The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks
Balancing Benefits and Risks
From its review of consumption, benefits, and risks, the committee recommends that:
Recommendation 1: Dietary advice to the general population fromfederal agencies should emphasize that seafood is a component of a healthydiet, particularly as it can displace other protein sources higher in saturatedfat. Seafood can favorably substitute for other high biologic value protein sources while often improving the overall nutrient profile of the diet.
Recommendation 2: Although advice from federal agencies shouldalso support inclusion of seafood in the diets of pregnant females or thosewho may become pregnant, any consumption advice should stay withinfederal advisories for specific seafood types and state advisories for locallycaught fish.
Recommendation 3: Appropriate federal agencies (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], the US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], and the Food and Drug Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services [FDA]) should increasemonitoring of methylmercury and persistent organic pollutants in seafoodand make the resulting information readily available to the general public. Along with this information, these agencies should develop better recommendations to the public about levels of pollutants that may present a risk to specific population subgroups.
Recommendation 4: Changes in the seafood supply (source and typeof seafood) must be accounted for—there is inconsistency in sampling andanalysis methodology used for nutrients and contaminant data that arepublished by state and federal agencies. Analytical data is not consistently revised, with separate data values presented for wild-caught, domestic, and imported products.
Drawing on these recommendations and its benefit-risk assessment protocol, the committee identified four population groups for which the data support subgroup-specific conclusions. In the committee’s judgement, the variables that distinguish between these populations facing different benefit-risk balances based on existing evidence are (1) age, (2) gender, (3) pregnancy or possibility of becoming pregnant, or breastfeeding, and (4) risk of coronary heart disease, although the evidence for a benefit to adult males and females who are at risk for coronary heart disease is not sufficient to warrant inclusion as a separate group within the decision-making framework. The groups and appropriate guidance are listed in Box S-1 below.