Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Chemistry
Chemicals and Drugs

Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption

Profile image of Alan SternAlan Stern

2005, Annals of Internal Medicine

https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-11-200506070-00018
visibility

…

description

16 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

To conduct this research and write this document, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) formed a Research Team of scientists from a number of key disciplines, including risk assessment, nutrition science, environmental anthropology, medicine and public health, risk communication and toxicology. The Research Team members each contributed knowledge and inspiration from their respective fields to write or contribute to specific chapters, as well as collaborate on the quantitative framework outline.

Related papers

Fish, health, and sustainability.
Colin D Butler

American journal of preventive …, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Public health benefits and risks of fish consumption: current scientific evidence v. media coverage
Federico Pasquaré Mariotto, Roberta Bettinetti
View PDFchevron_right
Benefits and risks of fish consumption
Ana Bocio

Toxicology, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 2015; 3(2): 111-117 Review on Evaluation of Safety of Fish and Fish Products
addisu teklemariam

Addisu Demeke Teklemariam Addis Ababa University college of Veterinary medicine and Agricculture, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, P.O.box 34. Fekade Tessema Addis Ababa University college of Veterinary medicine and Agricculture, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Takele Abayneh Addis Ababa University college of Veterinary medicine and Agricculture, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Correspondence Addisu Demeke Teklemariam Addis Ababa University college of Veterinary medicine and Agricculture, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, P.O.box 34. Abstract The quality of fish and fishery products is a major concern in fish industry worldwide. Essentially, the objective of fish and fish product assessment is to avoid the ingestion of contaminated food; to evaluate the nutritive value of food by detecting the presence of biological, chemical and physical hazards and in the end to ensure the safety of the consumer. To assess the safety of fish and fish products both instrumental and sensory methods are used. Sensory methods are the most sati...

View PDFchevron_right
Benefits and risks of fish consumption for the human health
Francisco Assis Guedes, Ana Carolina Fernandes, Greyce Bernardo

The article aimed at identifying and discussing scientific evidences on the benefits and risks of fish consumption the human health. There was a systematic survey for articles published from 2003 and May 2011, at the MedLine, Scopus, SciELO, Lilacs and Google Scholar databases. The key words used were: fish, food intake, omega-3 fatty acids, fatty fish, benefits, risk, and consumption. The search produced 12,632 articles, 25 eligible cohort studies on possible benefits, 61 on risks and 10 studies that assessed the “risk/benefit” relation. Of the 25 works, 14 suggested a preventive effect of fish consumption related to cardiovascular diseases, depression, cataract and some types of cancer. Evidences of a relation between exposure to mercury and an increase in the risk of neurological disorders, but not of cardiovascular diseases, were also found. Given the importance of fish consumption, its possible risks and the lack of Brazilian studies on the topic, it is important to conduct more longitudinal studies that assess both the benefits and risks of fish consumption for the human health. We also emphasize the need for policies to reduce exposure of fish and seafood to mercury and other contaminants.

View PDFchevron_right
Methodology for the assessment of human health risks associated with the consumption of chemical contaminated freshwater fish in South Africa
R. Heath, Luke Sandham

Water SA, 2004

Studies have shown that the aquatic environment can be polluted by contaminates that are accumulated by freshwater fish and this may pose a health risk to the consumers of the contaminated fish. Developed counties like the United States of America have developed strategies and associated guidance documentation to conduct chemical contaminant surveys using fish and to use these data to reduce the heath risk to the consumers of the fish. In this paper a generic methodology is presented that will give guidance in the undertaking of fish contaminant surveys to provide information regarding the possible health risk if the fish are consumed by recreational and subsistence fishermen in South Africa. The fundamentals of the methodology are based on catchment information, socio-demographic information of consumers of fish in the catchment, bioaccumulation potential and health risks of analytes, sound sampling design, risk assessment procedures and performing monitoring at different scales and depths. These aspects are presented as 10 major steps in the methodology of which the basic requirements are discussed to focus the surveys and optimise the application of resources. Although the methodology focuses on assessing the possible health risk to the consumers of fish many of the aspects would apply to any investigation aimed at assessing the chemical contaminant levels in fish. Furthermore as these surveys identify areas in the aquatic system where fish have unacceptably high chemical contaminant levels, this information can be used in catchment management programmes to put remedial actions in place that would ensure that the fish populations of the system are fit for present and future human consumption. Available on website http://www.wrc.org.za Available on website http://www.wrc.org.za

View PDFchevron_right
An examination of the trade-offs in public health resulting from the use of default exposure assumptions in fish consumption advisories
Alan Stern

Environmental Research, 2005

Efforts to provide for public health protection from environmental contaminants in fish have resulted in various advisories or recommendations with regard to fish consumption from local, state, and federal agencies. These advisories are based on measured levels of contaminants in fish that are combined with values for body weight and portion size to produce an estimate of an ''acceptable'' consumption frequency (e.g., eat no more than once per month). Because values for body weight and portion size are generally generic default values, they do not necessarily relate to a specific population or to any individual in that population. Thus, the use of default values may result in underprotection or overprotection in any given case. Given the benefits of fish consumption and the risks from overexposure to various toxicants, vigilance is required by custodians of public health to ensure that populations are protected while being cautious not to over-or underprotect them. In this analysis, we examine the ''acceptable'' consumption limits derived for fish species/groups consumed by three specific populations and determine the extent of public health protection afforded by these limits. To accomplish this, the ''acceptable'' consumption frequencies are derived based, in part, on default assumptions and are compared to intakes calculated from empirically derived species-specific individual consumption and demographic data. Sensitivity analyses and population-specific probabilistic assessments of exposure are conducted to identify those values and/or assumptions which might significantly influence the resulting fish consumption advisories. Three populations were chosen for study based on their ability to represent populations of greatest concern: those most sensitive and/or those most exposed. We conclude from this investigation that consumption pattern data, contaminant data and body weight data together can be used to make fish consumption advisories more focused and, therefore, less likely to be under-or overprotective.

View PDFchevron_right
Letters to the editor: Risks and Benefits of Seafood Consumption
Barbara Knuth

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2006

We reported recently that several organic contaminants occurred at elevated concentrations in farmed Atlantic salmon compared with concentrations of the same contaminants in wild Pacific salmon [Hites et al. Science 303:226-229 (2004)]. We also found that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxaphene, dieldrin, dioxins, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers occurred at higher concentrations in European farm-raised salmon than in farmed salmon from North and South America. Health risks (based on a quantitative cancer risk assessment) associated with consumption of farmed salmon contaminated with PCBs, toxaphene, and dieldrin were higher than risks associated with exposure to the same contaminants in wild salmon. Here we present information on cancer and noncancer health risks of exposure to dioxins in farmed and wild salmon. The analysis is based on a tolerable intake level for dioxin-like compounds established by the World Health Organization and on risk estimates for human exposure to dioxins developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consumption of farmed salmon at relatively low frequencies results in elevated exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds with commensurate elevation in estimates of health risk. Key words: dioxins, risk-based consumption advice, salmon. Environ Health Perspect 113:552-556 (2005). doi:10.1289/ehp.7626 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 9 February 2005]

View PDFchevron_right
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Review Towards Integration of Environmental and Health Impact Assessments for Wild Capture Fishing and Farmed Fish with Particular Reference to Public Health and Occupational Health Dimensions
Francis Murray

2015

Abstract: The paper offers a review and commentary, with particular reference to the production of fish from wild capture fisheries and aquaculture, on neglected aspects of health impact assessments which are viewed by a range of international and national health bodies and development agencies as valuable and necessary project tools. Assessments sometimes include environmental health impact assessments but rarely include specific occupational health and safety impact assessments especially integrated into a wider public health assessment. This is in contrast to the extensive application of environmental impact assessments to fishing and the comparatively large body of research now generated on the public health effects of eating fish. The value of expanding and applying the broader assessments would be considerable because in 2004 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports there were 41,408,000 people in the total ‘fishing ’ sector including 11,289,000 in aquacult...

View PDFchevron_right
Fish Safety and Quality from the Perspective of Globalization
Lahsen Ababouch

Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 2004

Major developments in the field of fish safety and quality have had a significant impact on international trade during the last few decades. Technological developments in fish handling and processing coupled with increasing consumer food safety and quality awareness have resulted in the adoption of HACCP-based systems and scientifically-based risk assessment methodologies. This is reflected in international regulatory framework of the SPS and TBT Agreements of the WTO and the normative work of CODEX Alimentarius.

View PDFchevron_right

References (114)

  1. 2.2.8 Dyslipidemia in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus..................................2-21
  2. 3 Antioxidant Levels ...........................................................................................................2-21
  3. 4 Health Benefits During Pregnancy, Lactation and Infancy..............................................2-21
  4. 5 Health Benefits for Children Consuming Fish.................................................................2-22
  5. 6 Conclusions and Research Needs.....................................................................................2-23
  6. 7 References ........................................................................................................................2-24 3 NUTRITIONAL ASPECTS OF FISH COMPARED WITH OTHER PROTEIN SOURCES..........................................................................................................................3-1
  7. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................3-1
  8. 2 Per Capita Consumption of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) ...................................................3-1
  9. 3 Nutritional Content and Contamination Levels for Fish and Other Protein Sources.........3-3
  10. 3.1 Selection of Nutrients, Foods and Contaminants for Tables 3-1 and 3-2.......................3-3
  11. 3.2 Substituting Other Foods for Fish: Effects on Macronutrient Profiles..........................3-4
  12. 4 Fish as a Protein Source .....................................................................................................3-5
  13. 4.1 Protein Quality................................................................................................................3-5
  14. 4.2 Fish Protein vs. Other Dietary Protein Sources ..............................................................3-5
  15. 5 Fish as a Source of Essential Fatty Acids ..........................................................................3-6
  16. 6 Cholesterol .........................................................................................................................3-7
  17. Vitamins .............................................................................................................................3-7
  18. 7.1 Vitamins B3, B6, and B12 ..............................................................................................3-7
  19. Vitamin A .......................................................................................................................3-8
  20. Vitamin D .......................................................................................................................3-9
  21. 8 Minerals..............................................................................................................................3-9
  22. 8.1 Calcium...........................................................................................................................3-9
  23. 8.2 Iron................................................................................................................................3-10
  24. 8.3 Zinc ...............................................................................................................................3-10
  25. 8.4 Selenium .......................................................................................................................3-11
  26. 9 Effects of Food Preparation Methods on Nutritional Benefits.........................................3-11
  27. 10 Effects of Food Preparation Methods on Contaminant Levels ........................................3-12
  28. 11 Conclusions and Research Needs.....................................................................................3-12
  29. 12 References ........................................................................................................................3-22
  30. HEALTH RISKS FROM EATING CONTAMINATED FISH ........................................4-1
  31. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................4-1
  32. 2 Calculating Risk above the Reference Dose for Noncancer Endpoints .............................4-2
  33. 2.1 EPA/ChemRisk Model ...................................................................................................4-3
  34. 2.2 Other Approaches to Calculate Risk above the RfD ......................................................4-5
  35. 3 Dose Response Information for the Six Selected Target Substances ................................4-6
  36. 3.1 DDT and Metabolites (DDE and DDD) .........................................................................4-6
  37. 3.2 Methylmercury................................................................................................................4-7
  38. 3.3 Dioxin ...........................................................................................................................4-10
  39. 3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ...............................................................................4-11
  40. 3.5 Chlordane......................................................................................................................4-13
  41. 3.6 Chlorpyrifos ..................................................................................................................4-16
  42. 4 Multigenerational Study of Great Lakes Salmon Fed to Rats..........................................4-17
  43. 5 Breast Milk as a Source of Contaminants ........................................................................4-18
  44. 6 Conclusions and Research Needs.....................................................................................4-19
  45. 7 References ........................................................................................................................4-19 5 SOCIO-CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS OF FISH CONSUMPTION........................5-1
  46. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................5-1
  47. Asian-Americans and Fish .................................................................................................5-2
  48. 3 Native Americans and Fish ................................................................................................5-4
  49. 4 Subsistence Fishing............................................................................................................5-5 5.5 Low-Income, Urban Anglers .............................................................................................5-5 5.6 Conclusion and Research Needs ........................................................................................5-7
  50. 7 References ..........................................................................................................................5-8
  51. FRAMEWORK AND CASE STUDIES ...........................................................................6-1
  52. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................6-1
  53. 2 Goals of the Comparative Dietary Risk Framework..........................................................6-2
  54. 3 Inputs for the Comparative Dietary Risk Framework........................................................6-3
  55. 3.1 Potential Health Benefits of Fish Consumption .............................................................6-3 6.3.2 Measuring Severity of Health Outcomes and Magnitude of Health Benefits ................6-4
  56. 3.2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................6-4
  57. 3.2.2 Incorporation of Severity into the Framework.........................................................6-6
  58. 3.3 Estimates of Human Health Risk....................................................................................6-8
  59. 3.4 Dietary Considerations ...................................................................................................6-8
  60. 3.5 Cultural Considerations ................................................................................................6-12
  61. 4 The Benefit/Risk Framework ...........................................................................................6-13
  62. 4.1 Algorithm for Health Benefits ......................................................................................6-17
  63. 4.2 Algorithm for Health Risk ............................................................................................6-19
  64. 4.3 Algorithm for the Fish Consumption Index (FCI)........................................................6-20
  65. 5 Demonstrating the Framework.........................................................................................6-20 6.5.1 Quantitative Example of the Framework......................................................................6-22
  66. 5.1.1 Calculations for Estimating Benefits .....................................................................6-24
  67. 5.1.2 Calculations for Estimating Risks..........................................................................6-25
  68. 5.1.2.1 Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk ..........................................................................6-25
  69. 5.1.2.2 Excess Lifetime Non-Cancer Risk ..................................................................6-26
  70. 5.1.3 Estimating the FCI .................................................................................................6-28
  71. 5.2 Impacts from Changes in Contaminant Concentrations ...............................................6-28
  72. 5.3 Evaluation of Different Subgroups ...............................................................................6-32
  73. 5.4 Mixtures of Chemicals and Multiple Endpoints ...........................................................6-34
  74. 5.5 Cultural Benefits ...........................................................................................................6-41
  75. 5.6 Personal Perception of Severity....................................................................................6-43
  76. Case Studies .....................................................................................................................6-44
  77. 6.1 Case Study: The Florida Everglades............................................................................6-44
  78. 6.1.1 Background ............................................................................................................6-44
  79. 6.1.2 Summary of Existing Data .....................................................................................6-44
  80. 6.1.3 Exposure Assessment.............................................................................................6-45
  81. 6.1.4 Calculation of FCI..................................................................................................6-46
  82. 6.1.5 Discussion ..............................................................................................................6-48
  83. 6.1.6 A Method for Verifying Fish Consumption Estimates ..........................................6-51
  84. 6.2 Vietnamese Immigrant Women Consuming Lake Ontario Sportfish...........................6-52
  85. 6.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................6-52
  86. 6.2.2 Summary of Existing Data .....................................................................................6-53
  87. 6.2.2.1 Descriptive Data ..............................................................................................6-53
  88. 6.2.2.2 Biochemical Data ............................................................................................6-54
  89. 6.2.3 Exposure Assessment.............................................................................................6-55
  90. 6.2.4 Calculation of FCI..................................................................................................6-56
  91. 6.2.4.1 Salmon from Credit River ...............................................................................6-56
  92. 6.2.4.2 Rockbass and Smallmouth Bass from the Niagara River................................6-60
  93. 6.2.5 Discussion ..............................................................................................................6-60
  94. 7 Overall Conclusions and Research Needs........................................................................6-61
  95. 8 References ........................................................................................................................6-69 7 USING AND COMMUNICATING THE COMPARATIVE DIETARY RISK FRAMEWORK..................................................................................................................7-1
  96. 1 Overview of Risk Communication as a Process ................................................................7-1
  97. Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating a Communication Program for the Comparative Dietary Risk Framework ..............................................................................7-2
  98. Problem Analysis............................................................................................................7-5
  99. 2.2 Audience Identification and Needs Assessment.............................................................7-6
  100. 2.3 Communication Program Strategy Design and Implementation ....................................7-7
  101. 2.4 Evaluation .....................................................................................................................7-10
  102. 3 Research Needs and Further Work ..................................................................................7-10
  103. 4 References ........................................................................................................................7-11
  104. CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH NEEDS ..................................................................8-1
  105. 1 Overall Conclusions and Research Needs..........................................................................8-1
  106. 2 Chapter 2 ...........................................................................................................................8-1
  107. 3 Chapter 3 ...........................................................................................................................8-2
  108. 4 Chapter 4 ...........................................................................................................................8-3
  109. 5 Chapter 5 ...........................................................................................................................8-4
  110. 6 Chapter 6 ...........................................................................................................................8-5
  111. 7 Chapter 7 ...........................................................................................................................8-7
  112. 8 Final Comment...................................................................................................................8-8 8.
  113. 9 References ..........................................................................................................................8-8
  114. Henry Anderson, M.D. Bureau of Public Health, State of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Michael Bolger, Ph.D. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C. J. Milton Clark, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois John Festa, Ph.D. American Forestry Products Association, Washington, D.C. Kory Groetsch, M.S. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin Neil Kmiecik, M.S. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin Amy Kyle, Ph.D. School of Public Health, University of California & Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California Randall Manning, Ph.D. Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Gerald Pollock, Ph.D. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California Edward Ohanian, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Andy Smith, Ph.D. Bureau of Health, State of Maine, Augusta, Maine

Related papers

Contaminants in fish: Risk–benefit considerations
Laura Manzo

Toxicology Letters, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Risk-Risk Tradeoffs in Fish Consumption: Can You Have the Cake and Eat It Too?
Christoph Rheinberger

2011

View PDFchevron_right
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS THROUGH FISHES.pdf
Dr. SRITAMA CHATTERJEE

Heavy Metals ingestion through food consumption has often been associated with the adverse health effect on human beings. The heavy metals may enter a human body in several ways namely through food chain, dermal contact and inhalation. This study looks into the entry of two heavy metals in the food chain as a result of daily consumption of fishes. Study has been performed in the region of East Kolkata Wetland area which is situated in the peri-urban region of Kolkata metropolitan city. The risk assessment has been estimated with the Acceptable Daily Intake values. The bioavailability of heavy metal in three major varieties of carp species shows the ultimate release of heavy metals from them on processing to be present within the limit of human intake in general except for chromium and zinc. This study concluded that the health risk associated with the intake of fishes of this region to the human beings consuming them on daily basis depends on the quantity of carp species consumed. Keywords: risk assessment, heavy metals, bioaccumulation, food chain, East Kolkata Wetland, Acceptable Daily Intake

View PDFchevron_right
Health and ecological implications of fish consumption: A deeper insight
Luciana Baroni

Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2016

Many studies suggest that fish consumption could be protective for health, but epidemiological studies on different dietary patterns show that fish-eaters have a higher cardiometabolic risk when compared to people relying on a plant-based diet not including fish. The benefit of fish consumption was related to its content of omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs), but toxic chemicals released into environment like heavy metals and several industrial by-products, because of their lipophilic properties, concentrate in fish fatty tissues, the same containing LC-PUFAs. Furthermore, the continuous increase in demand for fish is progressively damaging the marine biodiversity, and the volume of the fishing catch, the latter lower than the demand, made it necessary to resort to fish farming. Although meat, dairy and fish products represent dietary sources of PCBs, the latter represent the main source in human diet (respectively 9%, 19% and 67%). Methyl-mercury's main source also seems to be fish products. Fish farming products are safer for methyl-mercury residue but other substances could be found in higher concentrations than fish caught. Moreover, ecological impact could be detrimental. From this point of view, a reassessment of the health risk-benefit ratio and sustainability of fish consumption is warranted.

View PDFchevron_right
Benefit-risk assessment of fish and fish products in the Norwegian diet – an update. Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety
Merete Hofshagen

2014

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Medicine
  • Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  • Fish consumption
  • Food Contamination
  • Mercury Poisoning
  • consumption sociology
  • Medical and Health Sciences

    • Cited by

    Toxic effects of mercury, lead and gadolinium on vascular reactivity
    Jonaina Fiorim, Dalton Vassallo, Mirian Fioresi

    Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 2011

    Heavy metals have been used in a wide variety of human activities that have significantly increased both professional and environmental exposure. Unfortunately, disasters have highlighted the toxic effects of metals on different organs and systems. Over the last 50 years, the adverse effects of chronic lead, mercury and gadolinium exposure have been underscored. Mercury and lead induce hypertension in humans and animals, affecting endothelial function in addition to their other effects. Increased cardiovascular risk after exposure to metals has been reported, but the underlying mechanisms, mainly for short periods of time and at low concentrations, have not been well explored. The presence of other metals such as gadolinium has raised concerns about contrast-induced nephropathy and, interestingly, despite this negative action, gadolinium has not been defined as a toxic agent. The main actions of these metals, demonstrated in animal and human studies, are an increase of free radical production and oxidative stress and stimulation of angiotensin I-converting enzyme activity, among others. Increased vascular reactivity, highlighted in the present review, resulting from these actions might be an important mechanism underlying increased cardiovascular risk. Finally, the results described in this review suggest that mercury, lead and gadolinium, even at low doses or concentrations, affect vascular reactivity. Acting via the endothelium, by continuous exposure followed by their absorption, they can increase the production of free radicals and of angiotensin II, representing a hazard for cardiovascular function. In addition, the actual reference values, considered to pose no risk, need to be reduced.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved