The following is a guest post from EWG Senior Analyst Sonya Lunder.
Ah, December. Season of holiday lights, office parties and weekly announcements of Bush Administration actions to weaken health protections for children. First, it was melamine in baby formula, now mercury in fish. I for one will definitely welcome 2009 with open arms. Last week, EWG leaked documents showing that FDA was preparing to declare all fish consumption to be perfectly safe.
FDA claims that the good fats and other nutrients in fish can counteract much or all of mercury's harms. Its model suggests that nearly everyone will benefit from eating at least 2 servings of fish each week. This outrageous conclusion flies in the face of decades of mercury research and poses a clear danger to children's health. EPA scientists and other have raised serious questions about the details of FDA's proposal and posed the obvious question -- why didn't FDA examine the risks and benefits of specific types of fish? Since 2004, pregnant women have been advised to limit fish consumption and to avoid species with the highest mercury levels. This guidance is clearly warranted because 1 in 6 of us (moms, or "women of childbearing age," as we are known) already have too much mercury in our bodies. Fish is the primary source of mercury exposure. Getting good fats from low-mercury fish, fish oil or mercury-free foods, such as walnuts, fortified eggs or even margarine, are clearly the safest choices. Scientists studying mercury toxicity in fish, both in the United States and abroad, acknowledge the benefits of fish eating but steer women toward low-mercury foods. Wild salmon is loaded with good fats, low in mercury and tops the list.