More on Mercury Woes
If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you know how I feel about methylmercury-polluted fish, but this article (that I have quoted below) fleshes out a few more details and considerations, for those of you who are interested. Until we reduce our consumption of goods that cause the release of mercury into the environment (here is a list – the auto industry is the largest source), we have merely managed to push our pollution to the far corners of the globe, as well as on to everyone's dinner plate.
The health risks posed by mercury contaminated fish is sufficient to warrant issuing a worldwide general warning to the public -- especially children and women of childbearing age -- to be careful about how much and which fish they eat. That is one of the key findings comprising "The Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution" published today in a special issue of the international science journal Ambio. . . .
Methyl mercury levels in fish-eating birds and mammals in some parts of the world are reaching toxic levels, which may lead to population declines in these species and possibly in fish populations as well. . . .
Increased mercury emissions from developing countries over the last 30 years have offset decreased emissions from developed nations. . . .
New evidence indicates that methylmercury exposure may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly in adult men. . . .
The concentration of methylmercury in fish in freshwater and coastal ecosystems can be expected to decline with reduced mercury inputs; however, the rate of decline is expected to vary among water bodies, depending on the characteristics of a particular ecosystem.
Labels: food safety, pollution
posted by Jade @ 11:07 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Mercury has been very firmly on my radar of late, as my wife is nearly 7 months pregnant. We took the route of her avoiding nearly all seafood while pregnant (and we'll likely continue that beyond). She is able to get the all important Omega-3 acids from her pre-natal pills, but it has concerned us to think what our options would be if these independent O-3 sources weren't available. Do you know what plants have high omega-3 levels?
The problem with recommending plants with high omega-3 levels is that there are three types of omega-3 fatty acids. Two are found only in cold water ocean fish and in cold water ocean plants. The other type is found in land plants and land-grazing animals. Unfortunately it appears that the two types found in marine environments are the most biologically important types of omega 3, and while it is possible for the body to convert the other type to the two found in marine envionments, the body is not efficient at this conversion. Confused? See my post in the January 2007 archive. It will be the first post on the page.
If you want a land plant high in omega 3, I'd go with flax seeds. Flax is fairly easy to grow and has beautiful blue flowers. It is worth growing to attract pollinators anyway.
If you want a marine plant high in omega 3, that would be kelp. I believe you can get dried kelp in asian markets . . . (input anyone?).
Right now the easiest sources are in pill form, and the benefit of a fish oil pill is that the mercury that was in the fish can be removed during processing.
Post a Comment
<< Home