title: Mercury in commercial fish: optimizing individual choices to reduce risk.
abstract: Most attention to the risks from fish consumption has focused on recreational anglers and on fish caught by individuals, but the majority of fish that people eat are purchased from commercial sources. We examined mercury levels in three types of fish (tuna, flounder, bluefish) commonly available in New Jersey stores, sampling different regions of the state, in communities with high and low per capita incomes, and in both supermarkets and specialty fish markets. We were interested in species-specific levels of mercury in New Jersey fish and whether these levels were similar to data generated nationally by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA; mainly from 1990 to 1992) on the same types of fish. Such information is critical for providing public health advice. We were also interested in whether mercury levels in three common species of fish differed by region of the state, economic neighborhood, or type of store. We found significant species differences, with tuna having the highest levels and flounder the lowest levels. There were no significant differences in mercury levels as a function of type of store or economic neighborhood. There was only one regional difference: flounder from fish markets along the Jersey shore had higher mercury levels than flounder bought in other markets. We also examined mercury levels in six other commonly available fish and two shellfish from central New Jersey markets. There were significant differences in availability and in mercury levels among fish and shellfish. Both shrimp and scallops had total mercury levels < 0.02 ppm (wet weight). Large shrimp had significantly lower levels of mercury than small shrimp. For tuna, sea bass, croaker, whiting, scallops, and shrimp, the levels of mercury were higher in New Jersey samples than those reported by the FDA. Consumers selecting fish for ease of availability (present in > 50% of markets) would select flounder, snapper, bluefish, and tuna (tuna had the highest mercury value), and those selecting only for price would select whiting, porgy, croaker, and bluefish (all with average mercury levels < 0.3 ppm wet weight). Flounder was the fish with the best relationship among availability, cost, and low mercury levels. We suggest that state agencies responsible for protecting the health of their citizens should obtain information on fish availability in markets and fish preferences of diverse groups of citizens and use this information to select fish for analysis of contaminant levels, providing data on the most commonly eaten fish that will help people make informed decisions about risks from fish consumption.
authors.affiliation: Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA. burger@biology.rutgers.edu
authors.forename: Joanna
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Burger
authors.forename: Alan H
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Stern
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gochfeld
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D003657:Decision Making; D004032:Diet; D005398:Fisheries; D005432:Flounder; D005506:Food Contamination; D006801:Humans; D007255:Information Services; D008628:Mercury / Q000032:analysis*; D009515:New Jersey; D010473:Perciformes; D011634:Public Health; D018570:Risk Assessment; D017747:Seafood; D013219:State Government; D014018:Tissue Distribution; D014413:Tuna; D014873:Water Pollutants / Q000032:analysis*
chemical_list: D014873:Water Pollutants; D008628:Mercury
references.citation: J AOAC Int. 1993 Jan-Feb;76(1):36-8
references.pmid: 8448441
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2000 Aug;20(4):529-42
references.pmid: 11051076
references.citation: Risk Anal. 1998 Dec;18(6):689-99
references.pmid: 9972578
references.citation: Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Mar;111(3):357-576
references.pmid: 12611666
references.citation: Ambul Pediatr. 2001 Sep-Oct;1(5):252-5
references.pmid: 11888410
references.citation: Risk Anal. 1993 Jun;13(3):355-64
references.pmid: 8341810
references.citation: J Toxicol Environ Health. 1992 Aug;36(4):355-65
references.pmid: 1507267
references.citation: Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Apr;111(4):604-8
references.pmid: 12676623
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2003 Aug;23(4):791-803
references.pmid: 12926571
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2000 Feb;20(1):41-7
references.pmid: 10795337
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2004 Oct 15;333(1-3):89-97
references.pmid: 15364521
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2003 Dec;23(6):1185-97
references.pmid: 14641893
references.citation: Science. 2004 Jan 9;303(5655):226-9
references.pmid: 14716013
references.citation: Appetite. 2003 Dec;41(3):301-14
references.pmid: 14637329
references.citation: Environ Health. 2004 Jan 30;3(1):2
references.pmid: 14754462
references.citation: Environ Res. 2004 Nov;96(3):239-49
references.pmid: 15364590
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 12;335(11):783-9
references.pmid: 8703183
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 28;347(22):1747-54
references.pmid: 12456850
references.citation: J Toxicol Environ Health. 1993 May;39(1):95-105
references.pmid: 8492332
references.citation: Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1996 May-Jun;18(3):217-27; discussion 229-76
references.pmid: 8725628
references.citation: Environ Res. 1998 Feb;76(2):131-42
references.pmid: 9515068
references.citation: Drug Chem Toxicol. 2000 Feb;23(1):41-54
references.pmid: 10711388
references.citation: J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720
references.pmid: 14698953
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2001 Jun;21(3):545-59
references.pmid: 11572432
references.citation: Environ Res. 2001 Oct;87(2):108-18
references.pmid: 11683594
references.citation: Risk Anal. 1999 Apr;19(2):217-29
references.pmid: 10765401
references.citation: Science. 1997 Dec 12;278(5345):1904-5
references.pmid: 9417640
references.citation: Circulation. 1995 Feb 1;91(3):645-55
references.pmid: 7828289
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2003 Jun;23(3):461-71
references.pmid: 12836839
references.citation: Risk Anal. 1994 Oct;14(5):799-806
references.pmid: 7800864
references.citation: Environ Res. 2002 Oct;90(2):125-35
references.pmid: 12483803
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2001 Jun;21(3):533-44
references.pmid: 11572431
references.citation: Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1994 Nov;27(4):466-71
references.pmid: 7811106
references.citation: Epidemiology. 2000 Jul;11(4):388-93
references.pmid: 10874544
references.citation: Circulation. 2000 Nov 28;102(22):2677-9
references.pmid: 11094031
references.citation: J Lab Clin Med. 1998 Apr;131(4):324-9
references.pmid: 9579385
references.citation: J Lab Clin Med. 1997 Jul;130(1):51-62
references.pmid: 9242366