidence and range of results from the three major epidemiological studies, the committee concludes

OCR for page 327
Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury that a positive study will provide the strongest public-health basis for the RfD and recommends the Faroe Islands study as the critical study. Within that study, the lowest BMD for a neurobehavioral end point considered to be sufficiently reliable is the Boston Naming Test. The BMDL estimated from that test is 58 ppb Hg in cord blood (approximately corresponding to 12 ppm Hg in hair). That value should be considered a reasonable point of departure for the development of the revised RfD. An MOE analysis using available estimates of population exposure levels indicates that average U.S. population risks from MeHg exposure are low. However, those with high exposures from frequent fish consumption might have little or no margin of safety. The population at highest risk is the offspring of women of child-bearing age who consume large amounts of fish and seafood. The committee estimates that over 60,000 children are born each year at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects due to in utero exposure to MeHg. There is a critical need for improved characterization of population exposure levels to improve estimates of current exposure, track trends, and identify high-risk subpopulations. Characterization should include improved nutritional and dietary exposure assessment and improved biomonitoring for all population groups. Exposure to other chemical forms of Hg, including exposure to elemental Hg from dental amalgams, should also be investigated. The application of uncertainty factors in the revision of the RfD should be based on a thorough quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the full range of uncertainties and limitations of the critical studies.

..........

This post edited by loligo 03:29 PM 04/24/2008
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top