Proceedings of the
2OO4
National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
San Diego, California • January 25-28, 2004
Sponsored by:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
OEHHA
California Office of Environmental \\
Health Hazard Assessment
A9encv f°r Tox'c Substances
and Disease Registry
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum
on Contaminants in Fish
January 25-28, 2004
EPA-823-R-04-006
For copies of the proceedings, please contact:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
Phone: 1-800-490-9198
Fax:513-489-8695
Web site: www.epa.gov/ncepihom
-------
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction 1
Summary of Conference Presentations 2
I. Focus Group Testing 3
Pros and Cons of Focus Group Testing 3
Steve Bradbard, Consumer Studies, Food and Drug Administration
II. Monitoring Strategies to Support Fish Advisories 5
EPA National Contaminant Study Design and Uses of Data 5
Leanne Stahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Model Application for Developing Fish Consumption Advisories 7
Stephen Wente, U.S. Geological Survey
III. Approaches to Melding Commercial and Noncommercial Fish Advisories 12
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory 12
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Maine Fish Consumption Advisory 14
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
North Carolina's New Advice on Eating Fish 16
Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Florida Fish Consumption Advisory 17
George Henderson, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
IV. Formal Welcome and Introductions 22
Benjamin Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 22
Val Siebal, Chief Deputy Director, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment 23
V. Mercury Issues 24
Mercury Levels in Tuna and Other Major Commercial Fish Species in Hawaii 24
Barbara Brooks, Hawaii Health Department, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response
Mercury Concentrations in North Carolina's Top Five Commercially Sold and Recreationally
Caught Marine Fish 24
Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department Health and Human Services
Options fora Gulf States Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel 25
Donald Axelrad, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
in
-------
Recent Washington State Data on Mercury Concentrations in Tuna 26
Jim VanDerslice, Washington Department of Health
Recent FDA Data on Mercury Concentrations in Fish 28
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 1) 29
Update on Recent Epidemiologic Mercury Studies 31
Kate Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Update on the Current Mercury RfD and the Implications for Revisions Based on Recent Data.. 34
Alan Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science, Research,
and Technology
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 2) 38
National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA FAC
Recommendations 39
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Denise Keehner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review 41
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 3) 44
Mercury Focus Group Testing Results 48
Marjorie Davidson, Food and Drug Administration
National Mercury Advisory: Overview of the New Joint Agency National Mercury Advisory 49
Jim Pendergast, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
National Mercury Advisory: December 2003 Committee Meeting to Address the Joint
Advisory 49
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 4) 50
VI. Comments on the National Mercury Advisory 59
Regional Recommendations on Mercury Issues 59
VII. Risk Management Issues 65
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories 65
Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department Health and Family Services
Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration 67
Barbara Knuth, Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources
Risks and Benefits Revisited 67
Grace Egeland, McGill University
IV
-------
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! Risk Communication to Diverse Populations in an Urban Setting 72
Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Center for Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health,
University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health
Palos Verdes Shelf Fish Contamination Risk Communication 73
Sharon Lin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Gina Margillo, Impact Assessment, Inc.
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication 74
Linda Vaught, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Information Center
Risk Communication for Medical Practitioners 75
Steve Blackwell, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
VIII. Monitoring Contaminants in Fish 76
Contaminants in Farmed Salmon from Around the World 76
David Carpenter, University at Albany, SUNY
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes: Habitat, Life History, and Diet 79
Sandie O'Neill, Washington Department Fish and Wildlife
Model Application for Monitoring Contaminants in Fish 82
Stephen Wente, U.S. Geological Survey
IX. Chemical Updates 84
PBDEs—Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban 84
Tom McDonald, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Dioxin 85
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Updating USEPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Arsenic: Toxicity and Bioaccumulation....89
Charles Abernathy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
X. Regional Needs Assessment 91
Individual Needs Assessments from the Regional Groups 91
XI. Closing Remarks 100
Bob Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Appendices
Appendix A: Forum Agenda
Appendix B: Steering Committee Members
Appendix C: Biographies of Speakers and Moderators
Appendix D: List of Forum Attendees
Appendix E. Slide Presentations
Appendix F: Poster Session Abstracts
-------
VI
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Acknowledgments
Tetra Tech, Inc., prepared this document under contract no. 68-C-01-41, work assignment no. 2-10, for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The National Forum on Contaminants in Fish was
cosponsored by USEPA, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Jeffrey Bigler was USEPA's work assignment
manager for the project. Steve Ellis was Tetra Tech's project manager.
Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by USEPA, it may not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.
vn
-------
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Introduction
Representatives of 48 states, 2 U.S. territories, 12 tribes, 7 federal agencies, 3 Canadian
provinces, and other interested organizations and individuals attended the 2004 National Forum
on Contaminants in Fish. The forum was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and was held January 25-28, 2004, in San Diego,
California.
The agenda, developed by a steering committee made up of representatives of state and federal
agencies, presented a variety of perspectives and approaches to assessing and communicating
public health risks related to fish contamination. Topics included monitoring contaminants in
fish, approaches to melding commercial and noncommercial fish advisories, mercury issues
(including the national mercury advisory), and risk management issues. The forum also included
several regional workgroup meetings for state and tribal representatives to talk candidly about
assessment approaches and needs. A poster session reception was also held to further the
exchange of ideas.
This document presents the proceedings of the forum. It contains abstracts of presentations,
copies of the slides used by presenters, transcriptions of questions and answers raised during the
forum, and other information presented at the forum.
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Summary of Conference Presentations
At the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, 32 speakers presented technical information,
perspectives on the national mercury advisory, and their experiences in developing and implementing
advisory programs. Brief biographies of the speakers are included in Appendix C, and copies of the slides
are presented in Appendix E.
The presentations were grouped into the following sessions over the course of 4 days:
• State and Tribal Regional Work Groups (breakout sessions and reporting back throughout the
forum)
• Monitoring Strategies to Support Fish Advisories (held during Sunday workgroup session)
• Approaches to Melding Commercial and Noncommercial Fish Advisories (held during Sunday
workgroup session)
• Mercury Issues
• Risk Management Issues
• Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
• Chemical Updates
• State/Tribal Reactions and Needs Assessment
The moderators of the panels, who were also members of the forum steering committee, offered
additional comments and perspectives. Forum participants were encouraged to ask questions and provide
comments, which were recorded on cassette tape and later transcribed.
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
I. Focus Group Testing
Pros and Cons of Focus Group Testing
Steve Bradbard, Consumer Studies, Food and Drug Administration
Focus groups have been around since World War II. Over 450,000 focus groups were conducted
worldwide this past year. Focus groups are qualitative research tools that are rich in personal and in-depth
information. The information derived is not suitable for statistical analysis; however, it does help to better
understand underlying attitudes, feelings, and motivations that set the stage for how the participants look
at a situation. What would you do to improve it? What do you think? How are we doing at
communicating the idea or concept? The most important step is to develop a messaging strategy, similar
to the current issues concerning the methylmercury fish advisory.
When working with focus groups, be sure not to overstep the data. A focus group involves a small
number of people. It is not a random or national sample; it is not representative. When administrating a
focus group, you cannot talk about cause and effect because the audience is not random. At the same
time, you cannot make broad generalizations. For instance, asking how many people are aware of a
certain advisory is the wrong approach.
Focus groups are not an end in themselves. They are important tools for developing a research-based
message and are used to refine the way we communicate. Focus groups allow you to test consumers'
reactions to your message, concepts, and content. Lots of room exists for unintended meaning and
behavior due to those misperceptions. Focus groups are an information evaluation tool but are only one
step in the process.
When developing a message strategy, it is important to realize that focus groups account for just a piece
of the process. Chemical and biological data, public relations, and media relations are only a few of the
other components necessary to produce an effective fish advisory approach. When developing a
messaging strategy, you must define the objective, select the target audiences, and develop message
concepts to present. Once the concepts are formulated, you can test them in a focus group environment.
Upon completion of the first focus group, you can refine your concepts and retest them on subsequent
focus groups. After you have completed sufficient rounds of focus group testing, you can identify partners
and intermediaries and then select the appropriate venues (e.g., Internet, broadcast) and opportunities for
distribution and communication of the advisory.
It is important to remember that focus groups do not test awareness or knowledge. They concentrate on
testing reactions, attitudes, motivations, and feelings of the participants in relation to the concepts and
ideas being presented.
Focus groups are a great asset for redefining and fine-tuning the message and recommendations to be
promoted in a fish advisory. Focus groups are useful for identifying message content that may be subject
to multiple interpretations. They can help identify messages that will hurt the credibility of an agency or
organization. Focus groups can also identify confusing language and the emotional "hot buttons" that can
lead to change.
Most important, do not be fooled into thinking that you know how the "typical" consumer reacts to
advisories and other information about fish consumption. On average, you probably know 99+% more
than the "typical" consumer about this topic. Don't ever assume that the message is clear and
understandable.
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Focus groups do not need to be conducted at expensive, state-of-the-art research facilities. A great
number of convenient samples exist around you, but remember that the rules for quantitative research do
not apply here. Although it is not brain surgery, it is good (but not a necessity) to have a professional
moderator.
In summary, the focus group approach has several pros and cons. On the positive side, focus groups are
good reality checks; involve a convenient size sample; are in-depth and probing; and tap into the attitudes,
feelings, and motivations that underlie behaviors. However, it is important to also remember that they are
not representative, cannot generally be used in policy development, and do not measure awareness or
knowledge.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Randy Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources: We have tried to do a little bit of work
with focus groups in our state on a shoestring budget. What are some of the biggest mistakes you see
people make when they try to put these groups together like we did, basically using our own agency to
control them?
A: Steve Bradbard: One of the biggest mistakes I've seen is where you actually go in with something in
mind that you want to find, and as a result you tailor your discussion guide and all the discussions. You
can lead a discussion in a particular direction to confirm your expectations. You really have to blow the
balloon up and explore lots of different kinds of things if you are going to conduct focus groups. That's
what they're good for.
Q: Randy Manning: What about the issue of the credibility of the person who is leading or putting on the
focus group? In other words, if it is a state health department or a state environmental agency, they may
actually have something invested in this message that they are trying to develop. Is credibility an issue,
and who puts the focus group together and who runs it?
A: Steve Bradbard: I don't think credibility is an issue. I think it's more the actual moderator guide itself
that you put together. It's good to have a couple of different people look over your guide. Maybe even get
someone on the other side to look at it and get a read in terms of whether you are directing people toward
particular topics. As far as the moderator, you just need to get somebody who is personable, who can keep
the conversation going. I don't think that focus group respondents typically question the credibility of the
moderator unless there is something that the moderator does that makes them feel like 'Y'ou are not
asking us what we want to tell you. You are telling us what you want us to tell you." Actually, I found
that in a recent focus group. Somebody said, "Would you like us to share with you what we think, or do
you want us to tell you what we think you would like to hear?" That is a pretty important thing to set out
in the ground rules. There are no right or wrong answers, and everything is okay. You set up a permissive
atmosphere for the respondents.
Q: Steve Blackwell, ATSDR: Although they aren't random and you can't get representative samples to
make generalizations about people in general, you can obviously segment and stratify the focus groups
you are trying to obtain some information from.
A: Steve Bradbard: That's a really good point. In fact, you will hear tomorrow afternoon that with
methylmercury focus groups we did do segmentation by gender, so we had male groups and female
groups. We also did segmentation by educational level. So you can get the right people in the room, and
you can actually have some trends that seem pretty strong. You start to say, "Wow! It really seems like a
lot of people look at it that way." But when it comes down to making a statement that you could then use
in policy, you should never use focus group findings to set policy. You can use them as an ingredient with
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
other kinds of information for policy. Even if 80 out of 80 people say something, statistically it's still not
something you can take to the bank.
II. Monitoring Strategies to Support Fish Advisories
EPA National Contaminant Study Design and Uses of Data
Leanne Stahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Fish study activities have been conducted through four phases starting in 1998. The team is working on
completing Phase 3, sample collection and analysis. The final report is scheduled to be delivered toward
the end of 2006.
Several accomplishments have been achieved during completion of phase activities outlined forme study.
During the planning phase, the study design was developed, the statistical selection of lakes was
performed, and the target list of chemicals was selected. During the mobilization phase, 10 orientation
and training workshops were held, the QA and Field Sampling Plans were produced, and the 900 lakes
were mapped for reconnaissance. Work completed during the fish sampling and analysis phase has
included collection offish from 500 lakes, chemical analysis of 749 fish samples, and development of the
annual analytical QA report. The public outreach phase has included development of the fish study Web
site (www.epa.gov/.waterscience/fishstudy) and production of data CDs for release of the qualified
information to the public.
Preliminary data has been summarized for predator composites from the first 3 years of the study.
Mercury and PCBs were detected at some levels at all sites sampled during the first 3 years. Dioxins and
furans were detected at 80% of these sites. Concentrations exceed human health risk standards for
mercury at 40% of sites, for PCBs at 17% of sites, and for dioxins/furans at 11% of sites.
USEPA will begin analyzing fish study data once the full 4-year analytical dataset is available. Data
analysis will consist of estimates of national means and percentiles and the cumulative frequency
distribution plots for chemicals and composite types with sufficient data. Estimated cumulative frequency
distributions for specific chemical types and specific fish types will be prepared to assist in the
development of a national scope. In addition, national maps of chemicals by composite type for mercury,
PCBs, and dioxins/furans will be produced. In addition, estimates of sampling variability based on
replicate sampling data will be analyzed along with other sampling factors, including the number offish
in the composite, the size effects, and the species effects.
Future milestones over the short term (2004) include preparation of a Year 2 data CD for public release,
analysis of Year 4 (2003) fish samples (-200 composites), production of a Year 4 analytical data QA
report, distribution of Year 4 data to states and other partners, and an update to the fish study Web site.
Longer-term milestones (2005-2006) include preparation of a Year 3 data CD for public release (2005),
completion of the statistical analysis of the Year 4 fish tissue dataset (2005), submission of the draft final
report of peer review (2005), production of the final fish study report (2006), and uploading of all data
into USEPA's STORET system (2006).
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Tom Hornshaw, Illinois EPA: What are you going to do with the PBDE data since you are going to
have only 1 year's worth of it? Why wasn't it included right from the beginning?
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: Leanne Stahl: We didn't have the resources to include it in the beginning. Our current division
director, Denise Keehner, has identified resources that will allow us to do 1 year of analysis. We will be
analyzing a statistical subset of the data, so we will be able to draw some conclusions with that one
statistical subset. We won't be able to draw them with the same level of confidence as if we had 4 years.
But the statisticians were very emphatic that if we did this, we had to use a statistical annual subset. So
we've chosen the year 4 samples to do that on.
Q: Bill Kramer, USEPA: Would you like to say something about the frozen tissue samples that you
retained for use?
A: Leanne Stahl: When we've had sufficient tissue available, we've been trying to archive at least 500
grams of tissue. We haven't had sufficient tissue to archive that amount of tissue in all cases. Having the
archived tissue will allow us to do a full statistical subset of the PBDE analysis because not all of our year
4 samples were collected during the fourth year; some were collected in the earlier years. So, we will be
using some of that archived tissue to complete the PBDE analysis.
Q: Bob Brodberg, California EPA: Outside of the report that comes out of this, do you know if EPA is
planning to use the data generated in this in any of its other assessments, such as for dioxins or other
chemicals?
A: Leanne Stahl: We've already had some of our programs request data, and they have received what data
we have available to include in these assessments. Dioxins is one of the programs that has requested the
data.
Q: Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services: What kind of information did
you gather specific to the lakes or the waterbodies that you sampled?
A: Leanne Stahl: The lakes were selected from a GIS [geographic information system] layer. They were
selected based on a complex statistical design. We weren't trying to target any specific characteristics in
selecting the lakes for the study.
Q: Henry Anderson: I understand the sampling frame, but what I'm suggesting is when people gathered
the samples, did you get any characteristics of those?
A: Leanne Stahl: We have just the length and weight of the fish. We did get some pH measurements, but
we did not get water chemistry or other characteristics that you could associate with the fish samples.
Q: Henry Anderson: Any water quality issues or sources nearby?
A: Leanne Stahl: We now have our final set of 500 lakes, and we are in the process of developing a data
layer so we can overlay that with existing Agency data layers and try to determine where there are
overlaps.
Q: John Cox, Confederated Tribes Umatilla Indian Reservation: I didn't see the mention of any
radionuclides as chemicals being monitored. Did I miss it?
A: Leanne Stahl: No, we are not doing radionuclides. I guess when they were planning, the original target
list of chemicals proposed included over 400 chemicals. It was strictly a resource issue in paring down to
the current 268.
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: Randy Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources: In looking at your graph that showed
which chemicals were over EPA screening values with mercury and dioxin and PCBs, are screening
values available for all of the chemicals—the 268 that you are monitoring in this study? And if they are
not, do you know if anyone in EPA is working on trying to put something together for the data
evaluation?
A: Leanne Stahl: Currently, we have been limiting ourselves to just the 25 screening values published in
the fish advisory guidance. Right now, Jeff Bigler has some work under way to develop screening values
for PBDEs, but that's the only active exercise I'm aware of that people are involved in to develop new
screening values.
Model Application for Developing Fish Consumption Advisories
Stephen Wente, U. S. Geological Survey
Methylmercury is a toxic chemical that has been shown to affect the health of humans and wildlife.
Methylation of inorganic mercury and subsequent biomagnification of methylmercury through aquatic
food webs is generally accepted as the primary pathway by which both humans and wildlife are adversely
affected by mercury. Many federal, state, tribal, and local agencies monitor wild fish tissue mercury (fish-
Hg) concentrations for the specific purposes of identifying spatial and temporal trends and preparing fish
consumption advisories. However, fish-Hg concentrations vary with the samples' characteristics, such as
kind of tissues sampled ("cut"), species, and fish size. Therefore, directly comparing samples with
dissimilar sample characteristics for trend analysis or estimating unsampled fish-Hg concentrations for
fish consumption advisories can be problematic. This problem greatly hampers the interpretation of fish-
Hg datasets because obtaining wild fish samples with specific or consistent characteristics can be
expensive or impossible. Several researchers have used regression methods to predict the mercury
concentration of a standardized sample from samples of the same cut and species but of different lengths.
These methods extend the range of samples that can be validly compared with samples of the same
species and cut but different sized fish.
This study, by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation the National Institute of Environmental
Health, assesses a different approach based on statistical modeling (the covariance model) that
encompasses not only fish of differing sizes, but also fish samples of different species and cuts. This
covariance model was calibrated using a national dataset of fish-Hg analyses that contained 35,130
samples. Comparison of the covariance model with the current method (the size-class model) shows the
covariance model produces more accurate fish-Hg predictions than the size-class model for the fish-Hg
data currently being collected. The covariance model is useful for (1) standardizing fish-Hg
concentrations to a common sample type for spatial and temporal analyses, and (2) estimating fish-Hg
concentrations of un-sampled species, thereby enabling the development of more comprehensive fish
consumption advisories. In addition, use of the covariance model will allow monitoring agencies to
greatly reduce the number of analyses required to achieve the same prediction accuracy of fish-Hg
concentration. This could substantially reduce the cost of a fish-Hg monitoring program. A Web site is
being developed by the USGS to facilitate the dissemination of raw fish-Hg data and covariance model
predictions, as well as mercury concentrations from other media (soil, sediment, and coal), on a national
scale.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Joe Sekerke, Florida Department of Health: Could you repeat what data were used to develop the
model and then what data were used to test it?
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: Stephen Wente: The entire dataset was used to develop the model. Currently, about 7,500 observations
have been randomly deleted one at a time from the dataset, and we are just doing a jackknife validation
procedure to check the prediction accuracy. In other words, we are measuring how accurate a prediction
would be for different kinds of observations, whether there were other observations from the same size
class. If there weren't other observations from that same size class, how good is your prediction? If there
were observations from the same size class, how good is your prediction? Does that help out? That's the
way we are doing it. It's not that we've broken the dataset into two different datasets, and part of the
reason for that is we are trying to compare against different models. If you took a size-class model,
typically you would have two observations of data for each size class; and if you split that in half, you
would have only one observation. So, it makes since to do it the way that we're doing it. It is kind of
complex, though, because you have to realize we are testing against these different models.
Q: Joe Sekerke: You use length. Have you done anything to look at age instead of length? We are using
length as a surrogate for age, and age is really the important factor.
Stephen Wente: We made fish consumption advisories, so we used length with the intent of having
something that the people would actually be able to relate to. I have used weight before, but I have never
used age. We usually just don't have that many samples with age data available for them. If we did, that
would be great to use. If you have a dataset like that, we would be happy to take it.
A: Bob Brodberg, California EPA: I have several questions that go to the complexity of the model. To
input some data into the model, how much data does one need? Is your model a mixture of individual and
composite samples, and therefore are you recommending putting in composite samples, individual
samples—what is the n to put in to get something that fits your beta testing reliability for something
coming out?
A: Stephen Wente: We would like it if people would actually identify how many fish are in there. We
treat everything as a composite sample; an individual fish is a composite of one. But we would love to
have it so it could be weighted so that we could trust something that has five fish in it more than
something with just one fish in it. In other words, it would tend to come out closer to your predicted
value. We would like to look at that. But when you look through the dataset, when you're trying to do
something with a large dataset, you just have to take what's there, and a lot of the data in those datasets
aren't identified as to how many fish are in the composite. A lot of them indicate that it's three to five
fish; they don't give you an actual number, and sometimes they don't give you any number.
Q: Bob Brodberg: From some of the modeling I've seen done on some California data, it seems to work
best if you have individual fish so that you really get your best measurement of variability based on the
individual fish data. One other thing about the model: Can you comment on interpolation versus
extrapolation from the data? I'm not sure what the size classes are in the mercury that you have for the
curves that you show—if the curve is showing only the portion of the data for which you actually have
something in the model or if it's actually going beyond, starting below and ending above. Tremblay, in
some of his work and talking to us in California, said interpolation is okay within the data, but
extrapolation outside the data gets you in trouble.
A: Stephen Wente: The ranges offish length that we display there are actually the largest fish in the
database for that species and the smallest fish for that species. So we don't go beyond it on the individual
fish. But of course most of those lines were never collected at most of the sites, so in a way we are going
well beyond the data all the time when we look at any particular site. Normally you wouldn't display 11
species like we did up here. You would usually pick out ones that you are actually concerned about at that
particular site, and typically those would be the ones that you would collect the data for and then typically
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
those are the ones you would want to predict. It would be much more like a table as far as filling out the
size classes.
Q: Steve Ellis, Tetra Tech: I have just a couple points of clarification. In your example you showed
picking three species and then, if I understand right, the model [inaudible] best fit to those three species.
Do you think your predictions would improve for a given location the more species you have?
A: Stephen Wente: Yes.
Q: Steve Ellis: The other thing that happens a lot is we are sampling and may be looking at human health
when we want to look at fillets, but we know people eat other parts of the fish and we may want to
extrapolate. Does the model predict concentrations in other tissue types based on, for example, fillets to
whole bodies or fillets to organs?
A: Stephen Wente: Right now we have, I think, six tissue types allowed in the model—skin off, skin on,
whole, and then viscera, eggs, and carcasses. There is a lot of liver data, and we'll probably be putting
that in. The problem that you run into is that a lot of times people did not collect skin-off fillet, skin-on
fillet, and whole fish at the same site. We do have some of that data in there. That helps out a great deal as
far as getting those set up. But individual monitoring programs a lot of times will just stick to one type of
sample. When they go out to a site, they always get livers, and you don't have any way of relating that
back if there was never a skin-off fillet or a skin-on fillet or something else collected at that particular site.
It's a question of being really careful with the model in stating what it does predict accurately and what it
doesn't predict accurately.
Q: Randy Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources: Have you looked at the model and the
curves or lines that were generated to see if there are differences if you just select different areas or
regions of the country for the data that is being put into it? My thought is, particularly with mercury, you
might be getting actually age class issues as much as size, but there might be differences, for example, in
the lines generated for fish collected in the Southeast versus the Northeast.
A: Stephen Wente: I've broken down by states before, and all that I looked at was the idea of what's your
prediction accuracy. I never looked at whether the lines would be subtly different between the different
regions. I tend to believe that they are not that different, and I tend to think of this model as just giving
you a general representation of these lines, but that would be something interesting to look at.
Roundtable Discussion on How Federal Agencies Can Assist State/Tribe Monitoring Programs
Q: Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services: I have a question about
PCB risk assessments. There are dioxin-like PCBs listed in the guidance document for assessing the risk
from exposure to PCBs in fish, but then how do you handle the nondioxin-like PCBs when you do a
congener analysis? Most of the states I would say do Aroclor. A few of us are venturing out and tiptoeing
into the area of doing congener analysis, and we want to do the congener analysis, but how do we assess
the risk from exposure to the PCB congeners? I would like to have some assistance from either EPA or
the states in assessing the risk from exposure to PCB congeners. Is that the way to go? Leanne Stahl, I
have been told, looked at Aroclor analysis for a given fish and congener analysis for a given fish. Do they
correlate? Are they similar? If they are similar, then maybe we should just do Aroclor analysis. I don't
know. I just recently posted a huge reservoir for PCBs, our very first, and we've got a huge lake next to it.
So I'm hoping that it's low, too. I had to wait 2 months longer to get my PCB congener analysis, and I
couldn't wait any longer. I had to go ahead and issue an advisory based on my Aroclor analysis. That's
the big question. We need some assistance. We need it all laid out. Tell us what we need to do to assess
the risk.
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: Leanne Stahl, USEPA: I cannot answer the risk assessment question, but I can tell you that we were
collecting both Aroclor data and PCB congener data for the fish study so we do have a national dataset
that includes both if somebody had resources to investigate that issue further.
Q: Luanne Williams: Do they correlate?
A: Leanne Stahl: We haven't taken a look at that. That would require additional resources and
commitment of additional resources, and no one has stepped forward to make that commitment yet.
C: Rick Greene, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control: Delaware has
fairly extensive experience in the use of congener analysis in its fish tissue program. We have the benefit
of having a fairly small state, so we can maybe do better work on fewer samples. We started off in the
early 1990s with a short list of congeners, about 40 or so at that time, because there weren't analytical
standards for the full suite of congeners that exist in the Aroclors. Every time we bootstrapped ourselves
forward to the point now where we're looking at 160 congeners. Let me answer your first question, "How
do you deal with the dioxin-like congeners versus those that are non-dioxin-like?" A gentleman from
EPA headquarters prepared a document a few years ago that was a reassessment of those responses for
PCBs. In the back of that document, there are some examples of what you do if you have good congener
data, including congener data for the dioxin-like compounds. In a nutshell what you do is you first
subtract the analytical concentration of your dioxin-like PCBs from your total and set that aside. The
balance, we'll call that non-AH active PCBs, you can sum and then use your slope factor for regular
PCBs (slope factor of 2, which is based on Aroclor-1260). For the dioxin-like compounds, the dioxin-like
PCBs, what you would do is multiply each of those individual congeners by their respective TEF. You
then get the TEQs from the PCBs. You also compute dioxins and furans. You sum those, and then you
use the slope factor for 2,3,7,8-TCDD for that. I think that is the answer to how you mechanically do the
calculation when you have good PCB congener data. The question is, are Aroclors the same thing as
PCBs you see in fish tissue samples? I think the answer is unequivocally no. There's been quite a bit of
work that shows that the congener pattern in fish is distorted relative to any standard Aroclor that you
might choose to use as a standard. The question often becomes, what is the skill of your analyst to say
that the pattern they are looking at looks like 1250 or 1260. So, Aroclors are not what is in fish unless you
just happen to have a spill from a transformer and it's pretty fresh material from a recent event. But, by
and large, Aroclors are not a good surrogate for what you have in fish.
C: Commented that she did have the assessment with her. She noted that on page 63 of the document,
where there's been an analysis on the two different approaches, there are a couple of sentences: "This
example, although perhaps extreme, shows how it is possible for a total PCB approach to underestimate
the toxicity of a mixture when concentrations of a few dioxin-like or highly toxic congeners are enhanced
through environmental and metabolic processes." So it actually shows you how the results should differ if
you use a total PCB approach versus a congener-specific approach.
C: Rita Schoeny, USEPA Headquarters: If you can stick around until Wednesday, I am going to give a
short presentation on the dioxin reassessment, which of course deals with the coplanar dioxin-like PCBs.
It appears that you can perhaps get away with about four dioxin and dibenzofurans and one coplanar PCB
and account for about 80% of the toxicity in "environmental samples." (That's your foodstuff.) And I
can't tell you which one without looking at my notes.
C: Lon Kissinger, USEPA Region 10:1 think this is a pretty controversial issue—how we look at the risk
from Aroclors, how we look at the risks from the dioxin-like congeners, how they are summed, how they
are treated in a risk management situation. I know EPA's new guidance for PCBs in soil is recommending
that you might subtract the concentration of the dioxin-like congeners that you find in an Aroclor mixture.
10
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
For the Housatonic, that's been an approach that's been considered for fish tissue. Obviously, there are
concerns about congener composition changing once you look at fish. It is kind of interesting, though. For
example, for New Bedford Harbor, there is an article by Lake et al., and the congener patterns in sediment
and lower trophic level fish were quite similar. That was surprising to me. So, I do think there really does
need to be a bit more of an effort put into this. The actual risk assessment approach is not clear. And, of
course, when you look at bioaccumulated congeners, they do tend to be more toxic than what you would
find in Aroclors. It's not an easy situation to resolve.
C: John Cox, Confederated Tribe of the Umatilla Indian Reservation: I believe your question was how the
federal agencies, states, and tribes could help. I guess my response would be by listening well. I'm just
concerned about generalizations and average overall. I would like to be considered in a mix like that. I
don't speak for all tribes, but I'll speak, as a member, for one. I don't like to be considered that way
either. Coming down to a more final, fine tuning here regarding monitoring, which in my mind is sort of a
technical word that means measurement of something, doing some analysis, sampling analysis, etc., I was
under the impression that if you don't measure, you don't know. I see all these generalizations, and it
sounds like we're doing a lot of tests across the nation. It's a very large nation with very diverse groups of
people, very diverse landscapes, and very diverse ponds, streams, and so on from which people are
extracting fish—an essential natural resource, food that is for their use. So I'm concerned that monitoring
isn't doing enough in breadth and depth on the subject. If you measure over there, that's a result for over
there. Many of us can identify with this through weather. You can go over the hill over there, and the
weather is oftentimes different from that on this side of the hill. I know the weather is a lot different down
on the Umatilla Indian Reservation versus 2 or 3 miles up on top of the mountains daily and in the
summer and so forth. So that's one of my concerns about monitoring measurements.
Q: This is just a follow-up question to Rita Schoeny's comment that 80% of the toxicity is accounted for
by those three groups of compounds. Are you referring to the cancer risk only or other types of toxicity as
well, given all the emergent concerns about developmental disabilities in relation to PCBs?
A: Rita Schoeny: About the only good news about dioxin is that since there appears to be at least a
common critical step in all the modes of action for the various toxic events, we can talk about cancer and
noncancer effects in pretty much the same voice. In fact, as you pointed out, some of the concerns about
developmental reproductive effects are quite serious. They are very likely to occur at the same sorts of
levels of exposure as the cancer effects. So, again, this generalization that I made should be true for both.
C: I'm not aware that anybody has done dioxin-like compound congeners. If that's the case, if you take
the dioxin-like congeners out, there may be no cancer slope factor for the remaining PCBs.
C: David Carpenter, SUNY, Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology: That's not the case.
Nondioxin-like PCBs are also carcinogenic. They act through a totally different mechanism. I really don't
agree with the comment Rita made in terms of a common mechanism of action. We have evidence for
neurobehaviorial effects of dioxin itself that it is not mediated through the AH receptor. I think that this is
something that is a generality—that each of the congeners, including the dioxin-like congeners, has a
unique profile of toxicity that operates through different mechanisms of action. To go back to the original
question of Aroclor reporting, I think it's grossly inaccurate. First of all, it is an underestimate of the total
PCB concentration because, as has been noted, the patterns change in fish, in humans, and in the
environment as a result of dechlorination patterns. So, you're never getting the whole mixture. But I think
it's a mistake to assume that all cancer is coming from dioxin-like congeners and that all the noncancer
effects are not mediated by the dioxin-like congeners.
C: I don't know if there is any data out there. I haven't seen any, but unless you have tested the congeners
without the dioxin-like, you don't know what their cancer activity is.
11
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
C: Rita Schoeny: I didn't mean to give the impression that the nondioxin-like PCB congeners are
operating through this mode of action. We know there are neurotoxic effects of some of those PCB
congeners that are not coplanar, are not mediated through an age receptor. My remarks were specifically
and only referring to the coplanar PCBs for their dioxin-like activity.
III. Approaches to Melding Commercial and Noncommercial Fish Advisories
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Ms. McCann's discussion included a brief history of the commercial and local fish consumption advisory
for the State of Minnesota, the basis for much of the advice, and the various revisions to the advisory that
have been made over the past decade.
The State of Minnesota has been working to merge commercial and local fish consumption information
since 1994. The Department of Health (DOH) felt that women of childbearing age needed to take into
consideration all sources of mercury exposure in the fish types that they may eat. In support of these
efforts, the DOH developed a brochure entitled "An Expectant Mother's Guide to Eating Minnesota
Fish." Since the time of its publication, the brochure has been used by several states as a model for
dissemination offish advisory information. Advice on commercial fish has been based on mercury in fish
consumed by pregnant women. The majority of the brochures and related information have been
distributed mainly through health care providers directly to women.
In the past, the Minnesota brochure offered very conservative advice on local fish consumption. For
example, the brochure stated that only 7 oz of local bluegill and sunfish should be eaten every month,
depending on the local advisory. More recently, the advice from Minnesota is to limit consumption of
these local fish types to no more than once a week.
For canned tuna, the brochure states that no more than 7 oz should be consumed per week. The brochure
also states not to eat shark or swordfish at all and includes a general statement about other commercial
fish, recommending that consumption of those varieties be limited to once a week.
In 2000, the Minnesota DOH revised the brochure based on input from test groups and updates in the
form of new state and federal guidelines. Also with this revision, the format changed, the shape changed
for ease of mailing, and more bullets were added to reduce the volume of text. Statewide fish
consumption advice was included in the first bullets, followed by information on commercially caught
fish. The 2000 brochure stated that it is very important to look at all fish types when choosing a fish to
eat. The 2000 brochure also included a statement on the benefits of eating fish, including the nutritional
aspect, benefit to the fetus and expectant mother, and the cardiovascular effects.
In 2001, the FDA released new information on mercury levels in fish. Again, the brochure was revised to
be consistent with the new advice and to provide information on commercial fish similar to the
information provided on local fisheries stocks. Again, the brochure recommended considering all fish
types when making choices.
The Minnesota DOH worked closely with the State of Wisconsin to promote dissemination of the same
advice for both fish types (commercial and local fish). Both states have been working hard to provide
consistent information and advice.
12
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
In 2004, the Minnesota DOH is considering another revision to the brochure. The most recent draft
revision includes concerns about consistency with other agencies (federal, state, American Heart
Association, and others). Also, the new brochure will include the new FDA and USEPA advice when it is
released. In Minnesota, the updated fish advisory is issued in the spring to coincide with the walleye
season.
Other issues surrounding the 2004 revision include the classification of light versus albacore canned tuna;
currently, they are included in the same category. In Minnesota, albacore tuna cannot be bought with
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) coupons, so the advice for both was combined to avoid confusing
people. However, this may be inconsistent with the approach taken by other states and should be taken
into consideration during any revisions to the brochure.
Other issues include consideration of other contaminants in commercial fish besides mercury. The
Minnesota DOH does not give quantitative advice on dioxins, for example. Other concerns include
information on farm-raised fish consumption, interpretation of the benefits offish consumption, and
inclusion of the new FDA mercury data.
After the newer FDA data is analyzed and associated with the established USEPA reference dose,
consumption in Minnesota breaks down into three categories: unlimited, one meal per week, and one
meal per month. The categories per fish and shellfish type break down as follows:
• Unlimited: Salmon, tilapia, flounder, oysters, clams, shrimp, scallops, sardines
• One Meal/Week: "light" canned tuna, cod, pollock, haddock, mahimahi, herring, catfish, crab
• One Meal/Month: "albacore" canned tuna, fresh tuna, halibut, orange roughy, lobster,
grouper, red snapper
As outlined in the Great Lakes Protocol, states and agencies need to work on trying to be more consistent
with data and information dissemination. From the perspective of risk assessment, agencies and states
should consider addressing consistency issues concerning the reference dose used, contaminants
examined (e.g., mercury, dioxin), and the statistical and data manipulation approach to use (e.g., mean,
95th percentile). In addition, there is a great deal of confusion concerning what constitutes a meal size. For
example, USEPA guidelines state that 8 oz offish equal one meal; however, FDA states that 12 oz should
equal between two and three meals, while the American Heart Association (AHA) says that 12 oz equal
three to four servings. Another concern includes interpretation of the appropriate use of significant figures
representing exposure data.
Consistency in communication is another chief concern in properly updating fish advisory brochures.
Highlights of communication issues are coordination between the various state, federal, and tribal
agencies; determining how to present the canned tuna issue; and agreements on farm-raised fish. The age
of children considered in the analysis must also be communicated; Minnesota recently switched from a
child age of 6 to 15 to match the age used by the State of Wisconsin.
The Great Lakes Protocol of 1993 included a statement on the benefits of consuming fish. The statement
read as follows:
"Fish are nutritious and good to eat. But some fish may take in contaminants from the
water they live in and the food they eat. Some of these contaminants build up in the
fish— and you—over time. These contaminants could harm the people who eat them
so it is important to keep your exposure to these contaminants as low as possible.
This advisory helps you plan what fish to keep as well as how often and how much
13
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
sport fish to eat. This advisory is not intended to discourage you from eating fish, but
should be used as a guide to eating fish low in contaminants."
Health Benefits
"When properly prepared, fish provide a diet high in protein and low in saturated
fats. Many doctors suggest that eating a half-pound offish each week is helpful in
preventing heart disease. Almost any kind offish may have real health benefits when
it replaces a high-fat source of protein in the diet. You can get the health benefits of
fish and reduce unwanted contaminants by following this advisory."
In the new revised fish advisories, the health benefits of consuming fish should be tailored to provide
advice specific to various types of consumers. A chart relating age, sex, and type offish could be used to
help individuals look up information specific to them.
The AHA has released information stating that the benefits and risks of eating fish vary depending on a
person's stage of life. Children, pregnant women, and nursing women usually have a low risk of
cardiovascular disease, but may be at a higher risk of exposure to excessive mercury from fish. Therefore,
avoiding potentially contaminated fish is a higher priority for these groups. For middle-aged and older
men and for post-menopausal women, the benefits of eating fish far outweigh the risks within the
established guidelines of the FDA and the USEPA.
The AF£A recommends eating fish at least twice a week. However, some types offish may contain high
levels of mercury, PCBs, dioxins, and other environmental contaminants. Levels of these substances are
generally highest in older, larger, predatory fish and marine mammals.
Fish and shellfish that provide enough omega-3 in two 8-oz servings per week include sardines, herring,
salmon, albacore canned tuna, fresh tuna, rainbow trout, flounder, halibut, pollock, and oysters. Of these,
salmon, flounder, oysters, and sardines are approved for consumption twice a week.
In conclusion, the 2004 revision to the fish advisory will provide meal advice based on mercury, as in the
past; however, information on "light" and albacore tuna will be separated. Species that are low in mercury
and high in omega-3s will be flagged (this needs to be done for the local fish species as well). The
advisory should provide reasons to eat fish and address the variety of health benefits. The brochure should
present simple methods and approaches; more information can then be provided on a Web site for those
looking for further detail.
Maine Fish Consumption Advisory
Eric Frohmberg, Toxicologist, Maine Bureau of Health
The discussion focused on how the State of Maine has been considering adding more information on
commercial fish consumption to its existing consumption advisory and what overall revisions to prepare
for the advisory in general. Maine's current fish advisory brochure already includes some information on
commercial fish consumption that is current with the advice given by the FDA. For these advisories, it is
important to remain consistent with FDA's advice, especially when relaying this information to the
general public.
The current brochure focuses on recreational fish. Since most mercury exposure comes from
commercially caught fish, the brochure will be updated to support a more global perspective. The current
brochure tested well in rural parts of the state; however, it did not test well in urban parts of the state with
14
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
urban young mothers. The new brochure will be designed with a broader perspective and will be
distributed to all OB-GYNs and through Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) services to address the
issue offish consumption and women of childbearing years.
Much of this change of thinking came about after close examination of contaminant issues relating to
canned tuna. In 2000, the State of Maine used the nationwide Yess study (1993), which involved 220
samples and 12-can composite samples. Mercury in white tuna and albacore was significantly higher
(three times) than in lighter. However, omega-3 fatty acid content was inversely correlated, white
albacore having three times as much fatty acid content as light tuna.
The State of Maine used an integrative approach to fine-tune its brochure. This process included
evaluation of mercury concentrations in other fish species, incorporation of the data on omega-3 fatty
acids, comparison of other contaminants and how they related to other potential protein sources, focusing
on composition rate data (fish that people actually eat), and cost considerations for replacement of protein
sources.
The State of Maine then prepared a poster showing which commercial and locally caught fish to consume.
The poster included information on (1) seafood that is best for you and your baby's health, (2) more great
fish low in mercury, and (3) fish not to eat. Category 1 included canned and fresh salmon, Atlantic
mackerel, shrimp, mussels, sardines, and smelt. Category 2 included flatfish, clams, light canned tuna,
and scallops. Category 3 included swordfish, shark, smallmouth bass, and pickerel (local Maine stock).
The first category included fish low in mercury and high in omega-3s. Low mercury levels were
considered concentrations below 0.1 and a high omega-3 level was any concentration above 0.5.
The State of Maine is waiting to see what the FDA will decide, to ensure that the state's advice is similar.
A new draft of the brochure is scheduled for release this spring. Several series of focus groups and
revisions will be conducted until the brochure is fine-tuned; distribution of the final version is expected to
occur at the end of summer.
In addition to mercury concerns, other contaminants, including dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), are issues that affect fish in Maine waters. Data on PCB and dioxin contamination in salmon
shows elevated levels in comparison with other protein sources. However, more information must be
considered when deciding how to replace protein sources to deter contaminant intake while promoting the
proven health benefits offish consumption.
The State of Maine's decision to include salmon in its advisories was influenced by a press release from
the NAP regarding the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in the food supply. The statement
read: "Because of the health benefits associated with omega-3 fatty acids in fish, the committee did not
recommend that people reduce their consumption of fatty fish below the currently recommended two
servings per week."
15
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
North Carolina's New Advice on Eating Fish
Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Benefits and Risks of Eating Fish
Consumption of fish can be beneficial for both pregnant and breast-feeding women, and their developing
children. The developing retina and nervous system of an unborn child may benefit from maternal
consumption offish during pregnancy.1'2 In addition, fish consumption has been associated with a
decreased risk of heart attack and coronary artery disease in adults.2
However, methylmercury, an environmental pollutant, can accumulate to harmful concentrations in
predatory fish.3 The developing human nervous system is particularly sensitive to methylmercury. Several
studies have reported increasing effects on the developing nervous system of an unborn child with
increasing maternal methylmercury exposure from routine fish and whale consumption.4 Neurological
processes in the areas of language, attention, and memory were most affected. Studies conducted in New
Zealand and the Faroe Islands concluded that the deficits observed can be considered predictive of
problems in cognitive and academic performance associated with methylmercury exposure, or can affect
the way the children may think, learn, and solve problems.4 These studies have shown the developing
fetus to be at least three times more sensitive than adults.
Issuance of New State Advice
State and national fish tissue monitoring data have revealed high methylmercury concentrations (average
level or median level > 0.5 parts per million) in predatory ocean fish and in certain North Carolina
freshwater fish. The high-methylmercury ocean fish are shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish; the
high-methylmercury freshwater fish are blackfish (bowfm), jack fish (chain pickerel), and largemouth
bass caught in the eastern half of the state.5 Using a model generated by C.D. Carrington and M.P. Bolger
with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),6 99% of women of childbearing age and children who
avoid eating high-methylmercury fish and eat two 6-ounce meals a week of medium- to low-
methylmercury fish are estimated to be below the USEPA recommended reference dose of 0.1 (ig/kg-day.
With this scenario, 1% of women of childbearing age and children are estimated to be at a methylmercury
dose above the USEPA recommended reference dose with the maximum blood level estimated to be 14
(ig/L. The risk for this small group of sensitive individuals would be less than 5% incremental risk above
background of having abnormal neuropsychological test scores for the developing child (58 (ig/L
corresponds to a 5% incremental risk above background).7 Because of the health risks of consuming fish
with high methylmercury levels and benefits of eating fish with medium to low levels, the North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services is recommending that women of childbearing age and children
avoid eating the high-methylmercury fish and consume two meals a week of fish with medium to low
levels, which is consistent with the recommendations of the FDA and USEPA.
References
1. Neuringer, M., S. Reisbick, and J. Janowsky. 1994. The role of n-3 fatty acids in visual and cognitive
development: Current evidence and methods of assessment. J. Pediatr. 125:839-47.
2. Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment. 1999. Comparative Dietary Risks: Balancing the Risks
and Benefits of Fish Consumption. Results of a Cooperative Agreement between US. Environmental
Protection Agency and Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Final).
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Summary. Vol. 1. In Mercury Study Report
to Congress. EPA Pub. No. EPA-452/R-97-001. Washington, DC.
4. National Research Council. 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Committee on the
Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology,
Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
16
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
5. Booker, J. 2001. Memo to Williams, L. Center for Health Informatics and Statistics. Statistical
Analyses of North Carolina Mercury Fish Tissue Data.
6. Carrington, C.D., and M.P. Bolger. 2002. An exposure assessment for methylmercury from seafood
for consumers in the United States. Risk Analysis 22(4).
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human
Health: Methylmercury (Final). Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA Pub. No. EPA-823-R-01-001.
Florida Fish Consumption Advisory
George Henderson, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
This presentation briefly reviews the origins of Florida's two-tiered advisory. It presents information on
freshwater and marine fish and mercury levels. The fish consumption advisory was completely revised in
2003 to clarify the message and better serve the public. The advisory is currently under review to further
enhance its message.
Questions and Answers Following Presentations
Q: Parti Howard, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission: As health professionals whose goal it is
to reduce exposure to chemical contaminants through these fish advisories, do you feel you have a
responsibility or can you play a role in the need to address source control and cleanup of the chemical
contaminants in these fish advisories that you are currently issuing?
A: Luanne Williams: Indirectly, yes. In North Carolina when we issue advisories, that of course assists
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources in TMDLs for all the different
sources, mercury sources, for a given waterbody. So for two-thirds of our state that is under an advisory
that would give the water quality section in our state leverage to ensure that the mercury sources, air and
water sources, in the area would collectively meet a given acceptable state standard. That standard, in our
state, is way too high. We are in the process of lowering it. One of my jobs when I get back is to be on a
working group and get that lowered. That is one thing that does assist in lowering the amount of mercury
that is released into the air and water. Second, the publicity that these advisories generate in our state does
prompt questions from the legislatures. We've done several television interviews and radio interviews,
and we have a new bill in our state called the Clean Smokestacks Bill. We are putting pressure on our
neighboring states to join us in requiring our major sources of mercury, such as our coal-fired power
plants, to reduce NOX, SOX, and mercury at the same time by putting on scrubbers. It's like a snowball
effect; it does make a difference indirectly. It may not be directly, but eventually it does make a
difference. I would like to think so.
A: Eric Frohmberg: Also, one of the things I really like about this new salmon study is it is large enough
so that we now can really say, with some level of confidence, where these feed contamination issues are
coming from. I think things can be done to improve the level of these lipophilic contaminants in farm-
raised salmon.
A: Pat McCann: Yes. I would agree with what has been said, and I would add that fish advisories are, in
general, used as the reason to reduce these contaminants in the environment. Also, we have heard today
that we want to simplify getting out the message for fish advisories. So there is sometimes conflict about
how big to make a brochure and how much information to put in there, how much information people
want. There is kind of a give-and-take as far as how much information we can put in there on sources and
where these contaminants come from. We try to do the best we can including that information, but
sometimes it is difficult to do that.
17
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: Bob Gerlach: Up in Alaska it is a little bit different in the fact that most of the pollutants we are
dealing with or monitoring up there are going to be from distant sources. We have very little industrial
development there. It impacts our state a little bit differently, as we're finding when dealing with these
problems.
Q: Arnold Kuzmack, USEPA: I would like to focus on the question that came up, directly or indirectly,
on meal size. This is something we are going to have to face, particularly in the light of combining
commercial and noncommercial fish advice. It's not just a matter of deciding whether it should be 6 oz or
8 oz. It's more complicated in that, in fact, 6 or 8 oz is fine as an average dinner portion, but canned tuna
is eaten very differently and a typical serving size is 2 or 2!/2 oz. Just talking in terms of meals really
doesn't reflect what the reality is, and I think that makes it a lot more complicated.
Q: Pat McCann: Do you have suggestions on how to deal with it?
A: Arnold Kuzmack: No.
A: Eric Frohmberg: Folks don't think about whether their meal size is 0.4 Ib or whatever; they are eating
a meal. I was finally convinced to talk in our brochure just about a meal and not about the size of the
meal. One of our rationales is that while our advisories are based on a half-pound serving raw, that's
based on data and that is an upper estimate of how much folks are eating. I feel with some reasonable
confidence that when folks sit down for a meal, they are eating less than half a pound at a sitting.
C: Luanne Williams: You will see in North Carolina's brochures, and on our Web site, that we have both.
When you see the simple language, not the fine print, you will see meals. But the fine print has the oz for
those who want to look a little deeper and are interested in knowing what a meal size is.
C: Diana Lee, California Department of Health Services: The continuing survey of food intake of
individuals actually shows the average meal size offish to be even less than 6 oz for adults. So, our
general conception of meal size may even differ from the current estimates of meal sizes. Also, just a note
that some cultures don't serve food in the way that a Western diet might serve it. So, in our practice,
certainly working with different Asian populations, in particular, we have had to use different estimates
and use common household or common reference sizes to determine portion sizes as opposed to a meal
size. That might be something to keep in mind.
Q: Diana Lee: I also have another comment to add to the complexity of messaging. We have been
working with different groups to try to see how we can capture fishery management issues as well in
terms of sustainability. Minnesota (I believe it is Minnesota) has a guide that looks at fish management
issues as well as the health issues in terms offish contaminants and combines them for both commercial
and recreational fish or sportfishing. Am I correct on that?
A: Pat McCann: I think you were thinking of an institute, not the state, but that was from Minnesota.
C: Diana Lee: I think it's an excellent guide to look at in terms of how we bring those issues together
because we get a lot of questions from consumers about the fishery management issues. They see the
seafood watch materials listed on different Web sites. Those are fishery management issues, not health-
related issues, but I think there needs to be a joint message if we can at all craft that.
C: George Henderson, Florida Department of Environmental Protection: We have been accused many
times of trying to do stealth management through the use of the health advisory with the marine fish. On
the one hand, we've been accused of it but we haven't done it yet. On the other hand, in terms of fisheries
management, many of these cases argue for eating smaller fish, therefore affecting the fisheries
18
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
management in a negative way. People suggest that if we only lower the minimum size of grouper or
snapper, we can help obviate this problem of high mercury.
C: Joe Sekerke, Florida Department of Health: I have a comment and a question. I'll have to check on this
because it's been 10 years since I've looked at it, but the Florida Institute for Farm and Agricultural
Services has data that shows a 4-oz serving offish is the same width, depth, and height of, I can't
remember if it's half apiece of sandwich bread or a piece of sandwich bread, I'll get that and get it out to
Jeb to get out to people. That's a good everyday thing that people can use for comparison.
Q: Joe Sekerke: You were talking about the dioxins being significantly higher in some of the food
comparisons you did. I think the dioxin was 1.4 ppt and the other foods were lower. Was that statistically
significant or biologically significant?
A: Eric Frohmberg: No, it's eyeball significant.
Q: Joe Sekerke: The thing is, if you look at what you are changing the risk from, it can't change it more
than one-half a log unit. You may have changed it from l.OxlO"5 to 1.3, but that's really not a significant
change in the risk to the person who is consuming the dioxin. Was it that big a magnitude?
A: Eric Frohmberg: No, it was not that big a magnitude. So the way we are thinking about it is really is
this the area on which you want to focus your efforts in terms of reducing dioxin exposure.
Q: Joe Sekerke: What we are talking about, what people are panicking about, is the dioxins and PCBs in
farm-raised salmon. The amount of their change in risk is really insignificant compared to eating other
foods. They would not increase their risks from dioxins in particular.
A: Eric Frohmberg: Yes. As a matter of fact, the graph I showed is, in terms of intake, looking at two
meals per week. If you look at the actual intake of farm-raised salmon, it is going to be a lot less. Is that
answering your question?
C: Joe Sekerke: The dioxin was higher in the salmon than it was in some of the other foods, but if you
really look at the risks with the lower foods versus the risk with the farm-raised salmon, it really isn't that
much different.
A: Eric Frohmberg: I would agree with you.
Q: Susan Boehme, New York Academy of Sciences: I was wondering how you evaluate the success of
your fish advisories. How do you know if the new ones are working any better than the old ones? What
sort of method do you have to see if the message is reaching the public?
A: Eric Frohmberg: We are actually doing a survey right now looking at women who have given birth in
the past 3 months—whether they received our brochure, whether they are following the advisories, and
their level of knowledge based on the brochure. And one of the things that is going to be really interesting
about the survey is that we are asking for hair samples. We hope to be able to show a difference in hair
mercury levels from our baseline data before we send out the brochures.
C: Luanne Williams: North Carolina is working with some Riverkeepers now. They usually get some
grant money, and they can do surveys. If you are interested in evaluating the effectiveness of your fish
advisory, you may want to consult with all your Riverkeepers to see if they would be willing to do
surveys for you. I'm working with one of mine now. So we are in the process of doing that.
19
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
C: George Henderson: Florida hasn't done any formal analysis of it yet, but the anecdotal information
based on putting stuff on the Web is that you get an exponential increase in the number of people who
will call you and try to find out whether their particular lake or stream is safe. Based on that information,
it is getting out to a wider audience than it was 10 years ago without signs.
C: Peter Flournoy, American Fishermen's Research Foundation: I think that both Eric Frohmberg and
George Henderson have started to put their fingers on some of the problems that I see and what you all
are doing here without getting much advice on the different kinds offish. Let's take tuna, for example.
We see all these advisories about fresh and frozen tuna. What is tuna? Tuna can be North Pacific albacore
or South Pacific albacore, yellowtail, skipjack, bluefin. There are a number of varieties, and nobody
seems to make that distinction. Let's look at white meat versus light meat. The only kind of tuna, by law,
that can be called white meat is albacore tuna, but albacore tuna comes from all over the world. It comes
from places off our west coast; it comes in all different sizes and all different shapes. There is no one
typical kind of albacore that necessarily goes into a can of white meat tuna. Everybody seems to agree on
one thing, and that is that the bigger, older fish are likely to have accumulated more mercury so they are
likely to have a higher mercury content, and that is fine. But, most recently you have heard all this about
white meat tuna and albacore tuna. The Association that I represent will show that the tuna that we catch,
which is albacore, is lowest probably in mercury than many other kinds of fish—certainly lower than the
levels that EPA has found or FDA has found in albacore. Eric was a little concerned, it seems to me,
about whether we just painted mackerel with one brush. You ought to be equally as concerned about
painting albacore with just one brush—it's the same problem. It's just, I think, a lot more people eat
albacore than mackerel, so maybe it's an even bigger problem than what you perceive in Maine. George, I
think, really began to get to the problem when he indicated that grouper can be 10 different kinds offish.
So, I guess the plea that I am making is that if you are going to put out these health advisories and you are
going to try to inform people, you actually should be informed yourselves, number one. Number two, you
should try and do it in such a way that you are actually telling the public the biggest, most complete
picture that you can. Now, why do I say that? Because I represent a lot of little guys who go out there and
earn a living every day fishing. They are not the ones being sued and they're not the ones going to
Washington to participate in EPA's or FDA's meetings because they don't have the money and they don't
have the time because they are out fishing. So, you are playing with some very dangerous stuff here. We
all remember the problem with the apples and what it almost did to the apple industry. You are getting
very close to that kind of a situation.
Q: Eric Uram, Sierra Club: I just wanted to flag something here regarding the equivalency of a threefold
increase in the omega-3s to the threefold increase in the mercury and wondering if there has been any sort
of research done on whether there is a benefit to the omega-3s prior to pregnancy. Do they retain that
benefit, whereas they retain the mercury and that buildup of body burden that is then transferred to the
fetus?
A: Eric Frohmberg: That is an interesting question. I don't know the answer for the omega-3s. I know
there is separate advice. The U.K. did a workgroup looking at the essentiality of the omega-3s. They have
advice for the general population for cardiac risk, but then they have advice for the pregnant and nursing
women as well. It's higher. It's a good question about the body burden issue. You are always going to
have a body burden; if you are consuming fish, you are going to have some level of mercury. That's one
of the reasons why we state in our advisories that what we recommend is that if you are planning to get
pregnant, you follow the advisories for women of childbearing age or planning to get pregnant. So, I
guess that is sort of the way in which we are thinking about it.
Q: Rick George, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon: I'm wondering to what
degree you think the advisories and the recommendations that you each promulgated are protective of
20
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
tribal people in your states? And to what degree do you work with tribal health departments to develop
and issue advisories?
A: Eric Frohmberg: In Maine they are not designed to be protective of the tribes in the state. The tribes
we treat separately; we have an agreement with them that we treat them separately. They issue their own
advice to their own population. In addition, we don't mail our brochure to their tribal populations. We
work very closely with them and do the best we can to make sure there isn't overlap in that area. In
addition, in terms of working with them, we present ourselves as a technical resource, should they want
our expertise or our data. We share data fairly frequently and talk with them a fair bit.
A: Pat McCann: We have a similar situation in Minnesota. Our advisory is not designed to protect
subsistence fishers. Although we don't assume a consumption rate, we provide advice on meals per week
or meals per month. There isn't a consumption assumed, but it's not designed for people who eat a lot of
fish, necessarily. We also work with tribes within the state. We provide assistance. Some of them adopt
our advisory, and some create their own.
A: Luanne Williams: We did work with our Indian Affairs when we released our new advice, and we
shared our brochures with them. It was up to them to distribute them. We made ourselves available. We
told them we were here if they needed us and would be happy to provide any assistance at all if they had
any questions. We offered to come on the reservation and answer questions if they wanted us to do that.
We did not get any requests to do that.
A: George Henderson: I am going to defer this to Joe Sekerke. I will say, however, that the advisory is not
specifically aimed at subsistence fishermen and the state has made some efforts with the Muskogee and
Seminole tribes to involve them. The stuff I'm more familiar with is to work with them to collect fish at
the levels of where they are fishing and, second, to actually check the populations for elevated levels.
C: John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research Lab: I just wanted to comment on the earlier
question regarding meal size. It is a little different for tribes, at least for Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, when
talking about subsistence fishers, etc., regarding meals. We have used and will continue to use actual
poundage in our guidance. When you talk about tribes, how they fish, bring fish and gather fish, and
harvest fish, meals are done on a relatively large scale compared to what everyone is talking about here in
ounces. You may eat pounds offish over several weeks, day by day. It's a little bit different, so I just
wanted to make that point.
21
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
IV. Formal Welcome and Introductions
Welcoming Remarks
Ben Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(via video)
Hello, I'm Ben Grumbles. I'm the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and I'm coming to you from warm, sunny Washington, DC. Actually, it's not warm,
and it's not sunny, which is part of the reason why I really regret not being able to be with you in San
Diego at this important forum. But I just wanted to take a few minutes to convey a few things,
appreciation, and the importance of your work during the forum. I personally come to EPA having spent a
decade and a half in Congress working on legislation reauthorizing the Clean Water Act, establishing the
Great Lakes Legacy Act, working on Clean Lakes legislation, and other water quality legislation, and the
theme that has run through those efforts consistently has been to try to keep the fish happy and healthy
and keep the ecosystem happy and healthy. The forum is so important. You are all aware of the
tremendous challenges that we all face—persistent bioaccumulative toxics, persistent organic
pollutants—a lot of challenges, long-term challenges. But there are a lot of short-term actions that we can
all take involving risk assessment, communication, management, and concrete actions.
A couple of the things that I just really wanted to focus on are the two messages that are so important
throughout the forum. The first is to make sure that the public knows that the benefits of eating fish are
tremendous. Fish is a healthy part of a healthy diet. The second message is that the public should know
the risks associated with eating contaminated fish. That is tremendously important and obviously a focal
point of your efforts over the next several days. It is also so important to think not just locally and
nationally, but also globally, about the various issues to reduce contamination and to communicate
effectively on the benefits and risks associated with fish consumption. From the national standpoint, EPA
and the states are continuing to work to reduce mercury emissions through Clean Air Act programs and
authorities. In December, just this past month, EPA proposed significant rules, the Mercury Reduction
Rule and the Interstate Air Quality Rule, which are key tools in the tool box to reduce contamination of
fish through atmospheric deposition—mercury, NOX and SOX, sulfur dioxide. These are all important
steps to take and that we will continue to take. There is also important legislation pending in Congress—
the Clear Skies legislation—that this administration is pushing to help reduce atmospheric deposition of
mercury, NOX, and SOX.
Globally, I think all of you are aware that mercury in particular is not just a national issue. It is a global
environmental issue, and it is so important to be part of that effort, to join with the other 36 countries to
reduce heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. EPA is working vigorously with Congress to move
forward on the POPs—the persistent organic pollutants—treaties. The other thing that I would like to
focus in on is the critically important efforts of EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, and others to
continue to improve and coordinate the communication of the benefits, and the risks, offish consumption.
We are very proud of the progress to date on mercury, and you will be hearing a lot about that. That is
something that is still in the works and is very important. We are also very enthusiastic about following
up with coordination and improvement on PCBs, whether they are in salmon or other fish. The
partnership between EPA and FDA will continue to grow stronger.
The last thing I want to say is that over the next few days you will no doubt be hearing a lot offish
tales—some professional, others not so professional—in terms of good stories about catching fish. Of
course, it's important to listen not only to your colleagues but also to the fish themselves. The tales and
the stories that the fish have to tell are truly important. They tell us what we're doing to the air, the water,
and the land. Sometimes they're good stories, and sometimes they're stories where we all know there
needs to be improvement. The important thing is to listen to the fish, to listen to your colleagues, and to
22
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
work together. And I just want to thank you for taking the time to listen to this but, most important, for
your commitment to this important issue. Thank you.
Welcoming Remarks
Val Siebel, Chief Deputy Director, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Good morning, everybody. For those of you not from California, on behalf of our new governor,
Schwarzenegger, welcome to California. As the new governor, he's also appointed a new Secretary of the
California Environmental Protection Agency, Terry Tamminen, who is from southern California and was
with an environmental group before he became our Secretary. In a meeting we had with him last week,
there were a couple of things that became evident to all of us. He actually quoted one of our fish
advisories back to us, so he's very familiar with problems with some of the contaminants that we have in
fish in California. He then asked us to put together a plan so that we could reduce the impact of mercury
contaminants coming from California. So we're going to be doing some sort of plan that we will be
bringing forward to him to see what we can do here in California to reduce mercury in the environment.
I was kind of interested to think about what kinds of temperatures some anglers are facing across the
United States since so many of you are from other states as well. So I checked the newspaper this
morning, and I found that anglers in Maine were facing a 5 degree temperature this morning. In
Minnesota it was getting a little warmer, about 24. It was 25 in New Jersey, and here in San Diego it's
going to be a great 62 degrees. So if I had my choice, I'd probably come here to San Diego. But then I
didn't mention Florida, where it's going to be 80 today, if you can believe that.
So even though the anglers, I think, are facing different temperatures, one of the problems they face that's
common, unfortunately, to all of them is some of the contaminants that they find in the fish that they're
lucky enough to catch. And of course now we're finding that even farm-raised commercial fish can
become contaminated from the feed that they receive. I'm told that even some of the fish stock that are
planted in our lakes and streams suffer the same fate—that they're actually receiving some of the food
that has been contaminated. When you're in the High Sierras fishing, you think you've got a fish that's
probably fairly pristine, only to find out that the fish has PCBs or something of that nature in it already. It
seems (to me anyway) that the public, as Denise was saying, is being barraged by a variety of news
concerning different contaminants that are being found in all of our food supplies. We've recently found
that acrylomides are formed in starchy foods. Here in California, of course, and in other places across the
United States, we're finding perchlorate in our drinking water. It's a rocket fuel oxidizer, and now we
hear that it's also being taken up by some of the vegetables being grown that are being watered by
contaminated water. Mad cow disease was mentioned as well. And of course now fish. We're hearing
more and more about mercury and the contamination that it presents and the decisions that have to be
made by consumers regarding what they want to eat. I think that what comes along with these messages
are the questions people have about why these contaminants aren't being prevented from reaching our
food systems. I think part of the answer to that is that it's so expensive to reduce it, and sometimes we just
don't have the answers yet. Those are the answers that we're going to be talking about and looking for at
forums such as this. I know we recognize some of the legacy of some of those contaminants in the Great
Lakes or in our eastern rivers. I know in Northern California from our gold and cinnabar mining we have
a lot of mercury problems that have been passed along to the fish up in some of those lakes in the High
Sierras.
As far as ocean fishing goes, as well as being overfished, of course, we have our marine fishing spots that
have been contaminated as well. I think that will be the subject of part of the discussions at the forum here
today. So it's critical, as Denise said, that we share our experiences here. As Bob mentioned, he's
probably going to take a lot of new ideas back to the office. I hope we can fund some of them. But I think
23
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
they've actually been proven in your offices, and that's why we want to have these types of forums—to
pass that information along and use what works.
I'm glad to see so many of you here today. I'm certain that this is going to be a productive meeting, and
please enjoy your stay here in San Diego. Thank you.
V. Mercury Issues
Mercury Levels in Tuna and Other Major Commercial Fish Species in Hawaii
Barbara Brooks, Hawaii Health Department, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response
In 2002 the Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office, Hawaii Department of Health, measured
total mercury concentrations in nine major fish species caught in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
Twenty tissue samples per species were obtained from the United Fishing Agency, in Honolulu, Hawaii.
In addition to total mercury, methylmercury was measured in 20% of the samples from each species. The
weight ranges sampled were chosen to represent weights landed in Hawaii and were based on data
provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The results showed that there were wide variations in
mercury concentrations within and between species. Some fish species showed a correlation between
weight and mercury concentration. Moonfish showed the highest average methylmercury concentration,
with moderate levels measured in Pacific blue marlin, bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, albacore, and walioo.
Mercury concentrations in mahimahi, striped marlin, and skipjack tuna were relatively low.
Methylmercury was the predominant form of mercury in all species except Pacific blue marlin, in which
approximately 75% of the mercury was inorganic. The results of the study combined with data from other
sources were used to prepare a pamphlet entitled A Local Guide to Eating Fish Safely for pregnant
women, nursing mothers, and young children (http://liawaii.gov/doh/).
Mercury Concentrations in North Carolina's Top Five Commercially Sold and
Recreationally Caught Marine Fish
Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
On October 8, 2002, the North Carolina Mercury Fish Advisory Committee held its first meeting at the
North Carolina Fisheries Association's office in New Bern, North Carolina. The committee members
represent North Carolina Wildlife, Water Quality, Fisheries Association, Seafood, Aquaculture, Marine
Fisheries, and Health. The committee recommended sampling and methylmercury analysis for the top five
North Carolina commercial and recreational marine fish. The purpose of this sampling was to expand the
list offish mat either should or should not be eaten by women of childbearing age and children. Fillet
samples of spot, croaker, kingfish (sea mullet), bluefish, and speckled trout (spotted seatrout) were
collected off the North Carolina coast by staff members of the NC Division of Marine Fisheries during
October and November 2002. A total of 120 samples (mostly fillets) or 192 fish were submitted for
analysis. Due to resource limitations at the DWQ lab, some of the bluefish, croaker, kingfish, and spot
samples were composited to streamline the processing time. Composites contained four or fewer fish of
similar size and of the same species. Results show that the median methylmercury levels for all species
were below the NC level of concern of 0.4 mg/kg. The highest levels of methylmercury were detected in
speckled trout (a maximum of 0.62 mg/kg) and the lowest levels were detected in spot (less than 0.01
mg/kg). Committee members recommended addition of spot, croaker, kingfish, and speckled trout to the
list offish that are safer to eat or mat have lower methylmercury levels on the NC Department of Health
and Human Services' Web site http://www.epi.state.nc.us/. Committee members agreed not to add bluefish
to the list offish that are safer to eat because the large bluefish were not included in the October-
November sampling. The committee members recommended that 20 of the larger bluefish mat are
24
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
commercially caught and sold and recreationally caught be sampled. The results of this sampling should be
available by spring 2004.
Comparison of the October-November 2002 NC Methylmercury Marine Fish Tissue Sample Results to a
0.4 mg/kg Level of Concern (All fillets except where noted)
Species
Spot
Croaker
Kingfish
Bluefish
Speckled trout
Median (mg/kg)
0.03 (fillets)
0.02 (fillets)
0.04 (fillets)
0.065 (median for 10 composites
containing 4 fish each)
0.07 (median for 10 composites
containing 3 fish each)
0.08 (fillets)
0.1 5 (fillets)
0.16 (median for 17 composites with 12
composites containing 2 fish each and 5
composites containing 3 fish each)
0.11 (fillets)
0.05 (fillets)
0.04 (fillets)
0.09 (fillets)
Minimum
(mg/kg)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.04
Maximum
(mg/kg)
0.06
0.03
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.22
0.4
0.62
0.07
0.09
0.24
Number of Fish
23
2
14
40
30
5
13
39
9
o
J
6
8
TOTAL 192
FISH SAMPLED
Options for a Gulf States Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel
Donald Axelrad, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
A Gulf of Mexico fish contaminants monitoring program conducted in 1995 revealed that king mackerel,
a species of recreational and commercial importance, contained elevated levels of toxic methylmercury.
On that basis, between 1996 and 1998 the five Gulf States—Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida—each issued a king mackerel consumption advisory to the public.
While there are differences among the five Gulf States' king mackerel advisories, each recognizes that
there is a relationship between fish size and fish mercury concentration, and advises "limited
consumption" of king mackerel for size ranges where mercury concentrations warrant this. In contrast, in
2001 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued advice that women of childbearing age should not
eat king mackerel.
The FDA action prompted the Gulf States to reexamine their advisories to determine whether it was still
appropriate to advise consumption of king mackerel and, if so, whether it was feasible to issue a single
Gulf-wide advisory to replace the five existing advisories.
Advisories from the five Gulf States differ with respect to reference dose, age defined as a "child," and
advised rates of king mackerel consumption by fish size and mercury concentration categories.
Discussions among representatives of the states resolved many of these differences, and issuance of a
single Gulf-wide advisory hinged largely on whether a fish size-mercury concentration relationship
applied forking mackerel from waters across the Gulf of Mexico.
25
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Data analyses indicate that based on the similarity of the fish size-mercury concentration relationships
across the Gulf of Mexico, there is scientific justification for a Gulf-wide advisory for king mackerel
related to fish size.
However, Gulf king mackerel mercury concentrations are too high relative to the USEPA methylmercury
reference dose to advocate consumption of this fish as a routine dietary component in a "heart-healthy
diet."
Representatives of the Gulf States will consider the new data and determine what advice to the public is
warranted.
Recent Washington State Data on Mercury Concentrations in Tuna
Jim VanDerslice, Washington Department of Health
Currently, as environmental professionals, we are facing a similar problem: trying to let people make their
own decisions concerning food consumption and dietary concerns. However, we have no idea if those
decisions will ever be made.
In Washington State, the Departments of Health and Ecology have performed numerous studies
concerning food intake and the consumer. This discussion centers on a study performed recently by the
Department of Health to gather information on the consumption patterns and potential mercury levels of
the canned tuna available in the state.
In Washington, the Lake Whatcom study was performed to study the mercury levels in bass within the
lake. The lake itself is famous for smallmouth bass fishing. The study was a consumption survey used to
compare the consumption of lake-caught fish versus both fish in general and canned tuna. The study
compared lake bass results with results for other fish species and combined the consumption rates in the
survey. The survey showed that both the consumption rate and associated mercury levels were higher for
canned tuna than the corresponding levels of consumption and mercury for lake-caught fish.
As a result of this study, the Department of Health issued a consumption advisory for canned tuna in May
2001. The baseline value presented in the study was based on the value derived in the Yess study of 1993
(170 part per billion [ppb]). The advisory provided weight-specific consumption advice and targeted
women of childbearing age and young children. Specific questions on tuna consumption were also added
to the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) in the state. One of the most important results of this effort was the determination that the
majority of mercury tissue data available was quite old, and there was insufficient data comparing white
versus light tunas.
Tuna Sampling Objectives
The Washington State Department of Health received a grant from the National Environmental Public
Health Tracking Network to help address the key data gaps in fish tissue data and canned tuna identified
during the previous study. The objective was to estimate mean mercury levels for various types of tuna.
Specifically, this included comparing albacore (white) versus light tuna, solid versus chuck cuts of the
fish, and whether it was packed in water or oil. The probability sampling was performed using 6-oz cans
of tuna available for retail purchase from September through October 2003. The sampling excluded
flavored tuna, tuna packed in oils other than vegetable oil, and low sodium preparations. The target
sample size was 40 cans per type. Other factors, including how much money was available and how
much each sample cost, were considered during development of the study. The results and mean values
26
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
for contaminants noted in various other studies were reviewed. This study attempted a minimum
detectable difference of 85 ppb, which was half of what the mean level was in the Yess Study.
Initially, our study attempted to understand the process of where tuna comes from and how it makes its
way into our homes. The more we researched the process of tuna production, the less we understood.
Therefore, we took the point of view of the consumer and started examining consumption on the retail
level. The initial data showed that many people thought that tuna wasn't always tuna and that where the
fish was caught had a great deal to do with mercury levels. However, all this information is not available
in the store—only the brand information and whether it is light or white, solid or chuck, or packed in oil
or water.
To conduct our study, we performed probability sampling of what people were actually taking away from
the stores. Lists were obtained from the state detailing all the places that sell food and their associated
sales figures. We used these figures as a proxy for the sale of canned tuna. Although many stores were
randomly selected, the probability of selection was proportional to the volume of total sales. Therefore, a
store with a high volume of sales was more likely to be chosen. In terms of geographic distribution, the
total package of retail stores included the more popular supermarket chains as well as mom-and-pop
shops in rural areas.
For the purposes of this study, canned tuna was broken down into eight categories depending on species,
cut, and packing medium. However, one of the eight categories, chunk albacore tuna packed in oil, is
almost nonexistent and was removed from the sampling mix. Information on the remaining seven
categories was then gathered. During our stratified sampling process, we went in the stores and selected
the left-hand can on the top row, selected one can for each type and brand, sorted each by type, and then
randomly selected one can from each type. We went to a total of 80 stores to collect the random samples.
Lab analysis of the canned tuna was conducted by the Washington State Department of Ecology,
Manchester Environmental Laboratory. The samples were analyzed for total mercury using EPA method
245.5. Of the sampling results, the sampling targets were hit for all the categories except solid cut light
tuna in oil; it was not found very often in the stores selected. The total number of stores where the type of
canned tuna was found, the percent availability, and the average number of brands per store were also
calculated. A total of 85% of the canned tuna sampled was one of three major brands (Star Kist, Bumble
Bee, and Chicken of the Sea). Unfortunately, the results of this study compared the canned tuna on the
basis of type, not brand. More money is needed to answer brand-specific mercury issues.
Results of the study showed that there is not much difference in mercury levels when comparing tuna
packed in oil versus water or when looking at the cut of the tuna, chuck versus solid. However, the
results did show the mean mercury levels in albacore (white) tuna were much higher than those in light
tuna. After a statistical analysis of the results, it was determined that on average albacore (white) tuna is
151 ppb higher in mercury content than light tuna. The overall weighted means were 214.5 ppb for white
and 57.1 ppb for light. It is important to note that not all albacore or light tunas are the same or caught in
the same location. Also, the information is not likely stable over time since tuna consumption will vary
throughout the season. However, the study clearly shows a real difference between mercury content in
albacore (white) versus light tuna.
Canned Tuna Consumption
In 2002 the CDC planned and conducted the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS),
which was a nationwide probability-sample telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults. The survey
asked a series of questions, including "How often do you eat tuna?" and "When you eat canned tuna,
27
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
about how much of a standard 6-oz can do you eat in a sitting?". The study randomly chose adults and
any children in the household under the age of 5.
The Washington State 2002 BRFSS included 5,000 households and looked at a variety of information.
The participants included 1,968 adult men, 2,919 adult women, 1,300 women between the ages of 18 and
44, 61 pregnant women, and 491 children between the ages of 1 and 5. Approximately 60% of women
ages 18 to 44 and pregnant women stated that they ate less than one can of tuna per week. About 40% of
children ate one can per week, and another 40% stated they did not eat tuna at all.
For those who identified some consumption of tuna, women 18 to 24 years old and pregnant women
consumed approximately 3 oz of canned tuna per serving (half of a can), while children between 1 and 5
consumed 1.5 oz (or one-fourth of a can). On average, the consumption rate was 2 oz per sitting.
Predicted Mercury Doses
For a prediction of mercury doses (in micrograms per kilogram per day), the 95th sampling percentile was
examined for comparison with the reference dosage (RfD). For white (albacore) tuna, the 95th percentile
for women ages 18 to 44 was 0.095%; for pregnant women, the value was 0.07%, corresponding to 4.6%
and 1.9% above the identified RfD, respectively. For children consuming white tuna, the 95% percentile
represented 0.17 of the percent sampling of which 10.7% was above the RfD. In the case of light tuna,
the 95th percentile for women ages 18 to 44 was 0.03; for pregnant women the value was 0.02%,
corresponding to a 0.4% and 0.0% above the RfD. However, the sample population of pregnant women
was very small compared with the overall sample population and the results cannot be interpreted as
representative. For children eating light tuna, the 95th percentile was 0.05% with a corresponding 2.2%
above the RfD.
Future Steps
As we move forward with this process, several questions are left unanswered. One main concern is the
aspect of different consumption levels throughout the year. The next step is to examine the combined
data and examine the differences between the various studies performed in the past. Then a second round
of sampling will be conducted in Washington State pending appropriate funding. In addition, other state
agencies will be consulted and reanalysis and revision of the current tuna consumption advisory will be
considered. Additional questions will also be answered once the results of the 2004 BRFSS are received.
Acknowledgements
The 2002 BRFSS data collection was funded by the Washington Department of Health.
The Canned Tuna Mercury Study was funded through the Washington Environmental Public Health
Tracking Network grant from the National Centers for Environment Health, CDC (U50/CCU022438-01).
Recent FDA Data on Mercury Concentrations in Fish
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
The FDA's data collection and analysis process over the past 12 months was divided into two
assignments. Both assignments were completed in 2003.
The first assignment involved data on 12 different fish species. A total of 224 samples were collected for
this assignment. Each of these was a composite sample made up of 12 individual fish samples. The
28
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
various species for this assignment were chosen primarily to fill identified data gaps for the FDA.
Selection of these species had no correlation to the frequency of consumption or any other identified
problems.
The fish samples collected under this assignment were from fresh, refrigerator-fresh, and frozen fish.
Approximately one-third of the fish sampled were imported, and the remaining two-thirds were domestic.
The geographic distribution of the fish sampled was nationwide. All fish samples were tested in the FDA
laboratory for total mercury using standard methods.
The new data were compared with old composite data that goes back many years. Old data is identified as
information previously published and currently available on the FDA Web site. Through this comparison,
it was discovered that the old data was not species-specific and gave no indication of the location of
sample collection, time of collection, and the like. The newly collected data includes all the necessary
missing information, including details on the type of species, location of sampling, geographic coverage
of the species, and so forth.
The second assignment involved the collection and analysis of samples of canned tuna. Samples were
collected and managed as in the first assignment. A total of 170 white (albacore) and 119 light tuna
samples were collected during July and August 2003. Each sample was a composite of 12 samples, and
each was tested in the FDA laboratory for total mercury using standard methods.
The tuna samples were collected from products available in stores. Of the tuna sampled, 75% included
major brands and the remaining 25% was composed of local or store brands. The tuna samples came in
various volumes and packing media. The old and new data on tuna sampling were compared. Very little
difference was noted between the old and new data for the light tuna. However, as in the previous
assignment, the original species, size, and geographic location of the samples in the old sampling data are
unknown at this time.
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 1)
Q: People were answering on the basis of a 6-oz can, but in reality a 6-oz can doesn't contain 6 oz. It
contains only 5 oz, so that would scale the exposure levels down.
A: Thanks for that comment. I guess other people are duped by the labeling. That's a good point. We're
glad to go back and revise our figures.
Q: Amy Kyle, University of California (UC), Berkeley: I have two questions, one to Dr. Acheson and one
to the panel. When you use composites, I'm wondering what you think is the interpretation of the
reporting of the range? You report the high and the low values, but they're of composite samples so it's a
little hard to interpret what you think that range of the underlying data is. I'm wondering if you have any
interpretation or thoughts on that. When you look on the Web site, it's presented as if it's a true range of
what you'd expect to see. Yet, because it's a composite, it may not really represent the full range that
you'd observe. The reason I ask about this is related to my second question to the panel, which is this:
We're interested in the mean and median but also the upper end of the distribution when we're trying to
target people of greatest concern. It seems like we're to move toward trying to give advice about what to
eat and what not to eat and it seems like a lot of states are moving in that direction of trying to give the
double message of the good fish and the bad fish. For someone who works with data, it seems like it
might be time to address the question of how the data is reported by all the different parties who report it,
because some people report means, some people report medians, some people report ranges, and we've
seen some 95th percentile estimates. I'm wondering whether it might be time for you all to sort of agree to
start doing it the same way so that the data could be more useful to each other in helping to sort out this
29
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
question of what's really low and what's really high. The other issue that I wanted to comment on along
those lines is the issue of the species' names. It's very hard to tell when you look at the data from all over
what species they are. So I'm wondering whether you all as a group could decide that maybe you could
report, somewhere, the scientific name of all your species and then kind of agree together to report the
median, the mean, the true range, the 95th percentile, and do it consistently. I don't think it would be that
much harder for everyone to do, but it would make it much easier to see the larger picture when we're
trying to see what's really low and what's really high so that we can give good public health advice. So,
I'm asking the panel if they have any comments on that and then I have that specific question about what
that range means in terms of composite samples, or if you have any comment on how to interpret that.
Thank you.
A: David Acheson: You're absolutely right. You composite 12 fish. What does that mean? That's why I
said it was a composite because obviously you need to understand the science behind the number. I think
the explanation for that is that it comes down to a resource issue. Really, primarily, what we're interested
in is what's the average. We want to know what the average is, and doing a composite is the best way to
get us there. If resources were unlimited, then the nice thing to do would be to take individual samples of
those 12 fish and take means of them, but you can't go there. The study isn't designed to set ranges. It's
really looking at what's an average kind of level, but you know it would be nice to move in that direction
if we could.
A: Luanne Williams: We generally use median levels. We want to know what that 50th percentile level is
because your average is representative of all the levels. You could have a very high level and a very low
level, and we want to know what that 50th percentile level is, what would be the level 50% of the time.
We feel in North Carolina that that would give you a better idea of what the exposure is 50% of the time.
As you can see from our data, our mean and median levels were similar, which is always good. I agree
that we probably need to provide the scientific name so that we're all on the same page and that when we
can, we need to do fillet samples. I was relying on another agency to do my analyses, and I was asking for
fillets but some of them came back composites. There's not a whole lot I can do about that, but this was
extra; they put it in with all the other samples and I got back some composites. That's why I broke out the
data. I don't like merging fillet with composite data; I like to keep it separate because of what you just
said. I want to know what's representative of what was caught. So I think that if you do composites or if
you do fillets, you need to keep them separate. But I agree that we need to do fillets and we need to
provide the scientific name, and I prefer using the median levels.
A: Unidentified panel member: It just seems like if you do different statistical analyses and use different
parameters for different purposes, I think coming to more consistency when we're developing messages is
important. But I don't think you'll get all the people to do their statistical analysis the same way. They're
asking different questions in different ways.
C: Susan Boehme, New York Academy of Sciences: I just wanted to let you know, especially about the
question about changes in mercury concentration overtime, that there is a publication coming out by Dr.
Burger. I believe it will be out next month in Environmental Health Perspectives. They looked at canned
tuna over 5 years and tried to look at that question, and they did start to see evidence of differences from
year to year. I'll try to get you a summary of that paper before the end of the meeting.
Q: John Wilson, Office of Water, USEPA: There's a lot of debate across the country about food labeling.
I wonder what the panel would think about ideas for labeling fish. I think a lot of the debate is about
country of origin right now in some of the other foods. If we were to proceed with additional labeling of
fish, what would that include? What would be most useful? I think it gets to some of these other issues
about what we call these different fish. I'm just interested in comments on that.
30
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: Luanne Williams: I would like to hear from FDA on that.
A: David Acheson: Somehow I thought you might. I think the issue of labeling is very complex. On the
one hand, you want to provide maximum information. On the other hand, you don't want to confuse
people. One of the reasons I stayed silent is that I was interested in hearing what people had to say about
labeling. I think you're always left with how much space is on the can, how much you can get on there,
and what's it going to mean. There's a lot of debate right now in terms of labeling and FDA in relation to
obesity, for example, and how you improve the message to consumers over calories and percent daily
intakes. So I think it's a complex area when the danger is that you put too much on the can and confuse
everybody.
A: Luanne Williams: I know that when they use arsenic-treated wood, as of December 30, 2003, on the
end caps they had the labels that arsenic was actually used on the pressure-treated wood and what the
hazards were, and it was just a small label. Just an idea, but FDA may want to think about using some sort
of label on the actual grocery stores and the markets stating which fish have been shown to contain high
levels of mercury. We all know in this room what they are at this point in time. We know which fish. We
know that there are other fish that may have high levels of mercury. But a lot of people beyond this room
don't know. We have limited resources at the state level as to what we can do, and our budgets are being
cut each year. But FDA has the power and more resources than we do at the state level in providing these
signs. You could put just a small sign at fish markets. You may not be able to put it on the can. I know
that there is limited space. But certainly at fish markets and grocery stores where the canned fish are sold,
it could be done, and I'd like to see that done.
A: David Acheson: I think from FDA's perspective, whatever we can do to get the correct public health
message out is where we want to go. Whether it's through labeling or through the press or consumer
organizations, that's the goal.
Q: Tony Forti, New York State Health Department: I think that tilefish is something that's interesting,
because those of us who have been in the sport fish consumption advisory business know we got the
luxury of being able to say, "This fish is from this waterbody" and so forth. The tilefish example is kind
of alarming because the difference in mercury levels between the old data and the new data is so big.
And, I guess, there are also issues of species, geography, everything tied up in that. So I'm just wondering
what the plans are, Dr. Acheson, to unravel the tilefish mystery here.
A: David Acheson: Exactly as you said: Figure out where they're coming from. So, the geography and the
species. The answer must lie there. But you're right. If tilefish are geographically different, then the
advice that the FDA and EPA are developing—essentially national advice—gets even more complicated
if tilefish from one part of the country are "low" and in other parts of the country are "high." So again you
have the difficulty of complexity. It's got to be based on the right science.
Update on Recent Epidemiologic Mercury Studies
Kate Mahaffey, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recent reports from 2003 and 2004 provide additional insight into the epidemiological impacts of
methylmercury. The reports used data generated during completion of the 1999 and 2000 National Health
and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) on organic blood mercury levels. Reanalysis of this data,
in combination with interpretation of more recent findings, has provided further details concerning
methylmercury levels as a result offish consumption and the potential transmission of elevated
methylmercury levels to the newborn populations of the United States. The various findings of these
analyses are summarized below.
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Ongoing data analysis has shown that there is a close association between the level of fish consumed and
blood mercury levels in the examinees used for collection of the data in the 1999-2000 NHANES. It also
confirms contradictory information concerning cord versus adult blood mercury levels and estimates that
at least 300,000 newborns in the United States each year have in utero blood levels greater than USEPA's
reference dose (RfD) of 5.8 microgram per liter ((ig/L). Studies have also been conducted on mercury
levels in a population in the Seychelles, on methylmercury-associated adult neuropsychological changes,
and on the distribution of omega-3 fatty acids in fish versus identified mercury levels.
The data on blood organic mercury (methylmercury) levels collected during the 1999 and 2000 NHANES
effort came from analyses of 1,709 women of childbearing age as a representation of the population of the
United States. The data from NHANES was used to calculate total blood mercury levels and then the
inorganic component. Organic levels were determined from a subset, and the remaining mercury present
was determined to be organic (methylmercury).
To look at the consumption offish in women of childbearing age, questionnaires and 24-hour recall
diaries were used to determine frequency offish consumption. Overall, 9% of women in the study
consumed fish at least once per week. Fish consumption was much higher in women over the age of 30
and among Asian and Pacific Island ethnic populations. More detailed data discussing these results will
be released in a publication in the next few months; some of the information is currently available from
online publications.
As interpreted from the NHANES data, the derived associated ratio between dietary total mercury and
blood organic mercury is between 0.5 and 0.6 (Mahaffey et al., 2003). This is a reasonable assumption
considering the study uses fish consumption only from the past 30 days. Also, only 25% of mercury in the
bloodstream can be associated with food consumed within the past 30 days due to mercury's long half-
life.
It was shown that blood mercury concentrations were seven times higher among women who reported
eating more than nine fish/shellfish meals within the past 30 days (which equates roughly to two or more
times per week) compared to women who reported no fish/shellfish consumption in the past 30 days
(Mahaffey et al., 2003). However, the study also shows that if fish with low mercury content is eaten, the
results might not be the same according to the NHANES national dataset.
Plotting methylmercury as a percentage of total blood mercury versus the NHANES dataset for 1,709
adult women of childbearing age shows that when blood mercury levels become greater than 0.4 (ig/L,
about 90% of what is present is methylmercury. The plot also shows that as the frequency offish
consumption increases, there is a greater occurrence of elevated mercury levels in the study's population.
Plotting total mercury levels in women (ages 16 to 49) versus weekly fish consumption levels also shows
that the percentage of women with elevated mercury levels changes with respect to the frequency offish
consumed during a certain time period. In this case, the plot interprets fish consumption greater than two
times per week and less than two times per week.
The uncertainty factor for the RfD for methylmercury used during interpretation of this data was
established by the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Committee on Mercury Toxicity. The
Committee recommended an uncertainty factor of not less than 10. One of the reasons for this
determination was the variability and uncertainty in estimating an ingested mercury dose from cord blood
mercury concentrations. The original assumption was that the ratio between cord and blood mercury
levels was roughly 1:1. Further examination of the adult women's blood collected during the NHANES
and new findings from a Japanese study confirmed that cord blood mercury levels were higher in ratio
32
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
than 1:1. On average the ratio has been shown to be closer to 1:7 or 1:8; the Japanese study resulted in a
ratio of 1:6 for cord mercury levels compared to blood mercury levels.
These newer ratios can be used to reanalyze the estimated number of newborns in the United States with
in utero methylmercury exposures greater than the USEPA's RfD of 5.8 (ig/L. The National Vital
Statistics Report stated that the number of U.S. births in 2000 was 4,048,814. If using the original 1:1
ratio of cord versus maternal blood levels (5.8 (ig/L cord to 5.8 (ig/L maternal), approximately 7.8% of
women have a total blood mercury level greater than or equal to 5.8 (ig/L. This level would then be
associated with approximately 300,000 newborns each year being born with levels greater than or equal to
the 5.8 (ig/L RfD (Mahaffey et al., 2003). If using the 1:7 ratio of cord to maternal blood mercury levels
(5.8 (ig/L in cord to ~3.5 (ig/L in maternal blood, 15.7% of women had blood levels greater than or equal
to the 3.5 (ig/L level. This translates into 630,000 newborns each year with greater than or equal to 5.8
(ig/L mercury in utero. Granted, variability and uncertainty pervade the NHANES data; however, based
on information today, this is what the numbers tell us.
Several reports have been published over the past few years on neuropsychological evaluations of
methylmercury toxicity. The Seychelles cohort update (released by Myer et al. in 2003) continued to
observe no adverse effect of methylmercury exposure under the circumstances present on the Seychelles
Islands. The Yokoo report (Yokoo et al., 2003) showed reduced function on tests for fine-motor skills
among adult Amazonian villagers exposed to methylmercury. Also in 2003, Bueter and Edwards
published a report on the Cree Indians. It noted that additional studies among adults in the tribes showed
difficulty with accuracy and sharpness of visual fixation and pursuit in dynamic eye movement due to
exposure to methylmercury.
Questions continue to emerge on the neurotoxic effects on adults from methylmercury exposures. The
threshold proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for adult neurotoxicity is based on 5%
prevalence of paresthesia at 50 ppm hair mercury. The data used to determine this threshold was
generated in 1990. Currently, no physiological basis exists to assume that there are no effects at lower
exposures. Also, paresthesia is not reversible with age; it continues to get worse with time. Therefore, the
dose response at lower levels needs to be determined.
Recently, scientists and the public have been interested in the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on the body's
health. Recent 2003 epidemiological data paid more interest in mercury as a cardiac toxin. Omega-3 fatty
acids in fish are frequently cited as a health benefit offish and shellfish intake. It has been determined that
there is a substantial species-specific difference in the distribution of mercury and of omega-3 fatty acids.
Species high in mercury are not necessarily high in omega-3s, and species high in omega-3s are not
necessarily high in mercury.
The following table shows a comparison of mercury concentrations (parts per million) and omega-3 fatty
acids (grams per 100 grams) in a select group offish species.
High Mercury Species
Species
Tilefish
Shark
King mackerel
Swordfish
Mercury
(ppm)
1.6
1.3
0.97
0.95
Omega-3
(g/lOOg)
0.17
0.07
0.18
0.58
High Omega-3 S
Species
Mackerel
Salmon-
sockeye
Herring
Tuna, albacore
pecies
Mercury
(ppm)
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.26
Omega-3
(g/lOOg)
3.61
3.00
2.34
2.33
33
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Mercury concentrations range from less than 0.02 ppm mercury in shellfish such as abalone to several
ppm of mercury in large predatory species. Omega-3 fatty acids (combined EPA and DHA values) range
from less than 0.1 g/lOOg offish (shark species) to greaterthan 3.5 g/lOOg offish (mackerel species).
Results of this exercise showed that there is a minimal association between the omega-3 fatty acid
concentration in the fish species studied and the mercury concentration in the species.
These topics and more will be discussed in an upcoming meeting on medical issues related to mercury
exposure. This meeting will be held in April 2004 and is sponsored by the USEPA and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with multiple medical associations.
Update on the Current Mercury Reference Dose and the Implications for Revisions Based
on Recent Data
Alan Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science,
Research, and Technology
With the recent report released from the Seychelles cohort, there has been speculation on how that might
affect the calculated reference dose (RfD). There have been expressions in literature and journals saying
that the NRC committee did not have the newest data from the Seychelles and other important
information on the appropriate RfD, and therefore our recommendations no longer are current.
Unfortunately, the committee no longer exists; however, many of the original members have submitted
commentaries to address these particular concerns.
The former members of the committee believe that the Seychelles study is high-quality data, yet it
continues to address the same cohort from the previous study. Whatever issues were responsible for not
finding an association between mercury and adverse health outcomes in the previous study is likely to be
present in the new study with the same cohort. While the results are interesting and advance our
knowledge concerning the possible effects of mercury on statistical and methodology perspectives on
these studies, they don't change the outcome or assessment of those previous studies, and the derivation
of the RfD. It is important to realize that the committee has performed not only an analysis of the Faroese
data which was ultimately the critical study of RfD, but also meta-testing of the Faroese, Seychelles, and
New Zealand studies together. The analysis showed that the results from the Seychelles study are not that
much different than the Faroese alone. Not to discredit the Seychelles study, but our opinion is that the
study does not change anything in terms of our recommendations for the appropriate RfD.
The remainder of this discussion will focus on two areas for update. The first is my assessment of the
cardiovascular endpoint and the second is an update to the pharmacogenetic analysis or the reference dose
reconstruction. Cardiovascular endpoint (CVE) is an attempt to address what is the most likely salient
adult endpoint for methylmercury. In conjunction with USEPA, I have reviewed literature on CVE that
involved three separate areas: (1) cardio infarctions (heart attacks), (2) blood pressure and heart rate
effects, and (3) atherosclerosis.
For this study, when looking at the CVE, we examine the effects associated specifically with
methylmercury. Some adverse health effects are currently associated only with inorganic mercury (e.g.,
cardiomyopathy). At present, it is not known to what extent inorganic and methylmercury share a
common mode of action for cardiovascular effects.
34
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Heart Disease
Various types of heart disease were considered during this study, including acute myocardial infarction
(AMI), myocardial infarction (MI), coronary heart disease (CHD), and ischemic heart disease (basically
heart attacks). The study that was the largest, most salient, and had the clearest information used to
examine this topic was the Salonen study of 1995 (Salonen et al.).
The Salonen study involved 1,833 middle-aged Finnish men currently in the country's health registry.
The study's participants' mean fish intake was 46.5 grams per day or roughly the 90th percentile of United
States consumers. The participants' mean hair mercury concentration was 1.92 ppm, also in the 90th
percentile for United States males. Although the Finnish cohort's fish consumption is slightly elevated
compared with that in the United States, it is not unreasonably so. Currently, no good data is available for
United States male mercury exposure.
Extrapolating on United States data from the 90th percentile, for hair mercury concentrations of 2 ppm or
fish consumption greater than or equal to 30 grams offish per day, the relative risk is approximately 1.7
for AMI and statistically significant. Also important was that hair mercury concentrations were found to
be associated with immune complexes with oxidized low density lipids (LDL). Following this suggestion,
we can examine other studies showing that mercury is associated with lipid peroxidation.
A similar study followed up on the same Finnish cohort in 2000 after an additional 4 years (Rissanen,
2000). The study focused on omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids relating to fish consumption and heart disease. As
predicted from previous studies, the study found that when comparing the upper quintile to the lower
quintile of n-3 fatty acids and hair mercury levels of less than 2 ppm, there was a 52% reduction in risk.
However, when they looked at the same quintile and the stratified portion of the study that had more than
2 ppm mercury in hair, they then found the reduction in risk to be only 24%. In other words, the
difference between hair mercury of more and less than 2 ppm reduces the protective effect of n-3s by
50%. This implies that a balance exists between the protective effects against acute heart disease of n-3
fatty acids and the adverse effects of methylmercury. This suggests a classic toxicological antagonistic
effect.
Another study we reviewed was the 2002 European and Israeli Multi-center study (Guallar et al.).
Essentially it was a case control study that looked at the potential for heart disease in men older than 70
while also examining omega-3 fatty acid intake. A drawback to this study was the mercury levels were
determined using toenails instead of hair. Toenail mercury is a valid measure of exposure to
methylmercury, but it is hard to compare it with data in other studies from hair or blood. In the study
itself, after making a full model adjustment they looked at the odds ratio for heart attack and mercury's
effect on heart attacks. The odds ratio for MI in the highest quintile was 2.2 times higher compared with
the lowest quintile. This indicates that a monotonic positive dose-response relationship existed. It also
implies that the toenail mercury is telling us that the relative exposure tends to relate to the risk of AMI.
On the other hand, when it looked at the DHA surrogate, it was found that the dose-response relationship
went down and gave a monotonic negative trend again consistent with the notion that mercury
antagonizes the protective effects of n-3 fatty acids.
A third major study of acute heart disease involving United States health care professionals was
conducted in 2002 (Yoshizawa et al.). The case study of coronary heart disease was conducted using
middle-aged men and toenail mercury concentrations. Here the mean mercury concentrations were larger
than the largest group in the previous study (Guallar et al.). The study did not find an association between
toenail mercury concentrations and heart disease. However, the largest group in the study, approximately
60%, was composed of dentists. Mercury exposure in dentists was twice that of any other group.
35
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
An important question centered on whether there was a compounding exposure effect due to the
occupational hazards of dentistry. Unfortunately, conclusions at this time are not clear. When the dentists
group was taken out of the study population, the odds ratio went to between 1.3 and 1.7, depending on
what type of adjustment was made. The highest odds ratio was found when the adjustment was also done
for n-3 fatty acids. In other words, the protective effects of the n-3 fatty acids was taken into account.
However, the results are no longer statistically significant when the dentists are removed from the sample
group.
This brings up another question: does the putative association result from total mercury or
methylmercury? The occupational exposure of the dentists would be a confounder here. Plus there was a
potential exposure misclassification since the toenail samples were collected up to 5 years prior to the
CHD event.
Minamata Disease
Another important study was performed on exposure to methylmercury in the city of Minamata, Japan.
The Minamata study was a preliminary ecological study comparing causes of death in two heavily
exposed districts of Minamata City (Tamashiro et al., 1988). The study found the diseases of the heart
were not elevated; however, the focus on people diagnosed with Minamata disease did not necessarily
correspond to medical conditions but related more to classifications from the standpoint of compensation.
In addition, the period of analysis was approximately 20 years after the initial disease report, and
methylmercury exposure in the control area was not documented.
A follow up case-control study was conducted in the Kumamoto prefecture. The study found no
significant instances of heart disease identified on the death certificates of those with Minamata disease.
However, causes of death were secondary to the presence of Minamata disease at the time. The
information that was available noted that only ischemic heart disease was significantly associated with
Minamata disease on any of the death certificates.
Atherosclerosis
Another interesting study was performed on atherosclerosis. The study was also conducted in Finland
(Salonen et al., 2000) and measured the progression in men from eastern Finland. The study looked at
carotid artery thickness through the use of ultrasound measurements. The thickness of the carotid artery is
a measurement of how much material is deposited in the artery over time (progression of atherosclerosis).
The hair mercury concentration of the upper quintile was elevated but not outrageously so (2.81 ppm).
Looking at the data of the dependent variable as a progression of atherosclerosis, the exposure to
methylmercury was highly significant and the beta (strength of the progression coefficient) for Hg was
second only to systolic blood pressure which is not a risk factor of atherosclerosis. The study also found
that there was a 7.3 % increase in the progression of thickening for each part per million of mercury in
hair. Unfortunately it is the only study conducted along these lines.
Two studies were performed concerning blood pressure and heart rate after in utero exposure. Using the
Faroese cohort, some evidence was found for the association of in utero methylmercury exposure (cord
blood mercury) and blood pressure at 7 years. This was in consideration of both systolic and diastolic
blood pressure. However, the dose response was found to plateau at low exposures (10 (ig/L). It is hard to
know how to interpret this information; however, similar types of dose relationships were found with lead
and blood pressure. These results are inconsistent with findings in institutionalized patients with "fetal
Minamata disease" (Oka et al., 2003). Animal studies also examined adolescents and adults; however,
information from these is difficult to interpret because it involved extremely high doses. The study does
tend to show that there is a relationship between high doses of mercury and frank neurological toxicity.
36
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Summary of Cardiovascular Effects
Epidemiological studies suggest an association between heart disease (including AMI) and
methylmercury. Causal mechanisms are suggested by the apparent antagonism between omega-3 fatty
acids and methylmercury. It appears that the anti-oxidant properties of the omega-3 fatty acids are
countered by the lipid peroxidation from the methylmercury. In fact, these results tell us that studies on
cardiovascular disease and omega-3 s (not even looking at the mercury aspect) have been somewhat
inconsistent and may be explained by the fact that these cohorts each had different exposures to n-3 fatty
acids as well as different exposures to mercury. If we wanted to perform a dose response/risk assessment
for AMI based on methylmercury exposure, we have to take into consideration dose response from
omega-3 s.
The association between atherosclerosis and methylmercury is seen in only one study although the
associated mechanics may be consistent with lipid peroxidation by methylmercury. Viewing the data from
the risk assessment perspective, the Salonen and Guallar data seems appropriate for the risk assessment.
However, we don't know were the toenail mercury data is on the spectrum of exposure, and this lack of
information about the toenail mercury biomarker makes the Guallar study less useful. Salonen is the one
to work with here.
Evidence of the effects of methylmercury on blood pressure at the current levels of exposure is weaker. It
is unclear how to interpret the data and determine what the implications are for future risk. From the
cardiovascular standpoint, there is reason to proceed with dose-response analysis to at least see where the
reference dose will take us.
Reassessment of the Pharmacokinetic Model for Dose Reconstruction
Why should we consider this reassessment? We know what the benchmark dose is for cord blood but we
do not know for maternal intake. We have to calculate back from a model. What is different about the
model now from previous years is the cord blood versus maternal blood ratio. It is important to look at
this from a probabilistic standpoint; if we look at only the central tendency estimate we are not going to
be protective of the upper percentile of the populations because there is significant variability across the
population for maternal dose and cord mercury concentrations.
Studies have shown that the pharmacokinetic variability in the pathway is relatively constant no matter
who does the modeling; however, previous analysis did not agree on the central tendency. Also, none of
those analyses looked at the relationship between cord and maternal mercury, which turns out to be a very
important factor. That is justification for reanalyzing the model. Another point here is that in addition to
including the maternal and cord work, my study has attempted to make this specific to the third trimester.
This will help reflect pharmacokinetic factors that influence mercury concentration in cord blood.
Conclusions
On the basis of the preliminary analysis, the estimate of the mean maternal dose is about the same as
USEPA's previous estimate. What we did find was that when you calculate the variability, the
cord/maternal ratio increases significantly. Based on this analysis, USEPA initially assumed that was a
factor of 3. In fact, when we redo the analysis and include the fact that the cord blood has a higher
concentration of mercury than the corresponding maternal blood, it then looks like the 99th percentile and
is a factor of 4 and not 3.
37
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Thus, the estimate of the mean maternal dose is about the same as USEPA's previous estimate and the
overall variability in the dose reconstruction is approximately 33% larger than USEPA's assumed value.
It appears to be due largely to the variability in the cord/maternal ratio.
Bottom line, if an uncertainty factor approach is used to address pharmacokinetic variability, the
preliminary analysis suggests that an uncertainty factor of approximately 4 may be justified (looking at
99th percentile of population variability). However, the third-trimester specificity of the analysis suggests
that the 99th percentile estimate can be used directly in the RfD calculation. In that case an intake dose of
58 (ig/L corresponds to 0.21 (ig/kg/day. If an uncertainty factor (toxicodynamic factors, database
insufficiency, etc.) of 3 is applied, the overall RfD could be 0.21 (ig/kg/day/3 or 0.07 (ig/kg/day.
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 2)
Q: Joe Sekerke: Dr. Stern, the slides that you were showing of the dose of mercury to the mother, in the
last few slides, was that log dose?
A: Alan Stern: No, it's just a linear relationship: If the blood concentration is 58 (ig/dL as the benchmark
dose, what is the maternal dose that corresponds to that? Just a straight relationship. The relationship
itself, as I showed you on the graph, is not entirely linear, although it does have a large linear portion. The
part we're interested in is the nonlinear part. But that's just a point; it's just a ratio right now.
Q: Joe Sekerke: Were any of the doses log doses on the dose response curve?
A: Alan Stern: No.
Q: Dr. Mahaffey, I know this is a mercury session, but I was wondering, with respect to the adult
findings, if there had been any further work looking at interactions between PCB and mercury or PBDEs
and mercury.
A: Kate Mahaffey: I don't know the answer to that question.
Q: Eric Frohmberg: On the NHANES data, for the folks who had elevated levels of mercury, is it possible
to look at the consumption data reported and find out what species that elevated level came from?
A: Kate Mahaffey: Yes, there's a paper we submitted for publication on that.
Q: Eric Frohmberg: Can you give us a hint?
A: Kate Mahaffey: Sure. There are five species that are most commonly consumed. We've separated the
most commonly consumed species from the species highest in mercury. I would have to think too quickly
to pull together an answer to your question reasonably, so let me not try to do that.
38
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA FAC
Recommendations
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Denise Keehner, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
The purpose of the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) meeting in December 2003 was to explain how
FDA had responded to previous FAC recommendations in 2002 by developing a revised joint advisory
with USEPA that addressed both locally and commercially caught fish.
The discussion includes the following:
1. A status report of how FDA has responded to the previous FAC recommendations (including a
description of the process involved in developing a revised advisory based on the
recommendations).
2. Review of exposure assessment as peer review.
3. Discussion of the focus ground testing of the revised advisory.
4. Development of the final draft advisory after input from the focus groups.
5. FAC comments.
Status Report
The status report basically includes background on what was presented to the FAC and the FAC's
response.
In 2001 the FDA and USEPA issued fish advisories, and in 2002 the FDA FAC was asked to evaluate
that advisory. The 2001 FDA advisory stated three points: (1) avoid the list for the big four, (2) eat up to
12 oz of a variety of other fish (with reference to women of childbearing age), and (3) follow USEPA
advice for recreationally caught fish.
In 2001 USEPA advised people to limit their consumption of freshwater fish caught by family and
friends. In July 2002 the FAC needed to evaluate whether the advisory on methylmercury provided
accurate protection for children and for women of childbearing age who might become pregnant.
The 2002 FAC meeting made six recommendations:
1. Better define what is meant by "eat a variety offish."
2. Work with other federal and state agencies to bring commercial and recreational fish under the
same umbrella.
3. Publish a quantitative exposure assessment used to develop the advisory.
4. Develop specific recommendations for canned tuna based on a detailed analysis of the
contribution that canned tuna makes to overall methylmercury levels in women.
5. Address children more comprehensively in the advisory.
6. Increase monitoring of methylmercury in fish and the use of biomarkers.
Process to Address the Recommendations
In fall 2002 the USEPA Administrator and Secretary of HHS exchanged letters agreeing to collaborate
and "bring commercial and recreational fish under the same umbrella advisory." A follow-up meeting
took place between the Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and USEPA's
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water.
39
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
In 2002 and 2003 the FDA undertook the exposure assessment study. From April 2003 to the present,
weekly meetings and joint work between FDA and USEPA have occurred:
1. Planned and completed independent external peer review of exposure assessment and revised
exposure assessment.
2. Planned and held four stakeholder meetings.
3. Planned and produced draft joint advisory.
4. Planned and held eight focus groups in four different locations across the United States and
revised the draft advisory based on focus group input.
5. Planned and prepared materials for the FAC.
A draft joint advisory was produced in December 2002. The advisory was revised in real time as
responses were received from the focus groups and stakeholders. Also, the groups shared a tentative
timeline and indicated that they would include the draft advisory and focus group testing and that we
would have public meetings in fall of 2003. In July 2003 four stakeholder meetings were held with
industry, consumers, health professionals, states, and tribes.
Key messages from stakeholder meetings early on included the following:
1. Need to continue research and bring new data and science into future revision, but it is still
important to move forward.
2. Some concern about accuracy of tissue data in Bolger/Carrington model.
3. Concern about balanced message relating to fish and diets.
4. Concerns over timeline being too ambitious; noted that it was important to have focus groups and
time for states to get on board.
5. Effective outreach and implementation to get the message out are critically important to
achieving public health goals.
Between September and November 2003, the group worked together to develop the joint draft advisory
that merged FDA's commercial fish advisory and USEPA's noncommercial fish advisory. In November
2003 focus group testing and real-time evaluations were conducted, including eight focus groups in four
different locations. Testing of the advisory resulted in substantial revisions after the first focus group.
That group did not understand the basic message and concluded that people might walk away from fish
entirely. The comments were used to make significant revisions, increase clarity, and make the advisory
straightforward.
In December 2003 the "final" draft advisory (post-focus groups) was presented.
Response to Recommendations
The following are the responses to the six recommendations from the 2002 FAC meeting.
1. Better define what is meant by "eat a variety offish. " FDA considered a number of ways to
communicate: lists; expanded language; shorter, more explicit language, and so forth. Some of
these ideas were tested in the focus groups. Lists did not work well in the focus groups so the
result was a more truncated, explicit language on the variety offish.
2. Work with other federal and state agencies to bring commercial and recreational fish under the
same umbrella. In response, FDA and USEPA worked closely to develop a single, joint advisory
concerning commercial and recreationally caught fish. In addition, they interacted with the states
during this process through stakeholders meetings.
40
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
3. Publish the quantitative exposure assessment used to develop the advisory. The quantitative
exposure assessment was developed in early 2003. It was presented publicly as a poster in March
2003. An external peer review was conducted, and a revised exposure assessment was developed
in December 2003. The new assessment reflected two major changes: (1) it incorporated new data
on mercury levels in fish, and (2) it integrated the comments from the various focus groups.
4. Develop specific recommendations for canned tuna based on a detailed analysis of what
contribution canned tuna makes to overall methylmercury levels in women. Canned tuna is
composed of two main types, albacore/white, and light. Canned tuna is one of the most consumed
fish in the United States. Naming tuna specifically added a huge spotlight. The recommendation
needed to be more specific. Exposure assessment scenarios were updated to address tuna more
specifically. New data on levels of mercury in canned tuna were evaluated, and a specific
statement regarding canned tuna was added to the advisory.
5. Address children more comprehensively in the advisory. FDA and USEPA determined that there
was no scientific consensus to define specific age or weight in the revised advisory. More
emphasis on young children was added to the text of the revised advisory, and children were not
limited to the "Do Not Eat" list.
6. Increase monitoring of methylmercury to include levels in fish and the use of human biomarkers.
As mentioned previously, two new assignments to measure mercury levels in fish were completed
in 2003.
Questions to the FAC
Given the enormous interest in this issue and expectations from all perspectives, the one important point
we all agree on is that we should move forward and begin our education program. As we learn more from
scientific findings, population demographics, and NFIANES and receive results from the education effort
on consumer behavior, we might need to refine the approach. We believe that this activity should be
conducted concurrently with an outreach and educational program that, in the interests of public health,
should commence as soon as possible. The FAC therefore seeks the Committee's concurrence.
National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Rita Schoeny, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
The 2002 FDA Food Advisory Committee provided several recommendations concerning the fish advice
released in 2001. In response to these recommendations, a quantitative exposure assessment for
development of the advisory was prepared and specific recommendations for canned tuna were developed
based on detailed analysis of the contribution of canned tuna to overall methylmercury levels in women.
The exposure assessment was developed in two stages. The effort relied heavily on the data published in
the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) in 1999 and 2000. NHANES is a
national survey based partly on national demographics. The data from the study can be illustrated
graphically by comparing mercury blood level data on children and women of childbearing age versus
both the equivalent blood mercury level of the USEPA reference dosage (RfD) and the benchmark dosage
level (BMDL) from the Faroes study of the event level of various physiological tests. Graphically, it
shows that there is a percentage of women below, at, and/or above the RfD (7.8%); however, no data
points were above the effect level (-58%).
41
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
The first stage of exposure assessment development involved the design of a model that would closely
mimic the NHANES data for blood mercury in women of childbearing age and small children between
the ages of 2 and 5. The design reflected the assumption that the NHANES data showed no consumption
restrictions or types offish. One reason for this assumption was that the national survey presented
unrestricted fish consumption and acted best as a baseline for comparison. The second stage involved
taking the developed model and varying fish consumption, restricting it in several ways, and making
predictions as to what would happen to this blood mercury level of women of childbearing age.
The exposure model could be illustrated in an exposure simulation and a biomarker simulation. The
exposure simulation measures blood mercury intake from seafood consumption and looks at various fish
species depending on the market share of those species in the United States. Short-term consumption data
from 1989 to 1990 was used for both species and percentage of consumption. More recent data (1994 to
1996) used 2-day surveys instead of the 3-day surveys conducted in 1989 and 1990. Information was also
gleaned from long-term purchase diaries (30 days). All three pieces of data were used to determine which
fish species were being consumed relative to market data.
The biomarker simulation was designed to help estimate the blood or hair mercury levels predicted from
various scenarios. Scenarios varied weekly levels offish consumption one way or another, including no
dietary exclusion (as outlined in the NHANES) and 12 oz per week of low-mercury fish. For the
scenarios, fish were divided into high, medium, and low methylmercury levels. The high category
comprised the big four: swordfish, shark, tilefish, and king mackerel. The low category included light
tuna, catfish, shrimp, and salmon, among others. The medium category included albacore tuna, halibut,
tuna steak, and American lobster, to name a few.
USEPA and FDA used the exposure assessment to consider scenarios and outcomes when formulating the
basis for revised joint advice. The FDA/USEPA conclusions were discussed with stakeholders at a
meeting in July 2003. During that meeting FDA/USEPA professed that the model closely predicts the
NHANES data showing the population that exceeds the RfD and that they believe the model will be a
useful tool in establishing the scientific background for the revised advisory. They also stated that the
scenarios offered a way to provide information for risk management decisions. FDA and USEPA
submitted the exposure assessment for peer review.
The review was performed on the poster presented in 2003 by Carrington and Bolger to the Society of
Toxicology. The poster devised fish consumption scenarios and predicted blood and hair mercury for
women of childbearing age and children between the ages of 2 and 5. The baseline scenario was expected
to reflect the NHANES data.
The review performed was a "letter" review conducted through existing USEPA peer review contractors.
USEPA and FDA described the required reviewers' expertise and selected three reviewing contractors.
USEPA approved the listed reviewers as having the requisite credentials, and the contractors were
provided with all materials. Written comments were collected, and a peer review report was compiled.
USEPA/FDA asked the reviewers to address the following:
1. Was the document logical, clear, and concise? Are the arguments presented in an understandable
manner?
2. Has the appropriate literature been cited? Are there publicly available, peer-reviewed papers that
should be included?
3. Is the model clearly described? Are modifications supportable by existing data? Modifications
include the following: expansion offish categories from 24 to 28; filtered distributions in place of
42
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
analogues for some species; and the addition of 0.1 to 2 ppb of mercury to blood levels to account
for sources other than fish.
4. Data from the Continuing Study of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) from 1989 to 1991 was
the basis for distributions offish consumption. This data was from 3 days of survey information
versus 2 days for the later data (CSFII 1994-1996). What adjustments could be made to the
compensation for the likely underreporting offish consumption by the low-consumption portion
of the population?
5. In the paper, women of childbearing age are defined as those between 18 and 45 years of age and
children are defined as 2 to 5 years old. Are these the appropriate ranges?
6. Are the fish consumption scenarios logically described, clear, and supportable? Is the
identification of 0.5 ppm of mercury or greater as "high mercury fish" appropriate?
7. For the purposes of the scenarios used in the exposure assessment, high, medium, and low
mercury levels were set as follows: high—swordfish, shark, tilefish, and king mackerel;
medium—greater than 0.13 ppm; and low—less man or equal to 0.13 ppm. Are these choices
appropriate?
USEPA/FDA's written response to the reviewers is available on the Web at (www.cfscan.fda.gov or
www.epa.fov/ost/fish). This 37-page report describes the revisions to the assessment, differences of
scientific opinion, reviews of comments considered outside the scope of the current analysis, and areas for
future work.
Changes to the Model
The exposure assessment has been revised and expanded. In relation to mercury concentration attributes,
the number offish categories for which distributions were developed was expanded from 24 to 42,
mercury concentrations were obtained for additional species, more data was collected on canned tuna, and
a correction factor was applied to reflect water lost during food preparation.
In relation to consumption frequency, the model parameters used to extrapolate long-term frequency of
consumption from short-term records were optimized to be consistent with the 30-day NHANES survey.
The percentage of consumers was also changed from 70%-90% to 85%-95% to be consistent with
NHANES. Changes in the model were also reflected in the species selected. The fraction of the annual
seafood diets estimated from the individual dietary survey, instead of market share, was treated as an
individual variable rather man as a population uncertainty. In addition, instead of using a range of 20%-
80%, the range of individual repetitiveness was estimated using the NHANES survey.
The changes to the model resulted in the data's more closely predicting what was illustrated in the
NHANES report. The new advisory scenarios included (1) limiting total seafood consumption (6, 12, or
18 oz per week without regard to species); (2) restricting the species consumed (no limit on amount of
fish consumed, and consumption should be limited to middle or low groups, or the low group only);
(3) restricting both amounts and species. The baseline result of the model represented unrestricted
consumption offish. As the amount offish consumed was restricted, the predicted blood mercury levels
went down.
In summary, (1) many changes have been made to the exposure assessment; (2) for women of
childbearing age, the model now generates slightly higher values man the NHANES survey, rather than
slightly lower values; and (3) lowering seafood consumption by limiting the amount consumed and/or the
species consumed can be expected to reduce higher levels of exposure to mercury from seafood
encountered in the U.S. population.
43
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 3)
Q: Michael Bender, Mercury Policy Project: I have a comment and a question for Dr. David Acheson.
Could you please summarize the reaction and recommendation of the Food Advisory Committee to the
draft fish consumption advisory presented at the December 2003 meeting? And then my comment: I was
at the meeting, and what I heard the pack say was that it was a good idea for FDA and USEPA to get
together, but that you didn't get it quite right, especially for the albacore white tuna, and that there wasn't
adequate information identifying low-mercury fish. Could you please elaborate?
A: David Acheson: Actually, that's the subject of a subsequent presentation that's going to happen this
afternoon. If it's okay, I'd rather leave it until then where I'll be expanding on what we heard there.
Q: Michael Morrissey, Oregon State University: In the first two talks, Kate and Alan spoke very strongly
about the interaction between omega-3 fatty acids as a mitigating effect for mercury. Rita, are you saying
that that is not taken into consideration in terms of the mercury advisories?
A: Rita Schoeny: What we don't have at this point is any sort of a formal prediction as to a degree of risk
or a diminution of risk or interaction between the omega-3s and the mercury. Apart from the fact that
we're trying to design our advisory to ensure that people will continue to eat fish, we're not talking
specifically about mercury versus omega-3 s.
Q: Michael Morrissey: But you say that in the future as more information comes in, that can possibly be
put into the model as well?
A: Rita Schoeny: I think that is a possibility.
A: Kate Mahaffey: Just as a clarifying point, I really didn't make that point at all. What I was saying is
that different fish contain very different amounts of omega-3 s as well as very different amounts of
mercury. And I think that what Alan was saying is that there is an interaction between omega-3s and
mercury in terms of coronary heart disease, not that omega-3s are protective against mercury.
Q: Johanna Congleton, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles: I had a question about a
comment that was made earlier regarding labeling cans of tuna—that one of the reasons for not putting a
label on cans is that there's not enough room on the packaging. I'd just like to point out that a long time
ago we decided to make room for nutritional information on all types of food products, some of which is
specific to high-risk populations, such as saturated fat, sodium, that would be important for people at risk
for heart complications. So what's the difference between warning women of childbearing age or
vulnerable populations about mercury exposure and accommodating that on the packaging? Please share
your thoughts on that.
A: David Acheson: I guess that's directed at me. I certainly don't want to give you the impression that we
are bound by the space on the can. That wasn't what I wanted to leave you with. I think that what I want
to leave you with is that our goal is to develop the most comprehensive public health message and find
the most appropriate way to get that message over to the at-risk individual. If putting the label on the can
is a way to do that as opposed to any other way, then certainly we'll take that into consideration. Again,
what I was trying to allude to is that it's a complex issue of how one labels tuna for the presence of
mercury. And, as we're beginning to hear, the issue offish consumption is about more than just mercury.
There is the positive side offish consumption. There are potentially other contaminants in other types of
fish. You'd have to just think this through very carefully in terms of where one drew the line and what
exactly was said. But I think that the bottom line is that what we're really interested in doing is (and I
44
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
think I speak for both FDA and EPA) we want to get the right public health message out using whatever
tools are at our disposal to do that. If that includes considering labeling a can, then we'd think about that.
Q: John Cox, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation: I heard one of the panel members mention
that she'd been involved in fish studies since 1993. I've been involved with the study offish all my life
and my mother also and her mother also, and her mother's mother, and all my ancestors. So we've been
involved with fish for a long, long time. They're a part of who we are. When you teed up the
recommendation, Mr. Acheson, one of your recommendations was to work with states and other federal
agencies. Then Ms. Keehner later mentioned states, other federal agencies, and tribes. I'm wondering:
Which is it? That's one question I have.
A: David Acheson: Well, what I had on the slide was a direct quote from what was taken from the
recommendations of the Food Advisory Committee. It is our intent to work with all interested parties
involved with developing advice on fish. That, absolutely, would include working with tribes.
A: Denise Keehner: And we did, in the stakeholder meetings, actually organize a conference with tribal
representatives during that stage of the process. So we at EPA and those at FDA are interested in getting
input from tribes as well as states.
Q: John Cox: For the audience's sake here, I know it's close to lunch, but there are over 550 federally
recognized native tribes in North America, and there's something like, what, 50 states or so. So in terms
of your consultation, I'd just like to ask from what percentage of coverage did you get input in doing that?
That's one question. The other question is that you said that you broke up the country into quadrants, like
you had four large meetings. How representative would that be of a whole nation in multiple groups like
this?
A: Denise Keehner: Jeff, do you want to give the specifics on how we organized the tribal call for the
stakeholders? Then we can talk about the focus group issue.
A: Jeff Bigler, USEPA: Yes, EPA works with a group of about 60 to 70 tribes from across the country on
mercury issues. It's a group that's been developed over the past year and half or so. The invitation went
out to between 60 and 70 tribes, and we had responses from 3, and 3 joined the call.
A: David Acheson: In relation to your question about breaking the country into quadrants, are you talking
about in terms of the focus groups or in terms of the stakeholders?
Q: John Cox: Stakeholders is what I believe I'm referring to.
A: David Acheson: Okay, the stakeholders were not broken into quadrants. You're right. There were four
groups, but they weren't really organized by geography. They were organized by interest. So we had an
industry group, we had a consumer and health professional group, we had a state group, and tribes. It
wasn't geographically based.
Q: John Cox: Once you get the mic, you shouldn't give it up. I know there's more room for comment, and
that's why I'm here to engage. I'm concerned about, as I see the panel and the fixtures on it, we've got the
Food and Drug Administration, people who are taking care of our food. We've got the Environmental
Protection Agency, the people taking care of the environment. We've got various health organizations,
the ones who are taking care of our health. I'm concerned that issuing a fish advisory, which is where it
seems the meeting is gravitating, really doesn't fix the problem at all. So I see these organizations that are
responsible for this, you know, and how are we going to get at fixing the problem? Just something to
think about maybe. I don't expect an answer to that, but I expect something to be done.
45
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: Joe Sekerke: I have a question about the ratio of maternal blood. Was it total mercury or organic
mercury that was measured in both places?
A: Female panelist: They've looked at both. Alan may wish to comment specifically. There are studies
that have measured total mercury and studies that have measured methylmercury.
A: Alan Stern: The analysis that Andy Smith and I did was based on published studies in the literature,
some of which had methylmercury, some of which had total mercury. Greater than 80%, and generally
greater than 90%, of the mercury in blood from people who don't have occupational exposures is
methylmercury. Nonetheless, it was pointed out to us in review of the paper that the ratio was different for
methylmercury-only studies versus total mercury studies. We recalculated and addressed that. I'm trying
to remember which way the methylmercury-only studies went, but we addressed the fact that the
methylmercury-only studies appeared to be different from the total mercury studies by a little bit, not by a
lot. Overall, the values that we recommended and used in the dose reconstruction reflect both. It does
make a lot of difference.
C: I believe the most recent Japanese study is based on organic, or methylmercury.
Q: Trina Mackie, UC Berkeley: Somebody earlier mentioned that there's been a need for some time for
EPA and FDA to sort of come together and synchronize their recommendations.
A: David Ache son: It was the right thing to do.
Q: Henry Anderson: How does the model fit if you add in the sport fish consumption? Some of these
surveys, even though there's a lot of licenses sold and a lot of people eat fish, it's still only about
20% of the women who eat fish, so they don't tend to appear in your national survey. And since we're
interested in the sport fish side, and those who are successful may eat nothing but sport fish and a lot of it,
are we going to be able to use this model and fit it together with our freshwater fish? As we saw, it varies
considerably across the country, as does consumption.
A: Rita Schoeny: I think that the model structure and the data are certainly adaptable to more local
situations. The way that it was run here is obviously reflective of market share, so obviously you don't get
sport fish. It was also reflective of the 30-day purchase diary, so you do pick up some the sport fish there.
And it was reflective of NHANES, so you pick up a little there as well. But again, it's not going to be
reflective of the situation, specifically in the Gulf or in Minnesota or Wisconsin, for sportsfishers. In
terms of being able to use the structure and do your own data inputs, it's usable.
Q: Kate Mahaffey: A question I have, which maybe Alan can answer better, is how do you think this
model would work if you extrapolate to the higher exposures? Is there enough linearity in what we know
of dose-response from the metabolic studies, most of which were done at high exposures anyway?
A: Alan Stern: Just so we don't get confused here, the model that Henry was just talking about was the
exposure model, and you're talking about another model.
A: Kate Mahaffey: Yes, and it's an important distinction.
A: Alan Stern: Right.
C: Unnamed female panelist: ...maybe it's left alone at this point.
46
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: Eric Uram, Sierra Club: Children's needs were one of the big questions raised regarding FDA's
warnings, and knowing that children are not just small adults and that they have different aspects that
need to be considered in the fact that their bodies are developing as they grow. EPA's reference dose is a
weight-based reference dose, yet you decided that age and weight were not to be included in the language
that you were putting out there. You felt that more general language would be appropriate to use. Could
you elaborate a little further on why you decided to go against an age- or weight-based type of approach?
A: David Acheson: You're right. The reference dose is 0.1 mg/kg. My understanding is that the origin of
the reference dose is based on defects in the fetus from maternal consumption. The difficulty we ran into
was prescribing specific consumption amounts for children of different ages because the variable that we
have is how much fish can you eat for a given age. But it's not just age; it's also weight. You may have a
5-year-old who's 40 Ib, and you may have a 5-year-old who's 140 Ib. That's a whole other problem that
FDA is trying to address. But it's out there. Part of the difficulty is coming up with something that is
consistent because it's not simply linear. We thought about that. We thought, can you take an average
woman, 140 Ib, 12 oz, and say, okay, for 70 Ib you could make it 6 oz a week? And then for 35 Ib, you
could make it 3 oz per week? How does that play into age? A 70-lb individual may be 5 years old, may be
10 years old, may be 15 years old. How do you kind of work all of those variables in and yet retain a
message that's understandable by the population as a whole? I'm not saying it's off the table. If we
develop some science that will allow us to do that in some way, that retains the simplicity of the message
and protects public health and is based on good science, then we're all ears. I would love to be able to do
that because it's been raised over and over again. I'm not saying that we're not doing it because we won't
do it. I'm saying that it's too difficult in the context of what we know and how to maintain the simplicity
of the message. Hopefully, that gives you a little background as to why we're struggling with this. It's not
off the table, that's for sure.
C: One comment about the reference dose. Since EPA's reference dose was used in the analyses, and so
forth, it underlies some of our thinking about how to approach a fish advisory. The reference dose, as
EPA constructed it, was based on a developmental exposure, a developmental endpoint. It is meant to
protect the general population against any other kind of effect. When we have sufficient data, we can
calculate a reference dose that would be specific for a particular age group or life stage. At the point
where we did our reference dose, and taking advice from peer reviewers and from the NRC, we felt that
there were not sufficient data to construct a specific reference dose for children. So in terms of the child
issue, we're dealing with the adult reference dose, if you will, although based on a developmental effect.
So the only question would be how much, on this milligram per kilogram basis, not trying to use a
different reference dose that would try to account for any difference in susceptibility for children.
C: Just to follow this a little further, obviously neurological development for the very young does not
cease at birth. The thing that is still under a lot of assessment is the period, say in the first year of life, and
the effects of methylmercury during that period. I really can't even say a scenario is under active
investigation because I frankly don't know the answer to that. It's certainly an area of active interest to
people who assess risk. Having looked pretty closely at the NHANES data, I can tell you that given what
we have of ages 1 through 6 within NHANES, and knowing based on the cord to maternal ratios, at birth
we would think that, and reasonably anticipate, the infant's blood mercury is going to be substantially
higher than that of the mother. By age 1, those blood and hair mercury levels are a lot lower than the
mother's; in fact, they're about a quarter as high as those of the adult woman. We don't really know what
accounts for this except reasonably the methylmercury exposure during that period of life has to be a lot
lower than that which would keep up with the growth rate. So I think that what we're seeing is a lot of
dilution through rapid growth. All of this is to say that we really don't know the impact of mercury
exposure during this period. To second Dr. Acheson's point, scientifically at this stage we're not
altogether clear on what to say.
47
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: Alan Stern: Just very briefly to back that up, from a risk assessment standpoint, there are no studies
that specifically address the effects of methylmercury on development postnatally. And beyond that, we
don't really understand what the mechanism is that's operating prenatally. If we knew what the
mechanism was, we could then extrapolate it, or not, as appropriate to the postnatal period.
Q: Arnie Kuzmack, USEPA: Regarding this last discussion about the very small children, I was just
wondering whether the NHANES dataset includes information as to whether the children were breast-fed.
Could you try to do a correlation there? This presumes that breast-fed children were exposed to
methylmercury and the formula-fed children were not for the most part in the first year.
A: I actually don't know. We can easily look it up.
Q: Henry Anderson: It seems to me that this model, the exposure assessment model, would be very
helpful to states as well as to tribes. Is there any plan not only to make it available but also to provide
perhaps some training? I know, for instance, that in Wisconsin, the Chippewa eat a lot offish, but the fish
they're eating are quite different from those of the Umatilla, who are eating a lot offish as well. It would
be helpful for these groups to be able to put in their fish values and their consumption rates and perhaps
use this model to get an understanding of how they might vary their consumption, what impact various
advice or selection of a type of species might have. So it would be very helpful, once you roll that out.
This is a tool that we could use to get a sense of what our expectations are. It would be quite helpful.
Thank you.
Mercury Focus Group Testing Results
Marjorie Davidson, Food and Drug Administration
The Methylmercury (MeHg) Consumer Advisory was targeted toward women who may become
pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children. The USEPA/FDA used a total of eight focus groups to
address the information placed in the new advisory.
Focus groups are a qualitative approach to research, and they were first used during World War II to
survey troop morale. A focus group is a small discussion group of 5 to 10 people with certain common
characteristics. The purpose of the group is to find out what the target audience thinks and feels about a
particular issue, product, or service.
USEP A/FDA organized and held a total of eight focus groups in four locations of the country where
consumption of different types offish was prevalent. These areas were Calverton, Maryland; New
Orleans, Louisiana; Seattle, Washington; and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The focus groups included a
mixture of genders and education groups, and they included pregnant women, parents of young children,
and women of childbearing age. All eight focus groups were held in November 2003. The focus groups
were conducted through an iterative process. Changes were made incrementally to the advisory as the
focus groups progressed throughout the month.
One of the goals of the focus groups was to examine the risk communication formats to see if USEPA and
FDA were presenting the information in the best format possible. In addition, it was important to gauge
consumer response to the advisory, paying particular attention to the incremental changes made to the
advisory along the way. These included the enhanced attention to young children, the merging of
commercial and noncommercial fish, and a more detailed discussion of canned tuna.
48
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
One of the most important aspects of the fish advisory was to balance the perceptions concerning
minimizing the risks from methylmercury in fish while not jeopardizing the health benefits from eating
fish.
The USEPA/FDA gleaned numerous findings from the focus group process. First, people wanted a simple
message and they wanted to know exactly what harm would come to a child's development if he or she
consumed high amounts of methylmercury and what should be done to avoid those high amounts. Some
persons wanted more information. They were interested in knowing how methylmercury would affect the
health of their baby or child, they wanted more data on particular types offish species, and they wanted to
know how methylmercury would affect other family members.
During completion of the focus group process, it was determined that information about the differences in
methylmercury content in tuna steaks and albacore tuna versus light tunas was new to most participants.
Most participants were not aware of the differences between types of tuna in general. Some people said
they would begin to avoid tuna steaks and albacore tuna altogether.
Many participants had a similar perspective when it came to consumption of recreational fish. The
advisory mentioned avoiding commercial fish when consuming recreational fish. To most participants,
this was new information. Some participants thought offish consumption as a whole and did not separate
commercial and sport-caught fish.
Upon completion of the focus group process, almost all the participants reported that they will avoid
species on the Do Not Eat list. Some of the participants stated they will eat less fish, while others said
they will serve less fish to their children or choose to find other sources of protein. Most important, many
participants noted that they would tell others about the risks offish because if fish can be risky for
pregnant women, it probably isn't good for other people.
In conclusion, the participant reaction noted was that, although there was no fear caused by the advisory,
most women will not exceed the safe fish consumption level advised. The challenge will be to ensure that
women, and the children they care for, continue to eat fish as an important protein and nutrient source in
their diet.
National Mercury Advisory: Overview of the New Joint Agency National Mercury
Advisory
Jim Pendergast, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
National Mercury Advisory: December 2003 Committee Meeting to Address the Joint
Advisory
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
USEPA and FDA are nearing completion of a joint federal advisory on the amount and types offish that
women of childbearing age and young children should avoid to keep methylmercury from reaching
harmful levels. This revised advisory takes into account a series of recommendations made at an FDA
Food Advisory Committee meeting in 2002. The draft joint advisory reconciles differences between the
2001 FDA advisory for commercial fish and the 2001 USEPA advisory for recreationally caught fish,
thus providing consumers of fish with a unified and clear message on the amount of fish that they can
safely eat, regardless of the source. It provides information on what types offish women of childbearing
age and young children should not eat, and on the types offish they can eat, up to 12 oz (2 meals) per
week. It also provides information about local fish advisories and tuna. The advisory, once final, should
help result in a decrease in blood mercury levels in women of childbearing age.
49
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Panel Questions Regarding Mercury (Session 4)
Q: Henry Anderson: I would simply say that 85% of advisories is how you get the word out. And we have
not heard here, and so our opportunity is to provide input on how you implement this and how you get the
word out. I didn't see anything on the slides here that fits on a refrigerator magnet, or a sippy cup, or any
of the other kinds of tools that we've used. A campaign, if this is going to be a campaign, has not yet been
delineated at least to us. So I think we can think about how we should do this. We're the ones with a lot of
experience on this. How do we get that word out? When we get into the breakouts, they really would like
some advice on that, as well as what the message is.
Q: Eric Uram, Sierra Club: A quick comment on the commercial versus recreational. You went to lakes
and streams and figured that was all-encompassing, but you failed to acknowledge that marine areas are
fished recreationally as well. You need to include other waters besides just lakes and streams, so it's not
just inside the states that they're concerned with. My question is regarding what was brought up earlier
today, which is the 12-composite aspect that FDA decided was the way that they were going to sample
and analyze for the mercury content in fish. I feel that falls short. You really need to do something
because there has to be a gray area there. A person cannot eat 12 meals offish and actually average out all
of those and still be safe. When you do the numbers in the comparison, with the amount of mercury that
was tested in that 12-composite sampling, a person would not be able to eat all of those 12 meals and
bring it down to the level of the composite sample. So what you need to do is go back and analyze for
those areas where they wouldn't be able to do that. Go to a smaller number in a composite sample, or
even to individual samples, and get a better assessment as to where those peaks and valleys are. Because
certainly with a 12-composite sample you're knocking off a lot between the upper and lower bounds and
putting it into the middle. We need to have a better idea of what's going on with that upper bound
especially. Given that, can you comment on what FDA is going to do in the future regarding a 12-
composite sample, or is there going to be any other directive to find out what is actually going on?
A: David Acheson: I addressed that this morning. There was a similar question earlier about the value of
the composite samples and what the purpose of it was in terms of where we were trying to go with it. The
current assignment will be conducted in the same way, with 12 composite samples. There is no immediate
plan to change that. But your comment is valuable, and we'll take it into consideration as we move
forward on that.
Q: Eric Frohmberg: Regarding the list of low-mercury fish that you talked about developing, has there
been any interest in looking into regional variation on how fish get distributed? I tried to look into that for
Maine a bit, and the industry is very tight-lipped about what fish goes where. My interest was because we
never see king mackerel up there. I'm wondering if there is a way that you can more effectively tailor the
list of low-mercury fish to those regions where they're commonly consumed? We don't eat a lot of
catfish, for example, in Maine. I presume folks down south eat a lot more catfish.
A: David Acheson: I can certainly offer you a response to that. I think that the difficulty is trying to
develop a national advisory that relates to the nation as a whole. Part of where we're going with this, as I
pointed out earlier, is that we saw these differences in tilefish. Obviously, you ask the questions: Why?
What does that mean? Are tilefish from one area closer to the old data, and tilefish from another area
closer to the new data? Obviously, if we knew that, it would be a good idea to communicate that to the
public so they could determine what to do. I'm not saying that what you're suggesting isn't a great idea.
But it's coming to the point where it would be so complicated if we started to have geographic
distributions, and our focus groups have told us that complicated isn't good. That's not surprising. We're
really trying to hit the common denominator across the country, and that's part of the dilemma.
50
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: Eric Frohmberg: Yes, I see your point. I can see a need for a national advisory but then pairing with
states and regions to help the states to communicate the advisories. So, for example, we have a very active
program in Maine distributing our local advisories as well as FDA's advice, but if we could get
information that would help direct folks to low-mercury fish that are commonly marketed in New
England, that would be valuable.
A: David Acheson: I don't dispute that for one minute. And certainly, again, to go with the tilefish
example because there's something going on there, if we learned that the tilefish from a certain part of the
country were low, it would make all kinds of sense to work with the states to communicate that locally. It
wouldn't necessarily change the national advisory.
Q: When going forward with the advisory, you will have some tweaks. Will one of the tweaks be to
reduce the advice from 12 oz a week of a variety offish to 6 oz a week? The second question concerns the
process of finalizing the advisory. I know that at the Food Advisory Committee one of the members was
asked by the chair to put some specific recommendations in writing. I think that included a
recommendation whether to include albacore on the Do Not Eat list and some other things. You alluded to
the fact that there's a report coming. I wonder if you can shed any light on the timing of that and how that
interacts with the focus testing that you're doing this week. What it sounded like you were hoping to do is
finalize the advisory right after the focus testing. How does that all interact?
A: David Acheson: That's a whole bunch of questions. Let me try, and if I forget one, pick me up. First of
all, we did not hear any specifics from the Food Advisory Committee to reduce from 12 to 6. That would
be quite a tweak to do that. Certainly, the Committee is able to make those specific recommendations. If it
does, we would certainly take that into consideration. The other point to make is that the FDA is not
bound by what the Committee recommends. It's simply an advisory committee, and we're not bound to
follow that, but obviously we pay close attention to it. Your second point was about the timing of it, in
terms of when we expect to get comment on it. What's expected is that the minutes of the meeting will be
signed off by the Chair. The Chair, Dr. Miller, raised the possibility that the transcript would be circulated
to members of the Committee to come up with some recommendations or some consensus. I think he's
still deciding whether he wants to do that or whether he's simply going to address the minutes himself. If
the Committee comes up with recommendations that go beyond what we have taken as take-home
messages and we feel that they're important, clearly we would have to incorporate that as we move
forward. We're all very keen to keep this process moving as fast as we can. As I pointed out earlier, it's
an ongoing process. Once we've got an advisory out there it's not done, finished; it will always be subject
to change as new science and new information come along. So we're not anticipating anything radically
different from the way we are going in terms of what the Committee is recommending. If it does, we'll
clearly take that into account.
Q: Oh, right, the albacore recommendation. Do you expect something forthcoming from the Committee
regarding putting albacore on a Do Not Eat list?
A: David Acheson: That's up to the Committee. We, FDA and EPA, as we were listening to the
discussion, did not come away with a sense that it was going to specifically recommend that. You're
right. There was a lot of discussion about that, and certainly some members of the Committee said that
they felt it should be and I think others said no. What we heard at the end of the day was that they didn't
question specifically that the avoid list should be changed or that the 12 oz should be changed. We'll see.
They might, but my guess is that that won't happen.
Q: Tom Hornshaw, Illinois EPA: I have to take strong exception to the part of the message that tells
pregnant women to see their doctor immediately if they think they've eaten high levels of mercury, or
whatever it said, for several reasons. First of all, I think that the tone is way out of keeping with the rest of
51
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
the message. It sounds way too scary. I can even envision where women would go to a doctor and say,
"Do I need an abortion right away?" Second, where it says "high levels" that's pretty unspecific. You
have to give some education to the general population on what high levels of methylmercury might be.
Third, sending them to a physician is probably the worst thing you can do because the physicians don't
know anything about methylmercury risks. We have a program at Illinois EPA where doctors who are
ending their residency come in and spend an hour with the IEPA toxicologist so that we can actually give
them some discussion about environmental risks. We talk to them about lead-based paint, about mercury
in fish, about Superfund sites, and things like that. From my experience, there's maybe 1 out of 20 or 25
of these residents who had any clue at all about methylmercury. If this an indication of what other
medical schools are doing and they don't send their students to talk to environmental toxicologists, I
expect that when a woman comes to them with questions about methylmercury, they're going to say, "I
can't help you." The last part of it is, when they get there and they say, "I've been exposed to
methylmercury from eating fish," the physician is going to say, "Well, then stop eating fish."
Q: Joe Sekerke, Florida Department of Health: Does anyone have any data that show that any of the
shellfish have high levels of mercury? I haven't seen anything, and I'm just wondering if I'm just missing
it or if it's out there or not. What about lobster? I haven't seen any real high levels of mercury in any of
the shellfish. Has anyone seen anything different?
A: Lobster? Maybe we ought to change it from shellfish to lobster or get some more data to give a belter
idea because that's another that's going to have the omega-3, but it's a very popular source of seafood
people eat. And I think that we ought to give them a little bit more specific information about what
shellfish should be avoided or which ones can be eaten.
Q: Kathleen Schuler, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: One of the key recommendations from
the Food Advisory Committee, in its written report, was that FDA use the EPA reference dose in the fish
advisory. My question is this: By advising women to eat 12 oz a week of a variety offish, while I
commend FDA for its intention of adding some low-mercury fish, that advice could put people at risk and
could expose women unnecessarily to a dose over the reference dose because, say, they pick bluefish or
tuna steak. Even if they ate that twice, they'd be over the recommendation. And even if the states start
incorporating some of the commercial fish and are consistent with the EPA guidelines, there won't be an
equality between what the states are saying and what the federal government is saying.
A: David Acheson: It's the way we view the reference dose because you're really sort of saying that
we're basing this advice on the reference dose, and we are. But it's like how do we take the reference
dose and use it to develop this advice? I think the answer to your question is that we don't regard the
reference dose as a bright line, that 5.8 is okay and 5.9 is not, and 6 is not and 5.7 is okay. That's not the
way we're approaching it. We regard the reference dose as a target that we're trying to move people
toward. And we're doing it in such a way that we encourage people to continue to eat fish, that we
continue to try to keep people safe. You're right. If you were to eat a serving of albacore tuna and a
serving of orange roughy and if you take our average levels that we find from the data, yes, you'd be a
little bit over the reference dose. We know that, and NHANES would support that. What the exposure
assessment has told us is that if we could get people to follow the advice, we would be making some
progress toward the reference dose. If you remember the slide that Rita Schoeny showed, yes, we
wouldn't get everybody below it, but we would be making some progress toward it. I think the approach
that we're trying to take here is to try to get a balanced message that doesn't come across as being so
punitive that people are going to stop eating fish and to accept that the reference dose is not a bright line.
Now everybody may not accept that that interpretation of the reference dose is correct, but that's how we
are viewing the reference dose in the development of our advisory. It is a guide that we are trying to move
people toward. We know that some will be a little over it, but we accept that. As time goes on and we
52
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
learn more about this and we gather more information about fish, maybe we can revise this to get people
even further down. It's an ongoing process, and that's essentially the approach we've taken.
Q: Susan Boehme, New York Academy of Sciences: Yesterday we heard a presentation on focus groups
and what you can use them for and what you can't use them for. Specifically, you cannot use them for
awareness, and you cannot use them for knowledge. Yet it seems to me in your presentations that you
definitely did use what you heard in those groups as knowledge. The issue of what is mercury, for
instance. You heard that from one person, and you went and changed the advisory because of that. My
comment is that if you're going to be doing more focus groups, be very careful about how you use what
you hear from those focus groups, and apply it correctly because you have the expertise available to you
to apply it correctly.
A: James Pendergast: Let me add something to that. You're very right. Dr. Bradbard yesterday talked
about what you can and can't use focus groups for, and we recognize that. We also know that this is why
we talked about additional information. Where people are starting to ask questions, and not just one but
when more than one start asking questions, these are the same questions that some people are also going
to ask when they read the advisory, if it was just the advisory. So we didn'thave some way of being able
to point people to where there's some additional information. There's a balance between pointing them to
a Web site for all the information or starting to put some frequently asked questions in as an addendum
and then off the Web site. What we were trying to balance from there is where to go for further
information for those who wanted it.
A: Marjorie Davidson, FDA: Also, it isn't a case of knowledge. It's about developing a message so that
they can understand the explanation of what mercury is.
Q: Bob Brodberg, California EPA: This is good—I'm following up on the focus group questions here. I
wanted to check and see if a couple of things were understood in the focus groups, if you tested them or
not. One is that the exposure assessment that you did is based on cooked size portions, and actually that's
going to be different. A lot of the states start talking about the 8 oz instead of the 6 oz that you are. That's
something that's going to show up as a little bit different in the messages right away. Did people in the
focus groups understand that you're talking about cooked meals? It makes a certain amount of sense
because that's what they're eating. The second thing was (and I can't repeat the language that you're
using recently to talk about women of childbearing age), you go through a number of iterations to really
talk about women of childbearing age. Someone actually said that at one point—you know, "women who
are pregnant," "nursing mothers," and now "women who might become pregnant," which is a bit of a
change, an improvement. So why not kind of go all the way to "women of childbearing age"? It is still
nebulous. What are the ages? But did you look into that in the focus groups?
A: Marjorie Davidson: I am not quite sure I understand. Did you mean distinguishing between "women of
childbearing age" and "women who might become pregnant"? Can you clarify the question?
Q: Bob Brodberg: I just wonder. Overall, isn't that a lot simpler language? And covers all of the
groups that you've laid out there?
A: Marjorie Davidson: The "women of childbearing age" as opposed to the "women who might become
pregnant"?
Q: Bob Brodberg: And the rest of them—women who are pregnant, women who might become pregnant,
nursing mothers. I guess you didn't test that at all in the focus groups and that it didn't come up. So that's
really what my question was. Then the second part is we can recommend that you consider that or not
everybody may like it. But you didn't test it.
53
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: Marjorie Davidson: We've looked at both, but the trouble is that 50% of the women who don't plan on
getting pregnant get pregnant, so we had to capture that group. But we also wanted to make sure that it's
not a concern for people who just aren't remotely in that category. That's how we walked the fine line.
Q: Bob Brodberg: Even if you're not planning to become pregnant, you can still be of childbearing age.
Did they understand that you were talking about cooked meals, or did you not test that?
A: Marjorie Davidson: We didn't really test it, but the conversation centered around cooked meals.
Q: Johanna Congleton, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles: I have a question and a
suggestion to follow up with a question. The question is how does the FDA plan on proactively, beyond
just posting something on a Web site, communicate the advisory and the risk to the public, particularly
health professionals? The reason I ask is that we conduct a statewide program with the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control. It's a pollution prevention and health professional education
program where we switch out mercury blood pressure gauges at community clinics and give the staff an
hour-long educational workshop on risk communication and exposure prevention strategies so they can
talk to their patients about this, particularly the staff that has the most interaction with the patients—
nurses and health educators—really, if they have a vague understanding at best about the problem of
mercury contamination in fish. There's also the issue that most low-income women or women who are
uninsured get their prenatal care at these clinics. So it's very important. My suggestion is to target clinic
associations. We have a number of them in California, and I'm sure other states are set up the same way.
To kind of proactively disseminate this information so health providers are getting the message while
they're administering prenatal care. If you could, let me know what other plans you have for educating
that particular population.
A: Marjorie Davidson: Sure. I'd be happy to. What we plan on doing is distributing on a broad scale
through all associations of health educators that deal with this particular audience, including WIC clinics.
We also will be contacting physicians, as the gentleman said before, with also true knowledge that that
isn't always the strongest place to go to get that information passed to these women. Because they are
busy getting all kinds of other information in the short meetings that they have with their physicians. FDA
has ready to go, as soon as this issue is resolved, an educational program targeted to pregnant women
that's for use by educators, not to the physicians, but more to the nurse midwives and the nurses who are
doing the training in the facilities. It has a video and a Web site as well as a curriculum, for those folks to
use. We're also going to be using the media extensively. We've talked about this a great deal at FDA
because the vast majority of women do get this kind of information through the media, through pregnancy
magazines, through books on what you should do now that you're pregnant or that you're planning to
become pregnant—those kinds of outlets. But I want to stress this: I know that so often the common
belief is that we send it out there once and everybody gets it, but we have to repeat it over and over again,
year after year, until it gets absorbed into the mind set. So we want to work very much with the states,
because you're the folks on the ground who are getting the information out to people. It's one of the
discussions that will be taking place in the near future.
A: James Pendergast: On top of that, at EPA we've had an agreement with ATSDR for many years on
distributing information to primary care providers and we make use of that. As Marjorie was saying, it's
multiple ways of getting information out and repetitive. You never can tell what's the best way because
there is no best way. The best way is when someone actually has the information in front of them and
starts paying attention to it.
Q: Johanna Congleton: Could I just also add that with this program we have an educational brochure
translated into eight different languages, including five Pacific-Asian languages. So if anyone would like
a copy, you can come talk to me or grab my card.
54
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: Rob Riesch: A minor suggestion on communicating to the public the balanced message of minimizing
risk and maximizing the benefits of eating fish. They are publicized as low-fat, high-protein, and omega-3
fatty acids, but I have never seen any message saying that fish is an excellent source of selenium.
Selenium is an essential micronutrient, an antioxidant, and has plenty of evidence suggesting that it has
protective effects against toxicity. The message needs to be made more loudly.
Q: What is known about selenium in different types offish?
A: You don't want to have too much selenium. Selenium levels are typically not elevated. They are only
elevated where it is concentrated in the food web, such as predator fish and shorebirds. Average levels of
selenium in commercial and sport fish are pretty low.
C: Peter Fleur, American Fisherman's Research Foundation: Are there any here from the east coast old
enough to remember the chant "Attica." I feel like I should chant "Alamon." But moving beyond that, I
haven't heard anything today or yesterday to indicate that we have any information that the levels of
methylmercury in tuna have increased over the past 40, 50, or 60 years. With better testing methods now,
we can detect a smaller amount. However, the only evidence on this question indicates the opposite.
Information from Hawaii shows no change in the level of methylmercury in tuna. I'm also unaware of an
epidemic of Minamata flooding hospitals. It is puzzling that there are so many resources spent on this
particular problem as opposed to PCBs, polyphenolchlorates, etc. Mercury seems to have really gotten
people's attention. I am also aware that the consumption of tuna in the U.S. appears to be declining.
In this morning's presentations from Hawaii, our colleague showed high methylmercury levels in
albacore. It is worth pointing out that it was all from 3-lb and larger fish. The kind offish I've been
talking about ranges from 8 to 12 Ib. You'll see a poster presentation by Oregon State University that will
demonstrate that and will add to your knowledge about this testing.
One more question on a comment in the new draft advisory: "May take over a year for levels to drop
significantly." Again, this is with respect to methylmercury. The research that I'm aware of indicates that
the methylmercury in your blood drops significantly, depending on what we mean by that, after 2, 3, and
6 months. That is a question I would like clarification on. What is the basis for that language in your
advisory?
A: I'm not going to get into why we focused on mercury, which seems to be the topic of the day. I agree
with you that there are other public health issues out there that we should pay attention to and that will
have impacts on the resources we spend and how we divvy up our time to get the job done to protect
public health. On the issue of how long it takes to get mercury levels down, that is based on the half-life
of mercury, which is between 50 and 70 days. It is possible to argue on the term "significantly," but if you
calculate that it takes about five to six half-lives to get something down to negligible levels, that would
amount to a year. Arguably, three to four half-lives can be a significant decrease; however, the issue is not
a drop but what it takes to get rid of it.
C: Jane Hightower indicated in a study that the amount of methylmercury in the blood of her patients
dropped significantly after they stopped eating fish for as little as 2 months. I think there might be other
people here from Physicians for Social Responsibility who might be able to add to that.
C: Well, if you say that the drop is half the amount, in the space of 60 days, that's all you are getting and
that is the point.
Q: Michael Bender: A question for David Acheson. My recollection of the FAC discussion (pending final
summary notes of the meeting) was that albacore tuna should end up either on the Do Not Consume list or
55
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
the limited consumption list. There were a variety of opinions. This is not a tweak. It is a major issue that
was discussed not only in December but also in July 2002. Also to point out that there are now 12 states
that warn about women and consumption of tuna, and a number of states are going to be saying
something about the white versus light issue. We just conducted a distribution analysis of the FDA dataset
that we got through FOIA (I have copies for people), where we combined our small dataset of 60 from the
Mercury Policy Project with the FDA dataset. What we found was that the top 5% of cans had mercury
levels over 0.64 ppm. Are you going to do any analysis on your recent dataset?
A: David Acheson: I didn't quite understand what you meant in your question. You are suggesting that
we do some further analysis but in what specific way?
Q: Michael Bender: In terms of, for instance, what percent of people would be exposed at what level of
mercury? We have 300 positive samples out there. Let's just work off that. Based on our analysis, the top
5% of cans have mercury levels over 0.64 ppm. When we combined it with our dataset we got an average
higher than just the FDA dataset of 0.39 ppm. Another instance: the state of Washington did some kind of
analysis where they estimated that 10% of children were going to be over the RfD. If you apply
consumption rates to the data that you got, what percentage of people, say women and children, are going
to be consuming what levels of mercury in fish in your canned tuna dataset? It looks like it is a robust
dataset, though I did not hear till today that it was a composite of 12 fish. You are talking about 12 times
300, so that is a very significant dataset.
A: David Acheson: The presentation that Shirley did this morning did what you recommend. Those data
from the new tuna, as well as the old data, were incorporated into the exposure assessment. The
assessment doesn't integrate the data that you indicated, but it does integrate the data that I spoke about
this morning. Basically it looks at the cross section of amount found in the fish and people's
consumption. So I still don't understand what you are suggesting that goes beyond an exposure
assessment.
Q: Michael Bender: I guess in terms of your overall recommendation, there was a question earlier about
whether or not you are going to bring it down to 6 oz per week recommendation, which is what I saw the
Bolger analysis basically say—that when you got the 12 oz offish that is averaging what these canned
tuna dataset, albacore is, you are going to be in exceedance of the EPA RfD, and in some cases, far
exceed EPA's RfD. So I'm not sure why you are still not considering recommending less than 12 oz. I
thought that was a lot of the discussion from the FAC.
A: David Acheson: We'll have to see where the FAC comes out. A lot of this discussion focuses on
whether the albacore should be on either a Do Not Eat list or a limited-consumption list. Well, it already
is. The recommendation for this average population is to eat 12 oz of a variety offish and not to eat the
same kind offish twice a week. Now, most of our focus groups understood that to be you can eat a meal
of one type offish and then another meal of another kind offish. So for salmon, shrimp, pollock, tuna,
you essentially limit it to once a week, so it is already on a limited-consumption list, not on an "eat-as-
much-as-you-want" list. I would raise the discussion in the breakout group so you can come up with some
actual recommendations.
Q: Ira Palmer, DC Department of Health: I had a question for Jim. Why is there a distinction between
recreationally caught fish and commercial fish? I noticed that almost twice the amount can be consumed
on a recreational basis as opposed to if fish are commercially caught. Most people get their fish through
commercial channels, and the fish are the same fish and could potentially present the situation that they
are the same fish from the same waters.
56
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A: David Acheson: There are different levels of mercury in fish. In terms of advisories for recreationally
caught fish, states have been making fish advisories and recommendations on specific local bodies of
water which are used for recreational fishing. EPA approached the bodies of water on which there are no
state advisories and yet still support recreational fishing. The EPA recreational advisory is focused on
those waters. Fresh water fish were considered around the United States for their median concentration,
and the advice based on that. That concentration is higher than found in most commercial fish. Hence
the difference between 6 oz on the recreational side, if state has not provided its own local advisories,
versus 12 oz on the commercial side.
Q: Margy Gassel, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: I understand that FDA
is soliciting written comments on the draft advisory. How might we submit comments?
A: David Acheson: There is a docket number for comments, but if you have comments written between
now and the end of this meeting we would love to hear them. You can give them to me. We will have
feedback from the breakout rooms tomorrow morning, so we could use some hard-hitting, focused
comments. The more comments that come as consensus, the more helpful for us, as opposed to hundreds
of comments that we have to wade through and try to integrate.
Q: Don Axelrad, Florida Department of Environmental Protection: What is driving the EPA-FDA
advisory? You seem to optimize the benefits (e.g., eat two meals offish per week). However, from the
risk angle, it's less clear what you are doing. Looking at some of the modeled scenarios—baseline, no
high-mercury fish, etc.—you come up with percentage of women above reference dose. On the basis of
Kate Mahaffey's data earlier today, estimate that 75,000 babies are overexposed to mercury for each
percent of women above reference dose. Couldn't advice be driven by an acceptable percentage of
women above reference dose, and then guidance on fish consumption be based on that? That would be a
more quantitative way of doing things.
A: David Acheson: I guess the first question is who picks the "What is an acceptable level of women
above reference dose?" The problem is I (and anyone else) would hate to have to pick that level. We do
pick that number when we do a reference dose for mercury, of course. People have explained here that
we doubled the 5% in the lower performing range so this is something that is done. But this is the
business of government. Government has to make a policy decision as to what is acceptable.
Q: David Acheson: In your further guidance you point out that mercury comes from both natural sources
and industrial discharges. I recommend you reverse the order of listing of those based on the fact that
industrial discharges are responsible for double the amount from natural sources. Second, wouldn't it be
nice to have a forum on how to reduce mercury in fish by reducing local source atmospheric emissions,
for example.
Q: Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health: Dr. Davidson mentioned that materials were ready to
go as soon as the advisory was complete. Are there plans to distribute them across states, and are we able
to review the materials before they are distributed?
A: David Acheson: We will indeed work with the states on distribution.
Q: Will states have input?
A: David Acheson: What we developed on pregnant women has already had state input. As for the rest
of the materials, we have not yet considered what we will be putting together. I presume it will follow a
similar pattern.
57
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: Jane Kay, San Francisco Chronicle: A question for Mr. Pendergast. FDA does not consider the
reference dose a "bright line," whereas EPA does consider it a "bright line." In the press we are writing
articles explaining to the public the risks of mercury in fish based on the reference dose. With a joint
FDA-EPA advisory, alongside the well-known fact that a reference dose can easily be exceeded by, say, a
child or a lightweight individual eating fish twice a week, is EPA going to go back on the reference dose
advisory?
A: James Pendergast: We use the reference dose when we make risk decisions as when we talk about
carcinogens at the 10"4, 1CT5, 1CT6 risk levels. We use that to guide calculations, but we don't make
management decisions using that as a "bright line." Remember that when you do a risk assessment
calculation and you come up with a risk management decision. Dr. Schoeny will add a couple of points
to that. The quote about "we don't consider the reference dose to be a bright line" is actually from the
EPA. For health effects for which we think there may be a threshold, a reference dose is our attempt to
calculate the population's threshold. As scientists and risk assessors, we are moving away from old
practices of reference dose where you take a no-effect level and divide it by a series of uncertainty factors
to come up with a more probabilistic approach. That was done with the methylmercury reference dose.
What we still don't have as risk assessors is more of a risk calculation associated with a particular level of
mercury exposure. The benchmark dose (magenta line on the graph I showed) was calculated to be a 5%
effect level. Some reasonable statements may be made about that particular level. The statement that we
made was that there is no such risk or there is a much decreased risk at the reference dose tenfold away
from that line. However, we fall short of being able to make an assertion or prediction at this point is: If
you double the reference dose, your risk is X, or if you are 50% over the reference dose, your risk is Y.
The models are not there right now. We would like to move toward it, but we are not there yet.
C: Kate Mahaffey: I want to expand. Given the models we have for the benchmark dose, which we
believe to be associated with fetal blood mercury or cord blood mercury in the high 50s, at that level you
have doubled the prevalence of scores on the clinically subnormal range on the tests that we have used in
setting this dose. That is considered an effect level. On the continuum between the reference dose that is
calculated using an uncertainty factor of 10 between the benchmark dose and effect level, and the
reference dose level that given what we know about mercury at this point and time that what we think is a
safe dose—there's this continuum in there that is sort of a gray zone. As you rise above the reference
dose, the likelihood of effects increases. By the time you get to a benchmark dose, you've doubled the
prevalence of these clinically subnormal scores. So in that continuum is where effect begins. Exactly
where it begins, we don't know, and this is a population-based risk, not an individual risk.
Q: Michael Callam, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality: Following on the earlier question on
the differences between the 6 oz versus 12 oz of the recreationally caught fish versus commercially
caught fish. In the additional information you presented in your slides at the end of the advisory, you
indicated that the concentrations in recreationally caught fish could be higher or lower vis-a-vis
commercially caught fish. You also said that you looked at national averages of recreationally caught
fish, and that those concentrations tended to be higher. The additional information slide contradicts that.
A: The national average is built upon different species in different locations. There are some species that
have very low mercury and some that have higher. Local advisories recognize that in certain places,
mercury levels can be low or they can be high; that is what we were trying to capture in that additional
information statement. On the average, which is what the recreational advisory was based upon, the
average of all species considered, that is how we came up with 6 oz.
Q: It seems that the advisory is recommending two fish meals a week. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
58
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: We know from NHANES that 90% of women do not eat two fish meals a week. They eat less than
that. Change in exposure assessment was if you were eating a lot, quit eating, or everybody quit eating
the top fish, but continue to eat what you otherwise were eating. Then you would reduce the top end.
The question is, have you run the model looking at all the women who ate two meals of fish
(recommended), so that everybody would be increased? What proportion then would be over that, just by
avoiding the top end? The reality is that the impact of this advisory, if women were to follow it, is to
significantly increase the amount offish that they eat, (a selected type offish). The impact would be
irrelevant because they are not eating that much. So I would be careful in recommending two meals,
because if the whole population went to that, what would be the exceedances at that point, rather than
assuming that 90% would ignore how much to eat but will pay attention to the do not eat and cut down
there? That can be taken as a clerical statement. We are now going into break, and then following that are
the breakout sessions.
VI. Comments on the National Mercury Advisory
Regional Recommendations on Mercury Issues
Question 1: How can noncommercial and commercial fish advisories be better merged?
Group 1: Northeast
• Wording is clear and pretty straightforward
• Have local and state advisories; the USEPA advice is a no-go
• Merging commercial and noncommercial advice at the state level
• Need for resources and coordination with the states—merging with local and national advice
• ATSDR might be used for this
• Can national advisory be presented in a modifiable format? Can it be modified for specific
regions/geographic areas? Filled in electronically?
• Other contaminants are also a problem: need to have advice that includes other contaminants, not
just mercury
Group 2: East
• Many of the comments that were made in group 1 are echoed in this group; want to go over in
more detail
• Data gaps: Maryland and Virginia are coastal states, have a lot of species that are local and need
to get information out about those species (i.e., spot, croaker, weakfish). Need to have
information at the local level
• Kentucky: Have commercial catfish, have larger fish caught commercially and will have a lot
more contaminants than those caught recreationally
• Educating retail outlet personnel: Maybe some sort of outreach, have simple fact sheets with the
advisory, as well as providing training
• Have different contaminants other than mercury: Different states come up with different
recommendations for different contaminants. Need consistency
• PCBs—Have overall message that includes mercury and PCBs
• Merging commercial and noncommercial advice: Look at monthly records and look at
recreational and commercial fish
59
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
o Monthly consumption as a whole and give guidance concerning both commercial and
noncommercial too costly
• Joint advisory does not consider the full suite of contaminants
Group 3: South
• Like things simple—this was a big thing for the advisory
• Ways to meld the advisories—sense that advisories weren't melded together well, still the same
two messages as in the past
• Would like for USEPA and FDA to come together with one recommendation, one meal
recommendation, for fish
• While not unanimous, the consensus recommendation was that a national advisory that said
people could have two meals of fish a week (taking into account the local elements of fish and
contaminants) would provide a simple, consistent message without significantly increasing risk
• Encourage USEPA and FDA to look at that strongly
Group 4: Great Lakes
• Support the national advisory and encourage continuing efforts to improve advisory
• Would like more detail added to first paragraph that talks about benefits to developing fetus
• Differentiation of shellfish with associated advice
• Rewording of alarming statement to see doctor if consuming fish
• List species that are safe/OK to eat
• More explicit reference to state and tribal advice
• Encourage efforts to label fish products with species name and location of origin
• Provide advice in terms of meal frequency (e.g., 2 meals/wk) versus ounces
Group 5: Midwest/West
• Maybe the message that is being sent out is unclear, maybe too much information
• Like the South group, need a singular piece of advice that goes out
• Have USEPA/FDA advice and combine with state/local advice—way too much information, and
needs to be simplified
• Need to come out with 1 number of how much to consume in a week/month
• Merging of species: might not be a complete understanding of what fish people are consuming—
think that the list simplifies the choices that are available
• Look at commercial and noncommercial choices and use list to determine what is safe/unsafe
• Want a list that shows the high risk, low risk, and medium levels of commercial and
noncommercial fish
• Four fish that are high risk are all marine fish—confusing listing of fish now present
• Left up to states to come up with list of noncommercial fish—there will be differences between
regions and states as to what is safe and what isn't
Group 6: West
• One person observed that he wasn't sure everyone wanted a national advisory
• Looking toward dramatically changing this: keep it simple
• Fish to avoid, fish to eat: don't go with the numbers too much
• Last year, example from first nations in Canada with list of fish to eat; work to reduce exposure
60
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Implementation: Training other health care providers and practitioners, people in doctors' offices;
nutritionists; nurses in perinatal clinics
1-800 consumer line for health care practitioners to get direct information about fish advisory and
risk communication
Format of national advice not applicable to everyone in the nation: not captured in the model or in
national advice (Alaska, tribes, subsistence fishers, Hawaii, etc.)
These high consuming populations not very well captured; have more resources to have them
captured—separate model to use for these groups to have a better sense of how this plays out for
them
Resources put into solving problems of pollution
Question 2: How can communication be improved?
Group 1: Northeast
• Federal government has to commit to joint release at certain point in time, allow the states to
review the material—have time to prepare
• Other ways to prepare and other advisories—communicating with local health professionals and
other agencies
• Need to have review and consultation at the local level
• No duplication of efforts—coordination with the states and USEPA (mailing to physicians, etc.)
• Want coordination
• Details can be added in other communication efforts—posters or other education outreach, such
as listing species lower in mercury: can get more information into materials once certain level of
education is achieved
• Can say more about specific fish once everything is detailed
• Template materials need to be modified for local levels
• Some fish can be consumed unlimited?
• Special populations need to have customization at the state level
Group 2: East
• Internet—Types of media that are important to get information out to the public
• Use states as a conduit to get information out; have states and USEPA coordinate so that message
is the same and coming out at the same time
• Need more than multimedia approach—go to the local level and tailor method to population to
get information out to the people
• Recommendation for point of sale for fish
• Health care providers and provide training for the health care providers (internships, returned to
Illinois program, etc.)
• More focused program on education for fish advisories specifically
• Fishing shows and cooking shows are already popular among many populations. Work the
advisories in with the show to get are the message out.
o Play on the catch and release of large trophy fish that may be higher in contaminants, to
advocate for catch and release of large fish
• Using Emeril to get the message out, highlighting the safe fish to eat and show how to prepare the
fish
o For example, focus on the fish that are safe for two meals per week
61
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
• Using celebrities: Get celebrities to look into advisories and get the message out
o Do they support the move?
o Is it publicly salient? Ride the wave.
• No best single way to communicate the advisory
Group 3: South
• Sense that the states will be left to deal with the follow-through (aftermath) once USEPA and
FDA come out with the advisory
• Need to communicate well, early, and often in order for the states to be prepared once the
advisories come out
• We should have a good fish list to balance out the bad fish list in the advisory
• This list need not be exhaustive
• States have the position to come up with more detailed lists according to their local and
geographic locations—have hot links for the good fish and for the bad fish lists for each state
• This should be done by the states
• Gulf states need to rethink the mercury advice for king mackeral and have new revised list
Group 4: Great Lakes
• USEPA and FDA need to work with states and tribes to communicate message
• Primary role implementing communication, should be states and tribes
• Need support to continue and expand states and tribes' efforts to communicate advice
• Want state/tribal advisories integrated into the national advisory on a state or regional level
• Methods needed to evaluate the effectiveness of national advisory—communication methods
need to reach general population, as well as specific groups and high risk—Evaluate behavior
changes
• Expand efforts to identify new ways of communicating message involving market plan, health
care, and other avenues
• Concerned about timing of communication between national and local levels: next spring, need to
have time to coordinate everything, but content of national advice should not be delayed
• Need to develop an implementation and communication plan that coordinates national, state, and
tribal roles
Group 5: Midwest/West
• Suggestion: Missouri has had success with media blitz; Nebraska has not done a good job of
getting information out to the public
• Use the outlets of media and focus efforts on TV, newspapers, and radio spots, and have them
link with information that the state/local agencies have available (Web sites, pamphlets,
individual state agencies)
• Using fishing guides, informational pamphlets, etc., as well with media blitz
• Effort to trying to get information into health care providers
• Educate the health care providers to help get right information out
Group 6: West
• Didn't think that physicians' message was good: should be removed
• Proposition 65
62
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
o California has unique form of communication: Attorney General's office should have
feedback and coordination with federal agencies when the message is put out
o Proposition 65 signs: signs out in some grocery stores and markets; maybe put in
restaurants
• Some of wording in communication: "contact local health departments" was confusing
• Many different agencies throughout the nation with different names: some really not a local
health department, may have only very limited information
• Best way to deal with this: contact state advisory fish programs and put list of contacts in the
advisory in order to get the right information out the right way
• Coordination and communication between federal, state, and local agencies: have a space for
each state to add specific wording in order to link things together
Question 3: Is the message clear?
Group 1: Northeast
• Statement is clear and concise
• Preamble in front needs to have clarification: Statement for pregnant women
• Overcomplicated and things overstated
• Benefits and risk:
o Developmental above most literacy levels—also overstated
• Additional information on tuna:
o Final statement flip-flops—focus on light tuna and not have negative statement about
white tuna
• Omega-3s: States are considering adding more benefits about eating fish in their advisories, but
decided it was too complex at this time
Group 2: East
• Came up with possible alternative title: Eating Fish Safely: Advice for Women of Childbearing
Age, Nursing Mothers, and Young Children
• Need to use language other than "immediately"—infers acute problem of emergency
• Fish and shellfish "should" (not can): need to use stronger and more proactive language
• Change the phrase "developmental problems" to "health problems in your child": Change of
language
• Using proactive message for tuna, not a double-sided message
o Does not prevent confusing message regarding light and white tuna
Group 3: South
• Message is not clear
• Standardize one meal or two meals for fish
• Concerned that would lose audience if message is too complicated
• Standardize meal size and clarify if it is raw fish or cooked fish
• Maintain a short list of species nationally that are safe/bad to eat
• Language: Have specific recommendations (simplify language)
• "Mercury in fish can vary": This was considered obvious and not needed
• Recommend stating directly: "For purchased fish..." and "For recreationally caught fish..."
63
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
• General concerns
o Canned tuna and light tuna: handled at state level
o Moving in the right direction: feel strongly that we need simplicity in the message so that
people can understand it and abide by it
o Have USEPA and the states to coordinate and communicate
o Gap for marine and caught fish: have one advisory for all fish (freshwater, marine,
restaurant, and store-bought fish)
Group 4: Great Lakes
• USEPA and FDA need to develop an outline for future, continuing efforts to improve
consumption advisory program involving state, tribes, and other parties
• FDA should consider more than just its data: need to consider other sources in order to develop
best advice possible
• FDA needs to provide more information about its data, so that information can be used by
consumers to understand and make decisions and used by states and tribes in developing advice
• Encourage more testing offish
• USEPA and FDA need to use more effective methods to bring the tribes into national advisory
process
• USEPA/FDA needs to work toward future improvements in advisory programs with the goal of
developing the best, comprehensive public health message for diets, not just focus on mercury
Group 5: Midwest/West
• Title: too laborious and needed to be shortened
• Physicians statement was too alarmist and needed to be softened (little bit too overdone)
Group 6: West
• Message is not clear; many issues with the clarity of the advisory
• Tuna message needs to be clarified; too confusing; lost in additional information
• Joining commercial and noncommercial fish; if eat X of commercial; how much noncommercial
is ok?
• And/or issue: Unclear as to what was advised and what was not
• Can purchase fish in many different places: some places commercial and noncommercial fish are
the same
• Question about the sport portion of the advisory: old advice limited to freshwater fish
• New advisory is supposed to be for freshwater and marine fish—unclear in new advisory
• Advisory talks about mercury and methylmercury, then explains: not a good transition
• People questioned reality offish data that had gone into model; a lot more of the fish need to be
identified by species, not general common name
• The term "women who might become pregnant" needs to be changed to "women of childbearing
age"
• Acknowledge that contamination is not acceptable and explain where it came from so that efforts
can be directed to clean it up.
64
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
VII. Risk Management Issues
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories
Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Beginning in 1998 the Wisconsin Division of Public Health and the State of Maine Bureau of Health
formed a consortium to assess the prevalence offish consumption, understanding of mercury toxicity, and
awareness of state sport-fish consumption advisories for mercury. Wisconsin and Maine also initiated
new state advisory interventions to strengthen existing fish consumption advisory programs. At the 2002
Fish Forum we presented results of a 12-state random-digit dial telephone survey of 3,015 women of
childbearing age (ages 18-45) focusing our analysis on advisory awareness. Awareness of state advisories
was only 20%, ranging by state from 8% to 32%. Women who were older, had more than a high school
education, and had a household member with a fishing license were the most informed about mercury and
fish consumption advisories.
We present additional survey analyses focusing on the 9.5% of women who reported consuming two or
more meals a week offish (frequent consumers). Wisconsin state-specific evaluation methods will also be
discussed.
Women consuming two or more fish meals a week were more likely to include sport fish in their diet than
those consuming less fish (35% vs. 28%) but were not more aware of state advisories (22% vs. 20%).
Frequent consumers had significantly higher incomes and were older (over the age of 30). Minorities
were more likely to be frequent consumers (14% vs. 8%), but fewer were aware of advisories (13% vs.
22%). Frequent consumers were more knowledgeable about the toxicity of mercury and characteristics of
fish associated with increased mercury levels.
In July 2003 we mailed questionnaires to the first 1,000 women who had given birth between June 1 and
7, 2003. The response rate was 74%. In the 12 months prior to the survey, 78% of respondents reported
consuming canned tuna and 28% consumed sport fish. Forty-six percent of respondents were aware of
Wisconsin's advisory. Only 2% said they knew a lot about the advisory and 28% said they knew "only a
little." Advisory awareness was highest among those consuming two or more meals per month. Only 11%
reported seeing one of two specific posters sent to physicians'offices and 13% reported seeing a brochure.
In interviewing a sample of clinics, we found that between 20% (pediatrics) and 60%
(obstetrics/gynecology) recalled receiving and using the educational materials.
Until source control and environmental remediation efforts can reduce the environmental burden of
mercury below levels of concern, combined sport and commercial fish consumption advisories will
remain the primary means of reducing human exposure to methylmercury. Ensuring and assessing the
effectiveness of such advisories must be an ongoing activity.
Funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement no. CR 826283-
01-0.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Did you ask about fish oil supplements, or did you ask about breast-feeding?
A: Henry Anderson: We started out with 23 pages of a mail questionnaire and, again, talking to people in
reality was you could have 8 questions and actually get the thing back. So, no we did not. We do have the
ability to link the surveys with the information that comes on the birth certificate, so some of that
65
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
information—birth weight, number of children, maternal age, and all those data elements—we have, but
we have not yet started analyzing that part of it.
Q: Aaron Mair, W. Hay wood Burns Environmental Education Center: When you talk about the benefits
of consuming fish, taking a positive approach, what is the impact of cutting away the fatty parts with
respect to the omega-3 benefits?
A: Henry Anderson: That, of course, is a potential issue. What we feel is that there is sufficient fat left in
the fish. I don't think anybody has actually looked at that, but we don't really encourage that. In our state,
because of PCBs and DDT, our sport fish are quite high. Commercial fish, on the other hand, tend to
come to the individual already skinned and filleted. There is very little trimming that's done on the
commercial fish.
Q: Aaron Mair: What would you suggest or recommend to EPA and FDA regarding the message relative
to the benefits?
A: Henry Anderson: My recommendation would be that there needs to be a holistic, integrated advisory.
Obviously, skinning and removing the fat has nothing to do with mercury. At least in Wisconsin, we give
that advice. We have heard that there is argument over how much PCB you can remove doing that, but I
think everybody would admit that it does reduce some exposure. It is well accepted by all the
communities that this is something they can do. And so we have found that of the advice we give, that is
the most readily accepted. And the concern is that if you talk about mercury, do they believe they are
reducing their exposure by continuing that? Certainly, holistically, it protects them or reduces some of the
PCB contaminants.
Q: I work very heavily with WIC, and one of the things the state WIC program has told us is that now
formulas specially fortified with omega-3s can be an option under the WIC program. This has come under
discussion in terms of possibly being another deterrent to breast-feeding. I don't know if that has come up
in your discussions with your WIC program in Wisconsin. This push for omega-3s for brain development,
in particular, is now driving this whole other interest in omega-3s.
A: Henry Anderson: I would have to go back and look, but I don't believe that the WIC vouchers can be
used to buy fish oil, for instance, supplements or anything like that. We are talking WIC because it is a
nutrition program, and everybody comes to WIC to reach their target population with all sorts of
messages and they tend to say, "We're too busy." We are still advocating strongly for breast-feeding. I
don't think there is any talk about "Well, now because of the fish oil you don't need to breast-feed."
There are so many other benefits to breast-feeding that that is our very simple, straightforward one-line
message: "Breast-feed."
C: Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services: Because of this survey
that was done in North Carolina, which is prior to 2002, we had a very low percentage of awareness. That
just really pushed us even further into switching from a location-specific approach to a fish-specific
approach so that we can really get that message out. We were not doing a very good job with the
approach that we were using. I really appreciate EPA, Maine, and Wisconsin for helping us get that
information.
66
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration
Barbara Knuth, Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources
Volume 4 in the series offish consumption health advisory program guidance documents, Risk
Communication, was published in 1995. Since that time, tribes, states, and other agencies have made
suggestions based on their use of the guidance, the evolution offish consumption health advisory
programs, and a growing understanding of the importance of building partnerships with the involved and
affected communities. Risk Communication was the focus of a major national conference in 2001.
Following the conference, USEPA charged a development team with revising the 1995 document. Based
on comments from a variety of stakeholders, a goal was set to develop a Web-based risk communication
guidance. The Web-based version is now available, at this meeting, for review and comment. The content
of the document follows a risk communication model that includes problem analysis, community partner
information needs assessment, risk communication strategy design, strategy implementation, and program
evaluation. Tips on communication approaches, diagrams, case studies, health benefit information, and
other features planned for the final document should improve the utility and navigability of the final
guidance.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Joe Sekerke, Florida Department of Health: I appreciate the idea that you are going to update the Web
site on a periodic basis, but I know I've run into situations where I've gotten something off the Web site
and then gone back later and it wasn't there the same way. Are you going to keep a history of when
changes are made and what was changed so that if someone needs to go back because someone is
questioning the information, I can go back and find the information? Will you keep a history like that?
A: Barbara Knuth: That is a really good point. To be honest, I don't know. I will talk with the Tetra Tech
folks who are working on the technical details. That is a really useful point.
Risks and Benefits Revisited
Grace Egeland, McGill University
The Centre for Indigenous People's Nutrition and Environment (CINE), for which Dr. Egeland currently
functions as the research chair, is a governing board composed of numerous Canadian organizations.
These groups include the Assembly of First Nations, Council of Yukon First Nations, Dene Nation, Inuit
Circumpolar Conference, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Metis Nation (NWT), and the Mohawk Council of
Kahnawake. These organizations represent sparsely populated native areas spreading from eastern Canada
through the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Traditional Food Versus New Food Consumption
When looking at the benefits and risk of fish consumption, the total days with or without traditional food
(TF) consumption and the associated nutrient intake are examined. On days when TF is consumed in the
identified population, a high amount of total energy is present in the form of protein. On days when TF is
not consumed, there is a substantial reduction in the overall protein energy levels in the various groups
studied (Yukon, Dene/Metis, and Inuit). Observations have shown that people are replacing traditional
protein sources with other things. This is due, in part, to the expense of other forms of protein at the
supermarket, especially considering that the majority of these goods will have been shipped to their retail
locations. People are switching to carbohydrates as a percentage of their total energy intake, and
consumption of fats is increasing (trans-fatty acids). Trans-fatty acids are formed when vegetable oils are
exposed to high heats (as in baked goods). They are now considered by most professionals as even worse
67
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
than saturated fat. In the north, this has severe implications for food and fish food consumption
advisories.
Fish Advisories and Food Consumption
Many ways exist to reduce the exposure and risks associated with methylmercury. Methylmercury is an
established neurotoxin, and wanting to eliminate exposure even in the presence of conflicting evidence of
low-level effects is understandable. It is important, however, to understand the potential benefits offish
consumption compared with the replacement of that food source with other market foods that have their
own established concerns. In the future, there may be a move to zero tolerance.
Numerous issues must be considered when preparing an argument for fish advisories. First, what is the
extent and nature of food security in the community? What is the local availability of market foods,
especially the quality of food, diversity of products, and costs? What are the individual household income,
household size, and food purchasing power? What alternative food choices are out there, and what is the
usual composition of the daily meal (e.g., whether rice is consumed with fish)? And what other culturally
acceptable food choices are out there for consumption? (Although tofu is a good source of protein, it will
not likely be part of the northern tribal diets.)
Throughout the process, it is important to get to know the community. For example, it is important to
understand what leading public health issues the population faces (e.g., diabetes). What other exposures
are contributing to cognitive impairment in the community? What are the prevalence and severity of these
factors? For example, many communities of the subject populations have a high incidence of iron
deficiencies. In fact, up to 40% of pregnant women in these communities have iron deficiencies. Iron
deficiencies can affect cognitive functioning. Additional questions that must be asked include what the
impact on food security and the composition of the diet will be and whether the anticipated dietary
composition changes would be beneficial in light of the public health challenges faced by the community.
Fish Studies and Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Other supportive studies have been conducted concerning fish consumption and associated omega-3
content. The USDA recommends consumption of 1 gram of long-chain fatty acids every day. Long-chain
fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are found in both
freshwater and saltwater fish species. Ongoing studies have shown that 1 gram of long-chain fatty acids
equates to consumption of 3.5 oz of rainbow trout. For U.S. men with cardiovascular concerns, studies
recommend consumption of two fish meals a week. However, the origin of these studies must be
questioned, especially in relation to their accuracy and applicability.
A study was performed recently in Singapore concerning breast cancer risk and fish intake. The
Singapore Chinese Health Study included 35,298 women with breast cancer incidence. The participants
were from 45 to 74 years old. They were studied from 1993 through 1998, and follow-ups were
performed through 2000. It was determined that fish and shellfish protectiveness was reduced by 26% for
the top three quartiles of intake relative to the lowest quartile. Among those in the lowest quartile offish
intake, high n-6 intake elevated risk relative to low n-6 intake. Fish and shellfish intakes by quartile
equated to 24.5, 44.5, 58.3, and 80.5 grams intake per day.
Six cohort studies have been performed around the work concerning fish intake. In Norway, an inverse
relationship was demonstrated when fish was poached (Vatten et al., 1990). In Japan, consumption of
greater than five servings of dried fish per week was associated with a 50% lower risk compared with less
than one serving per week (Key et al., 1999). However, in the United States, no significant findings were
noted upon completion of four different studies (Stampfer et al., 1987; Toniolo et al., 1994; Gertig et al.,
68
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
1999; and Holmes et al., 1999). In reference to the United States' NHANES data, however, only 15% of
the women studied consumed more than one serving offish per week.
Endometrial Cancer and Fish Intake
Other studies have been performed to measure the impact offish consumption in relation to other diseases
and maladies in various human populations. Numerous studies have been performed on endometrial
cancer and fish intake. A Swedish Case-Control Study of 1,055 cases and 4,216 controls was conducted
where 75% to 80% of the group participated. Results of that study showed that fatty fish consumption
inversely related with endometrial cancer. The highest quartile of the study compared fatty fish intake
(median of 2 servings per week) versus the lowest quartile of intake (median of 0.2 serving per week). A
significant 40% reduction was noted after adjusting for multiple risk factors.
Prostate Cancer and Fish Intake
Studies on prostate cancer and fish intake have also been performed. During completion of the Health
Professionals' Follow-up Study, an inverse association was demonstrated between total fish intake and
marine fish intake with metastatic prostate cancer. The study's result was derived by comparing
consumption of greater than three servings per week to infrequent fish consumption.
Diabetes and Fish Consumption
The relationship offish consumption advisories and diabetes has also been studied. For the purposes of
Ms. Egeland's work, the perspectives from the northern indigenous communities on the perceived link
between fish consumption advisories and diabetes is extremely important. Is there a direct or indirect
link? Does any plausible mechanism for the effect on diabetes exist? For example, decreases in physical
activity (subsistence fishing is very physical), increases in alternative food sources high in trans-fatty
acids and saturated fat, and decreases in omega-3 fatty acids will all affect any correlation between
diabetes and fish consumption.
Several studies have been performed on animals to help determine the relationship between fish intake
and type 2 diabetes mellitus prevention. Results of these animal studies have shown saturated fat worsens
insulin sensitivity. N-3 fatty acids in muscle cell membrane phospholipids strongly and positively
correlate with insulin sensitivity. Also, n-3 fatty acids improve insulin action and counteract negative
effects of saturated fat (Storlein, 1991). However, no evidence has indicated that those diagnosed with
type 2 diabetes can alter their insulin sensitivity by adding foods high in fatty acids to their diets.
During a 4-year prospective trial held in the Netherlands, the cumulative incidence of abnormal glucose
tolerance in 175 normoglycemic 64- to 87-year-olds was examined. It was determined that there was a
25% incidence in habitual fish consumers and a 45% incidence in non-fish consumers. Another 20-year
prospective trial was performed in Europe. Men were studied in seven countries, including the
Netherlands and Finland. The results of the study showed that baseline and recent fish consumption data
was inversely related to the 2-hour glucose level. It showed that high intake of total fat and saturated fat
increased the risk of NIDDM and glucose tolerance. Consumption of vitamin C-rich foods, legumes,
vegetables, and potatoes also showed an inverse relationship to glucose levels.
Other studies performed to interpret fish intake and diabetes prevention include the Nurses' Health Study
performed in the United States. For that study, 84,204 women were followed for 14 years. The results of
the study showed the consumption of trans-fatty acids was associated with increased risk for diabetes. In
this study, the highest fifth quintile of n-3 fatty acids intake was protective. The study also looked at
5,103 female nurses with type 2 diabetes mellitus but free of cardiovascular disease or cancer at the
69
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
baseline (1980 baseline). A follow-up was performed in 1996 (45,845 person-years of follow-up). Results
showed that fish intake of greater than or equal to five servings per week provided a relative risk factor of
0.36; for study participants who consumed between two and four servings per week, the relative risk was
0.64; and for those who consumed fish one to three times per week, the relative risk was 0.60.
Diabetes, Fish Intake, and Pregnancy
The prevalence of diabetes in pregnant women has also been reviewed. Gestational diabetes (that is,
diabetes in women prior to a pregnancy or during pregnancy) has not been studied extensively. However,
risk factors have been determined to be similar to those with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Gestational
diabetes has had a profound impact on indigenous communities. The background rate for gestational
diabetes in the United States and Canadian populations is approximately 3% compared with greater than
18% for indigenous populations.
Offspring from women with diabetes have an increased risk for obesity at an early age and the potential
for early onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Higher birth weight can disappear at around 1 to 2 years of age
and reappear after age 5. Children born to a mother with gestational diabetes are 4 times more likely to be
above the 90th percentile for weight dependent on age. By 8 years of age as great as 50% of offspring of
diabetic mothers are above the 90th percentile.
Impairments in neurodevelopment can also occur in offspring of diabetic women. Greater impairments
occur with poorer glycemic control. Strong and significant inverse correlations in motor and fine-motor
control have been observed. Even diabetics with good glycemic control have noted neurological
impairments. The developing brain may be sensitive to altered metabolism associated with diabetes.
Mental development index (MDI) and psychomotor development index (PDI) scores were significantly
lower in the diabetic group than in the controls.
Furthering the study of the impact on infants from diabetes, the method of infant feeding and the risk of
glucose tolerance in adults aged 48 to 53 years have been studied. Bottle-fed subjects had a higher mean
2-hour plasma glucose concentration than those exclusively breast-fed. In addition, breast-fed infants had
a higher percentage of DHA and total LCPUFAs in muscle phospholipids and lower plasma glucose
levels compared with the formula-fed infants.
Fish, Mercury, and the Heart
The heart is one of the target organs for mercury. However, the true implications of heart disease as an
endpoint are not understood. Mercury alters cardiac sodium handling, and there is evidence that mercury
can modify response to viral infections. Overall, epidemiological evidence is inconsistent thus far.
Numerous studies have been conducted examining mercury's effects on the heart. In Sweden, two studies
were conducted indicating no adverse effect on the risk of the first instance of heart disease. U.S. health
professionals also performed a study that noted no overall adverse effects; however, there was a poorer
power to observe the effect on non-dentists in the study. In a Finnish study, adverse effects were noted;
however, many of the endpoints associated with low selenium were observed in previous studies from the
same population. A more comprehensive study involving eight European countries and Israel noted
several potential adverse effects.
Conclusions
Public health assessments and environmental assessments are being conducted to further expand our
knowledge of these various topics. Better partnerships are needed to collect the necessary data and
70
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
provide useful and global perspectives. Better husbandry of our environment and sound health statements
concerning our communities and the consumption offish are needed. Overall, the burden of chronic
disease is great, and the evidence is there that proves that fish consumption can play a vital role in future
prevention strategies.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: There is some interesting work by Donna Mergler from the Amazon, which is in many areas remote
populations also, where rather than comparing nonindigenous foods to what I believe you are calling
noncountry food, they compared substituting one type offish for another and found they could achieve
substantial reductions in mercury exposure. Have you looked into those types of strategies rather than
focusing on comparing store-bought food to country foods?
A: Grace Egeland: There are a lot offish species available in the Amazon, an amazing variety offish.
When we go north, there are fewer species and it becomes more difficult. I think we are open to those
issues, but there isn't the same amount of variability.
Q: Luanne Williams: How about fish oil supplements?
A: Grace Egeland: Let's talk about fish oil. It tastes bad. I would like to talk a little about this. Are you
familiar with the beta carotene trial related to lung cancer? There is a lot of information about fruit and
vegetables being protective for lung cancer, so why not give smokers beta carotene because this could
reduce their risk? But when they did it, they found that there was actually an adverse effect related to the
supplements, whereas eating fruits and vegetables showed beneficial effects. So we don't always know
what's beneficial. When you take a supplement, you are still eating your diet, whatever that diet is, and so
we have to be careful. I think in the coronary heart disease trial with the high-risk population, they do
show that fish oil supplements are beneficial. But we can't estimate or assume that that is going to be the
case across the board. What are we doing? Are these effects that we are observing in studies because
they're eating lots offish and not eating something else? Is that what's driving your associations, or is it
something that is inherent in the fish? So I think we have to be a little bit careful with jumping from one
to the next.
C: Just as a follow-up comment, the Food and Nutrition Board, which does the dietary recommendations
for both the United States and Canada, has, on the National Academy of Science's Web site, a discussion
of the omega-3 fatty acids, and the conclusions regarding the omega-3s are certainly complex. I would
encourage people to look at that particular site for an overview because the results are not uniformly one
way or the other. I think it is important to recognize that.
C: Eric Frohmberg, Maine Department of Health: The other thing about fish oils is that I don't think there
is any data in the United States. This is analogous to the whole farm-raised salmon thing. In England they
looked at fish oil tablets and found lipophilic contaminant concentrations and actually pulled some of
them off the market. I don't think there is any data in the United States on that.
Q: What were the contaminants, PCBs?
A: Eric Frohmberg: I'm pretty sure they focused on dioxins and coplanar PCBs.
71
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! Risk Communication to Diverse Populations in an Urban Setting
Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Center for Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health,
University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health
The PCB Risk Communication and Outreach Project was developed to address the goals of USEPA's
program on persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBT) efforts to reduce dietary exposure to PCBs and
mercury from fish consumption. The goal was to contribute to the dissemination of information about the
health risks to historically underserved target populations from eating PCB-contaminated fish caught in
Lake Michigan, specifically recreational and subsistence fishermen (as distinct from traditional
sportfishermen), and the women and children who eat their catch.
The project worked to develop a model for the USEPA PBT program for improving risk communication
in hard-to-reach populations, particularly immigrant and low-income communities in urban settings, and
to further inform USEPA's efforts in this area. In its first year, the project conducted a pilot survey of
Chicago-area Lake Michigan fisherfolk to determine what knowledge existed among African American
and non-English-speaking fishermen at two Chicago lakefront locations, and established a collaborative
relationship with several community organizations in the Asian, Ethiopian, East European, and Hispanic
communities in the Uptown neighborhood of Chicago.
In the second year, the project conducted outreach targeting fishermen at the same two lakefront fishing
areas, and completed a shorter survey to extend the assessment of what fishermen knew about risks from
PCBs and mercury. In the second year of this project, the scope of risk communication was expanded to
include mercury risks, and work continued to develop a model that could be generalized to other similar
communities.
Because Chicago has a large and diverse immigrant population, its Lake Michigan fishing piers regularly
attract an extremely heterogeneous group of fishermen. Our survey identified individuals whose native
languages included Spanish, Filipino (Tagalog), Vietnamese, Korean, Polish, Romanian, and Hindu. In
addition, people come to the lakefront to fish not only from a wide range of Chicago neighborhoods, but
also from across the greater Chicagoland area. This made traditional efforts focused through
neighborhood organizations and single-language group communities impossible with our limited resource
base, and it presented an outreach challenge that was not fully resolved. As a result, the project ended up
working on three levels: at the citywide level, through efforts to approach the large non-English press;
through the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program through the Chicago Department of Public
Health; and through on-site outreach at the lakefront itself through various activities.
This project demonstrated that a significant gap exists between English speakers and non-English
speakers on the Chicago lakefront with respect to knowledge offish advisories, having heard of PCBs,
and health risks from eating Lake Michigan fish contaminated with PCBs. In addition, substantive
barriers to achieving the type of outreach desired by USEPA in a geographically large and diverse urban
area such as Chicago were identified in the areas of policy, implementation, and funding.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Susan Boehme, New York Academy of Sciences: You mentioned that it was impossible or difficult to
get to the subsistence fisherman population with your approaches. Do you have any ideas about how to
get to the subsistence fishermen?
A: Lin Kaatz Chary: I think that we did identify a lot of subsistence fishermen, but we defined them
ultimately by our data as people who fished four or five times a week or every day. It was a surprising
number of people who did that. I think that it is very difficult to identify [subsistence fishermen] because I
72
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
think people are very reluctant to admit that they rely on catching fish for their weekly market basket. So I
don't have a better answer. I think you have to really refine your question to find out how often they fish
and draw your conclusions from that. Of course, you can always ask income questions as well, which we
did not do.
Q: Joe Sekerke, Florida Department of Health: We tried to identify subsistence fisher populations in the
survey we did in Florida, a year-long survey in 1992-1993, and we could not identify what we would
have called a subsistence fisher population. We specifically went to the food stamp distribution centers
and counties that our food stamp people identified as where they thought it was most likely we would find
subsistence fishermen. We were unable to identify anyone who came anywhere close to the 140 grams a
day that EPA used to identify subsistence fishermen. We had some heavy fish eaters. We had one woman
who reported eating 10 kilograms of catfish in one week. When you identified the population as non-
English-speaking, was it that they didn't meet your requirement of having sufficient English to fill out the
survey or that their first language was something oilier than English?
A: Lin Kaatz Chary: We didn't include the people who couldn't take the survey. That included people
who took the survey in Spanish and Vietnamese and people whose native language was clearly other than
English but who had enough English skills (crude at best).
Palos Verdes Shellfish Contamination Risk Communication
Sharon Lin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Gina Margillo, Impact Assessment, Inc.
The Fish Contamination Education Collaborative (FCEC) is a participatory outreach and education
project and part of USEPA's overall program to address human health risks posed by the fish
contamination related to the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund site. USEPA Superfund committed
approximately $2 million for 2-year activities under FCEC. The cornerstone of the FCEC is the
partnership among federal, state, and local government agencies, eight community-based organizations,
and other local institutions. The key to the FCEC's success is the meaningful involvement of the public as
a true partner.
The FCEC goals are to (1) reduce exposures of populations to contaminants in fish caught off the coast of
Los Angeles and Orange counties; (2) conduct education with the most affected populations so they can
make informed decisions about fish contamination issues; and (3) build local capacity to address fish
contamination issues in the future. The FCEC program targets a culturally and ethnically diverse
population. The target population includes anglers who fish off the Los Angeles and Orange County
coasts, an ethnic population that buys white croakers in local ethnic markets, and ethnic and general
populations, especially women of childbearing age and children. Pier and marina outreach, market
outreach, media outreach, and general outreach programs were formed to address potential human
exposure routes to fish contamination. Because of the high level of collaboration among all partners,
scientific and regulatory agency experts and community members come together to discuss and craft
outreach messages that are of importance and relevant to their respective communities. FCEC outreach is
conducted in a culturally appropriate manner by the community members. The outreach materials are
available in multiple languages, including Chinese, Chamorro, English, Ilocano, Khmer, Korean,
Marshallese, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog, Tongan, and Vietnamese.
For details about the FCEC program, please visit www.pvsfish.org.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Time did not permit.
73
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication
Linda Vaught, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Information Center
In June 2001, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) led the Mississippi Fish
Advisory Task Force, comprising several Mississippi state agencies, in issuing a Mississippi Delta Fish
Consumption Advisory. The advisory suggested limited consumption of certain types offish with high
concentrations of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and toxaphene. The advisory was issued for
almost every waterbody in the Mississippi Delta. In an intense 14-month campaign, MDEQ used various
methods of outreach to convey the message to the fish-consuming public.
The campaign began with press conferences in Jackson and Stoneville, a city in the heart of the
Mississippi Delta. The initial message was twofold: (1) MDEQ had conducted fish tissue sampling in all
parts of the state. The data revealed that the majority of the fish in the state are safe to eat. (2) Certain fish
from the Mississippi Delta contain high levels of DDT and toxaphene. We suggest that you limit your
consumption to no more than two meals per month.
MDEQ continued with the following outreach:
• Booked appearances on urban talk radio programs and local television stations in the Delta for
knowledgeable staff to discuss the advisory and answer questions.
• Developed fliers and posters in both English and Spanish.
• Established a toll-free telephone number to answer concerned citizens' questions.
• Involved 1,400 Delta pastors in getting the message out. Two separate letters were sent asking
the pastors to read a message from the pulpit and to distribute fliers and hand out posters in
their churches. A press conference was held on the steps of one Delta church with the pastor to
draw attention to the message. The event was covered by print and broadcast media.
• Developed and posted signs at Delta lakes showing fish included in the advisory. A press
release was sent out to all media.
• Placed fliers and posters in the Mississippi Department of Health's Delta health offices and in
private health offices. A press conference was held at one Delta state health office. Press
releases about the distribution were sent to the media.
• Used Boy Scout troops to place posters in libraries, schools, community centers, and places
where fishermen congregate.
• Sent letters and information to commercial fishermen and fish markets.
• Placed a notice about the advisory in the annual fishing guide produced by the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks.
• Participated in Delta health fairs and fishing exhibitions.
• Developed, printed, and distributed a 16-page coloring book about the advisory to every third-
grade student in the Delta.
• Created a song and jingle about the advisory that was aired on 78 radio stations.
• Placed advisory information on the MDEQ's Web site.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Time did not permit.
74
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Risk Communication for Medical Practitioners
Steve Blackwell, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Several techniques and tools can be used to assist medical professionals in communicating fish advisory
information to their patients. Information gained from visits with physicians can be one of the strongest
forms of outreach when trying to reach your target population.
Today we come at this topic from varying views. We represent professionals in the fields of health, the
environment, and academia. For all of us, one of the greatest resources for disseminating information is
physicians; however, they are often the hardest to reach with health messages since they are continually
bombarded with medical information. We at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseased Registry
(ATSDR), now a component of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), believe mat we can all be
potential partners in outreach efforts to the public.
Various types of medical practitioners can provide insight to these outreach efforts: physicians, nurses,
midwives, physician's assistants, nurse practitioners, and tribal clinicians and healers. In addition, dietary
and nutritional professionals can also be an excellent resource for this type of advisory information. For
physicians, the target groups include obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN), family practice, pediatrics, and
internal medicine. Of all four groups, internal medicine professionals represent the largest number of
professionals dealing overall with general medicine.
It is important to understand that many physicians work from a model; prevention doesn't complement
their concerns as much as diagnosis and cure. In addition, physicians are extremely time-limited and hard
to reach. For this topic in particular, medical school curricula may provide only one-half day, at most, of
environmental and occupational medicine instruction. There are very few physicians certified in fields of
environmental health.
In response, the USEPA and ATSDR cofounded and established a nationwide series of environmental
health pediatric specialty units. A unit was established in each of the USEPA regions nationwide. These
units are an excellent resource for environmental medicine information, and they are great advocates
within the medical community. More information can be found by contacting the Association of
Occupation and Environmental Clinics (www.aoec.org).
Various types of outreach to medical practitioners can be used. One of the most common is mass mailing.
Unfortunately, mass mailings are very limited because you have no idea who sees the information,
whether it will be passed on to the appropriate person, or whether it will be opened at all. Blast faxes are
an older method to contact several people on an established list. However, they are most often used now
only for emergency situations.
Grand rounds presentations may be one of the best ways to get information to physicians. The majority of
physicians received their continued education credits from attending such presentations. Information
presented through the grand rounds circuit can easily target the appropriate medical practitioners and
foster outreach to the target community.
Other types of outreach to physicians include articles in medical journals, submitted as supplements or
technical papers, as well as presentations at regional, state, and local conferences and meetings. It may
even be practical to set up your own conference centered on a specific interest. Practitioners can also be
targeted specifically and visited in person. In general, most physicians like to hear information from other
physicians.
75
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
A variety of reference materials are available to outside professionals and the public. These include the
CDC's Toxicological Profiles, which provide health and environmental information on specific
chemicals. Case studies for environmental medicine, general environmental health, and pediatric health
are also available from the CDC. Most of this information can be obtained on CD-ROM or from the
Internet. The resource can also assist in raising the understanding of environmental medicine in the
physician community. Education materials aimed directly at the patients are also greatly helpful. It is not
only important to inform the physician community but it is also necessary to provide materials that the
physicians can use to communicate that information to the public.
There are several benefits to training medical professionals to assist in the dissemination of information. It
provides a better awareness of environmental hazards in general and can improve the quality of health
care where hazardous substances in fish may threaten human health. The most important point is that
messages are usually judged first by whether their sources are trusted. Trusted medical professionals are
often the best source for the effective transfer of medical information.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Time did not permit.
VIII. Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Farmed Salmon from Around the World
David Carpenter, State University of New York at Albany
We collected samples of over 700 salmon (about 2 metric tons) obtained from salmon farms in eight
regions of the world, supermarket samples from 16 cities in North America and Europe, and wild Pacific
salmon of the five major species, and we analyzed them for concentrations of 14 persistent
organochlorine contaminants (polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], dioxins, and persistent pesticides) and 9
metals. On average the farmed and supermarket salmon had about 10 times the concentration of the
organic contaminants that were found in the wild salmon, whereas the metals were not very different. We
found that salmon from farms in Northern Europe (Scotland, Norway, Faroe Islands) were significantly
more contaminated that those from North America (Maine, eastern Canada, British Columbia, and
Washington State), whereas salmon farmed in Chile were least contaminated. However, even the least
contaminated farmed salmon contained two to five times the contaminant concentrations found in the
wild salmon. We applied USEPA's risk assessment methods for cancer on the basis of levels of PCBs,
dieldrin, and toxaphene, the only ones of the 14 organics for which there is a clear USEPA guideline on
carcinogenicity. Applying these guidelines, which are based on the amounts offish that can be safety
eaten without raising the risk of cancer above 1 in 100,000, most of the farmed fish trigger advisories that
indicate that more than one fish meal per month increases the risk of cancer. The fish from Scotland and
the Faroe Islands were the most contaminated and triggered advisories that more than one fish meal every
4 months would increase risk. The supermarket samples mirrored the levels found in the farmed salmon.
The most contaminated samples came from Frankfurt, Germany, whereas the cleanest farmed salmon
came from New Orleans, probably Chilean salmon. For the wild salmon, consumption advisories were
much less restrictive, and in most cases up to eight meals per month did not cause elevated risk.
We also analyzed 14 samples of the food fed to farmed salmon, and we found the same pattern in terms of
presence of contaminants and relative levels in different geographic regions as were found in the farmed
fish. This food is concentrated from trash fish caught in local waters and appears to be the source of the
contamination of the farmed salmon. The levels in the feed correlate roughly with the duration and
density of industrialization in the different geographic regions, implying that we have sufficiently
76
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
contaminated the oceans of the world such that when one concentrates the oils and protein from small
wild fish, one ends up with a product that contributes to hazards to human health.
Our risk estimates are clearly underestimations of the true risk. Almost all of the other organic
contaminants studied are either proven (dioxins) or likely human carcinogens, but these have not been
considered in this risk assessment. We also have not considered any of the noncancer endpoints, of which
there are many for neurobehavioral decrements, endocrine disruption, and immune suppression. There are
known benefits of ingestion of omega-3 fatty acids, which are relatively high in salmon, especially in the
prevention of arrhythmias following a heart attack and possibly in promoting neurological and cognitive
development. However, the presence of these contaminants at these high concentrations will counteract
the beneficial effects. There are many available noncontaminated sources of omega-3 fatty acids,
including wild salmon and other wild fish and seafood, canola and flaxseed oil, and some legumes. We
conclude that farmed salmon constitute a significant source of elevated risk of cancer in people who
consume it frequently.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Rob Duff, Washington State Department of Health: I just want to comment that it is great that you
shined the light on the fact that PCBs are in feed and they actually build up in farm salmon. My question
deals with your risk assessment and the choice of the cancer endpoint because in our review of the
literature, for PCBs especially, the weight of evidence clearly points to the neurodevelopmental health
effects and that's the endpoint we have been using. If you look at that endpoint, if you use the RfD for
Aroclor-1254 and plug it into your standard risk assessment equation, you get a somewhat lower risk in
the range of 3 or 4 times 10~5, which would allow you to eat more salmon than your calculation up there.
One of the things I would like to point out is that cancer is not the only way to consider multiple-chemical
exposure. There is a method called a hazard index where you select common endpoints from noncancer
health effects and you can actually look at multiple-chemical exposure. We know that we have those
endpoints with many of these contaminants. DDT, methylmercury, PCBs—all have neurodevelopmental
endpoints. In fact, ATSDR has a draft guidance, an actual toxicological profile, to look at fish
contaminants. It actually outlines how you can do this. So my question really is, what led you to choose
cancer as the endpoint when in our review most of the weight of evidence really points toward the
neurodevelopmental effects as what we should be basing our assessments on?
A: David Carpenter: I couldn't agree with you more that that's important. That is the kind of analysis we
will be doing in subsequent publications. We chose cancer because of a formula that we didn't have to
develop, albeit we did choose sort of at what level of risk. I think there are a whole host of things that we
must have. We must have better ways of dealing with chemical mixtures, and we must also find ways to
incorporate into risk assessment not just cancer, not just neurobehavioral effects, but also effects on the
immune system and effects on other endocrine systems, and this is an enormous challenge. We are going
to continue working with our data, but at this point we dealt only with cancer and only with cancer from
three substances in this risk assessment.
Q: Steve Ellis, Tetra Tech: Often the net pen-raised salmon have higher lipid contents than the wild fish,
and the data you presented wasn't lipid-normalized. Could you comment on how those trends of higher
concentrations work on a lipid-normalized basis? Second, you mentioned that the arsenic was 100%
organic, no inorganic arsenic, which is pretty rare. I think that all the samples we have worked with—a
variety offish—at least had some inorganic arsenic. I'm curious as to the method for arsenic.
A: David Carpenter: I'm not the best person to answer the methods for the metal determination. Those
were farmed out to a commercial lab in British Columbia. Regarding the lipid adjustment, we have lipid
77
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
measurements that we will be dealing with in future publications, but as you correctly pointed out, this is
not lipid-adjusted. There still is a significant excess concentration when these results are lipid-adjusted.
Q: Why did you leave the skin on?
A: David Carpenter: The reason we left the skin on is that's the way the fillets are sold. We did a survey,
and have looked at other surveys, and almost everybody cooks fillets with the skin on. And a significant
percentage of people eat the skin. It certainly is one of the unanswered questions: What degree of
reduction in contaminant load would you get if you took the skin off? I should have said one other thing.
The online materials listed in our science paper will give you a lot more information about the methods
we used here. Obviously, as we go to full manuscripts we will present those in much greater detail.
Q: Arnold Kuzmack, USEPA: There has been a lot of discussion about omega-3 fatty acids in your paper
and by other people here, and they tend to deal with it as one big thing. My understanding is that there are
really quite different kinds and that the types in fish, EPA and DHA, are the ones most likely to have
most of the benefits.
A: David Carpenter: No, I don't think that is true. The human body cannot insert a double bond at the
three position, but we all can manufacture the longer-chain fatty acids from linolenic acid. There certainly
is some debate. It's true that the EPA and the DHA are the major omega-3 fatty acids in fish, but in terms
of health benefits there seems to be little difference between linolenic, which is what is in canola oil and I
think in walnuts. There seems to be little difference in terms of health benefit whether it is a shorter-chain
or a longer-chain omega-3 fatty acid.
Q: A couple of things. One is that I want to say we really like your doing this study. You've done a large
enough sample size so it is clear what your source of contamination is, and that allows us to think about
ways in which we can reduce this. It has been really unfortunate and very frustrating with the salmon
industry sticking their head in the ground making specious complaints about all the other small studies
rather than dealing with the situation. And it's really interesting to look at the difference in the way this
played out. Granted, it's a different issue, but there are a lot of dissimilarities in the way this played out in
the press compared with the dioxin contamination of catfish feed. The levels of dioxins aren't that
different and it's played out very differently in the press because FDA dealt with the issue and the catfish
industry. That said, we are very uncomfortable with the risk assessment part, in part because of the level
of some of these contaminants in other foods, as we talked about the other day. That leads to my question:
Do you and Barbara consider, based on how that recommendation was developed, the situation where this
would apply? How does it differ from beef, cattle, or pork, where the problem is generalized
contamination in the environment working its way up in the food stream?
A: David Carpenter: That's a good question. That is actually something I meant to cover and didn't. For
those of you who haven't looked at it, I really recommend the Ireland report strongly. There are some
very frightening things there that go to just what Eric said. One of the frightening statistics is that 7 billion
pounds of waste animal fat is fed to animals. The USA Today newspaper delivered to my door this
morning confirmed that all of the waste fat from cows is fed to pigs and chickens, and other animals. So
the solution is the same for getting the dioxin-like compounds out of hamburger, chicken, and pork as it is
out of salmon: Stop recycling carcinogen-containing animal products into animal food. Now, regarding
the information on the levels in other foods, the FDA did a total diet survey in which it found that in
general, the levels in our farm salmon were higher than those in other animal products. But, it's the same
compound. It is quite correct, as Eric pointed out in his talk and others have pointed out, that on average
Americans and Canadians eat a lot more beef than they do salmon. So from the point of view of our total
body burden, we probably get more of it from other sources. That's not true for a lot of people, especially
those health-conscious people who have gone to salmon in avoiding red meat. The problem is the same,
78
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
and we've got to get these contaminants out of all of our foodstuff. I think the solution is to not panic, eat
a balanced diet, and be aware of the pluses and the minuses in different foodstuff. And we all need to
work with our government officials to find ways of creating healthy food products in our supermarkets
and increase the general knowledge in the public about the pluses and minuses.
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes: Habitat, Life History, and Diet
Sandie O'Neill, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
In Washington State we are fortunate to have a fairly large, comprehensive, multiagency monitoring
program to examine and assess the entire health of the Puget Sound environment. One of the most
important components of this monitoring program is to look at the contaminants in fish, in this case PCB
data.
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure Accumulation
Several factors can affect contaminant exposure in fishes, including the proximity to contaminant sources,
the habitat, the trophic level (how high up the food chain the fish feeds), the gender and age of the fish,
and the lipid content of the fish tissue. Which one of these factors is the most important depends. For
example, fish that are higher on the trophic scale likely have higher levels of PCBs. However, select areas
of higher contamination may exist where fish species lower on the food chain will have higher PCB levels
than those higher on the trophic scale. That doesn't mean you have to analyze every fish, but it does mean
you must look at those species with similar habitats, life histories, and exposures, and extrapolate from
the data how PCB contamination may affect other fish.
In the Puget Sound, sediment PCB contamination varies among the different basins. The majority of
contamination is located within the basins along the state's Interstate-5 corridor and includes the Cities of
Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett. In Puget Sound, we sample fish species with different histories, diets, and
from numerous locations in order to get a better understanding of how these contaminants accumulate in
fishes.
Much of the data collected includes information on the English sole. The English sole is a bottom dweller,
consumes benthic invertebrates, has a moderate home range (it doesn't move around a lot), and is
ubiquitous in the Puget Sound and the west coast. We sampled these from up and down the Puget Sound
and discovered that mean PCB values varied greatly in edible muscle tissue (we did not sample skin).
The highest relative elevated concentrations were located in the central Puget Sound. Currently, we are
looking at Aroclor data; however, we are moving toward congener data to be used in the future. It is very
hard to compare PCB values from various studies unless you know the exact methods used.
When modeling the elevated PCB contamination with the other key factors (age, species, lipid content),
we discover that the main driver for these benthic fishes and PCB contamination is sediment composition.
By plotting the natural log of the PCBs in muscle tissue versus the mean composite age of the fish species
and the in-sediment PCB concentrations, you can learn several things about the frequency of
contamination. As sediment levels of PCB concentrations rise, the level of contaminants in fish increases
greatly. On the other hand, the graph shows that age is less of a factor in part because we use composite
samples and the age of the fish species doesn't vary much. Therefore age is not a driver. Basically, we
can explain about 72% of the variations we see from the 41 different sample sites just based on the
sediment chemistry.
English soles are by no means the worse case to look at in the Puget Sound. Sampling of rockfish in the
same location demonstrated that English sole has approximately half the PCB contamination in the fish
79
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
muscle (62 (ig/kg for sole versus 121 (ig/kg for rockfish). Most has to do with the life history of the fish.
Rockfish don't move around much; they are demersal, carnivorous (they eat higher trophically), very
long-lived (80+ years).
Comparing PCB accumulation in male rockfish over time shows that male rockfish have increased PCBs
concentrations with increased body burdens and age, but data for females fluctuates up and down with
age. In general, we see this with many animals. Fishes like the rockfish are not fatty and have lipid
contents of less than 1%. However, they produce quite fatty larvae and the females pass all their PCBs
onto their offspring while the males will continue to accumulate theirs over time.
PCB Accumulation in Benthic and Demersal Fishes
In benthic and demersal fishes there will be more of a correlation with sediment concentrations. The
highest correlation exists for fishes with small home ranges. Increases in trophic level (biomagnification)
are also directly related and we possibly see bioaccumulation in long-lived fishes with variances usually
seen between the male and female of the species.
This is very different with pelagic, anadromous, and wide-ranging fish species. These fish live
predominantly farther up in the water column, have high fat and lipid content, are carnivorous, and have
complex life histories. Salmon in general are anadromous, feed in marine water where most of their
growth takes place, and are generally carnivorous. Salmon also have very complex life histories and each
species is very different, implying that their unique contaminant exposure will also be different.
Data on local Puget Sound chinook and coho species has been collected since 1992. Concentrations were
found to vary tremendously. Concentrations were higher in the individual and composite samples of
chinook salmon since they are larger, much higher trophically, mostly carnivorous. Coho salmon have
lower concentrations since they do eat some invertebrates. Pink and chum salmon have the lowest
concentrations since they eat much lower trophically (jellyfish, etc.). With different fish species you get
decreases and increases in concentrations (related to trophic status).
Where do PCBs come from? This is always a touchy question. Juvenile salmon entering salt water have a
body burden of 1.4 (ig of PCBs on average. As fish coming back to fresh water from the marine
environment, they have an average body burden of 130 (ig PCBs. Therefore, the contaminants they are
picking up come mostly from marine waters. However, not all fish go to the same marine waters. Large
variations in sizes can return at various ages.
Comparing saltwater age (age when the fish returns from salt water) also shows difference in trophic
status. It was thought that we would see different concentrations of PCBs from these fish being in
different parts of marine life, and also less of a concentration with the younger salmon because of
different aspects of trophic life. The data is exactly the opposite. With increase in saltwater age, the PCB
body burden decreases. The reasoning for this is that smaller fish stay closer to the coastline and don't
venture into the open oceans, not like the older fish.
Does Oceanic Distribution Affect PCB Levels in Pacific Salmon Stocks in the Pacific Northwest?
This topic is very important from an environmental perspective, especially in considering whale species
that feed on resident salmon populations. Will whale body burden be different as well? A study is planned
to look at different chinook from several river systems up and down the west coast (from southeast
Alaska to northern California).
80
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
PCB Accumulation in Pacific Salmon
The majority of the PCBs are accumulated in marine waters, including coastal areas and the open ocean.
Adult chinook/sockeye accumulate higher PCB concentrations than pink and chum (higher on the trophic
scale), and species- and stock-specific differences in life history traits, such as saltwater age and marine
distribution, may influence PCB levels.
PCB Accumulation in Pelagic Fish
Pelagic fish integrate PCBs over broad areas. We need to know where the fish are from as well as where
the prey on which they feed originated. Data has shown that trophic level affects PCB accumulation and
the age and size may (or may not) affect PCB accumulation. Many variables affect the age association,
including where the species feeds and on what trophic level they consume other fish or benthic species.
Most importantly, if you want to design a cost-effective monitoring program or communicate risk
information, you must know your fish!! If not, you should at least know your local fish biologists.
Questions and Answers Following Presentations
Q: I have a question about the three-dimensional graph. What caught my eye is if you look at the highest
sediment contamination and then look at PCB in muscle tissue versus age, you have a curve. So you are
seeing a decline with older fish, but at intermediate sediment contaminant levels it looks like it keeps
increasing with age. I was wondering about your interpretation of that.
A: Sandie O'Neill: I don't have a good one. These are all composite samples, so the age factor isn't as
well modeled as the location factor is. And we may be seeing differences in maternal transfer of PCBs.
I'm just not sure. Without having more detailed age data, it is hard to look at that.
Q: Joe Sekerke: Were the salmon that came back at younger ages sexually mature, or was it only the 4-
year-old salmon?
A: Sandie O'Neill: They were ready to go. A lot of variation just naturally happens. The fish do come
back at different ages.
C: Joe Sekerke: I want to reiterate that people doing risk assessments for fish consumption have to talk to
fishery biologists. I had a situation where we were seeing dioxin levels in a paper and pulp mill where the
bluegills were consistently higher than the largemouth bass. I kept saying, "This can't be right. There's
something wrong with the data." Fortunately, there was another problem with the data so I didn't get in
trouble, but it turned out the difference was that the bluegills stayed in the creek while the largemouth
bass moved in and out of the creek.
Q: Bob Brodberg, California EPA: We looked a little bit at our Pacific salmon, and at least outside
Sacramento before they come in, they are quite low in PCBs. I was wondering about the quillback
rockfish and obviously if you focused on that one species for consistency and probably for comparison's
sake. Did you look at some other rockfish? We have done some coastal sampling of rockfish, and there
are a lot of different rockfish.
A: Sandie O'Neill: In Puget Sound the reason we focused on them is that there are three species. The
main reason we focused on those particular fish species is that they are what is there. You can't
extrapolate to all rockfish because not all rockfish are the same.
81
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
C: Bob Brodberg: That is the difficulty we find going from one species to another for miscellaneous
contaminants.
Q: I was wondering if you considered the role of algae in the overall findings that you've seen because
based upon what you see in the literature, that first step, the partitioning between water and the algae, is
critical ultimately to what gets transferred up through the trophic food chain.
A: Sandie O'Neill: We participated in a PCB modeling workshop where we were trying to figure out
where all the PCBs come from, how they get from the sediments up into the plant pelagic environment,
and what types of biota are likely to be sinks for PCBs. We did come up with some ideas showing that we
can get transfer from benthic areas from bottom sediments up the water column through reproductive
products of the fish. If you have an English sole or a crab or a rockfish that's feeding in a contaminated
area, it can internally transfer its PCBs to its pelagic eggs or larvae that become zooplankton eaten by
other pelagic fishes. You can get a direct link that way, through the food web. One of the other things we
looked at was plants as a potential way to fix PCBs. They have a fairly high lipid reservoir, and if you
look at some of the literature values on PCBs in plants they are extremely low. But if you look at the
biomass of plants in Puget Sound, you can have a heck of a lot of PCBs incorporated into that plant
material. For a lot of the algae and things that die in the winter, does it get rereleased into the
environment? So we happen to be doing some of that as a modeling exercise.
Q: In New York we found that in freshwater systems lipid content is a real wildcard. As a matter of fact,
in the same waterbody you could have carp and they are sky high, and in the smallmouth bass the trophic
levels are relatively clean. We actually have a trout stream that had high levels of PCBs in the trout.
When there was a drought, the lipid content went down and the PCB levels went down. When things
cleared up, the trout got fat and the levels went up again. The question is, do you find these relationships
hold up as well when you look at lipid-normalized data?
A: Sandie O'Neill: I don't lipid-normalize in terms of dividing it by the quotient method (i.e., where you
divide by the percent lipids) because it's quite variable. Whenever we correct for lipid effect, we do it
where you run a general linear model and put in a lipid as a covariant. If it tells you that lipid is a
significant factor, you can correct for it. But in some fish species it isn't. For example, coho up and down
the sound are the same age, and from one site to the next 48% of the variation in PCBs is explained by the
lipids. However, when I look at the chinook that are also lipophilic, I don't see that and it is because the
age or trophic differences are more important. But also it is a very dynamic time when we look at salmon.
They are coming back to spawn. What is happening is that as they approach coastal streams, they are
building up the lipid reserves in their body tissue. Once they get nearer the rivers, they are making eggs
and they are starting to mobilize that fat from their lipid tissue into their eggs. Once you get a differential
between lipids in the eggs versus the muscle tissue, you get a transfer. Some of the variation you are
seeing probably has to do with what the trout are doing in terms of their reproductive status.
Model Application for Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Stephen Wente, U. S. Geological Survey
Methylmercury is a toxic chemical that has been shown to affect the health of humans and wildlife.
Methylation of inorganic mercury and subsequent biomagnification of methylmercury through aquatic
food webs is generally accepted as the primary pathway by which both humans and wildlife are adversely
affected by mercury. Many federal, state, tribal, and local agencies monitor wild fish tissue mercury (fish-
Hg) concentrations for the specific purposes of identifying spatial and temporal trends and preparing fish
consumption advisories. However, fish-Hg concentrations vary with the samples' characteristics, such as
82
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
the kind of tissue sampled ("cut"), species, and fish size. Therefore, directly comparing samples with
dissimilar sample characteristics for trend analysis or estimating unsampled fish-Hg concentrations for
fish consumption advisories can be problematic. This problem greatly hampers the interpretation of fish-
Hg datasets because obtaining wild fish samples with specific or consistent characteristics can be
expensive or impossible. Several researchers have used regression methods to predict the mercury
concentration of a standardized sample from samples of the same cut and species, but of different lengths.
These methods extend the range of samples that can be validly compared with samples of the same
species and cut but different sized fish.
This study, by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the National Institute of
Environmental Health, assesses a different approach based on statistical modeling (the covariance model)
that encompasses not only fish of differing sizes, but also fish samples of different species and cuts. This
covariance model was calibrated using a national dataset of fish-Hg analyses that contained 35,130
samples. Comparison of the covariance model with the current method (the size-class model) shows the
covariance model produces more accurate fish-Hg predictions than the size-class model for the fish-Hg
data currently being collected. The covariance model is useful for (1) standardizing fish-Hg
concentrations to a common sample type for spatial and temporal analyses, and (2) estimating fish-Hg
concentrations of unsampled species, thereby enabling the development of more comprehensive fish
consumption advisories. In addition, use of the covariance model will allow monitoring agencies to
greatly reduce the number of analyses required to achieve the same prediction accuracy of fish-Hg
concentration. This could substantially reduce the cost of a fish-Hg monitoring program. The USGS is
developing a Web site to facilitate the dissemination of both raw fish-Hg data and covariance model
predictions, as well as mercury concentrations from other media (soil, sediment, and coal) on a national
scale.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: I know I didn't get a chance to do it well, but when I was trying to compare the raw data versus the
model data in the west coast area, the ones I saw real quickly seemed that the model was consistently
underestimating the raw data. Is there any bias that it underpredicts at low levels?
A: Stephen Wente: The colors are really messed up. You should have gotten the exact opposite. The raw
data should have come out low on the north of San Francisco and then been transformed to very high
values. As far as any kind of systematic bias on the model, we compare it to just taking the fish and
putting them together in a size class versus using our model when we go through a validation method.
The reason this kind of gets at what you are talking about is that we find less variability. In other words, if
we have a systematic bias, we would miss that actual observation. If we had some kind of systematic bias
(and I'm sure we do at some low level), but if we had a very large one, we would continuously come out
with a very bad estimate.
Q: All models are better at some places than they are at others. I was just wondering if there was any
consistency in the disagreement.
A: Stephen Wente: One thing that I can address is that the error does have a lognormal distribution. At
very low concentrations, you have very narrow confidence limits; at high concentrations, you have much
wider confidence limits.
83
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
IX. Chemical Updates
PBDEs—Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban
Tom McDonald, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health Hazard
Assessment/USEPA, OEHHA
Approximately 75 million pounds of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are used each year in the
United States as flame retardant additives for plastics in computers, televisions, appliances, and vehicle
parts; and foams for furniture. PBDEs migrate out of these products and into the environment, where they
bioaccumulate. PBDEs are now ubiquitous in the environment and are measured in indoor and outdoor
air, house dust, remote Arctic regions, streams and lakes, terrestrial and aquatic biota, and human tissues.
Concentrations of PBDEs measured in fish, marine mammals, and people from North America are among
the highest in the world, and these levels appear to be increasing with each passing year. Initial data
suggests that about 10% of Californians now have higher PBDE tissue concentrations than tissue
concentrations of PCBs. Although not well understood, the primary sources of human exposure appear to
stem from ingestion of foods, especially fish and breast milk, and possibly from direct exposure to PBDE-
containing dusts in the home and office.
The State of California and the European Union have banned two of the three commercial mixtures of the
PBDEs (Penta- and Octa-BDE), and firms in Japan have voluntarily stopped using PBDEs. The sole U.S.
manufacturer announced that it would voluntarily cease production of the two banned products by the end
of2004.
The toxicological endpoints of greatest concern for environmental levels of PBDEs are thyroid- and
estrogen-hormone disruption, and harm to the developing brain and reproductive organs. These concerns
come from multiple studies in animals. The tissue levels of PBDEs in some people have reached the
levels that caused developmental effects in animals. New research suggests that PBDEs and PCBs (which
are also present in people) may work together to alter learning and behavior following exposures early in
life.
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Can you comment a little further on the debromination and the deca issue?
A: Tom McDonald: Yes. There are other concerns with the deca. Its toxicity may not be as important or
as strong as some of the more bioaccumulative congeners found in the penta and the octa, but there is a
lot of research. At the dioxin meeting this year it was shown that when deca gets into the environment, it
is debrominated by ultraviolet light and by the gut flora in fish. There may be some question as to what
we find in our bodies—whether it comes directly from the use of the penta in foam or some of it comes
from deca that has been weathered in the environment and has come back up to us through the food chain.
Q: Arnold Kuzmack, USEPA: Do you have any comments or insights on the substitution of PBDEs and
what possible effects they might have?
A: Tom McDonald: Yes, there are quite a number of groups that are looking at alternatives. For example,
many companies do not use PBDEs in their plastic products. IBM, NEC, and Hewlett-Packard have
already moved to other solutions in their computer products. Many use different technologies, such as
separating the electronic components from the housing either by barrier or by redesigning the product.
Others have gone to plastics that are inherently less flammable. Companies such as IKEA have stopped
using PBDEs in their furniture. I think they use a melamine barrier over nontreated foam, which means
84
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
when it burns it chars and creates an impervious layer. Other companies are also trying to develop other
chemical additives that would replace these.
Q: Arnold Kuzmack: How many of the effects have been repeated and found to agree with the original
data?
A: Tom McDonald: With respect to the mice, the laboratory has repeated these studies a dozen times
using a tetra-2-penta and a hexa and a deca congener and have all seen those effects. The Italian lab used
the penta mixture and found the effects in mice.
Q: Arnold Kuzmack: Is that the only one that has been done two different times?
A: Tom McDonald: Those are the only two groups that have looked at behavioral effects in mice. We
have a limited toxicity set because the issue wasn't brought to our attention until the past 5 years.
Dioxin
Rita Schoeny, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
The information summarized in this presentation was mostly prepared by Mr. William H. Farland, PhD.
Ms. Schoeny presented this information on his behalf.
Recent History
Development and revision of the dioxin assessment have been ongoing since 1988. The assessment has
been reviewed multiple times by multiple federal and state bodies, as well as by peer experts, and it
continues to remain controversial. Ongoing revisions and additions to the assessment will likely continue
to be controversial. USEPA and the other parties involved are still discussing potential changes and
revisions. More and more related data continues to be released from various sources in the United States.
After revisions to the 2000 draft assessment document, both the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the
Interagency Working Group (IWG) performed subsequent reviews of the draft. IWG requested a review
of the document by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to help ensure that the risk estimates
contained in the draft reassessment (2003 version) are scientifically robust and that there is a clear
delineation of all associated uncertainties (October 29, 2003). USEPA has sent the three volumes of the
external draft to NAS; however, the initial planning meetings for the review have not been conducted to
date. Because a public review component is involved, the information for the external draft will be
available to the public. Currently the three volumes are classified as a "do not cite or quote" draft.
However, the report has a wealth of knowledge to allow others to formulate conclusions, even though
concrete conclusions by USEPA are not currently part of the document.
The SAB report released in May 2001 made several recommendations and suggestions related to the
revised 2000 version of USEPA's dioxin assessment. SAB first complimented USEPA on the
comprehensiveness of the assessment and the careful, thorough review of the literature involved in
preparing the report. SAB also had several suggestions for improvements, including more focus on
noncancer effects, an increased emphasis on the mode of action, and more clarification of the
uncertainties involved in the estimates.
The SAB identified a lack of consensus on several key issues, including whether the cancer
characterization of dioxins, dibenzofurans, and PCBs should be carcinogenic or likely carcinogenic;
whether the margin of exposure and/or the reference dose should be used, and what the appropriate upper
85
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
bound limit used to estimate the cancer risk was. However, the SAB did recommend that USEPA should
take a stand, finish the assessment, and get it out the door, even though the information included might be
viewed by many as controversial.
Major Issues Identified in the SAB and Public Comments Addressed
Comments by the SAB and the public identified several issues that required addressing, including the
following major issues:
1. The scarcity of data for national means for potential sources and pathways.
2. More information on dioxin-like PCBs in the exposure document.
3. More information on the state of the exposure model's validation.
4. Better and more information on trends in environmental levels and body burdens.
5. More explanation on the use of Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) and Toxicity Equivalency
Quotients (TEQs).
6. Human versus animal data impact on hazard and risk characterization.
7. The significance of enzyme induction and other biochemical effects.
8. Most important, what are the relative roles of data, scientific inference, and science policy in the
development of the assessment? For USEPA, it is important to follow the body of scientific
policy on how data is interpreted and how conclusions are drawn. It is necessary to distinguish
between what USEPA thinks and how the scientists are charged for peer review of the
assessment.
USEPA worked with other federal agencies to reach conclusions illustrated in the assessment document.
Although the topic has been extremely controversial, USEPA has not faced its responsibilities alone.
General information, review, and scientific coordination were provided by professionals at the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).
Key Findings of the Reassessment: Exposure Document
The following are several of the findings gathered during reassessment of the exposure document:
1. Environmental levels of dioxin have declined since the 1970s.
2. Current U.S. regulatory efforts have addressed most of the known large industrial sources (pulp
and paper mills, etc.). There was an 80% reduction between 1987 and 1995; further reductions are
expected.
3. Currently, open burning of household wastes is the biggest unaddressed contemporary source
identified.
4. Other potentially uncharacterized sources remain, including general burning activities, ceramics,
forest fires, secondary steel and mining facilities, and reservoir sources.
5. Exposure to the general population has declined but currently averages 1 picogram per kilogram
per day (pg/kg/day) or approximately 56 to 70 pg/person/day.
6. General population exposure is from animal fats in the commercial food supply. Local sources
make little contribution to most people's exposure (unless you consider large-scale consumption
from a local source, e.g., recreational fish). Environmental levels in meat and dairy products are
the major contributors.
7. Air deposition onto plants consumed by domestic meat and dairy animals is the principal route
for contamination of the commercial food supply.
86
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
8. Reservoir sources are a significant component of current exposure and may dominate future
exposure. They currently account for most coplanar PCB exposure, and the current contribution
of dibenzofurans from this source is unknown.
9. Special populations may be more exposed, but prevalence is not well substantiated.
Further information is available in Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds in the Food Supply: Strategies to
Decrease Exposure, Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Academy of Sciences, July 2003.
Key Findings of the Reassessment: Health Document
Review of the health document produced additional comments and suggestions for data presentation and
interpretation. Highlights of these include the following:
1. A variety of noncancer effects in both human and animals should be identified and used as
references. These effects include developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, endocrine effects,
chloracne (for several exposures), cardiovascular disease, oxidative stresses, and thyroid effects.
2. TEQs provide the best means for evaluating equivalent mixtures using WHO98 TEFs and
including coplanar PCBs.
3. Body burden is the best dosage meter for estimating overall risk.
4. Environmental mixtures of dioxin-like compounds are likely to be carcinogenic to humans, in line
with the DHHS; 2,3,7,8-TCDD is carcinogenic to humans.
Comparisons have been made between U.S. and international organizations with respect to body burden,
effect, safety, and guidance factors. Each of these analyses has developed a "safety assessment" for the
amount consumed on a daily basis. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1997 stated
that the total daily intake should not exceed between 1 and 4 pg/kg/day, and the Agency for Toxic
Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1999 said that the daily intake should not exceed
1 pg/kg/day. The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 2001 stated that based on a total
mean intake of 70 pg/kg, the daily intake should not exceed 2.3 pg/kg/day.
Comparison of USEPA Results
Numerous similarities and differences were identified between USEPA's reassessment and the
information provided by other associated agencies.
The following are some of the similarities:
1. Each of the studies focused on the lowest adverse effects.
2. Each study used body burden as the dosage meter (except ATSDR).
3. Each suggested that additional decrease of intake is necessary.
Some of the differences between these studies were as follows:
1. The assumption that cancer will be insignificant at guidance.
2. The use of a safety/uncertainty factor (between 3.2 and 90) for lowest observed adverse effect
level, pharmacodynamics, and human variability.
3. The development of a safety assessment version a "margin-of-exposure" (MOE)/quantitative risk
assessment.
87
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Key Findings of the Reassessment: Risk Characterization
The findings of the reassessment of the risk characterization include the following:
1. Cancer slope factor is based primarily on recently published analyses of human data and has been
revised upward by a factor of ~6 from the 1985 values (based on the 1978 rat study).
2. Cancer risk to the general population from background (dietary) exposure may exceed 10~3 (1 in
1,000) and will likely be less and even zero for some individuals.
3. Noncancer effects have been observed in animals and humans at levels within 10 times
background levels.
4. It is likely mat part of the general population is at or near exposure levels where adverse effects
can be expected.
Summary
1. Dioxin science has evolved rapidly, and more data will continue to lead to better understanding of
dioxin's effects and will continue to raise more questions.
2. Expanded human data on cancer reinforces our previous concern for the potential for human
health impacts.
3. Identification of noncancer effects in animals and humans is sufficient to generate a similar level
ofconcern.
4. Environmental levels and human exposure are declining but are still at a level of concern.
Current source characterization is complex, with uncontrolled burning and reservoir sources
potentially playing a significant role.
Further questions should be directed to:
William H. Farland, PhD
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science
Office of Research and Development/USEPA (8101R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NOW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-6620
Fax: 202-565-2430
Email: farland.william@epa.gov
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Does the Agency have any rational advice to the states on how we can approach fish advisories for
dioxin and furans?
A: Rita Schoeny: That's an easy question. I think what we have is a good assessment with bad news. In
that sense it's not dissimilar to mercury. The best we can do, given the persistent nature of these
compounds, is to continue to issue advice either limiting or banning the consumption of highly
contaminated fish. No, it's not going to be the major component of the diet. The people who are eating the
non-fatty fish, in this particular instance, are going to incur lower burdens, particularly if that takes up a
greater proportion of their diet. One of the conclusions that we came to is, those eating a diet high in fat
and high in animal protein, not fish, are likely to be getting a substantial exposure. If you're on Atkins,
you are probably best off eating a low-fat fish. This is not a problem that's going to have simple solutions.
88
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Updating USEPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Arsenic: Toxicity and
Bioaccumulation
Charles O. Abernathy and Tala Henr, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science
and Technology; Health and Ecological Criteria Division; Tyler Linton, William Clement, and
Dennis Mclntyre, Great Lakes Environmental Center
The Clean Water Act requires USEPA to develop, publish, and periodically revise the ambient water
quality criteria (AWQC). The human health AWQC are numeric values for concentrations of chemicals in
ambient waters that are considered to be protective of human health. In 2000 the Agency updated the
methodology for deriving AWQC to reflect advances in key areas such as risk assessment, exposure
assessment, and bioaccumulation. It published partial updates to the AWQC, incorporating new
information on toxicity and fish consumption for 83 chemicals in 2000 and proposed updates on 15
chemicals in 2002. Arsenic (As), for which reassessments of health endpoints and the bioaccumulation
factor are ongoing, was not included in the 2000 or 2002 updates. Key components of the As criteria
reassessment are the toxicology and bioaccumulation inputs. At present, in the Integrated Risk
Information System, the toxicological basis for the existing As criteria is skin cancer. USEPA has
considered recent information on target tissues and dose-response relationships for As toxicity and
concluded that the cancer potency factor should be based on bladder and lung cancers. Accordingly,
USEPA is revising the cancer slope factor. To assess the bioaccumulation potential of As, a literature
review was conducted to identify data on the relative amounts of inorganic and organic As in aquatic
organisms and surface waters. The literature search results have been reviewed for applicability in
deriving trophic-level specific bioaccumulation factors, in accordance with the 2000 human health
methodology. At the present time, the database is insufficient to derive bioaccumulation factors for any
As species other than total As. The proportion of total As in freshwater fish that is inorganic appears to be
considerably higher than that previously reported for marine fish and shellfish, and it indicates that As
speciation data from marine species should not be used for freshwater species. (The opinions expressed in
this abstract are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of USEPA.)
Questions and Answers Following Presentation
Q: Bob Brodberg, California EPA: To do a meaningful risk assessment on arsenic, do you really need all
the speciation results? Are there toxicity criteria numbers for monomethylarsonic acid (MMA) and
dimethylarsenic acid (DMA)? It seems like those are the ones where we would want to focus a risk
assessment.
A: Charles Abernathy: Let me make one clarification. Risk assessment for drinking water is a completely
separate issue because we're starting with inorganic and not various species. (What you are exposed to in
that case is inorganic arsenic and its metabolites.) When it comes to the national BAF, we're dealing with
a vast array of different products, from both what one is exposed to and the toxicities of those.
Q: Bob Brodberg: So that hasn't really been resolved. In fish, we would probably look at those speciated.
It seems like a more expensive analysis, and I'm just trying to determine if it is really worth doing. We
actually have a lot of other chemicals that are going to drive the risk in a sense.
A: Charles Abernathy: That becomes a priority. We are working on it and talking to some of the people
who have done the work to see if we can get a little bit better outline of their data and how to use it. I
don't know how EPA is going to prioritize it at this time. We are working on it, but with the Safe
Drinking Water Act reanalysis of arsenic in drinking water coming up, it certainly won't have the priority
that that does. That's all I can say at this time.
89
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Q: Lon Kissinger: It seems that there are a lot of issues associated with the measurements of the different
arsenic species—sample handling issues, extraction issues, and chromatographic issues. And in
summarizing the data or trying to get a sense of what's happening, overall it would seem that defining all
those parameters would be really important. Is there any effort going to be put out to do a better job of
defining all those concerns?
A: Charles Abernathy: As you say, this is a problem. For example, it was only roughly 3 years ago that
DMA(+3) and MMA(+3) were found in human urine. Why was that? Preservation of the urine and being
able to separate the species at +5 and +3. We were fortunate to have people like Bill Cullen and Chris Lee
in Canada who can do this. They worked with people like Sam Cohen and Dave Thomas and his group.
Bill Cullen actually made the MMA(+3) and the DMA(+3), synthesizing it chemically. So that is a
problem, and we are discussing whether we should put out guidance. It's extremely expensive to do this.
The people who generally do this are research labs with a grant.
C: Lon Kissinger: There's really a crying need for it. For example, in Puget Sound we're left with the
aftermath of an ASARCO smelter. People are concerned with the health risk of inorganic arsenic in fish
tissue, and it may not be significant. The background concentrations may be similar regardless of the
environmental source.
Q: John Cox: With arsenic being in the same family as phosphorus, I wonder about the extent of
knowledge where arsenic replaces phosphorus and may therefore disrupt some of these phosphorylation
processes and some of these Krebs cycles.
A: Charles Abernathy: This was worked on in the 1950s by Lipman at Harvard and Orenius in Sweden in
the same time period, and there is a process called arsenolysis. When you form ATP, if you put in
arsenate, it's a competitive inhibitor. What you get is an ADP arsenate form. This is unstable n-lysis, and
the process is called arsenolysis. It can interfere but does not appear to be a major mechanism of toxicity.
We haven't been able to find anything that this actually directly affects. Most of it, for example arsenite
+3, has been reported to inhibit 200 to 300 different enzymes. It inhibits DNA repair enzymes, and it has
also been reported to cause DNA nicking. However, a later report from RTP showed that the nicking was
the result of reactive oxygen species formation. If you block the reactive oxygen species formation, you
block the DNA nicking, so that seems to be indirect. We haven't had any such effects reported for the
arsenate and the phosphate interaction.
Q: For those groups that actually measure total arsenic but have the responsibility of assessing and doing
the risk assessment, what would be your recommendation on the fraction of that total that should be taken
as or assumed to be inorganic for purposes of risk assessment?
A: Charles Abernathy: In saltwater fish, a vast majority is organic. If you use 10 percent across the board,
you are being overly protective in seafood (what comes from the ocean). In freshwater fish, I'm not sure
we can do that yet. And the reason is, if you look at the laboratory studies, they show that in some of the
freshwater fish the majority of the arsenic is inorganic. So we're not exactly sure what to do with that yet.
That's why we need more data. At the present time we can't make a recommendation.
90
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
X. Regional Needs Assessment
The participants at the forum were divided into six regional workgroups based on geographic location—
Northeast, East, South, Great Lakes, Midwest and West. Each regional workgroup met independently to
discuss and react to the presentations made during the Tuesday sessions on risk management issues and
monitoring contaminants in fish, as well as the roundtable discussions held on Sunday to discuss how
federal agencies can assist state/tribe monitoring programs. Groups were asked to identify top regional
concerns and identify needs to address those concerns. Following is a summary of the needs assessment
conducted by each workgroup. The level of priority for each need is listed as low, medium, or high. Three
of the six regional groups (Great Lakes, Midwest and West) have not yet provided rankings for their
needs.
East
Presented by Joseph Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
The East region was defined as the geographical area including the states of Delaware, Kentucky,
Maryland, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and Washington, DC. Representatives from all six
states and the District of Columbia participated in the forum group discussions. No representatives from
Native American tribes participated in this discussion group.
Top Regional Priorities, Issues, and Concerns for Fish Contaminant Programs
Federal Agency (USEP A/FDA) Assistance
• Several states in the East Work Group are facing reduced budgets for administering their fish
contaminant advisory programs. The monies allocated to state fish advisory programs are
normally considered nondiscretionary because the advisory programs are nonregulatory in scope.
Reducing nondiscretionary expenditures is frequently among the first steps states are taking to
balance their budgets. Thus, states could greatly benefit from some additional federal funding to
support their existing fish contaminant advisory programs and to cover the collection of new data
to fill existing data gaps. Priority Ranking: High
• Funding support and staff are needed to support state risk communication efforts following the
release of advisories, especially large advisories like the national mercury advisory. These risk
communication efforts are very time-consuming and expensive, and the states just do not have the
resources to do a good job. Priority Ranking: High
• A regional point of contact (in Region 3) is needed to consult with on fish tissue issues. Regional
coordination is important, especially for large advisories or shared waters. Priority Ranking:
Medium
National Mercury Advisory
Needs Assessment
• Regarding the National Mercury Advisory, the advisory needs to be simple and very easily
understood by the target audience. We think that the advisory should consider, in some way, other
contaminants, especially contaminants that drive advisories in a number of states, like PCBs. Are
91
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
mercury and PCBs mutually exclusive, or are we dealing with levels of both such that they
needed to be looked at additively (i.e., neurotoxicity in fetus)? Priority Ranking: High
• There is a need to deal with consumption of sport fish and store-bought fish on a holistic level.
Priority Ranking: Medium
• A national communication strategy is needed. USEPA needs to provide a national 1-800 number
for these advisories, as well as training and resources at the regional level. Priority Ranking:
High.
Melding Commercial and Noncommercial Advisories
Needs Assessment
• Data gaps must be filled in for local species that may be important as both sport fish and
commercial species. This might be accomplished by conducting a survey of national FT program
managers as to the top three to five locally important sport/commercial fish. For example, in
Maryland white perch are an important local commercial species—recreational advisories for
white perch vary from four to five meals per year to unlimited consumption, depending on the
part of the Bay that you are in. Priority Ranking: High
Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Needs Assessment
• Federal support is needed for the monitoring of emergent contaminants, such as PBDEs and
PFOs. Maryland has recently begun monitoring PBDEs in areas where it thinks PBDEs might be
found at elevated concentrations in some of its fish. Federal support to increase monitoring efforts
for emergent contaminants or to help compile existing data would be helpful. Priority Ranking:
Medium/High
• States need guidance on how to deal with dioxins and furans in advisories. If we are going to
monitor, we need guidance on where to monitor because the analysis costs are very expensive.
Delaware made a recommendation to assess dioxin based on a comparative risk index—overall
dietary risk versus the contribution from fish alone. If fish consumption increased background
risk (all food exposure sources) above some threshold (e.g., > 10%), then consider for advisory.
Priority Ranking: Low/Medium
• Consistency is needed in monitoring strategies. Many states do not have a monitoring strategy,
and they monitor based on priorities at hand. How do we get a consistent monitoring strategy
together? Priority Ranking: Low/Medium
Risk Management Issues
Needs Assessment
• It is recommended that USEPA provide support for regional issues when we have large shared
waterbodies. Support could include things such as facilitating meetings and providing support to
work out solutions where state agencies are having difficulties agreeing on management
approaches. Priority Ranking: Low/Medium
92
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Provide modeling support for total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) related to fish consumption
advisories such as mercury and PCBs. TMDLs for banned compounds often have legacy issues
and require complex models. States do not have adequate resources to do TMDLs and no money
for TMDL implementation or cleanup in the case of PCBs. Priority Ranking: High
South
Presented by Joe Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
The South region was defined as the geographical area including the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Representatives from all eight states
participated in the forum group discussions. No representatives for Native American tribes participated in
this discussion group.
Top Regional Priorities/Issues/Concerns for Fish Contaminant Programs
National Mercury Advisory
Consistency of Advisories from EPA/FDA
• The advisory about tuna steaks/albacore tuna was not clear enough and we would ask that
USEPA try to provide a clearer explanation of what the problem is and how people should handle
it. The Gulf group is trying to get a harmonious advisory for king mackerel. Priority Ranking:
High
• Three out of the eight states in the group have had at least anecdotal data about adult mercury
poisoning related to consuming fish. We are curious whether any other states have had similar
situations and whether they would be willing to share such information. We are not sure whether
the issue is being dealt with properly and whether mercury poisoning is turning up in other states
(i.e., not isolated to just Texas, Florida, and Louisiana). The USEPA and FDA are going have to
address the issue because it involves commercial fisheries. Priority Ranking: Medium
Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Main Priorities/Issues/Concerns
• Funding: laboratories are starting to run into major problems in capacity for testing for the
different contaminants, particularly the dioxins and PCBs. Request that USEPA consider issuing
grants to the states to help them with this issue. Priority Ranking: High
• States could benefit from recommendations/guidance from USEPA on qualified laboratories to
conduct chemical analyses for different contaminants. Priority Ranking: High
• What statistical methods should be used on PCB analysis? Is there any guidance from USEPA on
design and how many samples you have to take? Priority Ranking: Low
• We are in the transition period between analyzing for Aroclors and PCB congeners. USEPA
needs to provide guidance on which congeners should be analyzed for, what concentrations will
be used for making decisions, and which laboratories are capable of conducting the analyses and
meeting quality assurance requirements. I think that the USEPA has developed guidelines for
congeners in fish. Will the same congeners be used for soil, sediment, and other media? If not,
93
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
then we need guidance on which PCB congeners need to be analyzed for in other media. Priority
Ranking: Medium
Risk Management Issues
Needs Assessment
• Risk communication: We would like some guidance from USEPA and FDA or other agencies
about where we can get funding to help promote state communication programs. Priority
Ranking: Low
Northeast
Presented by Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
The Northeast region was defined as the geographical area including the states of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Representatives from five
states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island) and one Native American tribe
(Aroostook Band of Micmacs) participated in the forum group discussions.
Top Regional Priorities/Issues/Concerns for Fish Contaminant Programs
Federal Agency (USEP A/FDA) Assistance
• A USEPA regional coordinator is needed to help us coordinate fish contaminant program actions
within the Northeast and other geographical regions. For example, New York is in several
different geographic regions, the Great Lakes as well as the East Coast. The USEPA regional
coordinator could act as a point of contact to help coordinate between the different regions in the
appropriate states. Some of the things this person could do are (1) helping to identify sources of
funding and (2) identifying and promoting coordinated activities. In particular we are thinking
about data and data collection as well as data sharing (i.e., regional outreach). Priority Ranking:
Medium
• Would like to see additional items on USEPA's Web site. For instance, direction on funding
(ideas for sources), projects funded by USEPA and how to get the results from the funded
projects. Priority Ranking: Low
Melding Commercial and Noncommercial Advisories
Needs Assessment
• Because of the success with the national approach to the mercury advisory, it would be helpful to
move on to other contaminants of concern like PCBs and dioxins. In particular, if you take
USEPA's recreational fishing guidance and calculate a PCB concentration, you get approximately
11 ppb. The FDA's number is approximately 2 ppm. Although the group doesn't think these
numbers should be identical, because they are derived from different situations, I don't think
anyone uses 11 ppb to issue advisories, or would be comfortable using 2 ppm. Having this great
disparity between the numbers recommended by USEPA and FDA makes it more difficult for
states to implement their fish contaminant programs and communicate the potential risks to the
public.
94
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
• We recommend that USEPA develop a new guidance document that provides a review of the
literature that addresses the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids. We see this as being valuable in
several ways. It would bring together all the current information, including the data on Omega-3
fatty acids in different species offish, but it would also act as a road map to research, identifying
the data gaps. It would be helpful to get some research to identify age-specific benefits regarding
consumption of Omega-3 fatty acids. Priority Ranking: High
Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Needs Assessment
• We are very interested in receiving toxicity information on additional chemicals that have not
been addressed in IRIS (PDBEs, endocrine disrupters, etc.). Priority Ranking: Medium
Great Lakes
Presented by Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Top Regional Priorities/Issues/Concerns for Fish Contaminant Programs
The Great Lakes region was defined as the geographical area including the states of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Representatives from all eight
states participated in the forum group discussions. In addition, representatives from four Native
American tribes or organizations (Chippewa Resource Authority, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research
Laboratory, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and Michigan Inter-Tribal Council) also
participated.
National Mercury Advisory: Needs Assessment
Issue of Risk Communication as It Relates to the National Mercury Advisory
• We want to remind USEPA and FDA that states have a limited staff resource and anytime
something like the national mercury advisory comes out that requires additional effort on the part
of our staff, it will, for better or worse, impact our staff, who at this time of the year are preparing
for our own initiatives and advisories. So when you get ready to issue your advisory plan, it really
would be helpful if the agencies (1) coordinate with the states and (2) consider funding or
providing resources to states to compensate them for their role in this advisory. States will have
an important role, because as soon as the advisory is issued we will immediately be contacted by
the press as to what we think about it, etc. All of these efforts require staff resources. It is very
important that the timing of when the national mercury advisory is issued be coordinated with the
states so that USEPA is aware of how the states will respond and the states can prepare to handle
the additional demands of risk communication efforts. Priority Ranking: High
• We need a mechanism to capture and disseminate reports of poisoning associated with fish
consumption. Priority Ranking: High
95
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Needs Assessment
• Members of our group feel very fortunate to have our own USEPA monitoring program (the
Great Lakes Program Office). However, we observe that the Great Lakes Program Office is
struggling due to lack of sufficient funding. It is important, not just to the Great Lakes states, but
to all of us, that adequate support be maintained for the Great Lakes Program Office to ensure
that data and information continue to be tracked and processed, especially for emerging
contaminants. The tracking of what is occurring in the region is very important. For example, if
each state is using its meager funds to analyze five samples of PBDE in fish and we don't
coordinate efforts, we could end up with states sampling the same species in the same waterbody
and deriving less information than if we had coordinated regional sampling efforts. It is
important, and we believe USEPA would be a good resource to facilitate exchanging information.
It is important to identify the gaps as we put together this monitoring strategy. We are supportive
of USEPA's methodologies and would like to see the same sophisticated models used for other
contaminants (not just mercury). It is important to have standardized methodologies. Laboratory
training is important. We need an RfD for toxicological data. Priority Ranking: High
• We really need a coordinated strategy for monitoring streams in the vicinity of point sources for
the emerging contaminants. Priority Ranking: Medium
• We suggest looking at the other brominated compounds; a continuation of the fish contaminant
program is critical. Priority Ranking: High
• While Great Lakes States have quite similar mercury advisories, our states need to get together to
come up with a uniform protocol for our mercury advisories. Priority Ranking: High
• Great Lakes States are going to review our protocol developing PCB advisories. Priority
Ranking: Medium
• We need to develop a format or protocol to query new data submittals to catch duplication among
the datasets submitted by states and tribes. Priority Ranking: Medium
• We need new rapid analysis equipment that would allow live tissue extraction. USEPA could
assist by providing guidance on this technology. Priority Ranking: Medium
• Developing datasets for assessing temporal and spatial trends and incorporating trend analysis
into our monitoring programs should be a priority. We do have some trend data in the Great
Lakes States. Trend data can provide important feedback on whether management actions are
working. A baseline for assessing PBDE is important to evaluate what effect the ban will have on
tissue residues. Priority Ranking: High
96
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Midwest
Presented by Mike Callam, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
The Midwest region was defined as the geographical area including the states of Arkansas, Colorado,
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Representatives from all these states, except Kansas and South Dakota, and a representative from the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe participated in the forum group discussions.
Top Regional Priorities/Issues/Concerns for Fish Contaminant Programs
Federal Agency (USEPA/FDA) Assistance
• We need funding. It is felt that not much is being done from monitoring through risk
communication in Midwest states. The regional comparability of information that we are giving
out is not cohesive, especially with shared waters, and that is something that was a concern
among the group's states. Priority Ranking: High
Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Main Priorities/Issues/Concerns
• The group would like to see a more organized process developed for sharing information on fish
contaminants and advisory information—something similar to what the Great Lakes States have
done. A need for our group would be for USEPA to support such a process. Because our
monitoring and assessment vary widely within our region, there's a need for greater cohesiveness.
Priority Ranking: Medium/High
• The monitoring is also rather scattered among the states. The actual waterbodies that are being
visited are different. There are discrepancies and maybe confusion as to what the real risk levels
are within each state. The types offish species are also different. There is also a general lack of
understanding as to what the people of the Midwest are actually consuming. The group identified
a need for a fish consumption survey to be conducted to identify what fish are being consumed
and in what amounts. We also need to obtain information on the consumption of different food
sources such as clams. Priority Ranking: Medium/High
• A better list of contaminants that we are trying to identify in the fish samples is needed.
Something that could help in that regard is the USEPA's national fish tissue study. Priority
Ranking: Low
West
Presented by Robert Brodberg, Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
The West region was defined as the geographical area including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Representatives from all of these states
except Nevada participated in the Forum group discussions. In addition, representatives from seven
Native American Tribes or organizations (Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Lytton Rancheria,
McGrath Native Village Council, Nez Perce Tribe, Snoqualmie Tribe, Yakama Nation, and Yellowhawk
Tribe) also participated.
97
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Top Regional Priorities/Issues/Concerns for Fish Contaminant Programs
Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Main Priorities/Issues/Concerns
• Monitoring is very important, and continued monitoring resources are extremely important to all
of us. We need to know what's out there. Guam is monitoring near hotspots— places where they
know there are problems. They would like funding to look at areas that they don't know about.
• Guidance on how states might develop and use a stratified random sampling design, like the one
used in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue, for their own water quality
indicator studies. This sampling might serve as a basis for statewide advisories, and it could also
be useful to help identify clean spots within states, or sites of unexpected contaminants. Priority
Ranking: High
• Continued work on guidance for selecting new bioaccumulative chemicals in the environment,
such as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations that should be monitored. Priority Ranking:
High
• Research on correlating PCB levels measured as Aroclors with PCBs measured as congeners.
Because a number of different methods are used for PCB analysis, we need to know the biases of
the different methods so that we can determine whether the concentrations of PCBs in the
environment are increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. Additional guidelines on options and
selection of analytical methods would be helpful to the states because we all have resource
constraints. For example, would an Aroclor method be adequate for measuring PCBs at some
level? At what concentration does it become critical to run a congener method? Is it really
necessary to run more costly analyses for dioxin-like PCBs in all samples? Priority Ranking:
High
• Compare the current suite of recommended monitoring chemicals in fish with the suite of
chemicals that are looked at in other environmental or biological monitoring programs (e.g., the
NHANES biological monitoring through CDC) to ensure that we are looking at chemicals of
exposure. Priority Ranking: Medium
• There were some suggestions to validate our current suite of recommended monitoring chemicals
by looking at unknown GC/MS peaks. This could be done as part of the National Study of
Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue study. Analysis and identification of the peaks will help
us determine whether chemicals are accumulating in fish to which we previously have not paid
attention. Priority Ranking: Medium
• The Group recommends that the tissue samples collected during the National Study of Chemical
Residues in Lake Fish Tissue study be archived to serve as a baseline for future trends analysis. A
national tissue bank for archiving samples would allow reexamination of historical samples to see
if previously unidentified chemicals were present. Priority Ranking: Low
• States would like to see more efforts to harmonize some of the development of TMDLs and fish
advisories. (In most places they are not one in the same.) It was also suggested that efforts be
made to harmonize environmental tracking programs with TMDLs and fish advisories. Priority
Ranking: Low
98
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
• There should be additional studies to understand the relationship between "fish condition"
(effects of nutritional status) and contaminant level in fish. Priority Ranking: Low
Risk Assessment Issues
Main Priorities/Issues/Concerns
• Risk assessment. People don't seem to be entirely aware of the Cogliano method for PCB
congeners and how to evaluate these chemicals for assessing potential cancer risk. The group
thought that the method needed to be formalized and better explained to facilitate use by the
states. In addition, some kind of guidance for assessing noncancer effects of PCBs should be
developed and provided. Priority Ranking: High
• We're looking forward to the development of toxicity criteria for PFOS chemicals and PBDEs.
There was a suggestion that USEPA continuing looking at tools for synergistic and additive
effects of chemicals. Priority Ranking: High
Risk Management Issues
Main Priorities/Issues/Concerns
• Continued information on risk versus benefits from fish consumption. There was interest in this
sort of information in general and also in terms of substitution foods (e.g., what to do when there
is a lack of options). Priority Ranking: High
• The states would like more information about the benefits and sources (specific fish species and
plant sources) of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Also, the states would like more information
on incorporating this information into their advisories. Priority Ranking: High
• It would be a good idea to get some core questions on a nationwide basis on the risk factor
surveys. For example, the state of Washington put questions about fish consumption on the state
portion of the survey. Questions of the national level would be useful for the national program
and could also be broken out and used at the state level in a consistent way. This seemed like it
would be useful to all of us. Priority Ranking: Medium
• When putting out advisories, including the national advisories, people thought it was important to
include some sort of link with an explanation of the pollutant sources that the advisory is based
on (Why is this chemical here?) because that motivates people to work on cleaning up such
sources. We suggest more efforts to make this linkage. Priority Ranking: Medium
There was a suggestion to revisit EPA's guidance on the effects of cooking and cleaning on reduction of
contaminants. EPA guidance documents provide a review, but maybe it is something that could be looked
at again, or at least revised to incorporate new data. Priority Ranking: Low
99
-------
Proceedings of the 2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
XI. Closing Remarks
Bob Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
On behalf of all the cosponsoring agencies—ATSDR, USEPA, and California EPA's Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment—I want to thank you all for being here. It's been great to see
you all. I didn't have a chance to talk to nearly enough people. I hope you enjoyed your stay and it was
sunny enough for you here in San Diego. We look forward to seeing you again at the next Fish Forum. In
addition, on behalf of all participants, I want to thank ATSDR, Steve Blackwell, and USEPA, Jeff Bigler,
for cosponsoring the forum. I also want to thank all members of the steering committee for the work that
they did in planning the sessions. They were really good sessions, and there was a lot of good discussion,
and I hope you leave with good ideas. I also want to thank Steve Ellis and his coworkers, who have held
this together behind the scenes (Steve, Melissa DeSantis, Clair Meehan, and Ashley Moats). I really think
that we owe them a big hand at this time. Thanks very much, and it sounds like we're still depending on
you to get out that proceedings document.
It's been another great forum for me, and we really need to have these again. This is a great opportunity
for the states to talk to each other and share ideas. We don't necessarily agree on everything, but this is a
good place to discuss differences and get questions answered. There's been a lot of good information put
out there as a result of these forums and through USEPA. All of the guidance documents are getting
updated, and there is even more information in them. They're a great resource. There's a lot of agreement.
We're seeing FDA and USEPA reach some agreement on something that we've asked them to talk about
for a long time. I think that is excellent, and we should all continue to work toward that. The more that we
agree between states, the simpler this is all going to be. We've made great progress, and I think we will
continue to do that at the next forum. On behalf of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, thanks once again for being here.
100
-------
Appendices
Appendix A: Forum Agenda
Appendix B: Steering Committee Members
Appendix C: Biographies of Speakers and Moderators
Appendix D: List of Forum Attendees
Appendix E: Slide Presentations
Appendix F: Poster Abstracts
-------
-------
Appendix A: Forum Agenda
-------
-------
Appendix A: Forum Agenda
Sunday. January 25. 2004
9:00-5:00 Registration
11:00- 1:00 State and Tribal Regional Work Groups
Topics of Interest to Group Members
1:00-2:00 LUNCH (on your own)
2:00 - 2:15 Forum Organization and Objectives
Jeffrey Bigler, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Steve Ellis, Tetra Tech, Inc.
2:15 - 2:35 Pros and Cons of Focus Group Testing
Steve Bradbard, Consumer Studies, Food and Drug Administration
Monitoring Strategies to Support Fish Advisories
Moderator: Randy Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
2:35 - 2:55 EPA National Contaminant Study Design and Uses of Data
Leanne Stahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
2:55 - 3:15 Model Application for Developing Fish Consumption Advisories
Stephen Wente, U.S. Geological Survey
3:15 - 3:30 Round Table Discussion on How Federal Agencies Can Assist State/Tribe Monitoring
Programs
3:30-3:45 BREAK
Approaches to Melding Commercial and Noncommercial Fish Advisories
Moderator: Bob Gerlach, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
3:45 - 4:00 Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
4:00 - 4:15 Maine Fish Consumption Advisory
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
4:15-4:30 North Carolina's New Advice on Eating Fish
Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
4:30 - 4:45 Florida Fish Consumption Advisory
George Henderson, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
4:45 - 5:15 Round Table Discussion
A-l
-------
Monday. January 26. 2004
8:00 - 8:20 Formal Welcome and Introductions
General Forum Moderators:
Jeffrey Bigler, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Welcoming Remarks:
Benjamin Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Val Siebal, Chief Deputy Director, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Mercury Issues
Moderator: Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
8:20 - 8:35 Mercury Levels in Tuna and Other Major Commercial Fish Species in Hawaii
Barbara Brooks, Hawaii Health Department, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response
8:35 - 8:45 Mercury Concentrations in North Carolina's Top Five Commercially Sold and Recreationally
Caught Marine Fish
Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department Health and Human Services
8:45 - 9:00 Options for a Gulf States' Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel
Donald Axelrad, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
9:00 - 9:15 Recent Washington State Data on Mercury Concentrations in Tuna
Jim VanDerslice, Washington Department of Health
9:15 - 9:30 Recent FDA Data on Mercury Concentrations in Fish
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
9:30 - 9:45 Panel Questions for Clarification
9:45-10:00 BREAK
10:00 - 10:10 Forum Organization and Objectives
Steve Ellis, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Mercury Issues, Continued
Moderator: Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
10:10- 10:35 Update on Recent Epidemiologic Mercury Studies
Kate Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
10:35 - 10:55 Update on the Current Mercury RfD and the Implications for Revisions Based on Recent
Data
Alan Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science, Research,
and Technology
10:55 - 11:05 Panel Questions for Clarification
11:05 - 11:35 National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA FAC
Recommendations
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Denise Keehner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
A-2
-------
11:35 - 12:05 National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
12:05 - 12:15 Panel Questions for Clarification
12:15-1:45 LUNCH (on your own)
Mercury Issues, Continued
Moderator Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
1:45 - 2:00 Mercury Focus Group Testing Results
Marjorie Davidson, Food and Drug Administration
2:00 - 2:20 National Mercury Advisory: Overview of the New Joint Agency National Mercury Advisory
Jim Pendergast, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
2:20 - 2:35 National Mercury Advisory: December 2003 Committee Meeting to Address the Joint
Advisory
David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
2:35 - 2:50 Panel Questions for Clarification
2:50-3:15 National Mercury Advisory: Communication/Implementation Strategy
Open Forum
3:15-3:30 BREAK
3:30 - 5:00 Regional Breakout Sessions
Mercury Issues: State/Tribe Reactions and Needs Assessment
Reception and Poster Displays
Tuesday. January 27. 2004
8:00 - 8:15 Welcome and Introductions
General Forum Moderators:
Jeffrey Bigler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
8:15 - 9:25 Regional Group Reports: National Mercury Advisory Comments and Reactions
9:25-9:40 BREAK
Risk Management Issues
Moderator: Luanne Williams, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
9:40 - 10:00 Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories
Henry Anderson, Wisconsin Department Health and Family Services
10:00 - 10:20 Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration
Barbara Knuth, Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources
10:20 - 10:50 Risks and Benefits Revisited
Grace Egeland, McGill University
A-3
-------
10:50- 11:10 Fish Smart, Eat Safe! Risk Communication to Diverse Populations in an Urban Setting
Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Center for Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health,
University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health
11:10 - 11:35 Palos Verdes Shelf Fish Contamination Risk Communication
Sharon Lin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Gina Margillo, Impact Assessment, Inc.
11:35 - 11:55 Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication
Linda Vaught, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Information Center
11:55-12:15 Risk Communication for Medical Practitioners
Steve Blackwell, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
12:15-1:30 LUNCH (on your own)
Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Moderator Brian Toal, Connecticut Department of Public Health
1:30 - 2:00 Contaminants in Farmed Salmon from Around the World
David Carpenter, University at Albany, SUNY
2:00 - 2:20 Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes: Habitat, Life History, and Diet
Sandie O'Neill, Washington Department Fish and Wildlife
2:20 - 2:40 Model Application for Monitoring Contaminants in Fish
Stephen Wente, U.S. Geological Survey
2:40 - 2:55 Panel Questions for Clarification
2:55-3:15 BREAK
3:15 - 5:00 Regional Breakout Sessions
Monitoring and Risk Management: State/Tribe Reactions and Needs Assessment
Wednesday. January 28. 2004
8:00 - 8:15 Welcome and Introductions
General Forum Moderators:
Jeffrey Bigler, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Chemical Updates
Moderator: Joseph Beaman, Maryland Department of Environment
8:15 - 8:40 PBDEs - Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban
Tom McDonald, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
8:40-9:00 Dioxin
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
9:00 - 9:20 Arsenic: Speciation and Hazard
Charles Abernathy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
9:20-9:35 BREAK
A-4
-------
Forum State/Tribe Reactions and Needs Assessment: Regional Presentations and Discussion
Moderator: Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
9:35 - 11:20 Regional Presentations
11:20-11:50 Questions and Comments
11:50-12:00 Closing Remarks
General Forum Moderators:
Jeffrey Bigler, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
A-5
-------
-------
Appendix B: Steering Committee Members
-------
-------
Appendix B: Steering Committee Members
Jeff Bigler, co-chair
USEPA, National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program
bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Bob Brodberg, co-chair
Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
rbrodber@oehha.ca.gov
Steve Blackwell
US Dept. of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
srbO@cdc.gov
Bob Gerlach
AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation
bob^gerlach@dec.state.ak.us
Brian Toal
CT Dept. of Public Health
Brian.Toal@po.state.ct.us
Henry Anderson
WI Dept. of Health and Family Services
anderha@dhfs. state. wi .us
Henry Folmar
MS Dept. of Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
henry_folmar@deq.state.ms.us
John Persell
MN Chippewa Tribe Research Lab
mctwq@paulbunyan .net
Joseph Beaman
MD Dept. of Environment
jbeaman@mde. state .md.us
Luanne Williams
NC Dept. of Health and Human Services, Div. Public Health
Luanne.Williams@ncmail.net
Pat McCann
MN Dept. of Health, Div. of Environmental Health
patricia.mccann@health.state.mn.us
Randy Manning
GA Dept. of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
randy _manning@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
B-l
-------
-------
Appendix C: Biographies of Speakers and Moderators
-------
-------
Appendix C: Biographies of Speakers and Moderators
Charles O. Abernathy, Ph.D.
Dr. Abernathy is a toxicologist in USEPA's Office of Water in Washington, DC. He received his A.B.
from Asbury College, his M.S. from the University of Kentucky, and his Ph.D. from North Carolina State
University. Dr. Abernathy is the author or coauthor of over 80 scientific articles in professional journals
and books. He has also coedited six books.
David William Kennedy Acheson, M.D.
Dr. Acheson received his M.D. from the University of London and, following training in internal
medicine and infectious diseases in the United Kingdom, moved to New England Medical Center and
Tufts University in Boston in 1987. As an associate professor at Tufts University, he undertook basic
molecular pathogenesis research on food-borne pathogens, especially Shiga toxin-producing E. coll, from
1987 until 2001. In 2001 Dr. Acheson moved his laboratory to the University of Maryland Medical
School in Baltimore to continue research on food-borne pathogens. In September 2002 he took a position
as Chief Medical Officer at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition.
Dr. Acheson is internationally recognized for both his public health expertise in food safety and his
research in infectious diseases. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (London) and the
Infectious Disease Society of America.
Henry A. Anderson, M.D.
Dr. Anderson is the Chief Medical Officer and State Environmental and Occupational Disease
Epidemiologist with the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. He has held these
positions since 1980.
Dr. Anderson has published over 150 scientific articles. He has been involved in the study of human
exposure to PCBs for more than 20 years and led the effort for a Great Lakes Basin-wide uniform sport
fish advisory protocol. He also leads a USEPA- and ATSDR-funded consortium of five state health
departments that studies the reproductive and endocrine function of frequent Great Lakes sport fish
consumers. The consortium also assesses advisory awareness and understanding in the Great Lakes Basin.
Dr. Anderson, with the state of Maine, is assessing women's awareness of mercury toxicity and state fish
consumption advisories in 12 states.
Donald M. Axelrad, Ph.D.
Dr. Axelrad is an environmental administrator in the Mercury Program of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) in Tallahassee.
Dr. Axelrad worked for the Department of Conservation, Victoria, Australia, for 17 years before joining
FDEP. For the past 7 years, he has been involved in managing research on mercury sources,
C-l
-------
biogeochemistry, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and model development, specifically to identify options for
reducing mercury concentrations in Everglades fish and wildlife.
Joseph Beaman
Mr. Beaman is head of the Ecotoxicology and Standards Section in the Technical and Regulatory Services
Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment.
Mr. Beaman received his B.S. in Forest Biology from the College of Environmental Science and Forestry
at Syracuse University and his M.S. in Environmental Science from Hood College. He worked as a
military scientist in the Army, performing research on arboviruses for 7 years at the U.S. Army Research
Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. He then transitioned to work for the Army as a civilian
contractor performing aquatic toxicology research for 8 years at the U.S. Army Center for Environmental
Health Research at Fort Detrick. For the past 3 years Mr. Beaman has been a toxicologist at the Maryland
Department of the Environment. His main duties include serving as technical lead for the state's water
quality standards program and programmatic lead for monitoring, risk assessment, and risk
communication related to fish consumption advisories.
CDR Stephen Blackwell, R.S., M.P.H.
CDR Blackwell is an Environmental Health Officer in the U.S. Public Health Service, stationed in Atlanta
with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
CDR Blackwell received his B.S. in Environmental Health from East Carolina University in Greenville
and his M.P.H. from the Florida International University in Miami. He has worked on risk
communication and medical outreach issues involving national fish advisories for 6 years under an
interagency agreement with USEPA. He has also served in various duty stations throughout his 19 years
with the Public Health Service, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Indian
Health Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Steve Bradbard, Ph.D.
Dr. Bradbard earned his Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Maryland in 1978. After practicing
as a clinical psychologist for 15 years, he took a job as Vice President of Research and Social Marketing
for a Washington, DC, firm specializing in risk communication. Over the next 8 years, he developed
research-based national health and safety campaigns for federal clients, including the USEPA, National
Institutes of Health, and Department of Transportation.
Dr. Bradbard has worked at the Food and Drug Administration for the past 21A years. He is the supervisor
of the Consumer Studies research team in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, where he
oversees consumer surveys, experimental studies, and focus groups.
Robert K. Brodberg, Ph.D.
Dr. Brodberg is a senior toxicologist in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which is
part of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
C-2
-------
Dr. Brodberg received his B.S. in Biology from Heidelberg College and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Biology
from Bowling Green State University. He has worked as a risk assessor for the state of California since
1989. Dr. Brodberg has worked on human health assessments for pesticides, sediment quality objectives,
and water quality issues. He is currently Chief of the Fish and Water Quality Evaluation Unit, which is
responsible for assessing the potential human health risks of eating chemically contaminated sport fish
and seafood, as well as issuing sport fish consumption advisories for California.
Barbara A. Brooks, Ph.D.
Dr. Brooks is the State Toxicologist for the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu.
Dr. Brooks received her B.S. in Nutritional Science from the University of Arizona and received her M.S.
in Food Science and her Ph.D. in Toxicology from Cornell University. After obtaining her Ph.D., she was
a Postdoctoral Research Associate in molecular genetics at St. Mary's Medical School in London and
later at the University of California at Los Angeles. For the past 12 years, Dr. Brooks has been the State
Toxicologist for the Hawaii Department of Health. She is involved in all aspects of human health risk
assessment for the state and is interested in biomonitoring for hazardous environmental substances.
David O. Carpenter, M.D.
Dr. Carpenter is Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, State
University of New York, and Professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology,
School of Public Health, University at Albany.
Dr. Carpenter received his B.S. from Harvard College and his M.D. from Harvard Medical School. He
chose a career of research, teaching, and public health, with specific research interests in neuroscience,
toxicology, and radiobiology. Dr. Carpenter is very active in fundamental research related to
understanding the function of the human nervous system in health and disease. His recent research has
focused on the study of stroke; how neurons respond to a lack of oxygen and glucose; how nerve cells die
in diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease; and particularly how environmental contaminants, such as lead,
mercury, and PCBs, cause decrements of intelligence when children are exposed. Dr. Carpenter headed a
major interdisciplinary research effort to study the effects of PCBs and related compounds in humans and
animals at the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne. He has become a national spokesperson on issues relating
to the responsibilities and ethics of how research scientists should work with communities, as well as on
issues of environmental justice.
Marjorie Davidson, Ph.D.
Dr. Davidson is responsible for public education on food safety and food terrorism at the Food and Drug
Administration. She develops risk communication and educational programs for food handlers along the
food safety continuum from farmers in the fields to consumers in the home. Prior to joining the FDA,
Dr. Davidson worked at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where she was responsible for health
promotion activities, including school-based programs. She has extensive experience in media relations
from her previous work in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
C-3
-------
Grace Egeland, Ph.D.
Dr. Egeland joined McGill University in 2002 as a recipient of a 5-year Canada Research Chair Award in
Nutrition, Environment, and Health. She is a faculty member of the Center for Indigenous Peoples'
Nutrition and Environment, which has an all-Aboriginal Governing Board and affiliation with McGill
University.
Dr. Egeland earned her Ph.D. in Chronic Disease Epidemiology from the University of Pittsburgh and has
since worked at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the Alaska Department of Health and Social
Services, and the University of Bergen. She has worked in diverse research arenas from occupational and
environmental science to reproductive and chronic disease epidemiology— experiences that have given
her a broad public health perspective useful in speaking to the diversity of issues pertinent to evaluating
risks and benefits of traditional food. Dr. Egeland has published in a number of leading journals,
including the publication of a policy forum article in Science on mercury risks and benefits offish
consumption. Indigenous Peoples recognizes the importance of traditional food toward promoting their
health and well-being and requests that environmental risks be assessed within a framework of an
appreciation for cultural and health benefits.
Steven Ellis, Ph.D.
Dr. Ellis is the Director of Northwest Water Services in Tetra Tech's Seattle office. He received his B.S.
in Biology from Lawrence University and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography from Oregon
State University. Dr. Ellis has more than 20 years of experience in managing and conducting
environmental studies in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems. He has assisted USEPA in the
development of several of the national guidance documents for assessing chemical contaminants for use
in fish advisories and has conducted numerous fish contaminant studies for USEPA, state agencies,
Australia, and the Dominican Republic to assess potential risks to human consumers.
Dr. Ellis has participated in several of the previous National Fish Contaminant Forums by conducting risk
assessment and monitoring training workshops, facilitating discussion sessions, providing plenary
presentations, and preparing Forum Proceedings documents.
Henry Folmar
Mr. Folmar is the Lab Director for the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Laboratory in
Pearl. He earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in Fisheries Biology from Auburn University. Mr. Folmar has
worked on monitoring contaminants in fish tissue since 1979. He has chaired the Mississippi Fish
Advisory Task Force since 1990, and he is a charter member of the Southern States Mercury Task Force.
Eric J. Frohmberg
Mr. Frohmberg is a toxicologist with the Maine Bureau of Health. He has been involved in the
development of the fish consumption advisories program, as well as the Bureau's risk communication
program. This has included development of the new brochures, testing efforts with low-literacy focus
groups, and an evaluation of the risk communication program through a survey of recent mothers.
Mr. Frohmberg has been involved in other projects, including well water safety and the decommissioning
of the local nuclear power plant. Prior to working for the state of Maine, he worked with the Western
C-4
-------
Shoshone and Southern Paiute to evaluate risk from consuming traditional foodstuffs affected by
aboveground nuclear weapons testing.
Robert F. Gerlach, V.M.D.
Dr. Gerlach is the State Veterinarian for Alaska. The Office of the State Veterinarian coordinates
Alaska's Fish Monitoring Program.
Dr. Gerlach received his B.S. in Veterinary Science at the Pennsylvania State University and his V.M.D.
from the University of Pennsylvania. He did a postdoctoral fellowship at Lovelace Inhalation Toxicology
Research Institute in Albuquerque, studying the effects of aging on pulmonary function in beagle dogs.
For 16 years Dr. Gerlach resided in Alaska and worked as a private practitioner until starting work for the
Department of Environmental Conservation coordinating the Fish Safety Monitoring Program. In the
spring of 2003, he accepted the position of State Veterinarian.
Benjamin H. Grumbles
Mr. Grumbles was appointed Acting Assistant Administrator for USEPA's Office of Water on
December 29, 2003. He began his service in the Office of Water as Deputy Assistant Administrator in
February 2002. He also served as Acting Associate Administrator for the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations from September 2 through December 29, 2003.
Before joining USEPA, Mr. Grumbles was Deputy Chief of Staff and Environmental Counsel for the
House Science Committee. From May 1985 through January 2001, he served in various capacities on the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff, including Senior Counsel for the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee. During his 15 years of service on the Committee, he focused
on programs and activities of USEPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Since the early 1990s, Mr. Grumbles has been an adjunct professor of law at the George Washington
University Law School, teaching a course on the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Ocean
Dumping Act, and Oil Pollution Act.
His degrees include a B.A. from Wake Forest University, a J.D. from Emory University, and an LL.M. in
Environmental Law from the George Washington University Law School.
George Henderson
Mr. Henderson is a senior research scientist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Florida Marine Research Institute. He received his B.A. in Natural Sciences from the University of
Pennsylvania and his M.S. in Zoology from the University of Massachusetts.
Mr. Henderson has 30 years of experience researching toxins and contaminants in Florida marine
ecosystems. He serves as State Scientific Support Coordinator for oil spill response. Since 1989
Mr. Henderson has coordinated the marine fish/mercury program in Florida.
C-5
-------
Lin Kaatz Chary, Ph.D.
Dr. Chary is the former project coordinator and co-principal investigator of the PCB Risk Communication
and Outreach Project's "Fish Smart! Eat Safe!" campaign.
Dr. Chary received her B.A. in English and Theatre from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and
her M.P.H. and Ph.D. in Public Health from the University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public
Health. She has worked on Great Lakes contaminant issues for 18 years, first as Executive Director of the
Grand Calumet Task Force in Northwest Indiana, later as a consultant to nongovernmental organizations
on environmental and labor issues, and most recently at the Great Lakes Center for Occupational and
Environmental Safety and Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health, where
she worked on a study of the health effects of PCBs in an occupational cohort and on other projects
related to PCBs and environmental health policy. She has also worked in the international arena with the
International POPs Elimination Network and continues to work on Great Lakes contaminant issues, such
as brominated fire retardants.
The "Fish Smart! Eat Safe!" campaign, which was completed in October 2003, was a USEPA-funded
project that focused on gathering information about Lake Michigan fisheaters and conducting outreach in
an urban setting.
Barbara A. Knuth, Ph.D.
Dr. Knuth is a professor and chair of the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University and co-
leader of the Human Dimensions Research Unit.
Dr. Knuth received two bachelor's degrees (Zoology and Interdisciplinary Studies) and her M.S. in
Environmental Science from Miami University (Ohio). She received her Ph.D. in Fisheries and Wildlife
Sciences from Virginia Tech. Her research interests focus on risk perception, communication, and
management associated with chemical contaminants in fish and with other wildlife and natural resources
issues. She has served on National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine committees and most
recently focused on implications of reducing dioxins in the food supply. She serves as President-elect of
the American Fisheries Society (AFS) and received the AFS Distinguished Services Award in 1999. She
has received several teaching awards, including recognition from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
the National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture. She has served as associate editor of
Society and Natural Resources and North American Journal of Fisheries Management. She has served on
numerous scientific panels and advisory boards, including the Board of Technical Experts of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission and the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board of the International Joint
Commission.
Sharon Lin, P.E.
Ms. Lin is a project manager for the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site with the USEPA Region 9 office
in San Francisco. She is responsible for the overall implementation of the USEPA's Palos Verdes Shelf
Superfund Institutional Controls program, which consists of public outreach and education, monitoring,
and enforcement components.
Ms. Lin received her B.S. in Chemistry and her M.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering. She is a
registered civil engineer. After graduate school, she worked as a project engineer for an environmental
consulting firm on USEPA Superfund-related projects. From 1996 to 2000, Ms. Lin worked at USEPA
C-6
-------
headquarters in Washington, DC, on USEPA's national water program, focusing on sediment and Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) issues. Prior to becoming a Superfund project manager, Ms. Lin spent 2
years with the TMDL program in USEPA Region 9, primarily focusing on TMDL development in the
Los Angeles area.
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Ph.D.
Dr. Mahaffey's professional career is in exposure assessment and toxicology of metals. She has worked
extensively in the area of food safety. Following graduate training in nutritional biochemistry and
physiology at Rutgers University, she completed postdoctoral training in neuro-endocrinology at the
University of North Carolina School of Medicine. Her research has been on susceptibility to lead toxicity
with greatest focus on age and nutritional factors, resulting in more than 100 publications in this area.
During her long career with the U.S. government, she has been influential in lowering lead exposures for
the U.S. population through actions to remove lead from foods and beverages and from gasoline additives
during the 1970s and 1980s.
In the past decade, Dr. Mahaffey has been actively involved in risk assessments for mercury and
assessments of human exposure to methylmercury. She was the author of the NIH Report to Congress on
Mercury and a primary author of USEPA's Mercury Study Report to Congress. Dr. Mahaffey was one of
the primary developers of USEPA's Mercury Research Strategy, which was released in late 2000. Along
with other team members, she was responsible for the 2001 USEPA/FDA national advisory on fish
consumption. Dr. Mahaffey was one of a group of three USEPA health scientists who revised the basis
for the Agency's reference dose for methylmercury, which was used in developing the Methylmercury
Water Quality Human Health Criterion. In 2002 she received USEPA's Science Achievement Award in
Health Sciences for this work. This is USEPA's highest health sciences award and is presented in
conjunction with the Society of Toxicology. Most recently she has been evaluating and publishing
national estimates of exposures to methylmercury in the U.S. population as shown in the 1999-2000
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Dr. Mahaffey is the Director of the Division of Exposure Assessment Coordination and Policy within the
Office of Science Coordination and Policy of USEPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances. This division runs USEPA's Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Validation Program.
Dr. Mahaffey remains active in research and developing USEPA's policies on methylmercury.
Randall O. Manning, Ph.D.
Dr. Manning is the Coordinator of the Environmental Toxicology Program in the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division.
Dr. Manning received his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia and was a Postdoctoral Research
Associate and an Assistant Research Scientist in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the
University of Georgia from 1986 to 1990. His interest in fish consumption advisories began in 1991
when he coordinated the development of guidelines for a fish monitoring strategy and risk-based
advisories. Continuing interests include uncertainties regarding fish consumption rates and patterns, and
potential benefits from fish consumption as they relate to risk communication. Dr. Manning is a member
of the Society of Toxicology, a diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology, and an Adjunct
Assistant Professor in the Departments of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, College of Pharmacy,
University of Georgia, and in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rollins School
of Public Health, Emory University.
C-7
-------
Gina Margillo
Ms. Margillo has 14 years of experience in public health program planning, implementation, and
evaluation. Her expertise lies in creating participatory processes that encourage community and
government collaboration. This includes research, education, decision-making, and needs assessment.
Since 1994 Ms. Margillo has worked as a contractor to the Environmental Health Investigations Branch
of the California Department of Health Services. She worked with a team of scientists to assess exposures
to communities living around Superfund sites across the state of California. With an emphasis on building
community capacity, Ms. Margillo designed health education campaigns, conducted risk communication
training, developed public outreach materials, and facilitated public forums.
In her current role as the project manager for the Fish Contamination Education Collaborative, a project
funded by the USEPA, Ms. Margillo designed and is implementing an extensive participatory
environmental justice education project that aims to prevent exposures of at-risk populations to
contaminated fish in the area of the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund site. She manages four public outreach
programs and a multidisciplinary collaborative of over 30 state, federal, and local agencies, public
institutions, and organizations representing eight linguistically and ethnically diverse communities.
Pat McCann
Ms. McCann is program manager of the Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory Program at the
Minnesota Department of Health. She received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of
Minnesota Institute of Technology and her M.S. in Environmental Health from the University of
Minnesota School of Public Health. As Program Manager for the Fish Consumption Advisory Program,
her responsibilities include researching the toxicological characteristics of contaminants in Minnesota fish
and wildlife, evaluating environmental and exposure data, and developing fish and wildlife consumption
guidelines and communicating them to the public.
Thomas A. McDonald, Ph.D.
Dr. McDonald is a staff toxicologist (specialist) with California Environmental Protection Agency's
(Cal/EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in Oakland. His primary activities include
development of children's cancer guidelines, hazard identification and dose-response assessment of
carcinogens, peer review, and technical support to the state's science advisory boards and Attorney
General's office.
Dr. McDonald received his B.S. in Molecular Biology and his M.P.H. from the University of California at
Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in Environmental Health Sciences (Toxicology) from the University of North
Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. Before taking a position with Cal/EPA, he worked as a chemist for Chevron
and as a postdoctoral fellow at UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. McDonald has recently served on national peer-review
panels and is the current president of the Genetic and Environmental Toxicology Association of Northern
California.
-------
Sandie O'Neill
Ms. O'Neill is a research scientist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in Olympia. She
received her B.S. in Zoology from Memorial University of Newfoundland and her M.S. in Zoology from
the University of British Columbia.
For the past 15 years, Ms. O'Neill has led the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program's assessment of
contaminant exposure in Puget Sound salmon and marine fishes. Her main research interests are
understanding the influence offish life history on contaminant accumulation and mapping the flow of
contaminants through the aquatic food webs.
James F. Pendergast
Mr. Pendergast is Chief of the Health Protection and Modeling Branch in the Office of Water, where he
manages USEPA's fish and beach advisory programs and provides technical support for water quality
modeling and sediment contamination assessments. He has 27 years of professional experience in
environmental engineering, water quality modeling, and regulatory controls. Since moving to EPA
headquarters in 1990, Mr. Pendergast worked on the 2000 revision to the TMDL rule and the
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, and was a Section and Branch Chief and later Acting Director of
the NPDES Permits Division. He was a principal in leading the Water Protection Task Force, where he
helped manage USEPA's work to support efforts by drinking water and wastewater treatment utilities to
understand vulnerable points and to mitigate the threat from terrorist attacks as quickly as possible. He
worked for 6 years in USEPA Region 6 in the NPDES permits and Superfund programs. Prior to joining
USEPA in 1984, he was a project manager at Limno-Tech, Inc., where he developed models of water
quality impacts from nonpoint and point sources on rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Mr. Pendergast received both his B.S. in Environmental Engineering and his M.S. in Water Resources
Engineering from the University of Michigan. He is a Registered Professional Engineer. Mr. Pendergast
is a member of the Water Environment Federation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. He has published several papers on water quality
modeling in engineering journals and conference proceedings.
Rita Schoeny, Ph. D.
Dr. Schoeny is Senior Science Advisor for USEPA's Office of Water. She received her B.S. in Biology at
the University of Dayton and her Ph.D. in Microbiology from the School of Medicine of the University of
Cincinnati. She was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Health in the
University of Connecticut Medical School after completing a postdoctoral fellowship in the Kettering
Laboratory. Dr. Schoeny has held adjunct appointments and regularly lectures at colleges and universities
on risk assessment.
Dr. Schoeny joined the USEPA in 1986. Prior to her current position she was Associate Director of the
Health and Ecological Criteria Division of the Office of Science and Technology. Dr. Schoeny was the
manager for major assessments and programs in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act, including
scientific support for rules on disinfectant by-products, arsenic, microbial contaminants, and the first set
of regulatory determinations from the Contaminant Candidate List. She has held various positions in the
Office of Research and Development, including Chief of the Methods Evaluation and Development Staff,
C-9
-------
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati; Associate Director NCEA-Cin; and chair of
the Agency-wide workgroup on cancer risk assessment.
Dr. Schoeny has published in the areas of metabolism and mutagenicity of PCBs and poly cyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, assessment of complex environmental mixtures, health and ecological effects of mercury,
drinking water contaminants, and principles of human health risk assessment. She is a national expert in
mercury and its health effects; she was a lead and coauthor of the Mercury Study Report to Congress, a
multi-volume work on exposure, health, and environmental effects of mercury emissions from
anthropogenic U.S. sources. She was a principal scientist and manager for Ambient Water Quality
Criterion for Methylmercury (which won the USEPA's 2002 Science Achievement Award for Health
Sciences) and contributed to development of the USEPA and FDA advice on mercury in fish.
Dr. Schoeny is the recipient of several awards, including USEPA Gold, Silver, and Bronze Medals,
USEPA Science Acheivement Award for Health Sciences, the Greater Cincinnati Area Federal Employee
of the Year Award, the University of Cincinnati Distinguished Alumnae Award, and Staff Choice Award
for Management Excellence.
Val F. Siebal
Mr. Siebal is the Chief Deputy Director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Prior
to this assignment, he was an Ombudsman for the Department of Toxic Substances Control and served as
a Regional Administrator, managing an office that dealt with permitting, enforcement, and site mitigation
of hazardous waste sites in Northern California.
Mr. Siebal is a Registered Medical Laboratory Technologist. He has a degree in Biological Science and
Chemistry.
Leanne Stahl
Ms. Stahl is an environmental scientist in USEPA's Office of Science and Technology in the Office of
Water. She received her B.S. in Biological Oceanography from the University of Washington in Seattle
and completed graduate courses in fisheries. For 6 years she worked on fisheries research projects at the
University of Washington before joining the federal service.
Ms. Stahl began her federal career at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration managing
coastal monitoring programs before moving to USEPA in 1990. Since 1999, she has served as the
Program Manager of the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue.
Alan Stern, Ph.D.
Dr. Stern received his Ph.D. in Public Health from the Columbia University School of Public Health. He
is Chief of the Bureau for Risk Analysis in the Division of Science and Research of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, where he specializes in human health risk and exposure
assessment. Dr. Stern is board certified in toxicology, and an adjunct associate professor in the School of
Public Health and the Department of Environmental and Community Medicine of the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He served as a member of the National Research Council/National
Academy of Sciences Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury.
C-10
-------
His current scientific and research interests include assessment of exposure and risk from methylmercury
and other heavy metals, biomonitoring, exposure assessment, interindividual variability in dose-response,
and probabilistic approaches to risk assessment.
Brian Toal
Mr. Toal is the director of the Toxic Hazards Assessment Program at the Connecticut Department of
Public Health (DPH). He has been in the Toxic Hazards Assessment Program for 19 years and has served
in numerous roles during that time. He oversees hazardous waste site assessment activities under a grant
from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. He also oversees the DPH's response to all
toxic hazard-related questions from Connecticut's public on topics, such as indoor air quality, fish
advisories, ground water contamination, and pesticides. In the past, he helped initiate DPH's programs for
radon, asbestos, and occupational health.
Mr. Toal received his B.S. in Biology from the University of Connecticut and his M.S. in Public Health
from the University of Washington.
Jim VanDerslice, Ph.D.
Dr. VanDerslice is the Senior Epidemiologist in the Office of Environmental Health Assessments for the
Washington State Department of Health.
He has an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. Dr. VanDerslice has worked for the past 4 years as an environmental epidemiologist with the
Department of Health on issues including fish consumption, infants' exposure to nitrate in drinking water,
use of geographic information systems, and pesticide illness surveillance. Prior to that, he taught at the
University of Texas, School of Public Health, focusing on water quality and ambient air quality
epidemiology studies.
Linda Vaught
Ms. Vaught is the Communications Director for the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in
Jackson.
Ms. Vaught has her B.S. from Arkansas Tech University and her M.S. from Mississippi State University.
She has worked for the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality since 1980 in various public
relations areas. For over 2 years, Ms. Vaught has guided the agency in communication areas, including
working with the media, developing outreach campaigns and outreach materials, revamping the agency's
Web site, and developing information for the Web.
Stephen P. Wente, Ph.D.
Dr. Wente is an aquatic biologist with the Minnesota state district office of the U.S. Geological Survey.
He received B.S. degrees in Wildlife Biology and Natural Resource Management, his M.S. in Biology
from Ball State University, and his Ph.D. in Environmental Quality Assessment from Purdue University.
C-ll
-------
Dr. Wente has worked on issues related to the biological assessment of water quality for 4 years in
Indiana's Department of Environmental Management and 2 years in the USGS Minnesota District Office.
The fish mercury model he will be presenting was originally developed as part of his doctoral research
and is central to his current research at the USGS.
Luanne Williams, M.D.
Dr. Williams is a state toxicologist for North Carolina and is a full member of the Society of Toxicology.
Dr. Williams's primary responsibilities as a state toxicologist include developing state environmental
standards for North Carolina and health risk assessments for contaminated soil, air, water, and fish. She is
also the coeditor and a contributing author of the published book Environmental Health Secrets.
Dr. Williams received a Doctor of Pharmacy degree at Campbell University School of Pharmacy in North
Carolina. She also participated in a residency program at the University of North Carolina Hospital in
Chapel Hill and completed undergraduate courses at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.
C-12
-------
Appendix D: List of Forum Attendees
-------
-------
Appendix D: List of Forum Attendees
Charles Abernathy
Toxicologist
U.S. EPA-HECD
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-1084
Fax: 202-566-1140
E-mail: abernathy.charles@epa.gov
Lanetta Alexander
Director, Environmental Epidemiology
Indiana State Department of Health
2 North Meridian
Section 3D
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-233-7162
Fax: 317-233-7378
E-mail: lalexand@isdh.state.in.us
Laura Alvez
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301-436-1533
Fax:
E-mail: alvez@cder.fda.gov
Francisco Arcaute
US EPA Los Angeles
915WilshireBlvd.
Los Angeles, CA90017
Phone: 213-452-3378
Fax: 213-452-4193
E-mail: arcaute.francisco@epa.gov
Deborah Arnwine
Environmental Specialist V
Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation
Tennessee DEC - Division of Water Pollution Control
7th Floor L & C Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
Phone: 615-532-0699
Fax: 615-532-0046
E-mail: debbie.arnwine@state.tn.us
Annette Ashizawa, Ph.D.
Epidemiologist
CDC/ATSDR
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Mailstop F-29
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 770-488-3338
Fax: 770-488-4178
E-mail: ADA8@cdc.gov
David Acheson, Ph.D.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.
HFS-006 Room2B-004
College Park, MD 20744
Phone: 301-436-1910
Fax: 301-436-2633
E-mail: david.acheson@cfsan.fda.gov
Tom Alo
WRCE
California Water Quality Control Board
9174 Sky Park Court
Suite 100
San Diego, CA92123
Phone: 858-636-3154
Fax:
E-mail: alot@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov
Henry Anderson
Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services
1 West Wilson Street
P.O. Box 7850
Madison, Wl 53707-7850
Phone: 608-266-1253
Fax:
E-mail: anderha@dhfs.state.wi.us
Jeffrey Armstrong
Scientist
Orange County Sanitation District
PO Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92827-8127
Phone: 714-593-7455
Fax: 714-962-2591
E-mail: jarmstrong@ocsd.com
Holly Arrigoni
EPA Region 5 Water Division
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-6822
Fax:
E-mail: Arrigoni.Holly@epa.gov
Donald Axelrad
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Phone: 850-414-1347
Fax:
E-mail: don.axelrad@dep.state.fl.us
D-l
-------
Walter Baker
Assistant Director
Utah Division of Environmental Quality
PO Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Phone: 801-538-6008
Fax: 801-538-6088
E-mail: wbaker@utah.gov
Kristie Baptiste
Environmental Policy Analyst
Nez Perce Tribe
PO Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone: 208-843-7375
Fax: 208-843-7378
E-mail: kristieb@nezperce.org
Karen Bataille
Missouri Department Conservation
1110 South College Ave.
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: 573-882-9909
Fax: 573-882-4517
E-mail: karen.bataille@mdc.mo.gov
Michael Bender
Director
Mercury Policy Project
1420 North Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Phone: 802-223-9000
Fax:
E-mail: mercurypolicy@aol.com
Steve Blackwell
ATSDR
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 404-498-0321
Fax: 404-498-0061
E-mail: sblackwell@cdc.gov
Tammy Blazys
QA Technician
Stolt Sea Farm, Inc.
350 Long Beach Blvd.
Stratford, CT 06615
Phone: 203-345-0200
Fax:
E-mail: tammy.blazys@stoltseafarm.com
Susan Boehme
Project Director
New York Academy of Sciences
2 East 63rd Street
New York, NY 10021
Phone: 212-838-0230x403
Fax: 212-838-6719
E-mail: sboehme@nyas.org
Wayne Ball
Toxicologist
Utah Department of Health
PO Box 142104
Salt Lake City, UT 84094
Phone: 801-538-6191
Fax: 801-538-6564
E-mail: wball@utah.gov
Alex Barren
Virginia Department of Health
1500 East Main Street
Room 124
Richmond, VA 23218
Phone: 804-786-1763
Fax:
E-mail: abarron@vdh.state.va.us
Joseph Beaman
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21230
Phone: 410-537-3906
Fax:
E-mail: jbeaman@mde.state.md.us
Jeffrey Bigler
Cochair
U.S. EPA - Office of Science & Technology
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington DC, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-0389
Fax:
E-mail: bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Todd Blanc
Environmental Specialist, Risk Assessment
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
930 Wildwood Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-751-6160
Fax: 573-526-6946
E-mail: blanct@dhss.mo.gov
Melissa BlueSky
Mercury Policy Project
1420 North Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Phone: 802-223-9000
Fax: 802-223-7914
E-mail: mercurypolicy@msn.com
Brian Boltz
Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center
PO Box !60
Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone: 541-966-9830
Fax: 541-278-7572
E-mail: bboltz@yel.portland.ihs.gov
D-2
-------
Steve Bradbard
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Studies
DHHS/FDA/CFSAN/OSAS/DMST
College Park, MD 20740
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail: steve.bradbard@fda.hhs.gov
Dr. Pamela Bridgen
CEO
Environment International Ltd.
5505 34th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Phone: 206-525-3362
Fax: 206-525-0869
E-mail: pj.bridgen@envintl.com
Barbara Brooks
Hawaii Department of Health
919 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
Phone: 808-586-4249
Fax:
E-mail: bbrooks@eha.health.state.hi.us
Holly Brown-Williams
Associate Director
California Policy Research Center
University of California
1950 Addison Street, #202
Berkeley, CA 94720-1182
Phone: 510-642-5514
Fax: 510-642-8793
E-mail: holly.brown@ucop.edu
Laina Bush
Policy Analyst
HHS
200 Independence Ave., SW
Room 445F
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: 202-260-7329
Fax: 202-205-8835
E-mail: laina.bush@hhs.gov
Linda Candler
Vice President
National Fisheries Institute
1901 North Fort Myer Drive
Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-778-4134
Fax: 703-524-4619
E-mail: lcandler@nfi.org
Mark Brady
Environment International Ltd.
5505 34th Avenue, NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Phone: 206-525-3362
Fax: 206-525-0869
E-mail: mark.brady@envintl.com
Robert Brodberg
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
301 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814-4327
Phone: 916-323-4763
Fax:
E-mail: rbrodber@oehha.ca.gov
Kathryn Brown
Health Writer
East Oregonian Publishing Company
2206 Northeast 19th Ave.
Portland, OR 97212
Phone: 503-284-3532
Fax:
E-mail: kbbrown@eastoregonian.com
Gary Buchanan
Research Scientist
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection -
Division of Science, Research and Technology
PO Box 409
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: 609-633-8457
Fax: 609-292-7340
E-mail: gary.buchanan@dep.state.nj.us
Michael Callam
Program Specialist
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Suite 400 The Atrium
1200 N Street
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402-471-4249
Fax: 402-471-2909
E-mail: michael.callam@ndeq.state.ne.us
Craig Carlisle
CA RWQCB
9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA92123
Phone: 858-637-7119
Fax: 858-571-6972
E-mail: craigc@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov
D-3
-------
Molly Carlson
Montana Department of Public Health
1400 Broadway
Room C-214
Helena, MT 59620-2951
Phone: 406-444-5306
Fax:
E-mail: mocarlson@state.mt.us
Pornkeo Chinyavong
Environmental Chemist
CSC
6101 Stevenson Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone: 703-461-2346
Fax: 703-461-8056
E-mail: PChinyavong@CSC.com
Maria Cone
Los Angeles Times
Times-Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA 90053
Phone: 562-983-8868
Fax:
E-mail: marla.cone@latimes.com
John Cox
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
PO Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone: 509-946-0939
Fax: 541-278-5380
E-mail: johncox@ctuir.com
Steve Crawford
Passamaququoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point
Tribal Government Drive
Route 190
Perry, ME 04667
Phone: 207-853-2600
Fax:
E-mail: stevecrawford@wabanaki.com
Patricia Cunningham
Environmental Biologist
RTI International
800 Park Place Drive
Room G318
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: 919-316-3722
Fax: 919-541-7155
E-mail: patc@rti.org
David Carpenter
University at Albany, SUNY, Department of
Environmental Health & Toxicology
East Campus B Wing, Room B242
One University Place
Rensselaer, NY 12144-3456
Phone: 518-525-2660
Fax: 518-525-2665
E-mail: carpent@uamail.albany.edu
Tracy Collier
NOAA Fisheries
2725 Montlake Blvd. E
Seattle, WA 98112
Phone: 206-860-3312
Fax:
E-mail: tracy.k.collier@noaa.gov
Johanna Congleton
Physicians For Social Responsibility
3250 Wilshire
Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90290
Phone: 213-386-4901
Fax: 213-386-4184
E-mail: congleton@psr.org
Carol Craig
Public Information Officer
Yakama Nation Fisheries Program
PO Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone: 509-865-6262
Fax:
E-mail: ccraig@yakama.com
John Cubit
Injury Assessment Coordinator, SW
NOAA Damage Assessment Center
Suite 4470
501 West Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 562-980-4081
Fax: 562-980-4065
E-mail: John.Cubit@noaa.gov
Scott Daugherty
Aisling Group
39 Oakview Terrace
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Phone: 617-504-8718
Fax:
E-mail: daughertyst@earthlink.net
D-4
-------
Marjorie Davidson
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
DHHS/FDA/CFSAN/FSI/FSI
RM3B008, HFS-032
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301-436-1588
Fax:
E-mail: marjorie.davidson@cfsan.fda.gov
Melissa DeSantis
Public Outreach Specialist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place
Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 703-385-6000
Fax: 703-385-6007
E-mail: melissa.desantis@tetratech-ffx.gov
Tim Drexler
RPM
U.S. EPA- Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
SF-5J
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-4367
Fax: 312-886-7191
E-mail: drexler.timothy@epa.gov
David Dairy
Sr. Engineer
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA95118
Phone: 408-265-2600
Fax:
E-mail: ddrury@valleywater.org
Robert Duff
Washington State Department of Health
PO Box 4786
Olympia, WA 98504
Phone: 360-236-3181
Fax:
E-mail: robert.duff@doh.wa.gov
Grace Egeland
McGill University
Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and
Environment
CINE Building
Montreal, Quebec, Canad H3A 2K6
Phone: 514-398-8642
Fax:
E-mail: egeland@macdonald.mcgill.ca
Vikki Denslow
4320 Mentone Street #4
San Diego, CA92107
Phone: 619-223-1315
Fax:
E-mail: vikkitd@yahoo.com
Lyn Dick
Teratogen Information Specialist
CTIS Pregnancy Risk Information
UCSD Medical Center, Dept. Peds/Teratology #8446
San Diego, CA92103
Phone: 619-543-2128
Fax: 619-543-2066
E-mail: ldick@ucsd.edu
Cerissa Drumm
H & N Foods International
5580 South Alameda Street
Vernon, CA 90058
Phone: 323-586-9317
Fax: 323-586-9333
E-mail: cerissa_drumm@hnfoods.com
Carlyle Ducheneaux
Superfund Pilot Project Director
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Environmental Protection
Department
PO Box 590
Eagle Butte, SD 57625
Phone: 605-964-6568
Fax: 605-964-1072
E-mail: cducheneaux@crstepd.org
Claude Dykstra
Survey Manager
International Pacific Halibut Commission
PO Box 95009
Seattle, WA 98145
Phone: 206-634-1838
Fax: 206-632-2983
E-mail: claude@iphc.washington.edu
Eric Eisminger
Kentucky Department of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502-564-3410
Fax:
E-mail: eric.eisminger@mail.state.ky.us
D-5
-------
Jeffrey Ek
FIGH Project Assistant
Families in Good Health
411 East 10th Street, Suite #207
Long Beach, CA90813
Phone: 562-491-9100
Fax: 562-491-9824
E-mail: vek@chw.edu
Michelle Esperanza
Nakatomi and Associates (FCEC Partner)
2013 Beloit Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: 310-914-5000
Fax: 310-914-5007
E-mail: michelle@nakatomipr.com
Dennis Fewless
North Dakota Department of Health - Environmental
Health Section
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58504-5264
Phone: 701-328-5215
Fax: 701-328-5200
E-mail: dfewless@state.nd.us
Einar Fleagle
Environmental Director
McGrath Native Village Council
PO Box 116
McGrath, AK 99627
Phone: 907-524-3024
Fax: 907-524-3899
E-mail: Einar@mcgrathalaska.net
Peter H. Flournoy
General Counsel
American Fishermen's Research Foundation
740 North Harbor Drive
San Diego, CA 92101-5806
Phone: 619-232-0954
Fax: 619-232-2511
E-mail: phf@pacbell.net
Dr. Jeffery Foran
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
5005 North Palisades Rd.
Whitefish Bay, Wl 53217
Phone: 414-963-9299
Fax:
E-mail: Jforan@wi.rr.com
Steven Ellis
Director, NW Water Services
Tetra Tech, Inc.
6100 219th Street, SW, Suite 550
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Phone: 425-673-3676
Fax: 425-673-9119
E-mail: steve.ellis@tetratech.com
Robert Felix
Teratogen Information Specialist
CTIS Pregnancy Risk Information Line
UCSD Medical Center
200 West Arbor Drive, #8446
San Diego, CA92103
Phone: 619-543-2128
Fax: 619-543-2066
E-mail: rfelix@ucsd.edu
Jacqueline Fisher
Health Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Mail Code G17-J
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-1481
Fax: 312-353-2018
E-mail: fisher.jacqueline@epa.gov
Luis Flores
RPM
U.S. EPA- Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-8807
Fax: 404-562-8788
E-mail: flores.luis@epa.gov
Henry Folmar
MS Department of Environmental Quality
1542 Old Whitfield Road
Pearl, MS 39042
Phone: 601-664-3910
Fax:
E-mail: Henry_Folmar@deq.state.ms.us
Anthony Forti
Research Scientist
New York State Department of Health
547 River Street Room 330
Troy, NY 12180
Phone: 518-402-7800
Fax: 518-402-7819
E-mail: ajfOI©health.state.ny.us
D-6
-------
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
400 Market Street
10th Floor PO Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
Phone: 717-787-9637
Fax:
E-mail: rofrey@state.pa.us
Vicki Fry
Associate Civil Engineer
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
10545 Armstrong Avenue
Suite 101
Mather, CA 95655
Phone: 916-876-6113
Fax: 916-876-6160
E-mail: FRYV@SACCOUNTY.NET
Paula Galloway
Marketing Assistant
EWOS Canada Ltd
1720-14th Avenue, Suite 212
Campbell River, BC V9W8B9
Phone: 250-286-8361
Fax: 250-286-0788
E-mail: paula.galloway@ewos.com
Margy Gassel
Research Scientist II
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1515 Clay Street 16th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-622-3166
Fax: 510-622-3218
E-mail: mgassel@oehha.ca.gov
Bob Gerlach
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 907-269-7635
Fax: 907-269-7510
E-mail: bob_gerlach@dec.state.ak.us
Amanda Guay
Oregon Health Division - Office of Environmental
Toxicology
800 Northeast Oregon Street
Suite 608 State Office Building
Portland, OR 97232
Phone: 503-731-4015
Fax:
E-mail: amanda.m.guay@state.or.us
Eric Frohmberg
Maine Bureau of Health
Environmental Health Unit
11 State House Sta.
Augusta, ME 4333
Phone: 207-287-8141
Fax:
E-mail: eric.frohmberg@state.me.us
Sharon Fuller
Executive Director
Ma'at Youth Academy
445 Valley View Rd.
Suite D
Richmond, CA 94803
Phone: 510-222-6594
Fax: 510-222-0274
E-mail: syfuller@igc.org
Ephraim Garrett
Laboratory Director
National Seafood Inspection Laboratory
705 Convent Street
Pascagoula, MS 39567
Phone: 228-769-8964
Fax: 228-762-7144
E-mail: diane.east@noaa.gov
Rick George
CTUIR
PO Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone: 541-276-3449
Fax: 541-276-0540
E-mail: rickgeorge@ctuir.com
Richard Greene
Environmental Engineer
Delaware DNREC
820 Silver Lake Boulevard
Suite 220
Dover, DE 19904-2464
Phone: 302-739-4590
Fax: 302-739-6140
E-mail: rgreene@state.de.us
Daniel Hahn
Injury Assessment Coordinator
NOAA Damage Assessment Center
9721 Executive Center Drive N, Suite 114
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Phone: 727-570-5391 x5715
Fax: 727-570-5390
E-mail: daniel.hahn@noaa.gov
D-7
-------
Michael Haire
U.S. EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 4503-T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-1224
Fax: 202-566-1333
E-mail: haire.michael@epa.gov
Joan Hardy
Toxicologist
Washington State, Division of Environmental Health
PO Box 47846
Olympia, WA 98504
Phone: 360-236-3200
Fax:
E-mail: Joan.Hardy@doh.wa.gov
Paul Hearn
U.S. Geological Society
2280 Woodale Drive
Mounds View, MN55112
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
John Hesse
13551 Wright Road
Eagle, Ml 48822
Phone: 517-626-6194
Fax:
E-mail: hessej@msu.edu
David Hohreiter
BBL
6723 Towpath Road
PO Box 66
Syracuse, NY 13214
Phone: 315-446-9120
Fax: 315-449-0017
E-mail: dh@bbl-inc.com
Thomas Hornshaw
Manager, Toxicity Assessment Unit
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
535 West Jefferson
Springfield, IL 62761
Phone: 217-785-0830
Fax: 217-782-1431
E-mail: thomas.hornshaw@epa.state.il.us
Joel Hansel
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA- Region 4
61 Forsyth Street SW
Water Management Division
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-9274
Fax: 404-562-9224
E-mail: hansel.joel@epa.gov
Rick Haverkate
Director of Health Services
Michigan Inter-Tribal Council
2956 Ashmun Street
Sault Ste. Marie, Ml 49783
Phone: 906-632-6896x134
Fax: 906-635-4212
E-mail: rickh@itcmi.org
George Henderson
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
100 Eighth Avenue, SE
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5020
Phone: 727-896-8626
Fax: 727-893-1679
E-mail: george.henderson@fwc.state.fl.us
Thomas Hinners
Research Chemist
U.S. EPA - Office of Research and Development
Environmental Sciences Division, NERL, ORD
944 East Harmon Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-798-2140
Fax: 702-798-2142
E-mail: hinners.tom@epa.gov
Brenda Hoppe
Project Coordinator
Oregon Health and Science University
3181 Southwest Sam Jackson Park Road
Mailcode L606
Portland, OR 97239
Phone: 503-494-1076
Fax: 503-494-7397
E-mail: hoppeb@ohsu.edu
Patti Howard
Water Quality Coordinator
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
CRITFC
729 Northeast Oregon, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97232
Phone: 503-238-0667
Fax: 503-235-4228
E-mail: howp@critfc.org
D-8
-------
Laura Hunter
Director Clean Bay Campaign
Environmental Health Coalition
1717KettnerBlvd., Suite 100
San Diego, CA92101
Phone: 619-235-0281
Fax: 619-232-3670
E-mail: LauraH@environmentalhealth.org
Pamela Imm
Research Program Manager
Population Health Sciences
1 West Wilson Street, Room 150
Madison, Wl 53703
Phone: 608-267-3565
Fax: 608-263-2820
E-mail: immpb@dhfs.state.wi.us
Guillermo R. Jaimes
Community Coordinator
Fish Contamination Education Collaborative (FCEC)
320 West 4th Street, Suite 560
Los Angeles, CA90013
Phone: 213-576-6634
Fax: 213-620-6573
E-mail: gjaimes@dhs.ca.gov
Samira Jones
Environmental Health Investigations Branch/California
Department of Health Services
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Lin Kaatz Chary
Chicago School of Public Health, Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences
SPH, MC 922
Great Lakes Center-SPH; 2121 W. Taylor, Rm 210
Chicago, IL 60612
Phone: 312-413-1969
Fax:
E-mail: lchary@uic.edu
Jane Kay
Environment Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415-777-8704
Fax:
E-mail: jkay@sfchronicle.com
Gary Ichikawa
California Department of Fish and Game
276 Dry Creek Road
Aptos, CA 95003
Phone: 831-771-4162
Fax: 831-633-0805
E-mail: gichikawa@mlml.calstate.edu
Afsaneh Jabbar
ODEQ
707 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73072
Phone: 405-702-8183
Fax: 405-702-8101
E-mail: afsaneh.jahbar@deq.state.ok.us
LiJun Jin
Toxicologist
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
450 West State Street, 6th floor
Boise, ID 83720
Phone: 208-334-0606
Fax: 208-334-6573
E-mail: jinl@idhw.state.id.us
Darcy Jones
Environmental Scientist
California State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street, 15th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: 916-323-9689
Fax: 916-341-5584
E-mail: joned2@dwq.sw.rcb.ca.gov
Ian Kanair
ENR Director
Snoqualmie Tribe
PO Box 280
4480 Tolt Avenue
Carnation, WA 98014
Phone: 425-333-6551
Fax:
E-mail: ian@snoqualmienation.com
Denise Keehner
U.S. EPA
Ariel Rios Building (4305T)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-1566
Fax:
E-mail: keehner.denise@epa.gov
D-9
-------
Edward Kimura
Sierra Club
6995 Camino Amero
San Diego, CA92111
Phone: 858-569-2025
Fax:
E-mail: emkimura@earthlink.net
Lon Kissinger
Toxicologist
U.S. EPA-Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-553-2115
Fax: 206-553-0119
E-mail: Kissinger.Lon@epa.gov
Neil Kmiecik
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
PO Box 9 - Maple Lane
Odanah,Wl 54861
Phone: 715-682-6679x136
Fax:
E-mail: nkmiecik@glifwc.org
Fred Kopfler
Senior Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA Gulf of Mexico Program
Mail Code: EPA/GMPO
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
Phone: 228-688-2712
Fax: 228-688-2709
E-mail: kopfler.fred@epa.gov
Bill Kramer
Manager, WQS Database
U.S. EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mail Code: 4305T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-0385
Fax: 202-566-0409
E-mail: kramer.bill@epa.gov
Joanne Kuprys
Research & Development Associate
Enviro-Test Laboratories
9936-67 Avenue
Edmonton, Ab T6E OP5
Phone: 780-413-5227
Fax: 780-437-2311
E-mail: jkuprys@envirotest.com
Bruce Kirschner
Environmental Scientist
International Joint Commission
PO Box 32869
Detroit, Ml 48232
Phone: 519-257-6710
Fax: 519-257-6740
E-mail: kirschnerb@windsor.ijc.org
Susan Klasing
Staff Toxicologist
Cal/EPA, OEHHA
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: 530-753-8335
Fax:
E-mail: sklasing@oehha.ca.gov
Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Department of Natural Resources
122AFernowHall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: 607-255-2822
Fax:
E-mail: bak3@cornell.edu
Rachelle Kosoff
Graduate Student
Cornell University
C5-173VMC
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: 607-227-9882
Fax:
E-mail: rek26@cornell.edu
Elaine Krueger
Director, Environmental Toxicology Program
Massachusetts Department of Public Health -
Environmental Health Assessments
250 Washington Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-624-5757
Fax: 617-624-5777
E-mail: Elaine.Krueger@state.ma.us
Arnold M Kuzmack
U.S. EPA-Office of Water
MC4301T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-0432
Fax: 202-566-0441
E-mail: kuzmack.arnold@epa.gov
D-10
-------
Amy Kyle
Research Scientist
University of California
322 Cortland Ave.
PMB-226
San Francisco, CA 94110
Phone: 510-642-8847
Fax:
E-mail: adkyle@socrates.berkeley.edu
Heather Lamberson
LA County Sanitation District
1935 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
Phone: 562-699-7411
Fax:
E-mail: hlamberson@lacsd.org
Sun Hyung Lee
Health Educator
California Department of Health Services/EHIB
1515 Clay Street
Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-622-4476
Fax: 510-622-4505
E-mail: slee@dhs.ca.gov
Dr. G. Fred Lee
President
G. Fred Lee & Associates
27298 East El Macero Drive
ElMacero, CA95618
Phone: 530-753-9630
Fax: 530-753-9956
E-mail: gfredlee@aol.com
Anna Maria Leon Guerrero
Biologist
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
PO Box 22439 GMF
Barrigada, GU 96921
Phone: 671-475-1658
Fax: 671-477-9402
E-mail: ganm@guamepa.govguam.net
Fred Leslie
Chief, Aquatic Assessment Unit/Field Operations
Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
PO Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
Phone: 334-260-2748
Fax: 334-272-8131
E-mail: fal@adem.state.al.us
John Laferty
Manager, Custom Products
Environmental Resource Associates
6000 West 54th Avenue
Arvada, CO 80002
Phone: 303-431-8454
Fax: 303-421-0159
E-mail: jlaferty@eraqc.com
Dan Landeen
Biologist
Nez Perce Tribe ERWM
PO Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone: 208-843-7375
Fax:
E-mail: danl@nezperce.org
Diana Lee
Research Scientist
California Department of Health Services
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-622-4483
Fax: 510-622-4505
E-mail: dlee1@dhs.ca.gov
Valerie Lee
President
Environment International Ltd.
5505 34th Avenue, NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Phone: 206-525-3362
Fax: 206-525-0869
E-mail: valerie.lee@envintl.com
Dorothy Leonard
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
776 Rolling View Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410-626-7206
Fax: 410-626-8275
E-mail: msmussel@oceanequities.org
Eric Leute
EHC-San Diego
3416 Cooper Street
San Diego, CA92104
Phone: 619-285-0881
Fax:
E-mail: eleute2000@yahoo.com
D-ll
-------
Leonard Levin
EPRI
3412 Hillview Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 650-855-7929
Fax: 650-855-1069
E-mail: llevin@epri.com
Shirley Louie
Arkansas Department of Health - Office of Epidemiology
4815 West Markham Street
Slot 63
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 501-661-2833
Fax: 501-280-4090
E-mail: slouie@healthyarkansas.com
William Luksemburg
President
Alta Analytical Laboratory
1104Windfield Way
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Phone: 916-933-1640
Fax: 916-673-0106
E-mail: billux@altalab.com
Marian Maas
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
502 East 9th Street
Des Moines, IA50319
Phone: 515-281-8143
Fax: 515-281-8895
E-mail: marian.maas@dnr.state.ia.us
Elizabeth Erin Mack
Senior Scientist
DuPont
PO Box 6101
Glasgow 300
Newark, DE 19714
Phone: 302-366-6703
Fax: 302-366-6607
E-mail: elizabeth-erin.mack@usa.dupont.com
Trina Mackie
M.S.
University of California, Berkeley
2608 Sacramento Street, Apt. B
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: 510-540-7262
Fax:
E-mail: tmackie@dhs.ca.gov
Gerald Llewellyn
Branch Chief
417 Federal Street
Dover, DE 19901
Phone: 302-744-4540
Fax: 302-739-3171
E-mail: Gerald.Llewellyn@state.de.us
Tony Lowery
Program Coordinator
National Seafood Inspection Laboratory
705 Convent Street
Pascagoula, MS 39567
Phone: 228-769-8964
Fax: 228-762-7144
E-mail: tony.lowery@noaa.gov
Donna S. Lutz
Iowa State University
Dept of Civil, Const & Env Eng
394 Town Eng
Ames, IA 50011-3232
Phone: 515-294-9720
Fax: 515-294-8216
E-mail: dslutz@iastate.edu
Lucia Machado
Physical Research Scientist
Colorado Department of Public Health, Monitoring Unit
WQCD-MON-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, S
Denver, CO 80246-1530
Phone: 303-692-3585
Fax: 303-782-0390
E-mail: lucia.machado@state.co.us
Maura Mack
Chief, Community Participation and Education Secti
Environmental Health Investigations Branch, Califo
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-622-4414
Fax: 510-622-4505
E-mail: mmack@dhs.ca.gov
Kathryn Mahaffey
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mail Code: 7203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-8440
Fax:
E-mail: mahaffey.kate@epa.gov
D-12
-------
Aaron Mair
Board Member
W. Haywood Burns Environmental Education Center
596 Manning Blvd.
Albany, NY 12210
Phone: 518-426-2924
Fax: 518-463-0544
E-mail: staff@w-haywoodburns.org
Randy Manning
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Floyd Tower East, 205 Butler Street
SE Suite 1152
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: 706-369-6376
Fax:
E-mail: randy_manning@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
Kathleen Mayo
Tribal Water Quality Standards Coordinator
U.S. EPA- Region 5
Mail Code WQ-16J
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-5592
Fax: 312-886-0168
E-mail: mayo.kathleen@epa.gov
Patricia McCann
Minnesota Department of Health, Division of
Environmental Health
121 East 7th Place, Suite 220
PO Box 64975
Minneapolis, MN 55164-0975
Phone: 651-215-0923
Fax:
E-mail: patricia.mccann@health.state.mn.us
Tom McDonald
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1515 Clay Street, 16th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-623-3187
Fax: 510-622-3211
E-mail: tmcdonal@oehha.ca.gov
Dana Minerva
Booz Allen Hamilton
4306 Van Buren Street
University Park, MD 20782
Phone: 703-377-1043
Fax:
E-mail: minerva_dana@bah.com
Barbara Malczewska-Toth
Environmental Health Epidemiologist
New Mexico Department of Health Office of Epidemic
1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N-1320
PO Box 26110
Santa Fe,NM 87502-6110
Phone: 505-476-3028
Fax: 505-827-0013
E-mail: btoth@doh.state.nm.us
Gina Margillo
Project
Fish Contamination Education Collaborative
320 West 4th Street, Suite 560
Los Angeles, CA90013
Phone: 213-620-2586
Fax:
E-mail: gmargill@dhs.ca.gov
Dave McBride
Washington Department of Health
PO Box 47846
Olympia, WA 98504-7846
Phone: 360-236-3176
Fax:
E-mail: dave.mcbride@doh.wa.gov
Robert McConnell
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive
South Denver, CO 80246
Phone: 303-692-3578
Fax:
E-mail: robert.mcconnell@state.co.us
David McHone
President
California Aquaculture Association
2400 West Coast Hwy., Suite #D
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: 949.64566035
Fax: 949-645-1165
E-mail: dmchone@pacbell.net
Ashley Moats
Technical Editor
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place
Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 703-385-6000
Fax: 703-385-6007
E-mail: ashley.moats@tetratech-ffx.gov
D-13
-------
Alan Monji
RWQCB - San Diego
9174 Skypark Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA92123
Phone: 858-637-7140
Fax: 858-571-6972
E-mail: monja@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov
Michael Morrissey
Oregon State University Seafood Lab - Astoria
2001 Marine Dr., Room 253
Astoria, OR
Phone: 503-325-4531
Fax:
E-mail: MICHAEL.MORRISSEY@ORST.EDU
Dale Norton
Toxics Studies Unit Manager
Washington State Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive
Olympia, WA 98504-7710
Phone: 360-407-6765
Fax: 360-407-6884
E-mail: dnor461@ecy.wa.gov
Ira Palmer
Program Manager
District of Columbia Fisheries and Wildlife Division
51 N Street, SE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-535-2266
Fax: 202-535-1373
E-mail: ira.palmer@dc.gov
Andy Peri
Sea Turtle Restoration Project
PO Box 400
Forest Knolls, CA 94903
Phone: 415-488-0370
Fax:
E-mail: andy@seaturtles.org
John Persell
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research Lab
PO Box 217
Cass Lake, MN 56633
Phone: 218-335-6303
Fax:
E-mail: mctwq@paulbunyan.net
Ken Moore
Executive Director
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
209 Dawson Road, Suite 2
Columbia, SC 29223
Phone: 803-788-7559
Fax: 803-788-7576
E-mail: issc@issc,org
Elizabeth Murphy
Project Officer for the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring
Program
U.S. EPA - Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-4227
Fax: 312-3532018
E-mail: murphy.elizabeth@epa.gov
Sandie O'Neill
Research Scientist
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone: 360-902-2843
Fax: 360-902-2844
E-mail: oneilsmo@dfw.wa.gov
James Pendergast
Chief, Health Protection & Modeling Branch
U.S. EPA - Office of Science & Technology
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mail Code: 4305T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-0398
Fax: 202-566-0409
E-mail: pendergast.jim@epa.gov
Karen Perry
Deputy Director, Environment & Health
Physicians for Social Responsibility
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1012
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-667-4260
Fax:
E-mail: kperry@psr.org
Peter Peshut
American Samoa EPA
PO Box 368A
Pago Pago, AS 96799
Phone: 684-633-2304
Fax: 684-633-5801
E-mail: ppeshut@yahoo.com
D-14
-------
Dan Petersen
Biological Scientist
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7831
Fax: 513-569-7585
E-mail: petersen.dan@epa.gov
Sharon Yi Lin Pinkstaff
Project Manager
U.S. EPA- Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
SFD-7-1
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-972-3446
Fax: 415-947-3526
E-mail: lin.sharon@epa.gov
Dhitinut Ratnapradipa
Program Manager
Rhode Island Department of Health
3 Capitol Hill, Room 201
Providence, Rl 02908-5097
Phone: 401-222-3424
Fax: 401-222-6953
E-mail: dhitinutr@doh.state.ri.us
Sam Rector
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
MC5415A-1
1110W Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602-771-4536
Fax: 602-771-4528
E-mail: rector.sam@ev.state.az.us
Chrissy Reekelhoff
ASPH/EPA Fellowship
6368 Dry Ridge Road
Cincinnati, OH 45052
Phone: 513-569-7655
Fax:
E-mail: reckelhoff.chrissy@epa.gov
Mike Ripley
Chippewa Resource Authority
179 West 3 Mile
Sault Ste Marie, Ml 49783
Phone: 906-632-0072
Fax:
E-mail: mripley@lighthouse.net
Susan Peterson
Aroostook Band of Micmacs Environmental Health
Department
8 Northern Road
Presque Isle, ME 04769
Phone: 207-764-7765
Fax:
E-mail: speterson@micmachealth.org
Patrick Rainey
Technical Director
Severn Trent Laboratories
880 Riverside Parkway
West Sacramento, CA 95605
Phone: 916-374-4411
Fax: 916-372-7768
E-mail: prainey@stl-inc.com
Robin Reash
Senior Environmental Scientist
American Electric Power
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-223-1237
Fax: 614-223-1252
E-mail: rjreash@aep.com
Walter Redmon
Senior Biologist
U.S. EPA- Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-6110
Fax: 312-886-0168
E-mail: redmon.walter@epa.gov
Howard Reid
Montana Food, Drug and Cosmetics Program Manager
Montana Department of Public Health and Human
Services
1400 Broadway Street
Cogswell Building, Room C214
Helena, MT 59620
Phone: 406-444-5309
Fax: 406-444-4135
E-mail: hreid@state.mt.us
George Robertson
Senior Scientist
Orange County Sanitation District
PO Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127
Phone: 714-593-7468
Fax: 714-962-2591
E-mail: grobertson@ocsd.com
D-15
-------
Terry Rodgers
San Diego Union-Tribune
350 Camino de la Reina
San Diego, CA 92112-4106
Phone: 619-293-1713
Fax: 619-293-1896
E-mail: terry.rodgers@uniontribe.com
Bruce Ruppel
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Science, Research and Technology
PO Box 409
Trenton, NJ 08625-0409
Phone: 609-984-6548
Fax:
E-mail: bruppel@dep.state.nj.us
Charles Santerre
Associate Professor
Purdue University
700 West State Street
Stone Hall, Room 205
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Phone: 765-496-3443
Fax: 765-494-0674
E-mail: santerre@cfs.purdue.edu
Gary Schiffmiller
Fisheries Biologist/Environmental Scientist
NM Environment Dept., Surface Water Quality Bureau
1190 St. Francis Drive
PO Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
Phone: 505-827-2470
Fax: 505-827-0160
E-mail: gary.schiffmiller@nmenv.state.mn.us
Candy Schrank
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster Street
PO Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
Phone: 608-267-7614
Fax: 608-266-2244
E-mail: schracs@dnr.state.wi.us
Karen Schwinn
Associate Director
U.S. EPA- Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
(WTR-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 451-972-3472
Fax: 415-947-3537
E-mail: schwinn.karen@epa.gov
Sonia Rodriguez
Community Organizer
Environmental Health Coalition
1717KettnerBlvd., Suite 100
San Diego, CA92101
Phone: 619-235-0281
Fax: 619-232-3670
E-mail: SonizR@environmentalhealth.org
Lola Sablan-Santos
Executive Director
Guam Communications Network
4210 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 218
Long Beach, CA 90807
Phone: 562-989-5690
Fax: 562-989-5694
E-mail: lolas@guamcomnet.org
Neil Sass
Alabama Department of Public Health - Division of
Epidemiology
RSA Tower, Suite 310
PO Box 303017
Montgomery, AL 36130-3017
Phone: 334-206-5941
Fax:
E-mail: nsass@adph.state.al.us
Rita Schoeny
U.S. EPA-Office of Water
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mail Code: 4301T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-1127
Fax:
E-mail: schoeny.rita@epa.gov
Kathleen Schuler
Environmenal Health Scientist
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
2105 First Ave., S
Minneapolis, MN 555404
Phone: 612-870-3468
Fax: 612-813-5612
E-mail: kschuler@iatp.org
Joe Sekerke
Florida Department of Health
2600 Blairstone Road
MS 6540
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Phone: 850-245-4248
Fax:
E-mail: joe_sekerke@doh.state.fl.us
D-16
-------
Lorenzo Sena
Env. Prot. Specialist
U.S. EPA- Region 7
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-7017
Fax: 913-551-8752
E-mail: sena.lorenzo@epa.gov
Sophia H. Serda
Toxicologist
U.S. EPA- Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street SFD-8B
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
Phone: 415-972-3057
Fax:
E-mail: sophiaserda@epa.gov
Mylynda Shaskus
Environmental Specialist 2
Ohio EPA
Lazarus Government Center
PO Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216-1049
Phone: 614-466-6308
Fax:
E-mail: mylynda.shaskus@epa.state.oh.us
Jamie Snow
CDC/CSTE Applied Epidemiologist
Wyoming Department of Health
2300 Capitol Ave.
Hathaway Building, 4th Floor
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Phone: 307-777-7172
Fax: 307-777-5402
E-mail: jsnow@state.wy.us
Elliot Spagat
Associated Press
350 Camino De La Reina
San Diego, CA92108
Phone: 619-231-9365
Fax: 619-291-2089
E-mail: espagat@ap.org orsandiego@ap.org
Leanne Stahl
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA - Office of Science & Technology
Mail Code 4305T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-0404
Fax: 202-566-0409
E-mail: stahl.leanne@epa.gov
Clyde Serda
Chef- Reporter
CAPC Culinarian
2154 Lincoln Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-769-8422
Fax:
E-mail: chefclyde@earthlink.net
Gregg Serenbetz
Research Fellow
U.S. EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mailcode 4504T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-1253
Fax: 202-566-1336
E-mail: serenbetz.gregg@epa.gov
Val Siebal
Chief Deputy Director
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1001 "I" Street, 25th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail: vsiebal@oehha.ca.gov
Shannon Soileau
Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals - Office of
Public Health
325 Loyola Ave
Suite 210
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 504-568-8537
Fax:
E-mail: ssoileau@dhh.state.la.us
Kelly Speth
ECCH Coordinator
Ma'at Youth Academy
445 Valley View Road, Suite D
Richmond, CA 94803
Phone: 510-222-6594
Fax: 510-222-0274
E-mail: kaspeth@igc.org
John Stanfill
Nez Perce Tribe ERWM
PO Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone: 208-843-7375
Fax:
E-mail: johns@nezperce.org
D-17
-------
Alan Stern
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
PO Box 409
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: 609-633-2374
Fax:
E-mail: astern@dep.state.nj.us
Brian Toal
Connecticut Department of Public Health
410 Capitol Avenue
MS#11 CHA, PO Box 340308
Hartford, CT 06134-0308
Phone: 860-509-7741
Fax:
E-mail: Brian.Toal@po.state.ct.us
Donald Trees
Principal
Booz Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: 703-902-5406
Fax: 703-902-3613
E-mail: Trees_Donald@BAH.com
Claire Twigg
Travel and Conference Assistant
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place
Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 703-385-6000
Fax: 703-385-6007
E-mail: clair.meehan@tetratech-ffx.com
Eric Dram
Regional Representative
Sierra Club
214 North Henry Street
Suite 203
Madison, Wl 53703-2200
Phone: 608-257-4994
Fax: 608-257-3513
E-mail: eric.uram@sierraclub.org
Linda Vaught
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Information Center
2380 Hwy 80 West, PO Box 20305
Jackson, MS 39289-1305
Phone: 601-961-5053
Fax:
E-mail:
Randi Thomas
USTF
1101-17 St., NW
#609
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-857-0610
Fax: 202-331-9686
E-mail: tunarpthom@aol.com
William Toomey
West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
350 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301-3712
Phone: 304-558-6746
Fax: 304-558-0324
E-mail: wtoomey@wvdhhr.org
Jeffrey Tuttle
Toxicologist
U.S. EPA- Region 3
3HS41
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-3236
Fax:
E-mail: tuttle.jeffrey@epa.gov
Kirby Tyndall
Sr. Toxicologist
Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC.
2000 South Mays, Suite 300
Round Rock, TX 78664
Phone: 512-671-3434
Fax: 512-671-3446
E-mail: kirby.tyndall@pbwllc.com
Jim VanDerslice
Senior Epidemiologist
Washington Department of Health
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PO Box 47486
Olympia, WA 98504-7846
Phone: 360-236-3183
Fax: 360-236-2251
E-mail: Jim.VanDerslice@DOH.WA.GOV
Manny Velazquez
Account Executive
STL
1701 South Grand Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: 714-258-8610
Fax: 714-258-2018
E-mail: mvelazquez@stl-inc.com
D-18
-------
Micah Vieux
Outreach Program Associate
Ohio Environmental Council
1207 Grandview Ave., Suite 201
Columbus, OH 43212
Phone: 614-487-7506
Fax: 614-487-7510
E-mail: cockburn9@yahoo.com
Michael Walsh
Database Manager
CSC
6101 Stevenson Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone: 703-461-2461
Fax: 703-461-8056
E-mail: MWalsh23@CSC.com
Erica We is
Research Scientist
California Department of Health Services
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94530
Phone: 510-406-2501
Fax: 510-622-4505
E-mail: eweis1@dhs.ca.gov
Stephen Wente
U.S. Geological Society
2280 Woodale Drive
Mounds View, MN55112
Phone: 763-783-3272
Fax:
E-mail: spwente@usgs.gov
Kirk Wiles
Texas Department of Health - Seafood Safety Division
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, TX 78756
Phone: 512-719-0215
Fax:
E-mail: kirk.wiles@tdh.state.tx.us
John Wilson
U.S. EPA-Office of Water
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
(MC 4504T)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-566-1158
Fax:
E-mail: wilson.john@epa.gov
Chau Vu
U.S. EPA- Region 1
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBS)
Boston, MA 02135
Phone: 617-918-1446
Fax:
E-mail: vu.chau@epa.gov
Rachel Walsh
Environmental Public Health Nurse
Yakama Indian Health Center
401 Buster Road
Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone: 509-865-2102x208
Fax:
E-mail: cwalsh@yak.portlandjhs.gov
Lynn Wellman
Regional Water Quality Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Region 2
PO Box 1306, Room 4012
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Phone: 505-248-6652
Fax: 505-248-6922
E-mail: Lynn_Wellman@fws.gov
Sarah Weppner
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare - Bureau of
Environmental Health and Safety
PO Box 83720
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720-0036
Phone: 208-334-0606
Fax: 208-334-6573
E-mail: weppners@idhw.state.id.us
Luanne Williams
North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services
Division of Public Health
Raleigh, NC 27699-1912
Phone: 919-733-3410
Fax:
E-mail: Luanne.Williams@ncmail.net
David Witting
NOAA/MSRP
4352 Brookside Street
Irvine, CA 92604
Phone: 562-950-3275
Fax:
E-mail: david.witting@NOAA.gov
D-19
-------
Steven Wolff
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
5400 Bishop Boulevard
Cheyenne, WY 82006
Phone: 307-777-4673
Fax:
E-mail: steve.wolff@wgf.state.wy.us
Jay Wright
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
707 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
Phone: 405-702-1039
Fax:
E-mail: jay.wright@deq.state.ok.us
Tracey Woodruff
Senior Scientist
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
OPPA-1
SF, CA94105
Phone: 415-947-4277
Fax:
E-mail: woodruff.tracey@epa.gov
Edward Younginer
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: 803-898-4399
Fax:
E-mail: youngiem@dhec.sc.gov
D-20
-------
Appendix E: Slide Presentations
-------
-------
Pros and Cons of Focus Group Testing - Steve Bradbard
Pros and Cons of
Focus Group Testing
Steven L. Bradbard, Ph.D.
FDA Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition
The Basics
> Qualitative research tool
> Helps you better understand consumers'
underlying attitudes, feelings, and
motivations.
> An important step in developing a
messaging strategy
Don't overstep the data
> Remember:
1. You are dealing with a small N, and
2. Its not a random sample
> So:
1. You can't talk about cause-and-effect,
and
2. You can't make generalizations
Not an end unto itself
> Focus groups are an important tool when
developing a research-based messaging
strategy.
> They allow you to test consumers'
reactions to your message concepts and
content.
> But remember, they are only a step in the
process.
Messaging Strategy
> Define the objectives
> Select the target audiences
> Develop message concepts
>Test the concepts
> Refine and retest the concepts
> Identify partners and intermediaries
> Select the venues and opportunities
What are you testing?
> Awareness? - No
> Knowledge? - No
> Reactions? - Yes
> Attitudes? - Yes
> Motivations? - Yes
> Feelings?-Yes
-------
Pros and Cons of Focus Group Testing - Steve Bradbard
Unintended Meanings
>"Remember, you can't put
too much water in a nuclear
reactor."
> Focus groups are useful for identifying
message content that may be subject to
multiple interpretations.
Unreasonable Requests
>"You want me to wash my car
on my lawn?"
> Focus groups can help identify messages
that will hurt your overall credibility
Keep it simple, stupid!
>"What in hell is an aquatic
organism?"
> Focus groups can help identify confusing
language.
I never thought about that!!!
>"Give me a good reason why I
should wear a seatbelt?"
Focus groups help to identify the emotional "hot
buttons" that lead to change.
But everyone knows this
> Don't fool yourself into thinking you know
how the "typical" consumer reacts to
advisories and other information about fish
consumption.
> Like it or not, you know 99+% more than
the "typical" consumer about this topic.
> So don't assume that your message is
clear and understandable.
Money doesn't grow on trees
> Focus groups do not need to be
conducted at expensive, state-of-the-art
research facilities.
> There are lots of convenience samples
around you - remember, the rules for
quantitative research do not apply.
> Its not brain surgery. A professional
moderator is good to have, but not a
necessity.
-------
Pros and Cons of Focus Group Testing - Steve Bradbard
Pros and Cons
> Good reality check
> Convenience samples
> In-depth probing
> Taps into attitudes,
feelings, and
motivations that
underlie behaviors
> Not representative
> Can't generalize for
use in policy
> Don't measure
awareness or
knowledge
-------
EPA National Contaminant Study Design and Uses of Data - Leanne Stahl
EPA's National Fish Tissue Study:
A Unique Partnership
2004 National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
January 25, 2004
Leanne Stahl
Program Manager
Office of Science &
Technology
Presentation Overview
Background
Study Design
Accomplishments
Preliminary Results
Final Data Analysis
Future Milestones
A Unique Study
First national study of
contaminant levels in freshwater
fish based on a statistical design
Largest set of chemicals ever
studied in fish
Largest project being
conducted under EPA's
Persistent, Bioaccumulative,
and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants
Program
Objective
The objective of the National Fish Tissue Study is to estimate
the national distribution of the mean levels of selected
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical residues
in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs
in the contiguous United States.
Study results will
- Provide a national baseline
for assessing progress of
pollution control activities
-I* Identify areas that require
further investigation
EPA Fish Study Team
o
o
i
SHPD
** Regional Coordinators
•JT
1
EAD
'-Leanne Stahl k Cindy Simbanin
r Henry Kahn
0
L Maria Smith
RD
1
NHEERL ^
— Pete Nolan, Region 1
— Jim Kurtenbach, Region 2
— Frank Borsuk, Region 3
— Alan Auwarter, Region 4
— Pete Redmon, Region 5
— Phil Crocker, Region 6
— Lorenzo Sena, Region 7
— Toney Ott, Region 8
— Peter Husby, Region 9
— Lillian Herger, Region 10
i /n tl
EMAP ._//&_. 1
LxonyOlsen ^Y^l
Jl Ji ^-~^ >lr 5
Study Partners
Extensive national network of partners supporting the
National Fish Tissue Study, including:
+ 47 States
+ 3 Tribes
4- 2 Other Federal Agencies
> National Park Service
> Tennessee Valley Authority
Partners participate in the following
activities:
* Lake reconnaissance
+ Fish collection
•*• Annual data review
-------
EPA National Contaminant Study Design and Uses of Data - Leanne Stahl
Sampling Design
+ Sample 500 lakes and reservoirs in the lower 48 states that
were selected according to a statistical sampling design
* Categorize lakes and reservoirs into 6 size ranges
* Collect two 5-fish composites (predator and bottom
dweller) from each site
+ Apply consistent methods
nationwide for sample collection
and analysis
4- Re-sample 10% of the lakes
to evaluate sampling variability
Target Chemicals
EPA is analyzing the fish tissue for 268 chemicals,
including PCB congeners and breakdown products
•t- 2 metals (Hg and As [5 forms])
+ 17 dioxins/furans
+ 159 PCB congener measurements
+ 46 pesticides
+ 40 semi-volatile organics (e.g., PAHs)
EPA recently added analysis of
PBDEs for Year 4 samples only
Fish Sampling QA/QC
•* Consistency in fish collection, handling, and
shipping through:
+ Orientation/training of study participants
-f Implementation of
detailed SOPs
-f Distribution of identical
field sampling materials
to all sampling teams
+ Preparation of fish
samples in a controlled
laboratory environment
Tissue Analysis QA/QC
* Consistency and comparability offish tissue
analysis maintained throughout the study by using:
+ Same standard analytical method for each
chemical
+ Same laboratory for each type of analysis
+ Consistent method detection limits (MDLs)
and QC acceptance criteria standards
+ Standard data reporting formats and
standard process for data quality
assessment
Key Fish Study Activities
Planning I—
6/98
Mobilization
Sample Collection
Sample Analysis
Interim Data Availability
Data Analysis
Final Report
1/03 2/04 1/05
YR1 YR2 YR3
9/04 6/06
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Accomplishments
Planning
•Study design development
•Statistical selection of lakes
•Target chemical selection
Mobilization
• 10 orientation/training workshops
•Production of QA Plans and Field Sampling Plan
•Mapping and reconnaissance of 900 lakes
12
-------
EPA National Contaminant Study Design and Uses of Data - Leanne Stahl
Accomplishments
Fish
Sampling
& Analysis
•Fish collection at 500 lakes
•Chemical analysis of 749 fish samples
•Development of annual analytical QA report
Public
Outreach
•Development offish study website
(www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy)
•Production of data CDs for public release
13
500 Sampling Locations
Preliminary Data Summary for Predators
(Fillet Analysis: Years 1-3 )
| Exceeded Human Health Screening Value Detected Not Detected
*Zero for non-detected analytes; sum of congeners for PCBs
Data Analysis
* EPA will begin analyzing fish study data once the full
4-year analytical data set is available.
* Data analysis will consist of the following core
components:
•*• Estimates of national means and percentiles
+ Cumulative frequency distribution plots for chemicals
and composite types with sufficient data
Preliminary National Distribution
Example of Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Mercury
in 137 Predator Composites (Preliminary, Unweighted Data)
Cumulative Percent
S~
J
- <§
.^ —
0 0,2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mercury Concentration (ppm)
17
Data Analysis (cont.)
•*• National maps of chemicals by composite type for
mercury, PCBs, and dioxins/furans
+ Estimate of sampling variability based on replicate
sample data
-r Analysis of various sample factors, including:
> Number offish in the composite
> Size effects
> Species effects
-------
EPA National Contaminant Study Design and Uses of Data - Leanne Stahl
Future Milestones
Short-term (2004)
Long-term (2005-2006)
• Prepare Year 2 data CD for
public release
• Analyze Year 4 (2003) fish
samples (-200 composites)
• Produce Year 4 Analytical Data
QA Report
• Distribute Year 4 data to
states/other partners
• Update fish study website
• Prepare Year 3 data CD for
public release (2005)
• Complete statistical analysis of
4-year fish tissue data set (2005)
• Submit draft final report for peer
review (2005)
• Produce final fish study report
(2006)
• Upload data into EPA's STORE!
(2006)
-------
Model Application for Developing Fish Consumption Advisories - Stephen Wente
Model Application for Developing
Fish Consumption Advisories:
Mercury Pilot Project
Paul Hearn Stephen Wente John Aguinaldo David Donate
Susan Price Seth Tanner Ovidio Rivero-Bartolomei
N1 E S ^National injure 0F Environ,
Problem - Cost vs. Information
Species
A
B
C
D
E
Size Class 1
?
?
Sampled
?
?
Size Class 2
Sampled
Sampled
?
?
?
Size Class 3
Sampled
?
?
Sampled
?
VNIEHS
Fish Hg Model Details
Regression method (Covariance model)
Accounts for:
- Less than detection limit values
- Differences between samples
• Species (Hg increases with trophic position)
• Tissues sampled (skin-off fillet > skin-on > whole)
• Fish length (larger fish are higher in Hg)
Calibrated to national dataset
v'NIEHS
Fish Hg Model (log space)
• Slopes - describe
potential Hg
accumulation rate for
each sample type
• Intercepts - describe
levels of bio-available
Hg "before" each
sampling event
9.NIEHS
alLogofLenglh(in)
Fish Hg Model (arithmetic space)
• Slopes - become
exponents describing
curvature
• Intercepts - become
multiplication factors
• Error - has a log-
normal distribution
§
Consumption
Advisory
Species
A
B
C
C'
E
~ 1.6 -
it
I L2 "
3
™ 0.8 -
*0.4-
Lai-gemouth Wa,leve
Bass /
Smallmouth | /
Bass y / Northern Pike/
Yellow 1 / / /
Perch 1/1 /B^ck /^
\ / ^/ / ^^
Rockbas_s\ _l_^^^^^ ^^^
^%g^<^^ Sucker
Size 1 Size 2
? Sampled
? Sampled
Sampled '
Size 3
Sampled
Sampled
No
Consumption
Limited
Unlimited
0 10 20 30 40
Length (in)
^vNIEHS
-------
Model Application for Developing Fish Consumption Advisories - Stephen Wente
Accuracy Assessment
Calibrated to NLFWAdata (n = 31,813)
5000 random jackknife predictions
! 0.4-
: 0.2-
Q Size Class
• Covariance
I IT = 0.76 • Covariance
I I I I I
OofSp. OinS.C. 1 2 3-5 >5
n = 1007 857 789 483 958 906
Observations in Size Class
Information quality & quantity is better
VNIEHS
Monitoring Program Economics
• Costs:
- Sampling
• Travel
• Labor
- Analytical
• Benefits:
- Information Quality
- Information Quantity
Program efficiency:
Information per unit cost
Sample types*..
VNIEHS
r-
— \
'tajjfe
j i
ic*f^.i\,-.,
^ym
S/teT~ »•
*Sample types is nurr
of species x size cla
x tissue types
A
ber
;ses
8
a
Analytical Cost Reductio
Size classes
_
bpecies
v
Pn^f/^amnlp
Size class model (3000 parameters)
Covariance Model (250 parameters)
>-NIEHS
1
i-fi
A
tinn
$1,500,000 •
+•$100,000
9
J
Project Website
"Continuously updated" data & analysis
How Can I Evaluate this Model?
• You voluntarily provide data
provide results on website
• You evaluate prediction quality (Do
predictions make sense?)
• You decide if, and how much, results are
used
^vNIEHS
Questions/Comments
Additional information:
• Website demonstration in poster area
(sign-up to receive website address)
• Presentation: Tuesday @8:55 AM, "Model
Application for Monitoring Hg in Fish"
• Peer-reviewed publication in preparation
• Request presentation (via telephone) to
your group (spwente@usgs.gov)
-------
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory - Pat McCann
Fish Consumption Advice for Kids
and Moms in Minnesota
Pat McCann
Minnesota Dept of Health
expectant «^f (other's
t^/V^mesaa. \JK\\
'«*«'//„„
hat About Store-Bought
Fish?
Tne hsh or shfll'.
ur fish mail i • m <;onurnmaim.
in.i ,,|l 1,1
i or nuriiiii; \\-oin. i
Hbll or si. •: ; h..ivc nifuii! i
tor a prti:"
concaminaced ikli, indudin :
A/OM con.iv • ... , •
•
An Expectant
Mother's Guide
to Eating
Minnesota Fish
lanning to be pregnant
or breastfeeding
What kinds and how much fish should I eat?
Fish are an excellent low-fat
food. Eat a variety of fish
as part of your balanced
food choices.
There are many reasons to en]oy a
variety of fish often:
• Fish area greatsourceof protein.
vitamins and minerals.
• The oils found in fish are important
for unborn and breast-fed babies.
• Eating fish may play a role in the
prevention of heart disease in adults.
10
-------
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory - Pat McCann
Mercury Levels in Seafood Species
Fish With Highest Mercuiy Levels
SPECIES
Tilefish
"Swcrdisli
KigMnLkci:;!
*^ia&
MEAN (PPM)
1*5
1 GO
373
m
RANGE IPPMI
0 §5-3 73
NO. OF SAMPLES
60
0 10-3.22 598
Q.3G-U7 213
B.05 1 5/1 32-1
N (FFM) | RANGE fFFM} | NO. OF SAMPLES
=1 -ja, 3*1 sis' B5I
What kinds and how much fish should I eat?
• • Include all sources of lish you eat when making choices.
2004 Revision? (many issues)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consistency with other agencies
Joint EPA/FDA advice?
Separate advice for "light" vs. albacore canned tuna
Contaminants in addition to mercury
- Dioxins (IOM recommendations)
Farm raised fish
Benefits
New FDA mercury in fish data
Consumption Advice -
FDA data EPA Rf D
Meal Advice
Unlimited
One Meal/Week
One Meal/Month
Species
Salmon, tilapia, flounder
oysters, clams, shrimp,
scallop, sardines
"light" canned tuna, cod,
pollock, haddock, mahi
mahi. herring, catfish, crab
"albacore" canned tuna,
fresh tuna, halibut, orange
roughy, lobster, grouper,
red snapper
Consistency
Risk assessment
- RfD
- Contaminant(s)
• Mercury
• Others ?
- Data
• Sources of data
• Statistic - mean?
- Meal size
• EPA guidelines 8oz = 1 meal
• FDA advisory 12oz = 2 to 3 meals
• AHA statement 12oz = 3 to 4 servings
- Significant Figures
11
-------
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory - Pat McCann
Meal Advice Categories - Mercury
Women and Children
Unlimited consumption
1 meal / week
1 meal / month
Do not eat
< 0.06 ppm Hg
> 0.06 - 0.2 ppm Hg
>0.2 - 1.0 ppm Hg
> 1.0 ppm Hg
^^m
Risk Based Consumption Limil"
FishMffiilGMonth
Unrestri.-tedc-IO)
16
12
a
4
3
•i
1
US
Norn: K'.i.S,
4 RISK-BASED CONSUMPTION LIMIT TABLES
ylmercury
Noncanuer Heallli Endpoinls"
Hsh 1 issue Concentrations
(awn. worweiahfi
0-0.029
'•J 029-0 i.l J'j
>JOE&-Ou78
Sl)n7fi-.H7
-0 2-"2:
-C.23-!' Jl
-u 31-0 -I'
-0-7-!' 94
sQ 34 - 1 £
H.y
Consistency (cont.)
• Communication
- With other agencies/organizations
• EPA, FDA, AHA, States, Tribes
- Canned tuna
- Farm raised
- Age of Child
- "And" vs. "Or" (between meal advice categories)
- Benefits
A Guide to Your Health
in t he f ish - and you - o
them, so it is important
possible. This advisor'
how much sport fish t c
eat ing fish, but should
Health Benefits
When proper I y prepar ed,
fats. Many doctors sugge
in preventing heart disea;
when it replaces a high-fa
benefits of fish and reduc
t that eating a half-pound of fish e
y kind of f ish may have
Benefits - Tailor advice for person?
• Fetal development - cell membranes of retina,
brain & central nervous system
• CVD
• Nutritional comparison to other food choices -
low fat, high quality protein
• Cultural
Benefits and risks of eating fish vary
depending on a person's stage of life
• Children, pregnant and nursing women
usually have low CVD risk but may be at
higher risk of exposure to excessive mercury
from fish. Avoiding potentially contaminated
fish is a higher priority for these groups.
• For middle-aged and older men, and women
after menopause, the benefits of eating fish far
outweigh the risks within the established
guidelines of the FDA and Environmental
Protection Agency.
12
-------
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory - Pat McCann
"2 meals per week" Recommendation
The American Heart Association
recommends eating fish at least twice a
week. However, some types of fish may
contain high levels of mercury, PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls), dioxins and other
environmental contaminants. Levels of these
substances are generally highest in older,
larger, predatory fish and marine mammals.
Which fish have enough omega-3 in
2 - 8oz meals per week?
Sardines, herring, salmon, albacore canned tuna,
fresh tuna, rainbow trout, flounder, halibut,
pollock, oyster, (mackerel?)
Which can be eaten 2X/wk?
• Salmon, flounder, oysters, sardines
2004 Revision
Provide meal advice based on mercury as in
past
- Separate advice for "light" and albacore tuna
Flag species both low in mercury and high in
omega-3's (need to do the same for local
species)
Provide reasons to eat fish which address
variety of benefits
13
-------
Maine Fish Consumption Advisory - Eric Frohmberg
Consumer Advisory for Commercial Fish
Maine Department of Human Services
Bureau of Health
Consumer Advisory for Commercial Fish
Brochure Redesign
• Recreational Fishing 'feel to brochure"
• Most meHg exposure from commercial fish
• Brochure tested well in rural parts of state
• Did not test well among urban young mothers
Maine WCA Hair Mercury Leveb (nil
Data frc
Focus on Hg in Canned Tuna
m Yess 1993. Nationwide, 220 samples, 12 can composites
Type
Chunk Light
Chunk White
Solid White
Type
Light Tuna
White Tuna
"-»—«••»••»-»
# of comps
106
19
71
Avg meHg
ppm
0.1
0.31
0.26
Grams EPA+DHA per 100 grams
0.27
0.86
«.
1 3x Difference
| In Hg Content
3x Difference
}ln Omega-3
Content
Integrative Approach
• Evaluate Hg Concentrations
• Include data on Omega-3 fatty Acids
• Look at other contaminants and how they relate to other protein
sources
• Consumption Rate data — focus on fish that folks eat
• Cost - don't tell Mainers to eat expensive fish
SeafoodBest for Canned Salmon Mussels
Sardines
Smelt
Flatfish, etc.
Clams
Light Canned Tuna
Scallops
Swordfish
Shark
Smallmouth Bass
Pickerel
14
-------
Maine Fish Consumption Advisory - Eric Frohmberg
Fish low in Hg, High in Omega-3s
0.1 -
0.08-
D)
i o 06
0.04-
0.02
0
0
i — i rOn i — i
o
, ,n,n,
Atlantic Canned Fresh MusselsSardines Shrimp Smelt
2.5
2
ui DmeHgppm
E OOmega-3's g/100g
°
1
0.5
UlackerelSalmon Salmon
Fish low in Hg, "Low" in Omega-3's
0.04 -
0.02 -
0
0
rO
r-|
n
— |
O
,n
rn
O
o
Canned Fresh Shrimp Flatfish, Clams Light Scallops
Salmon Salmon etc. Canned
Next Steps
• Wait and see what FDA's Advice looks like
• Draft this spring
• Focus Group Test rural and urban lower literacy individuals
• Revise, focus group test, ad infmitum
• Distribute by end of summer
Farm Raised Salmon - Total PCBs
Comparison to other Dietary Sources
3 u -
ppb 2'j -
20 -
15 -
--FI--
| |
Hlk-E Bt-pf
°los
--
f,,T^™
1 1
---
--
1
--
'
Tuna Salmon
Farm Raised Salmon - Dioxins
Comparison to other Dietary Sources
IOD
3D
eo
f 7D
i£ 60
!:
a 3D
'JO
ID
D
Farm Raised Salmon
Conversion to Dietary Dioxin and Co planar Intake Assuming
2 nieals/week Farm Raised Salmon
--
1 1
| 1
-n- - :
BEEF EGGS MILh FOPI FOULTHY SALMON
15
-------
Maine Fish Consumption Advisory - Eric Frohmberg
Decision to Include Salmon in Advisories
"Because of the health benefits associated with omega-3
fatty acids in fish ... the committee did not recommend
mat people reduce their consumption of fatty fish below
the currently recommended two servings per week."
Press Release from NAP regarding release of Dioxins and Dioxin-
Like Compounds in the Food Supply: Strategies to Decrease
Exposure
16
-------
North Carolina's New Advice on Eating Fish - Luanne Williams
North Carolina's
New Advice on Eating Fish
Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D.
Toxicologist
NC Department of Health and Human
Services
Former Approach
> Action level issuing advice due
to methylmercury 1 mg/kg
• 11 freshwater rivers and lakes
> 1 ocean fish king mackerel
Reasons for Change
in NC Fish Advice
• Complex in 2001 with US EPA,
FDA and NC giving three sets of
advice
• 2001 USEPA 1 ml/wk freshwater
• 2001 FDA stores and restaurants
2 meals a week and do not eat
shark, swordfish, king mackerel
and tilefish
Reasons for Change in
NC Fish Advice
> NC location specific advisories
and king mackerel advisory
> Needed simple, understandable,
and concise message
> Needed more stringent
methylmercury action level
• Get information to women of
childbearing age and children
All This Advice is Giving Me
a Headache!
• 2 meals a week
from restaurants
• 1 meal a week
from fresh waters
• Do not eat fish
from 11 NC fresh
waters
• Do not eat shark,
swordfish, king
mackerel, &
tilefish
17
-------
North Carolina's New Advice on Eating Fish - Luanne Williams
New Action Level 0.4 mg/kg
>WCB and children 1/2 meal a
week at US EPA dose 0.1 ug/kg-d
• 5 meals/wk at 0.4 mg/kg 5 % risk
of fetus abnormal
neuropsychological effects
90 - 99 Freshwater Fish Data
3 freshwater fish median and
mean levels at action level
across NC
bowfin (blackfish), largemouth
bass and chain pickerel (jack)
Statistics
N Mean Median Max
ppm ppm ppm
Bowfin 475 o.9 0.7 5.7
Chain -IQ3 0.7 0.6 2.0
Pickerel
Large- 820 0.7 0.5 3.6
mouth
Bass
NC Freshwater Fish
High in Methylmercury
South and East of I-85
Bowfin or blackfish
Largemouth bass
Chain pickerel or jack
Ocean Fish High in MethylMercury
T
shark
King mackerel
*^*f*
swordfish
tilefish
Issuance of
New NC Fish Advice
»NC recommends WCB and
Children avoid consumption of 7
high methylmercury fish
• Shark, swordfish, king mackerel,
tilefish, largemouth bass, bowfin,
and chain pickerel
• Recommends consumption of
low methylmercury fish because
of health benefits
18
-------
North Carolina's New Advice on Eating Fish - Luanne Williams
NC Advice
WCB 15-44 yrs and Children < 15
0 meals/week high mercury fish
2 meals a week of low mercury
fish (list provided on web)
General public
1 meal a week high mercury fish
4 meals a week of low mercury
fish
Estimated Risks
With New Advice
> According to FDA Model by
Carrington and Bolger in Risk
Analysis Volume 22 No. 4 2002
> 99% of people who eat two 6 oz
meals a week of fish with avg. < 0.5
mg/kg below EPA recommended
dose 0.1 ug/kg-d
Estimated Risks
With New Advice
• 1 % estimated to be above US EPA
recommended dose
• Maximum blood level estimated to be
14 ug/L
• Risk to developing child would be
less than 5% incremental risk above
background of having abnormal
neuropsychological test scores
• Very low risk for very small number
of people
Risk Communication
• Newsletters, fliers, and emails
• OBGYNS, pediatricians, family
physicians, NC Medical Society,
nurse midwives, health departments,
NC Cooperative Extension, March of
Dimes, and Indian Affairs
• Spanish and English materials
available
http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish
19
-------
Mercury Levels in Tuna and Other Major Commercial Fish Species in Hawaii
Barbara Brooks
Mercury Levels in Hawaiian
Commercial Fish
Barbara Brooks, Ph.D.
Hazard Evaluation and Emergency
Response, Hawaii Department of
Health
Team Members
Hawaii Department of Health
. Clarence Callahan, Ph.D.
. Grace Takebayashi
. Mark Sutterfield
United Fishing Agency
. Brooks Takenaka
Fish in Hawaii
Fishing is a major industry
25 million pounds sold at auction
annually
Top fish sold are tuna and billfish
Study Design
Fish obtained at the auction
Weight of fish recorded
Muscle sample obtained near tail
portion
Total mercury-EPA 6000/7000 Series
Method
20% from each species-Methylmercury
1630, total mercury 1631 m
•2g$&ss&y3&$&&
20
-------
Mercury Levels in Tuna and Other Major Commercial Fish Species in Hawaii
Barbara Brooks
Fish Species Sampled
Albacore (Tombo)
Yellowfin Ahi
Bigeye Ahi
Skipjack (Aku)
Dolphinfish
(Mahimahi)
Pacific Blue Marlin
(Kajiki)
Striped Marlin
(Nairagi)
Moonfish (Opah)
Wahoo (Ono)
1.2
1
0.8
,0.6
»
0.4
0.2
0
» Yellowfin
• Aku
* Albacore
i Bigeye
Mercury in Various Tuna Species
•
••
. '
i * -* , «
SV. 'i- •
j • • V" «' • * *
\f* • * • • ' • *
.•?...'»" ••
20
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1
WHjhlflb.)
0
Mercury/weight correlations
• Positive correlation between weight and
mercury concentration in bigeye and
yellowfin tuna
No apparent correlation in skipjack or
albacore in the size ranges sampled
1997-2000 Albacore Landings In Hawaii (Data from
NMFS)
21
-------
Mercury Levels in Tuna and Other Major Commercial Fish Species in Hawaii
Barbara Brooks
Albacore
f
A
A A A
* A
A A
A A AAA
A A
A A
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Weight (Ibs)
10
ra
Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna
A Bigeye Tuna
SYellowfin
H
A
AA
A A A
A *
AA A A»AA 8
A A S* B8 B
A A A1 8 8
AB B
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1
Welqht (Ibs)
BO
Average Mercury Concentrations in Tuna
Skipjack Yellowfin Albacore Bigeye
Moonfish (Opah)
E
A
/^
A
A A
A AA A
A A A
A
AA A
A A
A
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Weight (Ibs)
*
I
Pacific Blue Marlin
A "Total1
A
A
A
A A
A- °
A A
A A
A
^ A A A
A
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 C
Weight (Ibs)
50
22
-------
Mercury Levels in Tuna and Other Major Commercial Fish Species in Hawaii
Barbara Brooks
Average Methylmercury Concentrations in
Hawaiian Commercial Fish
Summary: Pregnant
Women,Nursing Mothers and
Young children
Do not eat-Pacific blue marlin
Once every two weeks-Bigeye,
yellowfin, albacore, wahoo, moonfish
Once a week-Skipjack, dolphinfish,
striped marlin
Future Studies
Retail study of commonly consumed
fish
Study of exposure in Hawaii
. Fish consumption surveys
. Hair samples in fish eaters
. Blood samples in population
Impact of the volcano on mercury levels
in the environment
23
-------
Mercury Concentrations in North Carolina's Top Five Commercially Sold and
Recreationally Caught Marine Fish - Luanne Williams
Methylmercury
Concentrations in NC's
Top Five Marine Fish
Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D.
Toxicologist
NC Department of Health and Human
Services
NC Mercury Fish Advisory
Committee Members
' NC Wildlife Resources
Commission
' NC Water Quality
> NC Fisheries Association
>NC Dept. of Agriculture
Aquaculture
• NC Marine Fisheries
> NC Department of Health and
Human Services
NC Mercury Fish Advisory
Committee
• Formed after changed advisory
approach from location-specific
to fish-specific in 2002
• Ample freshwater data but
lacked methylmercury data on
NC's top marine fish
• Risk communication strategies
• Inform committee of risks to
developing child
New NC Fish Advice
WCB and Children
>WCB and Children avoid
consumption of 7 high
methylmercury fish > 0.4 ppm
• Shark, swordfish, king mackerel,
tilefish, largemouth bass, bowfin,
and chain pickerel
• Recommend two meals a week
of low methylmercury fish
because of health benefits
New NC Fish Advice
General Public
• General public eat one meal a
week of 7 high methylmercury
fish > 0.4 ppm
• Shark, swordfish, king mackerel,
tilefish, largemouth bass, bowfin,
and chain pickerel
• Recommend four meals a week
of low methylmercury fish
because of health benefits
Estimated Risks
With New Advice
• According to FDA Model by
Carrington and Bolger in Risk
Analysis Volume 22 No. 4 2002
• 99% of people who eat two 6 oz
meals a week of fish with avg. < 0.5
mg/kg below EPA recommended
dose 0.1 ug/kg-d
24
-------
Mercury Concentrations in North Carolina's Top Five Commercially Sold and
Recreationally Caught Marine Fish - Luanne Williams
Purpose of Sampling
Top 5 Marine Fish
• Expand list of high methylmercury
fish that should not be eaten by
women of childbearing age and
children
• Expand list of low methylmercury
fish that should be eaten by women
of childbearing age and children
NC's Top 5 Marine Fish
Expected Low Levels
-spot
- croaker
- kingfish or sea mullet
Expected High Levels
-bluefish
-speckled trout or spotted seatrout
NC's Top Five Marine Fish
spot
1. . . . --*m«-ia* •*"" • . " .. . :-.— •„. .aBiSL- -•
kingfish or sea mullet
croaker
NC's Top Five Marine Fish
bluefish
speckled trout or
spotted seatrout
Collection of Ocean Fish
• NC Division of Marine Fisheries
• Commercial and recreational
fisheries
• Weighed, measured in length,
filleted, skinned, wrapped in
aluminum foil, frozen
• Analyzed
Spot
• 25 fish (fillets)
• Mean length 9 inches
• Mean sample weight 0.5 Ibs > mean
weight 0.4 Ibs spot caught
recreationally in NC
• Mean methylmercury level 0.02 ppm
• Median methylmercury level 0.03
ppm
25
-------
Mercury Concentrations in North Carolina's Top Five Commercially Sold and
Recreationally Caught Marine Fish - Luanne Williams
Croaker
• 54 fish (14 fillets +10 composites 4
fish/composite)
• Mean length 10 inches
• Mean sample weight 0.5 Ibs slightly
< mean weight 0.6 Ibs croaker
caught recreationally in NC
• Mean methylmercury level 0.06 ppm
fillets and 0.07 ppm composites
• Median methylmercury level 0.04
ppm fillets and 0.07 ppm composites
Southern Kingfish or
Sea Mullet
• 30 fish (10 composites 3 fish / comp)
• Mean length 11 inches
• Mean sample weight 0.5 Ibs equal to
mean weight 0.5 Ibs Kingfish caught
recreationally in NC
• Mean methylmercury level 0.08 ppm
• Median methylmercury level 0.07
ppm
Speckled Trout or
Spotted Seatrout
• 26 fish (fillets)
• Mean length 17 inches
• Mean sample weight 2 Ibs > mean
weight 1.4 Ibs Speckled Trout
caught recreationally in NC
• Mean methylmercury level 0.11 ppm
• Median methylmercury level 0.08
ppm
Bluefish
• 57 fish (18 fillets + 17 composites 2-3
fish /comp)
• Mean length 14 inches
• Mean sample weight 1.7 Ibs > mean
weight 0.94 Ibs Bluefish caught
recreationally in NC
• Mean methylmercury level 0.12 ppm
fillets and 0.17 composites
• Median methylmercury level 0.12
ppm fillets and 0.16 composites
• Largest 26 inches mean 0.4 ppm
NC Mercury Fish Advisory
Committee
Recommendations
»Add spot, croaker, kingfish, and
speckled trout to list of fish that
are safer to eat for women of
childbearing age and children
»Not to add bluefish to list of fish
that are safer to eat at this time
»Sample 20 bluefish 26 inches
and larger
26
-------
Options for a Gulf States' Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel - Donald Axelrad
Options for a Gulf States' Mercury
Advisory for King Mackerel
Donald M. Axelrad1, Curtis D. Tollman2,
George E. Henderson3, and Frederick Kopfler4
1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2Tetra Tech Inc.
3Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
4USEPA Region 4 Gulf of Mexico Program Office
King Mackerel - Saift*fet?!n
King Mstkerei
Purity Seoinbriifae - Mackerels Mill Tuiii»
Geographical Distribution: Western Atlantic from
Massachusetts to Rio de Jimeiro. Brazil.
Interest to Fisheries: King nisekere! is so itfiporfent specie
Food: Fi>od consists primarily of fishes wiA snyiller q
of peaaeid shrimps ssd sqaids.
Top ten marine fish species in descending order of US recreational
catch by weight, and comparison of recreational vs. commercial
catch (NMFS)
2002 U.S. Recreational Landings (NMFS)
King Mackerel
• 6,769,000 pounds
(3,043,000 pounds from the Gulf)
• 690,000 fish
27
-------
Options for a Gulf States' Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel - Donald Axelrad
2002 U.S. Commercial Landings (NMFS)
King Mackerel
• 4,471,000 pounds
(2,179,000 pounds from the Gulf)
• $6,291,000 in value
U, S. Food and Dnjg Administration
May 2001
Mercury Levels in Seafood Species
Table 1
Fish With Highest Mercury Levels
SPECIES
Jiletlsh
Swordflsh
King Mackerel
Shark
MEAN (PPM) RANGE (PPM)
1.45 0.65-3.73
1.00
(1,73
(1.96
0.10-3J2
(130-1.67
0.05-4.54
60
598
215
324
U. S. Food and Drug Administration
May 2001
Mercury Levels in Seafood Species
Table I
Fish and SheDfM With Mncli Lower Mercury Levels
SPECIES
Grouper (Myeteroperea)
Tana (fresh or frozen)
"Lobster Xerthera (Ameritao)
Grouper (Epinepheius)
"Halibut
*Sab!efisl,
*PaHoek
*Tuiia (canned)
MIAN (TOM; RASGI (PP1R NO.OI S_«[PLE^
tt.43 0.05-1.35 64
tt.32 ND-1.30 191
8J1 U.05-1.31 8S
&.27 0.194.33 4S
9.11 ll.02-fl.63 29
9.22 ND-0.70 1C2
9.20 ND-0.f8 107
9.17 \D-ft.7S 248
CONSHMKR ADVISORY
AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR PREGNANT
WOMEN AND WOMEN OF CHiLDBEARING AGE
WHO MAY BECOME PREGNANT
ABOUT THE RISKS OF MERCURY IN FISH
You can protect your unborn child by not eating
these targe fish that can contain high levels of
niethytmercury:
Shark
Swordfish
King mackerel
Tilefish
HEALTH ADVISORY FOR KING *IACKERE1.
' «t%ing l«w«afto»s »H cn»snmjj«»» «f JKiiBg Mack^Frf caagfc* (rcua fhe Gait
so. Mercury w Ktug ^JaKfeBfei i»«s-e»sei wfth sfee asi ags of ftsh. Baaed «ss
H J9" >1.S !*|!!
FLOBffiM BEJ*ARTME?rr OF HEAtlH A>"» REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
TO: Ctafiw S.IVlaNaa, M.B., Slafe HraNfc O
FROM: Rit&aid W, FrasmaH. Pk,D.= DitetOi. To
SUBJECT: Esjwssare Gsideiaea fer M*rc*rs? IH Fis*
28
-------
Options for a Gulf States' Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel - Donald Axelrad
Differences in King Mackerel advisories
among the five Gulf of Mexico States:
• RfD
• Age defined as a child
• Advised rates of fish consumption by fish size
and Hg concentration categories
• Fish size ranges for categories of fish
consumption limitation
• Gulf-wide advisory based on fish size?
Requires a consistent mercury concentration - fish size
relationship
Florida Gulf and Atlantic King Mackerel, Fish Size vs. Mercury
Florida statewide
King Mackerel Size vs. Hg, Florida Data1 and Other Gulf States Data
5i 1 1 1 1 r-
E 3
Q_
Q.
D)
1 2
1
600 800 1000 1200 14001600
LENGTH MM
'Includes Atlantic sites
0 Florida
* Other
Kin
1
j"
g Mackerel Size ¥s. Hg Concentration for All Gulf of Mexico States
:'.\
'.". ,;J
, •....
"«"C ' '*',',
, I. '
1,
R«
King Mackerel Hg as a Function of Fork Length Class.
Data pairs represent mean mercury concentration for King
Mackerel for 25mm fork length size classes.
29
-------
Options for a Gulf States' Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel - Donald Axelrad
*Below ca. 1000 mm, the fork length - mercury
concentration relationship appears identical for fish from
Texas and the other Gulf States.
* Above ca. 1000 mm, for Texas King Mackerel the slope of
the fork length - mercury concentration relationship
diverges from that for fish from the other Gulf States.
400 600 800 1000 1200
Results of a paired t-test indicate:
*For size classes < 950 mm (i.e., fish 950 - 974 mm in fork length),
the mean mercury concentration difference between fish from
Texas and those from other Gulf States is statistically insignificant:
-0.041 mg/kg, p = 0.3067
*For size classes > 950 mm, the mean mercury concentration
difference between fish from Texas and those from other Gulf
States is statistically significant: -0.730 mg/kg, p = 0.0002
*Note that for the fish size class at which the King Mackerel
fork length - mercury concentration relationship diverges
between Texas and the other Gulf States, the mercury
concentration is ca. 1 mg/kg, and above the concentration for
which fish consumption would be recommended.
*As such, there is scope for a for a Gulf-wide King Mackerel
consumption advisory for fish < 975 mm (38.4 inches) in fork
length and < 1 mg/kg in mercury concentration.
ioo W"16:iooT
700 800
Fork Length (mm)
Plot of mercury concentrations vs. fork length for King Mackerel
collected in the Gulf of Mexico by the five Gulf States, for all fish with
fork length less than 975 mm. Blue dotted lines show the upper and
lower 95% confidence limits.
Monthly Fish Consumption Limits for Methylmercury (USEPA)
Fish meals/month
16
12
8
4
3
2
1
0.5
None (<0.5)
for Fish Hg Dum Hg in King Mackerel
> 0.03-0.06
> 0.06-0.08
> 0.08-0.12
> 0.12-0.24 Gulf range 0.2-4.5 ppm
> 0.24-0.32
> 0.32-0.48
> 0.48-0.97 FDA mean 0.73 ppm
> 0.97-1.9
>1.9
*Adult body weight = 70 kg
* Average fish meal size = 8 oz. fresh weight
*USEPA's RfD for MeHg, 0.1 microgram/kg-body weight per day
23
Calculated King Mackerel fork lengths for specified meal frequencies and
corresponding fish mercury concentration ranges
Fish meals/month
1 meal/month
2 meals/month
3 meals/month
4 meals/month
Fish Tissue Hg
(ppm)
> 0.48-0.97
> 0.32-0.48
> 0.24-0.32
> 0.12-0.24
Fork Length
Cinches)- best fit
model
30.7-40.1
25.4-30.7
21.6-25.4
12.4-21.6
Fork Length
(inches) - 97.5%
CL
19.7-27.4
15.3 - 19.7
12.1-15.3
4.5-12.1
! 1 -X:.
" ' i -"'"'' ' '•• **&£•*$
30
-------
Options for a Gulf States' Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel - Donald Axelrad
American Heart Association Scientific Statement
Fish Consumption, Fish Oil, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and Cardiovascular Disease.
Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, RD; William S. Harris, PhD; Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH; for
the Nutrition Committee.
SUMMARY
Omega-3 fatty acids have been shown in epidemiological...trials to reduce the
incidence of CVD.... Evidence... suggests that EPA+DHA supplementation
ranging from 0.5 to 1.8 g/d significantly reduces... cardiac... mortality....
Collectively, these data are supportive of the recommendation made by the AHA
Dietary Guidelines to include at least two servings of fish per week (particularly
fatty fish)....
The fish recommendation must be balanced with concerns about environmental
pollutants, in particular PCB and methylmercury....
Advisory options
Calculated King Mackerel fork lengths for specified fish mercury levels
Fish meals/month
1 meal/month
2 meals/month
3 meals/month
4 meals/month
Fish Tissue Hg
(ppm)
> 0.48-0.97
> 0.32-0.48
> 0.24-0.32
> 0.12-0.24
Fork Length
finches)- Best fit
model
30.7-40.1
25.4-30.7
21.6-25.4
12.4-21.6
Fork Length
(inches) -Model
97.5% CL
19.7-27.4
15.3 - 19.7
12.1 - 15.3
4.5 - 12.1
24 inches is legal minimum King Mackerel size
US. anst -Eg;!
Advice For Women Who Are
Pregnant, OrWfio Migfht Become
Pregnant, and Nursing Mothers,
About Avoiding Harm To Your Batey
Or Young Child From Mercury In Fish
and Shellfish.
Based on the similarity of the fish size — mercury
concentration relationships across the Gulf of Mexico,
mere is scope for a Gulf-wide advisory for King
Mackerel mat is tied to fish size.
However, Gulf of Mexico King Mackerel mercury
concentrations are too high relative to the MeHg
reference dose to advocate its use as a routine dietary
component in a "heart-healthy diet".
QUESTIONS?
Options for a Gulf States' Mercury Advisory for King Mackerel
Donald M. Axelrad1, Curds D.Pollman2,
George E. Henderson3 and Frederick Kopfler4
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tel. 850-245-8306
2Tetra Tech Inc.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
4USEPA Region 4 Gulf of Mexico Program Office
31
-------
Recent Washington State Data on Mercury Concentrations in Tuna - Jim VanDerslice
Canned Tuna Mercury Levels
and Consumption Patterns in
Washington State
Jim VanDerslice, Helen Murphy,
Glen Patrick, David McBride
Washington State Department of Health
Stuart Magoon, Department of Ecology
National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
January 26, 2004
Background
WHe'aUh
tt Lake Whateom study
• Compared lake bass to other fish species
• Combined with consumption rates from survey
• Hg intake from canned tuna much higher
K Issued consumption advisory for tuna
May, 2001
• Based on values by Yess, 1993 (170 ppb)
• Provided weight specific consumption advice
• Targeted women of child-bearing age, young kids
K Tuna consumption on 2002 BRFSS
• Hg tissue data old,
insufficient data on white vs. light
Tuna Sampling Objective
tHealth
tt Estimate mean Hg levels for each 'type'
• Species: Albacore (white) vs. light
• Cut: Solid vs. chunk
• Packing: Water vs. oil
K Probability sample of 6 oz. cans of tuna
available for retail purchase during
September-October 2003
• Excluded flavored tuna, tuna packed in oils other
than vegetable oil, low sodium preparations, etc...
K Target: 40 cans / type
(min detectable cliff = 85 ppb)
Selecting Stores
tHealth
K Primary Sampling Unit:
Retail Outlets
K Obtained listing of all food outlets
• Amount of food sales ($)
• Used as proxy for sales of canned tuna
K Randomly selected stores
• Probability of selection proportional to
sales
^Health
Types of Canned Tuna
Species
White
(albacore)
Light
Cut
Chunk
Solid
Chunk
Solid
Packing
Oil
Water
Oil
Water
Oil
Water
Oil
Water
Type
WCO
wcw
wso
wsw
LCD
LCW
ISO
LSW
32
-------
Recent Washington State Data on Mercury Concentrations in Tuna - Jim VanDerslice
Stratified Sample by Type
Wealth
K Choose left-hand
can on top row
K Select one for
each type and
brand
K Sort by type
K Randomly select
one can from
each type
Lab Analysis
Wealth
K Conducted by WA Department of
Ecology Manchester Environmental
Lab
K Analyzed for total Hg, using EPA
method 245.5
/
MHealth
Sampling Results
Type
wcw
wso
wsw
LCD
LCW
ISO
LSW
N
44
42
44
45
44
28
42
# stores
57
83
46
55
46
83
83
Availability
77%
51%
96%
82%
96%
34%
51%
Total of 289 cans sampled
Ave # brands
2.2
1.2
3.4
2.2
3.9
1.2
1.0
^Health
Tuna Brands
Brand
Star Kist
Bumble Bee
Chicken of the Sea
All other brands
#
123
99
26
41
%
43%
34%
9%
14%
Hg Concentrations,
by Type
O>
I
***,
Wealth
WCW WSO WSW LCD LCW LSO LSW
^Health
Linear Regression Results
Factor
White
Solid
Water
constant
Parameter
Estimate
151.3
15.8
-5.2
56.8
Std. Err.
11.3
12.7
9.3
8
t
13.3
1.2
-0.6
7.1
P>ltl
<0.001
0.22
0.58
<0.001
Hg levels in white tuna was, on average, 151 ppb
higher than light.
Other factors were not associated with Hg levels.
33
-------
Recent Washington State Data on Mercury Concentrations in Tuna - Jim VanDerslice
Canned Tuna
Hg Concentrations
Wealth
White
Light
Mean*
(PPb)
214.5
57.1
95% Cl
191.3-237.8
50.9 - 63.3
* - Weighted means
Canned Tuna Consumption
(Health
* BRFSS 2002
• Nationwide probability-sample telephone survey
• Questions:
• "How often do you eat canned tuna?"
• "When you eat canned tuna, about how much of a
standard 6 oz. can do you eat at a sitting?"
H Randomly-chosen adult
Randomly-chosen child under 5
/
FtHealth
WA BRFSS 2002 Sample
H Adult men
H Adult women
H Women 18 to 44
H Pregnant women
H Kids 1 up to 5
1,968
2,919
1,300
61
491
Times per week
"How often do you eat
canned tuna?"
t Health
>2
0 20 40 600 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40
Percent
Percent
Percent
Women 18 - 44 Preg. Women Kids 1 up to 5
"How much ... tuna do you
eat at a sitting?"
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60
Percent Percent Percent
Women 18 -44 Preg. Women
Kids 1 up to 5
Predicted Hg Dose (ng/Kg day)
^Health
Tuna
Women Pregnant Kids
Dose 18 - 44 women 1 up to 5
34
-------
Recent Washington State Data on Mercury Concentrations in Tuna - Jim VanDerslice
Next Steps
Wealth
n Combine data and examine differences
between studies
K Conduct 2nd round of sampling in WA
(pending funding)
• Consult with other states and consider
revising current tuna consumption
advisory
K 2004 BRFSS consumption questions
Acknowledgements
tHealth
n The 2002 BRFSS data collection was
funded by WA DOH
K The Canned Tuna Hg Study was funded
through the Washington Environmental
Public Health Tracking Network grant
from the National Centers for
Environmental Health, CDC
(U50/CCU022438-01)
35
-------
Recent FDA Data on Mercury Concentrations in Fish - David Acheson
Mercury Levels in Fish - Recent FDA Data
David W K Acheson
Recent FDA Assignments to Measure
Mercury in Fish
Two new assignments to measure mercury in fish
in United States commerce completed in 2003
- 12 different species offish - total of 224 samples
- Canned tuna
• 170 samples of albacore/white
• 119 samples of light
12 Different Species of Fish
Grouper (i.e.. Grouper black, Gag, Gulf, Grouper yellowfin, Yellowmouth,
Tiger, Scamp)
Red Snapper
Orange Roughy
Seabass Black
Trout, saltwater (common names Seatrout Spotted, Seatrout Sand, Weakfish)
Croaker, Atlantic
Tilefish, Golden
Trout, freshwater (Lake and/or Rainbow Trout)
Bluefish
Whitefish
Sardines (Pacific, Spanish)
Crawfish (Crayfish)
Mercury Assignment on 12 species
Fresh, refrigerated, frozen
Approximately one third domestic imports
- Baltimore, Chicago, Florida, Fos Angeles, New York,
San Francisco, Seattle, South West
Approximately two thirds domestic samples
- Atlanta, Florida, Fos Angeles, New Orleans, New
England, New York, San Francisco
Mercury Assignment
Each sample tested was a composite of 12
individual samples.
Tested in FDA laboratories
Used standard methods to measure total mercury
Mercury data in fish and
OLD DATA
Bluefish
Croaker*
Grouper*
Crawfish/crayfish
Trout Freshwater
Farm Raised Trout
Orange Roughy
Red Snapper
Trout Seawater
Tilefish*
Golden Tilefish
Whitefish*
Black Sea Bass
Sardine
*Unknowri Species
MEAN
0.30
0.28
0.27
NA
0.42
NA
0.58
0.60
0.27
1.45
NA
0.16
NA
NA
RANGE
0.20-0.40
0.18-0.41
0.19-0.33
NA
1.22 (max)
NA
0.42-0.76
0.07-1.46
MM. 19
0.65-3.73
NA
ND-0.31
NA
NA
shellfish
NEW DATA
°
15
48
NA
NA
NA
9
10
4
60
NA
2
NA
NA
MEAN
0.318
0.054
0.569
0.028
NA
0.033
0.485
0.154
0.328
NA
0.208
0.068
0.127
0.016
RANGE
0.139-0479
0.013-0.096
0.072-1.205
0.014-0.047
NA
0.015-0.110
0.013-0.762
0.077-0.395
0.022-0.744
NA
0.055-1.123
0.027-0.137
0.058-0.352
0.004 - 0.035
11
21
21
20
20
NA
15
20
12
20
NA
20
14
20
21
36
-------
Recent FDA Data on Mercury Concentrations in Fish - David Acheson
Tuna Mercury Assignment
75% major brands
25% store, local, and other brands
Representative of the volume and type of major
and local brands and packing medium (e.g. spring
water, broth, and oil) available in the area.
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago,
Dallas, New England, New York, Florida.
Mercury data in canned tuna
OLD DATA NEW DATA
MEAN RANGE n MEAN RANGE n
Canned tuna 0.17 0.000-0.75 248
White tuna 0.29 ND-0.49 17
Light tuna 0.12 ND-0.75 225
NA NA NA
0.358 0.03-.85 170
0.123 0.00-0.53 119
Future Assignments
FDA will continue to monitor mercury levels in
tuna and a variety of other fish species during
FY04.
37
-------
Update on Recent Epidemiologic Mercury Studies - Kate Mahaffey
Methylmercury:
Epidemiology Update
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D.C.
Fish Forum - San Diego - 2004
Reports in 2003/2004 .. .
i 1999-2000 NHANES organic blood Hg
i Close association with fish intake in 1999-
2000 NHANES examinees.
i Confirmation of cord blood [Hg] : adult
blood [Hg] in Japanese.
i Estimate at least 300,000 newborns in US
each year with in utero blood [Hg] greater
than 5.8iJ/L.
Reports in 2003/2004 (continued)
Seychelles cohort update.
Methylmercury-associated adult neuro-
psychological changes at hair [Hg] < 50
ppm.
Distribution of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA
and DHA) in fish and shellfish vs. [Hg] in
fish and shellfish.
1999-2000 NHANES Blood Mercury
Blood organic mercury (i.e.,
methylmercury) among 1709 women of
childbearing age representative of US
population.
Overall, 9% of women consumed fish at
least once a week. Fish consumption
higher among women over age 30 and
among Asians and people of "Island"
ethnicity.
1999-2000 NHANES Blood
Mercury
I Association: R = 0.5 to 0.6 between dietary total
mercury and blood organic mercury (Mahaffey et
al., 2003).
i Blood mercury concentrations were 7 X higher
among women who reported eating 9+
fish/shellfish meals within past 30 days (i.e., 2 or
more times per week) compared with women
who reported no fish/shellfish consumption in
the past 30 days (Mahaffey et al., 2003).
Methylmercury as a Percent of Total Blood
Mercury: 1999-2000 NHANES
Adult Women of Childbearing Age
38
-------
Update on Recent Epidemiologic Mercury Studies - Kate Mahaffey
Total Mercury Levels in Women,
Aged 16-49
by Weekly Fish Consumption Levels
5 to 9 10 to 14 >/=15
Mercury Levels (ug/L)
Basis for Uncertainty Factor of 10 in the
Reference Dose for Methyl mercury
Three-fold for toxicokinetics:
i Basis for the UF of 10:
Variability and uncertainty in estimating an ingested
mercury dose from cord blood mercury concentration.
Cord:maternal ratio for blood [Hg] ranges from > 3 to less
thanl. Average ~ 1.7 to 1.8. New Japanese data
indicate ratio of 1.6 for cord : maternal pairs.
Three-fold for toxicodynamics and
uncertainty.
Estimated Number of Newborns with
In Utero Methvlmercurv Exposures >/= RfD
l Number of US births in 2000: 4,058,814 (National Vital
Statistics Reports).
11:1 ratio of cord to maternal blood [Hg], i.e., 5.8 cord to
5.8 maternal, 7.8% of women had total blood [Hg] >/=
5.8, ~ 300,000 newborns each year > 5.8 ug/L (Mahaffey
et al., 2003).
i 1.7 : 1 ratio of cord to maternal blood [Hg], i.e. 5.8 cord
to ~ 3.5 maternal, 15.7% of women had total blood [Hg]
>/= 3.5 ug/L, ~ 630,000 newborns each years >/= 5.8
blOOd. [Mote ^smmats^pcdimm^jmna^s.^dnb^d^nrscsntly^^ih^
2003/2004 Reports on Neuropsychological
Evaluations of Methvlmercurv Toxicitv
i Myers et al. 2003. Seychelles cohort update (Lancet).
Continued to observe no adverse effects of
methylmercury exposure under the circumstances
present in the Seychelles Islands.
i Yokoo et al. 2003. Reduced function on tests of fine
motor speed and dexterity and on tests of verbal
memory among adult Amazonian villagers exposed to
methylmercury.
i Beuter and Edwards, 2003. Cree Indians. Additional
studies among adults showed difficulty with accuracy
and sharpness of visual fixation and pursuit in dynamic
eye movements.
Emerging Question on Adult Neurotoxic
Effects of Methvlmercurv Exposures
WHO proposed threshold for adult neurotoxicity
based on 5% prevalence of paresthesias at 50
ppm hair mercury (1990).
No physiological basis to assume there are no
effects at lower exposures
Dose-response at lower levels needs to be
determined.
Mercury and Omega-3 Fatty Acids
i In 2003 additional epidemiology data raised more
interest in mercury as a cardiac toxin.
i Omega-3 fatty acids in fish frequently cited as a
health benefit of fish and shellfish intake.
i Key piece of information is that there are substantial
species-specific differences in the distribution of
mercury and of the omega-3 fatty acids.
i Species high in mercury are not necessarily high in
omega-3s and species high in omega-3s are not
necessarily higher in mercury.
39
-------
Update on Recent Epidemiologic Mercury Studies - Kate Mahaffey
Comparison of Mercury
Acid (a/1 OOa)
i Hiah Mercurv Species
Tilefish: 1.6 Hg, 0.17 O-3s
Shark: 1.3 Hg, 0.07 O-3s
King Mackerel: 0.97Hg,
0.18 O-3s
Swordfish: 0.95 Hg, 0.58
0-3s
(ppm) and Omeaa-3 Fatty
in Fish Species
i Hiah Omeaa-3 Species
Mackerel: 0.08 Hg, 3.61 O-
3s
Salmon-sockeve: 0.03 Hg,
3.00 O-3s
Herring: 0.01 Hg, 2.34 O-
3s
Tuna, albacore: 0.26 Hg,
2.33 0-3s
Variation in Mercury and Omega-3 Fatty
Acids in Fish and Shellfish
Mercury concentrations range from < 0.02 ppm Hg
in shellfish such as abalone to several ppm Hg in
large predatory fish.
Omega-3 fatty acids (combined EPA and DHA) range
from < 0.1 gram/100 grams offish (e.g., shark
species) to > 3.5 grams/100 grams offish (mackerel
species).
There is minimal association between the omega-3
fatty acid concentration in the fish species and the
mercury concentration in the species.
Upcoming Meeting
> Meeting on medical issues related to
mercury exposure.
> Orlando, Florida
> April-2004
> Sponsored by US EPA and US HHS in
conjunction with multiple medical
associations.
40
-------
Update on the Current Mercury RfD and the Implications for Revisions
Based on Recent Data - Alan Stern
Update on the Current
Mercury RfD & the
Implications for Revisions
Based on Recent Data
Alan H. Stern, Dr. P.M., DABT
Division of Science, Research and
Technology
New Jersey Dept. Environmental
Protection
Cardiovascular Endpoint
Effects associated specifically with
MeHg
- some health effects currently associated
only with inorganic Hg
• e.g., cardiomyopathy
- not known to what extent inorg. and
MeHg share common mode of action for
cardiovascular effects
Heart Disease
— including AMI, MI, CHD, ischemic heart
disease
- Salonen et al. (1995)
• Finland - 1833 middle-aged men in health
registry
• mean fish intake = 46.5 g/day
90th percentile of U.S. consumers
• mean Hg hair =1.92 ppm
— 90th percentile of U.S. males
• hair Hg = 2 ppm, or >30 g fish/day
RR = 1.7 for AMI, (p = 0.038)
• Hair Hg assoc. with immune complexes
with oxidized LDL
Follow up of Finnish cohort additional 4
years (Rissanen, 2000)
- prospective measurement offish n-3 fatty acids
• upper quint Me of n-3 fatty acids AND hair
Hg < 2 ppm —» 52% reduction in risk
• upper quintile n-3 fatty acids AND Hg > 2
ppm —» 24% reduction in risk
- Hg > 2 ppm reduced protective effect of n-3's by ~
50%
- implies balance between protection of n-
3's and adverse effects of MeHg
Multi-center study (Europe and Israel)
(Guallar et al. 2002)
- men <70 yrs.
- case control - first AMI
- DHA (n-3 fatty acid)
— toenail Hg
• interpretation of exposure?
— with full model adjustment, (including n-3's)
OR for AMI in highest quintile Hg was 2.2
times OR in lowest quintile
• monotonic positive dose-response
— dose response modeling for DHA gave
monotonic negative trend
- Consistent with Hg antagonism of n-3
protection
U.S. health care professionals study
(Yoshizawa et al. (2002)
— case-control study of coronary heart disease
• middle-aged men
• toenial Hg
— Hg cone, larger than largest group in Guallar et
al.
• n-3 fatty acids
— dentists were largest group
• 63% of controls
• Hg exposure > twice that of other groups
- occupational exposure to Hg° ?
41
-------
Update on the Current Mercury RfD and the Implications for Revisions
Based on Recent Data - Alan Stern
toenail Hg not associated with risk of CHD
- for total cases
- with dentists excluded OR = 1.3-1.7
• higher OR with adjustment for n-3 's
• not significant — small n
does putative association result from total
Hg or MeHg?
- if MeHg, then inclusion of dentists is a
confounder
potential exposure misclassification
- toenail samples collected up to 5 yrs. prior to
CHD event
Minamata
— preliminary ecological study comparing causes
of death in two heavily exposed districts of
Minamata to Minamata City as a whole
(Tamashiro et al., 1988)
- diseases of the heart were not elevated
• period of analysis was approx 20 years after initial
disease report
• peak period for heart disease my not have been
included
• MeHg exposure in control area not documented
— case-control study in Kumamoto prefecture
• causes of death secondary to Minamata disease
analyzed
OR not significant for any cause
- ischemic heart disease - OR =1.3 males 0.65
females
— other heart disease - OR =1.3 males 2.0
females
- only ischemic heart disease sig. associated with
Minamata disease on death certificates
Atherosclerosis
- Salonen et al. (2000) measured progression in
men from E. Finland
• ultrasound measurement of thickness of carotid
artery
• two measurements 4 yrs. apart
— hair Hg
• upper quintile = 2.81 ppm
— multivariate regression model
• Hg highly significant
• beta for Hg second only to systolic BP
• 7.3% increase in progressive thickening for each
ppm Hg in hair
• Blood pressure and heart rate - in utero
exposure
- Some evidence for association of in utero MeHg
exposure (cord blood Hg) and BP at 7 yrs. (Faroese
cohort, S0rensen et al., 1999)
• systolic and diastolic
• dose response plateaus at low exposures (10 ug/1)
- Also decrease in heart rate variability
• Inconsistent with findings in institutionalized
patients with "fetal Minamata disease" (Oka et
al., 2003)
• Animal studies examined adolescents and
adults
— some associations, but generally high dose effects with
frank neurological toxicity
Summary of Cardiovascular
Effects
Epidemiological studies suggest an association
between heart disease (including but not limited to
AMI) and MeHg
Causal mechanism suggested by apparent
antagonism between n-3 fatty acids and MeHg
— anti-oxidant properties of n-3's and lipid peroxidation
stress from MeHg?
— different levels of n-3's and MeHg by species may
explain differences among studies of potential
cardiovascular benefits offish consumption
— risks from MeHg may not be straightforward, but
would be expected to be mediated by n-3 exposure
42
-------
Update on the Current Mercury RfD and the Implications for Revisions
Based on Recent Data - Alan Stern
association between atherosclerosis and MeHg
seen only in single study
- mechanism may be consistent with lipid peroxidation
by MeHg
Salonen et al., 1995, and Guallar et al. (2002) may
lend themselves to dose-response modeling
- lack of information about toenail Hg as a biomarker
makes Guallar study less useful
Evidence for effects of MeHg on BP at current
levels of exposure is weaker
- no epi. studies in adults
— animal data difficult to interpret given multiple
toxicities
- in utero BP effects are unclear with respect to
persistence and long-term implications
- of concern
Reassessment of the
pharmacokinetic model for dose
reconstruction
Pharmacokinetic Pathway for Fetal
Exposure to MeHg
One Compartment Pharmacokinetic
Model
(for blood)
D=CcxRxbxV)/(AxF)
W
Pharmacokinetic Variability in Pathway
based on on«sompartment model
(Stern, 1997)
Previous analyses have produced consistent
estimates of population variability in the dose
reconstruction
Estimate of Pharmacokinetic Variability
Dose-Blood
from 3 studies
Stern
3997)
Swartout
and Rice
(2000)
Clewell et
al. (1999)
50* percentile/
5th percentile
(95% of var.)
mean = 1.8
2.1
1.4
50* percentile/
1st percentile
(99% of var.)
mean =2.4
2.8
1.7
However, previous analyses were inconsistent in
absolute values predicted for the dose
— this was largely a function of differences in central
tendency estimates
- selection of appropriate data sets and central tendency
estimates was uncertain
— analyses differed with respect to the specificity of the
parameter values to pregnancy and stage of pregnancy
Also, previous analysis implicitly assumed that
Hgcord/Hg
maternal
= 1.0
43
-------
Update on the Current Mercury RfD and the Implications for Revisions
Based on Recent Data - Alan Stern
Current re-analysis is largely third-trimester-
specific
- reflecting pharmacokinetic factors which influence Hg
cone, in cord blood
Current re-analysis incorporates the
Hg cord ^g maternal ratl°
• W - data on maternal weight at delivery
- correlated with V
• V - data on third-trimester total blood volume
• b - data on elimination rate (T !/i) from pregnant
women in Iraqi poisoning
• F - not pregnancy specific
- however, may not significantly change during
pregnancy
- uncertain parameter
• A - not pregnancy specific
- unlikely to vary much with pregnancy
• R-delivery-specific
- well documented
Preliminary results of revised dose reconstruction
Maternal dose (ug/kg/day) corresponding to 58 ng/1 in cord
blood
mean 1.03
s.d. 0.73
1st percentile 0.21
5'" percentile 0.31
101" percentile 0.39
50"' percentile 0.84
50"' percentile/5Ul percentile 2.7
50'" percentlle/lst percentile 4.0
current EPA value
1.08
3 (assumed)
Co
OB.
Ir.
lo,
o,.
Probability of Maternal Intake Dose
[responding to 58 ug/l in Cord Blood
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
^^
0,3*1 0^3-7 0767 0^55 1 30*1 J01d
Thus, on the basis of the preliminary analysis:
- the estimate of the mean maternal dose is about the same
as EPA's previous estimate
— the overall variability in the dose reconstruction is
approximately 33° i> larger than the EPA assumed value
• appears to be due largely to the variability in the cord/maternal
If a UF approach is used to address pharmacokinetic
variability, the preliminary- analysis suggests that a UF
of approx. 4 may be justified
• 99% of population variability
However, the third-trimester specificity of the analysis
suggests that 99th percentile estimate can be used
directly in the RfD calculation
• 58 ug/l * 0.21 ug/kg/day
If a UF (toxicodynamic factors, database insufficiency
etc.) of 3 is then applied, overall RfD could be
• 0.21 ug/kg/day/3 = 0.07 ug/kg/day
44
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA
FAC Recommendations - David Acheson, Denise Keehner
FDA and EPA Development of a Joint
Advisory for Methylmercury-containing
fish and shellfish for Women of
Childbearing age and Children.
David W K Acheson
Denise Keehner
Purpose of the FAC meeting
The purpose of the FAC meeting was to provide a
report of how FDA has responded to the FAC
recommendations in developing a revised joint
advisory with EPA that addresses both
commercial and locally caught fish.
Q-
Structure of the presentations
Status report of how FDA has responded to the
previous FAC recommendations.
• Description of the process involved in developing a revised
advisory based on the recommendations.
Review of the exposure assessment
Discussion of focus group testing of the revised
advisory.
The final draft advisory - post focus groups
FAC comments
Status Report
Q-
Outline
Background of relevant recent history in relation
to the current advisory
Process involved in responding to the six primary
recommendations from the 2002 Food Advisor}'
Committee meeting
Response to the recommendations
Question to the 2003 Food Advisory Committee
Background
2001 FDA and EPA issued advisories on fish
consumption.
2002 FDA Food Advisory Committee asked to
evaluate the advisory.
Q-
45
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA
FAC Recommendations - David Acheson, Denise Keehner
2001 - FDA Advisory
Avoid Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, Tilefish
- Aimed at women of childbearing age and young
children.
Eat up to 12oz/week of a variety of other fish
- Aimed at women of childbearing age
Follow EPA advice for recreationally caught fish
2001-EPA Advisory
Limit consumption of freshwater fish caught by family
and friends to one meal/week
• Adult — 6 ounces cooked, 8 ounces uncooked
• Child —2 ounces cooked, 3 ounces uncooked
Applies to areas where states have not provided advice
about untested waters
Check with state or local health department for advice
on waters where friends /family fish
Target — women who are of child-bearing age and
children
Follow FDA advice for ocean, commercial fish
FAC 2002 - Charge
The Committee was asked to evaluate whether the
FDA's consumer public health advisory on
methylmerury provides adequate protection for
pregnant women and women of childbearing age
who may become pregnant
Q-
FAC 2002 - Recommendations
1. Better define what is meant by "eat a variety of
fish" ,
2. Work with other federal and state agencies to
bring commercial and recreational fish under the
same umbrella,
3. Publish a quantitative exposure assessment used
to develop the advisory,
Q-
FAC 2002 - Recommendations
4. Develop specific recommendations for canned tuna,
based on a detailed analysis of what contribution
canned tuna makes to overall methyl mercury levels in
women,
5. Address children more comprehensively in the
advisory,
6. Increase monitoring of methyl mercury to include
levels in fish and the use of human biomarkers.
Q-
Process to address the
recommendations
Q-
46
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA
FAC Recommendations - David Acheson, Denise Keehner
Key Process Milestones
Fall 2002: EPA Administrator and Secretary of HHS
exchange letters agreeing to collaborate and "bring
commercial and recreational fish under the same
umbrella advisory".
- Follow-up meeting held between Director of FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and EPA's Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Water
Feb 2003: Set up joint working and leadership group
from FDA/EPA
- Staff and managers from FDA/EPA
Key Process Milestones (con)
2002-03: FDA undertakes exposure assessment
April 2003 to present: Weekly meetings and joint work
between FDA and EPA
- Planned and completed independent external peer review of
exposure assessment and revised exposure assessment,
- Planned and held 4 stakeholder meetings,
- Planned and produced draft joint advisory,
- Planned and held 8 Focus Groups in 4 different locations across
the U.S. and revised draft advisory on basis of Focus Group
input,
- Planned and prepared materials for this FAC
Q-
Key Process Milestones (con)
July 2003: Stakeholder meetings
- EPA/FDA met with industry, consumers and health
professionals, States and Tribes and reported on
progress in responding to FAC recommendations of
July 2002
- Shared with Stakeholders a tentative timeline that
included Focus Group testing of a draft advisory in
November and a public meeting in Fall of 2003
Q-
Key Process Milestones (con)
July 2003: Stakeholder meetings (con)
- Key messages from Stakeholder meetings included:
• Need to continue research, bring new data and science into
future revisions; but, important to move forward now
• Some concern about accuracy of tissue data in model
• Concern about balanced message vis-a-vis fish in diet
• Proposed timeline seems ambitious; important to have Focus
Groups and time for States to be on board
• Effective outreach and implementation to get the message
out are critically important to achieving public health goal
Key Process Milestones (con)
September/October 2003: Developed draft joint advisory
- Initial draft advisory was 2 and Vz pages in length
November 2003: Focus Group testing and real time
revisions
- 8 Focus Groups in 4 different location
Key Process Milestones (con)
December 2003: Public meeting/presentation at
FDA FAC
- Presenting "final" draft advisory (post Focus Groups)
- Looking for concurrence on readiness to move
forward
Q-
47
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA
FAC Recommendations - David Acheson, Denise Keehner
Response to Recommendations
Response to recommendations
1. Better define what is meant by "eat a variety offish"
Consider a variety of methods
- Lists offish
- Expanded language
- Shorter explicit language
Tested some of these in focus groups
Response to recommendations
2. Work with other federal and state agencies to bring
commercial and recreational fish under the same umbrella.
Close collaboration between FDA and EPA to
develop a single joint advisory concerning
commercial and recreationally caught fish,
Interacted with States during this process through
Stakeholder meetings.
Q-
Response to recommendations
3. Publish a quantitative exposure assessment used to develop the
advisory
Quantitative exposure assessment developed in
early 2003.
Presented publicly as a poster in March 2003
External peer review in August 2003
Revised exposure assessment December 2003
- New data on mercury levels in fish
- Comments from the peer review
Q-
Response to recommendations
4. Develop specific recommendations for canned tuna, based
on a detailed analysis of what contribution canned tuna makes
to overall methyl mercury levels in women
Canned tuna comprised of two main types.
- Albacore/white
- Light
Canned tuna is one of the most frequently consumed fish
in the United States
Exposure assessment scenarios address tuna specifically
New data on levels of mercury in canned tuna
Specific statement regarding canned tuna added to the
advisory
Response to recommendations
5. Address children more comprehensively in the advisory
FDA and EPA determined that there was no scientific
consensus to define a specific age or weight in the
revised advisory.
More emphasis on young children in the revised advisory
- In the title
- In the text
- Not limited to the "Do Not Eat" list
Statement added indicating children should eat less than
the 12oz because they are smaller.
48
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Description of Existing Advisory and August 2003 FDA
FAC Recommendations - David Acheson, Denise Keehner
Response to recommendations
6. Increase monitoring of methyl mercury to include levels in
fish and the use of human biomarkers.
Two new assignments to measure mercury in fish
in United States commerce completed in 2003
- 12 different species offish - total of 224 samples
- Canned tuna
• 170 samples of albacore/white
• 119 samples of light
Question to the FAC
Given the enormous interest and expectations from all perspectives
on this issue, the one important point we believe all agree on, is
that we move forward and begin our education program.
As we learn more from scientific findings, population
demographics, NHANES and receive results from the education
effort on consumer behavior, we may need to refine the approach.
We believe that this activity is best conducted concurrently with an
outreach and educational program that in the interests of public
health should commence as soon as possible . We therefore seek
the Committee's concurrence.
49
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review -
David Acheson, Rita Schoeny
Exposure Assessment:
Peer Review and Revisions
Rita Schoeny, EPA
David W K Acheson, FDA
Why was the exposure assessment
done?
Response to 2002 - FDA Food Advisory
recommendation on the 2001 fish advice
- Publish a quantitative exposure assessment used to
develop the advisory
- Develop specific recommendations for canned tuna,
based on a detailed analysis of what contribution
canned tuna makes to overall methyl mercury levels
in women
NHANES - blood mercury levels in
women of childbearing age
Q-
MeHg Exposure Model Overview
Exposure Simula
Seafood
consumption
MeHg by
Fish Species
Species
Market
Share
\
/
ion
s»
MeHg
Intake
/
Diet-blood
ratio
1
MeHg Blood
Levels
Blood-hair
ratio
1
MeHg Hair
Levels
Biomarker Simulation
Exposure simulation
Short term consumption (3 day) - CSFII '89-90
Long-term purchase diaries (30 day)
Market share data
• Shrimp
• Tuna (light)
• Salmon
• Pollock
• Catfish
• Tuna (albacore)
t
19.6%
15.7%
11.1%
10.3%
7.6%
6 S%
70.8%
Estimation of blood or hair Hg
predicated on Scenarios
Scenarios - weekly levels offish consumption
— e.g. No dietary exclusions at all or
- 12 oz /wk of low mercury fish
For the scenarios fish were divided into high, medium
and low MeHg
- High: Swordfish, Shark, Tilefish, King Mackerel
— Medium: e.g. Albacore Tuna, Halibut, Tuna steaks,
Rockiish, Haddock, American Lobsters
- Low: e.g. Light Tuna, Cod, Pollock, Catfish, Shrimp,
Salmon, Flatfish, Scallops, Clams, Sardines, Oysters
50
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review -
David Acheson, Rita Schoeny
EPA and FDA use of an exposure
assessment
Considered scenarios and outcomes in formulating bases
for revised joint advice
Discussed FDA / EPA conclusions with Stakeholders at
July meetings:
- The model closely predicts the NHANES data showing
population exceeding RfD
- FDA and EPA believe this will therefore be a useful tool in
establishing the scientific background for an advisory
- FDA and EPA believe the scenarios offer a way to inform the
risk management decisions
- FDA and EPA are submitting this exposure assessment for
peer review
Q-
What was reviewed?
Poster presentation by CD Carrington and PM
Bolger, presented at 2003 meeting of the Society
of Toxicology (abstract published in The
Toxicologisf)
- Devised fish consumption scenarios and predicted
blood and hair mercury for women of child-bearing
age and children
- Baseline scenario expected to reflect NHANES data
How was review done?
"Letter" review done through existing EPA peer review
contract (Contract No. 68-C-02-091, Versar)
- EPA /FDA described required reviewer expertise
- Contractor selected 3 reviewers
- EPA approved listed reviewers as having the requisite
credentials
- Contractor provided all materials to reviewers, collected written
comments from reviewers, compiled peer review report
Q-
EPA /FDA wrote the charge to the
reviewers ~ 1
1. Is the document logical, clear and concise? Are the arguments
presented in an understandable manner?
2. Has the appropriate literature been cited? Are there publically
available, peer-reviewed papers that should be included? Please
provide copies of any papers or reports for consideration.
3. Is the model clearly described? Are modifications supportable
by existing data? Modifications include these: expansion offish
categories from 24 to 28; fitted distributions in place of analogues
for some species; addition of 0.1 to 2 ppb mercury to blood levels
to account for sources other than fish.
EPA /FDA wrote the charge to the
reviewers ~ 2
4. Data from the Continuing Study of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII) from 1989-1991 were the basis for distributions offish
consumption. These data were from three days of survey
information vs. two days for the later data (CSFII 94-96).
Comment on this choice. Comment on the adjustments made to
compensate for likely under-reporting offish consumption by the
low consumption portion of the population.
5. In this paper women of child-bearing age are defined as those
between 18 and 45 years of age; children are defined as of 2 to 5
years old. Are these the appropriate ranges?
EPA /FDA wrote the charge to the
reviewers ~ 3
6. Are the fish consumption scenarios logically described, clear
and supportable? Comment on the identification of 0.5 ppm
mercury or greater as "high mercury fish."
7. For purposes of applying the scenarios in the exposure
assessment, the following boundaries were set for liigh, Medium
and Low mercury contamination offish species: High, swordfish,
shark, tilefish, king mackerel; medium greater than 0.13 ppm; low
less than or equal to 0.13 ppm. Comment on these choices. Note
and comment on the following: 0.12 ppm is a level of mercury
contamination that would permit 12 oz. fish/week without
exceeding the RfD.
51
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review -
David Acheson, Rita Schoeny
Response to reviewers
Written response by EPA / FDA available on
Web. (www.cfsan.fda.gov. www.epa.gov/ost/fish)
This describes
- Revisions to assessment,
- Differences of scientific opinion,
- Review comments considered outside the scope of the
current analyses,
- Areas for future work
Q-
The exposure assessment has been
revised and expanded
Some changes in response to review
- More categories offish added; new data on [Hg]
- Correction for water lost from food preparation
- Parameters in consumption frequency chosen to reflect
NI-IANES
- Slight increase in number of consumers
- Variation in consumer fish choice (changed to individual
variable from population variable)
- Scenarios changed to reflect limit on amount offish consumed,
type offish consumed and limits on both
- Body weight scaling changed
Model Changes:
Mercury Concentration
• The number of fish categories for which
distributions were developed was expanded from
24 to 42.
• Mercury concentration data was obtained for
additional species.
• More data collected on canned tuna
• A correction factor was applied to reflect water
loss during food preparation.
".4
Model Changes:
Consumption Frequency
The model parameters used to extrapolate long-
term frequency of consumption from short- term
records were optimized to be consistent with the
30 day NHANES survey.
The percentage of consumers was also changed
from 70-90% to 85 to 95% in order to be
consistent with the NHANES survey.
Q-
Model Changes:
Species Selection
The fraction of the annual seafood diet estimated
from the individual dietary survey, as opposed to
market share, was treated as an individual
variable rather than as a population uncertainty.
Instead of using a range of 20 to 80%, the range
of individual repetitiveness was estimated using
the NHANES survey.
Q-
Blood MeHg: Simulation vs. NHANES
Women of Childbearing Age
52
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review -
David Acheson, Rita Schoeny
Hg Concentration Groups
High
Swordfish
Shark
King Mackerel
Medium
Grouper Sablefish
Orange Roughy Halibut
Tuna, Albacore Rockfish
Trout, Saltwater Haddock
Tuna, Steaks Snapper
Spiny Lobster Bluefish
Dungeness Crab Lobster
Low
Blue crabs Catfish
Snow crab Whitefish
Cod Croaker
Tuna, Light Scallops
Sea Bass Flatfish
Trout, freshw. Crawfish
Perch, freshw. Salmon
King Crab Shrimp
Blue Crab Clams
Ocean Perch Tilapia
Oysters S ardines
Q-
Advisory Scenarios
Limit Total Seafood Consumption
- 6, 12, or 18 oz per week without regard to species.
Restrict Species Consumed
- No limit on amount offish consumed.
- Consumption limited to either middle or low groups (No
High), or low group (Low Only).
• Where seafood from the restricted group(s) is specified, the serving is
replaced by a random selection from a market-share distribution of low
mercury species.
Restrict Both Amount and Species
vH
Advisory Scenario Simulations:
Total Consumption Limits
Average
Median
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
99.5th Percentile
99.9th Percentile
% > Rf D
Baseline 18 oz/week 12 oz/week 6 oz/week
2.3 (2.1, 2.6) 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) 2.1 (1.9, 2.3) 1.7 (1.5, 1.8)
1.3 (1.1, 1.5) 1.3 (1.1, 1.5) 1.3 (1.1, 1.5) 1.2 (1.0, 1.4)
5.5 (4.7, 6.5) 5.4 (4.6, 6.4) 5.1 (4.4, 5.7) 3.5 (3.3, 3.8)
7.7 (6.4, 9.2) 7.4 (6.2, 8.9) 6.5 (5.7, 7.2) 4.2 (3.9, 4.5)
13.6(10.8, 20.2) 11.7 (10.2, 14.4) 9.5(8.4, 11.3) 6.2(5.3, 8.2)
16.4 (13.1, 25.9) 13.7 (11.4, 17.1) 11.5 (9.4, 14.8) 7.9 (6.4, 10.6)
26.3 (17.5, 52.0) 20.7 (14.1, 35.4) 18.8 (12.8, 24.9) 12.2 (8.5, 15.1)
8.8 (6.4, 12.0) 8.5 (6.3, 11.4) 7.1 (4.8, 9.4) 1.3 (0.8, 2.2)
All unite are ppb, with confidence limits in parentheses
#
1
Advisory Scenario Simulations:
Species Consumption Limits
Average
Median
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
99.5th Percentile
99.9th Percentile
% > RfD
Baseline No High Low Only
2.3(2.1,2.6) 2.3(2.0,2.5) 1.7(1.5,1.9)
1.3(1.1,1.5) 1.3(1.1,1.5) 1.0(0.8,1.2)
5.5 (4.7, 6.5) 5.3 (4.6, 6.2) 3.8 (3.3, 4.4)
7.7 (6.4, 9.2) 7.4 (6.3, 9.4) 5.4 (4.4, 6.7)
13.6(10.8,20.2) 13.1(10.5,20.3) 8.8(7.0,14.3)
16.4(13.1,25.9) 16.1(11.8,27.1) 10.4(8.0,16.7)
26.3(17.5,52.0) 26.6(17.9,49.6) 14.4(10.1,24.7)
8.8(6.4,12.0) 8.5(6.3,11.4) 4.2(2.3,6.5)
i (*)
^*V A H unite are ppb, with confidence limits in parentheses \x ' Jf
Scenario Comparison
Summary
Many revisions have been made to the exposure
assessment
For women of childbearing age the model now generates
slightly higher values than the NHANES survey, rather
then slightly lower values
Lowering seafood consumption by either limiting the
amount consumed and/or the species consumed can be
expected to reduce higher levels of exposure to mercury
from seafood encountered in the U.S. population
t
53
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Exposure Assessment and Peer Review -
David Acheson, Rita Schoeny
Advisory Scenarios:
Limit Combinations
Scenario
12 oz No High
12 oz Variety
12/6 Albacore
12/6 Medium
12 oz Low Only
High
None
None
None
None
None
Middle
1 2 oz/wk
6 oz/wk
6 oz/wk
6 oz/wk
None
Low
12 oz/wk
12 oz/wk
12 oz/wk
12 oz/wk
12 oz/wk
Total
1 2 oz/wk
1 2 oz/wk
12 -Albacore
oz/wk
12 -Medium
oz/wk
1 2 oz/wk
Average
Median
90th
Pe re en tile
95th
Pe re en tile
99th
Pe re en tile
99.5th
Pe re en tile
99.9th
Pe re en tile
% > Rf D
Advisory Scenario Simulations:
Limit Combinations
12ozNo 12 oz 12/6 12/6 12ozLow
baseline Hjgh variety Albacore Medium Only
2.3 (21.26) 2.0(1 8.22) 2.0 (1 8. 2 2) 2.0(1 8. 2 2) 1.9(1 7,2 1) 1.5 (1 3. 1 7)
1.3 (1 1. 1 5) 1.3(1 1. 1 5) 1.3(1 0. 1 5) 1.2(1 1. 1 5) 1.3(1 1, 1.5) 0.5 (04.06)
16.4(13 1, 259) 10.6(9.1, 13 7) ^jVe,1' ^iW' 9-3(77, 11 3) 6.3 (54,8 2)
26.3 (175, 52 0, 17 ^ 4< ™^ °< "^ °< ™ g7- 6.9 ,5 8. 8 8,
8.8 (6.4, 12.0) 6.7 (4.8, 8.8) 6.2 (4.2, 9.0) 5.9 (3.9, 8.2) 4.8 (3.0, 7.4) 1.9 (0.5, 3.7)
all units are ppb, with confidence limits in parentheses
54
-------
Mercury Focus Group Testing Results - Marjorie Davidson
Overview of Focus Groups
Consumer Advisory on
Methylmercury
Marjorie L. Davidson, PhD
Methylmercury (MeHg)
Consumer Advisory
Message for:
- Pregnant women
- Women who
may
become pregnant
- Nursing mothers
- Young children
What are focus groups?
Qualitative research with beginnings in WWII
Small group discussions of 5-10 people with
certain common characteristics
Purpose is to find out what the target audience
thinks and feels about an issue, product, or service
8 Focus Groups
Calverton, Maryland; New Orleans, Louisiana; Seattle,
Washington; and Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mixed gender and education groups; pregnant women;
parents of young children; women of childbearing age
Held November, 2003
Iterative Process
Focus Groups' Goals
Examine risk communication formats
Gauge consumer response to advice
• Enhanced attention to young children
• Merging commercial and noncommercial
fish /rg
Discussing tuna
GQAL
Balance
Minimize the risks
from methylmercury
in fish
Not jeopardize the
health benefits from
eating fish
55
-------
Mercury Focus Group Testing Results - Marjorie Davidson
FINDINGS: Most people want a
simple message
• Methylmercury may harm a child's
development if consumed
in high amounts
• What should be done
to avoid high amounts
FINDINGS: Some people want
more information
Want to know how methylmercury will affect the
health of their baby or child
Want to know data about particular species offish
Want to know how methylmercury will affect
others
What about tuna?
Information about the difference in
methylmercury content in tuna steaks and
albacore tuna versus light tuna was new to
some participants
Some participants said they would avoid
tuna steaks and albacore tuna
What about Recreational Fish?
Avoiding commercial fish when consuming recreational
fish was new information
Some participants think offish
consumption as a whole:
don't separate
commercial and sport
caught fish
What will participants do?
Almost all participants reported that they will
avoid species identified as DO NOT EAT
Some participants will eat less fish
Some participants will serve less
fish to their children
What will participants do? Cont'd
Spillover effect - Many participants will
tell others about the risks offish because if
fish can be risky for pregnant women, it
probably isn't good for other people.
56
-------
Mercury Focus Group Testing Results - Marjorie Davidson
CONCLUSION
Women will not exceed the safe fish
consumption advice
The challenge will be to ensure that women,
and the children they care for, continue to
eat fish as an important protein and nutrient
source in their diet
57
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Overview of the New Joint Agency National Mercury
Advisory - Jim Pendergast
Revised Joint FDA and EPA Advisory
James Pendergast, EPA
David W K Acheson, FDA
Title of Draft Joint Advisory:
ADVICE FOR WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT, OR
WHO MIGHT BECOME PREGNANT, AND NURSING
MOTHERS, ABOUT A VOIDING HARM TO YOUR
BABY OR YOUNG CHILD
FROM MERCURY IN FISH AND SHELLFISH.
Draft Joint Advisory has three main
elements
Risk Message
Consumer Advice
Additional Information
Risk Message
Who is at risk
WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT, OR
WHO MIGHT BECOME PREGNANT,
NURSING MOTHERS, AND YOUNG
CHILDREN
Q-
Risk Message
(continued)
Why they are at risk
Fish and shellfish can be an important part of a
balanced diet. It is a good source of high quality
protein and other nutrients and is low in fat. The FDA
and EPA are advising pregnant women and nursing
mothers to eat the types and amounts offish and
shellfish that are safe to prevent harm to the
development of their baby or young child.
Consumer advice
Benefits and risk
If you follow advice given by
FDA and EPA you will gain the
positive benefits of eating fish
but avoid any developmental
problems from mercury in fish.
58
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Overview of the New Joint Agency National Mercury
Advisory - Jim Pendergast
Consumer advice
How much fish?
To protect your baby follow these 3 rules:
1. Do not eat Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish
because they contain high levels of mercury
Consumer advice
(continued)
How much fish?
To protect your babyfottow these 3 rules (cont 'd):
2. Levels of mercury in other fish can vary. You can safely
eat up to 12 ounces (2 to 3 meals) of other purchased fish
and shellfish a week. Mix up the types offish and shellfish
you eat and do not eat the same type offish and shellfish
more than once a week.
onsumer advice
(continued)
How much fish?
To protect your baby follow these 3 rules (cont'd):
3. Check local advisories about the safety offish caught by
family and friends in your local rivers and streams. If no
advice is available, you can safely eat up to 6 ounces (one
meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but
don't consume any other fish during that week.
Consumer advice
(continued)
How much fish
Follow these same rules when feeding fish and shellfish to
your young child, but the serving sizes should be smaller.
Q-
Additional Information
1. But I thought fish was good for me when I am pregnant?
It is, fish and other seafood long have been considered to be
good sources of protein with the added advantage of being
low in saturated fat and high in healthy omega-3 fatty acids.
However, scientists have learned that shark, swordfish, king
mackerel and tilefish contain levels of mercury in them that
may harm your unborn child. This is why FDA and EPA
are advising you to avoid these fish. By eating other types
offish in moderation you will get the health benefits offish.
Additional Information
What about tuna?
Tuna is one of the most frequently consumed fish in the
United States. Mercury levels in tuna vary. Tuna steaks
and canned albacore tuna generally contain higher levels
of mercury than canned light tuna. You can safely
include tuna as part of your weekly fish consumption.
59
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Overview of the New Joint Agency National Mercury
Advisory - Jim Pendergast
Additional Information
3. Is there methylmercury in all fish?
Nearly all fish contain traces of methylmercury. However,
larger fish that have lived longer have the highest levels of
methylmercury because they've had more time to accumulate
it. These large fish (swordfish, shark, king mackerel and
tilefish) pose the greatest risk to pregnant women. Other
types offish are safe to eat in the amounts recommended by
FDA and EPA If you want more information about the
levels in various types offish see the FDA food safety web
site, www.cfsan.fda.gov or the EPA website at
www.epa.gov/ost/fish.
Additional Information
4. I'm not pregnant - so why should I be concerned about
methylmercury?
If you regularly eat types offish that are high in
methylmercury, it can accumulate in your blood stream over
time. Methylmercury is removed from the body naturally,
but it may take over a year for the levels to drop
significantly. Thus, it may be present in a woman even
before she becomes pregnant. This is one of the reasons why
women who are trying to become pregnant should also avoid
eating certain types offish. Note: If you have questions or
think you've been exposed to large amounts of
, ^ methylmercury, see your doctor or health care provider
^immediately.
J '
Additional Information
5. Why do I need to get local advice for locally caught fish?
Some kinds offish and shellfish caught in your local
waters may have higher or much lower than average
levels of mercury. This depends on the levels of mercury
in the water in which the fish are caught. Those fish with
lower levels may be safely eaten more frequently and in
larger amounts.
Additional Information
6. Flow can learn about local advisories?
Before you go fishing, check your Fishing Regulations
Booklet for information about local advisories. You can
also contact your local health department for information
about local advisories. See below for state and tribal
contact information.
Note: If you have questions or think you've been exposed
to large amounts of methylmercury, see your doctor or
health care provider immediately.
Q-
Additional Information
7. What is mercuiy?
Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and can also
be released into the air through industrial pollution. It
falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and
oceans and is turned into methylmercury in the water. It
is this type of mercury that is harmful to your baby. Fish
absorb the methylmercury as they feed in these waters
and so it may build up in the fish. It builds up more in
some types offish than others, depending on what the
fish eat, which is why the levels in the fish vary.
Additional Information
For further information about the risks of mercury in fish and
shellfish call the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's food
information line toll-free at 1-888-SAFEFOOD or visit FDA's
Food Safety Website www.cfsan.fcla.gov
For further information about the safety of locally caught fish and
shellfish, visit the Environmental Protection Agency's Fish
Advisory website www.epa.gov/ost/fish or contact your State or
Local Health Department. A list of state or local health department
contacts is available at www.epa.gov/ost/fish. Click on Federal,
State, and Tribal Contacts.
60
-------
National Mercury Advisory: Overview of the New Joint Agency National Mercury
Advisory - Jim Pendergast
FDA Food Advisory Committee
Comments
Comments from December 2003 FAC
The FAC has not yet made formal recommendations.
There were a number of comments made by the
committee:
- Format issues
- Multiple advisories
- Research needs
FAC Comments
1. Format issues:
- Make the message positive
- Say something about list of fish that are safe to eat
(low group)
- Make portion size consistent between variety and
local
- Consider adding body weights vs. amounts for
children
- Improve the clarity of the tuna message
FAC Comments
2. Possible need for multiple advisories
- Current priority is to get the advisory we have
out with "tweaks"
- Consider a separate advisory for children
- Consider a separate advisory for specific high
risk populations
- Consider a separate advisory for the general
public
FAC Comments
Research issues
- Need more fish data on species, sub species,
geography
- Work with industry to get industry data
- Study the impact of the advisory on consumer
behavior
- Gather more information about the 8% above the
RID
3
Milestones and Timeline
Tasks
Meetings with Stakeholder
Groups and Federal Agencies
Conduct Focus Groups
Meet With Food Advisory
Committee
Hold National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
Targeted Release of Advisory
Implement Advisory
Dates
July 30, 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
Spring 2004
Throughout 2004
©
V^x
61
-------
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories -
Henry Anderson
Consortium for Improving the Effectiveness
of Mercury Fish Consumption Advisories
States
Maine, Wisconsin
Universities
University of Wisconsin - Madison, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wl
Federal Government
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC
National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA
12 State Mercury Survey (2001)
Lead Consortium states
40
35
30
-25
to
o 20
-15
10
5-
Mercury 12 State Survey
Advisory Awareness among Women
By State (N = 3,015)
22
32
17
25
26
10
20
AR CA CT FL LA ME MN MT NC NJ NM Wl ALL
Recognition of Mercury Toxicity
by Advisory Awareness
Aware of Not Aware of
Advisory Advisory
Harms developing child
Harms ability of muscles
Body can eliminate mercury
87%*
52%*
19%
67%
37%
18%
"Significantly higher than among those unaware of state advisories (P<0.01)
Recognition of Mercury Distribution in Fish
by Advisory Awareness
Aware of Not Aware of
Advisory Advisory
Mercury not reduced by
cookinq
Higher in older fish
Higher in larger fish
Higher in fish that eat others
Highest in muscle/meat
76%*
56%*
38%*
23%*
8%
47%
43%
29%
18%
6%
'Significantly higher than among those unaware of state advisories (P<0.01)
62
-------
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories -
Henry Anderson
Fish Consumption and Advisory
Awareness by Demographics
Income Education
S25.000 UD thru HS Colleae
Aware of Mercury
Advisory
Ate Sport Fish in
past 12 months
Ate 2 or more fish
meals/week
Fishing License
Household
11%
24%
7%
27%
23%*
31%*
10%*
39%*
16%
27%
6%
38%*
23%*
30%
11%*
33%
* Significantly higher p<0.01
Fish Consumption and Advisory Awareness
by Demographics
Race Age
Other White <30vrs >30vrs
Aware of Mercury
Advisory
Ate Sport Fish in
past 12 months
Ate 2 or more fish
meals/week
Fishing License
Household
13%+
27%
14%*
17%
22%*
30%
8%
39%*
10%
24%
7%
32%
24%*
31%*
11%*
36%
+American Indians (31%) Hispanic ethnicity 12%, Blacks 11%. and Asian or
Pacific Islanders 7%.
* Significantly higher p<0.01
Distribution of Sport Fish Information
by Consumption Frequency
< 2 meals/week 2 or more meals/week
(N=2692)
-------
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories -
Henry Anderson
Survey of 1,000 Women
Who Gave Birth
June 1-7, 2003
-
Evaluation Tool #1
Purpose of Survey
To assess:
-fish consumption during pregnancy
- awareness of the fish consumption
advisory
- familiarity with selected outreach materials
Results
Questionnaires mailed in July to all 1,000
live normal births during June 1-7, 2003
$2.00 Incentive
2 mailings, one reminder postcard
Total cost $12,000.
Response rate of 74%
740/1000
5% consumed fish 2 or more times a week
In the past 12 months, have you eaten
any of the following?
Type of fish
% Yes
Canned Tuna 73%
Shellfish 53%
Frozen Filets 60%
Sport-caught fish 28%
Other 14%
No fish 12%
Over the past 12 months, how many
meals of fish did you eat per month ?
0 1-2 3-4
Number of fish meals/month
Is there more mercury in the fat, the
organs, the meat, or does it not matter?
Fat
Organs
Meat
Doesn't matter
Don't know
Left blank
14%
7%
8%
10%
60%
1%
S1i
-------
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories -
Henry Anderson
Aware of Advisory
Unaware
How much do you know
about the guidelines for
eating sport fish?
Birth
46%
53%
WI-12State
26%
73%
A lot
Some
Only a little
Nothing
Left blank
How much do you know
about the guidelines for
eating sport fish?
2%
16%
28%
53%
1%
How much do you know
about the guidelines for
eating sport fish?
<2 meals/mo 2 or more meals/mo
A lot 2% 2%
Some 10% 21%
Only a little 25% 31 %
Nothing 62% 45%
Left blank 1% 1%
After learning about mercury,
did you change your diet?
I didn't know about the issue 35%
Ate SAME amount of fish 27%
Ate LESS fish 15%
Ate different TYPES of fish 11%
Never ate fish 11%
Ate MORE fish <1%
Outreach Materials
Evaluation
Hook into 1 Icalthv Fish
"Hook into Healthy Fish"
"What Women of Childbearing Age
should know about Eating Fish"
"A Women and Child Guide.."
What women of
childbearing age should
know about eating fish.
in mil' las mujere
fertil y capaces di
deben saber act
consume de pescado.
Multi-Language Posters for Doctor's Offices
65
-------
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories -
Henry Anderson
Have you seen either poster?
Hook Into Healthy Fish (1999-2001) 2 %
What Women of Childbearing Age 11 %
Should Know (2002-2003)
Both posters 3%
Don't recall seeing either poster 83%
Have you ever seen our pamphlet
entitled A Woman and Child's Guide to
Eating Fish from Wisconsin?
Yes
13%
No 85%
Left blank 2%
Where did you see these
materials?
Didn't Family Ob/Gyn Health WIC
see Dr Dept clinic
Other
Evaluation 2
Materials were mailed to targeted clinical
facilities - Did they receive, use?
• Random telephone interviews of 5%
- 101 surveys of 2,020 sites mailed materials
- 5 Clinical facility types
• Family Practice
• Pediatrics
• Ob/Gyn
• WIC clinics
• Health Departments
Results
Documented that 59 (60%) out of
101 facilities remembered
receiving/using the information
Family Practice 12/30 or - 40%
Ob/Gyn 6/10 or - 60%
Pediatrics 2/10 or - 20%
Health Departments 16/26 or - 62%
WIC Clinic 23/25 or - 92%
2004 Assessment Plans
Behavioral Risk Factor Survey
- 4,000 adults
Hair Hg testing will be offered
Incentive may be offered
to encourage participation
uwsc
66
-------
Results of Different Methods Used to Evaluate State Mercury Advisories -
Henry Anderson
Different Methods to Evaluate State
Mercury Fish Consumption
Advisories
Any Questions?
67
-------
Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration
Barbara Knuth
Web-based Guidance
on
Risk Communication:
An Update and
Demonstration
Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Guidance History
Volume 4
EPA 823-R-95-001
March 1995
in ]ih, htiy 6 ind 9, MDl
National Risk tr_~- " =—
A
••*>-
The Development Team
Technical contractor: Tetra Tech, Inc.
Consultants:
John Hesse, Ml Judy Sheeshka, Ont.
Barbara Knuth, NY Patrick West, Wl
i Stakeholders:
Workgroup
General
Approach for Revised
Guidance
Acknowledge contamination is not
"acceptable."
Encourage community involvement.
Link to other phases of the risk
analysis process.
Approach for Revised
Guidance
Enhance outreach materials of the
National Fish and Wildlife
Contamination Program.
Web-based to encourage "tailored"
use of guidance to meet community
and user needs.
68
-------
Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration
Barbara Knuth
Send Comments
wmm™nmE^iea.M.i.H.ani».rinn^^
ffFile Edit Mailbox Message Transfer Special Tools Window Help
J Standard 3F3 I QP ' 6 ' 1 '* 0 & 1 $ Send
/ U ^ ;£ *
To: bigler.jellSjepa gov;John.Hochheimer@tetrate:h-ff!( com
From: Barbara Knuth =:bak3@cornell edu>
Subject: hJ^://^w.|eJrat^J^.c^i/fi
Cc: simpsjo@tet!atsch-ffx com
Bcc:
Attached:
Barbara A Knuth. Professor and Chair
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
ica, New York 14B53
'
Guidance Approach
WM on *.,,„, ^Kn^w,
El Pn»bl*mAn»ly*l* 1 Q RJBh Commurt)fr8M(w, 1
D Cotnmunny Partr^er 1 T- ^
B| I
1 1
^|_^,r.|J-*-^
Sl.irwnatly* 1
web document is presented in five chapters
> Chapter 1. Background
The purpose of Chapter 1 is to provide background mfoimation about risk communication and
the development offish consumption health advisories. Concepts in this chapter will be useful
for understanding discussions found m later chapters
> Chapter 21 Problem Analysis and Objective Setting
The putpose of Chapter 2 is to provide information about identifying potential community
prioritizing program objectives
. ChapteiS Community Partner Information Needs Assessment
The purpose of Chapter 3 is to piovids information about planning the information needs
assessment, what factors should be investigated, cultural considerations, building credibility
and trust, and informal ion-gathering techniques.
> Chapter 4: Risk Communication Strategy Design and Implementation
The purpose of Chapter 4 is to provide information about developing the content, style, and
dissemination mechanisms of health advisories and tips on implementation the communication
stiategy
i Chapters Risk Communication Program Evaluation
The purpose of Chapter 5 is to provide information about formative, process, and summative
evaluations of health risk communication piograms
RisLLornnunicalBnjMsnce'° Q
Chapter 1. Background
States, te ntcnes, tribes, ;nd local government have a
•esponsibility to nform petple ab)ut health risks forr eating
:ontamin;ted fisi caught forr water; within their.urisdittiori
Vlost agencies comnunicate :his inhrrration n the form of a "fish
]onsurnpt on health advisory" The p'imary objictwe of most
sdvsones ar? to reduce risks to fsh consu'ners by pwding
nformation that will lead them to i*olont;nly restrict their fish
:onsumpt on to heathy lewis
rish cnnsjmption h=alth advisories have been issjed in Ihe
Jnied States since the mid-13/L's Advisories isiueJ b* diferent
sgenci;s often take varous fomt. Three major calegiries of
advsonesars.
• Unlimied consunplion ad'/iscries (no restrictions] are
issjed to infcrm the public that fish from specific
walerbodiss have been tested for ch3inical contaminants
and ths rssuls have sfowi trat specific species ]f fish
from these witers are saft to eat withoot cjnsumpticn
Organization of Chapter 1
1 Chanter 1 provides backpond information ;boot risk
health advisories This material is jseful ;or onders-andmc
: discussions founc in later ciapters. It is divided int: five
sectons
the variOLS t^res ol fsh tonsumption health
ftovites backgrounc on Ihe four volumes ol EPA's fsh
advisory guidance strie; originaly pjblishec in tie mid-199IIs.
» ;e[lijnJ3-HeghBeiiPl|sgiEalinjFi:h.SurriiriarEeswh^
rutritonijtj end healh specialist; ercou'sge people to eat fish
te part of a healthy diet
« Mon 1 4 - Hiitlth Efferts ol Eating contamnabd Fish
Clscossts fish cjntfinlnflntsand how esting i
69
-------
Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration
Barbara Knuth
Section 1.3. Health Benefits of Eating Fish
j urnenls ajoul the A'eb 3i
t d shovvthatadie:thatircuJesfehcanrtsjl:ii:
Reduce:! isks of colon, b'east, faicreas, ;nJ arastate :ancers
• Reducer of diabetic syrrp-oms
• DeroseJarttrilicstteis, pain, aid fatigue
iieaseJ frequency jf asthmatic eiiicd;s.
]f E liesl'hy diet. Fish eonsumplicn h;alti advisor e; sre not irttnJed to
ing fen Rather, advisories are designed tc reduce risks :o fish consumeis b/
ill lead thErr to vclin:ailf restrict their fish consurnat 01 lo healthy e*els.
NDED FISH PREPARATION METHOD
•, ..- ..>:>,•,- 1.;,,'. ,-.-,•,. 2.:. -
3.T
Chapter 2. Problem Analysis S Objective Setting
Section 2.1. Define Community Partners
Chapter 3. Community Partner Information Needs
70
-------
Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration
Barbara Knuth
Chapter 4: Design & Implement Health Risk Communication
Strategies
son for identifying subpapulatiQ
and a
signing
The
then
they generally posses a greater risk of adverse effects from
Waterbody Conditions
Fish Species and Size
Physiological and ec
responsible to
consumption s
In lor motion about
Chapter 5. Evaluate Health Risk Communication Programs
Advantages to Web
Approach
Guidance is more accessible to a
wide range offish consumption
advisory programs and groups
issuing or learning about
consumption advisories.
Guidance is less daunting - web
pages to negotiate rather than a
large book to read.
Advantages to Web
Approach
• A living document modified and
updated easily.
i More choices of examples, tools,
methods, and current information
related to fish consumption
advisories and specific partners.
Advantages to Web
Approach
Responsive to stakeholders who
indicated a web-based approach has
the potential to be more useful.
Allows the format to become
personalized, based on the path a
user takes.
71
-------
Web-based Guidance on Risk Communication: An Update and Demonstration
Barbara Knuth
Possible Disadvantages of
Web-based Approach
i The web-based guidance is
accessible only to those with web
access.
i To be a living document, will need a
process to be able to be updated
continually.
Next Steps
i View and comment: See computer in
poster session room.
i Enhance text (e.g., update mercury
information).
i Add navigation aids.
i Add illustrations, tables, case studies.
i Review by tribes and states.
i Target: August, 2004
Thanks to the Stakeholder
Workgroup!
Janice Adair, AK
Rosetta Alcantra, AK
Robert Brodberg, CA
Mike Callam, NE
Josee Cung, MN
Henry Folmer, MS
Eric Frohmberg, ME
Jim Labelle, AK
Randall Manning, GA
Maria Maybee, NY
Dave McBride, WA
PatMcCann, MN
Ora Rawls, MS
Brian Toal, CT
Luanne Williams, NC
Don't forget to view
the website in the
poster room!
72
-------
Risks and Benefits Revisited - Grace Egeland
Benefits and Risks
Revisited
G.M. Egeland, Ph.D.
Canada Research Chair
Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition
and Environment (CINE)
School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition
McGill University
Centre for Indigenous
Peoples' Nutrition and
Environment
Founding director-Dr. Harriet Kuhnlein
CINE Governing Board Members
f|» Assembly of First Nations
;|^ Council of Yukon First Nations
«> Dene Nation
Q Inuit Circumpolar Conference
•-;.. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
|il Metis Nation (NWT)
$* Mohawk Council of Kahnawake
Yukon, Dene/Metis and Inuit Research Communities
Nutrient Intake on Days With or Without Traditional
Food (TF) (least square means ± SEM)
Total energy (Kcal)
As % Energy
Carbohydrate
Protein
Yukon
Dene/Metis
Inuit
Yukon
Dene/Metis
Inuit
Yukon
Dene/Metis
Inuit
With TF N
2052 ±45* 413
2261 ± 39 * 662
2170 ±35* 1092
37 ± 0.6
36 ± 1
37 ± 0.5
32 ±0.5*
31 ± 0.4 *
33 ± 0.4 *
Fa( Yukon 30 ± 0.6
Dene/Metis 31 ± 1
Inuit 32 ±0.5
* significant p<0.05 (adjusted for season, site, gender, age)
Without TF
1947 ± 52
2085 ± 55
1857 ±41
42 ±0.7*
42 ± 1*
49 ±0.6*
19 ±0.5
20 ± 0.6
17 ±0.5
40 ±0.5*
37 ± 1 *
38 ±0.6*
N
389
350
783
Dietary
Traditional
Nutrients in Days With or Without
Food (TF) (least square means ± SEM)
With TF Without TF
Protein, % energy Yukon
Iron, mg
Zinc, mg
Vit. A, RE
DeneMetis
Inuit
Yukon
DeneMetis
Inuit
Yukon
DeneMetis
Inuit
Yukon
0.6* 8
1* 9
0.4* 6
1*
1*
2*
1*
1*
0.7* 9
(430, 582) 4
0.3
1
0.5
1
2
2
1
1
.7
(395, 540)
DeneMetis 304 (258, 358) 321 (254, 405)
Inuit 438 (378, 507)* 301 (262, 346)
* significantly greater at p & 0.05
73
-------
Risks and Benefits Revisited - Grace Egeland
Balancing Dietary Benefits and Risks
Traditiona
Food __.
Sahtu Dene,
Northwest Territories
INUVIALUIT
Benefits of Fish Consumption
Advisories:
Reduction in MeOg exposures and risks
associated with MeHg;
• MeOg is an established neurotoxin;
• To want to eliminate exposures even in the
presence of conflicting evidence of low-level
effects is understandable;
Is there a move toward zero tolerance in the
future?
Could a fish consumption advisory be
contraindicated by community factors?
1. What is the extent and nature of food security in the
community?
• Local Availability of Market Food;
Quality, Diversity, Costs
• Household income, household size, and food
purchasing power,
• Alternative food choices and meal composition;
• Culturally acceptable food choices.
74
-------
Risks and Benefits Revisited - Grace Egeland
Could a fish consumption advisory be
contraindicated by community factors?
;. What are the leading public health issues they face?
What other exposures are contributing to cognitive
impairment in the community? What is the prevalence
and severity of the these factors?
Guidelines for Evaluating Benefits and Risks
of Fish Consumption Advisories
4. What will be the impact on food security and
composition of the diet?
5. Would the anticipated dietary composition changes be
beneficial in light of the public health challenges faced by
the community?
Fish and Omega-3 Content (Source: USDA)
Fish Species
Herring -Pacific
Salmon
Atlantic Farmed
Atlantic Wild
Chinook
Rainbow Trout -Wild
Tuna —White canned
Light canned
Fresh
Cod -Atlantic
EPA+DHAg/3oz.
1.8
1.1-1.8
0.9-1.6
1.5
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.2-1.3
0.2
Oz. for 1 g of EPA/DHA*
1.5
1.5 - 2.5
2.0 - 3.5
2.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
12.0
2.5-12.0
12.5
*long-chain n-3 fatty acids
EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid, DHA=docosahexaeonoic acid
Current status on
Fish Intake and ...
•Cancer
•Diabetes
•Heart Disease
Breast Cancer and Fish Intake
Singapore Chinese Health Study
• Prospective Study of 35, 298 women and breast cancer
incidence;
• 45-74 yrs and enrolled 1993-1998 (followed through 2000);
• Fish and shellfish protective; 26% reduction for top 3
quartiles of intake relative to lowest quartile;
• Among those in the lowest quartile of fish intake, high
n-6 intake elevated risk relative to low n-6 intake (RR
= 1.87, 95% CI1.06-3.27).
• Fish/shellfish intake by quartiles: 24.5, 44.2, 58.3, 80.5
g/day.
Gago-Dominquez et. al. British Journal of
Cancer 2004; 89: 1686-1692.
Fish Intake and Breast Cancer
6 Cohort Studies on fish intake;
• Norway —NS inverse relationship poached meals (Vatten
et al, 1990);
• Japan -> 5 servings of dried fish associated with a 50%
lower risk compared to <\ serving, p < .05.
(Key et al, 1999)
• US —No significant findings (Stampfer et al, 1987; Toniolo
et al 1994; Gertig et al, 1999; Holmes et al, 1999);
• Only 15% of US women consume > 1 fish serving/week —
NHANES I (Gillum et al, 1996).
75
-------
Risks and Benefits Revisited - Grace Egeland
Endometrial Cancer and Fish Intake
• Swedish Case-Control Study of 1,055 Cases and 4216
Controls; of which 75% and 80% participated;
• Fatty fish consumption inversely related with
endometrial cancer;
• Highest quartile of fatty fish intake (median of 2
servings /week) vs. lowest quartile of intake (median 0.2
servings/week) -OR =0.6 (95% CI=0.5-0.8);
• A 40% reduction after adjusting for multiple risk factors.
Terry et. al., Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers
and Prevention 2002;11:143-145.
Prostate Cancer and Fish Intake
Health Professionals' Follow-up Study;
Inverse association of total fish intake and
marine fish intake with metastatic prostate
cancer;
> 3 servings/week compared with
infrequent fish consumption, OR=0.5 (0.3 -
0.8);
Augustsson et al, Am JEpidemiology
2001;153:S31 (abstract).
Diabetes and Fish Consumption Advisories
Northern Perspectives from Indigenous Communities:
• Community folks —perceive a link between fish
consumption advisories and diabetes;
• Direct or indirect link?
• Any plausible mechanism for an effect on diabetes?
-decreases in physical activity;
-increase in alternative food sources high in trans-fatty
acids, saturated fat;
-decreases in omega-3 fatty acids and high protein diet;
-weight gain.
Fish Intake and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Prevention
Animal Studies:
i Saturated fat worsens insulin sensitivity;
i «-3 fatty acids in muscle cell membrane phospholipids
strongly and positively correlated with insulin
sensitivity;
i «-3 fatty acids improve insulin action and counteracts
negative effects of saturated fat (Storlein 1991).
Fish Intake and Diabetes Prevention
Four - Year Prospective Trial:
• Cumulative incidence of abnormal glucose
tolerance in 175 elderly normoglycemic 64-87
year olds;
• 25% incidence in habitual fish consumers;
• 45% incidence in non-fish consumers;
Feskens et al, Diabetes Care 1991; 14:935-941
Fish Intake
and Diabetes Prevention
20-year prospective trial:
• Finnish and Dutch Cohorts of the Seven Countries
Study — men only,
• Baseline and recent fish consumption were inversely
related to 2-hour glucose level (p< -05);
• High intake of total fat and saturated fat increased risk
of NIDDM and glucose tolerance;
• Vitamin C, legumes, vegetables and potatoes also
inversely related.
Feskens et al., Diabetes Care 1995; 18:1104-1110.
76
-------
Risks and Benefits Revisited - Grace Egeland
Fish Intake and Diabetes Prevention
Nurses Health Study -US
• 84,204 women;
• 14-year follow-up
• Trans fatty acids associated with increased risk;
• Highest 5th quintile of «-3 intake protective,
RR= 0.8 (95% CI=0.67-0.95);
Sahneron et a], AmJ Clin Nutr 2001;73:1019-26.
Fish Intake and Coronary Heart Disease
Mortality Among Diabetics
Nurses' Health Study
• 5,103 female nurses with type 2 diabetes mellitus but free of
cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline (1980 baseline);
• Follow-up in 1996 (45,845 person-years of follow-up);
• Fish Intake
• > 5 rimes/week RR =0.36 (95% CI=0.2-0.66)
• 2-4 times/week RR =0.64 (95% CI=0.42-0.99)
• 1-3 times/week RR =0.60 (95% CI=0.42-0.85)
Huet. al C. 18% in many indigenous communities.
Pregnancy, Diabetes, and
Offspring's Risks
Increased risk for obesity at an early age and early onset
type 2 diabetes mellitus:
4 times more likely to be above 90th%ile for weight for age;
Higher birth weight -can disappear around 1-2 years of age
and reappears after age 5;
By 8 years as great as 50% of offspring of diabetic
pregnancies are above the 90th %ile.
Pregnancy, Diabetes, and
Offspring's Risks
Impairments in Neurodevelopment:
• Greater impairments with poorer glycemic control;
• HbAlc (n=19) strong and significant inverse correlations
with Bender (r = - 0.5), Bruininks general motor
(r — - 0.4) and fine motor (r — - 0.4).
• White's classification of glycemic control (n=53)
significant and strong inverse correlations with MFP
sensory (r = - 0.3), LTS sensory (r = - 0.29).
• Ornoy et al, 1998;
Pregnancy, Diabetes, and
Offspring's Risks
Diabetes with good glycemic control:
• Neurological impairments now noted;
• Developing Brain may be sensitive to altered
metabolism associated with diabetes;
• MDI score and PDI score significantly lower in the
diabetic group than in the controls (91.04 vs. 98.15 and
85.15 vs. 95.54)
• MDI=mental development index, psychomotor
development index. Hod et aL,JPediatric
Endocrinology & Metabolism 1999; 12:867-872.
77
-------
Risks and Benefits Revisited - Grace Egeland
Diabetes: Early Infant Feeding
Method of infant feeding — and risk of glucose tolerance in
adults aged 48-53 years (Ravelli et al, 2000):
• Bottle-fed subjects had a higher mean 2-hour plasma
glucose concentration than those exclusively breast-fed;
• Breast-fed infants have a higher % of DHA and total
LXDPUFAs in muscle phospholipids and lower plasma
glucose levels compared with the formula-fed infants.
Fish, Hg and the Heart
Heart is one of the target organs for Hg;
Implications heart disease endpoint not understood;
Hg alters cardiac sodium handling;
Evidence that Hg can modify response to viral infections;
Epidemic logical Evidence is inconsistent thus far.
Fish, Hg and the Heart
Sweden —two studies — no adverse effect on risk of first MI;
US Health Professionals -no overall adv
observe effect in non-dentists;
effects -poor power to
Finland —adverse effects noted; many of the same endpoints associated
with low Se m previous studies in same population;
EURAMIC -8 European Countries and Israel - toenail Hg and non-
fatal MI —adverse effects noted —DHA protective;
Minimata — no elevated rate of death from CHD and no elevated risk of
arteriosclerosis with high hair Hg levels.
Public Health Assessment and
Environmental Assessments
Better Partnerships Are Needed
Burden of Chronic Disease is Great —
Evidence that fish consumption can play a
role in prevention strategies.
78
-------
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! Risk Communication to Diverse Populations in
an Urban Setting -Lin Kaatz Chary
FISH SMART! EAT SAFE!
Risk Communication to Diverse Populations
in an Urban Setting
2004 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
January 27, 2004 - San Diego, CA
"Fist Smart! fat Safe!'
An Outreach Program for Chicago Fishermen and their Families
Developed by the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Great Lakes Centers for Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health
PCS Outreach and Information Project
with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Program on Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics
Purpose
Urban, ethnic fishers may not be
reached by fish advisories, particularly if
they do not routinely obtain fishing
licenses. If Lake Michigan fish are a
significant portion of their diet for any
reason, they may be disproportionately
exposed to PCBs.
Project Components - 2002 - 2003
Outreach letters and phone calls
Meetings with health advocates from
community groups
Surveys at fishing piers
Community events
Outreach hand-outs
Chicago Department of Public Health
Newspaper Articles to Chicagoland
African-American and Non-English Press
Survey - 2002
] 2 Locations on Chicago
Lake Michigan lakefront
] Non-Random selection
of ethnic respondents
] Screened: All eat or
share the fish caught
] Surveys in English,
Spanish and Vietnamese
] 57 Completed Surveys
Survey - 2003
1 2 Locations on Chicago
Lake Michigan lakefront
1 All willing fishermen
interviewed
1 Screened: All eat or share
the fish caught
1 Surveys in English and
Spanish
1 160 Completed surveys
Native Language of Respondents
English
Spanish
Korean
Chinese
Vietnamese
Polish
Romanian
Bulgarian
Czech
Italian
Tagal og
English and Non-English Speakers
2002-2003
English Speakers
156(68%)
79
-------
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! Risk Communication to Diverse Populations in
an Urban Setting -Lin Kaatz Chary
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! u)c
2002-2003 Outreach - Knowledge of PCBs
English Speakers
No = 28 (19%)
Non-English Speakers
Yes = 20 (30%)
Yes =109 (81%)
No = 46 (70%)
OR = 9.7750, 95% Conf: 5.0163, 19.0479 DF=7, % 2 = <0.001
Fish Smart, Eat Safe!
2002-2003 Outreach - Knowledge Of Health Risk
English Speakers
No = 24 (16%)
Non-English Speakers
Yes = 24 (41%)
Yes = 126 (64%) No = 35 (59%)
OR =7 . 6563, 95% Conf: 3.8846, 15. 08 99, DF=7, % 2 = <0.001
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! u(c
2002-2003 Outreach - Knowledge of Fish Advisories
English Speakers
No = 67 (45%)
Non-English Speakers
Yes = 24 (35%)
Yes = 82 (55%)
No = 44 (65%)
OR =2.2438, 95% Confidence:2.402, 4.0596, DF=7, x 2 = <0.007
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! oic
Additional Findings ...
H Median age of fishermen was 40-49 years
H 86% were men
H 82% of fishermen share their catch with family and friends
H 14% of non-Native English speakers and 8% of English speakers
identifed carp or catfish as one of the two fish eaten most frequently
0 The mode value for consumption of catch frequency was "more than
one time per week"
g) Almost all fishers [2002] obtained fishing licenses (91%)
0 Family physician identified as most trustworthy source of information
about fish contamination; the media (tv, newspaper, radio) the most
common source of information about contaminants in fish
H Fishermen came to Lake Michigan from multiple neighborhoods and
communities in the Chicagoland area
Fish Smart, Eat Safe!
Conclusions...
§ In urban communities struggling with multiple social challenges,
fish consumption issues are frequently underestimated or
unrecognized as relevant. Subsistence fishing often occurs
"below the radar."
§ In poulations which are heterogeneous, culturally and language-
diverse, risk communication requires additional resources and
new strategies for reaching target fishermen.
§ Access to information about the risks of PCB contamination in
Lake Michigan fish and risk of mercury contamination in other
waterways remains a significant environmental justice issue;
knowledge is not accessible uniformly, and significant disparities
remain in non-English speaking communities about these risks.
Fish Smart, Eat Safe!
Conclusions (continued). . .
fjl Fish advisory information is not easily accessible to key
populations such as pregnant women, and many health providers
at the community level do not have the information or tools to
address the issue even if they are interested.
fjl Existing fish advisories are difficult to find, difficult to follow, and
pay inadequate attention to cultural preferences and practices
§ Fish consumption advice is conflicting and inconsistent
80
-------
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! Risk Communication to Diverse Populations in
an Urban Setting -Lin Kaatz Chary
Fish Smart, Eat Safe! uic
Recommendations:
P Develop ongoing media campaigns and risk communication
materials which:
• recognize the heterogeneity of targeted communities in urban
settings,
• are designed in consultation with community representatives,
• are culturally sensitive and appropriate,
• are widely translated into multiple languages to assure
accessibility to the broad diversity of target communities; e.g.,
regular dissemination of information to foreign-language radio
stations and print media
V Cons/sfency between agency guidelines
Fish Smart, Eat Safe!
Recommendations (continued):
fjl Focus on primary health care providers, obstetricians, and
pediatricians as key messengers of fish consumption
information in target communities
§ Develop an outreach program for EPA regions, where
needed, which includes:
• 1) an outreach campaign to community groups and health care
personnel,
' 2) dedication of at least one individual trained to do outreach
presentations and act as a local resource person,
* 3) a widely-disseminated toll-free phone number which
connects to a live person who can answer questions about
advisories specific to relevant areas in the region, and is
available for outreach presentations to interested groups and
organizations.
PCB Risk Communication and Outreach Project
2002-2003
"Fish Smart, Eat Safe!"
The University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Great Lakes Centers for Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health
IT. S. Environmental Protction Agency Program on Persistent Bioaccnmulative Toxics
Lin Kaatz Chary. PhD. MPH
Babette J. Neuberger, JD. MPH
Student Oiiireudt Personnel;
E Stella Hernandez
Jacek Louis Ubaka
2003
Rita Gondocs
Nida Khan
Joy Sclmackenbeck
81
-------
Palos Verdes Shell Fish Contamination Risk Communication - Sharon Lin
EPA Palos Verdes Shelf
Fish Contamination Program
Sharon Lin, USEPA Region 9
Gina Margillo, Impact Assessment Inc.
January 27, 2004
Why is there a Problem?
110 tons of DDT and
10tonsofPCBs
in PV Shelf sediments
and
Lots of contaminated fish!
Historic Timeline - Injury
Pelican population
crashes ^—^^
Sea lions have
highest recorded
DDT & PCB levels
worldwide
Contaminated
croaker found in
fish markets
Montrose discharge
DDT banned
in U.S.
Bald eagles & peregrine falcons
Reproductive failures, egg-shell thinning -
disappeared from Channel Islands by 1960s
Initial
Fish
Advisory
Recreational
Catch limit
for Croaker
Commercial
Catch Ban for
PV Croaker
Current conditions
• Commercial fishing: White croaker
commercial catch ban off of PVS
• Sport (recreational) fishing: White croaker
daily bag limit from Point Dume to Dana
Point
• State fish advisory from Point Dume to
Dana Point
Current Advisory
CALIFORNIA
Whit
:e Croaker Commercial Catch
••"••'••-•
A
Ban
82
-------
Palos Verdes Shell Fish Contamination Risk Communication - Sharon Lin
Potential Human Risk Exposure Routes
Commercial Catch
EPA's Program
1. Public Outreach
& Education
2. Monitoring
(markets & ocean)
3. Enforcement of White Croaker
fishing ban & catch limit
History of EPA's PVS Program
1999
2002
2003
EPA initiates pilot outreach & education project
(contract with California Department of Health
Services)
EPA initiates fish in ocean monitoring
EPA initiates full-scale public outreach and
education program implementation (contract with
Impact Assessment Inc.
Risk Communication - Target
Audience
•Anglers who fish off of the coast
•Ethnic-specific public who buy white
croakers in local markets - many with
limited English speaking ability
•Ethnic-specific population at large,
especially women of childbearing age and
children
•General population at large
Fish Contamination
Education Collaborative
(FCEC) Goals and Objectives
1) To reduce exposures of populations who
regularly eat fish caught off the LA and OC
coasts
2) To conduct education with the most affected
populations so that they can make informed
health choices
3) To strengthen local capacity to address fish
contamination issues now and in the future
FCEC Strengths
• Collaborative of over 30 partners: MOUs
• Focus is on capacity building: Funds to
CBOs, training and technical assistance
• High level of government and community
partnering
• Ethnically/culturally diverse:
- 8 communities, 14 languages
83
-------
Palos Verdes Shell Fish Contamination Risk Communication - Sharon Lin
Four Programs
General Outreach
Pier Outreach
Market Outreach
Media Outreach
Fish Con sumption Recommends lions to Reduce Exposure to Mercury, OBTs, Fw
morclh. do nol CJ1 morn o< Clxi Hen
**""
»"
Fish Contamination Zones
Higher
Low*r
DDTsJPCBs
Summary Messages
Fish is good for you but some fish you
catch from the coast may have more
harmful chemicals to your health than
other fish.
Do not eat white croaker from the red
zone on the map. In general, fish caught
in this area are more contaminated
Summary Messages
•Fish caught in the yellow zone on this
map are safer than fish caught in the red
zone.
•Before fishing in the red or yellow
zones, call 213-240-7785 (Los Angeles
County Department of Health Services)
to check the local advisories. Information
about fish contamination will be updated
in the very near future.
Summary Messages
• Do not eat the fatty parts (skin, guts,
egg) of the fish you catch from the Los
Angeles and Orange County coasts
because they contain more chemicals.
• Because chemicals affect development,
children through adolescence and women
of child-bearing age are more sensitive
to the harmful chemicals and should be
especially careful.
84
-------
Palos Verdes Shell Fish Contamination Risk Communication - Sharon Lin
Slogan
Know your fish, reduce the risks
General Outreach
1 Project provides curriculum, training
workshops, in-language materials,
technical assistance.
1 Partners design and implement in-
language education campaigns in their
communities.
1 Focus is on building capacity of CBOs to
conduct education
General Outreach Training
Diana Lee, scientist with California Dept of Health Services
discusses contamination issues with CBOs.
Education/Outreach Materials
Curriculum
FAQ fact sheet
Web site
Angler brochure
Project description brochure
Market poster and flyer
Interactive display
Various materials developed by CBOs
Market Outreach
• CBOs receive training, education and
materials.
• CBOs choose local markets for outreach
• CBOs work with market owners to
promote purchase of fish from approved
sources
• Market education as opposed to
regulation. Promotes accountability
Market Poster
85
-------
Palos Verdes Shell Fish Contamination Risk Communication - Sharon Lin
Market Outreach Training
FCEC Partners learn how to identify a white croaker.
Pier Outreach
• Outreach conducted in eight languages
with anglers on piers and shore sites
seven days a week.
• Members of affected communities are
recruited, hired and trained to become
outreach workers.
• Aquarium decent program, kiosk, new
signage.
Media Outreach
• Media campaign using radio, TV, and
print in 8 languages
• Media advocacy training for CBOs
• Two successful press conferences
targeted multi-ethnic media
Media Outreach Launch
Wayne Nastri, US-EPA Region 9 Administrator speaks at
the FCEC Launch at the Aquarium of the Pacific.
On the horizon
• Revised angler brochure
• Consumer brochure (non-angler/women)
Summary
Government agencies and communities
must partner at all stages (from risk
assessment to risk reduction) to
effectively mitigate exposures to
contaminants.
86
-------
Palos Verdes Shell Fish Contamination Risk Communication - Sharon Lin
For More Information/Materials
WWW.PVSFISH.ORG
87
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Mississippi Delta
Fish Consumption Advisory
OUTREACH
Linda Vaught, Communications Director
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Fish Advisory Issued
June 2001
Mississippi Advisory Task Force
- Department of Environmental Quality
- Department of Health
-Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks
- Department of Agriculture and Commerce
- Department of Marine Resources
Fish Advisory Issued
DDT
Toxaphene
Fish: buffalo, carp, gar, catfish (>22")
Best numbers ever
- Safe level changed
- Began using EPA's guidance
Fish Advisory Issues
Fish: main food source
Large geographical area
Reading
Don't panic
It's an ADVISORY
Kick-off
June 21, 2001
Press conferences
- Jackson
- Stoneville
Press advisory
Press release
Media carried statewide
Kick-off
88
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Kick-off
Warning issued: some of
Delta fish are contaminated
• Sunflower County rivers, bayous, lakes are included in
pesticide advisory; farm-raised cattish are safe.
FISH
Kick-off
Polluted fish advisory issued
I HIT T^ I
DDT. Toxapliene in
area lakes, ponds
slate agency says
14 Months
• Outreach
- Media
- Partners
• Task Force
• Churches
• Health care providers
• Boy Scouts
• Libraries
• Schools
09
OUTREACH - Television
Television
-Talk shows
- Mississippi Outdoors program
OUTREACH - Television
OUTREACH - Radio
Radio
-Urban talk radio
• Heart of Mississippi Delta
• Gospel and blues
- Listen to the Eagle
• Statewide radio program
- PSA & song on 78 radio stations
89
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Media Field Trip
Newspaper article
Media field trip
- Sampling techniques
-Analyzing samples
Much publicity
Used video again
Media Field Trip
Newspaper article
Media Field Trip
Newspaper article
Contact Us
• Established Toll-Free
Phone Number
• Created Web Pages
Questions?
1-888-786-0661
Contact Us
Printed Materials
Created and printer fliers
- English
- Spanish
90
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Printed Materials
Printed Materials
Printed Materials
Printed Materials
Created and printer posters
- English
- Spanish DELTA FISH ADVISORY
<29
Printed Materials
Created and printer posters
- English
- Spanish 8$COI»JKIQNS?MO$P5lMl0aiA
Churches
1,400 Delta Churches
Mailed Letters
-Announcementfrom pulpit
- Need assistance
- Poster
-Flier
91
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Churches
July 17,2001
Dear Pastor:
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
has recently issued a fish consumption advisory for several
species of fish in most of the Mississippi Delta. We know that
you are a vital link to the citizens of your area, and we ask for
your assistance in getting out important information that may
help protect the health of your congregation.
Churches
Pastor: Please read the following information to your
congregation:
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
has issued a fish consumption advisoiy for several species of
fish in most of the Mississippi Delta.
Another Reminder
Another press release- August 2001
MDEQ CONTINUES OUTREACH ABOUT DELTA
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY
JACKSON, MS., August 8, 2001 - The Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) continues
to try to reach the fishing public about the fish advisory for
fish caught in all Mississippi Delta waters from the
Mississippi River levee on the west to the bluff hills on the
east. After announcing this advisory on July 26, 2001, the
Department has been doing a number of things to reach the
entire fishing public with the advisory information.
More Letters
600 Commercial Fishermen
- Map
- Letter
©9
More Letters
600 Commercial Fishermen
- Map
- Letter
©9
More Letters
October 4, 2001
Dear Mississippi Commercial Fishing License Holder:
I am writing to inform you about an issue that is
important to us at the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), and to ask your help in passing this
information on to your customers.
©9
92
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
And More Letters
400 Fish Markets
- Letter
- Map
- MS Dept. of Agriculture
and Commerce
Advisory frying some fish vendors
And More Letters
February 7, 2002
Dear Delta Area Fish/Seafood Market Manager:
I am writing to discuss with you a matter that is of special
concern to us at the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding the protection
of our fellow citizens and their environment. We need and
ask your help in passing this information on to your
customers.
Signs Posted at Delta Lakes
MDEQ developed and printed signs
• Media interested in signage
ATTENTION
THESE 4 KINDS OF FISH FROM THIS AREA OF THE DELTA MAY
CONTAIN HARMFUL LEVELS OF CERTAIN PESTICIDES.
EATING THESE FISH REGULARLY MAY INCREASE YOUR RISK OF CANCER.
Buffalo Catfish Larger than 22"
DO NOT EAT MORE THAN TWO MEALS PER MONTH OF THESE FISH
FROM ARE A WATERS.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL:
1-888-786-0661
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
State to post tainted fish warnings
Signs Posted at Delta Lakes
MDWFP placed
signs
- Boat ramps
- Fishing areas
93
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Signs Posted at Delta Lakes
MDWFP placed
signs
- Boat ramps
- Fishing areas
Tell Them Again
Another press release- March 2002
MDEQ REMINDS DELTA ABOUT
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY
JACKSON, MS., March 28, 2002 - With spring in the air
and fishing on the minds of many Delta residents, the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
is reminding Delta residents that the Delta fish-consumption
advisory issued in June 2001 is still in effect.
Q9
Church Press Conference
• Press Conference
- St. Peter's Baptist Church
-Leland, MS
• 2nd Letter - Churches
• Present
• Task Force
• Pastor
• Media
©9
Deltans reminded
about fish advisory
USHs hslmif, u I)i 11 Creek
Delta Heath Care
Wrote letters to Delta health care providers
Provided for distribution
- Fliers
- Posters
Delta Heath Care
July 12, 2002
Dear Delta County Health Professional,
We at the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) and the Mississippi Department of
Health (MSDH) are asking your help in informing your
customers and clients about an important health issue in
your area. Last summer, MDEQ along with MSDH issued
a regional fish advisory for the Delta.
94
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Delta Heath Care
Press conference - Delta health office
Announced health care distribution
- Fliers
- Posters
Announced Spanish version
Announced coloring book
Banned pesticides may still
pose problems for fish lovers
VIDEQ sends 71,000 fish consumption
advisory fliers to Delta Health Care providers
DELTA
LiL;
--v< ...
ADVISORY
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
Outdoor Digest
MDWFP
- Outdoor Digest
Delta Health Fairs
Participated in two
Delta health fairs
Coloring
Book
Distributed
17,000 Copies in
Mississippi Delta
Schools -3rd
Grade
Libraries
Health Offices
@9
Fish In The Delta
A safe guide to enjoying the
's f.vorile pastime.
An MDEQ Guide to
Safe Fishing in the
Mississippi Delta
introducing
Whylee
The MDEQ Fishing
Answer Worm
Coloring Book
Good Media Coverage
Coloring bn ' a, !,.cal hbrars
warn Delta k , about lo\.c fish
Coloring books
warn Delia kids
about toxic hih
96
-------
Mississippi Delta Case Study: Risk Communication - Linda Vaught
For More Information
Linda Vaught
Communications Director
Miss. Dept. of Environmental Quality
601.961.5053
Linda_Vaught@deq.state.ms.us
www.deq.state.ms.us
09
97
-------
Risk Communication for Medical Practitioners - Steve Blackwell
Risk Communication for Medical
Practitioners
Stephen Blackwell, RS, MPH
Commander USPHS
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
ATSDR
ATSDR
*
WARDING
ATSDR
Medical Practitioners
Physicians
Nurses
Midwives
Physicians Assistances
Nurse Practitioners
Tribal Clinicians and Healers
ATSDR
Physicians
OB/GYN
Family Practice
Pediatric
Internal Medicine
ATSDR
98
-------
Risk Communication for Medical Practitioners - Steve Blackwell
ATSDR
ATSDR
Types of Outreach to Medical
Practitioners
Mass mailings
Blast Faxes
Grand rounds presentations
Articles in medical journals
Presentations and displays at
conferences and meetings
Targeting specific practitioners and
visiting them in person
ATSDR
Training Reference Materials
ATSDR
Case Studies in
Environmental Medicine
ATSDR
Patient Education Materials
ATSDR
99
-------
Risk Communication for Medical Practitioners - Steve Blackwell
Patient Education Materials
ATSDR
Training Benefits
Improve awareness of
environmental hazards in
general
Improve quality of health care
where hazardous substances
in fish may threaten human
health
ATSDR
Thank You For Your Attention
Any Questions?
ATSDR
100
-------
Contaminants in Farmed Salmon from Around the World - David Carpenter
CONTAMINANTS IN FARMED SALMON FROM AROUND THE WORLD
'V4
David O. Carpenter, MD
Institute for Health and the Environment
University at Albany
Rensselaer, NY 12144
Supported by the Environmental Division of the Pew Charitable Trust
SALMON
A very popular fish with high
levels of omega-3 fatty acids,
known to be beneficial in
preventing sudden cardiac
£ death. Farming of salmon
has grown very rapidly, now
* at levels of over 1 million
tons per year. Farmed
salmon are relatively cheap
and are available throughout
the year.
Purpose of Our Study
To analyze Atlantic salmon from farms in eight
salmon-farming regions, Atlantic salmon fillets from
supermarkets in 16 cities and wild Pacific salmon of
five species for the presence of environmental
organic and metal contaminants.
We purchased 459 whole farmed salmon from 51 farms in eight farming
regions in six countries (Scotland, Norway, Faroe Islands, Eastern Canada,
Maine, Western Canada, Washington State, Chile).
We purchased 135 wild Alaskan salmon, including chum, coho, Chinook,
pink and sockeye, from suppliers in Alaska and Western Canada.
We purchased salmon fillets in supermarkets in 16 North American and
European cities (Vancouver, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver,
Chicago, Toronto, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., New York, Boston,
London, Edinburgh, Paris, Frankfurt, Oslo).
Composites of three fish or three fillets (for a total of 246 samples) were
analyzed for 14 organic contaminants, and nine metals.
We purchased nine samples of farmed salmon feed from different parts of
the world for analysis.
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Cone (no/a wet watl
III
101
-------
Contaminants in Farmed Salmon from Around the World - David Carpenter
1 »:
* "
o mo •
1 so •
1 20 •
5 '"* •
a, HJ •
i B
=
linminnrn^^^.
||nininn...^_
Uninpnn.r..^^
hnininn,___d
// WJ
-------
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes:
Habitat, Life History, and Diet - Sandie O'Neill
Factors Affecting Contaminants in
Fishes
Habitat, Life History and Diet
Sandie O'Neill
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
Factors Affecting Contaminant
Exposure and Accumulation
• proximity to contaminant sources
• habitat
• trophic level
• gender and age of fish
• lipid content of tissues
t'twE-V Puget Sound
.v^SJrtfW
s ^»-
W
Sediment PCB
i. contamination
\ varies among
basins
Everett
Se attle
acoma
Species monitored by PSAMP
- bottom dwelling
- consumes benthic infauna
- moderate home range
- ubiquitous in Puget Sound (and west coast)
English sole
(Pleuronectes vetulus)
103
-------
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes:
Habitat, Life History, and Diet - Sandie O'Neill
PCB accumulation in English sole vs
PCB sediment levels and fish age
Effects of Age and Trophic Level
on PCB Accumulation ?
121 |jg/kg
62 |jg/kg
English sole
(Pleuronectes vetulus)
Quillback rockfish
(Sebastes maliger)
measured as Aroclor (ww) at
Seattle Waterfront
- demersal
- carnivorous
- long-lived (80+ yrs)
- small home range
Quillback rockfish
(Sebastes maliger)
<
E
co
500
400
300
200
100
0
PCBs by Gender in Quillback
Rockfish from Elliott Bay
male
* female
10 15
Age (years)
20
25
Adapted from Larson et al. 1996
Males
c
o
O
m
o
a.
Females
first reproduction
Fish Age
104
-------
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes:
Habitat, Life History, and Diet - Sandie O'Neill
PCB Accumulation in Benthic
and Demersal Fishes
Correlated with sediment concentrations
- highest correlation in fish with small home range
Increase with trophic level (biomagnification)
Bioaccumulation in long lived fish
- possible male/female differences
•anadromous, wide-ranging, pelagic
• carnivorous
high fat content
• complex life history
Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
CBs in muscle of adult salmon
returning to Puget Sound
PCBs in Pacific salmon from Alaska
Decreasing Trophic Level
u
to *>•
1 1 80
r -Q
120 1 Chinook
100
CD
O
Q.
60
40
20
0
chum pink
(2) (1) (4) (8) (6)
# of composites of 3-5 fish
returning adult salmon
130 ug PCBs
105
-------
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes:
Habitat, Life History, and Diet - Sandie O'Neill
PCBs in Chinook
i 200
O)
ra150
§ 100 t
— 50
c 3U
8 o ^
<§ 1
salmon
o
0
0
234
Saltwater Age (yrs)
fillets
3
5
PSAMP92-96aroclors
Does oceanic distribution affect
PCB levels in Pacific salmon
stocks in the Pacific Northwest?
Contaminant analysis planned to assess
geographic variation in PCB levels in
Pacific salmon
Location
Species
Chinook Sockeye Pink ChumCoho
SE Alaska (mixed stocks)
N. BC coast (Skeena)
C. BC coast (Kimsquit)
Georgia Basin (Fraser)
Puget Sound (mixed stocks)
Puget Sound (Skagit)
Puget Sound (Nook/Nisq)
WA/OR coast (Columbia)
CA coast (Sacramento)
6-8 fish per composite
PCB Accumulation in Pacific Salmon
• Majority of PCBs are accumulated in marine
waters including coastal areas & open ocean.
• Adult chinook /sockeye accumulate higher
PCB concentrations than pink and chum.
• Species and stock-specific differences in life
history traits such as saltwater age and
marine distribution may influence PCB levels.
PCB Accumulation in Pelagic Fish
Pelagic fish integrate PCBs over broad areas.
- Need to know where fish (and their prey) feed
Trophic level affects PCB accumulation
Age/size may (or may not!) affect PCB accumulation
- Depends if age/size classes feed in different areas
- Depends if age/size classes eat at different trophic levels
If you want to
- design cost effective monitoring programs
- communicate risk information
Know your fish!
(or your local
fish biologist)
106
-------
Factors Affecting Contaminant Exposure in Fishes:
Habitat, Life History, and Diet - Sandie O'Neill
Geographic Variation in PCB Levels
in Chinook salmon returning to spawn
Northern Columbia
Puget Sound
50
* 4°
8 30
20
I I
River
II
Lipid Adjusted PCB for Chinook Salmon
Returning to Puget Sound Rivers
O D)
Q. *
B 0)
*~ ra
T3 0)
IS
« o
wl
< E
28
.9-O
50
40
30
20
10
North Central South
107
-------
Model Application for Monitoring Contaminants in Fish - Stephen Wente
Model Application for Monitoring
Contaminants in Fish:
Mercury Pilot Project
Paul Hearn Stephen Wente John Aguinaldo David Donate
Susan Price Seth Tanner Ovidio Rivero-Bartolomei
N1 E S ^National injure 0F Environ,
Samples Difficult to Compare
Species
A
B
C
D
E
Sampling Events
1
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
5
X
6
X
X
X
7
X
X
VNIEHS
Fish Hg Model Details
Regression method (Covariance model)
Accounts for:
- Less than detection limit values
- Differences between samples
• Species (Hg increases with trophic position)
• Tissues sampled (skin-off fillet > skin-on > whole)
• Fish length (larger fish are higher in Hg)
Calibrated to national dataset (35,130)
v'NIEHS
Fish Hg Model (log-log space)
• Slopes - describe
potential Hg
accumulation rate for
each sample type
• Intercepts - describe
levels of bio-available
Hg "before" each
sampling event
9.NIEHS
alLogofLenglh(in)
Fish Hg Model (arithmetic space)
• Slopes - become
exponents describing
curvature
• Intercepts - become
multiplication factors
• Error - has a log-
normal distribution
§
Consumption Advisory
~ 1.6 -
it
I L2 "
3
™ 0.8 -
*0.4-
0 -
Largemouth
Bass /
Smallmouth | /
Bass y / Northern Pike^
Yellow 1 / / -^
Perch L/LX?l>i* _s/
\ A ''// ' / J^
RockbasA^^^^/^--^ ^^rf"*
^^^^^^^^-^^=—-— ™te Sucker
No
Consumption
Limited
Unlimited
10 20 30 40
Length (in)
^vNIEHS
108
-------
Model Application for Monitoring Contaminants in Fish - Stephen Wente
Standardize Sample Type
^
1.6 -
3
|1.2-
3
™ 0.8-
*0.4-
Sn
Yellow
Perch
Bluegill 1
rf * /1
0 10
VNIEHS
Largemouth
Bass / J
allmouth (
Bass ¥ / Northern Pike^
1 / / ^
/ /Black /
I^CrJe//^
^X^-^'^ __^r-CarP
,^=^====*=~— — - White Sucker
Channel Catfish
Estimate
concentration of a
standard sample
type (e.g. 14 inch
skin-off largemouth
bass fillets) for all
sampling events
(specific site and
time)
20 30 40
Length (in)
7
Northwestern US Fish Hg Trends:
NCBP Data
r* T4
^v
. *1«
J","
-a 1
VNIEHS
Modeled Spatial Variation
(14 inch Largemouth Bass Skin-off Fillets)
Modeled Data Can Show Spatial
Trends Not Reflected in Raw Data
v'NIEHS
Accuracy Assessment
Calibrated to NLFWAdata (n = 31,813)
5000 random jackknife predictions
0.4-
= 0.2-
DSize Class
Covariance
IR =0.76 • Covariance
• rinnri
OofSp. OinS.C. 1 2 3-5 >5
n=1007 857 789 483 958 906
Observations in Size Class
Information quality & quantity is better
1 ^NIEHS
Analytical Cost Reduction
Species
Size classes
Sites
Times
Replicates
Cost/Sample
Size classes
Covariance
i-fi
A
— $100
$1,500,0004
If $100,000
,
i'jkpf^fl
£ uj'uu--";p
-------
Model Application for Monitoring Contaminants in Fish - Stephen Wente
Project Website
"Continuously updated" data & analysis
How Can I Evaluate this Model?
You voluntarily provide data
You apply model We apply model and
provide results on website
You evaluate prediction quality (Do
predictions make sense?)
You decide if, and how much, results are
used
*NIEHS
Questions/Comments
Additional information:
• Website demonstration in poster area
(sign-up to receive website address)
• Peer-reviewed publication in preparation
• Request presentation (via telephone) to
your group (spwente@usgs.gov)
^NIEHS
110
-------
PBDEs - Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban - Tom McDonald
PBDEs - Rising Levels in Fish, Tox
Review and the California Ban
U.S. EPA National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
San Diego, California
January 28,2004
Tom A. McDonald, M.P.H., Ph.D.
OEHHA, California EPA
tmcdonal(5joehha. ca.gov
-I/
e
mental Health Hazard Assessment ^^^
Fhe figure that started it all for us in California...
Organohalogen Compounds in Human Milk in Sweden
(Noren and Mieronyte, 1998)
4,030 - «
1972 1933 19ffi 19.
1993 1992 1996
Introduction
The polybrominated dipenylethers (PBDEs)
• Added to many
consumer products
• Flame retardant
4
PBDE Use in the Americas
PBDE
Technical
Mixture
Penta-BDEt
Octa-BDE
Deca-BDE
Million
Ibs/yr
(2001)
15.7
3.3
54.0
%of
World's
Use
95
40
44
Product Uses
Furniture (foam
cushions)
Electronics (ABS
plastic, cable)
Electronics (HIPS
plastic) and textiles
t Highly bioaccumulative BSEF- M»3
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment^
Structural Similarity of PBDEs, Their Metabolites
and Environmental Derivatives to T4 and PCBs
Ice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ^^/
The data that accelerated our efforts in CA . . .
Lipid-normalized PBDE-47 (tetra)
in Human Tissues
in
LLJ
Q
Q_
D California (adipose)
D Germany (whole blood)
D Canada (milk)
D Finland (milk)
D Japan (milk)
D Sweden (milk)
fu fin n _fbnnn
M
1981 1983 1985 1987 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
CA data from She et al (2002) f
6 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment "
3
111
-------
PBDEs - Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban - Tom McDonald
PBDEs Relate to Several
Important Topics of the Day
Children's Health
Endocrine Disruption
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP)/
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxicants
(PBT)
Emerging Environmental Challenge
High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemical
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Ass
_
PBDEs Have Become Ubiquitous
Environment Contaminants
PBDEs are measured in
— Indoor and outdoor air
- Remote Arctic regions (i.e., long-range transport)
— House and office dust
— Rivers and lakes and sediments
— Sewage sludge
- Foods
— Biota (terrestrial and marine mammals, fish, humans)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard As:
Time-trend: PBDEs in Blubber of
California Seals
BDEs in Columbia River Whitefish
— rr~
_TT_J | r
^m
-*r
From Genelle,
British Columbia
D Sum PBDE (ng/g
fresh weight)
1992 1995 2000 ^_
1 1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ^^/
Rayne et al. (2003) Environ Sci Technol 37(13): 2847-54.
PBDEs in Lake Ontario Trout (1978 - 1998)
1000
1978
1983
Luross et al. (2000)
ffice of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessment ^^^
112
-------
PBDEs - Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban - Tom McDonald
PBDEs in Herring Gull Eggs - Great Lakes
PBDE Levels Are Rising in
U.S. Residents
(Sum 7 PBDE Congeners in Serum)
1
"Si
c
14
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
Each point
represents
-200 people
""""--*. *
0 oo 0
o I ^ 1
1982 1987 1992
Collection
Sjodinefa/. (2003)
Office of Environm
Each point
represents
~10 people
1
1997
year
ental Health Hazard Assess
0
*8
O
'
2002
f^^
mentN^*
High-end Human Exposures
5% of people likely have lipid-normalized
PBDE levels greater than 300 ng/g
— That's about 15 million people in the U.S.
WHY?
- Fish intake?
- Indoor exposures, house dust?
- Differences in pharmacokinetics (i.e., inter-individual
variability in uptake, metabolism or excretion)?
— Look for future research to address this question
4
Office of Environm ental Health Hazard As:
For Many Individuals, PBDE
Tissue Levels Have Now
Surpassed PCB Levels
Initial data from our agency indicate that
among 57 California women :
7% had higher tissue concentrations
of total PBDEs than total PCBs
Ice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ^^/
Toxicity Concerns for the PBDEs
• Endocrine disruption
Thyroid and estrogenic effects
• Developmental effects
Brain and reproductive organs
• Possibly cancer
NTP initiating long-term studies of Penta
Environmental conversion to dioxins/furans
• Brominated dioxins/furans measured in people
1B Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessment ^^^
113
-------
PBDEs - Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban - Tom McDonald
Thyroid Hormone Disruption
Good evidence in rats and mice
Some evidence in humans
Relative potencies
penta-BDE > octa-BDE »> deca-BDE
Effects additive with co-exposures to PCBs
Possible mechanisms
- Hormone mimicry (transthyretin binding)
- UDGPT enzyme induction (T T4 excretion)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Ass
Example: Thyroid Hormone Disruption
•Zhou et al. (2002): Penta-BDE (tech.) given to pregnant rats 0, 1,
10, 30 mg/kg-d from gestational day 6 through postnatal day 21
120
UJ
tr>
•g 100 .
£
"5
"c
O 60
20
^ ^ O
—Q— Control
—~— 1 mg/kg/day
-A- 10 mg/kg/da^
—(V- 30 mg/kg/da^
Estrogenic Effects
Postnatal exposure of rats to PBDE-99
altered expression of estrogen-
regulated genes (Lichtensteiger<*«/,2003)
- Prostate: androgen receptor, estrogen receptor ER-
a and ER-|3, insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I)
- Brain: Progesterone receptor, ER-a
In vivo estrogenic activity was not
predicted from in vitro assays.
- PBDE-99 low estrogenic activity in MCF-7 cells.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Ass
Developmental Toxicity
Neurological system (3 independent laboratories)
- Altered behavior, learning and memory in mice
— Hearing loss in rats
- Effects permanent, i.e., measured in adulthood
- Effects additive with co-exposure of PBDE and PCB
Male reproductive system (2 labs):
— Delayed puberty
- Increased ventral prostate and seminal vesicle weights
Female reproductive system (3 labs):
— Delayed puberty
— Alterations to ovary cell structure
Office of Environmental Health Hazard As:
Spontaneous Behaviour
Nicotine Induced
Behaviour
Vehicle - Saline
Vehicle-Nicotine
P8DE 99-Saline
PBDE99-Nicotin
**p<0.01
Effects, measured in adulthood, worsen with age. viberge*«/.,2000
Same pattern seen with many neurotoxic PCBs.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Ass
Risk:
Compare High-end Human Levels to Tissue
Levels in PBDE-treated Rodents
• Estimates of rodent body burdens of PBDE resulting
from doses that caused these effects are equivalent to
total PBDE levels attained in humans.
- If humans are as sensitive as animals, then there is:
'No margin of safety."
Science News (2003) 164:266-8.
— Better data are needed to compare tissue
concentrations between rodents and humans.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard As!
114
-------
PBDEs - Rising Levels in Fish, Tox Review, and the California Ban - Tom McDonald
Risk (continued)
An even greater concern: PBDEs and
PCBs may be working together.
- PCB levels are usually higher than PBDEs
- Same effects on some mechanistic endpoints
— Co-adrninistration of PCB and PBDE caused
additive effects with respect to:
• behavior alterations in mice
• thyroid hormone disruption
- PBDEs/PCB co-exposures further increases the
likelihood that exposure will result in health
effects.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Ass
Penta- and Octa-BDE are -* , U
Now Banned Chemicals
• Banned in California starting 2008
- AB302 (Chan et al.), signed into law in August.
• U.S. manufacturer announced it will
voluntarily cease production by end of 2004
• Banned by the European Union starting 2005
• Already voluntarily phased out in Japan
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Ass
Text of California Ban (AB302)
" On and after January 1, 2008, a person may
not manufacture, process, or distribute in
commerce a product, or a flame-retarded
part of a product, containing more than one-
tenth of 1 percent of pentaBDE or octaBDE,
by mass."
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Ass
Summary
PBDEs in consumer products are escaping
into the environment - now everywhere
PBDE levels rising rapidly in fish, other
wildlife and people in North America
Some folks have much higher levels than most
for reasons unknown.
- Levels similar to levels associated with health effects
Penta- and Octa-PBDE banned in CA and the
EU; not used in Japan.
— Renewed concern over Deca (new data on
debromination by UV and biota)
ental Health Hazard Ass
115
-------
Dioxin - Rita Schoeny
Dioxin: EPA Update
Rita Schoeny
Office of Water
January 2004
Recent History
0 Science Advisory Board (SAB) review; May 1995
0 Report received from the SAB; Fall 1995
IZI Major SAB comments — revision and re-review of Chapter 8:
Dose-Response(D/R)Modeling and Risk Characterization; add
TEF Chapter
IZI Internal, Inter-Agency, and External Review of D/R and TEF
Chapter and revised Integrated Summary and Risk
Characterization
IZI SAB re-review of revised D/R and TEF Chapter and I ntegrated
Summary and Risk Characterization - November 1 and 2, 2000
IZI SAB/Executive Committee review of Nov. meeting draft report and
letter to Administrator- May31, 2001
Very Recent History
0Revisions to 2000 Draft and Inter-Agency (IWG)
Review (2002/2003)
0IWG requests a review by the MAS to help ensure that
the risk estimates contained in the draft reassessment
(2003 version) are scientifically robust and that there is
a clear delineation of all associated uncertainties (Oct.
29, 2003)
•^Response to MAS, Finalization and Publication
SAB Report: May 31, 2001
• Compliments on careful and thorough review of
the literature
• Suggested improvements
- More focus on non-cancer effects
- Increased emphasis on mode of action
- More clarification of uncertainty
SAB Report: May 31, 2001--2
• Lack of SAB consensus on several key issues
- Cancer characterization-Carcinogen vs. Likely
Carcinogen
- Margin of Exposure and/or Reference Dose
- Upper bound estimate of cancer risk
• Recommended Agency expeditiously move
toward finalization of EPA's Dioxin
Reassessment
• (www.epa.gov/science1/fiscal01 .htm)
Major Issues Identified in
SAB/Public Comments Addressed
Sparse data for national means for sources/ pathways
More info on dioxin-like PCBs in exposure document
State of exposure model validation
Trends in environmental levels/ body burdens
TEFs/ TEQs
Human data impact on hazard and risk
characterization
Significance of enzyme induction and other
biochemical effects
Relative roles of data, scientific inference, science
policy
116
-------
Dioxin - Rita Schoeny
EPA worked with other Federal
agencies to reach conclusions
• NIEHS authors Chapter 8, "Dose / Response"
• NIEHS, NIOSH, DOD contributing authors (plus EPA
and non-Federal scientists)
• NIOSH scientist published key cancer dose/ response
analysis (2001)
• DHHS Report on Carcinogens 2001, TCDD listed as
"Human Carcinogen"
• USDA, FDA collaborate on food survey design and
data collection
Key Findings of the Reassessment
Exposure Document - 1
Environmental levels have declined since the 70s
Current US regulatory efforts have addressed most of the known
large industrial sources
• -80% reduction between '87 and '95; further reductions
anticipated)
Open burning of household wastes is the biggest unaddressed
contemporary source identified so far.
There remain many uncharacterized sources that could be
significant
• e.g.. burning, ceramics, forest fires, secondary steel, reservoir
sources
Exposure to general population has declined but currently
averages ~1 pg/kg/day
Adult Average Daily Intake of
CDDs/CDFs/dioxin-like PCBs
2000 Draft Estimate: ~ 65 pg TEQDFP-WHOss/day
Vegetable fat Soil Ingerton
Other meats Soil dermal contact
Marine fish and shellfish
Key Findings of the Reassessment
Exposure Document - 2
m General Population Exposure is from animal fats in the
commercial food supply
• Local sources make little contribution to most
peoples' exposure
• Environmental levels in meat & dairy production are
major contributor
• Air deposition onto plants consumed by domestic meat
and dairy animals is the principal route for
contamination of commercial food supply
Key Findings of the Reassessment
Exposure Document - 3
• Reservoir sources are a significant component of
current exposure and may dominate future exposure
• accounts for most coplanar PCB exposure
• unknown contribution for Dibenzofurans
• Special populations may be more exposed but
prevalence is not well substantiated
• See Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds in the Food
Supply: Strategies to Decrease Exposure, IOM/NAS,
July 2003
Sources and
4 |T SOURCES
Pathways to
o>
TRANSPORT
W Industrial
Processes
Combustion Q Q
1 I***"*] Runoff
Direct \\
Discharged
Erosion
T;V
> ^
Human Exposures
\ / FOOD
V SUPPLY
DEPOSITION
yVtr^
-------
Dioxin - Rita Schoeny
Key Findings of the Reassessment
Health Document - 1
• Variety of noncancer effects in animals & humans
• Developmental Toxicity
• Immunotoxicity
• Endocrine Effects
• Chloracne
• Others
• Toxic equivalents (TEQ) provide the best means for
evaluating mixtures
• Use WH098 TEFs
• Include coplanar PCBs
Key Findings of the Reassessment
Health Document - 2
m Body burden is the best dose metric for
estimating risk
• Environmental mixtures of dioxin-like
compounds are likely to be carcinogenic to
humans; 2,3,7,8-TCDD is carcinogenic to
humans.
US, International Comparisons
WHO
1997
ATSDR
1999
JECFA
2001
Body
Burden
L/NOAEL
10-40
ng/kg
32*
ng/kg
13/25
ng/kg
Effect
Several
Neuro-
Devel.
Devel.
Safety/
Unc.
Factor
10
90
3.2/9.6
Guid.
TDI
MRL
TMI
Daily
Intake
(pg/kg/d)
1-4
1
2.3**
*Body burden from original publication; ATSDR used intake of 0.12ng/kg/day
** Based on TMI = 70 pg/kg
Comparison with EPA
Similarities
- Focus on lowest adverse effects
- Use body burden as dose metric (expect ATSDR
- Suggest additional decrease in intake is necessary
Differences
- Assume cancer will be insignificant at guidance
- Use safety/ uncertainty factor (between 3.2 to 90)
for LOAEL, pharmacodynamics, human variability
- Safety assessment vs. a MOE / quantitative risk
assessment
Key Findings of the Reassessment
Risk Characterization - 1
• Cancer slope factor
- Based primarily on recently published analyses of
human data
- Revised upward by factor ~ 6 from 1985 value
(based on 1978 rat study)
• Cancer risk to general population from
background (dietary) exposure
- May exceed 10-3(1 in 1000)
- Likely to be less and even zero for some individuals
Key Findings of the Reassessment
Risk Characterization - 2
• Non-cancer effects observed in animals and
humans at levels within 10X background
• Likely that part of the general population is at
or near exposure levels where adverse effects
can be anticipated.
118
-------
Dioxin - Rita Schoeny
Summary
Dioxin science has evolved rapidly; more data lead to
better understanding ... and more questions
Expanded human data on cancer reinforce our previous
concern for the potential for human health impacts.
Identification of non-cancer effects in animals and human
are sufficient to generate a similar level of concern
Environmental levels and human exposure are declining
but are still at a level of concern
Current source characterization is complex with
uncontrolled burning and reservoir sources potentially
playing a significant role.
Further Questions?
William H. Farland, PhD
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science
ORD/USEPA(8101R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-6620
Fax: 202-565-2430
E-mail: farland.william@epa.gov
119
-------
Arsenic: Speciation and Hazard - Charles Abernathy
Bioaccumulation of Arsenic (As)
in Fish & Toxicity of As Species
Charles O. Abernathy
HECD/OST
US EPA
Washington, DC
Topics
• Methodology
• As Levels in Aquatic Organisms
• Available Data on Freshwater Species
• Uncertainties
- As Speciation
- Toxicities
• Summary
Methodology for Deriving AWQC
• 1980
- BCF (water exposure only) used to estimate
bioaccumulation
• 2000*
- For inorganics & organometallics that do not biomagnify
- use Procedure 5
- Field BAFs & Laboratory BCFs are considered equally
- BAF = C, / Cw
*see Methodology for Deriving AWQC for the Protection
of Human Health (2000) for details on BAF framework
Does As Bioaccumulate in Fish?
• Yes, but BAFs are small relative to many other
organic & organometallic PBTs (e.g., PCBs,
methyl-Hg)
• BAFs for tissues of upper trophic level
freshwater & marine organisms range from
~ 5 to 5000 L/kg
• As does not appear to biomagnify (increasing
concentration with increasing trophic level);
BAFs for TL2 > TL3 > TL4
As BAF Measurements in
Freshwater Organisms
Trophic
Level
2
3
4
Species Mean BAFs - Range (n)
Lentic
10 to 19,000(43)
4 to 95 (18)
45 to 46(1)
Lotic
7 to 3,800 (7)
2 to 1,000(20)
6 to 270 (2)
Chemical Species of As
• Inorganic
- Arsenite (+3)
- Arsenate (+5)
• Organic
- Arsenobetaine
- Monomethyl Arsinic Acid (MMA, MSMA)
- Dimethylarsonic Acid (DMA, Cacodylic Acid)
- Arsenocholine
- Arsenosugars
- Arsenolipids
120
-------
Arsenic: Speciation and Hazard - Charles Abernathy
As Speciation Data for
TL3 & 4 Fish
Species Exposure Inorganic As As Organic
Type (+3) (+5)
Minnow Field
Sweet
Fish
Salmon
Field
Field
NM
NM
NM
0.97
0.88
0.99
As Speciation Data for TL3 & TL4 Fish
Species
Tilapia
Tilapia
Medaka
Guppy
Exposure
Type
Lab-Water
(+3)
(+5)
MMA
DMA
Lab-Diet
(+3)
(+3)
(+3)
(+3)
Fraction of Total Arsenic
Inorganic
0.39
0.72
0.71
-
0.97
0.85
1.00
0.15
As (+3)
0.25
0.36
0.40
-
0.41
0.41
0.26
-
As (+5)
0.14
0.36
0.31
-
0.56
0.44
0.74
-
Organic
0.50
0.25
0.27
0.94
0.023
0.037
0.0
0.84
Uncertainties
> Most speciation data for marine
organisms
i As speciation:
- 85 to > 90% organic As in marine
organisms
- As species reported in freshwater
organisms varies widely
- Toxicity of As species varies greatly
Acute Toxicity
Species
• Inorganic
Arsenite (+3)
Arsenate (+5)
• Organic
MMA
MMA (+3; i. p.)
DMA
Arsenocholine
Arsenobetaine
of As Species
LD™ (mg/kg)
15 to 42*
20 to 200
700 to 1800
-30
1,200 to 2, 600
6,500
> 10,000
Additional Toxicological
Considerations
• Toxic Moieties
- Inorganic As (+3 & +5)
-MMA&DMA(+3&+5)
• +5 reduced to +3 (more toxic form)
• However, As Species and Valence
States are not usually determined
Additional Toxicological
Considerations
• Arsenobetaine
- Metabolically inert (99% excreted as parent)
- Not cytotoxic
- No mutagenic activity
• Arsenocholine
- Mostly metabolized to Arsenobetaine
• Arsenicals do not concentration in human milk
• Seafood ingestion does not increase Inorganic As
exposure
121
-------
Arsenic: Speciation and Hazard - Charles Abernathy
Summary - Bioaccumulation
• As bioaccumulates in aquatic
organisms, but BAFs are generally
small relative to other Persistent,
Bioaccumulative Toxicants (e.g., PCBs,
methymercury
• As does not appear to biomagnify
(BAFs TL2 > TL3 > TL4)
Summary - Speciation
• Limited data indicate that both inorganic
and organic As are present in
freshwater organisms
• Chemical Speciation Data in Freshwater
Fish is Variable
- Lab data indicate higher % of inorganic As
- Field data indicate higher % of organic As
Summary - Toxicity
• Valence State (+3 vs. +5) greatly affects
toxicity of As
• Arsenobetaine & Arsenocholine have
relatively low toxicity
Data Needs
• Data to Derive Freshwater BAFs
- Total [As] in Water
- Total [As] in freshwater organism tissues
- [As Species] in freshwater organism tissues
• Are there real differences in the
inorganic/organic As ratios following field vs.
laboratory exposures?
• EPA would appreciate receiving any/all data
you may have
Technical Summary of Information Available on the
Bioaccumulation of Arsenic in Aquatic Organisms
(EPA-822-R-03-032)
December 2003
• www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/arsenic/tech-
sum-bioacc.pdf
• Compilation of data available in the literature (and
calculated Species Mean BAFs) for consideration
in developing or revising Water Quality Standards
- Use aquatic species BAFs appropriate for Regional,
State or Tribal consumption patterns.
• Does not provide National BAFs
• Dr. Tala Henry
Phone:202-566-1323
Email: henry.tala@epa.gov
• Dr. Charles Abernathy
Phone:202-566-1084
Email: abernathy.charles@epa.gov
• EPA's Technical Summary of Information Available
on the Bioaccumulation of Arsenic in Aquatic
Organisms (EPA-822-R-03-032)
www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/arsenic/tech-
sum-bioacc.pdf
122
-------
Appendix F: Poster Abstracts
-------
-------
Appendix F: Poster Abstracts
An Interactive Database of Mercury in the Fishery Resources of the Gulf of Mexico
Frederick Kopfler, Jennifer Field, and Donald Axelrad
Primary Contact Information:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Mail Code: EPA/GMPO
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
ph: (228) 688-2712 fax:(228)688-2709 e-mail: kopfler.fred@epa.gov
Mercury finds its way into aquatic ecosystems in a variety of ways. Atmospheric deposition is one major
pathway. Not only does mercury in the atmosphere cross political and jurisdictional boundaries, but
migratory pelagic predator fish also do. After a preliminary assessment indicated that mercury was a
widespread contaminant in edible tissue offish taken from the Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico Program
Management Committee directed the Program Office to conduct an analysis of the occurrence of mercury
in the fishery resources of the Gulf of Mexico. A steering committee consisting of persons with
knowledge of environmental mercury analysis from state health and environmental agencies of the five
states surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, USEPA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was formed to oversee the project. Emphasis
was placed on data collected during and after 1990 as the steering committee concluded that analytical
methods had been improved and standardized sufficiently that the results from the various laboratories
were comparable. Tissue monitoring data sets from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas
state monitoring programs; the USEPA's EMAP; NOAA's Mussel Watch Program; and the National
Marine Fisheries Service's GulfChem Study were acquired. These data sets were aggregated into a
regional database, which is available over the Internet with data mapper software that allows the user to
query the database, produce maps of the query results, and zoom in on specific estuaries. The database
was updated in September 2003 and contains almost 27,000 records. The database can also be
downloaded in its entirety for use on a local computer.
California Water Quality and Fish Contamination Project
Maura Mack
California Department of Health Services
Environmental Health Investigations Branch
1515 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
ph: (510)622-4414 fax:(510)622-4505 e-mail: mmack@dhs.ca.gov
The poster illustrates the California Water Quality and Fish Contamination Project, a statewide strategic
planning initiative to protect natural resources and public health. Given California's numerous and
dispersed waterbodies, its large and diverse population, and the complexity of its fish contamination
problems, a coordinated, multiagency, multidisplinary approach that actively engages stakeholders
representing impacted communities is essential to protect the state's water resources and public health.
The California Policy Research Center of the University of California, the Environmental Health
Investigations Branch of the California Department Health Services, and the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment of the California Environmental Protection Agency initiated the project in
2003. The project involves coordination of relevant federal, tribal, state, and local agencies with key
private sector, advocacy, community-based, and scientific organizations to achieve the following goals:
(1) protect waterbodies in California from contamination, particularly where fish are caught for human
F-l
-------
consumption, and (2) promote and protect the health of populations consuming contaminated fish and
other aquatic life. Specific project outcomes include identifying project mandates and authorities as well
as gaps, building upon existing abilities and authorities to establish a system for tracking and
investigating fish contamination problems, implementing community-based pollution prevention
interventions, and increasing public awareness about health benefits and risks from consuming fish, as
well as ways to reduce exposure to contaminants in fish. Stakeholder participation will be incorporated
into all decision-making processes.
Communicating Information on Methvlmercury in Fish to Women of Childbearing Age via
Perinatal Healthcare Providers
Margy Gassel, Robert Brodberg, and Sue Roberts
Primary Contact Information:
California Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1515 Clay Street
16th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
ph: (510)622-3166 fax:(510)622-3218 e-mail: mgassel@oehha.ca.gov
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the agency in California
responsible for developing and issuing fish consumption advisories for chemically contaminated sport
fish. OEHHA also incorporates the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's advice for commercial seafood
as part of education, outreach, and communication to fish consumers. OEHHA's Fish Advisor}' Program
staff recognized the need to expand outreach efforts, especially to females of childbearing age, about
methylmercury in fish. A profusion of recent news stores on the dangers of methylmercury and other
contaminants in fish, at the same time that fish is being promoted as a healthy food, has heightened the
need to provide accurate information about the risks versus benefits of eating fish.
The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program is a federal program that supports nutrition and health
for pregnant women, new mothers, and young children. Similarly, many counties in California operate
perinatal councils to provide healthcare services to new mothers and their children. Public health nurses
and nutritionists, dieticians, and maternal and child health specialists, among others, staff these programs.
OEHHA previously distributed advisory brochures to WIC agencies and California county health and
environmental departments. Several programs in California requested staff training from OEHHA after
receiving conflicting messages from agencies, doctors, and the media. In addition, WIC program
administrators were concerned because they distribute canned tuna to breastfeeding mothers. In response,
OEHHA has offered training that covers the sources and accumulation of methylmercury in fish,
toxicokinetics and human health effects, risks and benefits offish consumption, and determination of
"safe" levels of exposure. The presentations focus on women and children, and they present and clarify
current advice and recommendations for sport and commercial fish consumption. Training of WIC and
perinatal program staff provides an excellent opportunity to reach the at-risk population through the
practitioners who interact with them. The effectiveness of the training was evaluated using brief
questionnaires before and after the presentation. Responses showed increased knowledge and confidence
on the subject, less confusion, and changes in opinions and beliefs as a result of the presentation. Direct
feedback from training participants indicated that they had benefited from OEHHA's training.
F-2
-------
A Community-Led Survey of Fish Consumption Behaviors of Anglers at the Richmond Harbor and
San Pablo Reservoir
Sharon Fuller and Kelly Speth
Primary Contact Information:
Ma'at Youth Academy
445 Valley View Road, Suite D
Richmond, CA 94803
ph: (510) 222-6594 fax:(510)222-0274 e-mail: syfuller@igc.org
A community-led, community-designed research study was conducted in Richmond, California, to assess
the fishing habits, fish consumption patterns, demographics, and general awareness of health advisories
related to fish consumption. High school student interns with the Ma'at Youth Academy conducted short
interviews with shore-based anglers fishing at the Richmond Harbor and the San Pablo Reservoir. In a
multiple-response question, 73 percent (n=77) of the 105 anglers surveyed eat some or all of the fish they
catch and 70 percent (n=74) catch bass. Anglers were found predominantly to be residents of Richmond
(79 percent) and live in households of 1 to 4 people (71 percent); 40 percent of all anglers surveyed live in
households with at least one child aged 5 years or younger. The survey found that 64 percent of anglers
surveyed speak English and 26 percent speak Spanish as a primary language; other languages spoken in
the home by those surveyed included Laotian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, German, and Farsi. As many
as 65 percent of those surveyed did not know or think that local waters are contaminated. We conclude
that efforts at informing this population have been inadequate; continuing efforts to educate the
community, including a second survey, are currently under way.
Contaminated Subsistence Fish: A Yakama Nation Response
Chris Walsh, Carol Craig, and William Lambert
Primary Contact Information:
Yakama Indian Heath Center
401 Buster Road
Toppenish,WA 98948
ph: (509) 865-2102, x.208 fax: (509)865-6237 e-mail: cwalsh@yak.portland.ihs.gov
Pollution from agriculture, pulp and paper mills, aluminum smelters, mining, and nuclear weapons
production is present in the Columbia River watershed. The contaminants include pesticides, PCBs,
chlorinated dioxins and furans, arochlors, and metals. In addition to ecological risk, this contamination
may pose a risk for humans. Tribal people who follow traditional diets eat large amounts offish, and there
is concern mat they may be at elevated risk for organ damage and diseases such as cancer. Our project
has three major objectives: (1) To inform and educate the community about health risks related to the
contamination of subsistence fish. The stakeholders include the general tribal membership, elected
leaders, program managers and administrators, and health care providers. Further, there are vulnerable
segments of the population, including women of childbearing age, fetuses, infants and children, and
elders. (2) To foster joint problem solving in the tribal community. We seek to create an environment in
which the various stakeholders can work together to evaluate alternatives for reducing health risks. (3) As
culturally appropriate, to promote personal behavior change and protective action, and. raise the
awareness of health care providers and improve the recognition and treatment of disease. We present
our model of community engagement and shared decision-making. Focus groups with tribal leaders,
health care providers, and susceptible groups have defined risk messages mat are culturally appropriate,
and in turn are delivered by video programs and oral presentations. Clinicians are counseling patients on
diet and nutrition, and making improvements in screening for cancer. The Tribal Council is engaged in
planning recommendations for personal behavior change and is using the video programs to advocate
more stringent environmental protection at the federal and state levels. (This research is supported by the
NIEHS under Cooperative Agreement #7 R25 ES011074.)
F-3
-------
Cooperative Effort by West Virginia University, USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, Division of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR),
Department of Environmental Protection (PEP) for West Virginia Statewide Fish Tissue Analysis
William Toomey
West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
Environmental Engineering Division
815 Quarrier Street, Suite 418
Charleston, WV 25301
ph: (304) 558-6746 fax: (304) 558-0324 e-mail: wtoomey@wvdhhr.org
Obj ective/Background
The objective of this study is to determine the extent to which fish in the watersheds of West Virginia are
contaminated with poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury and the concentrations of those
contaminants.
The West Virginia Fish Consumption Advisory Technical Committee (FCATC) is represented by the
state's Division of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), and
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The FCATC's efforts to assess contaminants in fish have
been inhibited by the lack of current, statewide data and permanent funding for tissue collection and
analysis. In 2001 the DEP secured a grant for $35,000 from the USEPA for statewide monitoring offish
samples for PCBs and mercury in lakes and streams. These chemicals were selected based on a review of
the available historic fish tissue data within the state that indicated these chemicals are the most prevalent
pollutants of concern.
The FCATC targeted 53 lakes and streams for sampling. Sites were selected in an effort to maximize the
geographic coverage for fish tissue data. Sample collection was performed by DNR. The West Virginia
University (WVU)/United States Geological Survey's Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit were
contracted to perform tissue analysis. West Virginia's fish tissue consumption guidelines were adopted by
FCATC in 2002. This consumption guide, which is based on USEPA's fish advisory protocols, assesses
the toxicity of a variety of contaminants and offers guidance for developing consumption advisories for
children and adults who consume sport-caught fish. These guidelines allowed West Virginia to issue risk-
based advisories, rather than following U.S. Food and Drug Administration action levels. The
consumption guide provides meal limitations for the general public and for sensitive life stages (children
and pregnant women) and uses five categories of consumption: unlimited consumption, one meal per
week, one meal per month, six meals per year, and "do not eat."
Fish Collection/Analysis
A total of 53 rivers and lakes were sampled during the 2-year collection phase. Samples were collected from 65
different locations and resulted in a total of 306 composite samples. The total number offish collected was
1,409. The objective was to collect predators and "bottom feeders" (benthic fishes) from each site. Three size
composites were collected for each group (small, medium, and large) and a composite consisted of three to six
fish. The selection of species for this study was based on species distribution and desirability as a game fish.
Each individual fish was filleted and skinned. Fillets were combined with other fillets in composites and
homogenized according to USEPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories.
F-4
-------
Results/Preliminary Findings
Samples for PCB analysis are being analyzed. Mercury results for samples collected in 2002 are
summarized below. Mercury data for 2003 are not available at this time.
Data from the 2002 samples revealed that mercury levels were highest in bass and walleye. Suckers,
channel catfish, and trout had the lowest mercury values. For largemouth bass there were no differences
in concentrations of mercury related to size offish (small, medium, and large). When compared with the
West Virginia fish consumption guidelines, none of the composites fell into the "do not eat" category.
The results for the remaining categories were six meals per year, 9 composites; one meal per month, 106
composites; one meal per week, 38 composites; and unlimited consumption, 32 composites.
Evaluation of Maine's Risk Communication Program
Eric Frohmberg
Maine Bureau of Health
Environmental Health Unit
11 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
ph: (207)287-8141 fax: (207)287-3981 e-mail: eric.frohmberg@state.me.us
Maine has an ongoing risk communication program that distributes easy-to-read Safe Eating Guidelines
for fish consumption directly to pregnant women through OB/GYNs, FPs who deliver babies, and the
WIC program. The success of Maine's risk communication program will be evaluated based on a random
survey of women who have given birth to a child within the last 3 months. The sample will be drawn
from the birth certificate registry and will evaluate receipt of the state's easy-to-read brochure,
effectiveness of distribution methods, and any change in fish consumption behavior. USEPA funding via
the Consortium for Improving the Effectiveness of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury-
Contaminated Sport Fish has provided a Maine-specific baseline estimate of knowledge of the fish
consumption advisories from which to measure any increase in knowledge. The sample size (n=500) is
expected to provide 90 percent statistical power to detect an increase in general awareness of the mercury
advisories from the baseline of 40 percent to 50 percent or higher. In addition, participants are asked to
provide a hair sample, which will be analyzed for mercury to compare with baseline state and national
data and to identify real vs. perceived changes in the reporting offish consumption rates.
Evaluation of the Management of Water Quality and Fish Contamination in California's
Sacramento-San Joaquin Watershed: Lessons for Developing a More Integrated Model
Trina Mackie
California Department of Health Services
University of California, Berkeley
2608 Sacramento Street, Apt. A
Berkeley, CA 94702
ph: (510) 540-7262 e-mail: tmackie@dhs.ca.gov
Current management of water quality and fish contamination in California involves multiple federal,
state, and local agencies. Their efforts span a wide array of different work that includes ecosystem
restoration, pollution remediation, public health tracking, water and fish tissue monitoring, and public
outreach. With so many involved at such different levels, there are opportunities for projects to overlap
and parallel each oilier. Identifying these commonalities can aid agencies in meeting their goals of public
health and environmental protection. This evaluation will identify opportunities for collaboration on water
quality and fish contamination management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed. Collaboration may
entail sharing data, combining goals and resources to conduct a single study, cowriting a grant proposal,
F-5
-------
or coordinating on public outreach and education activities. Given its size and diversity, the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers watershed embodies some of the biggest challenges facing efficient management
of water quality and fish contamination problems in California and reflects many of the issues that are
relevant to the state as a whole. The approach and methods used in this evaluation will provide
recommendations that are appropriate for the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed and will produce a
model that is applicable to other areas of the state that face similar challenges with water quality and fish
contamination management.
Fish Consumption Mini-Grants
Amanda Guay
Oregon Department of Human Services
SHINE Program
800 NE Oregon Street, #827
Portland, OR 97232
ph: (503) 872-5357 fax: (503) 872-5398 e-mail: amanda.m.guay@state.or.us
The Portland Harbor Superfund site is a 6-mile stretch of the Willamette River in the city of Portland,
Oregon. Although the primary exposure pathway to river contaminants has been determined to be fish
consumption, not enough information exists about the anglers from specific ethnic and racial groups who
catch and consume fish from the harbor. It is known, however, that different fishing communities prefer
various species, fishing locations, and meal preparation techniques. A mini-grant opportunity was
developed in an attempt to focus outreach efforts to these communities. The desired outcome from these
grants is the development and implementation of culturally appropriate health education materials and
outreach activities. These community-based grants engage youth and community groups that serve
populations consuming fish from the Portland Harbor who would not otherwise be reached in health
education activities. Award amounts range from $1,500 to $2,000, with the intent of preventing and
reducing adverse health effects from fish consumption. This may provide a low-cost option for
implementing health education objectives for hard-to-reach populations in other communities.
Fish Contamination: A Tribal Perspective, Issues and Solutions
John Cox, Stuart Harris, and Barbara Harper
Primary Contact Information:
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801
ph: (509) 946-0939 fax: (541) 278-5380 e-mail: johncox@ctuir.com
Fish are an important food source for people throughout the world. In addition, fish are an essential
cultural element of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and many other
tribes in the Pacific Northwest and North America. To these indigenous people fish contamination is not
just about fish, it is a powerful unnatural force, anthropogenic in origin, that is disproportionately
undermining, eroding, and jeopardizing their culture, health, and well-being compared with U.S. norms.
The accelerated deculturalization caused by fish contamination as a matter of perspective is analogous to
the loss of the buffalo to the Plains Indians of North America in the mid-19th century. Studies to date have
shown that fish contamination is widespread throughout the world, affecting species that inhabit the
Columbia River Basin watershed, including the aboriginal lands of the CTUIR. Although lacking in depth
and breadth, results from these studies have provided the precursory information needed to perform risk
assessments for tribal communities using tribal based risk scenarios. Such analyses have shown mat a
traditional tribal life style in which fish are an important food source subjects the individual to acute and
chronic health risks 10 to 100 times the U.S. norm. Two important issues for tribes are (1) how to handle
and communicate this elevated risk to tribal members, and (2) how to protect this Treaty resource.
F-6
-------
Solutions should be knowledge-based and cooperative among state-holds, which will require further
monitoring and investigation of scientific, technical, jurisdictional, and legal issues. The poster
presentation is a distillation of the tribal perspective and information on fish contamination, the issues and
solutions.
Induction of Cvtochrome P450 Enzymes in Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by Florfenicol
Rachelle Kosoff
Cornell University
C5-173 VMC
Ithaca, NY 14853
ph: (607) 227-9882 e-mail: rek26@cornell.edu
There are only two antimicrobial agents currently in use in aquaculture in the United States, Romet-30
and Terramycin for Fish. However, they are not approved for all species currently produced in
aquaculture. With the fish farming industry growing as quickly as it is (10 billion pounds of imported and
domestic fish each year) and the continuous evolution of antimicrobial resistant bacteria, there is a
pressing need for a spectrum of approved drugs to combat bacterial diseases in aquaculture facilities. Part
of the approval process involves determining the time it takes for the antibiotics to clear from the fish's
system because residual antibiotics in the fish can affect the health of the consumer. Currently,
antimicrobials are evaluated on an individual species basis, which slows the approval process and
increases the cost of drug evaluations. If a single test species could be used to model or predict antibiotic
clearance in related species, the approval process could be expedited with consumers feeling safe that the
fish they are purchasing are devoid of any antimicrobial agents in their tissue. The specific purpose of this
study is to evaluate the effect that florfenicol has on the expression of hepatic P450 oxygenases of several
fish species after repeat intraperitoneal injection. CYP450s are known indicators of drug metabolism, and
therefore may provide a valid biomarker of antibiotic use in commercially relevant aquaculture species.
The initial study will examine the impact of Aquaflora (florfenicol as marketed by Schering-Plough,
Union, NJ) on the hepatic P450 system of a freshwater tilapia species (Oreochromis niloticus). This will
be accomplished using standard immunological techniques where the presence of hepatic P450s of the
tilapia will be detected with cross-reacting antibodies raised against known P450 isoforms (rat CYP1A1
and human CYP3A4). Once a baseline response has been established using tilapia, species-to-species
variation will be explored using channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and marine species hybrid striped
bass (Morone saxatilis male xMorone chrysops female) as test subjects. Information gathered in these
investigations will be used to determine whether P450 induction can be used as a reliable indicator of
antibiotic use and clearance across species lines, to streamline the approval process for antibiotics needed
to support the aquaculture industry. This also provides additional methods for testing illegal doses of
unapproved antibiotics in the worldwide aquaculture industry. This study is funded by the National
Research Support Project No. 7 (NRSP-7), the Minor Use Animal Drug Program of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service of the USDA (CREES/USDA).
Keeping Our Traditions and Our Families Alive: Micmac Fish Consumption Survey
Susan Peterson
Aroostook Band of Micmacs Environmental Health Department
8 Northern Road
Presque Isle, ME 04769
ph: (207) 764-7765 e-mail: speterson@micmachealth.org
No abstract provided.
F-7
-------
Long-term Studies of Dieldrin in Fish Below Two Midwestern Reservoirs
Donna S. Lutz
Iowa State University
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering
394 Town Engineering
Ames, IA 50011-3232
ph: (515) 294-9720 fax: (515)294-8216 e-mail: dslutz@iastate.edu
Results from 25 years of monitoring class III common carp (Cyprinus carpio) fish fillets and whole fish
tissue for dieldrin residues below two Midwestern flood reservoirs will be presented. (For example,
dieldrin in carp fillets averaged 65 parts per billion (ppb) in 1977, decreasing to 3.3 ppb in 2002 below
Red Rock Reservoir in south-central Iowa.) Data from 2003 will be available by conference time. Data
from other parameters (alachlor, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, and trifluralin) will also be presented. The
project, Des Moines River Water Quality Network (http://www.cce.iastate.edu/research/lutz/dmrwqn/
dmrwqn.html), is conducted by Iowa State University, Department of Civil, Construction, and
Environmental Engineering, and is sponsored by the Rock Island District Corps of Engineers.
Managing Risks from Contaminated Fish in the Columbia Basin: A Tribal Perspective
Valerie Lee and Dr. Pamela Bridgen
Primary Contact Information:
Environment International Ltd.
5505 34th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105
ph: (206) 525-3362 fax: (206) 525-0869 e-mail: valerie.lee@envintl.com
Using USEPA's 2002 Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey and the Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission's Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm
Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin as starting points, we analyzed the results of the chemical
analyses and risk assessments to put them into perspective for a tribal client. Our report discussed the
survey methods, the chemicals of concern, and the risks and benefits offish consumption. A key aspect of
the project was communicating the implications and applicability of formal risk assessment
methodologies to subsistence tribal populations in terms of consumption rates and harvest locations. We
also researched approaches to managing risks from contaminated fish around the United States to provide
context and policy options for tribal risk managers. In addition to our report, we created informational
brochures for tribal members and area residents to help them make better choices about eating locally
caught fish. Our poster presents a summary of our findings, a comparison of benchmarks for fish
advisories, and lessons learned for communicating risks to tribal populations.
Mercury Content in West Coast Troll-Caught Albacore Tuna (Thunnus alalunga)
Michael T. Morrissey, Tomoko Okada, and Rosalee Rasmussen
Primary contact information:
Oregon State University Seafood Laboratory
2001 Marine Drive
Astoria, OR 97103
ph: (503) 325-4531 fax: (503) 325-2753 e-mail: michael.morrissey@oregonstate.edu
Ninety-one albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) captured during the 2003 commercial fishing season were
tested for mercury content in the fish muscle. Additional information, such as location, weight, length,
lipid, and moisture content, was also collected. The fish were harvested between 29.25 degrees north (off
Southern California) and 48.30 degrees north (off the coast of British Columbia, Canada) from July to
November. Fish weight ranged from 3.14 to 11.62 kg, and length was in the range of 50.8 to 86.4 cm.
F-8
-------
Mercury content was found to range from a low of 0.027 microgram per gram (ug/g) (ppm) to a high of
0.26 ug/g in the samples tested. The average mercury content was 0.14 ug/g, which is well below both
U.S. FDA and Canadian standards (1.0 ug/g and 0.50 ug/g, respectively). There was a positive correlation
between length and weight of albacore with mercury content. There was no correlation with date of
capture. Results indicate that West Coast troll-caught albacore have low levels of mercury in the edible
flesh and meet international standards for mercury levels in fish.
Mercury in Marine Life
Gregg Serenbetz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailcode 4504T
Washington, DC 20460
ph: (202) 566-1253 fax: (202) 566-1336 e-mail: serenbetz.gregg@epa.gov
Mercury levels in fish and wildlife have long been a concern of the USEPA. Federal regulatory actions
have limited mercury emissions to air and direct discharges to waterbodies. Most of the data supporting
these actions relate to mercury concentrations in freshwater fish. The Mercury in Marine Life project is an
attempt to assess the extent of mercury monitoring and the level of mercury contamination in the
estuarine and marine environment nationwide. Data sets from federal, regional, and state monitoring
programs covering the estuarine and coastal waters of 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
were reviewed and aggregated into one database. The completed database contains over 15,000 mercury
tissue concentration records for marine fish and shellfish taken over the past 10 years (roughly 1990-
2001).
Monitoring Mercury and Organic Contaminants in Freshwater Fish from Washington State
Dale Norton
Washington State Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive
Olympia,WA 98504-7710
ph: (360) 407-6765 fax:(360)407-6884 e-mail: dnor461@ecy.wa.gov
Various historical monitoring efforts throughout Washington State have detected toxic contaminants in
fish tissue, surface water, and sediment. In many cases, levels of contaminants in fish tissue have been
high enough to threaten the health of humans and wildlife. Increased awareness of potential health effects
on humans and wildlife, such as reproductive abnormalities, neurological problems, and behavioral
changes, has generated a need for more information about the extent offish tissue contamination in
Washington. The Washington State Department of Ecology has responded to these concerns with a
statewide Persistent-Bioaccumulative-Toxic (PBT) Initiative. Two monitoring efforts were developed to
assess the extent of freshwater fish tissue contamination: a statewide mercury survey and a longer-term
effort for additional contaminants such as pesticides, PCBs, PBDEs, and TCDDs/TCDFs. The statewide
mercury survey was conducted to support the goals of the Washington State Mercury Chemical Action
Plan. Total mercury concentrations were measured in 185 bass collected from 18 lakes and 2 rivers
throughout Washington to assess the extent of mercury contamination of this popular game fish. Up to 10
individual fish were collected at each site and were analyzed to evaluate relationships between tissue
mercury levels and other characteristics such as fish age, length, weight, sex, and lipids. These data would
also aid in designing a long-term trend monitoring program. Water and sediment samples were also
collected to examine other factors that could affect mercury uptake in fish. Mercury concentrations in
tissue were found to vary widely among waterbodies and among individual fish from the same waterbody.
Tissue mercury levels were strongly correlated with fish age, length, and weight. Twenty-three percent of
the fish had mercury levels exceeding USEPA's Fish Tissue Residual Criterion for methylmercury of 300
F-9
-------
micrograms per kilogram (fig/kg) wet weight. Fifty-one percent of the fish had tissue concentrations at or
above a Washington State Department of Health Interim Fish Tissue Screening Criterion of 150 ug/kg
wet weight. The longer-term effort, the Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program, began in 2001. Its
goal is to monitor freshwater fish and surface water for a range of contaminants in areas where data are
old or lacking. Results from this program are being used to assess the potential for adverse health effects
on humans and wildlife. The information generated is also being used by resource managers and other
groups to help educate the public on the extent of toxic contamination in Washington State. Since 2001
fish have been collected from approximately 30 sites (10 per year). Results from 2001 are available on the
Internet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/toxics/index.htiiil, along with a description of the
program.
Palos Verdes Shelf Fish Contamination Education Collaborative
Sharon Lin and Gina Margillo
Primary Contact Information:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Superfund
75 Hawthorne Street (SFD-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
ph: (415) 972-3446 fax: (415)947-3526 e-mail: lin.sliaron@epa.gov
USEPA's Fish Contamination Education Collaborative is a participatory public outreach and education
project that is part of EPA Region 9's overall program to address human health risks posed by fish
contamination related to the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site in Southern California. The goals of the
Collaborative are (1) to reduce exposure of populations to site-related chemicals in fish caught off the
coast of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and (2) to conduct education with the most affected
populations so they can make informed decisions about fish contamination issues. Outreach on fishing
piers, in fish markets, through workshops with target populations, and through use of the media is being
conducted in Cantonese, Cebuano, Chamorro, English, Ilocano, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Marshallese,
Sanioan, Spanish, Tagalog, Tongan, and Vietnamese.
PCDDs/PCDFs, PCBs, and PBDEs in Wild and Farm-Raised Fish
William Luksemburg, Martha Maier, and Andrew Patterson
Primary Contact Information:
Alta Analytical Laboratory
1104 Windfield Way-
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
ph: (530) 677-0300 fax:(530)6730106 e-mail: billux@altalab.com
This poster presents results for concentrations of PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs, and PBDEs (polybrominated
diphenylethers, a class of flame retardants) in wild and farm-raised fish. The toxicity of PCDDs/PCDFs
and PCBs is widely documented, but little is known about the effects of PBDE exposure. Recent studies
indicate that it may be similar to PCB exposure. This study will include both freshwater and saltwater fish
and as many of the same species of farm-raised fish.
F-10
-------
Possible Ramifications of Higher Mercury Concentrations in Fillet Tissue of Skinnier Fish
Thomas Hinners
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ORD/NERL/ESD/ECB
944 Harmon Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89119
ph: (702) 798-2140 fax: (702)798-2142 e-mail: hinners.tom@epa.gov
Mercury concentrations were found to be statistically higher in the fillet tissue of the skinnier individuals
of a fish species (striped bass) experiencing starvation when collected from Lake Mead, on the Arizona-
Nevada border. This is considered a consequence of a faster loss of the body's fillet tissue (by
metabolism) than the loss of methylmercury from the body. Because such a response could be a common
phenomenon and one having relevance to consumer guidance, it is offered for consideration during the
Forum's special session on the development of a Joint National Mercury Advisory. Although this work
was reviewed by USEPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency
policy.
Research, Outreach, and Education on Fish Contamination in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Watershed (Delta Watershed Fish Project)
Sun Hyung Lee and Samira Jones
Primary Contact Information:
California Department of Health Services
Environmental Health Investigations
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
ph: (510) 622-4476 fax: (510) 622-4505 e-mail: slee@dhs.ca.gov
Mercury, a potent neurotoxin, bioaccumulates in fish in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed
at levels that may pose health risks to people who consume the fish. Mercury is prevalent in the Delta watershed
because of human activities, such as past mercury mining in the Coastal range and gold mining in the Sierra
Nevada, and naturally occurring deposits. Pregnant and nursing women, infants, and young children need to be
especially careful about limiting their exposure to mercury. Excessive exposure to mercury can harm the
nervous system of developing babies and children, leading to subtle decreases in learning ability, language
skills, attention, and memory.
The poster focuses on activities under way by the Delta Watershed Fish Project to reduce exposure to
mercury and other chemicals among populations that consume fish caught in the Delta watershed. The
Environmental Health Investigations Branch (EHIB) of the California Department of Health Services,
working in collaboration with oilier state and local agencies, tribes, and community-based organizations,
is undertaking a number of activities to address this concern. During August 2002-September 2003,
EHIB conducted a needs assessment in five Delta counties to identify specific populations that consume
fish caught in the Delta watershed and their awareness, concerns, and information needs. Based on the
results of the needs assessment, a local stakeholder advisory group was created to involve community
members in identifying appropriate outreach, education, and training activities, and developing,
translating, and distributing materials. The advisory group will focus on raising awareness offish
consumption advisories and the health risks of exposure to mercury in fish to the populations they serve,
particularly women of childbearing age and pregnant and breastfeeding women. Populations that fish for
subsistence in the Delta watershed, such as Latino, Southeast Asian, African American, and Russian
communities, are also at risk. The project will provide training and information to social service and
health care providers who serve the target populations and will seek their assistance in disseminating
information. Additional needs assessments in two other counties are under way, and options for
F-ll
-------
conducting fish consumption studies are being explored to learn more about the populations that are
consuming fish caught in the Delta watershed.
Vibrio vulnificus Education
Ken B. Moore
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
209-2 Dawson Road
Columbia, SC 29223
ph: (803) 788-7559 fax: (803) 788-7576 e-mail: issc@issc.org
Illnesses and deaths associated with the consumption of raw molluscan shellfish containing Vibrio
vulnificus continue to be a significant challenge for public health officials and the shellfish industry. In
2001 the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC) expanded the scope of the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (NSSP) to include measures to reduce the number of illnesses associated with V.
vulnificus through the adoption of a national Vibrio vulnificus Risk Management Plan.
The ISSC's Vibrio vulnificus Illness Risk Management Plan includes a disease reduction goal for
decreasing the rate of etiologically confirmed shellfish-borne V. vulnificus septicemia illnesses from the
consumption of commercially harvested raw or undercooked oysters by 40 percent within 5 years and by
60 percent within 7 years. The plan includes three primary components: (1) education of the at-risk
population, (2) development and promotion of a post-harvest treatment process mat eliminates V.
vulnificus, and (3) harvest controls. The education component focuses on the education of high-risk
consumers, health professionals, and a targeted, broader consumer audience. Each state's involvement in
this collective illness reduction program would focus on these cumulative illness reduction goals. The
initial years of the plan focus on education and post-harvest treatment; however, should the goals not be
met, the states would identify and prepare for implementation of specific harvest, labeling, or other
controls that would provide equivalent illness reduction.
Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacterium and is considered the most lethal of the vibrios inhabiting
brackish and salt water. This bacterium is not the result of bacteriological or chemical pollution of marine
waters but occurs naturally in warm, coastal areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico. V. vulnificus is found in
higher concentrations from April through October, when coastal waters are warm.
Most healthy individuals are not at risk for Vibrio vulnificus infection. Persons at high risk include those
with liver disorders, such as hepatitis, cirrhosis, and liver cancer; hemochromatosis; diabetes mellitus; and
immunocompromising conditions such as HIV/AIDS or cancer, or undergoing treatments for them.
Individuals who take prescribed medication to decrease stomach acid levels or who have had gastric
surgery are also at risk.
Filter-feeding shellfish, such as oysters and clams, concentrate Vibrio vulnificus in their tissues. When a
person eats these shellfish raw or undercooked, the bacteria enter the digestive tract and multiply rapidly.
In addition to ingestion, high-risk individuals can become infected when cuts, burns, or sores are exposed
to sea water containing Vibrio vulnificus.
The ISSC is a national, nonprofit organization formed in 1982 to foster and promote shellfish sanitation
through the cooperation of state and federal control agencies, the shellfish industry, and the academic
community. The ISSC adopts uniform procedures, which are incorporated into the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program and implemented by all shellfish control agencies.
F-12
-------
Water Quality Standards Database
Bill Kramer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
MC4305T
Washington, DC 20460
ph: (202) 566-0385 fax: (202) 566-0409 e-mail: kramer.bill@epa.gov
USEPA is developing the Water Quality Standards Database (WQSDB) to improve public access to
information on how the waters they care about are being protected for fish consumption, and how actions
in their watershed can help or harm those waters. The first phase of developing this online database
consists of a compilation of "designated uses," which describe the functions each waterbody is intended
to support—fishing, swimming, drinking water source, or some other use. The second phase will add
numeric "water quality criteria," which represent the quality of water that supports particular uses. When
completed, the WQSDB will allow access to maps and tables for all of the approximately 2.7 million
surface waterbodies across the nation. WQS regulations for all 79 states, tribes, and territories and tables
and maps of the 28 jurisdictions currently on the database can be viewed at www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase.
Mapping, Modeling and Analysis of Environmental Contaminants: Mercury Pilot Project
Paul Hearn, Stephen Wente, John Aguinaldo, David Donate, Susan Price, Seth Tanner, and
Ovidio Rivero-Bartolomei
Primary contact information:
U.S. Geological Society
2280 Woodale Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
ph: (763) 783-3272 fax: (763) 783-3103 e-mail: spwente@usgs.gov
Understanding the causes and consequences of mercury contamination in the environment is a problem of
enormous geographic scope and scientific complexity. Effectively addressing this task requires the
integration of data and expertise from many scientific disciplines. This Web site was created to support
environmental and health researchers, as well as land and resource managers, by providing the following:
1. Easy access to key environmental mercury datasets, including atmospheric mercury emissions, NADP
monitoring sites, and mercury concentrations in fish tissue, soils, stream sediments, and coal. All data are
downloadable in shapefile format with included .dbf files.
2. An online descriptive model for mercury in fish tissue that factors out variations in mercury due to
differences in species, length, and sample type. Application of this model to a comprehensive national
compilation of fish tissue data will allow the detection of spatial and temporal trends in mercury
concentrations that would otherwise be obscured. The model will also help state and local agencies reduce
the costs of their sampling efforts for estimating fish-tissue mercury concentrations without loss of
effectiveness.
3. Online mapping tools, USGS maps, imagery, and other thematic data that allow the display and
analysis of mercury data and printing of maps. Data from The National Map include digital versions of
more than 50,000 topographic quadrangles, nationwide coverage of 1-meter aerial photography, Landsat
satellite imagery, land cover, elevation, hydrology, transportation, and geographic names.
F-13
-------
------- |