This article reviews fish consumption data, mercury tolerable intake values, and mercury (Hg) content in fish, based on several reports from the Food and Agriculture Organization and European Union. The study assumptions are valid based on the current established USEPA reference dose (RfD). Combining the number of meals (per week), amount of fish ingested (by meal), and levels of MeHg in fish, this study calculates and presents isocurves indicating the maximum number of fishmeal per week without exceeding the USEPA RfD for methylmercury (MeHg). RfD are assumed to be the “exposure dose that is likely to be without deleterious effect even if continued exposure occurs over a lifetime.” The study points out that even considering a single 50-g fish meal per week, the USEPA RfD would be exceeded, triggered by values above 0.84 μg g−1 of MeHg in fish, and this despite being allowed levels up to 1.0 μg g−1 of MeHg in fish consumption!—Have we a health risk? Fish consumption is expected to be relatively stable, while anthropogenic mercury emissions are expected to stabilize or even to increase beyond current values. How many meals of fish per week can we have, combining the number of fish meals per week, amount of fish ingested by meal, and levels of MeHg in fish?
Fish consumption Isocurves fish consumption Methylmercury exposure Mercury tolerable intake Reference dose
Sizenando Abreu received the individual postdoctoral grant ref.BPD/UI88/2911/2013, within the “Projeto CENTRO- 07/ST24/002033MARES - Sustainable Use of Marine Resources,” cofinanced by QREN, Mais Centro-Programa Operacional Regional do Centro e União Europeia/Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional.
Compliance with ethical standards
The authors did not involve human participants nor other animals; the research reviews published data from literature.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Failler P, Van de Walle G, Lecrivain N, Himbes A, Lewins R (2007) Future prospects for fish and fishery products. 4. Fish consumption in the European Union in 2015 and 2030. Part 1. European overview FAO Fisheries Circular (FAO)Google Scholar
FAO (2012) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2012. FOOD & AGRICULTURE ORGNGoogle Scholar
FAO/WHO (2011) Report of the joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on the risks and benefits of fish consumption. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Geneva, World Health Organization, 50 ppGoogle Scholar
Goldman LR, Shannon MW (2001) Technical report: mercury in the environment: implications for pediatricians. Pediatrics 108:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen JC, Danscher G (1997) Organic mercury: an environmental threat to the health of dietary-exposed societies? Rev Environ Health 12:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvat M et al. (1999) Mercury in contaminated coastal environments; a case study: the Gulf of Trieste. Science of The Total Environment 237–238:43–56 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00123-0
JECFA (2004) Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants, sixty-first meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, WHO Food AdditivesGoogle Scholar
JECFA (2010) Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants: seventy-second report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesGoogle Scholar
Jedrychowski W et al (2007) Fish consumption in pregnancy, cord blood mercury level and cognitive and psychomotor development of infants followed over the first three years of life: Krakow epidemiologic study. Environ Int 33:1057–1062. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2007.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lederman SA et al (2008) Relation between cord blood mercury levels and early child development in a World Trade Center cohort. Environ Health Perspect 116:1085–1091. doi:10.1289/ehp.10831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirrone N et al (2010) Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources. Atmos Chem Phys 10:5951–5964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raimundo J, Vale C, Canário J, Branco V, Moura I (2010) Relations between mercury, methyl-mercury and selenium in tissues of Octopus vulgaris from the Portuguese coast. Environ Pollut 158:2094–2100. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2010.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland EM, Selin NE (2013) Future trends in environmental mercury concentrations: implications for prevention strategies. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeGoogle Scholar
Sunderland EM, Krabbenhoft DP, Moreau JW, Strode SA, Landing WM (2009) Mercury sources, distribution, and bioavailability in the North Pacific Ocean: insights from data and models. Global Biogeochem Cycles 23:GB2010. doi:10.1029/2008GB003425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki K et al (2010) Neurobehavioral effects of prenatal exposure to methylmercury and PCBs, and seafood intake: neonatal behavioral assessment scale results of Tohoku study of child development. Environ Res 110:699–704. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2010.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USEPA (1997a) Mercury study report to congress volume IV. An assessment of exposure to mercury in the United States. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
USEPA (1997b) Mercury study report to congress volume V: health effects of mercury and mercury compoundsGoogle Scholar
USEPA (1997c) Mercury study report to congress volume VII: characterization of human health and wildlife risks from mercury exposure in the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
USEPA (2002) A review of the reference dose and reference concentration processes. Risk Assessment Forum,Washington, DC, USA. EPA/630/P-02/002 FGoogle Scholar
Voegborlo R, Matsuyama A, Adimado A, Akagi H (2010) Head hair total mercury and methylmercury levels in some Ghanaian individuals for the estimation of their exposure to mercury: Preliminary Studies Bulletin of environmental contamination and. Toxicology 84:34–38. doi:10.1007/s00128-009-9901-7Google Scholar
WHO (1987) Principles for the safety assessment of food additives and contaminants in food, environmental health criteria, no. 70. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
WHO (2003) Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation, 28 January–1 February 2002. World Heath Organization/Food and Agricultural Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
WHO (2008) Guidance for identifying populations at risk from mercury exposure. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar