United States Office of Water EPA - 823-R-05-006
Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 November 17, 2005
Agency
wEPA
Proceedings of the 2005
National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
Baltimore, Maryland, September 18-21, 2005
-------
Proceedings of the 2005 National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor at Camden Yards
Baltimore, Maryland
September 18-21, 2005
EPA-823-R-05-006
-------
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments x
Introduction xi
Section I. Agenda
Section II. Summaries
Section 11-1. State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Northeast II-l
- Evaluation of Advisories II-l
- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes.. II-l
- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings II-l
- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants II-l
- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites II-2
- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards .. II-2
- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs II-2
- Issues/Concerns/Large-Scale Efforts II-2
East II-5
- Evaluation of Advisories H-5
- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes.. II-5
- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings II-5
- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants II-5
- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites II-5
- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards .. II-5
- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs H-5
- Issues/Concerns II-6
South II-6
- Evaluation of Advisories II-6
- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes.. II-7
- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings II-7
- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants H-7
- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites II-8
- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards .. II-8
- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs II-8
Great Lakes II-9
- Evaluation of Advisories II-9
- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes.. II-9
- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings II-9
- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants II-9
in
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Table of Contents
- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites II-9
- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards .. II-9
- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs II-9
Midwest/West 11-10
- Evaluation of Advisories 11-10
- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes U-10
- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings 11-10
- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants 11-10
- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites 11-10
- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards 11-10
- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs II-l 1
- Issues/Concerns 11-11
West 11-11
- Evaluation of Advisories 11-11
- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes n-11
- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings 11-12
- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants 11-12
- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites 11-12
- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards 11-12
- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs 11-12
- Issues/Concerns 11-12
Nongovernmental 11-13
Section 11-2. Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
Joint Federal Mercury Advisory: EPA's Choice of the One Meal/Week Limit for
Freshwater Fish Consumption 11-15
James Fendergast, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast 11-16
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol 11-17
PatMcCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols in the
Upper Mississippi River Basin 11-18
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Gulf Coast State Fish Consumption Advisory for King Mackerel 11-20
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
IV
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Table of Contents
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice II-21
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Akwesasne MohawkFish Advisory Communication 11-22
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the Cheyenne River Sioux
Indian Reservation 11-23
Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Section 11-3. Welcoming Remarks
Welcoming Remarks, Monday, September 19, 2005 11-25
Benjamin Grumbles, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- The Rel ease of the 2004 Fi sh Advi sory Data Increased Monitoring 11-26
- U.S. EPA/FDA Memorandum of Understanding 11-26
- Future Prospects 11-26
Welcoming Remarks, Monday, September 19, 2005 11-27
KendylP. Philbrick, Maryland Department of the Environment
EPA Advisory Program Update 11-29
James Pendergast for Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update 11-30
Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration
Section 11-4. Sampling and Analysis Issues
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design 11-33
Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size for Developing
Fish Consumption Advice 11-34
Jim VanDer slice, Washington State Department of Health
US FDA's Total Diet Study 11-35
Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State 11-36
DavidMcBride, Washington State Department of Health
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program .. 11-37
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical
Services, Ltd.; and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
v
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Table of Contents
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination of Fish from
National Fish Hatcheries 11-39
George Noguchi, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition 11-41
Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis 11-43
Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mapping Sensitivity of Aquatic Ecosystems to Mercury Inputs across the Contiguous
United States 11-45
David P. Krabbenhoft, U.S. Geological Survey
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes in Exposure
Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule 11-45
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Section 11-5. Toxicology
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin 11-49
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions 11-50
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury 11-51
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD 11-52
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective 11-53
Eric B. Rimm, Hamard School of Public Health
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data 11-54
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA 11-55
Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Table of Contents
Overview of the National Toxicology Program Studies of Interactions between Individual
PCB Congeners 11-56
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National
Institutes of Health
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science 11-57
John D. Schell, BBL, Inc.
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance 11-58
P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration
U.S. EPA's New Cancer Guidelines 11-60
RitaSchoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation 11-61
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
PBDEs: Toxicology Update 11-62
Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Section 11-6. Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics 11-65
William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption 11-66
Eric B. Rimm, Han>ard School of Public Health
DHA and Infant Development 11-66
Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center
DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits for Neuropsychological
Function 11-67
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes 11-69
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks 11-70
Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort 11-71
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
vn
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Table of Contents
Section 11-7. State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
"Eating Fish for Good Health": A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits 11-73
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
The Use of Human Biomonitoring as a Risk Management Tool for Deriving Fish
Consumption Advice 11-74
Scott M. Arnold, Alaska Division of Public Health
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne 11-74
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Moha\vk Tribe
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption 11-75
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
Section 11-8. Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory 11-77
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination.... 11-78
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Maine's Moms Survey - Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts 11-79
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen in the Baltimore
Harbor & Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and Lessons Learned 11-80
Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers 11-82
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Risk Management and Communication
Program: "Reducing Health Risks to the Anishinaabe from Methylmercury" 11-83
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Problems with Media Reports of Fish-Contaminant Studies: Implications for Risk
Communication 11-83
Barbara A. Knuth for Judy D. Sheeshka, Department of Family Relations and
Applied Nutrition, University ofGuelph
Vlll
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Table of Contents
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs in the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan 11-84
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology,
Michigan State University
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study 11-85
Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program .. n-88
Henry W. Love joy, Seafood Safe, Barbara A. Kniith, Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University
Section III. Presentations
Appendix A: Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Appendix B: Final Participant List
Appendix C: Poster Abstracts
IX
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
RTI International* (RTI) prepared this document under Contract Number 68-C-02-110, Task
Order 12, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The 2005 National Forum
on Contaminants in Fish was co-sponsored by the U.S. EPA and the Maryland Department of the
Environment. Jeffrey Bigler was the U.S. EPA's task order project officer for the project.
Camille Heaton was RTFs project manager.
Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by U.S. EPA, it
may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be
inferred.
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Introduction
Introduction
From September 18-21, 2005, representatives of states, U.S. territories, tribes, federal agencies,
and other interested organizations and individuals attended the 2005 National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish in Baltimore, Maryland. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) and the Maryland Department of the Environment co-sponsored the Forum.
The 2005 Forum was the eighth National Forum to be held. The first Forum was convened in
1989, and regular Forums have been held every 15 to 18 months since 1995. The location of the
Forum has rotated around the country and has included Alexandria, Virginia (1999), Chicago,
Illinois (2001), Burlington, Vermont (2002), San Diego, California (2004), and Baltimore,
Maryland (2005).
Early Forums were attended by representatives from states and tribes, but as public interest in
fish advisories increased, additional groups became involved. Attendees now include local and
national environmental groups, fishing industry representatives, fish marketing firms, fish and
shellfish aquaculture groups, members of the medical and allied health communities, the national
press, and interested private citizens. In addition, representatives from several federal U.S.
agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National
Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), as well as representatives from other
countries, routinely participate in the Forum.
Forum agendas are developed by steering committees, generally composed of representatives of
state, tribal, and federal agencies. The agendas are developed to provide a variety of
perspectives and approaches to assessing and communicating public health risks related to fish
contamination. The Forums present the latest science and public health policies.
Topics for the 2005 Forum on Contaminants in Fish included:
Coordination Between States, Regions, and Tribes
Sampling and Analysis Issues
Toxicology
Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
• Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts.
In addition to the technical presentation sessions, states and tribes met in workshops to discuss
issues pertinent to their regions. A poster session was also held to further the exchange of ideas.
This document contains the proceedings of the Forum, including the agenda, a summary of
workgroup discussions, abstracts of presentations, and slides used by the presenters. Please note
that the slides in Section IE are the exact presentations given at the Forum. In addition, three
presentations are not included at the request of the authors due to pending publication. These
are: Krabbenhoft's "Mapping Sensitivity of Aquatic Ecosystems to Mercury Inputs across the
Contiguous United States" (Sampling and Analysis session), Arnold's "The Use of Human
Biomonitoring as a Risk Management Tool for Deriving Fish Consumption Advice" (State
and Tribal Approaches to Risk
XI
-------
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings Introduction
Management session), and Knuth's "Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Risk
Management and Communication Program: 'Reducing Health Risks to the Anishinaabe from
Methylmercury'" (Risk Communication session). The appendices include biographical
information on the speakers, the attendee list, and abstracts of the posters.
This complete document can be accessed from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/.
For additional information, please contact:
Jeffrey D. Bigler
National Program Manager
National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4305T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Email: bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Phone: 202-566-0389
Fax: 202-566-0409
The steering committee for the 2005 Fish Forum included the following individuals:
Jeffrey Bigler (Co-chair)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Joseph Beaman (Co-chair)
Maryland Department of the Environment
jbeaman@mde.state.md.us
Henry Anderson
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
anderha@dhfs.state.wi.us
Robert Brodberg
California Environmental Protection Agency
rbrodber@oehha.ca.gov
Anthony Forti
New York State Department of Health
ajf01@health.state.ny .us
Eric Frohmberg
Maine Bureau of Health
Eric.frohmberg@maine.gov
Don Kraemer
Food and Drug Administration
Dkraemer.cfsan.fda.gov
xn
-------
Proceedings of the 2005 National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Section I
Agenda
-------
-------
2005 National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
Baltimore Marriott inner Harbor at Camden Yards ° Baltimore, Maryland
September 18-21,2005
Sunday, September 18, 2005
7:30 a.m. -5:00 p.m.
9:00-10:20 a.m.
10:20-10:40 a.m.
10:40 a.m.-12:00 noon
12:00 noon-1:15 p.m.
1:15-1:30 p.m.
1:30- 1:50 p.m.
State/Regional Cooperation Ptojects
1:50-2:10 p.m.
2:10-2:30 p.m.
2:30-2:50 p.m.
2:50-3:10 p.m.
3:10-3:40 p.m.
3:40-4:00 p.m.
4:00-4:20 p.m.
Registration
State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Topics of Interest to Group Members
Break
State and Tribal Regional Workgroups (continued)
Lunch (on your own)
Grand Ballroom Foyer
Grand Ballroom
Welcome State and Tribal Coordinators
Jeffrey Bigler, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration,
Maryland Department of the Environment
Joint Federal Mercury Advisory: EPA's Choice of the One Meal/Week
Limit for Freshwater Fish Consumption
James F. Pendergast, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish Along the Atlantic Coast
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory
Protocols in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Gulf Coast State Fish Consumption Advisory for King Mackerel
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
Break
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Q&A Session
Coordination Between State and Tribal Nations
4:20-4:40 p.m.
4:40-5:00 p.m.
5:00-5:20 p.m.
7:00-9:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation
Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Q&A Session
Break for Dinner (on your own)
Workgroup Meeting: Atlantic Coast PCB Advisory Chesapeake Room
Adjourn for the Day
1
-------
Monday, September 19, 2005
8:00 - 8:20 a.m. Formal Welcome and Introductions Grand Ballroom
General Forum Moderators:
Jeffrey Bigler, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
Welcoming Remarks
Benjamin Grumbles, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kendl P. Philbrick, Maryland Department of the Environment
8:20 - 8:35 a.m. EPA Advisory Program Update
James F. Pendergast for Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8:35 - 8:50 a.m. Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update
Donald W. Kraemer, Food and Drug Administration
Sampling and Analysis Issues
Moderator: Robert Brodberg, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency
8:50 - 9:00 a.m. Introduction
Robert Brodberg, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
California Environmental Protection Agency
9:00 - 9:20 a.m. Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design
Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
9:20 - 9:40 a.m. How Many Fish Do We Need? Protocol for Calculating
Sample Size for Developing Fish Consumption Advice
Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health
9:40 - 10:00 a.m. US FDA's Total Diet Study
Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration
10:00-10:20 a.m. Break
10:20 - 10:40 a.m. Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store-Bought Fish
from Washington State
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
10:40 - 11:00 a.m. Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing
and Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC
John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.
Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
11:00 - 11:20 a.m. Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination
of Fish from National Fish Hatcheries
George Noguchi, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
11:20 - 11:40 a.m. Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year,
and Body Condition
Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11:40 a.m. - 12:00 noon Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations
for Regulatory Analysis
Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
12:00 noon -1:10 p.m. Lunch (on your own)
-------
Monday, September 19, 2005 (continued)
Sampling and Analysis Issues (continued)
Moderator: Robert Brodberg, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency
1:10 - 1:30 p.m. Mapping Sensitivity of Aquatic Ecosystems to Mercury Inputs
Across the Contiguous United States
David Krabbenhoft, U. S. Geological Survey
1:30 - 1:50 p.m. Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes
in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Toxicoloqv
Moderators: David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley
1:50 - 2:00 p.m. Introduction
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
Moderator: Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley
2:00 - 2:20 p.m. Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
2:20 - 2:40 p.m. Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury-Selenium Interactions
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
2:40 - 3:00 p.m. NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3:00-3:30 p.m. Break
3:30 - 4:00 p.m. A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the
Methylmercury RfD
Alan H. Stern, Division of Science, Research, and Technology,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
4:00 - 4:20 p.m. Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective
Eric B. Rimm, Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition,
Harvard School of Public Health
4:20 - 4:40 p.m. Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
4:40 - 5:10 p.m. Mercury Panel Discussion
Moderator: Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley
6:30 - 8:30 p.m. Reception and Poster Displays Stadium Ballroom, 2nd Floor
8:30 p.m. Adjourn for the Day
-------
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Toxicology (continued)
Moderators: David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley
8:00 - 8:10 a.m. Introduction Grand Ballroom
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
8:1 0 - 8:30 a.m. Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA
Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8:30 - 8:50 a.m. Overview of National Toxicology Program Studies of Interactions
Between Individual PCB Congeners
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
National Institutes of Health
8:50 - 9:10 a.m. Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science
John D. Schell, BBL Sciences
9:1 0 - 9:30 a.m. History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance
P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration
9:30 - 9:50 a.m. U.S. EPA's New Cancer Guidelines
Rita Schoeny, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
9:50- 10:20 a.m. Break
Moderator: Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley
1 0:20 - 1 0:30 a.m. Introduction — Current Approach to Risk-Based Fish Advisories
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Moderator: Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley
*• Qmega-3 Fatly Acids
1 0:30 - 1 0:50 a.m. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics
William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
1 0:50 -11:10 a.m. Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
Eric B. Rimm, Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition,
Harvard School of Public Health
11 :10 - 11 :30 a.m. DHA and Infant Development
Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center
1 1 :30 - 1 1 :50 a.m. DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits
for Neuropsychological Function
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 1 :50 a.m. - 1 :00 p.m. Lunch (on your own)
-------
Tuesday, September 20, 2005 (continued)
*• Health Benefits of Fish Consumption (continued)
1:00 - 1:20 p.m. Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1:20 - 1:40 p.m. Panel Discussion on the Health Benefits of Fish Consumption in Adults
Moderator: Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks
Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
2:00 - 2:20 p.m. Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
2:20-2:50 p.m. Break
Toxicology (continued)
Moderators: David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
2:50 - 3:10 p.m. PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
3:10 - 3:30 p.m. PBDEs: Toxicology Update
Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
Moderator: Randall Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
3:30 - 3:40 p.m. Introduction
Moderator: Randall Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
3:40 - 4:00 p.m. "Eating Fish for Good Health": A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
4:00 - 4:20 p.m. The Use of Human Biomonitoring as a Risk Management Tool for Deriving
Fish Consumption Advice
Scott M. Arnold, Alaska Division of Public Health
4:20 - 4:40 p.m. A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
4:40 - 5:00 p.m. Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
5:00 - 5:20 p.m. Open Discussion
Moderator: Randall Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
5:2 0 p. m. Adjourn for the Day
-------
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Moderator: Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment
8:00 - 8:10 a.m. Introduction Grand Ballroom
Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration,
Maryland Department of the Environment
8:10 - 8:30 a.m. Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
8:30 - 8:50 a.m. Risk Communication: Lessons Learned about Message
Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute,
Rutgers University
Moderator: Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment
8:50 - 9:10 a.m. Maine's Moms Survey—Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
9:10 - 9:30 a.m. Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen
in the Baltimore Harbor and Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and
Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration,
Maryland Department of the Environment
9:30 - 9:50 a.m. Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among
Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech University
9:50-10:20 a.m. Break
10:20 - 10:40 a.m. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Risk Management and
Communication Program: "Reducing Health Risks to the Anishinaabe
from Methylmercury"
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
10:40 - 11:00 a.m. Problems With Media Reports of Fish-Contaminant Studies:
Implications for Risk Communication
Barbara A. Knuth for Judy D. Sheeshka, Department of Family Relations and
Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph
11:00 - 11:20 a.m. The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture Through
Signs in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology,
Michigan State University
Moderator: Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment
11:20 - 11:40 a.m. Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study
Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
11:40 a.m. - 12:00 noon Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing
and Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
12:00 noon - 12:30 p.m. Closing Remarks
General Forum Moderators:
Jeffrey Bigler, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joseph R. Beaman, Technical and Regulatory Services Administration,
Maryland Department of the Environment
12:30 p.m. Adjournment
6
-------
Proceedings of the 2005 National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Section II
Summaries
n-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
n-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
H-3 Welcoming Remarks
II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
II-5 Toxicology
n-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
H-7 State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
Please note that the slides in Section III are the exact presentations given at the Forum.
-------
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Forum participants were divided into six separate workgroups based on the geographical
region in which they resided: Northeast, East, South, Great Lakes, Midwest/West, and West.
Each regional workgroup met independently to discuss issues related to the states and tribes in
their region. In addition, representatives of each state were presented with a list of issues to form
the basis for much of the discussion. An additional group for attendees not representing states or
tribes (the Nongovernmental Workgroup) was also organized. Summarized below are the
highlights of the workgroup discussions and the questionnaires.
Northeast
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 (Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and
Vermont) and one tribe (Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point) participated in the forum group
discussion.
Evaluation of Advisories
• All five states in this region evaluate awareness or effectiveness of advisories. The
frequency of such evaluations ranges from "infrequently" or "periodically" to every 3-5
years.
Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes
• None of the states or tribes in this region coordinates advisory development/management
with other tribes or states.
Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings
• Three states and one tribe in this region collect data on adult mercury poisonings.
However, New Jersey relies on occupational mercury samples that are reported to the
New Jersey Department of Health on a mandatory basis (not poisonings per se).
Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants
• Three states and one tribe in this region do not monitor for bioaccumulative contaminants
at this time.
• Massachusetts has extensive information on polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels in
people who live near the New Bedford Harbor and General Electric Housatonic River
Superfund sites; data have shown higher PCB levels in blood offish eaters.
• One urban New Jersey hospital obstetric department currently collects meconium,
amniotic fluid, and cord blood for research. These are analyzed for phthalates, pesticides,
and mercury. Analysis for PCBs and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) is
anticipated.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-1
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites
• All five states in this region revisit existing mercury advisory sites for tissue testing. The
extent of such visits ranges from conducting continued monitoring at selected sites to
revisiting sites every 5 years (if funded) or as resources allow.
Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards
• Only two states in this region have adopted a mercury fish tissue-based water quality
criterion in their water quality standards; three states and one tribe in this region have not.
Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs
• Environmental regulatory agencies need a criterion (states would like the analytical
methods for PCBs to be updated and would like health agencies to be involved.)
• Three states and one tribe in this region agree there should be a fish tissue-based water
quality criterion for PCBs (two of these indicate it should be for total PCBs).
Issues/Concerns/Large-Scale Efforts
• General
- Most/all feel the "message" about advisories is very sensitive and needs careful
crafting.
- Tribal coordination - The state of Maine and the Passamaquoddy Tribe plan to talk
further (e.g., to follow up with the public health tracking person regarding asthma and
perhaps other concerns).
- There is general interest in letting states consider impacts of out-of-state sources on
mercury impacts.
• Vermont
- Sea lampreys are attacking sport fish in Lake Champlain, the Hudson River, and the
St. Lawrence River. The lampreys cannot be eradicated, so they must be controlled
using TFM, or 3-trifluorometnyl-4-nitrophenol (permit required for use). Human
toxicity data are needed on TFM.
- Dioxin contamination has been newly discovered in Vermont, creating concern over
drinking water (e.g., city of Burlington).
• Rhode Island
- Grocery/point-of-sale. The state is evaluating a request by environmental groups to
require mercury warning on fish in grocery stores.
- The state conducts a statewide freshwater fish survey.
- The state has released an Atlantic Coast striped bass and bluefish PCB advisory.
• New Jersey
- The state conducts a survey of marine estuarine fish that measures PCB analytes,
pesticides, mercury, and pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) in striped bass,
bluefish, American eel, blue crab, and lobster. Levels for most contaminants have
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-2
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
dropped below those for previous years. The survey is done on a 5-year cycle, and
each region of the state is included. This effort was started in 2002; however, funding
is not available every year. If multiple chemicals are present, the state takes the most
conservative for advice. Mercury levels drive freshwater fish advisories. PCB levels
drive marine advice (and also some freshwater advice). The state is concerned about
dioxins in New York/New Jersey Harbor.
- New Jersey will issue advice for commercial fish (mercury) later this year.
- No consensus on risk decision criteria, but getting closer.
- Recommends that advisories be simplified. Aiming for a three-tier advisory (simple):
• 1st tier: 1 general paragraph regarding marine fish
• 2nd tier: 1 general paragraph regarding freshwater fish
• 3ld tier: book - waterbody-specific, detailed advice.
- Concerned about pharmaceuticals (19 pharmaceutical companies are located in the
state) in drinking water in relation to human health and ecotoxicologic effects (ad hoc
endocrine disrupter workgroup).
• The Passamaquoddy Tribe
- Recently, tribal members began switching from freshwater fish to marine fish. There
is a high awareness about freshwater fish advisories, and the perception has
developed that all freshwater fish are contaminated. Tribal members are concerned
about mercury in lobsters, clams, scallops, and winter flounder. They need more
analytical data (many are now eating marine fish because they perceive them to be
cleaner).
- Tribal members are concerned about high levels of mercury in porpoise in New
Brunswick. This food is eaten at funerals and baby showers; it is a traditional food
for rituals and celebrations. There is regular consumption among tribal members -
more than 1 time/week consumption (very high). Legal issues and tribal sovereignty
complicate enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
- There is a high mercury load in soil along the St. Croix River, due to the world's
largest tannery (near Calais). Sediment gets stirred up when dredging (affects
scallops?). The tribe requests additional monitoring. Fish consumption is high in this
tribe, which has about 3,500 members on two reservations.
- The tribe does not agree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S.
EPA's) fish consumption rate data, because people in this tribe consume much more
fish more frequently than the data show.
- The tribe uses the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program extensively due to
increased unemployment. Therefore, its members consume the tuna that is
distributed by WIC. However, the tribe believes the state WIC should switch from
tuna to canned salmon, as the Hawaii WIC has done. The timing of WIC food
specifics varies with state of pregnancy and age of child, etc. WIC of every state
could address fish-related issues broadly. The tribe recommends that the steering
committee get a WIC speaker for the next forum.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-3
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
- The tribe is concerned about pharmaceuticals. The Gulf of Maine treatment facility
study will (hopefully) locate discharges. On the St. John River, 60 percent of the
water is not treated, and raw sewage is discharged directly into the river (affecting
100,000 people). The tribe is concerned about drinking water intakes downstream
from wastewater or raw sewage outfalls and residues of pharmaceuticals in fish.
• Massachusetts
- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) questions. Results are due out
Spring/Summer 2006. The questions address whether the public is aware of
advisory/specific consumption information by species (tuna, sportfish). BRFSS is
representative of the state and allows one to look at subgroups, too.
- New Bedford Harbor. After cleanup, PCB levels are much lower. The state is
evaluating policies concerning consumption, and is continuing outreach with the U.S.
EPA (Fish Smart Campaign).
- General Electric Housatonic River. This fall, the state will release a major public
health assessment (with Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR,
cooperative agreement).
- Education and outreach. Last year, information about fish advisories was sent to 351
local boards of health and was very well received. In addition, mailings were sent to
local physicians. Brochures were translated into eight different languages.
- Summer 2003 oil spill in Buzzards Bay. The state worked with Marine Fisheries to
reopen shellfish beds (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs).
• Maine
- Coastal Striped Bass and Bluefish Advisory Workgroup on PCBs). Toxicology and
biology draft chapters have been posted on the Internet. Data and advisory draft
chapters will be posted soon (in next 2 months). The organizational group will
develop a single combined document from these chapters. How to measure the
workgroup's success (evaluate consistent methods? consensus advice?) Atlantic
mackerel - future work - could be a good future species to recommend eating. Need
data on PCBs/dioxins.
- Evaluation of state's outreach (survey = 24 pages). Learned some definite things
concerning what to do and what not to do (e.g., difficult to obtain hair samples).
Wisconsin and Minnesota - new mother evaluation of advisory awareness being done
(2 pages). Karen Knaebel (Vermont) evaluating awareness. Do new moms
remember getting brochure from doctors during prenatal visits? Is there a variation
between first pregnancy and later pregnancy? Do new moms get too much
information - does message get buried?
- Brochure overhaul is a major effort. Approach/focus - changing from avoiding x-y-z
fish to eating a-b-c fish.
- Benefits data from babies. Analysis of reported "benefits"—omega-3s. Question: Is
fish consumption associated with increased socioeconomic status and better home
environment? Premature babies do benefit. In 1999 and 2001, did surveys of women
of childbearing age. In 2004, did survey of new moms.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-4
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
East
The East region was defined as the geographical area including the states of Delaware,
Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Representatives from five states and the District of Columbia participated in the forum group
discussion. No representatives from tribes participated in this discussion group.
Evaluation of Advisories
• Two states in this region evaluate awareness or effectiveness of advisories, on either an
ad hoc or one-time basis.
Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes
• None of the states or tribes in this region coordinate advisory development/management
with tribes or states. Tennessee notes that they have no tribal lands in the state.
Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings
• Only one state (Maryland) in this region collects data on adult mercury poisonings.
However, mercury poisoning is a physician-reportable / industry-reportable illness in
Virginia.
Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants
• Only two states in this region monitor for bioaccumulative contaminants at this time.
One state monitors in humans (blood and hair), while the other monitors dioxin, arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, chromium, chlordane, PCB, DDT [ 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-
bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane], DDE [1,1-
• dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethylene)], DDD [l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-
chlorophenyl)], aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin in fish. Three states do not monitor
contaminants in humans.
Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites
• Four states in this region revisit existing mercury advisory sites for tissue testing. The
frequency of visits ranges from annual visits to every 5 years.
Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards
• Only three states in this region have adopted a mercury fish tissue-based water quality
criterion in their water quality standards.
• Tennessee uses a value of 0.5 ppm, with no plans to lower the value to 0.3 ppm.
• The District of Columbia uses a value of 0.4 ppm.
Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs
• Five states in this region agree there should be a fish tissue-based water quality criterion
for PCBs. Three states indicate it should be based on total PCBs. Kentucky's current
analysis is based on total aroclors.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-5
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Issues/Concerns
• The East region workgroup indicates that the lack of U.S. EPA/Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) cooperation is a concern (e.g., justification for FDA action level
for PCBs).
• Kentucky and Tennessee raised the issue that park personnel want to stock large catfish
in park lakes for their patrons, and that they need to look at feed used for aquaculture.
Kentucky is monitoring its aquaculture (freshwater prawns, tilapia, catfish) and testing
for PCBs, mercury, and pesticides.
• Paddlefish Roc (imported Russian caviar) is sold as swordfish. There is a problem with
names offish commercially sold.
• West Virginia has some aquaculture industry raising Arctic char in abandoned mines with
good water quality (those with low-sulfur coal deposits).
• The group is concerned about how to identify subsistence fishers. In the District of
Columbia, they survey every fifth fishing person in the Potomac/Anacostia/Rock Creek
areas, asking:
- Do you fish?
- How much do you fish?
- How long have you lived in the area?
- Did you learn to fish from family? Intergenerational behavior?
- Do you eat whatever you catch?
South
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 discussion. No
representatives from tribes participated in this discussion group.
Evaluation of Advisories
• Three states in this region evaluate awareness or effectiveness of advisories.
• Georgia and Florida have no funding available to evaluate effectiveness of their
advisories.
• In North Carolina, people use advisory warning signs as grills for cooking the fish under
advisory. A Maine/U.S.EPA/Wisconsin study evaluated the effectiveness of North
Carolina's and other states' advisories. They found low awareness of advisories, which
prompted North Carolina to change from location-specific to fish-specific advisories.
• There is no statewide assessment in Texas, but some local areas are assessed. Texas
notes that it is difficult and costly to evaluate effectiveness.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-6
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
• In South Carolina, some surveys are done locally. The most effective are taken with
creel surveys. It is difficult to get people to change their behavior; deaths would have to
occur before individuals would adhere to fish advisories.
• Mississippi has performed local surveys via a U.S. EPA grant. This approach has proved
very efficient.
Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes
• Six states in this region coordinate advisory development/management with tribes or
states.
• States agree that there should be more coordination with tribes.
• South Carolina observes that Catawba Indians taste a creosote-like taste in catfish caught
locally.
Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings
• Only three states in this region collect data on adult mercury poisonings; four states do
not.
• In Florida, mercury poisoning is physician reportable, but because the state has had
trouble obtaining all data from physicians, the law has been changed so that laboratory
results are now sent directly to the state. The highest mercury level observed in blood
was 184 ng/L. In 2004, investigations began when blood, hair, or urine exceeded
criterion levels; however, several hurricanes in quick succession prevented further follow
up.
• North Carolina plans to examine blood and hair mercury levels for subsistence
populations, and to model major sources (air) in areas with fish advisories.
• Hair and blood monitoring is done in Texas, but not routinely.
Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants
• Six states in this region monitor for bioaccumulative contaminants at this time, including
mercury, PCBs, aroclors, DDT, and other pesticides. On the questionnaires, some states
answered this question for monitoring in humans, while others answered for monitoring
in fish.
• Georgia monitors 43 contaminants, including aroclors but not congeners, in fish but not
in humans.
• Florida monitors mercury in fish, but has no formal biomonitoring in humans.
• Louisiana performs biomonitoring in fish advisories and has been monitoring PCB
aroclors. The state is in the process of determining whether to do dioxin-like or non-
dioxin-like PCBs. They monitor pesticides in fish. Louisiana is moving toward
laboratory-reportable hair and blood mercury level results.
• Alabama monitors aroclors and pesticides in fish, but has no formal biomonitoring in
humans. There is monitoring in localized areas for 13 specific dioxin-like congeners.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-7
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
• Texas monitors 119 PCB compounds previously in fish and now 200 congeners and has
found an increased total level (predominantly non-dioxin-like) and issued advisories for
1,1,1-trichloroethane and vinyl chloride. Texas monitors mercury blood levels near
Superfund sites; elevated levels have been correlated with fish consumption.
• North Carolina monitors mercury levels in the hair and blood of subsistence male
fishermen in areas issued advisories. Monitoring results have shown a correlation in that
the highest blood and hair mercury levels are found in those who eat more advisory fish
(e.g., bowfin). The individual with the highest blood level (129 |ig/L) had no signs or
symptoms of mercury poisoning. The state plans to sample blood/hair mercury levels in
other subsistence fishermen, monitor fish, model air sources in areas fished by
subsistence fishermen, administer consumption survey (local and commercial), and try to
validate the model. In fish, North Carolina monitors for mercury, 17 non-dioxin-like
congeners (U.S. EPA Method 8082A), 2 dioxin-like congeners, and PBDEs (select
stations, limited to urban areas, follow U.S. EPA methods). The state has researched
foam manufacturers in the state that use PBDEs as fire retardants, and none were located
near waterbodies.
• South Carolina monitors mercury, pesticides, and herbicides in fish at 100-125 sites per
year. They do some local biomonitoring for PCBs.
Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites
• Seven states in this region revisit existing mercury advisory sites for tissue testing, with
frequency of visits ranging from every year to every 5 years.
Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards
• Only two states in this region have adopted a mercury fish tissue-based water quality
criterion in their water quality standards; five states have not.
• Georgia applies 13 different bioaccumulation factors to 0.3 mg/kg to get an acceptable
water quality standard.
• Florida uses 12 ppt for freshwater fish and 25 ppt for marine fish (0.3 mg/kg is too high
for Florida, but 1 mg/kg is up for discussion to account for freshwater fish).
Bioaccumulation factors have been developed for the Everglades, but the state is waiting
on guidance for developing bioaccumulation factors.
• North Carolina is examining more than 13 bioaccumulation factors.
Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs
• Three states in this region agree there should be a fish tissue-based water quality criterion
for PCBs (one state feels it should be for total PCBs, another for congeners).
• The states agree there are not enough scientific data and guidance currently available to
develop such a level. Adequate science for toxicity assessment is needed and information
to extrapolate from a level in fish to a water concentration. The U.S. EPA needs to
develop adequate guidance before establishing a fish criterion for PCBs.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-8
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Great Lakes
The Great Lakes region was defined as the geographical area including the states of
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin. Representatives from all 10 states and one tribe (St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, New
York) participated in the forum group discussion.
Evaluation of Advisories
• Four states in this region evaluate awareness or effectiveness of advisories, but typically
on a sporadic basis (e.g., when funding is available, with assistance from outside sources,
as a special project).
Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes
• Two states and one tribe in this region coordinate advisory development/management
with tribes or states, but indicate that additional coordination is needed.
• Four states indicate they have no tribal lands in their states.
Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings
• One state (Indiana) in this region collects data on adult mercury poisonings. The Indiana
Poison Control Center collects these data.
Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants
• Five states and one tribe in this region monitor for bioaccumulative contaminants in fish.
The contaminants include PCBs, mercury, organochlorine pesticides, lead, cadmium,
DDD, DDT, endrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,
hexachlorobenzene, dioxins/furans, and mirex.
Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites
• Eight states in this region revisit existing mercury advisory sites for tissue testing,
ranging from as needed to every 15 years.
Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards
• Only two states in this region have adopted a mercury fish tissue-based water quality
criterion in their water quality standards.
Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs
• None of the states in this region indicate there should be a fish tissue-based water quality
criterion for PCBs.
• It is very difficult to detect PCBs in water.
• Wisconsin has water quality standards for PCBs in water-column concentrations to
prevent accumulation in tissues. They are human health-based and wildlife health-based
concentrations.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-9
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
• One state is concerned over the cost and sampling complexity of a congener-based
approach.
Midwest/West
The Midwest/west region was defined as the geographical area including the states of
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
and Wyoming. Representatives from five states (Arkansas, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, and Wyoming) and one tribe (Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe) participated in the forum
group discussion.
Evaluation of Advisories
• Five states in this region do not evaluate awareness or effectiveness of advisories, but one
tribe does through an annual angler survey.
Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes
• Four states and one tribe in this region coordinate advisory development/management
with tribes or states, at least on a limited or informal basis.
• New Mexico coordinates with the Cochiti Tribe.
• The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe indicates there is conflict on common waters.
Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings
• Two states in this region collect data on adult mercury poisonings on a limited basis or
from occupational testing.
• States in this region indicate interest in federal money for biomonitoring.
Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants
• Four states and one tribe in this region monitor for bioaccumulative contaminants in fish
(mercury, metals, organics, PCBs, chlordane, DDT, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin) or
humans (lead).
• The group was confused whether biomonitoring regarded fish or humans.
Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites
• Five states and one tribe in this region revisit existing mercury advisory sites for tissue
testing, ranging from variable frequency to once every 7 years.
Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards
• Only two states and one tribe in this region have adopted a mercury fish tissue-based
water quality criterion in their water quality standards; three states have not.
• New Mexico adopted 0.3 ppm.
• Oklahoma is currently using 0.75 or 1 mg/kg, but this is due to be changed.
• The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has its own protocol.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-10
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs
• Two states and one tribe in this region agree there should be a fish tissue-based water
quality criterion for PCBs (toxic equivalent [TEQ] based).
• States in this region indicate a need for laboratory tissue reference material (U.S. EPA)
and certification.
Issues/Concerns
• How to communicate advisories:
- Signs at waters
- Regulations
- With licenses
- Phone numbers
• This group requests that U.S. EPA laboratories conduct a study to compare standard (or
acid digestion) and direct mercury analysis methods. Oklahoma indicates the need for
interlaboratory/method comparison studies.
West
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 eight states (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
and Washington) participated in the forum group discussion. No representatives from tribes
participated in this discussion group.
Evaluation of Advisories
• Five states of this region evaluate awareness or effectiveness of advisories, ranging in
frequency from infrequently or "first time this year" to continuously or seasonally. No
special funds were available to do this work.
• Some states monitor awareness/effectiveness of advisories by connecting to the
Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey (BRFSS), creel surveys, environmental
health tracking, and WIC programs. It was noted that questions cost money and there are
typically no state funds for this. A recommendation was made to require fish questions
nationally in BRFSS.
• Some states monitor brochure distribution and Web site hits.
• Some states indicate that evaluation occurs infrequently.
Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes
• There is some coordination between states and tribes, but this varies.
• Five states in this region coordinate advisory development/management with tribes; three
states do not; and one has no tribes in its state.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-11
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings
• This region's states do not collect data on mercury poisonings.
Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants
• Five states in this region monitor for bioaccumulative contaminants, including mercury,
PCBs, arsenic, lead, and cadmium. On the questionnaire, some states answered this
question for monitoring in humans, while others answered for monitoring in fish.
• Alaska monitors mercury in hair and cord blood.
• There is a state program in Hawaii where arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium levels are
reported by doctors (results come directly from two laboratories). For mercury, they start
with blood levels and then do 24-hour urine total mercury.
• Montana has a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to
monitor arsenic in urine; if total arsenic is high, then speciation is examined.
• Two states had recent legislative proposals.
Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites
• Five states in this region are doing some fish tissue testing at some mercury advisory sites
or statewide. The frequency ranged from annually to more than 10 years between
sampling events.
Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards
• Some states have a mercury fish tissue-based water quality criterion, others do not or are
in the process of doing so.
• Four states in this region have adopted a mercury fish tissue-based water quality criterion
in their water quality standards (0.3 ppm is the most frequent value); four states have not.
• Hawaii has not adopted a mercury fish tissue-based water quality criterion because it is
the ocean (rather than a freshwater body) that is contaminated.
Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs
• Only two states agree there should be a fish tissue-based water quality criterion for PCBs
(one believes it should be for total PCBs, the other for congeners).
• PCB toxicity is less clear than mercury; PCBs are in foods other than fish. Some would
like to wait and see how the mercury water quality criterion works first before attempting
PCBs.
• What to measure for PCBs - congeners or total; cancer risk or noncancer?
• Sampling for PCBs needs to be standardized and the risk assessment improved.
Issues/Concerns
• The group recommended starting to sample PBDEs now, but they acknowledged that
costs would be high to get low detection limits and that they had questions about
reference doses (RfDs).
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-12
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
• Language of advisories. Utah has translated its fish consumption advisory materials into
Spanish, but materials in the rest of the states in this region are all in English.
• Utah notes that the U.S. EPA and the states should develop reference materials for a
laboratory comparison study on mercury (concerned with accuracy of mercury results).
Nongovernmental
Many items were discussed in this group, including the need for:
• Improving public education on pollution prevention to eliminate fish advisories
• Improving the distributed materials to ensure better understanding of the problem.
• Improving understanding of all contaminants in the diet (from all sources) and how to
reduce one's exposure.
• Better integration offish advisories with Clean Water Act requirements for cleanups /
Clean Air Act regulatory approaches - What happened to the U.S. EPA Air/Water
interface concept?
• Improving knowledge base and information dissemination on the interactions of
contaminants and their health effects.
Problems identified with the current approach to fish advice include:
• Warnings are inconsistent and not publicized to the persons or communities that need
them.
• The public is often confused about what species/type offish is under advisory. Local
names of subspecies add to this confusion.
• Commercially sold fish are not the same as store-bought/restaurant-served fish, even
though caught from the same waters in many states.
• Recalcitrant states need to become active in fish advisories.
• There are differing opinions on what matters and who is right.
• The FDA and U.S. EPA are failing to tell everyone who needs this information that it
exists. New means of publicizing/distributing fish consumption advisories are needed.
• Need to be doing a better job of pollution prevention.
• Need to improve health screening processes for mercury and other contaminants, and to
promote health screenings of sensitive populations when appropriate or for all
populations when practical.
• Need to identify what information is critical to ensuring risk reduction.
• Need to eliminate misperceptions from current publications.
• Need to educate industry to their responsibilities.
• Need better communication about the sources of contaminants in outreach materials
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-13
-------
Section II-l State and Tribal Regional Workgroups
Agencies need to consult the populations in need of information to gain their assistance in
developing outreach materials. Too many times, outreach is done from someone else's
perspective.
• Rodney, a high school student from California teaches his cousins about fish advisories
through a Halloween candy analogy, telling them they need to make sure there aren't
toxic pieces of candy in the treats given.
• Amy, a fellow student, said her Southeast Asian church is trying to teach elders about the
concept of pollution and toxic chemicals that can harm them. Current advisories translate
poorly and are confusing.
Surveys and information-gathering activities—either because they are poorly designed or
poorly administered—are not reaching the people they need to inform.
Recommendation: The federal government needs to play a much more active role in
getting people the information they need to make good choices. We have arrived at the point
where we understand that fish consumption has benefits, but that people need to be able to select
fish that are low in contaminants. The current testing methods and information provided are
wholly inadequate to allow for this. The federal government needs to take a more consistent
approach and to allow people to select fish that are low in contaminants through testing and
labeling.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-14
-------
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
Joint Federal Mercury Advisory: EPA's Choice of the
One Meal/Week Limit for Freshwater Fish Consumption
James Pendergast, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Joint Federal Mercury Advisory was issued in March 2004. In addition to
recommendations restricting consumption of commercial fish, the advisory contains a one
meal/week limit for consumption of freshwater, noncommercial fish, for areas in which no local
advisory exists. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) original goals in
establishing a meal limit for recreational freshwater fish consumption were: (1) consistency with
state programs, (2) protection of the
LX' 4>Lx IV A t* " I
majority of consumers, and (3) keeping the rveep trie Message oimpie
message simple "'s* communication approach'. A simplified message to
inform consumers without scaring them away
The aHvknrv is rnnsktpnt with the ' Original 4-page message failed in early focus groups; many
1 ne advisory IS consistent Wlin me subjects said they would avoid eating fish entirely
one meal/week consumption rate used in
most statewide mercury advisories, as well
as with the coarse meal categorization
used by many states for waterbody-
specific advisories. The use of the two
meals/month category is inconsistent ] ^r±S
r
across the Country consumption, so a small component of the national advisory
• Shortened advisory does not cover species, location variability
• Advisory encourages consumers to first check local advisories;
Second the US EPA's risk federal advisory backstops for areas with no state advisory
management goal was to protect the
majority of consumers. The Agency found that the large majority of species had average
concentrations that fell within the full range of concentrations associated with a coarse one
meal/week limit. The Agency used the approach of comparing the available fish data against the
two, three, and four meals/month concentration limits, which ranged from >0. 12 ppm to 0.47
ppm. The existing fish tissue data came from U.S. EPA's National Listing of Fish Advisory
(NLFA) fish tissue database (current as of October 2003), from states and tribes (data submitted
for 1987-2003), and from testing of noncommercial fish (i.e., fish caught and consumed by
family and friends). The species average was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the species-
specific means at each sampling station. In this analysis, national means by species range from
0.06 ppm to 0.96 ppm, with a difference factor of 16. Protecting consumers with a limit based on
either end of these extremes would over- or under-protect by a factor of 16 for the low- and high-
concentration species, respectively.
Finally, U.S. EPA chose to keep the message simple. Early risk communication focus
group studies (October and November 2003) found that an overly detailed fish consumption
advisory scared consumers away from an otherwise healthy food. Thus, developing a snorter
advisory avoided covering variability from species to species, from region to region, and even
from waterbody to waterbody. Recreational freshwater fish, one small component of overall
consumption, was allocated just a small portion of the brief overall message. The advisory also
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-15
-------
Section II-2
Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
encouraged consumers to check local and state advisories first and to use the federal advisory
only when no state advisory existed.
Since the release of the advisory, the U.S. EPA has performed additional analyses that
support the one meal/week limit. The Agency found that a typical individual consuming a variety
of freshwater fish species would be near the reference dose (RfD), and that those consuming a
specific preferred species would be below the RfD for 60 percent of species, but up to twice the
RfD in 35 percent of species. A conservative bias uncovered in the NLFA data in comparison to
500 randomly selected lakes and reservoirs in the National Lake Fish Tissue Survey (NLTS) was
removed through data normalization techniques. This indicates that the bias in the NLFA data
was a result of sampling bias towards species and sizes offish that tend to have bioaccumulated
more mercury. As a result of this inherent bias in the NLFA data, the previous risk assessment
analysis is conservative; that is, the concentrations to which individuals are actually exposed
over the long term will be lower than those used in the risk assessment.
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and
Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
A three to tenfold increase in poly chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels in 2000 for striped
bass in Maine led to a discussion within the Maine Bureau of Health about consistent advisories
for migratory species. The overall objective of the Bureau's Atlantic Coast Striped Bass and
Bluefish PCB Advisory project is to prepare a document assessing the feasibility of developing a
common coastal advisory for striped bass and bluefish due to PCBs. The definition of "common"
will be developed based on what the data suggest, whether it will include the whole Atlantic
coast or regional areas (e.g., New England). A Web site for the project has been set up:
http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/ehu/fish/PCBSTBhome.shtml.
Project personnel are organized into individual workgroups that focus on data, biology,
toxicology, advisory, and organization, respectively. The data workgroup will compile and
describe the PCB data for striped bass along the coast. This workgroup has uncovered a great
deal of state-to-state variation. Also, PCB
levels in striped bass appear to be
decreasing over time, indicating that a new
coastal-wide study of PCBs in striped bass
and bluefish would be advantageous. The
data workgroup has also decided that it
will not recommend that states use the
same methods to analyze PCBs.
The biology workgroup will
summarize migratory patterns of striped
bass. Research so far has found that
migratory striped bass are large adult
females, and that the diet is variable for
Chesapeake Bay Stock
Delaware Stock
Hudson Stock
Roanoke/Albermarle Stock
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-16
-------
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
both striped bass and bluefish, without a lot of overlap between the species. The workgroup has
also found that it cannot predict arrival times for populations of striped bass. The findings of the
biology workgroup are available as a draft chapter on the project Web site (http://mainegov-
images.informe.org/dhhs/ehu/fish/BioChapDraft.pdf).
The toxicology workgroup has the goal of reviewing the basis of the existing toxicology
numbers used to set advisories and reviewing any new literature. This workgroup will also
evaluate the feasibility of developing a new toxicology number. Research to date reveals that the
toxicology estimates are old and need to be updated. The workgroup has determined that the goal
of the toxicology number should be to not increase the body burden in young women. The
workgroup has also found that the quality of the data on the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids for
babies is not compelling. A draft chapter of the toxicology findings may be found on the project
Web site (http://mainegov-images.informe.org/dhhs/ehu/fish/DRAFT_TOX_CHPT.pdf).
The goal of the advisory workgroup is to summarize how states vary in their advice and
procedures. Findings from the workgroup indicate that procedures are variable from state to
state, while advisories do not differ greatly. The advisory workgroup is unlikely to recommend
common procedures to the states, and instead will consider age breakdowns in order to specify
what groups should be targeted for protection and to simplify communication.
Overall results of the study to date find that limited data exist for bluefish, but that
conceptually a regional advisory may make sense. For striped bass, local spawning-location-
based advice and consistent advice for migratory fish may be necessary. The study also indicates
that toxicity estimates for PCBs need to be updated, and that a survey of PCBs in striped bass
and bluefish up and down the coast is needed.
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
PatMcCann, Minnesota Department of Health
The Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory has been
instrumental in providing a common fish advisory methodology and communication structure for
Great Lakes states. The states periodically coordinate communication strategies, joint outreach
campaigns, and advisory awareness evaluation projects. These efforts have only addressed
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other halogenated organic fish contaminants. Moreover,
there has been no mechanism to advance a coordinated mercury communication strategy in the
Great Lakes states. Through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wisconsin
organized a meeting in Fall 2004 in Madison and conducted follow-up conference calls to
facilitate the development of the Great Lakes Protocol Mercury Addendum.
A survey to determine the current mercury advisory methods used by states was
completed prior to the meeting in Madison. This survey illustrated the various mercury-based
fish consumption advice provided by the Great Lake states. Each state provided both statewide
and site-specific advice with strategies for calculating the site-specific advice, which is more
restrictive than statewide advice. Some states also included different waterbodies. Four states
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) used a two-tier approach with established health
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-17
-------
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
protective values (HPVs) of 0.1 and 0.3 jag/kg/day for sensitive and general populations,
respectively. Two states (Pennsylvania and Ohio) issued the same advice for all populations, and
two more states (New York, Michigan) used a two-tier approach based on the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)/modified FDA action level. Each state also examined different meal
consumption rates. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota provided
similar HPVs for the consumption rate of one meal/month when normalized by the default body
weight under study. Four states are currently working toward or are already providing
quantitative advice for purchased fish consumption. Four states have no plans to provide this
type of advice.
A draft of the Great Lakes Protocol Mercury Addendum is now available. U.S. EPA staff
members involved with fish consumption advisories from the Great Lakes states developed this
document. Like the PCB protocol, it recommends an HPV (safe dose) and provides guidelines
for deriving consistent consumption advice
for mercury-based advisories. Several meal
Addendum consumption rates were analyzed, and a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_ two meal/week option was added. The
. Covers sensitive population addendum covers sensitive populations
...... ... . . . emphasizes the meal size to body weight
• Updated benefits statement J , ., A. ,,
ratio, and provides more options tor
se ec ion defining site-specific and general data
. Meal size/body weight ratio analyses The benefits statement uses a
• Meal frequency categories tiered approach to outline risks and
• Data analysis benefits for both commercial and locally
• Purchased fish advice caught fish. It also includes information on
omega-3 fatty acids. The addendum will be
finalized after this forum.
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption
Advisory Protocols in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Two general approaches are used for fish consumption advisories (FCAs) in the five
states of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) basin. Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin use a
risk-based approach for all contaminants, and they use the 1993 Great Lakes Protocol (GLP) for
PCBs. Iowa and Missouri continue to base most of their advisories on action levels published by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These inconsistencies in fish consumption advisory
protocols in the UMR basin result in conflicting and confusing consumption advice for persons
catching and consuming fish from the UMR, which forms a shared boundary for these states.
These inconsistencies also result in conflicting water quality assessments and impaired waters
listings in the UMR basin states. Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have consistent reference
doses (RfDs) for a range offish consumption rates for PCBs, chlordane, and mercury based on
the GLP. Iowa and Missouri continue to use an FDA action level-based approach.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-18
-------
Section II-2
Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) was formed in 1981 to
facilitate dialogue and cooperative action among the five UMR states and to work with federal
agencies on inter-jurisdictional programs and policies (http://www.umrba.org). In 1998 UMRBA
created a Water Quality Task Force to facilitate consultation between the UMR states on water
quality-related issues. Past activities have addressed 305(b) assessments and 303(d) listings.
Future tasks include assessing siltation/sedimentation/turbidity impacts.
In 2005 the task force began to summarize the status of FCA protocols with the goal of
improving interstate consistency regarding these protocols. With a grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), UMRBA hired a contractor to facilitate this
process and to prepare summary reports. Meetings of staff from state departments of water
quality, health, and fisheries in the UMR basin, along with representatives from U.S. EPA
Regions 5 and 7, were held in March and May 2005. Several levels of inconsistency between the
states were identified during these meetings and include:
• FDA versus risk-based approaches (e.g., GLP)
• Different approaches for issuing and rescinding fish consumption advisories
• Different FCA approaches used in the states to the west of Iowa and Missouri
• Different approaches for assessing support offish consumption uses (for Section
305(b)) and for identifying Section 303(d) impaired waters.
A five-state data comparison was completed using data for mercury and PCBs in fish
fillet samples from the last 10 years from all states. A compilation of these data by the Minnesota
Department of Health was presented at the May 2005 meeting. Using these data, it was
determined that if Iowa employed the GLP to calculate fish advisories, all 11 UMR pools in the
state would have some type of advisory and would need to be placed on Iowa's 303(d) list.
A report entitled Upper Mississippi River Fish Consumption Advisories: State
Approaches to Issuing and Using Fish Consumption Advisories on the Upper Mississippi River
(available at http://www.umrba.org/reports.htm) was finalized in August 2005. This report:
(1) summarizes the current status of FCAs
and their uses in the UMR basin, (2)
summarizes the discussions conducted
during the two meetings, and (3) makes
recommendations to improve interstate
consistency in FCAs in the future. The
report recommends that there be consistent
FCAs for the UMR (FCA = guidance and
issuance), because the UMR is a shared
waterbody and inconsistency generates
confusion and unfavorable public
perception. The report also recommends
that a minimum set of contaminants, fish
species, sizes, sampling locations, sample
frequencies, and sample preparations,
Approaches lo Issuing and Using
Fish Consumption Advisories
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-19
-------
Section II-2 Coordination between States. Regions, and Tribes
among other factors, be standardized for all states. Finally, Clean Water Act Section 305(b) &
303(d) processes should be revisited after obtaining consistency in data and FCAs.
Although no states have as yet made changes to their FCA protocol as a result of the
UMRBA effort, the discussions and exchange of ideas that occurred during this process will
serve as a basis for achieving this goal.
Gulf Coast State Fish Consumption Advisory
for King Mackerel
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
The Gulf Coast States Marine Fisheries Commission (GCSMFC) is a federal group
intended to coordinate marine fisheries activities in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2002 a task force was
established to propose a common fish consumption advisory for King Mackerel in the Gulf of
Mexico. Representatives of the five member states (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
and Texas), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the GCSMFC held several meetings to determine the advisory currently used by
each state for King Mackerel. Data on the
concentration of methylmercury in King Mackerel
taken from Gulf waters were reviewed. The primary
King Mackerel population in the Gulf is the "East
Gulf population, which ranges from the southern tip
of Florida to the Rio Grande River. Two other
populations have ranges that overlap the range of this
population. The "Atlantic" population extends into
the gulf along the most southwestern coast of Florida,
and the "Mexico" population extends north of the Rio
Grande over the southern half of the Texas coast. The levels of mercury correlated with fish
length for all populations and were similar. Each state included advisories for adults, women of
childbearing age, and children. Criteria were based on fork length or total length of the fish.
The task force was left to resolve issues including: fork length versus total length, age of
children on which to base the standard, size criteria, and the reference dose. In June 2005, the
GCSMFC sent a unified King Mackerel advisory to the member states to be considered for
inclusion in each state's Fish Consumption Advisories. The proposed advisory stated that women
of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should not consume King Mackerel. All
others may consume two 8-ounce meals per month of King Mackerel measuring up to 31 inches
in fork length. King Mackerel 31 inches or greater in fork length should not be consumed. Due to
Hurricane Katrina, efforts in four of the five participating states have been put on hold. Florida
plans to take action on the issue in October 2005.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-20
-------
Section II-2
Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States
Achieve Consistent Advice
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
There are numerous benefits for establishing consistent advisories in shared waters,
especially for large waterbodies, such as Delaware Bay. These include a uniform and more
effective message to anglers and fish consumers in adjoining states, coordinated state outreach
efforts, improved public comprehension, and most importantly, increased protection of public
health from the bioaccumulative contaminants found in elevated levels in certain local fish
species.
In 2003 the states of Delaware and New Jersey began a dialogue to develop consistent
fish consumption advisories in shared waters of the Delaware Estuary. Establishing consistent
advisories was a key goal in the Management Plan for the Delaware Estuary Program. Disparity
in advisories resulted from differences in risk assumptions, cancer risk level, data, individual
contaminants versus multiple contaminants, and contaminant assessment approach. Inconsistent
advisories in the same waterbody can be confusing to the public, create doubt concerning
government actions, and potentially lead to apathy regarding the public health message. For the
Delaware Estuary, advisories existed for the Delaware River and the Delaware Bay, for different
species offish, and for different cancer risks (10"4 and 10"5 in New Jersey and 10° in Delaware).
A joint request by the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) and the Secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control that consistent fish advisories be created for the shared waters of the two
states was key to successfully establishing consistent advisories. Resolution of differences was
relatively straightforward once both states agreed to cooperatively develop the consistent
advisories. Several consistencies between the New Jersey and Delaware advisories already
existed and were built upon. Both states issued consistent fish advisories in March 2004 for their
entire shared waters of the
Delaware Estuary. The resolution
was for Delaware to add a bluefish
advisory using New Jersey data,
while New Jersey dropped the two-
tier approach to focus only on a 10"
5 cancer risk. Both states would
also use Delaware 2002 striped
bass data and New Jersey
assumptions for the advisories. The
advisories are divided between the
river (advisory for all finfish) and
bay (advisory for bluefish and
advisory for others). Multiple
contaminants are addressed in all
advisories. The advisories list the
2004 New Jersey and Delaware Fish Consumption Advisories
for Shared Waters of the Delaware Estuary/Delaware Bay
DE/NO/PA
Border to the
Chesapeake &
Delaware
Canal
Chesapeake &
Delaware
Canal to the
mouth of the
Delaware Bay
Contaminants
of Concern**
PCBs, doxin,
chlorinated
pesticides,
mercury
Do not eat fish larger than 6
Ibs or 24 inches
No more than 1 meal per
year for fish less than 6 Ibs
or less than24lndies*
I PCBs, mercury
Striped bass
White perch
American eel
Channel
catfish
White catfish
No more than 1 meal per
year*
PCBs, mercury
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-21
-------
Section II-2
Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
fish consumption rate and, in some cases, size offish consumed. Delaware and New Jersey plan
to continue coordination, communication, and data sharing to ensure that consistent and current
advice is available to the public.
Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Traditionally, the Mohawks of Akwesasne (bordered by the state of New York and the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec) have depended upon fish as a crucial supplement to their diets.
Today, science helps us appreciate even more the nutritional benefit offish, in addition to its
cultural and religious significance. However, contamination from three local Superfund sites and
from other atmospheric pollutants in the area has threatened the safety of those consuming large
quantities offish, and has presented the difficult task of getting community members to limit
their consumption. Over the years this effort has been largely successful. Now the task remains
to refine advisories and to communicate risk in a more succinct and understandable form.
The Mohawks of Akwesasne are a fishing and agriculturally based traditional culture of
about 10,000-12,000 people. Their 4,000-acre land sits in close proximity to three (two Alcoa
and one General Motors) Superfund sites. Several public health studies involving their people
have been conducted from the 1980s to the present. Existing advisories for the lands they inhabit
have been issued by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT) Health Service (1986), the New York
State Department of Health (NYS DOH) (2005), and the Canadian environmental agency. The
warnings from 1986 specify that women and children should not consume area fish and men
should consume only one meal per week. The NYS DOH set specific advisories to avoid
consumption offish from the Grasse River
and the bay at General Motors along with
other general advisories. The Canadian
environmental agency advisories included
greater species specificity, a regional
breakdown of the St. Lawrence River, and
allowed for meals of several species of
fish.
The Mohawks have conducted
their own workshops on how to clean and
prepare fish to reduce contaminants. They
follow general advisories to select species
offish that are generally cleaner, to
harvest from "clean" locations, and to
select smaller fish. They see the need for better and more recent data, including postremediation
sampling at the Superfund sites with a focus on mercury as well as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).
Contaminant-Reducing
Preparation
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-22
-------
Section II-2
Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation
Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Awareness of possible elevated levels of mercury contamination from the Homestake
Mine effluent near Lead, South Dakota, into the biological food chain of the Cheyenne River
eventually led to investigations in the early 1970s and consumption advisories focusing on the
health risks from consuming fish. Realizing the enormity of the problem, environmental groups
began studying the effects of dioxins found in direct, naturally generated food sources related to
minority groups. Several agencies have developed, conducted, and ultimately compared
scientific methodology for the analysis of the harmful effects of mercury and published
consumption advisories over shared jurisdictions with different degrees of health risk
assessment. The state of South Dakota and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe began on the same
path trying to grasp the possible impacts
of carcinogenic poisoning, but over time
have taken separate roads.
Factors Affecting Advisory
Release
• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
- Minority group where average annual income is
$1,100/yr
- Subsistence fishing is a broad practice (BigEagle 02)
- Education level is a factor
- Follows U.S. EPA guidelines
- Recreational fishing not important
- Species differentiation is not a greater factor
- Tribe used grants for all efforts
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
of South Dakota inevitably created its own
advisory. Other tribal groups may be able
to ascertain the benefits of certain aspects
of this process when pursuing
coordination efforts for mercury advisory
development. Those factors affecting the
tribe's advisory are directly related to the
fact that fish consumption is for
subsistence and is also a dietary
supplement for wild game, which is
inversely related to a very low average annual income. The second factor affecting the tribe's
consumption advisory is the lower educational level of those affected by the advisory. The
tribe's advisory, written in straightforward language, is for all surface waters within the
reservation. It also follows U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidelines. The
advisory states:
• Do not keep or eat large, older fish. Keep smaller fish for eating. In addition to tasting
better, younger, smaller fish have had less time to accumulate contaminants than
older, larger fish. Selecting smaller fish for consumption reduces risk to your health.
• Eat smaller meals when you eat big fish and eat them less often. Freeze part of your
catch to space the meals out over time.
• Eat those that are less contaminated. Contaminants build up in large predatory fish.
Limit the amount of smaller fish eaten to one 4-ounce meal per week.
• High risk individuals such as women of childbearing age, pregnant women, and
children under the age of seven should not eat fish caught on the reservation.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-23
-------
Section II-2 Coordination between States. Regions, and Tribes
The state of South Dakota's mercury advisory, however, was and is not meant to
influence the same targeted population. The state's advisory is weighted heavily toward
recreational fishing revenues, and therefore, reflects and encourages more liberal fish
consumption not relevant to subsistence. The state's advisory consists of advisories for specific
lakes and a general advisory for remaining surface waters. In some cases, specific fish are listed
with their own advisory based on size and consumption rate.
The risk assessment for anglers may be the same for both advisories and the benefit to the
public is a collection of information that targets a wider variety of people and has led to more
acceptance and knowledge of the benefits offish consumption. The advisories between the
groups differ only slightly for healthy adults: state advisory = 7 ounces per week; tribal advisory
= 4 ounces per week.
Future plans for the tribe include obtaining a National Indian Health grant, as well as a
permanent funding source in order to gather more samples and to sample annually. The tribe also
plans to test for arsenic and other dioxins. They will also test their drinking water.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-24
-------
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks
Welcoming Remarks, Monday, September 19, 2005
Benjamin Grumbles, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I want to extend my sincere thanks to all of you for taking the time to attend this forum.
In this room we have the knowledge, enthusiasm, and solid science to understand contaminants
in fish. Thank you to those who put this meeting together and to the state of Maryland for
hosting us.
I know that many of you, as water experts and program managers, have been working
tirelessly to protect the public in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Thank you for your efforts.
Some of our colleagues could not be here today because they are affected by Hurricane Katrina;
please keep them in your thoughts.
This recent disaster underscores the importance of water as a natural resource, the
importance of conserving our wetlands, and the importance of maintaining and restoring our
coastal environments. As a result of Katrina, the whole country has been considering water-
related issues and policy issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has been
focused on these issues, as have others, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Katrina provided a
challenging opportunity to provide sediment and water quality monitoring data and to make it
available.
In the coming weeks, there will be many questions about the safety of eating fish and
shellfish from the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. We are all working to address these
issues. The news media and the public have an increased awareness about fish issues, and their
interest does not appear to be waning.
Over the years, this forum has presented us with the opportunity to hear from and learn
from our nation's top fish experts—from the states, tribes, territories, sister federal agencies,
academia, industry, and the environmental community.
We share a common interest, and together, we are addressing contemporary scientific and
policy issues, and are developing the answers to questions about contaminants in fish.
The Release of the 2004 Fish Advisory Data
Late last week, we released our 2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories, a joint effort by
the Agency and our partners (states, tribes, and territories). With more monitoring, more fish
advisories are listed.
Our latest recreational data show that 3,221 fish advisories were issued in 2004, alerting
residents to the potential health risks of eating contaminated fish caught locally in lakes, rivers,
and coastal waters.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-25
-------
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks
The consumption advisories vary but may include recommendations to limit or avoid
eating certain fish species caught from specific bodies of water. Advisories may be issued for the
general population or for such groups as pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children.
Increased Monitoring
Together, we have generated more and better information to help us continue to protect
public health. Over the last 12 years, states and tribes have been monitoring fish in more of their
waters. Many of these fish have not been previously monitored. Where high levels of
contaminants have been found, more fish consumption advisories have been issued. At the same
time, this increased monitoring effort has also led to an increased number of "safe eating
guidelines," monitored waters or species where no restrictions on eating fish apply.
Efforts invested in monitoring more waters leads to better public information about the
kinds offish that are safe to eat and where these fish are located in a particular waterbody.
U.S. EPA/FDA Memorandum of Understanding
For many years, the U.S. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have
collaborated on fish and shellfish food safety issues. Recently, we were able to formalize this
work through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
We now have a very promising framework for communicating and interacting to promote
the use of best available science in developing public heath policies regarding commercial,
noncommercial, and recreationally caught fish and shellfish.
We are excited about collaborating on this important topic, and about breaking new
ground together. We will hold our first joint meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, to
develop an agenda on cooperative/collaborative projects for the coming year.
We will also continue to work on implementing the joint National Mercury Advisory. It
is important that we assess how well the public is assimilating this important information, and we
will continue conducting surveys to find out more about the level of awareness about fish
consumption issues, including the National Mercury Advisory.
Future Prospects
It is clear that we have a number of accomplishments, but there is still much work ahead.
We are exploring ways to help states, tribes, and territories revisit their existing advisory sites to
help determine if there is a basis for keeping or changing the existing advisories.
We recognize there is a growing concern about emerging contaminants, such as
polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs. We are exploring how the Agency would be able to
help states address emerging contaminants in fish.
One action we have underway is the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) review of
PBDE. Once this review is complete, we will know more about the toxicology of this important
emerging contaminant.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-26
-------
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks
We are interested in hearing ideas of how we can work with states, tribes, and territories
to address these emerging contaminants.
We will continue to reach out to our state and federal partners to identify and to invite
more Tribes, Alaska villages, and representatives of various ethnic groups (especially those with
subsistence fishing concerns) to join us at future Fish Forums.
Thank you again for joining us here today and sharing your knowledge and insight to
protect the American people from risks and exposure to contaminants in fish.
Welcoming Remarks, Monday, September 19, 2005
KendylP. Philbrick, Maryland Department of the Environment
Welcome to the state famous for Maryland blue crab, native oysters, and rockfish—or
striped bass for those who do not live here.
I am pleased to be here today, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the Maryland
Department of the Environment's (MDE's) role in keeping the public informed about safe fish
consumption.
The fishing and tourism industry is an important part of our heritage and economy. Some
communities even rely on fish they catch in our watersheds as an important source of protein for
their families' diets every day. Our job is to help people make informed choices regarding fish
consumption, while at the same time providing significant commercial and recreational benefits
to Mary landers.
The public basically wants to know: "How much fish is safe to eat?" Our mission at
MDE is to protect public health and the environment for the benefit of present and future
generations.
We have obligations both in the arenas of pollutant reduction as well as risk
communication. We realize that reduction of persistent pollutants is a long-term goal; therefore,
in the meantime, communication is important to our success in the protection of public health.
Interagency communication between federal and state agencies is key, particularly with respect
to announcing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) recommendations for safe consumption levels in recreationally and
commercially caught fish. This is of primary importance for protecting sensitive populations
most at risk.
MDE works hard to maintain a federal and state cooperative partnership. Both FDA and
U.S. EPA advisories are incorporated into our materials. We keep communication lines open on
technical issues, communication strategies, and measures of progress. Federal agencies provide
the states with risk assessment guidance that allows for a range of parameters that can be
modified relative to our region. We not only provide a number for safe fish portions, we also
provide fish preparation and cooking recommendations to help reduce health risks.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-27
-------
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks
The public also wants to know why they are limited to the amount offish they can eat.
We as professionals know that it is due to the pollutant content. But how we communicate the
"why" is important to the consumption behavior of recreational fishermen and their families.
We consulted with WIC (Woman, Infants, and Children) at the Maryland Department of
Mental Health and Hygiene to help develop MDE's brochures. We wanted to ensure that the
language was simple and clear enough to be easily understood. We are reaching our target
audience with both brochures and posters that are bilingual.
In Maryland, we have concentrated our efforts in our state's region of concern: the
Baltimore Harbor and Back River watersheds. We have posted bilingual signs in the back of the
room on partitions, and have dedicated staff to provide outreach and brochures to fishermen at
docks and other public access points.
Currently, East Coast experts are developing a white paper on the potential for coastal
advisories on striped bass (yes, Maryland rockfish) and bluefish, because they are migratory
species. Every state has different recommendations due to variation in monitoring and analytical
programs. The goal is to have a consistent message across the board, to allow for appropriate
levels of safe consumption.
Our advisory program has come a long way. In 1988, limited advisories for chlordane (a
banned pesticide) were issued, due to an exceedance of the FDA action level in Baltimore
Harbor and Back River.
In 2001, we went from very limited advisories to widespread consumption information
for both polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury. Statewide advisories were issued for
mercury in fresh waters, and numerous advisories for Chesapeake Bay tributaries were
announced due to PCBs.
In 2004, we released a Bay-wide advisory for rockfish based on 3 years of monitoring
data. The data were based on over 150 samples of rockfish. We also updated our Baltimore
Harbor advisories and issued more stringent advice due to PCBs. These high-profile advisories
necessitated development of a risk-communication plan, which we implemented beginning 2004.
Also in 2004, the risk communication efforts directed at the Harbor and other Bay
regions of concern were assessed through behavioral surveys conducted by Virginia Tech. The
research found that our recent outreach efforts had reached about 80 percent of the population.
While the message received widespread acknowledgment, change in behavior was minimal. This
was probably due to the newness of the message and the lack of repetitive frequency in its
communication. An average person needs to hear a message at least three times before it affects
change.
The state of Maryland then realized efforts to change behavior needed to continue,
especially for frequent fish consumers in urban areas.
In 2005, we printed about 90,000 brochures in English and Spanish. We have networked
with WIC and other health organizations, and have leveraged outreach with watershed
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-28
-------
Section II-3
Welcoming Remarks
organizations in Baltimore Harbor. The Internet has been a successful tool for getting the
message out, with an approximate average of 23,000 hits per month on the MDE Web site.
MDE's goal for Maryland, as a part of our commitment to achieving water quality
standards, is to reduce PCBs in tidal waters to allow for consumption of at least two meals per
month for all fish species. There are concerns with the longevity of the contaminants—the
average half-life for PCBs is 9 years. We are currently working with Virginia, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. EPA to develop and limit total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for PCBs
in the Potomac River.
This consistent information, particularly in the Bay, is important in ensuring wide
acceptance among fishermen and their families in different locations. We hope that this strategy
will lead to behavioral change in the future.
Those of us who rely so heavily on the Chesapeake Bay know that it has impaired waters,
and many programs are in place to help begin to restore water quality in the Bay by 2010, so that
our crabs, oysters, and fish continue to improve and thrive. MDE is talcing steps to improve
water quality and to minimize and mitigate impacts to those citizens who rely on fish. Our
recently promulgated water quality standards are a great step toward cleaning the Bay. MDE is
also taking important steps to minimize and mitigate impacts to those citizens who rely on fish.
Thank you for having me at this important forum.
Percentage of River Miles and Lake Acres
Under Advisory, 1993-2004
EPA Advisory Program Update
James Pendergastfor Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) advisory program provides
technical assistance to state, federal, and tribal agencies on matters related to health risks
associated with exposure to chemical contaminants in fish and wildlife. This assistance includes
issuing national guidance documents and
outreach, creating databases, holding
conferences and workshops, providing
grants for sampling and analysis, and
conducting special studies. The program
also issues advisories when necessary.
There has been an increasing trend
in total percentage of river miles and lake
acres under advisory in the nation. Safe
eating guidelines issued by the state may
be for specific waterbodies, for the entire
state, a combination of the two, or
statewide coastal guidelines. Some states
have not issued safe eating guidelines.
35%-
30%-
25%-
20%-
15% -
10%-
S%-
I
River Miles
• Lake Acres
1
III
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-29
-------
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks
The U.S. EPA published an advisory for methylmercury in commercial and
noncommercial fish in March 2004. To improve outreach, the U.S. EPA plans to conduct various
surveys about the public's perception of, and sources of information about, the benefits and risks
offish consumption. In June 2005, the U.S. EPA's Office of Water (OW) and the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA's) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding greater collaboration between the U.S. EPA
and the FDA regarding contaminants in fish and shellfish and safety for consumption. The MOU
lays out goals and objectives and describes how they will be achieved by:
• Promoting the use of the best available science and public health policies
• Promoting the sharing and availability of appropriate information among the
agencies' health and environmental professionals and the public
• Encouraging environmental monitoring efforts by FDA/CFSAN and U.S. EPA/OW
and stakeholders
• Encouraging the development of public health advice that considers both risks and
benefits of consumption of commercial and noncommercial fish and shellfish
• Promoting uniformity where appropriate in public health messages regarding
consumption of commercial and noncommercial fish and shellfish.
Future directions for the advisory program include looking at emerging contaminants
such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
examining the relevance of existing advisories. The program will continue work with states to
identify safe-eating guidelines. The program also plans to react and respond to the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on risks and benefits related to eating fish. It will continue
work with the FDA on environmental contaminants in fish and shellfish and the safety offish
and shellfish for consumption by U.S. consumers. Finally, it will look at advisories in interstate
waters and work with U.S. EPA programs on using advisories to leverage cleanups. The
advisory program also has the task of planning for the 2007 forum.
Seafood Safety Program
FDA Advisory Program Update
Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published the Seafood HACCP Regulation in
1995. The regulation became effective in 1997. This regulation requires processors to assess
potential food safety hazards to determine if they are "reasonably likely to occur" and to develop
and implement a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan to control those
hazards.
Several seafood safety hazards exist and may be grouped as follows:
• Natural toxins
• Parasites in many species of near-shore fish consumed raw
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-30
-------
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks
• Drug residues
• Unapproved use of food and color additives
• Microbiological contamination
• Allergens
• Physical hazards
• Environmental chemicals and pesticides.
A total diet study was conducted and consisted of measuring tuna, salmon, pollack,
shrimp, and catfish for radionuclides, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), toxic and nutritional elementals, and folic acid. Current chemical
field assignments include the pesticide, toxic elements, and dioxin programs as well as
perchlorate and mercury assignments.
The 2005 pesticide program examined 175 domestic and 300 import samples for
pesticides and PCBs. The Toxic Elements program looked at 10 domestic and 160 import
samples for lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury. The Dioxin Program used 520 domestic and
import samples and 85 feed samples to measure dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. For the
i i Perchlorate Assignment,
investigators looked at 35 domestic
and import samples. The Mercury
Assignment measured total
PDA with ooniribiiLioii ironi LribrnmioMil mercury in both domestic and
ty Coii^dting, LLC imported samples. Twenty-nine
(29) species made up 470 samples
y of fresh/frozen fish. Investigators
t, also measured 100 fresh/frozen
r oiiar^MiOr samples of tuna and 50 samples of
.r . . „ Z "... canned tuna.
J lUiwy^ISOCiMitiyiyi;
, -•SM&h-QfA.. 'M^msihu^^m^*^ The Methyl Mercury Risk
, ^!i^fe;-H^^E^«r^;u«ikr^^Kl Benefit is a project by FDA with
contribution from International
i Food Safety Consulting, LLC, to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ work on a new approach for
managing and communicating risks associated with methylmercury. The project will examine the
risk to U.S. consumers of methylmercury in seafood, as well as the nutritional benefits from
consuming seafood. The work may impact on risk management and communication for other
hazards.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-31
-------
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks
[This page intentionally left blank.]
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-32
-------
Section II-4
Sampling and Analysis Issues
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design
Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Monitoring to obtain critical environmental information, such as that needed for
understanding the distribution and concentration of contaminants in fish tissue, is an essential
requirement of the Clean Water Act. It is an ongoing challenge for the states, tribes, and the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to gather, assess, and provide this information (as
well as other types of information)
to the public, and to do so at
multiple spatial scales and for
many types of water resource
classes (lakes, streams, estuaries,
oceans) simultaneously. This
presentation provides a discussion
of the key considerations in
designing fish tissue sampling to
meet multiple Clean Water Act
monitoring objectives.
Preparation is required to
design a sampling program that
meets your needs. When
preparing a design program, you
should:
Key Consideration 2 - Design Pros & Cons
L
^^. Design
^^^ Census - All sites are
^^^^ sampled
^^^^B Probability - Sites are
^^^^Bselected at random to
^^^H-epresent a population
^^ Targe ted-Representa-
r tive - Sites are
selected by BPJ or
other means to
represent an area or
population
Targeted - Sites are
selected via
determinative methods
usually to investigate
known or suspected
problems/areas
Pros
Answers both 305 and
303
• Efficient to represent a
large population with a
small sample (305b)
• Known confidence for
results
. Predicts size of 303d &
provides some of the
303(d) sites
• Can usually be
implemented simply
and efficiently
• Well suited to 303(d)
• Can provide some
303(d) sites if targeting
methods work
Cons
Expensive and not practical if large
number of water bodies to sample
• Does not ID all impaired waterbodies
for 303(d)
. Sites require inventory and recon
. Logistical problems accessing remote
sites
• Assumptions are necessary
• No guarantee sites are
representative
* Work required to develop and
implement targeting methodology
. Does not ID all impaired waterbodies
for 303d
. Does not provide 305(b) answer
* Work required to develop and
implement targeting methodology
* Used alone, does not provide data to
validate the targeting method
• Know the questions (seek to balance them)
• Know the resources, subclasses, and size
• Know your coverage needs for each class
• Have a supportable design rationale and data
• Not limit your thinking.
Also, understand and choose sampling designs appropriate to your questions, resources,
and needs. You should examine the pros and cons of the available sampling designs. These
designs may include:
• Census - all sites are sampled
• Probability - sites are selected at random to represent a population
• Targeted-Represented - sites are selected by best professional judgment (BPJ) or
other means to represent an area or population
• Targeted - sites are selected via determinative methods usually to investigate known
or suspected problems/areas.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-33
-------
Section II-4
Sampling and Analysis Issues
Finally, there should be considerations for balancing, integrating, and implementing
multiple sampling designs. You should seek, through state strategies, to balance the monitoring
needed to answer both the Section 305(b) and 303(d) questions. Some state and U.S. EPA
programs have prioritized the monitoring for 303(d) without providing for 305(b). Worse,
targeted 303(d) data have been used for 305(b), thus producing negatively biased assessments.
How Many Fish DO We Need?
Protocol for Calculating Sample Size for Developing Fish
Consumption Advice
Jim VanDer slice, Washington State Department of Health
This research seeks to answer the question: How many fish do you need to sample to
calculate a fish consumption advisory? The answer depends on the precision of the estimate of
mean concentration, which may be relative or absolute. It also depends on the fish
populations—what species are consumed and how does the level of contamination vary between
different size classes offish. A cost approach may also be taken to determine how much money
is available for sampling. Previously,
sample sizes were based on arbitrary
sampling objectives, such as being able to
estimate the mean concentration with
some arbitrary level of precision.
Summary
2.
3.
5.
6.
Estimate mean and s.d. of contaminant
concentration
Determine meal frequency associated with
mean contaminant concentration
Determine difference between cut-point
and mean meal frequency (MOD)
Determine MOD offish tissue concentration
needed
Calculate sample size needed
Conduct sensitivity analyses
~" lealth
Washington State has a goal to
develop and communicate defensible,
consistent advice about healthy
consumption offish. A procedure was
developed to estimate the required sample
sizes, starting with the desired precision of
the estimated maximum consumption rate
associated with a given health reference
level (e.g., a reference dose, [RfD]) and
translating this into a formal sampling objective, including the desired minimum detectable
difference, the desired power to detect this difference, and the level of significance of a test to
detect this difference.
The steps of the procedure include:
• Estimate mean and standard deviation of contaminant concentration
• Determine meal frequency associated with mean contaminant concentration
• Determine difference between cut-point and mean meal frequency (MDD)
• Determine MDD offish tissue concentration needed
• Calculate sample size needed
• Conduct sensitivity analyses.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-34
-------
Section II-4
Sampling and Analysis Issues
The procedure provides a rational basis for estimating required sample sizes to be able to
develop consumption advice with an adequate level of certainty, and it provides an idea of the
variability of an estimated consumption level given a set number of available fish tissue samples.
US FDA's Total Diet Study
Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for conducting the Total Diet
Study (TDS), which is designed to monitor the U.S. food supply for levels of toxic chemicals
(pesticide residues, industrial chemicals, toxic elements) and selected nutrients (elements and
folate), to observe trends and changes in intakes/exposures over time, and to identify potential
public health problems related to these substances. The study was initiated in 1961 as a result of
concerns about radioactive fallout and has been conducted continuously since. Over time it has
evolved to include more analytes and foods, improved analytical methods, and intakes for more
population groups. The model may be adapted to meet specific needs such as selected foods or
regions.
Samples of approximately 280 different foods are collected and analyzed four times a
year for about 500 analytes; each time foods are analyzed from one of four regions of the
country. The sample collection sites, which vary from year to year, are selected from Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) close to FDA district or field offices. Three cities per
region are sampled. The analytes include pesticide residues, industrial chemicals, radionuclides,
elements, folate, dioxin, acrylamide, perchlorate, and furan.
The analytical results on levels of these substances in foods are combined with
information on food consumption to estimate dietary exposures for the total U.S. population and
14 age/gender subgroups. The foods and beverages collected and analyzed in the TDS represent
the major components of the U.S. diet as reported in national food consumption surveys. The list
of foods is updated periodically to reflect changes in consumption patterns. Since the focus of
the TDS is the typical American diet, the foods selected are those available nationally rather than
regionally. For that reason, fish and
seafood products included in the TDS are
limited to those that are available
throughout the year and those that are
typically consumed across all regions.
A unique aspect of the TDS is that
foods are prepared as for consumption
(table ready) prior to analyses, thus
providing analytical results on levels of
analytes as actually consumed and more
realistic exposure estimates than those
based on analyses of raw commodities or
ingredients. Analytical results from 1991
through February 2001 for the TDS
Dietary Intake of Mercury from
Fish/Seafood
TDS Food
Canned tuna
Fish sticks
Shrimp
Salmon
Hg cone
(mg/kg)
0.163
0.004
0.027
0.030
Intake (fig/day)
Total
us
0.541
0.008
0.091
0.085
MF
2vrs
0.1 86
0.005
0.013
0.025
F
25-30 yrs
0.490
0.005
0.212
0.058
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-35
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
analytes are posted on the IDS Web site in summary form and as individual data
(http://www.cfsan.fda.gov). Results for additional analytes are posted elsewhere on the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) internet.
Dietary intake is calculated as the analyte concentration times the amount of foods
consumed. Each diet equals the consumption amount for each IDS food. The IDS intake
estimates provide reasonable estimates of background intakes/exposure and average intake over
time. However, they are not appropriate for assessing acute intakes, upper-percentile intakes, or
intakes from very specific foods or specific population subgroups.
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels
in Store-Bought Fish from Washington State
DavidMcBride, Washington State Department of Health
Fish advisories in Washington State have focused primarily on risks to recreational or
subsistence fishers, yet the vast majority offish that people consume are store bought. The aim
of this study was to characterize levels of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in fish sold in grocery stories in Washington State and
to develop consumption recommendations based on contaminant levels. The stores from which
fish purchases were made included large and small grocery stores on which data on total food
sales (in dollars) could be obtained from the Washington Department of Revenue. Stores were
randomly selected from a list of all retail outlets selling food, with the probability of selection
proportional to the volume of food sales for the previous year.
At each selected store, samples of nine species of commonly consumed fish (canned
"light and white" tuna, pollack, catfish, red snapper, halibut, flounder, Chinook salmon, cod, and
large tuna) were collected. Samples were collected between October 2004 and February 2005.
One sample of each available fish type (fresh/frozen) was collected from each store:
• Medium-size fillet of counter fish
• Top package of packaged fish
• Relied on sales person regarding "species."
It was found that fish labels on store packages or signs can include different species. As
an example, red snapper includes rockfish and red snapper. For canned tuna, the study listed all
available "products" of canned tuna on the shelf, excluding specialty products. The study then
selected two cans from all albacore types and two cans from all light tuna types.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-36
-------
Section II-4
Sampling and Analysis Issues
A total of 390 fish samples was collected from forty stores and analyzed for total
mercury, PCB aroclors, and nine PBDE congeners. The Washington State University
Department of Ecology's Manchester Laboratory conducted the analyses. Total mercury
concentrations were highest in canned albacore "white" tuna (357 ppb) and lowest in catfish (not
detected). Seven out of nine species had a mercury detection limit greater than 90 percent. Total
PCB concentrations ranged from nondetect in flounder to 31.5 ppb in Chinook salmon. For
PCBs only, halibut, red snapper, and salmon had detection frequencies greater than 10 percent.
Total PBDE concentrations in all species were below 6 ppb. Calculated consumption rates based
on U.S. EPA Fish Advisory Guidance (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/guidance.html)
indicated that mercury concentrations
drive meal limit recommendations in
seven of the nine species sampled. For
these calculations, a body weight of 70 kg
and a meal size of 8 ounces were assumed.
Results indicated that there are no
restrictions on the amount of meals per
month of pollack that may be eaten to still
meet reference doses for mercury and
PCBs. Catfish and red snapper both
contained higher levels of PCBs and thus
had more strict meal restrictions applied
for PCBs than for mercury.
This study found that levels of
PBDEs measured in fish sold in Washington State grocery stores are similar to levels previously
reported. BDE-47 (2,2',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 47) was the most frequently
detected contaminant in fish. This study provides much needed regional information on
mercury, PCB, and PBDE levels in store-bought fish. This information will aid consumers in
making informed decisions about risks from fish consumption.
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant
Testing and Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS AnalyticalServices, Ltd.;
and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
Over the past 2 years, the Seafood Safe model has been developed through collaborative
efforts with leading academics, consumer advocacy organizations, independent laboratories, and
seafood industry quality assurance and sampling specialists. Seafood Safe seeks to dispel the
conflicting information consumers receive on the consumption of seafood. On the one hand, the
medical community and the new U.S. food pyramid are overwhelmingly recommending seafood,
especially those species high in heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, as part of a healthy diet. On
the other hand, consumers are being warned about the presence of dangerous contaminants in
some types of seafood. Consumers require a credible, user-friendly, and easy system at the point
of purchase. The industry needs to confront this public relations challenge head on. An
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-37
-------
Label in Use
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
industry-wide testing and labeling program would demonstrate that the vast majority of seafood
is very safe, and would increase consumption of healthy species.
First, we have assembled an independent
advisory panel consisting of two of the country's
leading academics on the subject of contaminants
in seafood to advise on the structure,
methodology, and messaging of the program. Dr.
Barbara Knuth of Cornell University and Dr.
David Carpenter of the University at Albany
(State University of New York) Albany are
Seafood Safe's advisors. We have also partnered
with an independent international seafood
industry consulting firm to develop company-,
species-, and fishery-specific guidelines, as well
as chain-of-custody and sampling protocols.
Testing is performed by independent laboratories specific to mercury and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). We also have partnered with Environmental Defense as a consumer advocate
to provide an information clearinghouse for consumer education on the subject. Seafood Safe
not only has the ability to help eliminate consumer confusion, but also to portray a much more
positive image of seafood.
Seafood Safe will be an industry-sponsored program. Those companies that want to
participate and be evaluated will pay for the services. The first stage of participation will be a
consultation phase, where the company's product line is studied in detail, including life history,
regionality, size range, seasonality, available historical data, chain-of-custody considerations, et
cetera. If the product line displays the ability to be monitored successfully, the company will
proceed to the independently recommended testing regime. Finally, once products are
successfully tested, a company will pay a minimal licensing fee to use the Seafood Safe label on
their products and to cover Seafood Safe's operating costs. It is important to note that some
products may not qualify for the program, due to a number of factors, and that each species and
fishery will require different testing frequencies based on their particular characteristics.
We see future participation in Seafood Safe from all sectors of seafood use. Initially we
will be focusing on aquaculture and prepackaged items for retail. Because these sectors are
generally the least complex, they will afford us the ability to methodically ramp up the program
toward more complex sectors, such as restaurants and possibly fresh retail fish cases. Currently
we test for mercury and PCBs, but we will add additional contaminants as new ones are
discovered. As we all know, the latest contaminants discovered in seafood are flame retardants.
We apply our test results to the U.S. EPA Guidance and Risk-Based Consumption Tables
(http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/volume2/), and convert the results into the number of 4-
ounce portions a woman of childbearing age can consume in a month. We use this
subpopulation because they are the most at-risk adult category.
Frozen samples are received, homogenized, and sampled at AXYS Analytical Services
Ltd., in Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, for PCBs. Results so far indicate:
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings II-3 8
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
• Highest [PCB] in albacore tuna; lowest in mahi mahi.
• [PCB]high resolution (HR) > [PCB]low resolution (LR) in all species.
• Ratio of [PCBJHR: [PCBJLR was variable and generally increased with increasing
total PCB concentrations.
• "Short" LR PCB target list included all congeners > 0.1 ng/g by HR.
• HR data provide more reliable total PCB estimate than LR data. (LR estimate may
provide a contingency estimate approach for decision purposes, e.g., by doubling total
LR values.)
Mercury testing, completed by Brooks Rand, reveals:
• Highest [mercury] in albacore tuna and mahi mahi; lowest in keta salmon.
• Albacore tuna very consistent (relative standard deviation 6.7%).
• Mahi mahi and halibut much more variable (wider range of fish size and age).
• Methylmercury = total mercury in all fmfish species.
• All shellfish low in mercury.
• Methylmercury 50-100 percent of total mercury in shellfish.
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical
Contamination of Fish from National Fish Hatcheries
George Noguchj, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is pursuing a proactive, science-based
approach for evaluating and managing contaminant issues related to National Fish Hatchery
System production. Over the past year, fish from 15 facilities, including 12 of the 39 hatcheries
that produced "catchable size" fish in 2004, were analyzed for commonly measured
contaminants, such as mercury and other metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
dioxins/furans, dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQs), trace elements, and organochlorine pesticides.
Facilities sampled are located in U.S. EPA Regions 1, 5, and 6. Composite samples (5 or 6
fish/sample) were used, and seven species were examined. Concentrations of mercury in
hatchery fish samples were relatively low, ranging from 0.015 to 0.066 jag/g (ppm) wet weight,
but were detected in all fish samples. PCBs were the only organic contaminant detected in all
fish samples at significant levels, and the concentrations in skin-on fillets ranged from 0.008 to
0.31 jag /g wet weight, with most samples (> 90%) containing less than 0.1 jag /g.
Concentrations of PCBs and dioxin TEQs in some samples were above U.S. EPA screening
values.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-39
-------
Section II-4
Sampling and Analysis Issues
PCBs in Hatchery Fish
Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
In another study (A Survey
of Chemical Constituents in
National Fish Hatchery Fish Food)
the FWS, along with the U.S.
Geological Survey, analyzed fish
feeds from 11 hatcheries and found
that concentrations of
contaminants vary between lots
and between manufacturers (six
analyzed). Multiple batches of feed
were analyzed between 2001 and
2003. Fourteen PCB congeners
were detected. When compared
with earlier data obtained through
similar analyses, the levels of
PCBs measured in fish feeds seem
to be decreasing over time. A Hatchery Contaminants Workshop was held in February 2005.
The strategy developed at the workshop for assessing and managing risks from chemical
contamination offish from national fish hatcheries consists of: (1) a National Fish Hatchery
System (NFHS) "healthy fish" goal, (2) clean feeds, (3) monitoring, and (4) guidance.
In light of these data, the FWS has developed interim guidance for stocking and/or
transferring "catchable size" fish and a strategy for better understanding the issue, including the
development of best management practices for "clean" fish production. Key stipulations of the
Draft Interim Guidelines for Hatchery Fish Management Decisions Regarding Contaminants in
Catchable-Size Fish Produced by the National Fish Hatchery System (http://www.fws.gov/
northeast/fisheries/issues/Final%20memo%20to%20Regions%20with%20Interim%20Guidelines
.pdf) include:
• When contaminant data are available for fish from a National Fish Hatchery (NFH):
- If contaminant levels are below those that trigger "do not eat" state fish
consumption advisory: Provide contaminant information to state, tribe, or federal
land management agency and provide fish if requested.
- If contaminant levels are at or above levels that trigger "do not eat" state fish
consumption advisory: Fish should not be transferred or stocked.
* When the NFH has not yet been sampled and no contaminant data are available:
- Make fish available unless the facility is considered potentially high risk
according to the Hatchery Risk Assessment Matrix.
- High-risk facilities: Consult with states, tribes, and federal land management
agencies, as appropriate, to discuss potential risks. Applies to all activities
(stocking/transfer to states, tribes, and federal lands; fishing events atNFHs).
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-40
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish
with Season, Year, and Body Condition
Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Note: See presentation in Section III for full citation of studies and publications referenced in abstract.)
Though not well studied, measured seasonality in fish fillet muscle mercury
concentrations has been reported in the literature in a few locations. Variations are believed to be
caused primarily by fluctuations in fish growth and nutrition. Kehrig et al. (1998) found cold-
season muscle mercury concentrations to be a factor of 1.6 to 3.4 times greater than warm-season
concentrations for a widely consumed fish species in Brazilian estuaries. Explanations in this
study included that concentrations increase when fish lose weight and that spring bioproduction
dilutes the available mercury. Park and Curtis (1997) showed largemouth bass muscle mercury
concentrations to be roughly twofold higher in the fall of 1994 than in the previous summer in
two reservoirs in Oregon. The authors attributed the difference to the fact that environmental
conditions influence methylmercury production and bioavailability and that growth dilution
causes concentration decreases. A later study of one of the same reservoirs, however, showed
seasonal concentration differences to not be statistically significant (Foster et al., 1999). Szefer et
al. (2003) found relatively high concentrations of muscle mercury in winter-captured perch in
Pomeranian Bay (Southern Baltic) and supported the seasonal differences by factor analysis.
Suns and Hitchin (1990) measured interannual variability in fish mercury using yellow perch
yearlings in 16 Ontario lakes (whole fish, unadjusted). The fish were monitored over a 10-year
period with approximately seven sampling events per lake. The high concentration : low
concentration ratio ranges from 1.5 to 2.2 for most lakes. Seasonal fluctuation in fish mercury
has not been well studied, perhaps because it is not expected. Reported fish mercury depuration
rates are quite slow.
While researchers have reported a wide range of rates, from a few days to several years,
there is a central tendency towards elimination half-lives on the order of 100-200 days (Giblin
and Massaro, 1973; Rodgers and Beamish, 1982; Huckabee et al., 1979 [literature review];
Burrows and Krenkel, 1973; McKim et al., 1976). Such slow loss rates would be expected to
have a strong dampening effect on any fluctuations in methylmercury concentrations in fish prey.
Instead, calendar-season variations in fish tissue mercury may reflect seasonal nutrition
variations. Statistically higher concentrations from skinnier striped bass have been reported by
Hinners (2004), as in co-authored publications (Cizdziel et al., 2002 and 2003). Their study
supports, in part, the speculation by Kehrig et al. (1998) that higher fish tissue mercury levels in
winter are likely caused by fish weight losses from winter reductions in food and from lower
water temperatures. Mercury elimination rate has been found to be the same for fish that were
starved relative to nonstarved fish (Burrows and Krenkel, 1973). The negative correlation
between fish body condition (a ratio of weight to cubed length, which measures nutritional status
and trends) and fish tissue mercury concentration reported by Greenfield et al. (2001) and
Cizdziel et al. (2002 and 2003) has been rationalized by the latter authors as a consequence of
starvation concentrating the mercury into less tissue, that is, starvation concentration. This
could be considered the converse of the phenomenon of growth dilution, which has been
described by a number of researchers. Simoneau et al. (2005) found lower fish mercury
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings H-41
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
Considerations for Advisory Programs conc7rations to correlate with higher
., ., . _ . . _ , ' , . growth rates. Doyon et al. (1998) found
Monitoring Design and Data Analysis 5 -cu-^fu/u- i*
dwarr whitefish to bioaccumulate mercury
• Measure weight as well as length => condition factor more rapidly than normal-size whitefish in
• Measure age as well as length => growth rate the same lakes, and they attributed this to
• Correlations: length, weight, age, growth rate, condition slower growth rates and earlier maturity in
• Regressions on a sampling event basis the dwarf fish. Both Doyon et al. (1998)
• Always sample the same season and Greenfield et al. (2001) point out that
• Conversely, sample all seasons and sl°Wer 8rOwin§ flsh WOuld all°Cate m°re
- Normalize concentrations to a standard season energy towards maintenance and leSS tO
- Develop seasonaiity safety factors. flesh production and that faster growing
• Sample enough to estimate long-term means and variances fish reach a given size more efficiently,
adding flesh at a lower energy cost and
thus proportionally less mercury intake.
Park and Curtis (1997) offer an alternative explanation that methylmercury accumulated during
periods of high growth might be accumulated at lower concentrations due to lower availability in
the food web.
After reviewing this literature, several considerations for the monitoring design and data
analysis portion of advisory programs can be made:
• Measure weight as well as length >=> condition factor.
• Measure age as well as length *=> growth rate.
• Correlations: length, weight, age, growth rate, condition.
• Regressions on a sampling event basis.
• Always sample the same season.
• Conversely, sample all seasons and:
- Normalize concentrations to a standard season
- Develop seasonaiity safety factors.
• Sample enough to estimate long-term means and variances.
• Include seasons in advisories (e.g., "special note to ice fishers").
• Include condition in advisories (e.g., "skinny bad, fat good").
• Use condition factor as an inexpensive mercury index.
• Promote fisheries health to reduce human exposure.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-42
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue
Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis
Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Human tissue contaminated with mercury has been linked to heart disease (Salonen et al.,
1995) and impaired neurological function and development (Daniels, 2004). Most states have
issued advisories warning people that it may be dangerous to consume freshwater fish. Fishing
advisories are maintained based on samples of mercury concentrations in fish.
The latest version of the National Listing of Fish Advisories (NLFA) database contains
more than 90,000 samples collected over the past four decades. For each sample it contains
several key pieces of information including:
• Mercury sampled from aquatic life
• Species
• Location (extensive additional geocoding in 2002)
• Date
• Size of fish (length and weight).
The advantage of using the NLFA is that it contains a larger number of samples for large
consumer fish than any other source, and the sampled locations were chosen using stratified
random sampling. However, to its disadvantage, taking a simple average of all the samples in a
watershed or waterbody could potentially result in misleading estimates of exposure, and
waterbody-to-waterbody variability is confounded by a variety of other factors. Also, the
database does not contain enough samples to conduct a benefit analysis.
There are an estimated 3.5 million miles of river and more than 250,000 square miles of
lakes in the United States. To collect one sample fish from every mile of river or square mile of
lake for 1 year would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Therefore, there is a need
to make the most out of existing samples and any historical sample data available.
Mercury is a bioaccumulant and biomagnifies in fish over time. As a fish gets older, it
has more potential to collect and store the available mercury. Additionally, other factors, such as
the species and sample method, can influence the measured concentration of mercury in fish.
Different fish live longer, grow larger, and have different diets from other fish. For example, an
adult catfish is a bottom feeder, but can grow large. An adult sunfish is much smaller and eats
terrestrial and aquatic insects. One would not expect these two fish to have the same
concentrations of mercury, even if they were from the same waterbody.
Mercury bioaccumulates in the tissues offish. At the laboratory, the technician may take
a fillet of the catfish and use the whole sunfish to determine mercury concentrations. If only a
fillet is sampled, as opposed to the entire fish, the fillet would result in a higher reported mercury
concentration. This difference in sample cut can add an additional source of variability in
mercury concentrations between fish.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-43
-------
Section II-4
Sampling and Analysis Issues
verages Applied to Block Groups
Based on Travel Distance of Fishers
Sources of variability in mercury concentrations, such as the age or size of the fish,
species, and cut offish, can confound the ability to make comparisons between samples. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a statistical procedure to predict what a sampled
concentration would be for one size, species, or cut offish from a sample of another size,
species, or cut offish (Wente, 2004, available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5199/).
This ability to predict mercury concentrations for fish that meet certain size, species, or
and/or cut criteria from a robust data set of hundreds of other size, species, and/or cut
combinations is critical for regulatory purposes because human exposure to mercury is through
the consumption offish with high concentrations of biomagnified mercury.
The National Descriptive Model of Mercury and Fish (NDMMF), developed by Dr. Steve
Wente of the USGS, establishes a statistical relationship between samples taken at different
locations from different species and lengths offish with different sampling methods. The
NDMMF algorithm uses those
200
Concentrations -
relationships to estimate a fish tissue
concentration for a selected, predefined
species, size, and sampling method chosen
from an actual sample with different
parameters. However, the algorithm has
limitations in that it does not estimate
mercury concentrations where samples
were not already taken, (i.e., no spatial
interpolation or extrapolation). A
combination of the NLFA and the
National Lake Fish Tissue Study (NLFTS)
would provide enough sampled
concentrations to establish a "baseline"
from which to predict concentration
changes after proposed new regulation implementations. After screening National Listing of
Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) and NLFTS data for data entry errors, nongeoreferenced
data, missing attributes, and samples collected prior to 1990, the NDMMF was used with the
data to estimate fish tissue concentration at locations across the country.
To examine the performance of the NDMMF a random 10 percent of the observations
where at least two samples were available from a single sample location were withheld and the
NDMMFF was re-run without the samples. The withheld data set was predicted based on the
statistical relationships established by the NDMMF. The resulting spread of the data remained
similar. The residuals for a majority of the data are balanced around zero, and there is a slightly
unbalanced tail, indicating a slight under-prediction of extremely high values. Scatterplots also
indicate slight under-prediction of high values. The NDMMF is a log model. To evaluate the
model, predicted values were transformed back to ppm. A log back-transformation bias is likely
responsible for the slight under-prediction. For future studies, where possible, it is recommended
that predictions remain in the log scale.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-44
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
Mapping Sensitivity of Aquatic Ecosystems to Mercury
Inputs across the Contiguous United States
David P. Krabbenhoft, U.S. Geological Survey
About 15 to 20 years ago, researchers at a few locations across the globe discovered high
levels of mercury in fish from remote settings lacking any obvious mercury source. We now
know that, for most aquatic ecosystems, atmospheric deposition is the dominant source, and that
mercury methylation is the key process that translates low mercury loading rates into relatively
high levels at the top of food webs. Presently, proposed mercury emission regulations are a key
topic of debate in the United States and elsewhere, with fundamental disagreements over the
magnitude and timing of ecosystem responses to changes in mercury loading. Recent field
dosing studies in the Everglades and in northwestern Ontario have clearly demonstrated that
mercury additions yield higher levels of mercury in fish; however, anticipating and explaining
where areas of heightened concern may be has remained under evaluated. In the past year, the
U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have undertaken an
exploratory effort to determine whether nationally distributed data of major ion chemistry of
surface waters and land use of the United States can be used in a predictive manner to assess
whether we might expect to see regional differences in vulnerability among aquatic ecosystems
to mercury inputs. It is well known that logical sequences of ecological regions exist across the
contiguous United States, and that these settings have characteristics that are widely varying
(e.g., coastal lowlands versus high-altitude alpine systems). In addition, mercury researchers
across the globe have demonstrated over the past 15 years what general conditions appear to
promote greater transformation of inorganic mercury (derived from deposition) to
methylmercury, which bioaccumulates in food webs and is of substantial lexicological concern.
This paper explores the perceived trends in "mercury vulnerability" across the United States in a
first attempt to explore whether focused regional attention on this global problem is warranted.
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish
and Changes in Exposure Resulting from
the Clean Air Mercury Rule
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mercury is a metal that transforms into methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury,
when it is deposited into water. Methylmercury is ingested by the smallest to largest aquatic
species and can bioaccumulate in predatory fish that consume smaller species. The major
exposure pathway in humans and wildlife to methylmercury is through the consumption offish
from both freshwater and saltwater sources. In this presentation, we show two different
approaches for estimating the exposure to methylmercury in women of childbearing age resulting
from freshwater sources.
Present methodologies used to estimate reductions in fish tissue concentrations result
from the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Modeling impacts of CAMR on calculated mercury
tissue concentrations requires the integration of several models. The mercury maps approach
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-45
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
assumes that for a unit change in mercury deposition (e.g., 1% decrease), freshwater fish tissue
will change proportionally (e.g., 1% decrease) when the ecosystem is in equilibrium. Benefits
modeling assesses changes in fish tissue and improvements in human health. The focus of this
analysis is on freshwater fish because there is data availability for a quantitative analysis, air
quality changes occur primarily over freshwater sources, and the mercury maps approach only
applies to freshwater fish.
Several factors were considered to determine the best approach to evaluate the impacts of
CAMR on fish tissue. For fish tissue data, the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
(NLFWA) and the National Lake Fish Tissue Study (NLFTS) provide the most expansive set of
fish tissue samples. Samples are primarily taken from freshwater sources in the eastern half of
the United States (Texas to East Coast). Further mercury deposition from utility sources occurs
primarily in the eastern half of the United
Changes in Exposure Resulting States
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
CAMR (postregulation) for both of the approaches. The maximum potential reduction based on
the average estimated fish tissue concentration from utilities (and their monetized benefits) is
calculated for the population-centroid approach and the angler-destination approach.
The regulatory impact analysis of the Final Clean Air Mercury Rule is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/mercury _ria_final.pdf.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-47
-------
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues
[This page intentionally left blank.]
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-48
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Fish consumption, advisory awareness, and mercury exposure were assessed among
Wisconsin's adult population by adding a module to the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) and by inviting all adult residents to participate in a mercury
exposure study. Four thousand two hundred and six (4,206) BRFSS participants were asked
about fish consumption and advisory awareness, and 2,000 adult hair donors completed fish
consumption/advisory awareness questionnaires. Research questions included: how much fish
are people eating, what types offish are they eating, how much mercury are Wisconsin residents
being exposed to, and how much mercury are men being exposed to? Funding for this research
was provided by the Wisconsin Department of Administration's Focus on Energy Program and
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The BRFSS provided fish consumption and advisory awareness information for more
than 4,000 randomly selected adults. Weighted analysis of the BRFSS indicated that 83 percent
of adults who live in Wisconsin include fish in their diets. Among fish consumers, men and
women reported an average of 5.1 and 4.8 fish meals per month, respectively. In comparison, 95
percent of 2,029 hair donors included fish in their diets, with consumption rates averaging 7.6
and 7.7 fish meals per month among men and women, respectively. Hair mercury levels ranged
from 0.012 to 15.2 |ig/g (ppm) and
Low vs. High Exposure Groups
Hair mercury level
exceeded the guideline value of 1 ppm in
29 percent of the men and 13 percent of
the women who participated in this phase
of our research.
Hair mercury levels were
significantly higher in men (0.918 ppm)
than in women (0.525 ppm) and were
correlated with monthly fish consumption
estimates. Based on a comparison of
BRFSS and hair donor data,
approximately 12 percent of Wisconsin's
adult population is expected to have a hair
mercury level above 1 ppm, which
exceeds the exposure guideline for methylmercury. Men over the age of 50 who eat sportfish
and ingest more than 8 fish meals per month are more at risk for exposure. Future studies could
determine: why hair mercury levels are higher in men; how non-fish eaters are being exposed to
mercury; and what the mercury levels are in children.
Gender
Race
Average age
% over 50 yrs. of age
Fishing license holders
Advisory awareness
Income > $50,000/yr
Ave. fish intake rate
Ave. sportfish intake rate
< 0.1 ppm
N= 188
66% women
94% white
43 yrs
33%
30%
62%
49%
3 meals/mo.
0.3 meals/mo.
>2.0 ppm
N = 131
78% men
>98% white
54 yrs
63%
70%
87%
48%
12 meals/mo.
4 meals/mo.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-49
-------
Section II-5 Toxicology
Physiological and Environmental Importance
of Mercury-Selenium Interactions
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
Knowledge of selenium metabolism is central to understanding and preventing mercury
toxicity. Dietary selenium is essential in supporting the synthesis of selenocysteine, the rare but
important amino acid that is specifically incorporated as the functional active-site component of
selenium-dependent enzymes. These enzymes are present in tissue-specific distributions in all
cells of all animals, but their functions appear to be especially important in the central nervous
system and endocrine organs. These numerous (25+ types) selenoproteins are important in free-
radical detoxification, thyroid hormone metabolism, DNA synthesis, and selenoprotein synthesis,
among other physiologically significant roles.
The molecular mechanisms of mercury toxicity and selenium's protective effects against
mercury both depend on the extraordinarily high binding affinity between mercury and selenium.
Selenium-dependent physiology is sensitive to mercury toxicity because selenocysteine must be
resynthesized during each cycle of protein synthesis. Each cycle of selenocysteine synthesis
forms selenide, which has an extremely high mercury-binding affinity (1045), resulting in highly
insoluble (10"52) mercury selenides. Mercury toxicity occurs when excessive mercury stops
selenocysteine synthesis and prevents selenoenzymes from performing their normal activities.
Selenium's protective effect occurs when sufficient selenium is provided to overcome the effects
of mercury sequestration and to sustain normal selenoenzyme activities.
Selenium physiology is also important to understand when considering the
bioaccumulation of mercury in the environment. Mercury concentrations in lake fish appear to
be inversely related to selenium availability. For example, selenium additions to selenium-
deficient lakes have been found to
decrease mercury bioaccumulation in fish
Summary
The molecular mechanism of mercury toxicity and the
molecular mechanism of selenium's protective effects are
related, possibly identical.
predatory creatures that consume them.
Mercury toxicity occurs in populations exposed to foods
containing disproportionate quantities of mercury
relative to selenium.
Although ocean fish are rich in selenium, availability of
environmental selenium will vary the amount of mercury
accumulated in freshwater fish and simultaneously
influence the Hg:5e ratio in ways that may result in
enhanced risk.
HEERC
collected from these lakes. This may be
the result of mercury selenide formation in
organisms of the lower food web,
diminishing mercury availability to the
Reduced bioavailability of mercury in the
lower food web will result in less mercury
bioaccumulation in fish consumed by
humans.
It is important to note that
although selenium's geological
distribution follows regional trends,
selenium's availability from soils can vary dramatically over even short distances. Because
mercury retirement rates in lakes can depend upon the environmental availability of selenium,
selenium's role should be considered when evaluating mercury bioaccumulation in fish.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-50
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Note: These findings do not necessarily reflect U.S. EPA policies.)
Using data for the 3,613 female examinees who participated in the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 1999 through 2002, national estimates of
blood organic mercury (OHg) were generated. Women whose incomes exceeded the "poverty"
level of $20,000 for a household of four had higher blood mercury concentrations than those
whose household income was less than the "poverty" level. Differences in the distribution of
blood mercury
concentrations were
observed across racial and
ethnic groups, with higher
blood mercury
concentrations reported
among non-Hispanic blacks
and other-Hi spanics, and
the highest average
concentrations reported
among "other" races.
Similar rankings were
Based on the Combined NHANES 1999 - 2002
Data for Adult Women and National Center for
Health Statistics Data in the United States
• During the combined years 1999-2002, among women ages 16 through 49
years who participated in the NHANES, 10.2% had blood mercury
concentrations >/= 3.5 ug/L.
• The number of women delivering babies during these years* were
1999: 3,959,417
2000: 4,058,814
2001: 4,025,933
2002: 4,021.726
Average: 4,016,427
Estimate number of infants born to mothers with blood organic mercury
concentrations >/= 3.5 ug/L:
10.2% x 4.016,427 = 409.676 or ~ 410,000
observed at the 90 ' and
th
-th
95 ' percentiles. Women
residing in coastal areas
had blood mercury
concentrations that were 40 percent higher on average than those of women in noncoastal areas.
Blood mercury concentrations for women living on the Atlantic coastal area were greater than
those for women living in the Pacific coastal area, which, in turn, were greater than those for
women living in the region of the Gulf of Mexico. These geographic differences may be
important explanatory variables in differences between average mercury concentrations observed
between NHANES 1999/2000 and 2001/2002 because they may be linked to differences in
geographic sampling.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) reference dose (RfD) for
methylmercury is 0.1 jag/kg-bw/day and is associated with a cord blood mercury concentration of
5.8 |ig/L. The methylmercury RfD is based on a benchmark dose lower limit of 58 jig Hg/L cord
blood, utilizing an uncertainty factor of 10. Recognizing that cord blood mercury concentrations
are 70 percent higher than maternal blood mercury concentrations at the mean, when assessing
biomonitoring data for adult women, 3.5 |ig Hg/L whole blood is equivalent to 5.8 ug Hg/L cord
blood. Within the NHANES data for the years 1999 through 2002, 10.2 percent of women had
blood [Hg] greater than or equal to 3.5 |ag/L. Over this time period, there was an average of
approximately 4,010,000 births per year. It is therefore estimated that approximately 410,000
births (i.e., 10.2% of 4,010,000) could occur to women whose blood [OHg] indicates exposures
greater than U.S. EPA's RfD for methylmercury.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-51
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment
in the Methyl mercury RfD
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
A critical and major element in the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) reference dose (RfD) for methylmercury is the uncertainty factor (UF) analysis. The UF
analysis addresses both the conversion from cord blood mercury concentration to maternal intake
dose (the "dose conversion") and the inherent uncertainty in the RfD derivation. Since U.S.
EPA's derivation of the RfD in 2001, new data and analyses have become available that have the
potential to influence the value of the dose conversion as well as the interpretation of the inherent
uncertainty. For example, the ratio of mercury in cord blood to mercury in maternal blood has
been established. In addition, some have
analyzed how the maternal does
corresponds to the cord blood
benchmark dose level.
A Modest Proposal
Because the description of how
these factors were integrated into the
existing UF analysis is imprecise and
perhaps contradictory, possible revisions
of the current UF analysis cannot be
made by simple substitution of values
for the appropriate elements in the
analysis. It would be informative to
It would be informative to examine what the
UF might look like if we apply the new
information and new perspectives in a new
UF derivation
- Dose conversion with updated cord:maternal
ratio
- Cardiovascular effect data
- Fresh look at sensitive populations
examine what the new UF might look
like if we applied the new information and perspectives. Specifically, we could revise the dose
conversion with the updated cord blood: maternal blood ratio, review the cardiovascular effect
data, and take a fresh look at sensitive populations.
In the current RfD, the dose conversion is derived probabilistically and there is
uncertainty about appropriate central tendency estimates (central tendency and variability are
separated). Recently, a new analysis of the dose conversion has emerged. It is no longer useful
to separate central tendency and variable estimates. Updated cord blood : maternal blood ratios
and their variability could be incorporated directly.
Another question is whether cardiovascular effects should be addressed by a database
insufficiency. There are two major studies that show significantly elevated risk of myocardial
infarction occurred within the range of current dietary exposures of the U.S. adult male
population. This appears to justify application of a database insufficiency based on
cardiovascular effects alone.
To include an uncertainty factor about sensitivity in humans, it is only necessary that
there be a reasonable basis for assuming that the U.S. population could have a greater range of
sensitivity than the population from which the RfD was derived. The homogeneity of the
Faroese and the possible greater sensitivity in the varied New Zealand population argues that the
U.S. population may have a greater range of sensitivity.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-52
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
Possible calculations incorporating a new dose conversion, a minimum UF for database
insufficiency, and a minimum UF for sensitive humans were presented. A fresh look at the UF
for methlylmercury presents a range of possible appropriate values for the resulting RfD. These
values extend from 70 percent of the current RfD to 20 percent of the current value. There is no
uniquely correct value, but this analysis presents a basis for a rational and transparent decision.
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects
of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Heart disease is the leading cause of death among men and women, and whether mercury
contributes to this risk is of great concern. This presentation explores the effect of mercury on
the heart. We know that mercury toxicity affects the brain, kidney, and fetus. Mercury has
systemic and direct cardiovascular effects. Systemic effects include an increase in free radicals
and reactive oxygen species, lipid peroxidation, coagulation, and a decrease in antioxidant
system function (e.g., glutathione peroxidase). Direct cardiovascular effects include a decrease
in myocardial contractile force, an increase in Ca^ release from myocardial sarcoplasmic
reticulum, a decrease in left ventricular myosin adenosine triphosphatase (ATP-ase) activity and
heartrate variability, and an increase in blood pressure.
The Health Professionals Follow-up Study followed a prospective cohort of 51,529 U.S.
male health professionals aged 40-75 years in 1986. Dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists,
osteopaths, podiatrists, and optometrists were studied. There were repeated assessments of diet,
lifestyle behaviors, and medical history. During 5 years of follow up, there were 409 cases of
nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal coronary heart disease (CHD), or coronary artery
bypass graft/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (CABG/PTCA). Dr. Steve Morris
of the University of Missouri-
Columbia's Research Reactor
Center completed the toenail
assessment.
Mean Characteristics Between
Prospectively Identified CHD Cases
and Matched Controls
Controls
Long-term feeding
studies suggest that toenails
and hair are good markers of
intake and exposure. The mean
mercury concentration in
prospectively identified CHD
cases was 0.72 jag/g and in
matched controls was 0.74
[\.g/g. When we compared the
top quintile to the bottom
quintile of mercury, we did not
find an elevated risk of CHD
(relative risk = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65, 1.65). However, when we excluded the
dentists from the analysis and controlled for n-3 fatty acid intake, the relative risk estimate
Characteristics
Age (years) *
Mercury (jjg/g)
BMI (kg/m2)
Current smokers (%)*
Diabetes
Hypertension
Hypercholesterolemia
Alcohol (g/day)
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-53
-------
Section II-5 Toxicology
associated with higher mercury was somewhat elevated (relative risk = 1.70; 95% CI: 0.78,
3.73), although still nonsignificant.
In the Health Professionals Follow-up Study we found that toenail mercury reflects
mercury intake. The cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefit of n-3 fatty acids in fish is strongly
supported by a wide range of scientific evidence. Whether the mercury content offish leads to
elevated CVD has support from some European studies, less so from U.S. studies, although no
study has yet had ample power across fatal and nonfatal CHD endpoints to address this issue
completely. Further prospective studies are needed to help clarify the association, if any,
between mercury and CFID.
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
This presentation explores the cardiovascular health effects of mercury by reviewing the
results of European studies. Some key pathogenic processes in the etiology of atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease (CVD) include oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation,
and thrombosis. Key risk factors include high blood pressure, high LDL (low-density
lipoprotein) cholesterol, low FIDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol, diabetes, and insulin
resistance. Mercury may relate to CVD through the following mechanisms of action. Mercury
may increase oxidative stress; produce effects on blood pressure and heart rate variability; effect
endothelial cells and inflammatory response; and effect intima-media thickness.
The Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study was a cohort study of 1,833 men in Eastern
Finland. The men were 42 to 60 years of age and had a high intake of freshwater fish from
locally contaminated mercury lakes. Hair mercury content was measured by flow injection
analysis—cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry and amalgamation. The mean mercury
level in hair was 1.98 |ig/g. Dietary intakes offish and mercury were associated with
significantly increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Men in the highest tertile (> 2
|ig/g) of hair mercury content had a 2.0-fold age- and coronary heart disease-adjusted risk of
AMI. However, men in the highest fifth of DHA+DPA (docosahexaenoic acid +
docosapentaenoic acid) in serum total fatty acids who had a low hair mercury content (<2 |ag/g)
had a 67 percent reduced risk of acute coronary events compared with men in the lowest fifth
who had a high hair content of mercury (>2 |ag/g). Men in the highest third of hair mercury
content (>2 |ig/g) had an adjusted 1.60-fold risk of acute coronary event compared with men in
the lower two thirds. High hair mercury content was a strong predictor of the 4-year increase in
the mean carotid intima-media thickness.
The EURAMIC Study selected men aged 70 years or younger who were native residents
of eight European countries or residents of Israel. Subjects were excluded if they had a previous
diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI), drug or alcohol abuse, major psychiatric disorders, if
they were institutionalized, or if they had modified their dietary pattern in the past year. Cases
were men with a first acute MI, confirmed by electrocardiogram (ECG) and enzyme changes,
and hospitalized within 24 hours from the onset of symptoms. Cases were recruited from the
coronary care units of participating hospitals. Controls were men without a history of MI,
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-54
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
frequency matched to cases in 5-year intervals. Mercury levels in toenails were measured. After
adjustment for the DHA level and coronary risk factors, the toenail mercury levels in the patients
were 15 percent higher than those in controls. The risk-factor-adjusted odds ratio for MI
associated with the highest as compared with the lowest quintile of mercury was 2.16. After
adjustment for the mercury level, the DHA level was inversely associated with the risk of MI
(odds ratio for the highest versus the lowest quintile, 0.59).
The strengths of the EURAMIC study are its large sample size; its use of toenail mercury
by neutron activation analysis; its use of adipose tissue DHA; and its multicenter design. The
study does have some limitations, such as
the case-control design; lack of data on
dietary intake; measurement error; and
nonfatal cases of MI.
Conclusions
a More data is needed to assess the effect of
Hg on CVD
Q Hg seems to oppose the effect of n-3 fatty
acids in fish
a Effect of Hg needs to be analyzed in
combination with effect of n-3 fatty acids
a Other contaminants / micronutrients in fish
may also need to be considered
Reviewing the above studies leads
to the following conclusions. More data
are needed to assess the effect of mercury
on CVD. However, mercury does seem to
oppose the effect of n-3 fatty acids in fish.
For this reason, the effect of mercury
needs to be analyzed in combination with
effect of n-3 fatty acids. Other
contaminants and micronutrients in fish
may also need to be considered.
(Note: Forthe Kuipio Study, see Salonen, J.T. et al. 1995. Circulation 91:645-655; Rissanen. T.R. et al.
2000. Circulation 102:2677-2679; Virtanen, J.K. etal. 2005. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vase. Biol. 25:228-
233; and Salonen, J.T. et al. 2000. Atherosclerosis 148:265-273. For the EURAMIC study, see Guallar,
E. et al. 2002. New England Journal of Medicine 347:1747-1754.)
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA
Christopher Lan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Note: Tliis presentation does not necessarily reflect U.S. EPA policy.)
Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) are fully fluorinated organic chemicals with a carbon
backbone (typically varying from C-4 to C-14) and a functional group (usually carboxylic acid or
sulfonic acid). These chemicals are human made, are exceptionally stable with respect to
metabolic and environmental degradation, and possess surfactant properties that lead to wide
consumer and industrial applications, which include coatings for fabrics and carpets; coatings for
paper products approved for food contact; fire-fighting foam; and the production of
fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers. The most widely used PFAAs in commerce are the C-8
forms, such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and the
telomer alcohol (which is metabolized to PFOA).
Both PFOS and PFOA have been recently detected in humans and wildlife. Importantly,
these chemicals are readily absorbed but poorly eliminated. In humans, elimination half-lives of
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-55
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
Postnatal Survival: Rat
5.4 and 3.8 years have been estimated respectively for PFOS and PFOA. In 2003, the production
of PFOS was phased out by its manufacturer, but its place in commerce has been taken up
primarily by PFOA and by other PFAAs of different carbon chain lengths.
Developmental toxicity studies with PFOS and PFOA have been conducted in our
laboratory in the past few years with
rodent models. Both chemicals produced v. — L._
maternal toxicity, and deficits of maternal
weight gains and liver enlargement were
common features. Neither chemical was
remarkably teratogenic, and prenatal
effects were mostly composed of delayed
development. Newborns from PFOS-
treated rats and PFOA-treated mice were
delivered live, but neonatal mortality was
observed in the ensuing hours and days in
a dose-dependent manner. A similar
pattern of postnatal growth retardation
•g 60 1
§L4o-|
20 -
0
5 10 15 20
Postnatal Age (days)
was seen with PFOS-and PFOA-treated • ._• .
pups. Our results therefore suggest ~
developmental toxicity for both C-8 PFAAs and underscore potential common mechanisms of
toxicity shared by the entire class of these chemicals.
Overview of the National Toxicology Program Studies of
Interactions between Individual PCB Congeners
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
National Institutes of Health
The dioxin toxic equivalency factor (TEF) approach is currently used worldwide for
assessing and managing the risks posed by exposure to mixtures of certain dioxin-like
compounds. Use of the TEF approach assumes that the combined effects of dioxin-like
compounds in a mixture can be predicted based on a potency-adjusted dose additive combination
of constituents of the mixture.
To test the TEF approach for carcinogenic risk, the National Toxicology Program
conducted multiple 2-year rodent cancer bioassays in female Harlan Sprague Dawley rats,
examining the carcinogenicity of several dioxin-like compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), a defined ternary mixture, and two mixtures of PCBs. Statistically based, dose-response
modeling was used to evaluate the dose response for induction of both neoplastic and non-
neoplastic effects seen in these studies, and to test for interactions between compounds within
mixtures and interactions between dioxin-like and non-dioxin-like PCBs.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-56
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
PCB Mixtures Summary
PCB 126/PCB153 and PCB 126/118
Increased incidence of neoplasms in multiple organs
• Liver - Cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular adenoma
• Lung - Cystic keratinizing epithelioma
• Oral Mucosa - Squamous cell carcinoma
Expected increases in dioxin-Iike responses
• Increases in CYP1 expression at all doses, all times, in both studies
• Lower T4 and increased T3 for both studies, inconsistent effect on TSH
Hepatotoxicity
• Dose- and duration-dependent increase in incidence and severity
Non-neoplastic effects in multiple organs
• Notably lung, oral mucosa. pancreas, adrenal cortex, thyroid, thymus.
and kidney.
For the defined mixture of
dioxin-like compounds, the dose
response for induction of
carcinogenicity for the mixture was
consistent with an additive
combination of the potency-adjusted
doses of the individual compounds,
when using administered dose as the
dose metric. For the PCB mixtures,
one of PCB 126 and PCB 118 and the
other a mixture of PCB 126 and
PCB 153, the pattern of carcinogenic
responses was consistent with that
seen with PCB 126 alone.
Overall, these data support the
use of the TEF approach for potency-adjusted dose addition for use in cancer risk assessments
for dioxin-like compounds. Another implication is that interactions can impact interpretation of
toxic equivalent (TEQ) in mixtures of PCBs with multiple modes of action.
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories:
Consideration of the Evolving Science
JohnD. Schell, BBL, Inc.
Most states issue polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) advisories that are either
risk/consumption based or Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based (based on the established
tolerance level). In risk- or consumption-based advisories, as fish consumption goes up, the
allowable fish tissue level goes down. For example, the Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task
Force (1993) recommends only one meal per week for fish with 0.2 ppm, and only 6 meals per
year for fish with 1.9 ppm. Risk-based advisories are established by showing consumption
results in a dose. Risk associated with the dose is determined using state of federally
promulgated toxicity factors. Three different procedures are used to establish a trigger level.
Procedure 1 establishes a trigger level using toxicity factors derived from aroclor
mixtures so PCBs in fish tissue are reported in aroclor equivalents. Advantages to this approach
include that (1) aroclor-based toxicity factors consider response to multiple PCB congeners, (2)
the current CSF is based on well-performed studies, (3) the approach allows consistency with
historical approaches, and (4) laboratory costs are significantly lower than for the alternatives.
However, the mixture in fish is not represented by aroclor mixtures, PCB concentrations can be
underestimated, and some "dioxin-like" PCBs may be proportionally higher.
Procedure 2 bases advisories on toxicity factors derived from aroclor mixtures. Survey
data are reported as individual congeners or homologues, summed, and expressed as "total
PCBs." Aroclor-based toxicity factors consider response to multiple PCB congeners, and the
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-57
-------
Section II-5 Toxicology
current CSF is based on well-performed studies. In addition, analysis accounts for all congeners
present in tissue, so total PCBs are not underestimated. However, there are some disadvantages
to this approach. Congener or homologue patterns may differ among reaches, but this approach
assumes they are all equivalent. Applying aroclor-based advisory levels to variable patterns may
under- or over-estimate risks. Analytical costs, especially for congener-specific data, are very
high.
Procedure 3 bases advisories on toxicity factors from PCB congeners using the toxic
equivalency factor (TEF) approach; compliance is congener based. Fish advisories are actually
based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) cancer potency. An acceptable
dioxin concentration is based on the CSF . .
for TCDD, and TEFs for PCBs are applied
to determine compliance. .... . . . _. , . _ .. ._
1 What Approach Should Be Used?
The approach that should be used
should be chosen for its ability to protect
public health and the ability to implement
the program (e.g., analytical cost and
. ° TT . -„. , 2. Ability to implement the program
interpret results). Housatomc River data
Selection criteria:
1. Protect public health
- Analytical cost
- Interpret results.
BBL
were used as an example to examine
whether or not these procedures are
equally protective. Concentrations of
PCBs ("total PCB" and "PCB-toxic
equivalent") in fish tissue were
summarized. The cancer risks resulting
from the different sources of CSFs were examined for aroclor, the current and proposed U.S.
EPA dioxin CSF, and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) dioxin CSF.
Costs and benefits were considered. Aroclor analysis is the least expensive approach, PCB
homologues are mid-range in cost, and PCB congeners are the most expensive.
If the toxic equivalent (TEQ) cancer potency of "dioxin-like PCBs" in fish is greater than
the aroclor cancer potency of total PCBs, then we need to adopt an alternative approach.
However, aroclor-based toxicity factors are adequately protective of public health. The use of
homologues to estimate total PCBs in fish tissue addresses concerns that the commercial mixture
does not represent an accurate characterization of the environmental mixture. Given the
uncertainties associated with the TEQ approach, hypothetical "protectiveness" is not
commensurate with the significant cost considerations.
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance
P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration
A historical overview of the development of the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA's) action level for methylmercury and tolerance for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
fish and shellfish was given. Both were developed in the 1970s and were established on the
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-58
-------
Section II-5 Toxicology
basis of different portions of the federal food and drug statute. Section 402(a)(l) of the Food
Adulteration Standards of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act state:
"If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render
it injurious to health: but in case the substance is not an added substance such
food shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such
substance in such food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health."
The methylmercury action level was based on the "may render injurious to health"
provision of the statute. An action level of 0.5 ppm was established in 1969 and reviewed by
several committees. In 1979, the proposal was withdrawn and an action level of 1 ppm was
established because of two issues raised in the Anderson Seafoods case involving swordfish (i.e.,
newer analysis indicated methylmercury exposure via fish was less than originally estimated, and
analysis of dose-response data in Swedish fishermen indicated the threshold for parathesia in
adults was greater than 50 ppm in hair). In 1984, the action level was changed from total
mercury to methylmercury. In 1994, FDA stressed the importance offish as a source of protein,
but recommended that pregnant women and women of childbearing age should limit
consumption of swordfish and shark to no more than once a month. The current methylmercury
advisory recommends:
• Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish because they contain high
levels of mercury.
• Eat up to 12 oz (2 average meals) a week of a variety offish and shellfish that are
lower in mercury.
• Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned
light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish.
• Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned
light tuna. So, when choosing your 2 meals offish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6
oz (1 average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
• Check local advisories about the safety offish caught by family and friends in your
local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6 oz (1
average meal) per week offish you catch from local waters, but don't consume any
other fish during that week.
The PCB tolerance was also developed on the same statutory basis as well as other
provisions, such as the detestability and avoidability provisions. In 1972, due to presence in diet
and documented toxicity in laboratory animals and episodes of human intoxication, tolerances in
several food groups were proposed, including 5 ppm in fish. In 1977, a proposal was published
to lower the temporary tolerances. The temporary tolerance for fish was lowered to 2 ppm. In
1984, the tolerance for fish and shellfish was formally established.
The goals of FDA's dioxin-like contaminants (DLCs) program include identifying DLC-
PCBs in food and feed suspected to contain these compounds and opportunities for DLC
reduction by identifying sources/pathways that can be mitigated. The Total Diet Study is an
annual market-basket program initiated in 1961 that involves the purchase of selected foods
across the country and analysis for essential minerals, toxic elements, radionuclides, industrial
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-59
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
PCDD/PCDF Exposure Estimates from
2001, 2002, and 2003 TDS Foods
Total U.S. population (ND=0)
Dairy
15% Eggs
Poultry_
2%
Fats/oils
2%
Fruit/veg.
4%
chemicals, and pesticides. It is
designed to monitor nutrient and
contaminant content of the food
supply and observe trends over
time. Beginning in 1999, 7 PCDD
(polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin)
and 10 PCDF (polychlorinated
dibenzofuran) congeners were
monitored, and in 2004, three
dioxin-like PCB congeners (PCB-
77, PCB-126, and PCB-169) were
added. Forty-four percent (44%)
of PCDD/PCDF exposures are
from meat. Fish and shellfish are
among the foods sampled for the
study.
In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC)
recommended strategies to decrease dietary exposure to DLCs. Overall, the best strategy for
lowering the risk of DLCs while maintaining the benefits of a good diet is to follow the
recommendations in the Federal Dietary Guidelines. These strategies help lower the intake of
saturated fats, as well as reduce the risk of exposure to dioxin.
U.S. EPA's New Cancer Guidelines
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The revision process for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's)
cancer guidelines has been underway since the early 1990s. Many incarnations were reviewed
extensively. The guidelines were finalized and published in March 2005, with the concurrent
release of Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Risks from Early-Life Exposures. Some
key differences since the 1986 cancer guidelines include:
• Analyze data before invoking default options.
• Mode of action is key in decisions.
• Weight-of-evidence narrative replaces the previous "A-B-C-D-E" classification
scheme.
• Two-step dose response assessment:
- Model in observed range
- Extrapolate from point of departure.
• Consider linear and nonlinear extrapolation.
• Address differential risks to children.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-60
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
The mode of action is a sequence of key events and processes, starting with interaction of
an agent with a cell, proceeding through operational and anatomical changes, and resulting in
cancer formation. Mode of action is contrasted with "mechanism of action," which implies a
more detailed understanding and description of events, often at the molecular level, than is meant
by mode of action. The mode of action is key in hazard identification because it helps describe
circumstances under which an agent is carcinogenic (e.g., high dose, route of administration) and
the relevance of data for humans. The choice of low-dose extrapolation (nonlinear or linear)
depends on the mode of action. When there is no evidence of linearity, but there is sufficient
information to support mode of action nonlinear extrapolation at low doses, then nonlinear
extrapolation is used. Linear extrapolation is used when mutagenic mode of action or another
mode of action is expected to be linear at low doses or linear extrapolation is default when data
do not establish the mode of action. In risk characterization, mutagenic mode of action risk is
increased by an age-dependent adjustment factor (in the absence of data supporting separate risk
estimates for childhood exposure): less
than 2 years old = tenfold and 2 years to
less than 16 years = threefold.
Some Conclusions
Genotoxic s Mutagenic * Mutagenic MOA
U.S. EPA is working on guidance for
establishing both mutagenicity and mutagenic
MOA
• Way to organize data, decision points
• Look for some progress (but not the definitive
word) soon
Gene-tox data are best used in the context of
the whole database for MOA.
In this framework, the summary
description of the hypothesized mode of
action and identification of key events are
included, as is the experimental support,
consideration of the possibility of other
modes of action, and the relevance to
humans. A "key event" is an empirically
observable precursor step that is itself a
necessary element of the mode of action or
is a biologically based marker for such an
element. Genotoxic or mutagenic is not
equal to mutagenic mode of action for cancer or other health effects. U.S. EPA is working on
guidance for establishing both mutagenicity and mutagenic mode of action (e.g., way to organize
data and decision points). Gene-tox data are best used in the context of the whole database for
mode of action.
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish:
The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are brominated flame retardants added to
numerous types of resins and plastics. These flame retardantresins and plastics are then
incorporated into many common commercial products such as furniture, carpet padding,
televisions, and cell phones. Due to their physicochemical properties, and the manner in which
these flame retardants are applied, PBDEs leach out into the environment and accumulate in food
webs and in people. In a series of exposure studies, common carp were exposed to PBDEs and
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-61
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in their diet. Examination of the body burdens revealed that
uptake and assimilation of PBDEs was comparable to the uptake and assimilation of PCBs.
However, the half-lives of PBDEs were significantly lower than the half-life of PCBs,
due to an apparent metabolic transformation. Single brominated diphenyl ether (BDE) congener
exposures revealed that common carp have the ability to debrominate BDE 99, BDE 183 and
BDE 209 via an enzymatic pathway.
Following a 60-day dietary exposure to
BDE 99 alone, common carp
accumulated only BDE 47 in their
tissues and no measurable levels of
BDE 99. BDE47(2,2',4,4'-
tetrabromodiphenyl ether) can be
formed from BDE 99 (2,2',4,4',5-
pentabromodiphenyl ether) by the
removal of one meta-substituted
bromine atom. In a 60 day dietary
exposure to BDE 209, carp
accumulated one penta, three hexa,
two hepta, and one octabrominated
diphenyl ether in their tissues, due to
apparent metabolic transformation.
These studies demonstrate that some species have the ability to metabolize PBDE congeners
rapidly to less brominated analogues. Considering that toxicity studies have shown increased
toxicity with decreasing bromination, some concern may be warranted.
PBDEs: Toxicology Update
Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Note: Tliis presentation does not necessarily reflect U.S. EPA policy.)
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been major commercial products used as
flame retardants. While two of the commercial mixtures, Penta and Octa, have either been
withdrawn or banned in Europe and the United States, respectively, the largest volume mixture,
Deca, continues to be widely used. The relative congener mix in environmental samples,
wildlife, and people rarely resembles that in the commercial products. The Penta mixture is the
most ecotoxic, with recent studies demonstrating developmental effects in fish at low water
concentrations, and immunological and hormonal effects in wildlife. While the hepatotoxicity of
the commercial mixtures has been known for some time, association of the induction profiles of
liver enzymes with specific congeners has shown that dioxin-like activities are due to
contaminants in the commercial products.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-62
-------
Section II-5
Toxicology
Recent studies have focused on
endocrine disruption and on
developmental reproductive toxicity and
neurotoxicity. The Penta mixture, as well
as several congeners and/or their
metabolites, are anti-thyroid, anti-
progestin, and anti-androgenic, and may
be either estrogenic or anti-estrogenic.
Penta, brominated diphenyl ether 99 (BDE
99), and BDE 47 delay puberty and are
toxic to both male and female sex organs.
Penta and multiple BDE congeners,
including BDE 209, are developmentally
neurotoxic, impairing sensory and
cognitive function as well as sex-dependent behaviors. While the Deca congener is relatively
rapidly metabolized, the major lower brominated congeners are very persistent. Recent studies
have shown that mice eliminate the PBDEs more rapidly in urine than do rats, suggesting a
possible explanation for the wide variation of levels in people.
Given the high levels at the upper end of the distribution in Americans, there is little
margin of exposure. Major questions concern Deca breakdown, interaction of PBDEs with other
persistent chemicals, and the risk of alternative flame retardants. The final Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) Assessment of four of the major congeners found in wildlife and
people, BDE 47, BDE 99, BDE 153, and BDE 209, should be available by mid 2006.
Top 5% of current human exposure in U.S. - >400
ng/g lipid
• If humans are 25% lipid, then their "dose" is -0.1 mg/kg
body weight
Significant dose causing DNT
• Mice - < 0.8 mg BDE99/kg
• Rats-<0.7 mg BDE47/kg
Mouse tissue concentrations associated with DNT
are only ~10X higher that total PBDE
concentrations in human tissues in North America
Margin of exposure for PBDEs appears low
Additional concern: Are PBDEs interacting with
other PBTs?
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-63
-------
Section II-5 Toxicology
[This page intentionally left blank.]
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-64
-------
Section II-6
Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics
William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
There are two essential fatty acid families, the omega-6 family and the omega-3 family.
Omega-6 fatty acids are contained in corn, safflower, and sunflower oils, as well as meat, eggs,
and brains. Omega-3 fatty acids are contained in flaxseed, canola, and soybean oils; oily fish;
and fish oil capsules. In adults, the conversion rate of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) is less than 1
percent to eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and less than 0.01 percent to docosahexaenoic acid
(DHA). There is no known need for ALA independent of its conversion to EPA/DHA. In fact,
adequate EPA/DHA may eliminate the need for dietary ALA. With low consumption of
EPA/DHA, a higher intake of omega-6 fatty acids will inhibit the conversion of ALA to
EPA/DHA.
The cardio-protective properties of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oils
have become clearer in recent years. The American Heart Association recommends that patients
with documented coronary heart disease take 1 gram of EPA/DHA per day. The Association
also recommends that patients without coronary heart disease (CHD) get about 500 mg of EPA
and DHA per day. Intakes of 500 to 1,000 mg per day, either from foods or supplements have
generally been associated with significantly reduced risk for CHD events, in particular, sudden
cardiac death. It is interesting to note that there is slightly less EPA/DHA in wild Atlantic
salmon than in farmed Atlantic salmon. There is much less EPA/DHA in wild rainbow trout than
in farmed rainbow trout.
Relative Risk for Death from CHD
Undesirable
0%
4% 8%
Percent of EPA+DHA in RBC
10%
These fatty acids appear to have anti-
arrhythmic properties that are unrelated to
their effects on blood lipids. The evidence for
the beneficial effects of the long-chain
omega-3 fatty acids from fish (EPA and
DHA) is much stronger than the evidence for
the beneficial effects from the short-chain
precursor, a-linolenic acid.
The omega-3 index is a measure of the
amount of EPA and DHA in red blood cell
membranes expressed as the percent of total
fatty acids. At 0 to 4 percent, there is little
protection against death from CHD; at 4 to 8
percent there is intermediate protection; at 8 to 10 percent there is a desirable level of protection
against CHD. Blood omega-3 fatty acid levels may be the most powerful predictor of increased
risk for sudden cardiac death, and may one day become a routine part of a cardiac risk panel.
Harris and von schacKy. 2Q04 Preveritrve Medicine
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-65
-------
Section II-6
Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
In the traditional diet-heart paradigm, total and saturated fat influence serum total and
low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which influences coronary heart disease (CHD). In a
more complete diet-heart paradigm, dietary habits, which include whole grain intake, glycemic
load, and specific fatty acid composition such as omega-3 fatty acid intake, may influence a wide
variety of health outcomes. Potential health outcomes include obesity, diabetes, atherosclerosis,
acute coronary syndromes, sudden death, other arrhythmias, heart failure, and stroke.
There is strong evidence from observational and clinical trials that dietary n-3 fatty acids
from fish or supplements reduce the risk of sudden death from CHD. Evidence also suggests
that n-3 fatty acid intake reduces atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure. Because of the
impact of n-3 fatty acids on so
many hormonal, signaling, and
metabolic pathways, the health
benefits of a diet high in n-3 fatty
acids may be more far reaching
than just those diseases described
above. Some early indications
suggest benefits for depression and
cognitive function.
Tuna/Other Fish Intake and Arrhythmic Death
Servings offish Cases Person-yrs
-------
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
development (many through infant formula, but others by supplementing lactating women with
fish oil or other sources of DHA). Results from randomized clinical trials have been presented
for infants/toddlers and young children. While many studies show DHA increases visual acuity,
there are fewer suggesting higher cognitive function. Higher cognitive function tends to be
found more consistently in older than in
younger children, which may be explained
i. by the fact that benefits are more obvious
LOnCIUSIOnS after children develop more sophisticated
.- • ~ - cognitive function.
Converging evidence shows that DHA is critical for
optimal central nervous system function.
In human infants, there is strong evidence for benefit of
postnatal DHA. Available evidence likely underestimates
effects because in most cases observation stopped by 18
months.
Results of a clinical trial and four observational studies
suggest that higher prenatal DHA exposure enhances
early development. , ... . ., ,, „,
c . . - . ,. ,_.,,. , . , . supplementation via the mother. The
Experimental studies of DHA-supplemented pregnant rr
women and their infants/children are planned or
underway.
Newer evidence points to the
likely importance of DHA during fetal
life, but there has been only one
randomized clinical trial, and it included
postnatal as well as prenatal DHA
majority of the current evidence that
higher maternal DHA status benefits
infant development comes from
observational studies. The observational study results have been used to justify funding for new
clinical trials that will address the effects of prenatal DHA exposure on infant development.
Based on what we have learned from animal models, failure to accumulate optimal amounts of
brain DHA during the prenatal period of human development may have irreversible
consequences for development. Obviously, it becomes important to determine both the short-
and long-term effects of variable DHA intake, especially as U.S. women typically consume less
DHA than most other groups worldwide. This low intake in effect provides less DHA
transferred to the fetus and breast-fed infant than in most other countries.
At present, a great deal more research is needed regarding the importance of timing and
amounts of DHA exposure for optimal brain development.
DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and
Benefits for Neuropsychological Function
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Note: The opinions in this paper are those of the author and should not be interpreted
to be the policies of the U.S. EPA.)
There is current evidence for adverse effects of methylmercury. Methylmercury affects
multiple developmental processes in brain. Several studies on rodents and monkeys have
documented adverse developmental effects. Three longitudinal prospective studies and half a
dozen cross-sectional studies have documented adverse effects. Effects include sensory and
motor deficits; deficits in learning, memory, and attention in animals and humans; and decreased
intelligence quotient (IQ) and language processing in humans. In addition, there may be
cardiovascular effects.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-67
-------
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined an effect level based on the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the findings of an independent panel. The U.S. EPA
calculated a range of levels; for example 58 jag/L mercury in cord blood (or 34 jig/L in maternal
blood). The U.S. EPA calculated a reference dose (RfD) using a benchmark dose lower limit
(BMDL) and uncertainty factors of 0.1 ng/kg bw/day. However, there is no evidence of a
threshold within ranges of body burdens in epidemiological studies. Four-year data (1999-2002)
from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study showed that 5.7
percent of U.S. women had blood mercury levels above 5.8 ng/L.
There is also evidence for adverse effects of poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In
multiple experimental studies, rodents and monkeys had adverse effects from developmental
exposure to PCBs. Four longitudinal prospective studies documented adverse effects. Effects
include decreased IQ and impaired language development in humans; adverse effects on memory
and attention; increased impulsivity and
perseveration; impaired executive function; Maternal Ingestion of Contaminants
and effects on sexually dimorphic behavior Associated with 1.0 gm/day DHA
in animals and humans. Effects observed in
humans and monkeys involved the same Hg |jg/kg/day PCB pg/kg/day
blood concentrations of PCBs. ShrimP low ?
Canned light tuna 1.25 0.35
Studies of M-3fa«y adds on infant S^—~ «»
development are difficult to interpret. There salmon o os
are at least 12 clinical trials of infants fed Alaska 0.009-0.141
formula plus or minus docosahexaenoic acid ^Sound JJ™
(DHA). Results were compared to review u s EPA Rto CMO cTo2
growth as well as visual, motor, and mental
development. Interpretation is complicated by the amount and ratio of linoleic and linolenic
acids; duration of supplementation; age at testing; tests used; and the physiological significance
of tests used.
Three studies report beneficial effects on visual development associated with various
measures (breast feeding, DHA, ingestion of oily fish). Four studies of cognition and behavior
show effects observed on some endpoints but not others. Effects are often associated with one
marker and not others.
There are potential confounding factors in DHA studies. For example, the best predictor
of a child's IQ is the mother's IQ. However, maternal IQ and fish intake may be correlated. The
Caldwell's home observation for measurement of the environment score may be particularly
important for visual development, but development of the visual system is highly dependent
upon visual input.
One randomized study from Norway looked at 100 infant-mother pairs who ingested 10
mL/day corn or cod liver oil (1.1 g DHA). There was no effect on memory (preferential looking)
at 6 and 9 months. There was better performance on cognitive tests at 4 years associated with
plasma DHA at 4 weeks, but not birth or 3 months. Another Inuit study was a prospective study
of neuropsychological effects in children. The study measured contaminants including PCBs,
methylmercury, lead, and pesticides, as well as omega-3 fatty acids. There was no beneficial
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-68
-------
Section II-6
Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
effect of omega-3s on nervous system function. There were no protective effects of omega-3s
against contaminant-associated neurotoxicity.
Omega-3 fatty acids may enhance infant development when ingested by the mother
prepartum, during breast feeding, or both. However, fish is a complex mixture. Fish contains
essential nutrients for mother and infant, but also contains contaminants harmful to both. Fish
oils are less complex mixtures.
Fish Consumption and Reproductive
and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Fish consumption is a source of many nutrients that can be beneficial during pregnancy,
yet it is also a source of neurotoxicant contaminants, such as methylmercury. While concern
over the potential for contaminants in fish to adversely affect neurodevelopment is prudent, the
potential nutritional benefits offish intake should also be considered when developing
recommendations to the public about fish consumption during pregnancy and early childhood.
Previous observational studies in large
populations have presented mixed results for
the impact offish consumption on
reproductive and developmental outcomes.
Preliminary Results.
Population characteristics
- 85% fish eaters
- 68% white, 24% African American
- Most low-mid income with varied education
- Extensive prenatal and early postnatal information
No effect offish intake frequency with:
- Gestational age ((3=0.5, p=0.46)
- Birth weight (P= - 0.8, p=0.36)
Expect results for PBDE and neurodevelopment
in 3 yrs
We evaluated the association
between maternal fish intake during
pregnancy and reproductive and early
language development in a large cohort of
British children born in 1991-1992. Fish
intake by the mother and child was measured
by questionnaire. The child's cognitive
development was assessed using adaptations
of the MacArthur Communicative
Development Inventory at 15 months of age and the Denver Developmental Screening Test at 18
months of age. In subsets of this cohort, maternal fish consumption was correlated with maternal
serum levels of long-chain fatty acids as well as umbilical cord tissue levels of mercury. Total
mercury concentrations were low and were not associated with neurodevelopment. Fish intake
by the mother during pregnancy, and the infant postnatally, was associated with slightly longer
gestation and increased birth weight. Fish intake was also associated with higher mean
developmental scores, as well as a decreased probability of low developmental scores. While the
effects associated with fish intake are small in magnitude, the impact of such effects on the larger
population could be marked. The use of epidemiologic data requires awareness of several
caveats, including imprecise measurement of dietary fish consumption and the associated
contaminants and nutrients. However, the potential benefit from moderate fish intake, when fish
are not contaminated, should be considered when making recommendations to the public.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-69
-------
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood:
Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks
Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created in 1863 by President Lincoln and
Congress as a separate entity from government. The National Academies include the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the
National Research Council. National Academy committees deliberate in an environment free of
political special interest and agency influence. Checks and balances are applied at every step in
the study process to protect the integrity of the reports and maintain public confidence in them.
Data-gathering meetings are open to the public and the study task, committee biographies,
meeting dates, and summaries are posted on the Academy Web site (www.nationalacademies.
org). Public comments can be made through the "Current Projects" link on the National
Academies Web site.
Seafood contributes a variety of nutritional benefits to the American diet. They are
sources of protein, calcium, iodine, copper, zinc, and omega-3 fatty acids. Furthermore, some
nutrients may affect bioavailability, toxico-dynamics, and target-organ transport, and thus affect
the toxicological response to certain compounds. Contamination of marine resources, however,
whether by naturally occurring or introduced toxicants, is a concern for U.S. consumers because
of the potential for adverse health effects. Human
exposure to toxic compounds through seafood can
Study Objectives
i Assess evidence on availability of
specific nutrients in seafood compared to
other food sources.
i Evaluate consumption patterns among
the U.S. population.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
be managed by making choices that provide
desired nutrients balanced against exposure to
such compounds in specific types of seafood that
have been found to pose a particular health risk.
Consumers, particularly subpopulations that may
be at increased risk, need authoritative
information to inform their choices.
This study will
• Assess evidence on availability of
specific nutrients in seafood compared to other food sources
• Evaluate consumption patterns among the U.S. population
• Examine and prioritize exposure to naturally occurring and introduced toxicants
through seafood
• Determine the impact of modifying food choices to reduce exposure
• Develop a decision path, appropriate to the needs of U.S. consumers, for guidance in
selecting seafood to balance nutrient benefits against exposure risks
• Identify data gaps and recommend future research.
A draft report is expected in October 2005, and a final report in March 2006.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-70
-------
Section II-6
Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury,
and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Fish and seafood are a primary source of elongated omega-3 fatty acids (EPA
[eicosapentaenoic acid] and DHA [docosahexaenoic acid]). Fatty fish in particular have the
highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids. People who eat more fish have higher levels of EPA and
DFIA. Some studies have shown how omega-3 fatty acids may influence pregnancy. Some
studies suggest that omega-3 fatty acids prolong gestation and reduce the risk of preterm birth.
Higher fish intake in pregnancy is associated with high birth weights, likely from longer
gestation periods.
We were interested in whether maternal fish consumption during pregnancy harms or
benefits fetal brain development. We examined the associations of maternal fish intake during
pregnancy and maternal hair mercury at delivery with infant cognition among 135 mother-infant
pairs in Project Viva, a prospective U.S. pregnancy and child cohort study.
Various analyses of Viva data show the following:
• There is no association between maternal omega-3 fatty acid intake and preeclampsia
or gestational hypertension.
• There is no association with gestation length or risk of preterm.
• Maternal omega-3 fatty acid intake is inversely associated with fetal growth.
Prenatal data on omega-3 fatty acid and infant cognition show that DHA is an essential
component of eye and brain cell membranes and that most fetal brain uptake occurs in late
pregnancy and early infancy. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed higher intelligence
at age 4 among children of mothers given prenatal cod liver oil (2.0 mg/day DHA+EPA) versus
corn oil (n-6 fatty acids) (Helland,
Pediatrics, 2003).
Decline in Fish Consumption After 2001
Federal Mercury Advisory
4 fish combined
canned tuna
dark meat fish
Pre-adviso
ost-advisory
Apr-99 Jul-99 OC-t-99 Jan-QO Apr-DO JU-00 Oct-00 Jan-
Month surveyed
Postnatal data on omega-3
fatty acids and infant cognition
show that breast-fed babies were
"smarter" in a number of studies.
(Note that breast milk contains
DHA, and the formula did not.)
However, mercury, which
may contaminate fish, may harm
brain development. Prenatal
mercury exposure in high levels is
toxic. Moderate mercury exposure
from fish and whale consumption
in Faroe Islands was inversely
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-71
-------
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management
associated with cognition. But there was no association of mercury levels and cognition among
children in the Seychelle Islands (which had similar exposure levels to those of children in the
Faroe Islands study).
We assessed infant cognition by the percent novelty preference on visual recognition
memory (VRM) testing at 6 months of age. In the study population, mothers consumed an
average of 1.2 fish servings per week during the second trimester. Mean maternal hair mercury
was 0.55 ppm, with 10 percent of samples greater than 1.2 ppm. The mean VRM score was 59.8
(range 10.9 to 92.5). After adjusting for participant characteristics using linear regression, higher
fish intake was associated with higher infant cognition. This association strengthened after
adjustment for hair mercury level. For each additional weekly fish serving, the offspring VRM
score was 4.0 points higher (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3, 6.7). However, an increase of 1
ppm in mercury was associated with a decrement in the VRM score of 7.5 (95% CI: -13.7, -1.2)
points. VRM scores were highest among infants of women who consumed more than two
weekly fish servings, but who had mercury levels less than or equal to 1.2 ppm.
In this small sample of pregnant women from Massachusetts, higher fish consumption in
pregnancy was associated with better infant cognition, but higher mercury levels with lower
cognition. The implications are that women should continue to eat fish during pregnancy but
should choose varieties with lower mercury contamination.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-72
-------
Section II- 7
State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
"Eating Fish for Good Health":
A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
The state of Maine is in the process of revising its risk communication materials in an
effort both to communicate fish advisories and to encourage consumption of low-mercury, high-
omega-3-fatty-acid fish. Focus groups and key informant testing have identified a series of
significant barriers to fish
consumption Significant Healthy Fish for Pregnant Women and Families
concerns include balancing the
benefits of omega-3 fish oils
with lipophilic contaminants
such as dioxin-like compounds
and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and the quality of the
benefits data for the developing
fetus.
Fish low In mercury and high In Omega 3 ti-.li oJU
H%li low in mercury
i>m->t...i.s: (nil mi- Maine Butt-nil of Health loll free In Maine: I-866.292-3474
Centerpiece:
• Post or save
• Testing suggests folks use to validate current practice
• Mercury is the easy part - what about PCBs/dioxins?
• Are omega-3 fatty acids good for babies or not?
The motivation for
developing a new brochure was
that previous brochures focused
only on sport-caught fish. In
addition, Maine wanted to
combine messages from
multiple brochures into one.
Through a series of multiple key informant and focus group tests, it was learned that: (1) people
wanted information on sport-caught and commercial fish in one place; (2) people were aware of
both mercury and omega-3 fatty acids; (3) there were some strong barriers to eating fish; and (4)
everyone in the family needs to be addressed. Maine decided the new brochure should focus on
commercial health, discuss health benefits, focus on what to do, address barriers, and address
conflicting information.
The brochure:
• Identifies fish high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in mercury
• Includes advice on fish to avoid and fish to limit
• Provides advice to women of child-bearing age, children, as well as others
• Lists sport-caught fish that are low in mercury, and those to limit and avoid
• Discusses behavioral issues, such as how to buy, store, and cook fish, as well as what
to eat at restaurants
• Provides a sample fish-eating schedule
• Discusses cost and sizes offish meals
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-73
-------
Section II- 7 State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
• Identifies issues for commonly eaten fish like fish sticks, tuna, farm-raised fish, and
salmon.
The brochure centerpiece provides an illustration of various fish that are high in omega-3
fatty acids and low in mercury. Maine hopes that people will post this centerpiece in a visible
place and refer to it.
The Use of Human Biomonitoring as a Risk Management Tool
for Deriving Fish Consumption Advice
Scott M. Arnold, Alaska Division of Public Health
Fish is a healthy and readily available food item that is high in protein, low in saturated
fat, and a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids and selenium. Broad, untargeted national advisories
that recommend limiting the consumption offish result in reduced fish consumption, causing
unintended negative health consequences. The current national epidemic of obesity and diabetes
underscores the need to balance the nutrient and public health benefits offish consumption with
the potential harm due to methylmercury and other anthropogenic contaminants in fish. New
technology enables public health officials to directly measure actual methylmercury and
contaminant exposures in populations that consume fish. The incorporation of human exposure
information enables targeted, local advisories that include the consideration of the health benefits
offish consumption (e.g., nutritional, health, cultural, societal, and economic impacts) as well as
the potential health risks.
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented
to the Mohawks of Akwesasne
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
The purpose of this comprehensive risk framework is to revise the various ways in which
local industrial pollution—primarily polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from three Superfund
sites in the St. Lawrence River of northern
New York—is evaluated and ultimately
effectuated in terms of health and community
wellness within the Mohawk territory of
Akwesasne (St. Regis Indian Reservation)
directly and/or as a consequence of
management of the attendant risks. The
contamination offish, a staple of the Mohawk
diet, has resulted in a number of risk cascades
of direct and indirect health effects by
removing a traditionally viable means of
sustenance, and has contributed to
socioeconomic and cultural impairment of the Onkwehonwehneh (Mohawk way-of life).
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-74
Next Steps
U.S. EPA acknowledgment
Redefining risk: Direct and indirect cost
Early incorporation within assessment process
Further research: Evaluation of native lifeways
Formulation of a standardized process
-------
Section II- 7 State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
The identification of these endpoints reveals the limitations of the conventional federal
paradigm for risk solely driven by direct exposure-effect relationships. The goal of this effort is
to expand the framework of risk assessment used in Superfund remediation and other endeavors
and thus to facilitate the construction of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) suitable for the protection of Mohawk people and the Onkwehotrwehneh.
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits
and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
From environmental pollutants (mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], dioxins,
furans, and flame retardants) to carotenoid pigments (astaxanthin and canthaxanthin),
commercial seafood has been criticized by some as being highly toxic and dangerous for women
of childbearing age and young children. Some researchers have recommended that intake of
some popular species be limited to one meal per month or less. Some consumers ignore fish
consumption advisories because they contend that the advice that is provided for recreationally
caught fish is much more restrictive than that provided by federal agencies to regulate
commercial fish products. In contrast to the risks associated with fish consumption is an
increasing body of scientific evidence regarding the benefits from eating fish. This has confused
many consumers and healthcare professionals in the United States as they question whether fish
products are safe and whether the risks from consuming fish outweigh the benefits.
This presentation describes efforts to develop a simplified fish consumption advisory that
incorporates advice based both upon contaminant residues and the nutritional benefits of
commercial and recreationally caught fish.
As background information, around 38 percent of Indiana anglers do no follow fish
advisories. This could impact 5,876 fetuses and close to 111,000 people 1-18 years of age.
Healthy fats in fish include docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), important for brain and eye
development. While 250,000 Americans die each year from sudden cardiac death, consuming
omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.
Several entities provide dietary guidelines for eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and DHA,
including the National Academy of Sciences, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and
the American Heart Association (AHA). If one consumes 8 ounces offish per week, one may
meet the recommended levels, but this depends on the type offish.
An advisory was developed based on several sources, including the AHA, local agencies,
the Food and Drug Administration Food Code, et cetera. Mercury advice set a maximum of one
meal every 2 weeks and 12 ounces offish per week, but provided an exception for tuna.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-75
-------
Section II-7
State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management
Bttcotfrnge fish consuirfitiott - % o
Use rajata. Ibv^cpSt frieffioas for measiif
ani! mercury
Soisuitneranct health professional education .
- County health departments
- Pediatricians, obstetricians, dietitians, family practice
of PCBs
- WJCelinfes
Focus educational efforts on at-risk populations
Efforts to deliver this information
to low-income women living in Indiana
were discussed. Seven hundred twenty-
one (721) women in Indiana received a 1-
hour, face-to-face meeting. They were
given pre- and post-tests. It was found
that 39 percent had not eaten fish in the
past 30 days and 10 percent had eaten
higher mercury fish. Before the training,
33 percent of the women understood that
omega-3 fatty acids were important for the
fetus/infant. After the training, 87 percent
understood the importance of omega-3 s.
Before training, 6-7 percent used the
Indiana fish consumption advisory. After training, 69-79 percent intended to use it.
Finally, the following recommendations were suggested:
• Encourage fish consumption.
• Use rapid, low-cost methods to measure PCBs and mercury.
• Provide consumer and health profession education.
• Focus education efforts on at-risk populations.
• Replace albacore/white tuna in Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and School
Lunch Programs with Kid Healthy tuna.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-76
-------
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates 80 percent of the food supply, which
includes dietary supplements and bottled water. The mission of FDA is to protect public health.
It has a variety of tools (such as regulations, guidance, and risk communication) to achieve its
mission. FDA provides the correct interpretation of science to offer optimal public health
protection.
The traditional approach has been to look only at the risk related to consumption of a
particular product. In many instances, the risk is clear: food is contaminated with an agent; the
agent causes harm to consumers; and there is a risk from consuming the food. When risks are
clear, a clear risk message can be generated. However, while some risks from consumption are
clear (e.g., exposure to food-borne pathogens, chemical agents, or physical agents), there are an
increasing number of situations where there is a need to consider a balanced message.
Sometimes there is a risk from consuming a food that contains an agent of concern, but there are
also benefits associated with consuming the food. In this case, the risk message needs to be
balanced between the degree of risk and the degree of benefit.
There are risks associated with mercury in fish. Mercury is a neurotoxin, and the
developing brain is the most susceptible organ. There may also be negative cardiovascular
effects. Simultaneously, fish is high in protein and nutrients, low in fat, and affordable.
It is important to note that virtually all fish have some level of mercury present. The risk
of exposure depends on the amount and type offish consumed. The risk will also vary with age.
Methylmercury has a half-life of about 70 days; therefore, exposure prior to conception is
important.
The 2004 Joint Advisory has three main elements: a risk/benefit message, consumer
advice, and additional information. The risk benefit message lists who is at risk, namely "women
who might become pregnant, women who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children."
The benefits and risks are stated along with this summary: "If you follow advice given by the
FDA and U.S. EPA, women and children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and
be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury."
The consumer advice portion of the advisory contains the following recommendations:
• Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish because they contain high
levels of mercury.
• Eat up to 12 oz (2 average meals) a week of a variety offish and shellfish that are
lower in mercury.
• Five of the most commonly eaten fish, low in mercury: shrimp, canned light tuna,
salmon, pollock, catfish.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-77
-------
Section II-8
Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
• Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna, has more mercury than
canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals, you may eat up to 6 oz (one
average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
The joint advisory also offered additional information, including the definition of
mercury, whether women of child-bearing age should be concerned, information about fish
sticks, and where one can get more information.
For education and outreach for the advisory, more than 9,000 electronic and print outlets
were contacted, with information reaching millions of women. Editors of pregnancy books were
urged to include information about the advisory in next editions. Over 50 organizations of health
care providers to women and their families were contacted.
Over 4 million brochures were distributed through medical offices in English and
Spanish. The MOMS TO BE food-safety
education program for pregnant women
was launched in September 2005.
Funding was also provided for outreach to
special populations.
Summary
Complex risk-benefit message
In summary, the joint advisory
clarifies a complex risk-benefit message.
The unified FDA/U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) advice
reduces confusion. There is extensive and
ongoing outreach. In addition, evaluation
studies are planned to determine current
practices and indicate new mechanisms for
targeted outreach.
• Unified FDA/U.S. EPA advice reduces
confusion
• Extensive and ongoing outreach
Evaluation studies may help determine current
practices and indicate new mechanisms for
targeted outreach.
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message
Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Governmental agencies deal with the potential risk from consuming fish contaminated
with toxic chemicals by issuing fish consumption advisories. Such advisories are often ignored
by the general public, who continue to fish and consume fish from contaminated waters. Further,
there are few studies that examine the efficacy offish consumption advisories in detail, nor
evaluate other fish consumption communication tools (such as brochures).
We suggest that attitudes (trust, risk aversion, environmental concerns, sources of
information), behavior (sources of information, cultural mores, personal preferences), exposure
(physical proximity, ingestion rates, bioavailability, target tissues), and hazards (levels of
contaminants) all shape risk as much as hazard concentrations, and that all of these factors must
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-78
-------
Section II-8
Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
be considered in risk management. Management includes evaluating how these factors interact,
as well as evaluating the risk communication tools themselves (advisories, brochures, lessons).
We found that a fish fact sheet, a fish
consumption brochure, and lesson plans developed for
pregnancy/child care clinics (WIC—Women Infants
and Children) were all most effective when the target
audience was involved in creating them, and when they
were developed especially for that audience. Brochures
and plans were developed in both English and Spanish,
and Spanish-speaking women noted that no one had
ever given them this information in their native
language and that they appreciated it. While some fish
advisory signs appear in multiple languages, these do
not provide enough detailed information to be
persuasive, nor to explain why certain species offish
should not be eaten.
Maine's Moms Survey -
Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Maine developed an easy-to-read brochure entitled "Protect Your Family: Eat Fish Low
in Mercury." The brochure targeted pregnant women and was distributed through Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC); obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs); family
practitioners/obstetricians; certified nurse midwives; and mailings to sport-fishing households.
A baseline survey was completed in 1999, an evaluation survey in 2000, and a survey of mothers
in 2004.
The survey of mothers was
24 pages and had 75 questions. It
was a pre-tested, mail survey. The
sample was drawn from the Birth
Certificate Registry. The response
rate was around 60 percent (n =
768). Hair samples were provided
by approximately 112 women.
Thirty-one (31) percent of
the total sample reported receiving
the brochure. Four (4) percent
received it in the mail; 24 percent
from a doctor or certified nurse
midwife; and 9 percent from WIC.
Forty-one (41) percent of the
Hair Mercury - ppm Got Brochure
Did Not Get
1> Value
90th Percentile
0.39(0.31-0.47) 0.42(0.35-0.61) 0.22
0.75 (0.59-[?]1 0.99 (0.60-1.18)
Of Those Requesting Hair Test
Supplied Hair Did Not Supply Hair p Value
Ate Fish Willie
Pregnant
93% (87-96)
84°0(82-87)
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
11-79
-------
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
sample were on WIC, and 29 percent of those on WIC remembered getting the brochure from
WIC. Of the moms who reported receiving the brochure, 93 percent read it, 46 percent kept it,
and 91 percent reported trying to follow the advice.
As far as behavioral change is concerned, one of the main goals of the brochure was to
encourage mothers to eat healthy fish. It is interesting to note that around 38 percent of women
who got the brochure ate less fish, and the rest ate the same amount offish. No women who got
the brochure reported eating more fish as a result.
The brochure contained specific guidelines about sportfish. Three (3) percent of the
women who received the brochure ate sportfish, and 5 percent of women who did not get the
brochure ate sportfish. The brochure stated that pregnant and nursing women, women who
might get pregnant, and children could eat one can of white tuna, or two cans of light tuna, per
week. Of the women who received the brochure, 54 percent ate white tuna and 39 percent ate
light tuna. Of those who did not get the brochure, 64 percent ate white tuna and 30 percent ate
light tuna. Interestingly, the same percentage (8 percent) of women ate forbidden fish, whether
or not they received the brochure. Of the total surveyed population, only 2 percent ate
swordfish, less than 1 percent ate shark, and 1 percent ate tilefish.
Of the 112 women who provided hair samples, hair mercury was slightly higher in
women who did not get the brochure. Ninety-three (93) percent of the women who supplied hair
said they ate fish while pregnant.
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to
Fishermen in the Baltimore Harbor & Patapsco River Area:
Perspectives and Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beam an, Maryland Department of the Environment
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) drive fish consumption advisories in the Chesapeake
Bay. The highest levels of PCBs are in urban areas (Baltimore Harbor; Potomac River below
Washington DC), and in Northeast Bay tributaries—Elk River, C&D Canal, et cetera. In
Patapsco River Baltimore Harbor, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has
mapped the distribution of PCBs. The Department has used risk assessment procedures and set
fish consumption advisories for white perch, blue crab, and catfish.
The first advisory was issued in the Patapsco River in 1988 due to chlordane. In 1995,
the Baltimore Urban Environmental Risk Initiative (BUERI) study was completed. In 2001, the
first updates to advisories for PCBs were made, including the first advisories issued for crabs. In
2004, MDE revised the recommendations due to PCBs; they added new recommendations for
carp, eel, catfish, crabs, and white perch. Separate recommendations were also made for crab
meat and mustard.
For the 1988 advisory, a press release was issued for advisory communication purposes.
The BUERI Study included the first release of brochures to fishermen and their families. In
2001, there was limited advisory communication via a Web site and a press release. There was
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-80
-------
Section II-8
Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
more public interest in 2001 because it was the first time advisories were issued for crabs. In
2004, there was an expanded effort to communicate advisories. This effort included:
• Press release (resulting in a story in the Baltimore Surf)
• Signs posted at 11 fishing locations
• 5,000 brochures for health locations
• Weekly outreach to fishermen at fishing access points
• Survey by Virginia Tech
• Press release from the Baltimore County Department.
The survey found that 83 percent of fishermen who answered the interview were aware of
fish consumption advisories. Fifty-three (53) percent of respondents said they ate at least some
of the fish they caught. Seventy-eight (78) percent consumed more than the recommended
amount.
In 2004, a workgroup on
fish consumption guidelines was
convened. The workgroup
included representatives of health
providers and citizens' groups. It
expressed the need for effective
and sustainable outreach;
identified appropriate places to
distribute materials; and noted
there was a need for a clear
understandable message.
Health Advisory Signs
• 12" x 24" laminated paper
• Full color with pictures
• Unit Cost: ~ $12.00 per poster -
Annual ~ 750.00 for Baltimore
Harbor
• Posted in English and Spanish
• Color-coded consumption levels
Phone # and Web site provided
for more info
MDE developed new
brochures in English and Spanish
and ensured language consistency
and readability with state WIC
programs. Brochures were distributed to both WIC clinics and Environmental Health Offices.
MDE plans to develop partnerships with community clinics, managed-care organizations,
community groups, and doctors' offices (e.g., obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, and family
practice offices). Health advisory signs were also created in English and Spanish, and included
contact information.
In conclusion, it appears that MDE outreach and communication techniques were
effective based on the 80 percent awareness rate in the Virginia Tech survey. However, the
survey indicated limited behavioral change. MDE hypothesizes that the limited behavioral
change is due to the newness of the message, lack of outreach on previous advisories, and lack of
understanding by the population at risk. MDE plans to continue the expanded outreach program,
and to re-evaluate behavior change in 3 to5 years.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-81
-------
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness
Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
The Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech received a grant from the
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP): (1) to identify populations at risk for consuming contaminated
self-caught fish, and (2) to examine the fish consumption advisories and protocols to identify
possible improvements. We conducted 8 weeks of onsite angler interviews in the three regions
of concern: Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; and the Tidewater area of Virginia. This
presentation focuses on the results from the Baltimore Harbor and adjacent waterways, where we
conducted a total of 135 interviews between early June and mid-August 2004.
The Baltimore region was unique among our study areas in that local officials had
released a new set of advisories approximately 1 month before our interviews began. This release
was accompanied by an aggressive multimedia outreach campaign, which was reflected in the
relatively high proportion of Baltimore anglers that were aware of the advisories (84 percent, of
which 74 percent had heard about them
j^ p • f within the past month). Of the anglers we
y interviewed, 53 percent reported that they
1. Most anglers (84%) are aware of advisories and consumed their catch at least sometimes,
have seen them recently (74%). , ^~ . ... , ,. , ,
and 62 percent (including some who do
2. still, advisory species are among the most not eat the fish themselves) stated they
frequently consumed, usually at a rate greater . .* • c •> . .•> T T r> _L_ ^i c
thai is suggested m the advisory. §lve their fish to others. Unfortunately, of
, the anglers who consume their catch, the
3. A substantial proportion ol anglers (28%) give . .,
some importance to the reduction of family food most popular species for consumption are
expenses as a reason for fishing. still those under advisory, including white
4. African Americans appear to be at greater risk perch, Striped bass, catfish (a no-
than Caucasians, primarily based on needs consumption species), and blue crab. In
(motivations) and cultural differences „ __ „ '
(preparation). iact 78 percent or the consumption
instances reported exceeded advisory
recommendations, even though anglers overwhelmingly indicated that they believed advisories
were important to follow. The one socio-demographic factor that stood out as a critical risk
factor was race. African Americans appear to be at an increased risk because they more often
consumed their catch, more often provided their catch to their families, placed a higher
importance on the reduction of food expenses as a motivation to fish, and were less likely to
prepare their fish using risk-reducing techniques than other races, primarily white anglers.
Baltimore's current fish advisory dissemination protocol clearly has both benefits and
challenges. Anglers in the Baltimore area were found to be relatively knowledgeable about
advisories and placed a high level of importance on them, so it would seem that one objective is
being addressed. However, compliance—the real crux of the issue—is still a challenge. We offer
some suggestions for addressing this problem that emerged from our research, including
additional research avenues as well as possible shifts in message format (simplification) and
communication modes (onsite and interpersonal).
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-82
-------
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Risk
Management and Communication Program: "Reducing
Health Risks to the Anishinaabe from Methyl mercury"
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
(Note: Funding provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR grant program to the
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.)
The goal of this project is to develop, implement, evaluate, and document a
comprehensive, systematic, and culturally sensitive intervention program to reduce risks
associated with subsistence-based consumption of walleye contaminated with methyl mercury.
The project includes several elements: (1) reconfiguring geographic information system (GIS)
maps consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approach; (2) implementing a
systematic intervention program; (3) evaluating program efficacy; and (4) expanding the
program to other states/tribes. Communication programs components were developed in
dialogue with community members, and include a two-sided, color-coded map, the Ojibwe
language, specific advice for sensitive and general populations, an alphabetical lake list,
information about risks and benefits, advice for labeling freezer bags, and contact information.
The next steps of the project include continuing the intervention, revising as appropriate, and a
post-intervention evaluation.
Problems with Media Reports of Fish-Contaminant Studies:
Implications for Risk Communication
Barbara A. Knuth for Judy D. Sheeshka
Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University ofGuelph
Published studies comparing the contaminant levels in wild versus farmed salmon (e.g.,
Kites et al., Science v. 303, January 2004) have received intensive media coverage in Canada.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which is Canada's national radio and television,
had the following headline: "Study Confirms Farmed Salmon More Toxic Than Wild Fish."
The report included a quote from David Carpenter, stating: "We are certainly not telling people
not to eat fish... .We're telling them to eat less farmed salmon." This message quickly got lost.
On the CBC's Web site, it carried this headline: "Something Fishy about Farmed Salmon?" The
article stated that "fanned salmon should be eaten only infrequently—a meal a month, perhaps
every two months—because the fish pose serious risks of cancer." It went on to say, "Officials
at Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency say the dangers of eating
contaminated farmed salmon are overstated, as is the suggestion that intake of farmed salmon be
severely restricted." Another CBC broadcast, later the same day, suggested that not all scientists
are in agreement about the risks.
Consumers who had heard the message that fish is a healthy food became confused by
these new media reports, and fish sales plummeted. Consumers stopped buying all types offish.
The estimates for salmon were that sales had dropped 20 to 50 percent in the 2 months following
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-83
-------
Section II-8
Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
the media reports. This all happened at the same time that a Canadian Holstein cow tested
positive for mad-cow disease in Washington State. As the following quote states, "public
perception is everything." The 700-million-dollar salmon farming industry was reeling, and
some small mom-and-pop salmon farms on the Atlantic coast reported that they were facing
bankruptcy. The important point is that consumers were reporting that, since there were also
contaminants in the wild fish, they thought it prudent just to stop eating fish.
What went wrong, and can we learn anything from this experience? First, different
populations react differently. In Britain, consumers appeared to largely ignore the reports. In
Canada, people seemed to decide that if
fish was not a safe food, they would just
take omega-3 fatty acid supplements and
eat something else. Second, we need to
give people simple and practical
information on how they can reduce their
risks, so that they are better positioned to
make informed choices. Third,
environmental scientists and toxicologists
might consider greater efforts to educate
dietitians, the medical community, and
nutrition researchers about the chemical
contaminant risks associated with eating
fish. For the most part, these groups are
not informed about the issue of chemical
contaminants in fish, yet they are expected to answer consumers' questions. Last, from a public
health perspective, fish is an excellent source of very high quality protein. This is particularly
important for populations that catch their own fish. It is also an important source of some
nutrients that are scarce in other foods, such as vitamin D and selenium. Focusing on omega-3
fatty acids as the main reason to eat fish is risky, because people can simply buy omega-3 fatty
acid supplements.
We need to broaden our message about the health benefits of eating fish and ensure that
consumers are informed about practical strategies to reduce their risks of ingesting too many
chemical contaminants.
Fish + Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Equating fish with omega-3 fatty acids will
backfire - people will take supplements!
Fish has the highest quality protein,
second only to egg protein in digestibility
and supporting growth.
From a public health perspective, other
nutrients in fish (selenium, vitamin D, etc.)
are important.
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture
Through Signs in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology,
Michigan State University
Fish consumption advisories often fail to effectively help communities adequately
address the benefits and risks of eating potentially contaminated fish. The social aspect of a risk
framework suggests that the impact of any risk communication strategy depends on sound
understanding of the informational symbols, imagery, and signals that appear and on how people
interpret and respond to them. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-84
-------
Section II-8
Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
(ATSDR) identifies the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as a particular region of concern regarding
the uncertain effectiveness offish advisories due to the vast rural and isolated nature of the area
as well as the relatively large presence of Native American populations who may consume larger
amounts offish (ATSDR, 2003). Fish advisories exist in the Upper Peninsula that apply to Great
Lakes waters of Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and St. Mary's River as well as to
inland lakes, reservoirs, and streams (MDCH, 2003). In the Michigan Great Lakes,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) comprise the predominant contaminant of concern, followed
by chlordane, dioxin, and mercury. For inland lakes, fish advisories encompass mercury, PCBs,
chlordane, and dioxin, in decreasing order of frequency.
The counties with the highest number of specific inland lake and stream advisories
include Marquette (9), Gogebic (6), Iron (5), Alger (3), and Houghton (3). In addition, a general
advisory applies to all inland lakes in the
Upper Peninsula, as well as the rest of
Michigan. In 2004-2005 we collected data
in four counties in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula through focus groups,
community dinners, public meetings, and
photographs. Photographs were taken of
fish advisories, and restaurants advertising
fresh fish.
Residents expressed a strong
affinity toward eating Great Lakes fish,
although a minority of participants had
read the official fish advisory. We attribute
part of our findings to the role of eating
fish in the cultural fabric of the Upper Peninsula, which emerges through a visual analysis of
road signs and other cues. The singular use of technical solutions, such as uniformly delivered
fish consumption advisories, emerges as inadequate without acknowledging the role of culture.
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web:
WebMD Case Study
Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
A case study was presented for a pilot project that the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) did in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) this past summer (summer 2005) to see how consumers offish could be reached
directly. Traditional methods to reach target audiences are carried out through infomediaries
such as health care providers, conferences, presentations, brochures in multiple languages, and
direct mail. This project was designed to look at how the Web could be used to reach the target
audience (i.e., the consumer). The objective of the project was to educate users about the
potential risks of mercury in fish. The target audience was:
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-85
-------
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
• Women who are trying to become pregnant
• Women who are already pregnant or nursing
• Parents of young children.
The key was to select the right partner. Selection criteria included: the partner needed to
have the capacity to reach the desired demographic and to provide content focusing on health.
MedMD, the partner chosen, typically builds "Health Zones" around different topics. In this
case, the content was not deep enough to merit a full health zone, thus it was designed to be a
mini-health zone. In addition, the typical ads displayed around the content on WebMD were
"turned off to avoid any conflicts in messaging. The content zone consisted of:
• Four timely WebMD articles reflecting the latest U.S. EPA/Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) guidelines
• A new WebMD article based on a recent U.S. EPA/FDA brochure
• A "More Information" area with links to the U.S. EPA and FDA Web sites
• Links to related WebMD message boards.
An important aspect of the project was to work with WebMD editorial staff to assist them
in translating the materials into the formats they use, which are articles. WebMD retained full
editorial independence, so part of the work involved educating their editorial staff on details such
as the difference between groundwater and surface water as it related to how mercury travels
through fish. The resulting articles were strongly based on the language of the fish advisory. A
major benefit of the project to WebMD is that it was able to ensure all its content was entirely up
to date and it was able to add content. An entirely new piece (a Web page) was created based on
the latest guidelines. This page was highly promoted and was the highest performing piece in
terms of unique visitors. It was second highest in terms of overall page views. The links to the
U.S. EPA and FDA sites took viewers to the actual advisory, in the case of the U.S. EPA, and to
the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in the case of the FDA.
An important takeaway for this presentation is that all the good content in the world will
not ensure people read it. It must be promoted. This is where the WebMD system of
programming content was very helpful. WebMD promoted the fish advisory information across
the WebMD Consumer Network and in its e-mailed consumer newsletters. Individuals sign up
for these newsletters on the site. Secondly, WebMD promoted the content using links on
different high-trafficked pages, including:
• WebMD Splash/Home Page
• WebMD Consumer Home Page
• Channels
• Pregnancy Center, Parenting Center, Diet and Nutrition, Healthy Women, and
Healthy Men
• eNewsletters
• Pregnancy and Family, Trying to Conceive, Diet and Nutrition, Women's Health,
Men's Health, and Living Better.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-86
-------
Section II-8
Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
The WebMD Splash Page is the first page you see when you go to the WebMD Web site.
The editorial department decides what will be featured each day. They decide after being
"pitched" by the programming directors. ATSDR and U.S. EPA worked both with those who
created content and with the programming directors. To be worthy of a Home Page slot, the
content must be good and timely. On the
Web, position is everything, and to get a
link front and center ("above the fold)"
where the user does not have to scroll
down, is the best. The campaign was
promoted within high-traffic areas and
featured as the top story on the WebMD
Splash and Consumer Home pages. The
content was also featured in one of the
rotating contextual link pages. Getting
this slot depends on what is going on with
the programming and news in general.
This link stayed up for a few days and was
intermittently rotated out for few days
over months. The content was also
featured in a top position (upper right hand top corner) of the WebMD Consumer Home page. It
was up for a few days off and on through the period of the campaign. It was not rotated in June.
The content was also featured in other areas of the page on different days.
Another area on the site where the content was promoted was the Pregnancy Health
Center. WebMD has over 60 health centers for conditions, wellness, and other special topics of
interest, and include the Parenting Center, Diet and Nutrition, Healthy Women, and Healthy
Men. The content was promoted in each of these centers. Many women use the Parenting
Center channel to look for information on taking care of their children, so the message about fish
consumption guidelines for young children was appropriately promoted there.
WebMD also sends out an HTML media-rich e-mail to about 10,000 subscribers. These
are highly targeted users who give WebMD information on what they are interested in. The
HTML e-mail gets a high click-through rate. The fish advisory content was featured in two
spots. The producer for this project reported to ATSDR that they saw a spike in traffic on a daily
basis from each of these promotions.
Overall, the performance of this mini-zone exceeded expectations, and people were quite
engaged with the content. The campaign ran about 5 months (mid-April to the end of August
2005), garnering a total of 155,508 unique visitors and about three times that many page views.
This translates to an overall 3:1 ratio of page views to unique visitors, where the ratio is usually
closer to 2:1. The most viewed article was the new WebMD article based on the U.S. EPA/FDA
brochure.
Page views held steady until June (April and May had 125,000+ page views while June
had only 25,823). This is typical for content, in that during a promotion time you get new people
looking at the content, who are more engaged with it because it is new. A similar pattern was
observed with unique visitors. In April and May, the ratio of page views was over 3:1. It then
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-87
-------
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
declined in the following 2 months, ending with a slight rise. Note that the most visitors were
also in the first 2 months. Thus, you had the most people reading the most content when it was
highly promoted and also when it was new information.
Programming plays a large role in page view numbers. Pregnancy: Eating Healthy for
Two was promoted in April. Facts About Fish - Home Page was promoted in May. These two
pages were the core content of the mini-health zone. Pregnancy: Eating Healthy for Two was the
most general article into which the fish information was embedded. It had the highest 1 month
volume, because obviously it had more appeal than a title focused just on fish advisories.
Something to consider is getting more readership by combining your messages with other
content that appeals to a wide base of readers. A number of WebMD readers also visited the
U.S. EPA and FDA sites as a result (about 12,000 people). These were likely women in the
demographic that both organizations would like to reach.
In summary, think beyond your destination site (.gov) to achieve reach into desired
audiences. Another project that would be useful to undertake would be online promotion to
physicians, perhaps through the WebMD Physician Channel or another Web site. Also, good
content is key, but promotion is crucial. Match your needs with the needs of your potential Web
outlet partners. Understand your partners' constraints (e.g., editorial, policy, etc.), and work out
the details of the promotion strategy with them, because this makes or breaks whether or not
people actually see your great content. ATSDR and the U.S. EPA would consider purchasing
sponsored space at WebMD where they could control the content completely. Also, it would be
good to create Web public service announcements (PSAs) to run in the Web site's advertising
space.
Seafood Safe Case Study:
Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and
Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Seafood Safe is an industry-initiated voluntary testing and labeling program for
contaminants in seafood. EcoFish is a national distributor of seafood, exclusively from
environmentally sustainable fisheries. EcoFish has 11 retail branded items that are sold in 1,500
retail grocery stores nationwide and a full line of fresh seafood products that are sold in over 125
restaurants nationwide.
The EcoFish demographic is a well-educated affluent consumer who researches their
food and cares about the healthfulness of what they consume. Starting a few years ago, EcoFish
began receiving an increased number of consumer questions inquiring if they tested their seafood
for contaminants. Over the past 2 years the Seafood Safe model has been developed through
collaborative efforts with academics, consumer advocacy organizations, independent
laboratories, and seafood industry quality assurance and sampling specialists. The result is a
pilot program with EcoFish's retail prepackaged products.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-88
-------
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
The consumer receives conflicting and confusing messages on seafood. The medical
community and revised food pyramid recommend seafood, especially those species high in
omega-3 fatty acids, as part of a healthy diet. However, consumers are being warned about the
presence of dangerous contaminants in some types of seafood. What is a consumer to do,
especially mothers of childbearing age? A vast majority of seafood is healthy to consume
regularly; however, some species can be dangerous if too much is consumed.
Consumers require a credible, user-friendly, and simple system at the point of purchase.
The industry needs to confront this public relations challenge head on. Seafood Safe provides an
industry-wide testing and labeling program that would exemplify that the vast majority of
seafood is safe, and increase consumption of healthy species.
The Seafood Safe business model is a collaborative effort, leveraging the collective
strengths of academics, industry consultants, laboratories, and independent organizations. An
independent advisory panel was assembled consisting of two of the country's leading academics
on the subject of contaminants in seafood to advise on the structure, methodology, and
messaging of the program. Dr. Barbara Knuth of Cornell University and Dr. David Carpenter of
the University at Albany (State University of New York) are Seafood Safe's advisors. Seafood
Safe partnered with an independent international seafood industry consulting firm to develop
company-, species-and fishery-specific guidelines, as well as chain-of-custody and sampling
protocol. The testing is performed by independent laboratories specific to mercury and
polychlorinated biphenyls. Seafood Safe has also partnered with Environmental Defense as a
consumer advocate, providing an information clearinghouse for consumer education on the
subject.
The seafood industry is facing a significant public relations challenge regarding
contaminants in seafood. Seafood Safe not only has the ability to help eliminate consumer
confusion, but also to portray a much more positive image of seafood. In an environment of full
disclosure, consumers will learn that the vast majority of seafood available is safe to consume
regularly.
Seafood Safe has received a tremendous amount of positive media attention. As
consumers become progressively aware of Seafood Safe, they will come to expect the program
in the marketplace, which will drive expansion. Also, recent legal activity in California indicates
that individual states can drive the need for more disclosure on seafood.
Seafood Safe will be an industry-sponsored program. Those companies that want to
participate and to be evaluated will pay for the services. Once products are successfully tested, a
company will pay a minimal licensing fee to use the Seafood Safe label on their products, and to
cover Seafood Safe's operating costs. Mercury and PCBs are currently the contaminants that are
tested for. Additional contaminants may be added (e.g., flame retardants).
Test results are applied to the U.S. EPA Guidance and Risk-Based Consumption Tables,
and the results are converted into the number of 4-ounce portions a woman of childbearing age
can consume per month. The Seafood Safe Web site will provide a table that consumers can
download that will allow them to keep track of their cumulative multispecies consumption by
subpopulation.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings 11-89
-------
Section II-8
Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts
Risk perception constaicts include:
• Volition, choice
• Control
• Seriousness
• Dread
• Certainty
• Causality - natural or not
• Distribution of risks and
benefits
• Responsiveness
• Taist, credibility.
Risk Communication Strategy
• Focus on behavior
- Addresses choice, volition
• For consumer
• For industry/markets
- Provides "control."
The Seafood Safe risk
communication strategy focuses on behavior (addresses choice and volition) of the consumer and
industry/markets. It provides "control." The focus of the message is to women of childbearing
age. The risk communication strategy addresses concerns about distribution of benefits and
risks. The supporting information addresses dread, seriousness, and causality. A consistent
message reduces uncertainty. Calculations are personalized and cumulative consumption charts
are under development. Providing the testing details (use of independent laboratories and
advisory panel) builds credibility, confidence, and trust.
Future considerations of the Seafood Safe program include weighing the risks and
benefits of contaminants versus omega-3s; evaluating consumer response (purchasing,
consumption, environmental advocacy, food safety advocacy); and evaluating industry
participation.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Proceedings
H-90
-------
Proceedings of the 2005 National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Section
Presentations
Please note that three presentations are not included at the request of the authors due to pending
publication. These are: Krabbenhoft's "Mapping Sensitivity of Aquatic Ecosystems to Mercury
Inputs across the Contiguous United States" (Sampling and Analysis session), Arnold's "The
Use of Human Biomonitoring as a Risk Management Tool for Deriving Fish Consumption
Advice" (State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management session), and Knuth's "Great Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Risk Management and Communication Program:
'Reducing Health Risks to the Anishinaabe from Methylmercury'" (Risk Communication
session).
-------
-------
Joint Federal Mercury Advisory: EPA's Choice of the One Meal/Week Limit
for Freshwater Fish Consumption
James Pendergast, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joint Federal Mercury Advisory
EPA's Choice of the One Meal/Week Limit for
Freshwater Fish Consumption
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
September 18-21. 2005
Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor. Baltimore, MD
James Pendergast, Chief
Fish. Shellfish. Beach and Outreach Branch
Office of Science and Technology
Off ce of Water
'U.S. EPA
Our Goals in Developing the Limit
• Maintain consistency with state advisories
• Protect the majority of consumers
1 Keep the message simple
Consistency with State Advisories
• Most statewide advisories are
1 meal/week
Use of 2 meals/month category is
inconsistent across United States
Protect the Majority of Consumers
T«b!»*-J Monthly Fit* ConiumptionLhinlbiror^loncireinoa<«nie H«*llh Enapo.nl -
R • -. Sued Coniumptlon Umll*
™^«
I
•
.
Examine
fish tiss
against
range.
than ju
1 meal/w
"| s (= 1 mealAweek)
a
:•
t
05
'*•»» i • o •:>.'
Nonconcar Hcitlh Endpolnti*
existing ™^J%%S!T*
eaaia
^',;™" -CKOT.OOW •
st the -BOM-OOK
eek rate
.,„,,, j
•UJn LI -17 1
-047-OW
•0.04 . 1 9
•
US FPA 200r> r,i>i(!ai'Cfi •''•' -iv-pwi'ij r...i--5j7nr.). ,• •f,i,j.-tm!!:^r-li ny.i ;, *i ij-'-l li'f:'i< /i,-'w-)r,|.'=i? I't'iijjT'-? "' '~,'.i-:i', •.', ''rsssffiflrt! SWtf
ftsfl Consun^t. : : .."."; -, "•''..' -••'••n fi F-A ,5;: -f -;'n iJO!?
Protect the Majority of Consumers
Approach: Compare available fish data against the
2, 3, and 4 meals/month concentration limits
• Existing fish tissue data
- EPA National Listing of Fish Advisory (NLFA) fish tissue
database
- State and tribe submitted data, 1987-2003
- Represents noncommercial fish
1 Calculation of species averages
- Mean of species means at each monitoring station
- Only species with data from >100 stations
- Only edible-size filets, all lengths and weights
- Not a national statistical average
Average Tissue Mercury Concentrations in Noncommercial Fish
5 species below the 4 meal/month
min. (0.12 ppm
27 species within the 2 - 4 meal/month hm
> 0.12 ppm to 0.47 ppm
I 2 species above the 2 meal/month ma
I (0.47 ppm
Pendergast — 1
-------
Joint Federal Mercury Advisory: EPA's Choice of the One Meal/Week Limit
for Freshwater Fish Consumption
James Pendergast, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Keep the Message Simple
Risk communication approach: A simplified message to
inform consumers without scaring them away
• Original 4-page message failed in early focus groups; many
subjects said they would avoid eating fish entirely
EPA and FDA trimmed the message to 1 1/2 pages
Recreational freshwater catch a small component of overall
consumption, so a small component of the national advisory
Shortened advisory does not cover species, location variability
Advisory encourages consumers to first check local advisories;
federal advisory backstops for areas with no state advisory
Additional Analyses
Analyses performed since advisory's release
further justifies the 1 meal/week limit
Additional risk assessment analyses
Conservative bias in the data
Additional Risk Assessment Analyses
Consuming a variety of freshwater fish species is < RfD
- Overall average of 0.25 ppm vs. one meal/week limit of 0.23 ppm
- This 0.25 ppm average is simple average of means for all species
hStp://mv/v.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/1-meal-per-week.pdf
Consuming a preferred species < RfD for 60% of species
- 20 of 34 species have means < one meal/week limit of 0.23 ppm
- 12 of 34 species (35%) result in exposure at up to twice the RfD
- 2 remaining species (5%) result in exposure at 3-4 times the RfD
(bowfin and chain pickerel)
A Conservative Bias in the Data
• Comparison of NLFA data with national random sample
The NLFA data is clearly biased high relative to the national
random sample.
A Conservative Bias in the Data
• Comparison of 2 data sets after normalizing to standard species,
size, and sample type
• This inherent NLFA bias means the above risk assessment
is conservative
Pendergast — 2
-------
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Environmental Health Unit
Home Page for Evaluating an Atlantic Coastal
Advisory for Striped Bass and Bluefish based
on PCBs
Objective
Prepare a document assessing trte leassbility of developing 3 common
coastal advisory for striped bass and Wucfish due lo PCBs. "Common" may
bo the whole Atlantic coasl. or it may be regional (New England. Mid-Coast
Soulliorn) doponchrig on what (Fte data suggests AddKionaHy. we recognize
that wtuln the objective is ID work towards a common advisory, there may be
states that participate In tins process that do not sign on to any advisory we
finally develop
Timolinp:
Ihe g-o-al is to have a draft document for all ol us to review and discuss
before or after Hits years fish forum September 18-21. in Baltimore. MD, We
plan to proceed by having conference calls of the various workgroups
Organization
Data Workgroup
Biology Workgroup
Toxicology Workgroup
Advisory Workgroup
Organization Workgroup
Biology: Goals
Summarize migratory patterns of these fish.
What are these fish eating?
What do we know about the regulations and
catch of these species?
Frohmberg — 1
-------
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Toxicology: Goals
Review the basis of the existing toxicolo
numbers used to set advisories.
Briefly review any new literature.
Evaluate feasibility of developing new
toxicology number.
Advisories: Goals
Summarize how states vary in their advice.
Summarize how states vary in their
procedures.
Data: Issues of Interest
,ots of state-to-state variation
PCB levels in striped bass appear to be
going down over time.
A new coastal-wide study of PCBs ia
striped bass and bluefish would be helpfi
Unlikely to recommend consistency of
methods
Biology Workgroup
, igure 1: Major spawning stocks of Atlantic striped bass
Hudson River
Delaware Estruary
Chesapeake Bay
Roanoke River/
Albemarte Sound
;~y
Frohmberg — 2
-------
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Biology: Issues of Interest
Migratory striped bass are large adult
emales.
Diet variable for both species, but not a
of overlap.
Can't predict arrival times for populatio.
of striped bass.
Draft chapter online
Toxicology: Issues of Interest
Toxicology estimates need to be updated.
Goal should be not increasing body burden
in voune women.
Quality of omega-3 benefits data to babies
is not compelling.
Draft chapter online
State-by-State Variations in Age
Definitions of a "Child"
ME NH MA Rl
NY NJ DE MD VA NC SC GA
Eric's Draft Thoughts
Bluefish - Not a lot of data, but conceptually
regional advisory may make sense.
Striped bass — Local spawning location-based
advice + consistent advice for migratory fish?
Toxicology estimates for PCBs need to be
updated.
Need a survey of PCBs in these fish up and down
the coast.
Thanks
Lydia Munger (ASFM
Jack Schwartz (MA)
anloaKCT)
Andy Smith (ME)
Garv Buchanan (NJ)
Ron Sloan (NY)
Ashok Deshpande (NOAA)
ilaine Jirueger (MA)
Bob Vandershce (HI I
Joe Sekerke (EL)
Byron Young (NY)
Victor Crecco (CT)
Frohmberg — 3
-------
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Finally
eeting tonight at 7 p.m.
http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/ehu/fish/
PCBSTBhome.shtml
Or email me at ehu@maine.gov
Frohmberg — 4
-------
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
Pat McCann
September 18, 2005
Protocol
for ;i
I nifurni 1.9
Mercury
Each Great Lakes state has mercury-
based fish consumption advice
- Both site-specific and statewide
McCann — 1
-------
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
"Health Protection Values"
• IL, IN*, Wl, MN (two-tier advice)
- Sensitive population RfD = 0.1 jig/kg/day
- General population RfD = 0.3 fig/kg/day
• PA, OH (same advice for all populations)
- RfD = 0.1 jig/kg/day
• NY, Ml (two-tier advice)
- FDA/modified FDA action level
* IN sensitive population RfD = 0.3/O0.4 days per month/7 days per week) = 0.07
Definition - Sensitive Population
NY, Ml, IN, IL, WI.MN
-Women of childbearing age
- Children < 15 YOA
PA, OH
- Not specified, same advice given to
everyone
Meal Categories - Sensitive Population
Fish meals
Unrestricted
1 meal/week
2mealsJmonth
1 meal/month
6 meals/year
No consumption
NY
1.0 -2.0
> 2.0
PA
0-0.12
0.13-0.25
0.26-0.50
0.51-1.0
1.1-1.90
> 1.9
OH
0.05-0.219
0.220-.999
1.0-1.99
>2
Ml
> 0.5
> 1.5
IN
0-0.05
0.06-0.2
0.2-1.0
1.1-1.9
>1.9
IL
<= 0.06
>0.06-0.23
>0.23-0.94
> 0.94
Wl
D.05-0.22
0.22-1
> 1.0
MN
<=0.05
> 0.05-0.2
> 0.2-1.0
> 1.0
Meal Categories - Sensitive Population
(cont.)
NY PA OH Ml IN IL Wl MN
Meal Categories - General Population
Fish meals
Unrestricted
1 meal/week
1 meal/month
6 meals/year
No consumption
NY
>=1.0
Ml
>0.5
> 1.5
IN
<0.16
0.16-0.65
0.66-28
Z81-5.6
> 5.6
IL
<= 0.18
>0.18-0.69
>0.69-2.82
>2.82
Wl
<0.16
0.16-0.65
>0.65
MN
<= 0.16
>0.16-0.65
>0.65-Z8
> 2.8
General - Statewide Advice
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Sensitive
Population
Advice
One meal/week all
fish species and
One mealJtoeek all
fish species and
One mealA/veek all
fish species and
General
Population
Advice
Same as SP
Same as SP
Same as SP
Waterbodies
Included
Fresh waters
and some
marine waters at
mouth of Hudson
All waters
Including Great
Lakes
including Great
Lakes
Basis
Some chemicals aie
commonly found in New
York State fish (mercury and
PCBs tor example), fish from
all waters haM3 not been
tesled andflsh may contain
unidentified contaminants.
Officially based on mercury
but Includes BJP tor all
Based on Hg national
guidance of 1 meal/ week
and Increasing number of
site-specific 1 meal/wk Hg
advisories (current means
analysis supportive, 90% of
samples since 1988 are >
O.OSppm)
McCann — 2
-------
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
State
Wi^cir,sin
Sensitive
Population
Advice
crappi*. mcK bass
lnCh« In length and
northWUr
1 meal'wk papfish,
»' ""**'*
m~lai7mo an'oll-J
SHr""
General
Population
Advice
crappie.rockbes*
^n;v,^'h
^•:±f'
Unlimited parish,
specie
^1^ an other
Waterbodles
Included
'
All watertodies
["eluding Great
Basis
ago based en Hg. regresEion
Q 5ppm Hg
of predalor fish sampled
BPJ
Hg, means^nalysis, ^
TS!^,on^h,nCmeaI
sn^S^^nU.
State
Indiana
Sensitive
Population
Advice
Limit to 1 meal per
month: All black
bass (smallmouth,
largemouth, and
spotted), channel
catfish, flathead
catfish shorter than
38 inches, walleye
or sauger shorter
than 24 inches,
northern pike, white
bass, striped bass
shorter than 28
inches, rock bass
General
Population
Advice
Limit to 1 meal per
week: All black
bass (smallmouth,
largemouth, and
spotted), channel
catfish, flathead
catfish shorter than
38 inches, walleye
or sauger shorter
than 24 inches.
northern pike.
white bass, striped
bass shorter than
26 inches, rock
bass
Waterbodies
Included
All waters
including Great
Lakes
Basis
Predominance of data for
PCBs and Hg, BPJ (few
samples ofsame species
and size)
States that list site-specific advice if it is more restrictive than statewide advice
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Illinois
Michigan
Site-specific data analysis/logic
Regression analysis if supported by data, otherwise arithmetic mean. GP: listed If
than statewide advice for any species then SP = eat none for all species and size
About 60 samples per year are analyzed, generally one composite sample per species
maybe two sizes. Two years of data In same advice category are needed to list advice.
degression analysis if enough data, otherwise means analysis.
Listed if mean of panfish > 0.06 ppm or predator > 023 ppm (need2yrs of data).
Currently 10 waters are listed for Hg advice.
Screen first to ID high fish mercury waters using 1 ppm for game fish and 0.5 ppm for
panfish as screen. For high waters do regression for gamefish and frequency
distribution within meal advice categories for panfish. BPJ. If panfish are listed at 1/mo
Regression analysis if r2 > 0.6 otherwise use median within size classes
States that list site-specific advice if different than statewide advice - list both
less & more restrictive
State
Indiana
Michigan
State
Minnesota
Site-specific data analysis/logic
composite sample for advice ty p , ,
Use regression analysis If enough data, otherwise, medians within a length group. If
States that list site-specific advice for all tested waters
Site-spec me data analysis/logic
species.
"And"
vs.
"Or"
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
And vs. Or
Silent, probably would choose "and"
Or
Silent on webAerbal 'Or1
Not specified, some language on
spacing meals impies "or"
Silent
Not specified, some language on
spacing meals
And
Or
Purchased Fish Consumption
Advice
Four states currently (or are working
towards it) provide quantitative advice
Four states have no plans to provide
quantitative advice
McCann — 3
-------
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Issues for Discussion
Selection of HPV
- Two-tiered advice
- Meal advice category calculation assumptions
and significant figures
And vs. Or
Consistency between statewide and site-specific
listing methods (important for border waters)
Data analysis
Statewide advice methodology
Commercial fish advice
Moving Forward
Agreed to work towards consistent advice
Integrated advice for commercial and
locally caught fish
- Consistent methodology
Focus on which fish to eat and promoting
consumption of 2 meals per week
Addendum
Covers sensitive population
Updated benefits statement
HPV selection
Meal size/body weight ratio
Meal frequency categories
Data analysis
Purchased fish advice
Benefits Statement
Discussion paper
Draft statement written
- Use an approach that outlines risks and
benefits to different populations
- Include information on omega-3 fatty
acids content
• For both commercial and locally caught fish
Complete after forum
HPV Selection
i U.S. EPA RfD for Sensitive Population
i Text in addendum
- Rationale for choice of RfD vs. MRL
- Include discussion about differences
between results from Seychelles and
Faroes
Meal Size/Body Weight Ratio
Emphasize ratio
McCann — 4
-------
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
Meal Frequency Categories
Considered many options
Considered benefits,
-Added 2 meals/week option
"Do not eat" consistent with FDA
- Dropped 6 meals/year
Data analysis
More options beyond regression
Include guidelines for general advice
(statewide advice), as well as site-
specific
Purchased Fish Consumption
I Advice
Optional
- Follow Hg protocol
- Use published data, such as FDA
Draft Addendum
Welcome review comments
Complete benefits statement
And vs. Or
Discuss implementation
McCann — 5
-------
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
DsaJjncj wjc.
Inconsistencia
Consurnptiorj.
'interstate
in Fish
Jvisory Protocols in
ssissippi River Basin
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural Resourc
nei
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
acic.hg.ro u rtcl
iver Basin
ion (UMBRA) & the UMRBA
,»Uu^., Duality Task Force
Levels of inconsistency
UMRBA coordination effort
Recommendations
Show-stoppers
of.This Fight. . .
,icy on fish consumption
..jcols, advisory
and consumption advice is a
nationwide issue
Involves the five states of the Upper
Mississippi River basin (IA, IL, MN, MO, & WI)
(also, EPA Regions 5 and 7)
Inconsistencies in FCA protocols is but one of
several interstate issues for the Upper
Mississippi River and the UMR basin
ntinu
(/I [Great Lake States]
"J^tSfit Rfds for PCBs, chlordane, Hg
[Greafe:La;lSs Protocol(s)]
i From there, states use slightly different methods,
but the eud product is similar:
« Predator fish: 1 meal/mo
• Other species; 1 meal/wk
IA & MO: Continue to use an FDA actio,,
level-based approach
Olson—1
-------
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
sippi River Basin Association:
.rofit organization est. in 1981 by the
- 5 UMR states, with each state having
a governor-appointed representative
Located in St. Paul, MN
Goal: To facilitate dialogue and cooperative action
among the 5 UMR states and to work with federal
agencies on inter jurisdictional programs and policies
http://www.umrba.org/
The UMR3A%
Water ucjJjc
ff Interstate consultation
ated issues involving the UMR
Includes representatives from the relevant water quality
agencies of the 5 UMR states and EPA Regions 5 and 7
Issues addressed (but not solved) thus far:
- Section 305(b) WQ assessments & 303(d) listings
Fish consumption advisory protocols
Next issue:
• Assessing siltation/sedimentation/turbidity impacts
•rest in FCA
PrococoJs
le January 2004 UMRBA report on CWA
.Assessment as an area where progress
in consistenc^could be made in the short term
7 i.e.,,, F£$& are used by states to assess support of the "fish
consumption use" for the UMR for Section 305(b) reporting
Identified as an achievable goal by the WQTF
(including a certain now-retired biologist from EP.
Region 5) in 2004 during a "brainstorming"sessic
The Great Lakes states in the UMR basin (IL, MN,
WI) all use the GLP for PCBs (1993), and these states
saw an opportunity to extend the GLP westward
&
_^H /
Olson — 2
-------
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
consistency.
pproacnes (e.g., GLP)
s for issuing and rescinding
Different FCA approaches exist in the states to the
west of IA ana MO
Different approaches for assessing support of fish
consumption uses [for Section 305(b)]
Different approaches for identifying Section
303(d)-impaired waters
consistency (cont.)
A, protocols, approaches for
ffiding FCAs differ:
! consecutive samples showing levels
>re rescinding
I & WO Else a mean contaminant level
• MN: Uses a 5-year mean
> WI: Uses a 5-10 year mean and maximum value
MO: Uses the % of samples > action level
. <10%, unlimited; 11 to 49%, limited; >50%, no
consumption;
UMRSA's C
ation Effort
grant from U.S. EPA
ociates, Little Rock, AR
- Surveys 08 stats approaches conducted in early 2005
- FCA consistency workshop in March 2005:
• In addition to UMRBA & contractor, attended by U.S.
EPA & state water quality, health, & fisheries agencies
• Discussed: Monitoring & analysis, guidance & issuance,
assessment & listing
• FCA Background report summarized state approaches
and discussions from the March workshop
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
WATER QUALITY
STATE APPROACHES TO FISH
CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES AND THEIR
USE IN DESIGNATING WATER QUALITY
IMPAIRMENTS FOR THE
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
UJVJRBA's
•dination Effort (cont.)
Draft FCA. options p?ipsr
Ma/ 2005 rneaij
Firicil r^oorc i
g in St. Paul, I
August 2005:
UppeK 'Mississippi River Fish Consumptioi
Advisories: State approaches to issuing a
fish consumption advisories on the Upper
Mississippi River
[available at: http://wmv.umrba,org/reports,htni\
t'pper MUsKvippi River
H*h ( nmumptiun Advisories:
SI.MI Approache\ LI. letting .mil I MM-
I Mi C <>nsumption AiHiwtrir*
ou fli.' 1 ji|ii-i- \luM"i|i]ii RHrr
Olson — 3
-------
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
'mparison
larch 2005 meeting by MN
> better determine the degree
of incoi
All states supplied data for Hg & PCBs in fish filet
imples for the last 10 years
vere compiled by MN Dept. of Health
presented to the UMRBA Water Quality Ta<
Force at the May 2005 meeting
mparison (cont.)
1R (sensitive & general
•m-feeding fish:
CATjfceofllfion carp <20": 1 meal/wk; >20": 1 meal/mo.
Airy is the driver for predator fish:
,cangefroni unlimited consumption (BLG)to 1 meal/wk for
smaller predator fish to 1 meal/niofor larger predator fish
• for the Iowa reach of the UMR:
• With FDA action levels: No advisories
• IF the GLP were used: Would have some type of advisory
in every one of the 11 UMR pools; thus, would be placed
on Iowa's list of Section 303(d) waters
Mrj rj ,\ir, r r^r,f,r,,r
r-Lir\ i> LuurLjjr
ation Effort:
Triers stnctild be §
(FCA= guidance &
insistent FCAs for the UMR
issuance) because
,hared waterbody
Inconsistency generates unfavorable public perception
Currently have different messages coming from the
UMR states
For monitoring and analysis
Establish a minimum set of contaminants, fish species,
sizes, sampling locations, sample frequency, sample
preparation methods, etc., for all states
UMRBA's Coorc
ination Effort:
>ns (cont.)
g All LJMP. states
'icjtionaj fish co.
lould participate in EPA's
taminant forum
If necessary, hold a meeting after the 2005
Fish Contaminant Forum to specifically
address protocols for consistent FCA guidance
& issuance
CWA Section 305(b) & 303(d) processes
should be revisited after obtaining
consistency in data and FCAs
lilDW-SrQprjerS^
j "In thrj d'
Use of different laboratories to analyze samples
Different approaches in issuing & rescinding advisories
Little communication and sharing of information betwe
states regarding monitoring protocols and advisory prot
Iriferrrtcttiori excheir
lorn trie b;ic['ijrour:
e was very useful
d report and options paper
serve ag expllent references
How^y^ littte progress in achieving consistency
in FCAs was made
Each state feels that it has a good approach
_ No consequences of continuing the inconsistency,
other than public confusion
• This outcome was not unexpected & is typical of
attempts to resolve interstate inconsistencies
Olson — 4
-------
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
The JctJe
§ Made. ,
sons, may abandon FDA
rbf a risk-based approach:
Parameter Unrestricted 1 meal / wk Do no)
0-0.2 ppm
: 2.0 ppm j> 2.0 ppm
: 1.0 ppm >_ 1.0 ppm
Would continue to be inconsistent with all adjace
states, but would move a bit closer to a consistei
protocol and a consistent message
Resources
; Office Building
Des MoflPBBFiA 50319
515/281-8905
John. olson@dnr.state.ia. us
Olson — 5
-------
Gulf Coast State Fish Consumption Advisory for King Mackerel
Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health
Gulf Coast State
Fish Consumption Advisory
for King Mackerel
Participating States
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
Issues to Resolve
Fork length or total length
Age of child
Size criteria
RfD (Hg ppm to break)
Proposed Advisory
Women of childbearing age and child.
under 15 should not consume king
mackerel
All others may consume two 2-oz me
per month of king mackerel < 31 inch
fork length. Do not consume king
mackerel > 31 inches.
Status in Each State
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
Katrina
Katrina
Katrina
Katrina
Action in October 2005
Sekerke — 1
-------
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Acknowledgments
NJDEP: Alan Stern and Bruce Ruppel
DE DNREC: Roy Miller
DE DPH: Jerry Llewellyn
Can Fish Swi
Fish (and crabs) don't obey s
boundaries
Anglers consuming the "sarrr
Public confused by different o
conflicting advisories
• Concern from health and outreach
perspective
Many rivers are state boundaries (e.g.,
Mississippi, Ohio, and Colorado rivers)
Consistent Advisories - Potei
Problems & Barriers
inconsistency - Intrastate water bo
nultiple interstate boundaries
Jnwillingness or inability to compror
\ssumption that current advisory is
protect ive/adeq uate
Policy of current administration
Current intrastate agency agreemen
Recognition of shared resourrps
Buchanan— 1
-------
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Key to Success
i NJDEP Commissioner Campbell and
DNREC Secretary Hughes requestedt\
development of consistent fish
consumption advisories in the shared
waters of Delaware and New Jersey
J since 1982 (1989 in DE Estuary)
;E since 1986 (1994 in DE Estuary)
)eveloped separately
JJ adopted some DE advisories in
1990s
DE, NJ, PA, U.S. EPA, and DRBC: Fis
Jonsumption Advisory Team (FCAT)
mder Delaware Estuary Program
ay 2003 Meeting
Delaware DNREC:
- Division of Water Resources
- Division of Fish and Wildlife
Delaware DHSS:
- Division of Public Health
New Jersey DEP:
- Division of Science, Research, and
Technology
Buchanan — 2
-------
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
'easons for Differences
DE: Multiple contaminants
NJ: Individual contaminants (PCBs)
DE: 10-5 cancer risk (mandated by
Delaware's waste clean-up law)
Reasons for Differences (coni
• NJ: "Range approach" (1Q-5 and 10r«)
• Different datasets
• Differences in risk assumptions (e.g.,
30-yr vs. 70-yr exposure)
Advisory Difference:.
Delaware Bay (10"5 cane
Striped bass: DE = 1 meal per year,
= Do not eat
Bluefish - DE = no advisory; NJ =
tatewide advisory
American eel
nties in
ones
Delaware Bay: Channel catfish, white catflsl
white perch - NJ lists DE advisory
ilaware. River: NJ lists DE advisory of "Do
not eat" for all species
High-risk population: both states recommet
"do not eat"
Build on consistencies!!
Resolution for Consisted
Advisories in Shared Watei
DE agreed to add bluefish to state's
-dvisories (NJ data)
IJ agreed to use 10~5 cancer risk
DE/NJ agreed to use DE 2002 stripe
bass data and NJ assumptions for
idvisory
NJ and DE
Issue Consistent Advisories
March 2004
Buchanan — 3
-------
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
~nefits of Consistent Adviso
Uniform and more effective message
anglers and fish consumers in both
states
Improved comprehension by the put
Increase public health protection
.enefits of Consistent
Advisories (cont.)
Coordinated state outreach efforts
Sharing of resources and data
Meets the DE/NJ and Delaware Estuan
Program's goal of consistent advisories
1 Consistent basis for 303(d) listing and
TMDL development (leading to clean u
Lessons Learn
Need (simple) consistent advisories.
'ublic has difficulty understanding th
tvisory even without conflicting and
mplex messages for the same fish ii
me waterbody.
Clear message to the public (risk
communication) is more important th;
Differences in technical procedures (ri
ssessment assumptions).
Conclusions
Share data
Compromise
Management mandate
Public better informed
Benefits - Reach more of the public
and leverage cleanups
Buchanan — 4
-------
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice
Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Buchanan — 5
-------
Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Akwesasne Mohawk Fi
Advisory Communicati
Tony David, Environment Division
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Marriott Inner Harbor
Baltimore, MD
Mohawks of Akwesasne
40,000-ac
U.S. and Canadian
St. Lawrence River
Fish-consuming community
10,000-12,000 people
Fish and agriculturally based traditional
culture
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Tribal government established circa 1
Environment division
~,000-ac
/ New York
United States
f~~~r~~^
Public Health Studies
1980s, Ward Stone, NYS wildlife pathologist
1986, Selikoff and Hammond, Mt. Sinai
1992, Chemical contaminants in breast milk
1999, NYS DOH/ATSDR, public health assessment
2000, SUNY Albany, blood serum PCBs
2006? update
David— 1
-------
Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Cleaning and Cooking Fish
to Reduce Contaminants
The Advisories
IMT Health Service (1986)
Women: Consume no fish
Children: Consume no fish
Men: 1 meal per week
'S DOH (2005)
Specific advisories
• Grasse River: Consume no fish, all spe
• Bay at General Motors: Consume no fish
Other general advisories
Other Recommendations
General Advisories
Select for generally cleaner species
Harvest from "clean" locations
Select for smaller size fish
David — 2
-------
Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Contrary Information
Environment Canada advisories
Greater species specificity
• More recent and complete data
Regional breakdown in the St. Lawrenc
River
Allow for meals of several species of fish
Need for Better / Recent data
Recent efforts to collect data???
Multi-increment approach
Post-remediation sampling
i Focus on Hg and PCBs
David — 3
-------
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation
Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
State of South Dakota
Two advisories for the same area
- The state of South Dakota (SD)
- The Tribe
Maintain interest level in recreational angling -
focus on individual lakes.
Reservation-wide advisory - address issues
where fish consumption is also for subsistence
and supplement of other wild game.
Current South Dakota Advisory f^gS
- species
— Healthy aduj
— High nskgno
- Children un'c
LflKjeniiMilli l--.^ ifnh •- IS im h.^i
e 7
• Lake Hurley, Potter Courty
- Species
- Contaminant
- Health y adute
- High'risk groups
- Children under age 7
• Lake Isabel. Dewey County
- Spscles
- Contaminant
- Healthy adults
- Highnsk groups
— Children underage?
Wft
mouth baaa (fish » 13 inches)
Hoithern pike [fish >25 inches), L.argemouth bass (fish >17 Inches)
ri T Ilisn one7-0z meat per week (12 rneah/yesri
Ho.morslhanone7-oz meal per month 112 rneali/yearj
NO'more than one 4-oz medl pei rnontli (\2 rneaki/yesrl
BigEagle — 1
-------
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation
Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Current Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribal Advisory
Factors Affecting Advisory
Release
• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
- Minority group where average annual income is
$1,100/yr
- Subsistence fishing is a broad practice (BigEagle 02)
- Education level is a factor
- Follows U.S. EPA guidelines
- Recreational fishing not important
- Species differentiation is not a greater factor
- Tribe used grants for all efforts
Factors Affecting Advisory
Release
• State of South Dakota
- No harm to recreational fishing
- Name specific lakes
- Higher level of guidelines; above U.S. EPA?
- Names specific species
- Allows consumption of other unnamed
species
• Overall is more specific, more detailed
• State has designated funding
Separate Advisory Efforts ~'^^
GF&P, CRST, Dept. Health completes sampling.
Each agency sent samples to various places for results and compared to EPA GL
Each agency then made a set of recommendation to the S.D. Dept. of Health
Series of press releases regarding results
U.S. EPA Guidelines: U.S. EPA vs. CRST Tribe and U.S. EPA vs. State of S.D.
The SD GF&P worked off action level 1, FDA standards, and U.S. EPA guidelines
The Tribe used guidelines closer to standard U.S. EPA recommendations
May or may not be higher level than U.S. EPA (i.e., ppb vs. ppm)
State of SD has action syntax similar to FDA or half of FDA standards
Results?
- State advisory - no more than 7 oz. per week
- Tribe advisory - no more than 4 oz per week
- State = more for adults, same as Tribe for children
- Tribe = same for both groups; little less confusing when trying to interpret
- Tribal anglers may not follow advisory
Summary of Coordination
• Coordinated protocol of sampling?
• Coordinated sampling methodology?
• Coordinated information to the public?
• Shared recommendations from T to S
• Have warnings in same jurisdictions?
• Advisories are similar, 7 oz and 4 oz vs. 4 oz
and 4 oz
• Overall public safety and risk assessment is
homogeneous between ENR and Tribe.
Future of Our Advisory
Actions
• National Indian Health Service Grant
• Gather more samples and sample
annually
• Funding through permanent source (not a
casino Tribe)
• Include arsenic and other dioxins
• Test drinking water
BigEagle — 2
-------
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation
Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Acknowledgments
• Mr. Pat Snyder, SD Environment & Natural
Resources
• Mr. Carlyle Ducheneaux, Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe
• Mr. Stuart Surma, History of Lake Isabel
• U.S. EPA, ENR, DOH, CRST
Question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one's
around, and it hits a toxicologist, does anyone care?
BigEagle —:
-------
EPA Advisory Program Update
James Pendergast for Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Advisory Program Update
James Pendergast, Chief
Fish, Shellfish, Beach, and Outreach Branch
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. EPA
SERA
A Measure of National Interest
NOW THEY/LAST WE6K
SAY F/5H
ARE 9AC>
TOR YOU.
TOO«UCH
MERCURY
TH6Y KEEP
CHANSINS...ONE
WEEK SOMETHING
S600P, THEN IT'S
SAP. THEN IT'S
SOOP A6AIN
MOW, WHAT CAN I
SERVE NEXT WEEK
THAT'S SOOP
Thanks to Mort Walter
What Is the EPA Program?
Provides technical assistance to state, federal, and tribal
agencies on matters related to health risks associated with
exposure to chemical contaminants in fish and wildlife.
National guidance documents and outreach
National databases
Assistance in issuing advisories
National conferences and workshops
Grants for sampling and analysis
Conduct special studies
Also issues advisories when necessary
SERA
Percentage of River Miles and Lake Acres
Under Advisory, 1993-2004
35%
30%
1993 1994 1995 1396 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 7002 2003 2004
SERA
Number of Safe-Eating Guidelines by State
(2004)
oEFA
Outreach at Conferences
SERA
Pendergast/Keehner — 1
-------
EPA Advisory Program Update
James Pendergast for Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joint Federal Advisory
Published advisory for
meuiyhnercury in commercial and
non-commercial fish in. March
2004.
To improve otir outreach, we plan
to conduct various surveys about
the public's perception of, and
sources of information about; the
benefits and risks offish
consumption.
&EFA
MOU with FDA
&EFR
In June 2005. U .S. EPA's Office of Water and FDA CFSAN signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOLT.) regarding greater collaboration
between U.S. EPA and FDA regarding contaminants in fish and shellfish.and
safety for consumption.
The MOLT lays out goals and objectives and describes how they will be
achieved by:
— Promoting the use of the best available science and public health policies
— Promoting the sliaring and availability of appropriate information among
the agencies' health and environmental professionals and the public
- Encouraging environmental monitoring efforts by FDA/CFSAN and U.S.
EPA/OW and stakeholders
- Encouraging the development of public health advice that considers both
risks and benefits of consumption of commercial and noncommercial fish
and shellfish, and
- Promoting uniformity "where appropriate in public health messages
regarding consumption of commercial and noncommercial fieri and
shellfish.
What Are the Future Directions?
• Look at emerging contaminants:
- PBDEsaudPFOA
1 Look at relevance of existing advisories:
- Have tissue levels changed enough to warrant revising advisories?
- How do advisories really change people's behavior?
• Continue ongoing work with states to identify safe-eating guidelines
• React & respond to NAS report on risks and benefits related to eating
fish
• Continue work with FDA about environmental contaminants in fish
and shellfish and the safety of fish and shelifisii for consumption by
U.S. consumers
• Look at advisories in. interstate waters
• Work with LI. S. EPA programs on using advisories to leverage clean-
ups
• Plan for the 2007 forum
SERA
Pendergast/Keehner — 2
-------
Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update
Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration
i*ood & Drug Administratii
)OD SAFETY PROGF
Donald W. Kraemer
Acting Director
Office of Seafood
Food Safety by Design
Effective 1997
Requires processors to:
• Assess potential food safety hazards to deternih
if they are "reasonably likely to occur"
Develop and implement a HACCP '
those hazards
eafood Safety H;
Paralytic shellfish poisoning (saxitoxin) and
amnesic shellfish poisoning (domoic acid) in
temperate zone oysters, clams, and mussels
Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (brevetoxin) i
warmer temperate zone and subtropical oystf
clams, and mussels
Ciguatera toxin in subtropical and tropical
barracuda, grouper, and snapper
Seafood Safety Hazan
h
Parasites in many species of near-shore fish
consumed raw
Dmg residues
• Chloramphenicol in aqir
crabrneat
Fluoroquinolones in aqua
_ Malachite green in salmon
Unapproved use of food and color additiv
• Uhlabeled sulfites in warm water shrimp
iological i
fibrto vuinificus aijd
Gulf Coast oysters
haemolytic
Norovirus. Hepatitis A virus, and Vibrio chc
in oysters, clams, and mussels
^rapliylococcus aureus toxm in s
afety Ha;
IJulabeled milk, eggs, an.
seafood
Physical hazards:
Metal fragments in breat
Glass fragments in packa
Environmental chemicals and pesticides:
• Industrial chemicals, pesticides, and toxic elem-
in near-shore fi sh
Methyl mercury in shark, swordfish
mackerel, tilefish. and albacore tuna
Kraemer — 1
-------
Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update
Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration
Chemical Contaminants
Total Diet Study:
na, salmon, pollack, shrimp, and catfish
Radionuclides, pesticides, PCBs, VOCs, toa
nutritional elemeutals, and folic acid
lernical Contaminants Field Assignments:
Pesticide, program
elements program
uroxin program
Perchlorate assignment
Mercury assignments
FY'05 Pesticide Program
175 domestic. 300 import samples
Pesticides and PCBs
Domestic: locally caught, commercial.
non-migratory, and bottom feeders
Import: salmon from Canada and Norway,
aquacultured catfish, crayfish, tilapia, Nile
perch, basa, shellfish, and crustaceans
CF
r'05 Toxic Elements Progi
) domestic, 160 import samples
sad. cadmium, arsenic, and mercury
herring, sardine, cod. bluefish. h,
Imon, flou
halibut. AI
air
lollack, crab, oyster, squid, scallop, and
ic and import samples, 85 feed s
Dioxins and dioxin-Uke PCBs
Domestic: Aquacultured catfish, striped bass, tila
and salmon
Import: Salmon, bluefish, flounder, halibut, sole,
striped bass, wild salmon, scallop, shrimp, clam,
oyster, crab, mussel, lobster, Alaska pollack, cod.
sardines, swordfish, ocean perch, tuna, haddock ,
crayfish, mackerel, croaker, sablefish. orange rou
shark, weakfish, and pogy
Perchlorate Assignm
uacultured catfish and saknon, wild-ea
mon, and shrimp
:_ur
mi
'05 Mercury Assignment,
Domestic and import
470 samples fresh/frozen fish - 29 species
100 fresh/frozen tuna, 50 samples canned tr
Total mercury
Kraemer — 2
-------
Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update
Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration
Methylmercury Risk Benefi"
Project by PDA with contribution from Internati
Food Safety Consultius. LLC
Risk/benefit analysis
Risk to U.S. consumers of metliylmereury in seafood
Nutritional benefits from consuming se
Kraemer — 3
-------
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design
Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Key Considerations in Fish
Tissue Sampling Design
Lyle Cowles, U.S. EPA Region 7
Main Discussion Areas
Preparation is required to design a
sampling program that meets your needs.
Understanding and choosing sampling
designs appropriate to your questions,
resources, and needs.
Considerations in balancing, integrating,
and implementing multiple sampling
designs.
Key Consideration 1 - Preparation
Primary question: Mow if
o monitoi inci system lo n'i
Be very thorough and methodical in developing a
complete understanding of (a) the questions, (b)
the resources to be monitored, and (c) design
options (strengths & limitations).
Design based on what you need to accomplish,
not on what you're currently doing and/or the
resources you have to do it (i.e., don't limit your
thinking).
Be open-minded and creative about solutions,
looking for efficiencies, asking for more, doing
more.
Key Consideration 1 - Preparation
For a Thorough and Methodical Understanding
o Know all the questions. For states, tribes,
and EPA, the Clean Water Act asks two basic
questions:
l.What is the condition of all the waters,
what °/o are impaired? = 305(b) question
(requires an unbiased probability-based or
representative-type design)
2. Which ones are impaired and why (by
what pollutant)? = 303(d) question
(requires a targeted, determinative-type
monitoring approach)
Key Consideration 1 - Preparation
For a Thorough and Methodical Understanding
o Know all the questions (inc. pollutants of
interest)
o Know all the resource classes and any distinct
sub-classes to be monitored and their size.
o Have good rationale and data to support your
monitoring program design decisions.
o Identify the level of monitoring coverage
needed for each class and sub-class to be
monitored.
Cowles — 1
-------
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design
Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I
^^H Resource
^^M class
W Big Rivera
p Non-wade
Wadeable
Streams
Small/int.
Urban lakes/
small streams
Large public
lakes (A)
Medium
public lakes
(B)
Small public,
private (C)
303(d)/305(b) Monitorina
Network Design Table
Population
Size
500 miles
50 segmts
25 streams
2,500 miles
25,000
miles
100,000
miles
hundreds
75
300
10,000
Significant
Public
Profile/Use
Y
Y
N
N
Y/N
Y
Y
N
Significant
Fishing
Pressure
Y
Y
Y
N
Y/N
Y
Y
Y
Monitoring
Coverage
Needed
Represent all
seg men ts
Census of
strea ms
Represent
all miles
None
Represent/
None
Census
Census
Represent
Monitoring
Design
Targeted -
Represent
Census
Probability
N/A
Probability/
None
census
Rotating
census
probability
Year to
Sample
annual
annual
2007
N/A
2009
annual
2008
2008
Recap of Consideration 1 - Preparation
Know the questions (seek to balance
them).
Know the resources, sub-classes, and size.
Know your coverage needs for each class.
Have supportable design rationale and
data.
Don't limit your thinking.
Key Consideration 2 - Design Pros & Cons
Design
Census - All sites are
sampled
Probability - Sites are
Delected at random to
represent a population
Targeted- Representa-
tive - Sites are
selected by BPJ or
other means to
represent an area or
population
Targeted - Sites are
selected via
determinative methods
usually to Investigate
known or suspected
problems /areas
Pros
Answers both 305 and
303
p Efficient to represent a
large population with a
small sample (305b)
• Known confidence for
results
. Predicts size of 303d &
provides some of the
303(d) sites
• Can usually be
Implemented simply
and efficiently
. Well suited to 303(d)
. Can provide some
303(d) sites If targeting
methods work
Cons
Expensive and not practical if large
number of water bodies to sample
• Does not ID all impaired waterbodies
for 303(d)
• Sites require inventory and recon
• Logistical problems accessing remote
sites
• Assumptions are necessary
representative
• Work required to develop and
Implement targeting methodology
• Does not ID all impaired waterbodies
for 303d
• Does not provide 305(b) answer
• Work required to develop and
Implement targeting methodology
• Used alone, does not provide data to
validate the targeting method
Consideration 3 - Balancing
and Integrating Designs
The designs for 305(b) and 303(d) can provide
complementary assessment results, but the data are
not readily Integrated. Integration is often misused to
describe coordination of sampling.
In a perfect 305(b)/303(d) world, I would implement
an "educational" probability-based design first followed
by an "educated" targeted design that considered the
most important factors driving impairment (e.g., land
use, point and non-point sources).
Adequate resources, planning, and coordination are the
keys to balancing and implementing multiple designs.
Resources can be created! How?
Have good rationale
Eliminate existing program inefficiencies
Look at what your data is telling you
Key Considerations in Sampling Design
o Balancing the CWA Questions:
We should seek through state strategies
to balance the monitoring needed to
answer both 305(b) and 303(d)
questions.
Some state and EPA programs have
prioritized the monitoring for 303(d)
without providing for 305(b). Worse,
targeted 303(d) data has been used for
305(b), producing negatively biased
assessments.
Challenges in Sampling Design
• Knowing the questions, resources, and
your needs are not as easy as they
may seem. They may require
CIS work: ID of populations and areas of
interest
Agreement on definitions and sub-classes
Agreement on coverage needs
Obtaining the required information and
making design decisions may be
compounded by the number of
collaborators, old program considerations,
and thinking.
Cowles — 2
-------
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design
Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterbodies and CWA Monitoring
Clean Water Act
"Waters of the U.S.17
f Obi
Waters
named in
State
standards
gation to monitor * No obligation to monitor
Waters not
named in
State
standards
DMZ
Isolated waters
not hydrologically
connected to
'navigables'
Decreasing priority to
monitor and assess £
1 i'
Cowles — 3
-------
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size
for Developing Fish Consumption Advice
Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health
How Many Fish DO We Need?
Protocol for Calculating Sample Size
for Developing Fish Consumption Advice
Jim VanDerslice, Ph.D.
David McBride, M.S.
Rob Duff, M.S.
Office of Environmental Health Assessments
Washington State Department of Health
Health
How Many Fish Do You Need?
• Precision of estimate of mean concentration
- Relative (e.g.+/- 15%)
- Absolute (e.g. +/- 50 ppb)
• Fish populations
- Species that are consumed
- Size classes that may have different levels of
contamination
• Response: HOW many?
• Alternate: n=($$ available)/(cost per sample)
WA Approach For Fish
Consumption Advice
• Goal is to develop and communicate
defensible, consistent advice about healthy
consumption offish
• Assessment •> Meal recommendations
Health
Meal Recommendations
• Meal recommendation (meals per month) =
(noncancerendpoints) Rfd ' 30.4 * BW
meal size * Cone.
(cancer endpoints) Risk level * 30.4 * BW
CSF * meal size * Cone.
Meal Recommendations
3.72
1
1
0 1
I I
23456
Meals per month
I
7 8
jSp. «u«ns»n,m«?
mHealth
Standard Meal Recommendations
3.72
I
0 1 2
Meals per month
|
Health
Monday afternoon
VanDerslice_sb_7.ppt
VanDerslice et al. — 1
-------
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size
for Developing Fish Consumption Advice
Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health
Cut-points
1
0 1
3.72
f\ A
i i
2 4
Meals per month
Cut-points
I
8
/
mfiSSSi
Sampling Distribution of Meal
Recommendation Estimate
^x
I
0 1 2
y
Cut-points
"^V
I I
4
I
8
Meals per month
jriEV M*^9*IM>*4
SitHeaWh
Sampling Distribution of Meal
Recommendation Estimate
0
Pr (M <= 3)
w
2
y
X
' I I
4
Cut-points
I
8
Meals per month
xfe-. «u«ns»n,m«?
ftHedtfi
Sampling Distribution of Meal
Recommendation Estimate
0
1
y
/N
Cut- points
V
I ' I I
24 8
Meals per month
jdjf. MMgnlaQputt*
mHealth
Sampling Distribution of Meal
Recommendation Estimate
0
Pr
1
(v <= 3) y
\r
Cut- points
\
i • i i
24 8
Meals per month
dK± ***t-*aiM4
fflHeaMi
Sampling Distribution of Meal
Recommendation Estimate
0
Pr
1
(V <= 3) V
Cut- points
V
I I I
24 8
Meals per month
fJHeaWi
Monday afternoon
VanDerslice_sb_7.ppt
VanDerslice et al. — 2
-------
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size
for Developing Fish Consumption Advice
Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health
Decision Rule
• If Pr(u <= cut-point) > 0.10
then consider using lower standard meal
recommendation (10% is arbitrary)
• Provides basis for sampling objective
- Have an 80% chance of
• Detecting the difference between the expected
meal recommendation and the lower cut-point
(i.e., minimum detectable difference)
• At a significance of 0.10 (one-sided)^,
''•Hen
Minimum Detectable Difference
of Meal Frequency
Pr(M<=3)<0.10 X
T
T
12 4
Minimum detectable difference (MOD)
Meals per month
Cut-points
Estimated Meal Recommendation
and 80% Confidence Interval
I
0 1 2
Minimum
80% confidence interval
/ Cut-points
/\
~ I I I
4 8
detectable difference MOD
Meals per month
jag* M*^uiw>*4
mHeatth
But We're Sampling Fish...
• For a given contaminant and target population:
Meal recommendation =
Rfd * 30.4 * BVV = A
meal size * Cone.
Cone.
Hg Concentration vs.
Recommended Meals
i
\
Calculated Meal Recommendations
\
\j 70 kg body weight
"^ 0-227 kg pec meal
\
\
^-^
~""^*— — ___ .
Mercury fish tissue cone, (ppb)
4j£* FWiijtoBl.ttprtoUJ
^Health
Minimum Detectable Difference
of Meal Frequency
1
0 1 2
y
' 80% confidence interval
/Cut- points
/J
r1 i i
4 8
Minimum detectable difference (MOD)
Meals per month
mHeatth
Monday afternoon
VanDerslice_sb_7.ppt
VanDerslice et al. — 3
-------
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size
for Developing Fish Consumption Advice
Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health
Minimum Detectable Difference
of Contaminant Concentration
7
|
E
5> -
Q.
J£
1 ,
Calculated meal recommendations
i
\
Minimum
detectable
difference ^^v
\
*»
=00 :,v, ~£ :•:,:, -^:- ^ «,-, 7|V,
Mercury fish tissue cone, (ppb)
mHeali
%
Summary
1. Estimate mean and s.d. of contaminant
concentration
2. Determine meal frequency associated with
mean contaminant concentration
3. Determine difference between cut-point
and mean meal frequency (MOD)
4. Determine MOD offish tissue concentration
needed
5. Calculate sample size needed
6. Conduct sensitivity analyses
Optimal Sampling
Rolfe, F.J., H.R. Akcakaya, and S.P. Ferraro, 1996.
Optimizing composite sampling protocols. ES&T
30(10):2899-2902.
• Calculation of sample size for given MOD
• Iterative solution of optimum number of fish per
composite
• Based on variability of contaminant
concentrations, variability of lab analyses, cost of
additional fish samples, and cost of additional lab
analyses
Health
Minimum Detectable Difference
of Contaminant Concentration
.,
V
Meals pern
• T :-
Ca culated mea
recommendations
f
Mercury fish tissue cone, (ppb) ,
4JIE^ VHaifai3U:&nrimtj
^Health
Acknowledgments
• This work was supported in part by the
Washington Environmental Public Health
Tracking Network grant from the National
Centers for Environmental Health, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
(U50/CCU022438-01.02)
Health
Monday afternoon
VanDerslice_sb_7.ppt
VanDerslice et al. — 4
-------
US FDA's Total Diet Study
Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration
US FDA's Total Diet Study
Katie Egan
U.S. FDA/CFSAN
Presented at the
National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
September 18-21, 2005, Baltimore, MD
Introduction
• What is a Total Diet Study (IDS)?
• Brief history of FDA's IDS
• Review of study design
• Brief discussion of TDS results
Total Diet Studies
• Purpose is to
n Measure levels of various substances in
foods
n Estimate dietary intakes of the substances
• Involves purchase and analysis of foods
representing all components of the diet
• Focus is the average diet rather than
extreme or atypical consumers
Total Diet Studies (cont.)
' Conducted by many countries
' Study design depends on specific
n Health/safety concerns
n Resources
' Model can be adapted to meet specific
needs (e.g., selected foods, regions)
FDA's Total Diet Study
1 Initiated in 1961 due to concern about
radioactive fallout
' Conducted continuously since then
' Overtime has evolved to include
-More analytes
-More foods
-Improved analytical methods
-Intakes for more population groups
Current TDS Design
• ~ 280 foods & beverages
• ~ 500 analytes
-Pesticides, elements, industrial
chemicals, nutrients
• Estimated dietary intakes for
-Total United States
-14 age/gender groups
Egan — 1
-------
US FDA's Total Diet Study
Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration
Current IDS Design
4 regional market baskets each year
~ 280 foods collected in 3 cities per region
- 3 samples are composited for analysis
TDS Design Components
• TDS food list
• Sample collections
• Sample preparation/compositing
• Sample analyses
• Estimation of dietary intakes
TDS Food List
• Includes major components of the
average American diet
• Is based on national food consumption
survey results
• Limited to foods available nationwide
• Is revised periodically to reflect changing
dietary patterns
Selecting TDS Foods
TDS food: Applesauce
Survey codes and consumption amounts
urwey
b [
b C
q n
urvey Food Description
noe a i ]] o
Apf F a reLrL
4i r e. [ =1
API. p.rnB-i
a GDI
D 132
D ngg
Fish/Seafood in TDS
1 Species consumed nationwide by most
Americans
1 Includes:
-Canned tuna
- Fish sticks
- Fish sandwich (fast food)
-Shrimp
- Haddock (through 1997)
-Salmon (added in 1997)
-Catfish (added in 2003)
Foods are "table ready"
• Fresh orange, peeled
• Green beans, cooked
• Salmon, baked
• Microwaved popcorn
• Taco/tostada, carry-out
Egan — 2
-------
US FDA's Total Diet Study
Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration
Sample Collection Sites
1 Selected from Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSAs) close to FDA
district or field offices
' 3 cities selected per region
1 Cities vary from year to year
IDS Analytes
Each food is analyzed separately for
n Pesticide residues (>150)
o Industrial chemicals (43)
n Radionuclides (13)
o Elements (4 toxic, 14 nutrient)
n Folate
o Dioxin (since 1999); acrylamide (since
2003); perchlorate, furan (since 2004)
Analytical Results
• Results forTDS analytes posted on IDS
Web site:
a Individual data (as .txt files)
n Data summaries by analyte and/or food
• Current Web site includes data from 1991
through 2001/2002
• Results for additional analytes posted
elsewhere on CFSAN Internet
Results for Fish/Seafood:
Mercury (total)
IDS Food
Canned tuna
Fish sticks
Shrimp
Salmon
n
(detected)
40
39
39
17
Hg concentrations
(rng/kg)
Average
0.163
0.004
0.027
0.030
Range
0.06-0.322
0 - 0.030
0-0.071
0 - 0.060
IDS Intake Estimates
' Dietary intake =
Analyte concentration x amount of foods
consumed
' IDS "diets" developed for 14 age-gender
groups + total U.S. population
' Each diet = Consumption amount for each
IDS food
r.
)ietary Intake of Mercury from
Fish/Seafood
TDS Food
Canned tuna
Fish sticks
Shrimp
Salmon
Hg cone
(mg/kg)
0.163
0.004
0.027
0.030
Intake (j,ig/day)
Total
US
0.541
0.008
0.091
0.085
MF
2 yrs
0.186
0.005
0.013
0.025
F
25-30 yrs
0.490
0.005
0.212
0.058
Egan — 3
-------
US FDA's Total Diet Study
Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration
IDS Intake Estimates
• Provide reasonable estimates of
-Background intakes/exposure
-Average intake overtime
• Are not appropriate for assessing
-Acute intakes
-Upper percentile intakes
- Intakes from very specific foods or specific
population subgroups
Web Sites
More information and analytical results
are posted on CFSAN's Web site:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov
Program Areas:
Chemical Contaminants
-Total Diet Study
Egan — 4
-------
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
PUBLIC HEALTH
ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND
IER WASHINGTON
Analysis of Chemical
Contaminant Levels in
Store-Bought Fish from
Washington State
Dave McBride, M.S.
Jim VanDerslice, Ph.D.
Denise Laflamme, M.S., M.P.H.
Asnake Hailu, D.P.H.
Liz Carr, M.S.
Washington State Department of Health
Division of Environmental Health /
Olvmpia. WA /
Study Objectives
To characterize levels of mercury and
PCBs in canned tuna and fresh fish sold in
rocery stores
To estimate contaminant levels in the most
frequently consumed fish in Washington State
• To identify fish with lower levels for makinc
recommendations to consumers
Expanded analysis to include PBDEs
Sampling Fresh and Frozen Fish
1 Species chosen based on frequency of
consumption and expected contaminant levels
• Catfish
• Cod
• Flounder
• Halibut
• Red snapper
• Pollack
Tuna (canned white and light)
Tuna steaks, carp u.s, E
U.S. EPA, 1996; U.S. FDA,
Study Design
ampling objective:
Obtain a probability sample offish available fo'
sale in Washington State
arget:
60 of white/light canned tuna
Follow up to 2003 study
20 of each species of fresh/frozen fish
wo-stage sampling:
Store
Fish sample
Fish Collection - Selecting Stores
Primary sampling unit:
_ . .etail outlets (small and large grocery stores)
Obtained listing of all retail food outlets
from WA Dept. of Revenue
Includes data on food sales ($)
Used total sales as proxy for sales of fish
Random selection of stores; probability of
selection proportional to sales
Fish bought from 40 stores
McBride — 1
-------
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
Sampling Fresh and Frozen Fish
Collected samples between October 2004 and
February 2005
Collected one sample of each available fish type
(fresh/frozen) from each store
«- Medium-sized fillet of counter fish
• Top package of packaged fish
«: Relied on sales person regarding "species"
Total of 390 fish samples collected (118 cans,
172 fillets)
Store Labeling of Fish
Sampling Canned Tuna
Fish labels on store packages or signs can
include different species:
Red snapper
• Includes rock fish and red snapper
Cod
• Includes Pacific and Alaskan cod
Flounder
• Includes sole, Dover sole, and flounder
Chinook salmon "worst case"
Listed all available "products" of canned
tuna on the shelf:
• 6-oz cans
• No specialty products
Randomly selected:
• 2 cans from all albacore types
• 2 cans from all light tuna types
Preparation and Analysis
Individual fish samples analyzed
Homogenized and frozen
ilysis - WA Dept. of Ecology Manchester lafe
Mercury analyzed by CVAA, U.S.
ed by GC/ECD. U.S. EPA Method £
(1016, 1221, 1232,1242, 1248, 1254,1260, 1262, 1268)
PBDE Analyzed by GC/MS/MS, U.S. EPA Method 8270
i Analyzed for BDE-47
190. and 209
00, 138, 153, 154, 1^
McBride — 2
-------
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
PBDE Results
Mean (ppb) Range (ppb) N
2.0 1.4-3.8 23
Tuna -light
McBride — 3
-------
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
Meal Recommendation Calculations
- Meals per month = RfD x BWx CF
MS x Concentration
Parameter
RfD - Reference Dose
PCBs
Mercury
PBDEs
CF —Conversion Factor
BW - Body Weight
Cone. - Concentration
70 (adult)
0.227
mg/kg-d
days/month
kg
kg/meal
mg/kg
McBride — 4
-------
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
Conclusions
• Mercury was most frequently detected
• 7 out of 9 species had detected frequency > 90%
Canned white tuna had highest mean (357 ppb)
Hg levels resulted in more restrictive meal
recommendations in 6 out of 9 species
PCBs - only halibut, red snapper, and salmon ha<
detected frequency >10%
> Salmon had highest mean (32 ppb)
3 levels more restrictive in catfish and salmon
Levels of PBDEs measured in fish sold in Washington
State grocery stores are similar to levels previously
ported
BDE-47 most frequently detected in fish
Acknowledgments
Washington State Department of Ecology, Manchester
lab:
• Stuart Ma goon
• Dolores Montgomery (Principal chemist),
• Jeff Westerlund
» Cherlyn Milne
• Kelly Donegan
» Daniel Baker
• Danette Hanttula
m Dickey Huntamer
Acknowledgments
Washington State Department of Ecology,
Headquarters:
• Keith Seiders, Cheri Peele (PBDE lead policy anal'ys
Washington State Department of Health:
• JudyBardin, Nancy West. Glen Patrick, Helen Murph
Straus, Rob Banes, Marnie Boardman
Funded by:
• Washington State Department of Health, and
• Washington Environmental Public Health Tracking Network
grant from the National Centers for Environmental Health,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
BRFSS Fish Consumption Questions
• How often do you eat canned tuna?
1 In the past 30 days, how often did you eat
either fresh or frozen store bought fish,
including fish items, such as fish sticks?
1 Not counting shellfish, please tell me all the
types of FRESH FISH you ate in the past 30
days (purchased at a grocery store or fish
market).
Meals Per Month
(mean, 95% Cl) BRFSS2002
Canned tuna Store-bougl
All adults (N=4756) 7.4 (6.6-8.1) 2.8 (2.6-3
Men(N=1917)
8.2 (7.0-9.5) 2.8 (2.6-3
Women (N=2839) 6.5 (5.8-7.3) 2,8 (2.6-3
Women
(18-44 years old) 7.3 (6.1 - 8.4) 2.4 (2.1-2
(N=1270)
Pr!ntW°men 5.0(1.5-8.5) 4.7(0.5-9.4)
Types of Fish Eaten in Last Month
(preliminary 2005)
• Salmon 27%
• 27% of respondents reported eating salmon in the last month
• Halibut 12%
Cod 9%
• Tuna 4%
Sole 2%
Catfish 2%
Tilapia 1%
• Snapper 1 %
McBride — 5
-------
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State
David McBride, Washington State Department of Health
McBride — 6
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Hemy W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;
and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
Seafood Safe
EAFOOD'-M
Are IS
I Lib felled for Matury A PCBf •
Case Study:
Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing
and Labeling Program
EcoFish as First Adopter:
Nationwide Sustainable Seafood Distributor:
•1,500 grocery stores
•125 restaurants
Evolution
Media attention
Consumer demographics
Project research
Conflictina & Confusina Messaaes
"Sound's Salmon Cany High PCB Levels: But State Says
Health Benefits of Eating the Fish Outweigh Risks"
"Mercury Debate Gets Murkier - No Clear Choices on
Which Fish are Best"
"Rich Folks Eating Fish Feed on Mercury too - 'Healthy
Diet'Clearly Isn't"
"Study Finds Mercury Levels in Fish Exceed U.S.
Standards"
"EPA Says Mercury Taints Fish Across United States"
"EPA Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury
Exposure"
Consumers Are Confused
Something Fishv: The Salmon Debate
The Miami Herald
November 4, 2004
"Eat salmon, we're urged. It is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which help our
hearts, cholesterol and blood pressure, fights rheumatoid arthritis, and
might even ease depression.
Eat salmon only sparingly, we're warned. The fish, especially when farm-
raised—as is 65 percent of the salmon sold in U.S. supermarkets —
contains PCBs and other toxins that may cause cancer.
What's a health-conscious consumer to do? Studies and counter-studies,
alarms, and assurances, i^^'^^^^J^-^A.^^J^-''
Business Model
Autonomous, independent structure
- Advisory panel
- Sampling
- Labs (Axys Analytical, Brooks Rand)
- Consumer Advocacy Organization
(Environmental Defense)
Precautionary principle
EcoFish first adopter •t__-- ~
Lovejoy et al. — 1
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Hemy W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;
and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
Marketing Strategy
Positive industry message
Consumer driven
State agency driven (CA A.G.)
Media follow through
Future Financial Model
Industry pays
Consultation with client
Customized programs:
- Species life history, regionality, size range,
seasonality, historical data, etc.
Testing
Licensing
Future Participation
Seafood industry (fisheries,
processors, distributors, packers)
Grocery store chains
Restaurant chains
EcoFish Species Tested
Wild Alaskan salmon - Oncorhynchus keta
Wild Alaskan halibut - Hippoglossus stenolepsis
Wild Peruvian mahi mahi - Coryphaena hippurus
Wild Oregon/Washington albacore tuna - Thunnus
alalunga
Wild California squid - Loligo opalescens
Farmed Chinese bay scallops - Argopecten irradians
Farmed Florida white shrimp - Penaeus vannamei
Contaminants Tested
Mercury
PCBs
Additional future contaminants?
Labeling
How to read
Guidance derivation
- U.S. EPA's Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in
Fish Advisories
- U.S. EPA's risk-based consumption
tables
Lovejoy et al. — 2
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Hemy W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;
and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
SAP! 19!
Recommendations
SutMttpUllEMln JAp. f
'Nt.w -.j! .•MiUi-.vi-.j i.;.- Jiw-St
Mr", 111 7?,
Oo«t it1 -3-ri- Hi-ii1
j.
;;
•«*'jrn IN ibi
I TJ1
TaW
t*tc»r
.isbKOTlw*
'WsttSw?
ihteMft.
Stl'kj&w
•WHli
KWSim^
*,J««
::i"
-^r
' :^
i.O
^Z,
7T)
Si
3Ji
'V!
i]l
W<
TO*
: :o;
: :•"
:• :•:••
; i:--
S,^
S7^
1]}
n4
sr:
*H(
w;
Fi
la Hun
!•:•
W
'».
Label in Use
| 4 fin-fish species (n=7) | | 3 shellfish species (n=3)|
Thaw, homogenize, and sub-sample
\
_
| To Brooks Rand for Hg |
Sub-sample extraction, and clear
1 i
Frozen samples received, homogenized, and sampled at:
AXYS Analytical Services Ltd., Sidney, B.C.. Canada
Results: HR vs. LR Comparability
• PCB concentrations presented as sum of
individual congeners measured (HR=209; LR=18)
• Detection limit differed by three orders of
magnitude between LR and HR (0.1 ng/g versus
0.1 pg/g)
• No congeners reported >0.1 ng/g via HR were
absent from the targeted LR analysis
• <0.10 ng/g = '0' for PCB congener summing
purposes
Seafood PCB (na/a. ww)
Total HR PCB
(Total of 209
congeners, ng/g)
Albacoretuna Gfiu
M
H
himahi 010
llbut 091
Keta salmon 1 4B
c
lamari 1 30
Whiteshrimp 1.20
S
$Af
allop 020
fip:
rr:-JL
bv HR and
LR GC-MS
Range Total LR
PCB
(Total of 18 Ratio of LR PCBs
congeners ng/g) to Total HR PCBs
4 0-7 5
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Hemy W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;
and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
Seafood PCB (na/a. ww) bv HR and LR GC-MS
Total HR PCB Range LR PCB Ratio of LR
(Total of 209 (Total of 18 PCBs to Total
congeners, ng/g) congeners ng/g) HR PCBs
Albacoretuna 6 BO 4 0-7 5 (4 80) I] 72
Mahi mahi 0 10 nd** (000) 0
Halibut 091 010-043^43) 047
Ketasalmon 140 nd- 095(0 51) 034
Calamari 1 50 076-0 90(069) 0 BO
White shrimp 1 20 0 Tfi - 0 70 iO 70) 0 B5
Scallop 0 20 rid (000) 0
-nd'b,!«d,,,ai.nl,m,,l01no/,),,LPanal,s,s ^
V/fe.
;^S,:^ XXXYS
Conclusions
Highest [PCB] in albacore tuna; lowest in mahi mahi.
[PCB]HR > [PCB]LR in all species.
Ratio of [PCB]HR: [PCB]LR was variable and generally
increased with increasing total PCB concentrations.
"Short" LR PCB target list included all congeners > 0.1 ng/g
by HR.
HR data provides more reliable Total PCB estimate than
LR. (LR estimate may provide a contingency estimate
approach for decision purposes, e.g.. by doubling total LR
| 4 fin-fish species (n=7) | | 3 shellfish species (n=3)|
•BROOkNWND
Methodologv:Total HQ and Methyl HQ
Total Hg-Appendixto U.S. EPA 1631
• HNO3/H2SO4/BrCI digestion & oxidation
• SnCI2 reduction, purge & gold amalgamation
• Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry
(CVAFS)
Methyl Hg - U.S. EPA 1630 Modified
• KOH/Methanol digestion
• Ethylation, purge and trap, GC, pyrolysis
• CVAFS
•BROOKSRAND
Quality Assurance
Total Hg
• CRM average recovery 101.7%, RSD 7.6% (n=6)
• MS/MSD average recovery 101.5%, RSD 7.8%
(n=10)
• MDL 0.07 ng/g
Methyl Hg
• CRM average recovery 111 % (n=2)
• MS/MSD average recovery 105% (n=2)
• MDL 1.5 ng/g
SiMO
_AF
Seafood Ha (na/a
Total Hg
(ng/g)
Albacoretuna 226-275(249)
Mahi mahi 98.4-538 (223)
Halibut 82.7-233(169)
Ketasalmon 21.2-37.1 (28.4)
Whiteshrlmp 5.47-11.0(6.49)
Scallop 8.45-9.35(8.79)
* (bracketed value) = mean
lip;
ww) bv
Methyl Hg
(ng/g)
214-258
102-595
86.3-284
20.5-30.0
5.67
7.38
CVAFS
Mean Ratio
ofMethylHg
to Total Hg
95.1%
110.1%
110.9%
90.7%
51.5%
78.9%
Lovejoy et al. — 4
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Hemy W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;
and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand
Conclusions
Highest [Hg] in albacore tuna and mahi mahi; lowest
in keta salmon
Albacore tuna very consistent (RSD 6.7%)
Mahi mahi and halibut much more variable (wider
range offish size and age)
Methyl Hg = Total Hg in all finfish species.
All shellfish low in Hg
Methyl Hg 50-100% of total Hg in shellfish
rBKOOKSRAND
Lovejoy et al. — 5
-------
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination
of Fish from National Fish Hatcheries
George Noguchi, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks
from Chemical Contamination of Fish from
National Fish Hatcheries
2005 National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
September 18-21
Baltimore, MD
George JNoguclii1
Linda Andreasen2
Dave Devault3
V.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
'Dirision of Environmental Quality, Washington DC
'Division of the National Fish Halchety Syaau.
Washington DC
'Ecological Services. FactSneUing, MN
; Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
U.S. FWS Investigators
Anil Gaimam (Abernathy Fish Technology Center, Longview, WA)
Jay Davis (Western Washington Fish & Wildlife Office, Lacy, WA)
Jim Haas (California-Nevada Operations Office (CNO), Sacramento, CA)
Karen Nelson (Ecological Services Field Office, Helena, MT)
Bill Kl'ise (Director, Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Bozeman, MT)
Mike Millai'd (Director, Northeast Fishery Center, Lamar, PA)
Tim Kllbiak (Asst. Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office,
Pleasantville, NJ)
I.' j Fisheries & Habitat Conservation ~l
Global Assessment of Organic
Contaminants in Farmed Salmon
EWG Advises
Consumers to Choose
Wild Not Farmed
Salmon. - EWG 2003
SMS'®
High Levels of PCBs in Farmed
Salmon. -San Francisco
Chronicle 30julQ3
Farmed salmon not so safe, report
says. Toxins higher than EPA
recommends in fish from wild
SEA TTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS
Dangei
s PCBs Found in Salm
Tiie Washington Post July 29. 2003
Fanned Salmon Show High Levels of
Cancer-Causing PCBs -- "U.S. Adults Eat
Enough PCBs From Farmed Salmon to
Exceed Allowable Lifetime Cancer Risk 100
Times Over" - Prostate Cancer Ne'ivslatter
Study Finds PCBs in Farmed
Salmon. Reuters - WIRED News
,' Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
What Is the Fish & Wildlife Service Doing?
• Sampling fish from national fish
hatcheries (NFHs)
• Analyzing fish feeds
• Developing a strategy for
assessing and managing risks
,• Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Hatchery Fish Sampling (2004)
• Screening-level sampling
• 3 FWS regions; 15 facilities overall
• Focus on "catchable size" fish
• Composite samples (5 or 6 fish/composite)
• 7 species
• ^J Fisheries & Habitat Conservation '
Facilities
Region 1 (Pacific)
Eagle Creek, Entiat, Dworshak, Hagerman, Winthrop,
Lahontan (CNO)
Region 5 (Northeast)
Allegheny, Green Lake, Nashua, White River,
White Sulphur
Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie)
Bozeman. Ennis, Jackson.
Saratoga
IV \ Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Noguchi et al. — 1
-------
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination
of Fish from National Fish Hatcheries
George Noguchi, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SB* Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant
Data for Use in Fish
Advisories
^ Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Sampling Summary
fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Chemical Analysis
PCB, dioxin, and fiiran congeners
Dioxin total dioxin equivalents (TEQs)
Organochlorine pesticides
Mercury and other metals
Trace elements
Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Summary of 2004 Hatchery Fish
Sampling
• PCBs were the only organic contaminant
detected in all fish samples.
• Mercury was also detected in all samples,
but concentrations were low.
• Concentrations of PCBs and dioxin TEQs
in some samples were above U.S. EPA
screening values.
L , Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Mercury in Hatchery Fish
PCBs in Hatchery Fish
, Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Noguchi et al. — 2
-------
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination
of Fish from National Fish Hatcheries
George Noguchi, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PCBs in Hatcherv Fish
Dioxins (TEQs) in Hatchery Fish
Analysis of Fish Feed
• Fish Feed Study*: Collaboration between
U.S. FWSandUSGS
• Analyzed fish feed used at 11 national fish
hatcheries
• 6 different feed manufacturers
• Sampled multiple batches of feed from 2001—
2003
* A Siirvey of Chemical Constituents in National Fish Hatchery Fish
Food. Alec Maiile (USGS), Ann Gannam (U. S. FWS), and Jay
Davis (U.S. FWS).
, Fisheries & Habitat Conservation ]
Chemical Analysis (Fish Feed)
14 PCB Congeners
PCB77 PCB 118 PCB 157 PCB 180
PCB 81 PCB 123 PCB 167 PCB 189
PCB 105 PCB 126 PCB 169
PCB 114 PCB 156 PCB 170
Dioxin and furan congeners
Organochlorine pesticides
Mercury and other metals
Trace elements
Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
PCBs
Sum
in Fish
Feed (2001-2003)
of 14 PCB Congeners
Manufacturer N
A
B
C
D
E
F
6
7
4
14
12
3
(ppb)
Mean fppb) C'V
2.56
1.32
1.02
1.85
0.41
9.87
42%
64%
56%
75%
127%
5%
*• v_/ Fisheries & Hakitat Conservation
17
PCBs in Fish Feed (Manufacture A)
Total PCB
Sum of 14
|
i
PCB Congeners
•
S.
Pre 1979 1996 & 1999 1996 & 1999 2001-2003
, Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Noguchi et al. — 3
-------
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination
of Fish from National Fish Hatcheries
George Noguchi, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Now What?
; Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Hatchery Contaminants Workshop
February 2005
Strategy for assessing and
managing risks from chemical
contamination offish from
national fish hatcheries
1. NFHS "healthy fish" goal
2. Clean feeds
3. Monitoring
4. Guidance
i Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Strategy
1. NFHS "healthy fish" goal
• Define "healthy fish" from a chemical contaminants
perspective. Identify target concentrations as goals for
protecting fish health and human health (i.e., no advisories)
• Conduct studies to obtain necessary information
• Work with partners to develop best management practices
(e.g.. diet, physical plant, facility management) to reach
healthy fish goal
2. Clean feeds
• Work with the acmaculture and feed industries to identify and
meet feed contaminant limits for healthy fish production
•t Lj Fisheries & Habitat Conservation S
Strategy
3. NFHS monitoring
• Continue monitoring of NFHs at "screening" level
• Prioritize sampling based on hatchery information (e.g.,
species, diet, facility age, potential sources of
contamination) hatchery matrix
' Develop long-term monitoring plan
4. National policy
• Develop interim and long-term guidance for making
management decisions regarding transfer or stocking of
hatchery fish to states and tribes, stocking on federal lands,
and NFHS fishing events
,• Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Interim Guidelines for Hatchery Fish Management
Decisions Regarding Contaminants in Catchable-Size Fish
Produced by the National Fish Hatchery System
When contaminant data are available for fish from the
NFH:
• Il'coiiliiinmiiiil levels are below (hose thai (rigger "do nol
eat" stale llsh consump(inn advisory — Provide contaminant
information to slate, tribe, or1 federal land management agency
and provide fish il requested.
• ^J Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Interim Guidelines for Hatchery Fish Management
Decisions Regarding Contaminants in Catch able-Size Fish
Produced by the National Fish Hatcheiy System
When the NFH has not yet been sampled and no
contaminant data are available:
• Make fish available unless the facility is considered potentially
high risk according to the Hatcheiy Risk Assessment Matrix.
• High-risk facilities: consult with states, tribes, and federal land
management agencies, as appropriate, to discuss potential risks.
Applies to all activities (e.g., stocking/transfer to states, tribes,
and federal lands; fishing events at NFHs).
, Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Noguchi et al. — 4
-------
Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination
of Fish from National Fish Hatcheries
George Noguchi, Linda L. Andreasen, and David Devault, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
References
Eastern, M.D.L., D. Luszniak, andE. Von derGeest. 2002.
Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farm salmon,
wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere
46(7):1053-1074.
Hites, R.A., J.A. Foran. D.O. Carpenter, M.C. Hamilton, B.A. Knuth,
and SJ. Schwager. 2004. Global assessment of organic contaminants
in tanned salmon. Science 303(5655):226-229.
Mac, M.J., L.W. Nicholson, and C.A. McCauley. 1979. PCBs and
DDE in commercial fish feeds. Tlie Progressive Fish-Cidturisl
41(4):210-211.
j Fisheries & Habitat Conservation
Noguchi et al. — 5
-------
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition
Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Variability of Mercury Concentrations
in Fish with Season, Year,
and Body Condition
A Synthesis of the Literature
and Considerations for Advisory Programs
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
September 18-21,2005
Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor. Baltimore MD
Paul Cocca
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. EPA
Overview
Seasonal and interannual variability offish
mercury concentrations is significant
Caused primarily by fluctuations in fish
growth and nutrition
Ideas for advisory programs to consider
Measured Seasonality in Fish Hg
Whitemouth croaker in Brazilian estuaries (Kehrig etal., 1998)
Guanabara Bay llha Grande Bay Conceicao Lagoon Sepetiba Bay
Explanatory hypotheses:
- Concentrations increase when fish lose weight
- Spring bioproduction dilutes the available mercury.
Measured Seasonality in Fish Hg
Perch in the southern Baltic Sea (Szefer et al., 2003)
- Concentrations not normalized
.
Summer Autumn Winter Spring
'96 '96 '96f97 '97
Seasonal differences supported through factor analysis
Measured Interannual Variability in Fish Hg
• Striped bass in San Francisco Bay (Greenfield etal., 2005)
-High
Note; Vertical axis
is tog scale
1997 statistically different from other years
Explanatory hypotheses (Greenfield et al., 2005):
- Higher Hg bioavailability from 1997 flood event
- Different populations exposed to different MeHg concentrations
- Variability in movement patterns or diets.
Measured Interannual Variability in Fish Hg
• Largemouth bass in Oregon reservoirs (Park and Curtis, 1997)
Explanatory hypotheses
- Environmental conditions influence MeHg production, bioavailability
- Concentration decreases caused by growth dilution.
Cocca — 1
-------
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition
Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Measured Interannual Variability in Fish Hg
• Yellow perch yearlings in 16 Ontario lakes,
whole fish, unadjusted (Suns and Hitchin, 1990)
• Monitored over 10-year period, ~7 sampling
events per lake
• High concentration : Low concentration ratio
ranges from 1.5 to 2.2 for most lakes
A Partial Cause: Depuration Loss
During Reduced Hg Bioavailability
Were depuration fast, fish MeHg would mirror ambient levels
Instead MeHg depuration is slow, which dampens variability
Fish MeHg depuration half-lives
(Huckabeeetal.,1979)
- Northern pike: 100 days
- Bullheads: 178-277 days
- Ling: 433-707 days
- Rainbowtrout: 1,000 days
Central tendency: 300 days
Depuration may account for some
literature-reported variability.
Fish Depuration of MeHg with Ambient
MeHg Absent: 300 Day Half -Life
i
S
0
>
a
^^--.^
SB
0
"--— ^_
~~~~
dsys 3t!5 dajfi
oo :oo 300 -100
Days
More Important: Variable Fish Nutrition
• Fish Hg levels decrease during Growth Dilution
- Negative correlation with growth rate (r? = 0.92) (Simoneau et al.,
2005)
- Higher concentrations in dwarf fish than in normal fish (Doyon et al.,
1998)
- Fastergrowth reflects efficiency: flesh added with proportionally less
food and mercury intake (Greenfield etal., 2001)
• Fish Hg levels increase during Starvation Concentration
- Higher concentrations in skinny fish than in robust fish (Hinners, 2004;
Cbdziel et al., 2002, 2003)
- Starved, non-starved lose MeHg same rate (Burrows and Krenkel,
1973)
- Starving fish can lose muscle quicker than mercury.
Fish Body Condition
Howto quantify fish body condition
- Condition Factor, K (Williams,
2000)
- W/L3x 100; where
• W is weight (g)
• L is the standard length (cm)
• Results in an index value close to 1
- Online calculator:
http://www.hac.org.nz/cf.htm
What the condition factor measures:
- Relative robustness, degree of well-being, nutritional status
- Reflects both seasonal and longer-term nutritional trends
- Potentials for growth dilution and starvation concentration.
Brown trout. K Factor: 1.66
from: Barntiam & Baxter 1998
Measured Variability with
Fish Body Condition
Fish Hg negatively correlates with condition
factor
- Striped bass (r2 = 0.79) (Hinners, 2004; Cizdziel et al.,
2003)
- Yellow perch yearlings (r2 = 0.66) (Suns and Hitchin,
1990)
• whole fish composites
- Yellow perch (r2 = .35) (Greenfield et al., 2001)
• whole fish
Body Condition: Cause or Effect?
• Body Condition Affects Hg Levels
- Condition varies by factor 1.4 -1.7 (Lizama et al., 2002)
• Hg Levels Affect Body Condition
- Less protein synthesis enzymes at higher Hg levels
(Nicholls et al., 1987; Suns and Hitchin, 1990)
Cocca — 2
-------
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition
Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Summary of the Literature
Seasonal and interannual variability is significant
- High concentration : Low concentration = 1.5: to 2.0
- Higher concentrations in colder months
- Higher concentrations in skinnier fish
Mercury depuration is too slow to explain all variability
Variable body condition affects fish mercury
- Growth dilution
- Starvation concentration
Considerations for Advisory Programs
Monitoring Design and Data Analysis
• Measure weight as well as length => condition factor
• Measure age as well as length => growth rate
• Correlations: length, weight, age, growth rate, condition
• Regressions on a sampling event basis
• Always sample the same season
• Conversely, sample all seasons and
- Normalize concentrations to a standard season
- Develop seasonality safety factors.
• Sample enough to estimate long-term means and variances
Considerations for Advisory Programs
Advisory messages, etc.
• Include seasons in advisories (e.g., "special note to ice
fishers")
• Include condition in advisories (e.g., "skinny bad, fat good")
• Use condition factor as an inexpensive Hg index
• Promote fisheries health to reduce human exposure
Acknowledgments
Tom Hinners, U.S. EPA, Las Vegas
Ben Greenfield and Larry Curtis for permission to use
figures from cited works
Fish pictures from http://www.fishbase.org
References
Ba.mr}amrC.rand A, Baxter, 1998. 'Condition Factor, K, for Salmonid Fish. Fisheries
Notes, State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries. ISSN 14.40-2254.
Burrows, W.D., and PA Krenkel, 1973. Studies on uptake and loss of
methylmercury-203 by bluegills (Lepomis mafGochirus Raf.). ES&T 7(13):1127-1130.
Cizdzlel, J.V.. T.A, Hinners, J.E. Pollard, E,M. Heithmar, and C,L. Cross,2002.
Mercury concentrations in fish from Lake Mead, USA, related to fish size, condition,
trophic level, location, and consumption risk. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43:
309-317.
Cizdziel, J.V.. T.A. Hinners, C.L Cross, and J.E. Pollard. 2003. Distribution of
mercury in the tissues of five species of fresh water fish from Lake Mead, USA. J.
Environ. Monk. 5:802-807.
Doyon, J.F., R. Schentagne, and R. Verdon. 1998. Different mercurybioaccumulation
rates between sympatric populations of dwarf and normal lake whitefish (Coregonus
clupeaformis) in the La Grande complex watershed, James Bay, Quebec.
Bbgeochemistry 40:203-216.
Foster E.P.. D.L. Drake, and G. DiDomenieo, 2000. Seasonal changes and tissue
distribution of mercury in largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) from Dorena
Reservoir, Oregon. Contamination and Toxicology 38(1):78-82.
References
Fulton, T-, 1902. Rate of growth of seas.fishes. Set. Invest. Fi$h, Dlv, Scot, fteprt, 20.
Giblin and Massaro, 1873. Pharmacodynamics of methyl mercury in the rainbowtrout
[Salmo gairdneri): Tissue uptake, distribution and excretion. Toxicology and Appiled
Pharmacology 24(1 ):81 -91.
Greenfield, B,K., T,R. Hrabik, C.J.Harvey,and S.R. Carpenter, 2001, Predicting
mercury levels in yellow perch: use of water chemistry, trophic ecology, and spatial
traits. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:1419-1429.
Greenfield, B.K., J.A. Davis, R.Fairey, C. Roberts, D. Crane, and G. Ichikawa, 2005.
Seasonal, interannual, and long-term variation in sport fish contamination, San
Francisco Bay. Science of the Total Environment 336:25-43.
Hinners, TA, 2004. Possible ramifications of higher mercury concentrations in fillet
tissue of skinnier fish. National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, San Diego,
California, January 25-28.
Huckabee, J.W., J.W. Elwood, and S.G. Hildebrand. 1979. Accumulation of mercury
in freshwater biota. The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment. Edited by
Nriagu. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press.
Cocca — 3
-------
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition
Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
References
Kehrig, H.A.,O, Malm, and I. Moreira Kehrig, 1998. Mercuryln a widely consumed
fish Mieropogariiasfurnieri (Dernarest, l823)from fourmaln Brazilian estuaries.
Science of tfja Total Environment 213(1 s*):263-71.
Lizama, M., A.P. Delos, and A.M. Ambrosjo, 2002. Condition -factor in nine species of
fish of the Characldae family In the upper Parana River floodplaln, Brazil. Braz. J.
Biof. 62(1 ):113-124.
McKim. J.M., G.F. Olson, G.W. Holcombe, and E.P. Hunt, 1976. Long-tern effects of
methylrnercuric chloride on three generations of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis):
toxicity. accumulation, distribution, and elimination. J. Fish. Res, Board Can. 33:
2726-2739.
Nicholls, A., andTeichert-Kuliszewski, 1987. Effects on the Tissue of Young Fish and
Rats of Exposure to Lead, Cadmium and Mercury. Report to the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment.
Park, J.-G., and L. R. Curis. 1997. Mercury distribution in sediments and
bioaccumulation by fish in two Oregon reservoirs: point-source and nonpoint-source
impacted systems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33:423-429.
Rodgers, D.W., and F.W.H. Beamish, 1982. Dynamics of dietary methylmercury in
rain bow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Aquatic toxicology 2:271-290.
References
Simoneau, M;, M. Lucotte, S. Garceau, and D. Laiiberte, 20D4. Fish growth rates
modulate mercury concentrations in walleye (Sander vftreus) frarn eastern Canadian
lakes. Environmental Research 98:73-82.
Suns, K., and G. Hitchin, 1990. Interrelationships between mercury levels in yearling
yellowperch, fish condition and water quality. Water Air Soil Pollut. 650:255-265.
Szefer, P., M. Domaga-a-Wieloszewska, J. Warzocha. A. Garbacik-Weso-owska, and
T. Ciesielski, 2003. Distribution and relationships of mercury, lead, cadmium, copper
and zinc in perch (Perca fluviatitis1) from the Pomeranian Bay and Szczecin Lagoon,
southern Baltic. Food Chemistry 81 (1>:73-83,
Williams, J.E., 2000. The coefficient of condition offish. In Manual of Fisheries
Survey Methods II. Edited by James C. Schneider. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Special Report 25; Ann Arbor. Available at
httpJ/www.michigan dnr.com/PUBLICATI ON S/PDFSMr/rnanual/SMII%20Chapter13.p
df.
Cocca — 4
-------
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis
Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. Baseline
i Tissue
>ns for
nalysis
ion and Evaluation
the National Descriptive Mo
of Mercury and Fish (NDMIX
for the Clean Air Mercury Rule
•he Benefit
echo do log
stablish baseline fish tissue
lions in freshwater fish.
I reductions in methylmercury
fish tissue, concentrations resulting from
decreased Hg deposition.
Step 3: Conduct population-level exposure
modeling.
Step 4: Link reductions in population-level
exposure to health impacts and valuation.
—* -t~*r^ —"J —'-~* - * * J —i —
ypical MeHg
ish
Reliable estimates of Hg concentrations
to establish a "baseline" from which to
predict concentration changes after
proposed new regulation
implementations.
Available Data ^ JMf
of Fish Advisories (H
isadvantages of National Listing
rid life Advisories (NLFW A)
samples tlian any other single source.
mjOffigm
Waterbsdy to waterbody variability is confounded by a
variety of factors:
-» More than 400 different species sampled, ranging in size
1 inch to 1,700 inches (~141 ft).
'ferent sample methods employed by surveyors
., , ....jtskin on, etc.).
• Samples range in date from 1967 to 2002.
* Many samples are from fish that are not typically consumed
(~12,000 samples from trophic level 1 or 2 species).
ational Lake
NLFTS)
Cakir—1
-------
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis
Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tie J Moral
of J Mercury arid Fi
Iptive Model
PT(NDMMF)
. Steve Wente of the U.S. Geological
Study funded by a grant from the U.S.
^esearch and Development [ORD]).
i Establishes a statistical relationship between samples
taken at different locations from different species and
lengths offish with different sampling methods.
i The NDMMF algorithm uses those relationships to
estimate a fish tissue concentration for a selected, pre-
defined species, size, and sampling method chosen
from an actual sample with different parameters.
IMF Model Does
Does Not
factors, allowing the analyst
ecies, length, and sampling
Makes samples comparable to each other within
and across sampling locations.
Does not:
- Estimate Hg concentrations where samples werr
not already taken (i.e., no spatial interpolation c
extrapolation).
ables a More Complete
ase for This Study
sncentrations for
A combination of the NLFA and NLFTS would
provide enough sampled concentrations to
establish a "baseline" from which to predict
concentration changes after proposed new
regulation implementations.
Da abases fc
LFWA and NLFTS
'ith the NDMMF
.amples are in parts per
•^^1
fengtlr units are in inches
Create unique identifier for each unique
sample for future relational database
analyses.
for Benefits Analysis
ITLFWA Data Pi I re;
and weight fish, the observati
was considered likely to be
the realnvof possibility and a data entry — ' " ' ' " "
the analysis.
Remove samples that do not have a recorded length or weight-
where only weight was recorded, length was predicted using a
regression of the log (length) = weight. Separate regressions
were performed for unique species. Average residual was 10%.
Remove saltwater fish and freshwater invertebrates (e.g., shark,
clams, crayfish)*
Cakir —2
-------
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis
Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Performance
10% of the
observations where at least two samples
were available from a single sample
location.
Re-run the NDMMF model without the
samples, then predict the withheld data set
based on the statistical relationships
established by the NDMMF.
Residua) for a
majority of the da)
is balanced around
zero, and, there is a
slightly unbalanced
tail indicating a
slight under-
predietion of
extremely high
values.
,,, ,F Performance
Box and Whisker Plots of Withheld Data
Implementation
Concentrations f
Estimated Hg
m Wente's Algorithm
'-estimate fish tissue
ions for a typical catch size of key
targeHKh'lpecies for every sample location
(e^g., llrgemouth bass, brown trout, catfish,
white crappie, walleye, white perch).
All samples1 within specific geographies are
averaged by lake and river environments.
Geographies that were not sampled are
assigned the national average.
Cakir —3
-------
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis
Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cakir —4
-------
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes
in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Projected Mercury Concentrations
in Freshwater Fish and Changes in Exposure
Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Presented by: Lisa Conner, OAR/OAQPS
August 19, 2005
Overview
Present methodologies used to estimate reductions in fish
tissue concentrations resulting from the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR)
Overview of CAMR rule
Scope of U.S. EPA's Benefit Analysis
Data on mercury concentrations in fish
Modeling changes in fish tissue and human exposure to mercury
Results
>•• Fish tissue concentrations before CAMR
u Fish tissue concentrations after implementation of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CAMR
>•• Maximum potential reduction due to utility emissions
The Clean Air Mercury Rule
Controls mercury emissions from utility sources (primarily
coal-fired power plants) and other U.S. sources
Two-stage emissions trading program evaluated in 2020
Modeling impacts requires the integration of several
models:
» Integrated Planning Model (IPM) model provides
estimates of change in emissions from utilities for
alternative regulatory scenarios
ii Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model
estimates changes in air quality and mercury
deposition from the air
The Clean Air Mercury Rule
Modeling impacts requires the integration of several models:
• Mercury maps approach assumes that for a unit change in
mercury deposition (e.g. 1% decrease), freshwater fish
tissue will change proportionally (e.g. 1 % decrease) when
the ecosystem is in equilibrium
« Benefits modeling assesses changes in fish tissue and
improvements in human health
-. Focus of analysis is on freshwater fish due to data
availability for a quantitative analysis; air quality changes
occur primarily over freshwater sources, and mercury
maps approach only applies to freshwater fish.
Framework for Assessing Benefits
of Reduced Mercury Emissions
A
change In
A
pattern of
deposition
»
Fish
Contamination
A
change In
level of fish
contamination
,
Human
Exposure
A
change in
body burdens
f.
Human
Health
change in
Incidence of
health effects
»
of Health
$ value of
health
changes
Scope of Analysis
Several factors were considered to determine the best
approach to evaluate the impacts of CAMR on fish
tissue:
• Data on fish tissue concentrations
« The NLFWA and NLFTS provide the most
expansive set offish tissue samples
- Samples are primarily taken from freshwater
sources in the eastern half of the United States
(Texas to East Coast)
Conner — 1
-------
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes
in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raw Data of Fish Tissue Samples from the NLFWA and NLFTS
» > 0.3 ppm
o <= 0.3 ppm
Scope of Analysis
Several factors were considered to determine the best
approach to evaluate the impacts of CAMR on fish tissue:
• Data on fish tissue concentrations
The NLFWA and NLFTS provide the most expansive
set of fish tissue samples
Samples are primarily taken from freshwater sources
^^1 in the eastern half of the United States (Texas to East
Coast)
• Mercury deposition from utility sources occurs primarily
in the eastern half of the United States (Texas to East
Coast)
Mercury Deposition Attributable
to Utility Emissions
Percent change
in deposition
(associated with
a 100% decrease
in utility
emissions)
•35 00
•40.00
Scope of Analysis
Several factors were considered to determine the best
approach to evaluate the impacts of CAMR on fish tissue:
• Data on fish tissue concentrations
• The NLFWA and NLFTS provide the most expansive set offish
tissue samples
Samples are primarily taken from freshwater sources in the
eastern half of the United States (Texas to East Coast)
• Mercury deposition from utility sources occurs primarily in the
eastern half of the United States (Texas to East Coast)
• Most of the change in mercury deposition will occur over freshwater
sources in the eastern half of the United States
» Impacts on saltwaterfish were considered by U.S. EPA in a
qualitative manner ^^^^^_^^^^^_
Modeling Exposure to Mercury
Assessing the amount offish consumed and
populations exposed to Hg for
• Women of childbearing age (WCBA)
• Native Americans
• Southeast Asian Americans
• Subsistence fishers
« Two approaches considered:
• Population Centroid approach The selected method influences the
Y aggregation approach offish tissue
• Angler destination approach [ concentrations used in our analysis
Population Centroid Approach
Basis: Distance traveled for
recreational fishing
National Survey of Recreation
and the Environment (NSRE,
1994) provide data on distance
traveled
For each ring of distance (e.g.,
10, 20, 50, 100) around a
population (census block), we
estimate exposed populations
and the concentration of Hg in
fish
• Average of normalized fish
tissue across six species
estimated for each travel
distance ring
Conner — 2
-------
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes
in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Angler Destination Approach
Basis: Defines where people are most likely to fish
The amount of fishing at a specific location is
based on watershed characteristics
• Geographic unit is Hydrological Unit Code
(HUC)
• A regression correlates HUC characteristics
(e.g., size of HUC. miles of stream or water
perimeter, population density) to the level of
use (how often it is selected as the fishing
destination)
• Data obtained from NSRE (NSRE, 1994)
Avg. Hg concentration offish in each HUC is
used to determine exposure
• Average of normalized fish tissue
concentrations across 6 species for each HUC
Mercury Concentrations in
Freshwater Fish Applied to
Exposure Models
Mercury Concentrations in
Freshwater Fish
Analyses conducted using a simple average of the NLFWA and NLFTS data
were not able to identify whether differences in mercury concentrations among
the samples were due to location (and possibly air deposition), fish species,
size, or sampling method (e.g., filet, whole, filet skin on, composite)
Normalization of data using USGS model - National Descriptive Model of
Mercury in Fish Tissue (NDMMFT) - allows for direct comparison by location
m Controls for differences in species, size, and sampling method
• Allows for evaluation of difference in fish concentration due to location
• Example: All NLFA samples can be scaled to a standardized 14-in bass for
a specific location
Dr. Steve Wente, USGS, presented the NDMMFT methodology at last year's
Fish Forum
Dr. Janet Cakir presented U.S. EPA's use of their model in the prior session
today
15
Predicted Freshwater Fish Tissue
Concentrations
NDMMFT model runs are conducted for six
key consumable fish species (most often
fished)
« Bass, trout, perch, crappie. catfish,
walleye
• Model uses all NLFA and NFTS samples
for each run
Estimates are combined into one average
"fish" by location
= Population-centroid approach
» Angler-destination approach
• Table shows average for eastern half of
the United States
; Simple average of the raw data is used in
states for which the NLFWA does not contain
a record of the size of the sample fish (TN,
IA, OH, KS. VA, WV.MO, PA)
Bass
Walleye
Trout
Catfish
Grapple
Perch
Overall
Average
Average Hg for
Study Area*
(ppm)
0.32
0.41
0.11
0.22
0.14
0.26
0.24
' Average value represents the overall
average concentration for the eastern
half of the United States (Texas to East
Coast).
NDMMF Estimated and Raw Data
Sample Locations
Baseline Scenario: Average Estimated
Fish Tissue Concentration by HUC Prior
to CAM R in 2001
Conner — 3
-------
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes
in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Post-Reg Scenario: Average Estimated
Fish Tissue Concentration by HUC after
CAMR in 2020
Baseline Scenario: Average Estimated
Fish Tissue Concentration by Population
Centroid Prior to CAMR in 2001
Post-Reg Scenario: Average Estimated
Fish Tissue Concentration by Population
Centroid after CAMR in 2020
Maximum Potential Reduction from
Utilities: Average Estimated Fish Tissue
Concentration by HUC in 2020
Maximum Potential Reduction from Utilities:
Average Estimated Fish Tissue Concentration
by Population Centroid in 2020
Changes in Exposure Resulting
from CAMR
Change in exposure resulting from CAMR in 2020
(relative to a 2001 baseline, including CAIR benefits)
Angler-destination
approach
Population-centroid
approach
1 Estimates of total avoided
^Monetized benefits are rou
potential for a threshold in
Source: Regulatory Impact /
(U.S.EPA452/R-05-003).
Total avoided IQ
decrements*
124,020-143,960
76,470-91,770
Q decrements are rounde
nded to the nearest thous
Q effects at the RfD.
\nalysis of the Final CAMF
March 2005.
Total monetized
benefits**
S38.4-S46.8
million
$22.2 -$27.4
million
dto the nearest 10.
nds and do not reflect the
;Tables 10-19,21, 27,29.
24
Conner — 4
-------
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes
in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule
Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final
CAMR
• Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/
regdata/RIAs/ mercury_ria_final.pdf
Acknowledgments:
• OAQPS Team: Janet Cakir, Zach Pekar,
Bryan Hubbell
• Contractor Support: Research Triangle
Institute
Conner — 5
-------
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Study Methods & Funding
4,206 BRFSS participants were asked about fish
consumption and advisory awareness
2,000 adult hair donors completed fish
consumption/advisory awareness questionnaires
Funding
- $160.000 from the WI Dept of
Administration's Focus on Energy Program
- $38,000 from a CDC Environmental
Public Health Tracking Grant
h Intake & Mercury F.
Men
Women
Fish consumers
ISon-consumers
Fishing license holders
Non-license holders
White (1,936)
Other races (95)
All participants
N
978
1,050
1,928
100
1,043
983
1,933
95
2,028
AveS
meals/month
7.7
7.7
8.1
0.0
S3
7.1
7.6
9J
7.7
Mean Hg
ppm
0.93
0.52
0.75
0.09
0.87
0.57
0.73
0.65
0.73
% > 1 pp
29%
13%
21%
0%
27%
14%
20%
21%
20%
Types of fish reported eaten
Light tuna
Albacore tuna
Restaurant servings
Commercial fish cooked at home
Sport-caught fish
Total number of meals reported
1 1%
12%
25%
28%
17%
15,635
Knobeloch— 1
-------
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Correlation of Fish Intake
and Hair Hg Level
# Meals/month
0
1-4
5-8
>8
Ave Hg Level
in ppm
0.09
0.46
0.71
1.00
No (%) > 1 ppm
0/97= 0%
63/570 = 11%
140/717 = 18%
222/703 = 32%
Average Hair Mercury Levels vs.
Average Meals/Month
Hair Mercury Levels vs.
Month of Collection
Median Hair Hg Level among
Women of Childbearing Age
NHANES. 12-State, WI 2004
NHANES
N= 1,726
12-state
N = 414
WI2004
N = 413
# Meals/month
0
0.11 ppm
0.08 ppin
0.04 ppm
1 to 2
0.20 ppm
0.22 ppm
0.14 ppm
>3
0.38 ppm
0.54 ppm
0.34 ppm
% above
1 ppm
-12%
12%
12%
Knobeloch — 2
-------
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Low vs. High Exposure Groups
Hair mercury level
Gender
Race
Average age
% over 50 yrs. of age
Fishing license holders
Advisory awareness
Income > $50,000/yr
Ave. fish intake rate
Ave. sportfish intake rate
< 0. 1 ppm
N=188
66% women
94% white
43 yrs
33%
30%
62%
49%
3 meals/mo.
0.3 meals/mo.
>2.0 pptn
N= 131
78% men
>98% white
54 yrs
63%
70%
87%
48%
12 meals/mo.
4 meals/mo.
Summary
Approx 12% of Wisconsin adults are likely to
exceed the exposure guideline for rnethylmerc
Exposure risk factors:
- Male gender, age over 50, sportfish consumptii
ingestion of > 8 fish meals/month
Future research questions
- Why are hair mercury levels higher in men?
- How are people who don't eat fish being exposed?
- What are the levels in children?
Knobeloch — 3
-------
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
LAND ENVIRONMEN
itflUM INTERACTIONS
Nicholas V.C. Ralston
Chemical Context
Ib 2b 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 0
He
B C N O F Ne
Al Si P S Cl Ar
Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te 1 Xe
Au Hf Ti Pb Bi Po At Rn
Mercury
Sulfur
Mercuric Sulfide
Also known as Cinnabar,
stability coefficient 1039
Selenium
Ralston — 1
-------
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
Mercury Selenide
Also known as Tiemannite,
stability coefficient 1045
Se-Physiology Background
Selenium is essential for normal selenoenzyme functions.
Selenoenzymes are normally present in all animal cells.
Selenium is the functional component of the 21st amino acid,
selenocysteine, present at the active sites of selenoenzymes.
Selenocysteine synthesis involves formation of selenide.
Mercury binds to selenide better than any other partner.
Brain selenoenzyme activities are normally unstoppable.
Mercury toxicity impairs selenoenzyme activities in brain.
Sulfur and Selenium Amino Acids
H
H3N—C—COO"
CH2
CH2—S—CH2
Methionine
H
H3N—C—COO"
CH2
\H2—Se—CH3
Selenomethionine
Sulfur and Selenium Amino Acids
H
+ I
H3N—C —COO
CH2
\SH
Cysteine
H
H3N—C—COO"
CH,
\SeH
Selenocysteine
Selenoprotein Synthesis
Selenoprotein
Food >• breakdown >• H2 Se -s^-
SdenomeWonine products (Sele"ide) M»°Ph<*P>«"=>
Selenocysteine
Se-methyl selenocysteine
Selenoenzyme,s_
(25+ discrete forms)
Selenocysteine
(at active site)
Selenocysteine is the only amino
acid that must be recreated for
each cycle of protein synthesis
Selenoproteins in Various Tissues
Ralston — 2
-------
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
Selenoprotein Physiology Is
Important, But Vulnerable.
Food
Selenomethionine
Selenocysteine
Se-methyl Selenocysteine
Selenoprotein
•• breakdown -
products
. H,Se •
(selenide)
—»SeP04
(selenophosphate)
Selenoenzymes <.
(25+ discrete forms)
Selenocysteine
(at active site)
Selenium enables enzymes to detoxify free radicals,
convert thyroid hormones into their active forms, and
support normal brain functions.
Methylmercury Toxicity
Neurotoxic effects of high MeHg exposures well
established in humans and animals.
Silent latency characteristic of adult toxicity.
Developing nervous system particularly sensitive to
maternal MeHg exposure.
MeHg impacts phospholipid glutathione peroxidase and
Selenoprotein W in brain.
Implications of low level MeHg exposure remain
controversial because contrasting results have been
observed in the Faroes and the Seychelles.
Mercury stops selenium
from doing its work.
Food
selenium Selenoprotein (Nofree
and «• breakdown
MeHg products
Hg
Se cycle stoppag
*
Selenoenzymeg_
(loss of functions)
Hg-Se
SePCX,
(No sdenophosphate)
Selenocysteine
(No Selenocysteine)
Effects of MeHg in Rats Fed Low,
Normal, and Selenium-Rich Diets
-450.0
100.0
35Ef.O
3CO.O
2SO.O
-0.1 [jmolSe, 75^mol Hg
"1.0 (jmol Se. 75 (jmol Hg
-10 (jrnol Se, 75 (jmol Hg
S
7 14 21 28 35 4? 49 5E S3
Experiment day
Molar Concentrations of Mercury
and Selenium in Seafood
Aside From
(Friedman et al.
pilot whale puhshfirnn et al., 1987) and swordflsh
1978), dala depicted originate from Hall et al. (1978).
0
re.
OA
G
JO
41
l/l 1 -
O)
0 J
Mercury: Selenium Molar Ratios
1
_ . I
|| § | S 1 3 all 1 -s
1 a - < * 1 J I 1 1
13 £
•l^c_
Ralston
-------
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
Selenium: Mercury Molar Ratios
.2 25
E 20 H
.2 15 H
o
E 10
f 5H
w 0
Ilin.I
Generalized Dose-Effect
Curve for Selenium
"Essentiality1
Elemental Concentration
Generalized Toxic Element
Dose-Effect Curve
Lowest Observed
Adverse Effect Level
Elemental Concentration
Effect of Dietary Se on Hg
Dose-Toxicity Curve
Mercury Concentration
Effects of Eating Whale vs. Fish
•ffect!
Whale Consumption Hg Fish Consumption
Se-Dependent Hg-Retirement
Geographic regions with low soil Se have observed
higher Hg-bioaccumulation; e.g., Florida, Northern
Canada, Finland, Sweden, Northern Europe.
Moderate additions of Se to lakes in Sweden reduced
Hg-concentrations in fish by 75%.
Mechanisms responsible for Se-dependent lowering
Hg in fish have not been determined, but appear
likely to involve formation of insoluble HgSe that exits
the biologically available pool of cycling Hg.
Ralston
-------
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions
Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota
LOW- AWflOXll
«• BOX OF ALL. FD3-1G6 AND «R AIM CONTAI
IATELV SOX CONtAIN>O.IO 4*FM SELENIUM
•:
-------
NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NHANES 1999-2002
Update on Mercury
&
Fish Forum - 2005
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Ph.D.
Director Division of Exposure Assessment
Coordination and Policy
~,,,ce of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substanc^^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
September 2005
The findings and conclusions in this presentation
have not been formally disseminated by U.S.
EPA and should not be construed to represent
any agency determination or policy.
Overview
Update on all four years of NHANES blood
mercury data for adult women.
Look at subgroups and absence of tre
data.
Comparison with exposures associate
with U.S. EPA's reference dose for
methylmercury.
Updated Analysis of NHANES Data on
Adult Women's Blood Mercury
Concentrations Since January 2004
Includes two additional years of NHANES data: 2001
and 2002.
Data from > 30 additional "stands" or communities.
Separate analysis of blood mercury data for women
residing in "coastal" areas compared with those living in
"noncoastal" geographic residences.
Comparison of 1999/2000 and 2001/2002 data for blood
organic [Hg].
Assessment of subpopulations' mercury exposures.
Comparison of Blood Organic [Hg] ug/L
for Adult Women NHANES 1999-2002
by Income
Annual Sample Arithmetic
Income Persons Mean
(95% Cl) 75*% 90»% 95»%
1.43 (1.35-1.50) 1.52 3.52 5.8
19 (0.88-1.49) 1.30 2.80 4.22
2,432 1.52 (1.26-1.79) 1.60 3.92 6.20
Mahaffey — 1
-------
NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Women Statistically More Likely to H
Higher Blood Mercury Concentratio
• "Other" category, which includes Asians, N;
Americans, persons of "Island" ethnicity. [A
see Hightower et al., 2005. Environmental
perspectives on line, in press.]
• Women with incomes higher than the "pove
level.
• Trends in the NHANES data for adult women are
supported by a number of additional studies.
Geographic Differences in Blood
Mercury Concentrations of Adult
Women - NHANES 1999 - 2002
Utilizing NCHS Data Center, divided
NHANES data into those stands located in
Coastal counties - any stand in a county
bordering the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific
Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico - and stands
located in non-coastal counties, which
were all other areas.
Distribution of Adult Female Subjects •
Organic Hg Data - NHANES 1999-i
by Coastal and Non-Coastal Catego
Total = 3,613
Coastal = 1,431
(Atlantic Ocean = 598)
(Gulf of Mexico = 184)
(Pacific Ocean = 649)
Non-Coastal = 2,182
(Midwest = 524)
(North East = 219)
(South = 969)
(West = 470)
Findings for Fish Intake by Coasta
Subpopulations Consistent with Hig
Blood Mercury Concentrations
In France, fish consumption by coastal
residents reported to be three times higher •
fish intake by non-coastal residents (Crepet
al., 2005. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 42:17i
189).
Observed for fish intake in Florida in the 19!
50th percentile intake comparable to 90th
percentile intake of NHANES survey (Dengi
al., 1994).
Comparison of Numbers of Women
Ages 16-49 Years
• 1,707 women in the 1999 and 2000 report had
blood organic [Hg] analyses (Mahaffey et al.,
2004).
• 1,906 women in the 2001 and 2002 period had
blood organic mercury analyses.
• 3,613 women in the 1999 through 2002 report
had blood organic [Hg] analyses reported.
• More subjects in the latter 2 years.
Mahaffey —2
-------
NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Number of Years of NHANES Data
Needed for Comparisons
• Generally recommended that at least
years of data be utilized for national
estimates.
Estimates based today utilize 4 years
NHANES data: 1999, 2000, 2001, anc
2002.
Comparison of Coastal and Non-Coastal
Residence of Women Participating in NHANES by
Release Year Counts Based on 24-Hour Dietary
Recall Data
1999 and 2000 Release
% fish consumers: 18.3
Mean g eaten (consumers
only): 58.0
/u fish consumers: 10.6
Mean g eaten (consumers
only): 48.1
01 and 2002 Release
n= 676 or 35.0%
% fish consumers: 16.7
Mean g eaten (consumers
only): 59.9
% fish consumers: 13.0
Mean q eaten (consumers
Question
Does the decline reported in blood
mercury between the 1999/2000 rele;
and the 2001/2002 release reflect the ratio
"f coastal to non-coastal residences or
ther study design considerations?
Question
How should we interpret exposure data
based on women's blood mercury levels
compared with U.S. EPA's reference dose
for methylmercury?
What Is U.S. EPA's RfD for
Methylmercury Based On?
It's not a LOAEL.
It'snotaNOAEL
It's a Benchmark Dose (BMD). A dose that produ<
predetermined change in response rate of an adv
effect compared to background. Specifically a BM
Lower Confidence Limit (BMDL) in which the point of
departure is set at a level in which there is a 5% increase
in the prevalence of the endpoint against a population
prevalence of 5% for the adverse effect, i.e., the
prevalence of the adverse effect doubles.
BMDL for Methylmercury:
Adverse Neurological Effects
Methylmercury exposure associated with doubling the
prevalence of children scoring in the lowest 5th
percentiles on tests of neurodevelopment.
Using IRIS language: "BMDs are calculated under the
assumption that 5% of the responses will be abnormal in
unexposed subjects (PO = 0.05), assuming a doubling of
the excess risk (BMR = 0.05).
Means that at the BMDL the prevalence of neurological
deficits increases from 5% to 10%.
Dose calculated in pg/kg-bw/day for the mother that will
produce a cord blood concentration measured in uglL.
Mahaffey —3
-------
NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Are There Estimated BMDLs Lower than
the 58 IJQ/L Recommended by the MAS?
DLfor Methylmercury (IRIS, U.S. EPA, 2001)
utilized a number of endpoints from three major co
studies: Faroes, Seychelles, and New Zealand
- Median values, calculated as ^g Hg/L cord blood
Integrative
- BMDL05 ppb mercury: -~
New Zealand
- BMDL05 ppb mercury = 24/vg/L cord blood
Distribution of Blood Mercury Concentrations for
Adult Women and Comparison with NAS's and
U.S. EPA's Benchmark Dose
• Based on cord blood mercury concentration.
• BMDL: 58 jug Hg /L cord blood.
• To calculate a reference dose, the NAS's
Committee on Toxicology of Methylmercury
recommended use of an uncertainty factor (UF)
of not less than 10.
• 5 years ago, there was minimal recognition of
extent to which methylmercury is concentrated
across the placenta.
Comparison of UF for Methylmercury Risk
Assessment between 2000/2001 and 2005
• The UF is for variability and uncertainty. The UF
was 10 in 2000/2001 as recommended by NAS
and used by U.S. EPA. No change in the p~"* c
years.
1' /ever, there are additional data regard!
maternal-fetal methylmercury kinetics betv
2001 and 2005.
• What do these advances in understanding
physiology mean for the exposure assessn
part of risk assessment?
Exposure Analysis
Stern and Smith (2003) compared cord blood
with maternal blood [Hg] concluding that the
mean cord blood was 70% higher than maternal
blood [Hg]. Based on a meta-analysis of 10
separate data sets for cord: maternal [Hg]
analyses.
Subsequent to this publication, there have been
at least three additional studies published
describing geographically diverse populations
yielding very similar results.
Studies Published on Cord:Maternal
[Hg] Subsequent to Stern & Smith, 2
• Sakamoto etal., 2004. Range 1.1 to 2.2; r= 0.92.
x= 1.6 for ratio of cord to maternal RBC-Hg. Japa
63 maternal-fetal pairs.
• Morrisette et al., 2004. Average cord blood OHg v
1.7 times O Hg in maternal blood. 92 Canadian
maternal-fetal pairs.
• Butler etal., 2005. Arithmetic mean ratio (cord :
maternal) for methylmercury (1.86: n = 294 pairs; r =
0.90) and for total mercury (1.49; n = 320 pairs; r = 0.95).
Range 1.2 to 1.7 for THg, from 1.3 to 2.0 for MeHg
Canadian: Caucasian, Dene/Metis, Inuit, and othei
Understanding the BMDL in
Biomonitoring Values
BMDL of 58 jug/L in cord blood is equivalent to 35 jug/L in
maternal blood because of bioconcentration of
methylmercury across the placenta.
When conducting an exposure assessment based on
organic blood mercury concentrations for adult women
35 jt/g/L is associated with fetal methylmercury
exposures in the range of the BMDL.
Blood mercury concentrations in this range likely reflect
exposure from fish or marine mammal consumption,
unless there is an indication of some other highly
unusual source of exposure.
Mahaffey — 4
-------
NHANES 1999-2002 Update on Mercury
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Based on the Combined NHANES 1999 - 2002
Data for Adult Women and National Center for
Health Statistics Data in the United States
• During the combined years 1999-2002. among women ages 16 thrr
years who participated in the NHANES, 10.2% had blood mercury
trations>/= 3.5 ug/L.
• The number of women delivering babies during these years* were
Average: 4,016.427
Estimate number of infants born to mothers with blood organic me
concentrations >/= 3.5 ug/L:
10.2% x 4.016,427 = 409.676 or - 410,000
Reasons and Revised Estimates for the Number of
Women Estimated to Have Exposures Greater than
U.S. EPA's Reference Dose for Methylmercury
• Number of years of NHANES data.
• Previous estimates (based on NHANES data for 1999 and 2000) of the
number of births to women having blood organic mercury concentrations
indicative of methylmercury exposures > U.S. EPA:s RfD, ranged
between 300,000 (no bioconcentration) and 600,000 (with
bioconcentration) depending on whether placental bioconcentration of
CHSHg was considered.
• Current estimates (based on NHANES data for 1999 through 2002) of
the number of births to women having blood organic mercury
concentrations indicative of methylmercury exposures > U.S. EPA's RfD,
are - 220,000 using blood [Hg] of 5.8 ijgIL (no bioconcentration) and ~
410,000 using 3.5 /jg/L (with bioconcentration) with no adjustment for
placental concentration of methylmercury.
• There is bio-concentration of methylmercury across the placenta based
on approximate 30 separate studies of mother-child pairs reported in the
peer-reviewed literature.
NHANES Is and Is Not
; Nationally representative data
is not: Representative of the highest
exposures.
Published reports of higher exposures
methylmercury within the United State
and territories include the following:
Mercury Exposure among Groups with Much
Higher Fish Consumption than the General
Population: United States and Territories
Health-aware urbanites
San Francisco private practice -
blood Hg: 89% of 116 patients had
blood [Hg] > 5 Mg/L. 16%>20
pg/L. 4 patients > 50 /jg/L.
New York City rehabilitation clinic -
neuropathies - blood Hg: 27-96
Commercial fishermen and families
Louisiana - blood [Hg] ranging from
< 0.3 to 35 (jg/L. 2% > 20 jug/L.
Coastal booulations
These Data Indicate
Should use larger sample size for 1999 through 2(
NHANES, which is more geographically represen
than was 1999 through 2000 NHANES.
Coastal populations, "Other" subpopulations, and women
with incomes higher than poverty level have higher blood
mercury concentrations.
Substantial number of women have blood mercury
concentrations (3.5 pg/L) greater than those assoc
with U.S. EPA's 2000/2001 RfD based on cord bio
mercury (i.e., 5.8^g/L).
Mahaffey — 5
-------
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
A Fresh Look at the
Uncertainty Factor Adjustment
in the Methylmercury
RfD
Alan H. Stem, Dr.PH, DABT
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
RfD Derivation 101 - UFs
RID = NOAEL Cor LOAEL. or BMDL)
(UF1xUF2....UF1)
UF = Uncertainty Factor
This is NOT a "safety" factor
• Not designed to add an extra margin of safety
- Intended to account for uncertainties in the
NOAEL/BMDL derivation that, if known.
could results in a smaller NOAEL/BMDL
RfD Derivation 101 - UFs (cont.)
Uncertainly Factor categories
- UFA - animal -> human
- UFL - LOAEL -» NOAEL
- UFSC - subchronic -» chronic
UFH - average humans -> sensitive humans
UFD - database insufficiency
— (UFM - modifying factor)
RfD Derivation 101 - UFs (cont.)
• UFs generally applied as factor of 3 or 10
- 1 or '2 log unit
However, there is no formal requirement
restricting the UF to these values
The Current RfD
There are at least 2 new developments that
could affect the appropriate value of the UF
— Cord blood:matemal blood Hg ratio
• 1.7 (Stern and Smith, 2003)
— Re-analysis of the maternal dose corresponding
to the cord blood BMDL ("the dose
conversion")
• (Stern, 2005)
• Incorporates cord:maternal ratio
The Current RfD (cont.)
Ideally, we would insert the new
information into the existing UF structure
Unfortunately, the structure of the current
UF derivation is unclear and ambiguous
Stem — 1
-------
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
The Current RfD (cont.)
Three sources of information about the
structure of the current UF adjustment
- IRIS entry
- Rice et al. (2003)
• Methods and rationale for derivation of a referenc
dose for methyhnercury by the U.S. EPA.
- Rice (2004)
• The U.S. EPA reference dose for methyhnercury:
sources of uncertainty
The Current RfD UF Issues (cont.)
• These sources do not agree as to how and whether
the cord blood:niaternal blood Hg ratio was
addressed in the UF for toxicokinetics
• If the dose conversion is now adjusted from a 1.0
cord:matemal ratio to a 1.7 ratio, would the UF of
3 for toxicokinetics need to be reduced to avoid
double counting?
— If so, by how much?
• There is now clarity as to the cord:maternal ratio
- It is no longer necessary to treat it as an uncertainty
The Current RfD Issues (cont.)
UFH (sensitive humans)
-IRIS
• "A quantitative uncertainty analysis of
toxicodynamics was not possible. However,
the population of the Faroe Islands is ...
extremely homogeneous. The average
toxicodynamic response of this population
compared with that of the United States ... is
unknown.... A threefold UF for toxicodynamic
variability and uncertainty was applied."
The Current RfD Issues (cont.)
UFD (database uncertainty)
- EPA allocated the entire UF of 10 to
toxicokinetics (i.e.. variability in the dose
conversion, with or without cord:matemal
ratio) and toxicodynamics (i.e., sensitive
humans)
— It is clear that uncertainty about whether other
endpoints might be more sensitive than
neurodeveloprnent is not addressed in the UF
• cardiovascular
• sequalae with aging
• immunotoxicitv
A Modest Proposal
It would be informative to examine what the
UF might look like if we apply the new
information and new perspectives in a new
UF derivation
- Dose conversion with updated cord:matemal
ratio
— Cardiovascular effect data
- Fresh look at sensitive populations
The Dose Conversion
The dose conversion is derived probabilistically
(Monte Carlo)
- Captures the population variability in the maternal
dose corresponding to the cord blood BMDL
In the NAS/NRC assessment and in EPA's RfD
derivation, there was uncertainty about appropriate
central tendency estimates in the analysis
— Central tendency and variability were separated
— Mean maternal dose was estimated
- Variability was incorporated as a UF
Stem — 2
-------
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
The Dose Conversion (cont.)
Recent re-analysis (Stem, 2005) of the dose
conversion is a more careful analysis
— Largely uses maternal physiological parameters
specific to pregnancy
— Issues of central tendency largely eliminated
No longer useful to separate central
tendency and variability estimates
- Can select the appropriate percentile of the
distribution of maternal dose corresponding to
the BMDL
The Dose Conversion (cont.)
variability (Stern and Smith 2003) are
incorporated directly
Estimated maternal dose for a cord blood
BMDL of 58 ug/L
- 5th percentile (lower 95ttl) = 0.3 ug/kg/day
- 1st percentile (lower 99th) = 0.2 ug/kg/day
Using these doses as the starting point
eliminates the need for a toxicokinetic UF
factor (i.e.. 3)
Database Insufficiency - UFD
Of the three major studies, two are positive
for heart disease (MI, etc.)
— Finnish group (Salonen et al., 1995)
- Multicenter study (Guallar et al.. 2002)
One is (arguably) equivocal
- U.S. Health Professionals (Yoshizawa et al.,
2002)
Should cardiovascular effects be addressed
by a UFn ?
Database Insufficiency - UFD (cont.)
To include UF for database uncertainty, it is
only necessary that there be a reasonable basis
for assuming that another endpoint could be
more sensitive than the modeled endpoint.
— EPA generally accounts for lack of developmental
and/or reproductive studies in RfD derivation
without suDDortino data
In the Finnish studies, the mean hair Hg cone.
is approx. 2.0 ppm
- This is equivalent to approx 90"' percenlile of U.S.
adult men
— Hair Hg >2.0 corresponded to a 1.96 relative risk for
AMI
Database Insufficiency - UFD (cont.)
Yoshizawa et al. (U. S. Health
Professionals) used toenail Hg as biomarker
— Cannot yet relate to hair or blood Hg
- Non-dentists presumably reflect general U.S.
male population
• Mean = 0.45 +/- 0.4 ug/g
Guallar et al. also used toenail Hg
Elevated O.R. for MI clearly seen in range of
0.4-0.7 ug/g
Corresponds to ~ mean Hg exposure in U.S.
non-dentists
• Presumably corresponds to mean exposure in U.S.
males
Database Insufficiency - UFD (cont.)
• Therefore, it appears that for the two clearly
positive studies, significantly elevated risk
of MI occurred within the range of current
dietaiy exposures of the U.S. adult male
population
• This appears to justify application of a UFD
based on cardiovascular effects alone
— A value of 2-3 appears to be appropriate
• My judgment
Stem — 3
-------
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Sensitive Humans - UFH
To include UF-sensitive humans, it is only
necessary that there be a reasonable basis
for assuming that the U.S. population could
have a greater range of sensitivity than the
population from which the RfD was derived
EPA (IRIS) used data from Faroes and NZ
studies
— Faroese are a homogeneous population
— Could result in more or less sensitivity than
U.S. population
• e.g., founder effect
Sensitive Humans - UFH (cont.)
• NZ population is ethnically varied
- 8% Europeans
Comparing Faroes and New Zealand studies
- Standardized regression coefficients in NZ are about
41% larger
— BMD values for NZ are about half those for Faroes
— Consistent with greater sensitivity due to ethnic
diversity
• But other explanations are also plausible
Sensitive Humans - UFH (cont.)
Homogeneity of Faroese, and possible greater
sensitivity in the varied NZ population argues that
U.S. population may have a greater range of
sensitivity
However, to some extent, the RfD is based on the
NZ data
— Partly incorporates the greater sensitivity in that
population
At most, NZ population shows potential for about a
two-fold greater sensitivity
This argues for a UFH of only 1.5-2
- My judgment
Some Possible Calculations
(Based on My Own Conclusions)
Point of departure - maternal dose
- Corresponding to 58 ug/L
— 1* (lower 99"1) percentile incorporating cordimaternal and
toxicokinetic variability
• This is percentile used in current RfD
— 0.2 ug/kg/day
UF toxicodyuamics (current EPA factor — default)
- 3
UFH (sensitive populations - alternate toxicodynaniic)
- 1.5-2
UFD (cardiovascular)
- 2-3
Some Possible Calculations
(Based on My Own Conclusions)
Current EPA calculation
old dose conversion)
- UF toxicokinetics = 3
- UF toxicodynamics = 3
1.1 ug/kg/dav =0.1 ug/kg/day
Stem — 4
-------
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Some Possible Calculations
(Based on My Own Conclusions)
Using new dose conversion
- Maximum UFD and
— Current U.S. EPA UF for toxiocdynarnics
-UFtotal(=9)
0.2 ug/kg/dav = 0.02 ug/kg/day
Some Possible Calculations
(Based on My Own Conclusions)
— Minimum UFD and UFH
-UFtotal(=3)
0.2 ug/kg/dav = 0.07 ug/kg/day
2x 1.5
Other possible combinations fall in between
Conclusions - Finally
A fresh look at the UF for methylmercury
incorporating new data and analyses
presents a range of possible appropriate
values for the resulting RfD
These values extend from 70% of the
current RfD to 20% of the current value
There is no uniquely correct value, but this
transparent decision
Stem — 5
-------
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Review of Cardiovascular
Health Effects of Mercury -
A U.S. Perspective
Eric B. Rimm, Sc.D.
The Top 10 Causes of Death in 2001
1. Heart Disease: 700,142 6. Diabetes: 71.372
2. Cancer: 553,768
3. Stroke: 163,538
4. COPD: 123,013
5. Accidents: 101,537
7. Pneumonia: 62,034
8. Alzheimer's: 53,852
9. Kidney disease: 39,480
10. Septicemia: 32,328
Mercury Toxicity
Kidney
Mercury Toxicity in the Heart
Systemic Effects
Direct Cardiovascular Effects
— I Myocardial contractile force
Health Professionals' Follow-up Study
• Prospective cohort of 51,529 U.S. male
health professionals aged 40-75 years in
1986
Veterinarians
Pharmacists
Osteopaths
Podiatrists
Optometrists
Rimm— 1
-------
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Health Professionals' Follow-up Study
(n = 51,529)
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
iti I I A I A I
Toenails CHD
Health Professionals' Follow-up Study
(n = 51,529)
• Repeated assessments of diet, lifestyle
behaviors, and medical history.
• During 5 years of follow-up. 409 cases:
— nonfatal MI
- fatal CHD
- CABG/PTCA.
Toenail Assessment:
Neutron - Activation
Dr. Steve Morris - Research Reactor Center.
Univ. of Columbia-Missouri, Research Park
• Long-term feeding studies suggest that
toenails and hair are good markers of intake
and exposure.
Mean Characteristics Between
Prospectively Identified CHD Cases
and Matched Controls
Characteristics
BMI (kg/m')
Current smokers (%)*
Diabetes
Hypertension
Hypercholesterolem ia
Alcohol (g/day)
Baseline Characteristics by Quintile of
Toenail Mercury (Controls Only)
Median Mercury Levels in Toenails P,,aiue
0:li 0.28 8.« 9.67 1.34
(0.03-0.21) (0.22-0.35) (0.36-0.54) (0.55-0.86) (0.87-14.56)
28 (30%) 21 (22541 23 (24%) 20 (221
Diabetes 3(4%) 2(2%) 2(2%) 4(4%)
Rimm — 2
-------
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Multivariate Adjusted Relative Risks of CHD among Men
Selected for a Nested Case-Control Study (1987-1992) and
Enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study
All CHD Cases (n)
Relative risk adjusted
matching factors*
(95% ei)
Quintiles of Toenail Mercury
I 2 " " 3 4 S
0.1S 0.28 9.45 0.67
0.77 0.87 0.83
) (0.51,1.16) (0.57,131)
1.0 0.93 0.83 0.96 1.03
Predictors of Toenail Mercury
Dentist vs. non-dentist
General practice vs.
specialist
Amalgam preparation
methods
Dietary Predictors %
— Tuna fish 49
- Other fish 19
GISSI Trial of n-3 Supplements and
Secondary Prevention Of CVD
n-3 PUFA
(n-2836)
Control Relative risk
(n-2828) (95% Cl)
Main endpoints
Death, noirtatd Ml, and notvtatal stroke
Cardiovascular death, nontald Ml, and rmtaal stri
356(123%)
262 [9 2%)
414(14-6*) 085(074-098)
322(11-4*) 080(068-095)
Secondary analyses
All fatal events
Cardiovascular deaths
Cardiac death
Coronary death
Sudden dealt
Other deaths
NwT-talai cardiovascular e-
236 (8 3%)
136(48%)
108(38%)
100(35%)
55 (1.90
100(35%)
140(49%)
293 [10 4%)
193 (68%)
165 (58%)
151(53%)
99 (35%)
100 (35%)
144 (5 1%)
080(067-094)
0 70 (0 56-0 87)
065(051-082)
065 (0-51-0 84)
0 55 (0-40-0 76)
099(075-1 30)
096(076-121)
Otli« analyses
CHD death and non-ratal Ml
Fatal and non-fatal stroke
196 (69S)
54(19%)
259 (92%)
41 (1 5%|
0-75 (0-62-0-901
130(097-196)
Table 3: Overall efficacy profile of n-3 PUFA treatment
Lancet. 1999
Multivariate Adjusted Relative Risks of CHD among Men
Selected for a Nested Case-Control Study (1987-1992) and
Enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study
lative risk adjusted fo
9.15 0.28 0.45 0.67 1.34
93 90 90 96
1.0 0.83 0.77 0.77 0.87 0.83
1.0 0.93 0.83 0.96 1.03 0.53
Multivariate Adjusted Relative Risks of CHD:
Quintile 5 vs. Quintile 1 after Exclusion of Dentists
Total Cohort
Exclude Dentists
Control for n-3
QSVsQl
0.87(0.57, 1.31)
1.27(0.62,2.59)
1.70(0.78,3.73)
No interaction with selenium
Future Directions
Nurses' Health Study (n=121,700)
984 1986 1988 1990 1992 19:
Toenails CHD
Health Professionals Follow-up Study (ii=52,000)
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Toenails
Rimm — 3
-------
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Limitations
Relative short follow-up with only a single
measure of exposure
Measurement error
Conclusions
Toenail mercury reflects intake
The C VD benefit of n-3 fatty acids in fish is strongly
supported by a wide range of scientific evidence
Whether the mercury content offish leads to elevated
CVD has support from some European studies, less so
from U.S. studies
Further prospective studies are needed to help clarify
the association, if any, between mercury and CHD
Rimm — 4
-------
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department ofEpit
Cardiovascular Health Effects
of Mercury - European Data
Eliseo Guallar, M.D., Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Baltimore, MD
eguallar@jhsph.edu
Etiology of Atherosclerotic CVD
a Some key pathogenic processes
• Oxidative stress
• Endothelial dysfunction
• Inflammation
• Thrombosis
a Some key risk factors
• High blood pressure
• HighLDL cholesterol
• Low HDL cholesterol
• Diabetes, insulin resistance
ecnamsms o
of Mercury on CVD
a Increase oxidative stress
• Production of free radicals, hydrogen, and lipid peroxides
• Binds to and inactivates selenium
• High affinity for thiol groups, and may inactivate
glutathion. catalase, and SOD
• Correlated with oxidized-LDL levels
a Effects on blood pressure and heart rate
variability
a Effects on endothelial cells and
inflammatory response
a Effect on intima-media thickness
Blood Cord MeHg Levels and Blood
Pressure at Ages 7 and 14 —
The Faroe Islands Study
!•
3-
Grandjean. P.. et al., 2004. J Pediatr 144:169-76.
Blood Cord MeHg Levels and R-R
Interval Variation at Age 14 —
The Faroe Islands Study
II MlMBmilUI 11
Cord Bloorl Mercury Concent ration (>Jg/l)
Grandjean, P., et aL, 2004. J Pediatr 144:169-76.
Blood Hg Levels and 24-h ABPM Pulse
Pressure among Danes and Greenlanders
!
S Pulse pressure (mm Hg)
in s s a s s e s a
•;VK-'
sdKefi
**v?CrtSi * • *
„ £*?••:* • • •
• •* •
11 10 100 1000
Mercury in blood (M9/I)
etal., 2005. AJH 18:61 2-61 8.
Guallar — 1
-------
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Blood Hg Levels and SBP among Women
16-49 Years Old in NHANES, 1999 - 2000
I .,
I;;;
01 04 0*.Of 0* 13
Oufnttta* « Tot* Blood Mwcauy. k-
Vupputuri, $.. et al., 2005. Env Res 97:195-200.
Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease
Study
a Cohort study of 1,833 men in Eastern Finland
u 42 to 60 years of age
Q High intake of freshwater fish from locally
contaminated Hg lakes
U Hair Hg content measured by flow injection analysis
- cold vapor AAS and amalgamation
D CV for duplicate measurements ~ 8%
a Mean hair Hg 1.98 ug/g
D Mean follow-up ~ 5 years
Salonen, J.T., et al., 1995. Circulation 91:645-655.
Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease
Study - RR of Fatal or Nonfatal
RR
1 Hair mercury, ug/g
1 Hair mercury, > 2.0 ug/g
1 Fish intake, g/d
• Fish. >30gM
' Mercury intake, g/d
' No. of men with event
1.094 P=.037
1.96 P=.005
1.005 f^.002
2.08 f^.004
1.028 f^.006
73
Adjusted for age, examination year, ischemic exercise ECG, and maximal Q. uptake.
95% Cl
1.01 to 1.19
1.23 to 3.13
1.002 to 1.008
1.26 to 3.40
1.008 to 1.048
men, J.T., et al., 1995. C/rcu/at/on 91:645-655.
Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study
Association of Hg and n-3 Fatty Acids
with Acute Coronary Events
relative risk
«.3B« L»Z73%
Proportion of DHA+DPA of serum total fatty adds S
Rissanen, T.R., et al.. 2000. Circulation 102:2677-2679.
Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study
Association of Hair Hg and Acute
Coronary Events
Mgncet
TTml
fff [»$% CD
ThnJ
RR <%.% Cii
104(0^-1111 ISatt U ?11I
1 .08 (0.77-1 .SOt 1.67 11 .22-J.901
107(077-141}. 1, wi U 20-2 Ml
O.ODI
0.001
1i? (119-1.94]
1.KKU4-2.K)
Virtanen, J.K., et al., 2005. Arteriosc/er Thromb Vase Biol 25:228-233.
Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study -
4-year Change in IMT by Quintile of Hg
-------
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Mai kiTs ol litjili lisli intake ;iri- ussuciiid'd mill (kcrt;iM-d
ri^k »if a Ill's) mviK'tmliii] infarction
. Si.ill:!)..-i!1 ' c. ll.iU-.n.m^ J -H ).»n—
M.itiJiiJuj'' I l:ii,'ii,..---i,-r' A Vim!
n,J S Sk.,'M . lii:/
n^ *>t '.'110 'Ihr Siph connrni of
ihir Jin
JittllU
ardial
tin- /i I H l-'S i-in[v.i|ti-nl.ii'iu.'n -nul itin.n^ihf \.rtum -u »[<. (I' Cl KM In :i |»>I\I|.IIIMII 1uiv,-*l
tiivnjfdi.il intj[Lli.m v-viv L,.'iii]~.ircJ xsill'i I X< ..imtmK wiUt n.^|x-\.l In Hi\ Mi;. 1' TL>A JIH!
lj>-. ii-piiMini'liicli lish iii1,il.r 1,11 k'.LMinin- IIUT.L! |*-i wprk i ih.ui iiillhi-j' •Aiilli lirwrr
wiukc.Till-* hrtiinfi vujrticM*ihjiLr>'-]]p JuJ I'-CL'I A rtlK-^t prc^mm-,long-ltrni Ii*h inukt. l,«\v
r([i:tl uiljin lim wjis :IN\II iiitlnl ttilti tnj:li Ki> II;: MI tnHi P 11 h.A Im M
dcl the n
l-n-Ms 4nU P F'LI A. jnJ this ,IVUKLJ|I>III i*
Vasterbotten Intervention
Programme - ORs of Ml
UM.I1- Mod, I,
Fttcirji CdHjgtiiy OR 95% Ci OR 95%Cr
P-PUFA I'M - 5 1 ff
Eiy-Hij*P-PUFA -6 'TJ--5S !0
6 nr.i - fl S ' 46 0 3' 0 9*
£ rid Mi fl IB -na'i ow
3°,,^:u^.'- '"" ' *•* "™- w* " - "' •"" ' "' "*J •^•"d '" "
n;^™','^;""p "'"' "•" " ' "• n" ""'•-"•""»""•" ""•"•
'T«','t?;!t.'"~"u" ''^ "-'"•-»">-" """-1 " "-' «••"' ^a
Hallgren, C.G., et al., 2001. Br J Wulr86:397-404.
M-^.*, 1t
Ofl «%Ci
1 0
109 0 59. ft 2-3
Q 16 004. Cfif,
i 0
i a
1 fi? r 44 9 1 1
iiII,MI I'Ju.i-lnh \
EURAMIC Study - Study Population
a Men aged 70 years or younger; native
residents of 8 European countries or
residents of Israel
a Subjects excluded if they had a previous
diagnosis of myocardial infarction (Ml), drug
or alcohol abuse, major psychiatric
disorders, if they were institutionalized, or if
they had modified their dietary pattern in the
past year
Guallar, E., et al.. 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747-1754.
EURAMIC Study - Case Selection
a Cases were men with a first acute Ml,
confirmed by ECG and enzyme changes, and
hospitalized within 24 hours from the onset
of symptoms
a Cases were recruited from the coronary care
units of participating hospitals
Guallar, E., et al., 2002. W Eitgl J Med 347:1747-1754.
EURAMIC Study - Control Selection
a Controls: Men without history of Ml, frequency matched
to cases in 5-year intervals
a In Finland, Israel, Germany, Scotland, and Switzerland,
selected by random sampling from local population
registers
J In Russia and Spain, from patients admitted to hospital
for disorders not known to be associated with dietary
factors
a In the Netherlands, from the catchment area of the
patient's general practitioners
J In Norway, by inviting friends and relatives of the cases
Guallar, E., etal., 2002. HEitglJ Med 347:1747-1754.
Guallar — 3
-------
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
EURAMIC Study - Description of
Cases and Controls
RISK FACTOB
Ajeiyri
Hody-mJM- inOc.vf
Toral chok'su'rol Oimutl/litertJ
HDL cluikttcnil immnl/litcrlj
HvrwK-iiMim •' >$
I mreiH Miu.ker I'Vi
Duhi'U's im-lli'tm <%!§[
AK-iiliol im.ilwig/«by)
Rircnt.!! history i>r' inyiNCjrdi.il
inura ii.il ."-..i
PATIENTS
(N=684)
54. 7 ±8.9
26.513.9
5,4611.11
().98±0.25
J<>.0
61. .^
HA
I8.2±27.2
57.6
CONTROLS
(N=724I
53.2*9.3
25.9+3.4
5.56±1.10
i <)
17.4
S7.S
3.9
I7S±24.0
43.3
P VALUE
0.002
0.004
0.11
•: 0.001
lllHJi
• OO01
< 0.001
0.751
'0.001
Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Eitgt J Med 347:1747-1754.
EURAMIC Study - Association between
Hg and DHA among Controls
i°
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0
Docosahexaenoic acid (%)
. T
Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747-1754.
m*.cin
EURAMIC Study - Odds Ratios of Ml
by Quintile of Toenail Hg
, 1.2-1 .OJW-1 R-t. IB6il.20-2.il. (I.WU
t^LMv. H« .'«cm .ft.4m Ml *1 u OH A ^immlf. i>
.; rmilv 'inJi.jf.*- vi
i» \jrnM
iJ lorl io
inJ KTIIVI Tf™4,in
-------
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data
Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
EURAMIC Study - Non-parametric Odds
Radios of Ml by Level of Adipose Tis
DHA
0.25 J
500
-400
100
-o
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
DHA (% of fatty acid peak area)
Guallar, E., etal., 2002. N Engt J (Wed 347:1747-1754.
EURAMIC Study - Strengths and
Limitations
a Strengths
• Large sample size
• LTse of toenail Hg / neutron activation analysis
• Use of adipose tissue DHA
• Multicenter design
a Limitations
• Case-control design
• Lack of data on dietary intake
• Measurement error
• Non-fatal cases of MI
Conclusions
a More data is needed to assess the effect of
Hg on CVD
a Hg seems to oppose the effect of n-3 fatty
acids in fish
a Effect of Hg needs to be analyzed in
combination with effect of n-3 fatty acids
a Other contaminants / micronutrients in fish
may also need to be considered
Guallar — 5
-------
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA
Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS
and PFOA
Christopher Lau
Reproductive Toxicology Division
National Health ancl Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv
In Recent Press
Safety of nonstick cookware unresolved (Charlotte Observer, Aug 17,2005)
Consumers should be aware of controversy before using products
After more than two years of study by the federal government, questions concerning
the safety of nonstick cookware remain unresolved.... The questions center around a
man-made chemical called ; < • r! i i .1 •••:, -..M •"<••• forshort. PFOA is used in
the production of Teflon and other nonstick-coated cookware and water-, grease- and
stain-repellent products used in carpet, fabric, paper, leather and oilier goods.
EPA charges DuFont hid Teflon's risks (Chicago Tribune, Jan 18,2005)
U. S. orders study on health perils of key chemical
More than 50 years after DuPont started producing Teflon near this Ohio River town.
federal officials are accusing the company of luding information suggesting thai a
chemical used to make the popular stick- and stain-resistant coating, might cause cancer.
birth defects and other ailments. Environmental regulators are particularly alarmed
because scientists are finding \--. :!:;.•.;- > ... ,\-. •••-. ...hi •[.-;• .'••. in the blood of people
worldwide, audit lakes years for the chemical to leave the body. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency reported last week that exposure even to low levels
of PFOA could be harmful.
What Are PFOS and PFOA?
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(PFOA) belong to a family of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAA) that
have a carbon backbone (4-15) fully substituted by fluorine and a
functional group of sulfonic or carboxylic acid.
These chemicals are man-made (in existence in the last 50 years);
very stable, hydrophobic, and oleophobic; and are terminal
metabolites of their derivative products.
Their surfactant properties lend themselves to wide (> 200)
industrial and consumer applications, hi 2000, global production
of PFOS was estimated at 3:500 metric tons/year and PFOA at 500
metric tons/year.
Because of environmental concerns. 3M phased, out production of
PFOS by the end of 2002, but replacement PFAA are poised to take
up the market void left by PFOS.
Environmental Exposure — Humans
Sources
Production workers
Non-production employees
Human serum samples
Blood bank pools
Children
Serum Levels (ppb)
300-8,000 (2,500)
28-96 (47)
7-82 (28)
9-56 (30)
7-515 (44)
G. Oh-en
Environmental Exposure — Wildlife
Sources
Marine mammals
Fresh water mammals
Birds
Fish
Turtles and Frogs
Polar bears
Liver (ppb)
400-500
300-2600
400-600
50-100
200-300
180-680
Plasma (ppb)
10-100
-
400-500
-
100
-
Agency Concerns
PFAA are stable, persistent, and bio-accumulated in the
environment.
PFOS (C8), PFOA (CS), and PFHS (C6) have been detected in
humans, while PFOS, PFOA, and PFNA (C9) are found in the
wildlife.
These chemicals are distributed globally, but their fate, transport,
and exposure routes are not well characterized.
Most of these chemicals are readily absorbed, but poorly
eliminated. Estimated half-life ki humans for PFOS is 5.4 yr;
PFOA, 3.8 yr; PFHS (C6), 8.7 yr; andPFBS (C4), 2-3 wk.
Results from laboratory animal studies indicated developmental
toxicity, hepatotoxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogeuicity,
metabolic, and endocrine-disrupting potentials of these chemicals,
but modes of Iheir action are ill-defined.
Replacement products of PFOS are in the market or being
developed, yet little is known about their health-risk potentials.
Lau — 1
-------
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA
Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Developmental Study of PFOS
• PFOS
- Potassium salt, Fluka/3M
- Prepared in 0.5% Tween-20 Vehicle
• Animal Models
- Sprague-Dawley rat:
GD 2-21, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 mg/kg
- CD-I mouse:
GD1-18, 1,5, 10. 15, 20 mg/kg
•
.--i.
-r- i—
&ZL\
Prenatal Findings: Rat
3, £ p '
— f. — 1 J- -
Notable Malformations in Rat Fetuses at Term
deft palate
%
# Sternal
defects/f
Anas area %
Large it.
atrium %
Vent. sep.
defect %
Control
0
1.2 ± 0.3
0
0
0
1 mg/kg
9±S
1.7 ± 0.3
0
2 ± 2
0
2 nig/kg
14 ± 14
2.1i 0.3
0
S ± 8
0
3 mg/kg
10 ± 10
2.6 ± 0.2
1S± 9
0
0
5 mg/kg
: i c o :
ITiS
23 h 7
13 > 6
in mg/kg
60 , 13
3.4 i 0-1
*|j 12
9i 4
1?:, ?
Cj~:-.;
Prenatal Findings: Mouse
•;..
^nKr-i
Notable Malformations in Mouse Fetuses at Term
Gteffl
palate %
# Sternal
defacts/f
Large it
atrium %
Vent. Sep.
defect %
Control
0
0.5±0.1
0
2±2
1 mg/kg
0
-
-
-
5 mg/kg
0
-
-
-
lOnig/kg
2±2
2.1 ±0.2
26 ± S
5+3
IS mg/kg
:i i s
2.6 1 0.2
23 i 7
5 t3
20 mg/kg
73 , i:
1.3 • 0 7
35*9
30 a 16
-
'^-.
Influences of PFOS on prenatal development
of rat and mouse are unremarkable ..
:
.
Lau — 2
-------
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA
Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Postnatal Survival: Rat
0 5 10 15 20
Postnatal Age (days)
•
&EPA
Newborn Rat Lung
Control PFflS Control
Pre
Post
PFOS
PFOS
(mg-kg)
0
5
10
Air Space
(%)
63.9 ± 1.5
56. 7 ±2.1
55.2 ±2:2*
Septal Space
(%)
31.6 ±1.3
41.2±2.0
43. 6 ±1.9
Postnatal Survival: Mouse
Postnatal Age (days)
. -
Eye Opening
Rat
.
.. on the other hand, in utero exposure to
PFOS profoundly compromised the survival
of the newborn rodents, most likely due to
pulmonary insufficiency. Postnatal growth
and development are also adversely
impacted by PFOS.
t-EPA
Developmental Study of PFOA
• Major sex difference in PFOA elimination in rat: serum tAin
males = 7.4 days, in females = 3.7 h after oral exposure;
PFOA was undetectable 24 h after treatment in pregnant rat.
• Unremarkable developmental toxicity findings with rat:
delayed sex maturation in high dose group (30 mg/kg).
• No significant gender differences found in humans and
primates.
• Mouse as alternative animal model: serum t... in males =
19.1days and in females = 16.6 days after oral exposure.
:
.
Lau
-------
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA
Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Study Design
CD-I mouse
GD2-18
•
Maternal serum PFOA at term
.--i.
~PA
Prenatal Findings of PFOA — Mouse
Prenatal loss (%)
Fetus \veight (g)
Ossified
sternabrae ("#)
Ossified caudal
vertebrate (#)
Ibreliiiib (#)
Ossified proximal
hiiKllimb (#)
Calvaria (%)
Enlarged fontauel
(%)
Microcardia (%)
Control
4.1 ±1.4
1.05 ±0.02
5.9 ±0.1
4.3 ± 0.3
4.8 ±0.8
3. 9 ±0.9
13.5 ±9.2
17.3 ±9.1
0
1 mg/kg
1.0 ±0.7
0.98 ± 0.03
6.0±0.1
4.1 ±0.1
1.8 ± 1.0
0.4 ±0.3
62.5 ± 15.5
66. 7 ±21.1
0
3mg/kg
7.4 ± 2.5
1.03 ±0.04
6.0±0.1
4.0 ±0.2
2.2 ±0.9
1.5 ±1.0
66.7 ±13.0
53.6 ±15. 8
0
Sing/kg
2.4 ± 0.8
1.03 ±0.04
5.5 ± 0.3
4.3 ± 0.3
2.9 ±0.9
2.8 ± 0.9
22.7 ± 10.4
18.29.6
0
10 ms/kc
7.7 ±3. 3
0.98 ±0.05
5. 7 ±0.2
3.7±0.2
1.0 ±0.6
1.0 ±0.6
35.0 ±12.7
45.0 ±20.0
5.0±5.0
-i S".t ii. 1 1
4.u± !.'
M ± u 7
o
o
i5u±2CrO
30. (1 ± 18.3
-Cr.;^
Postnatal Growth
•;..
Developmental Landmarks
PIOADM.
0
1
3
&•
10
20
Eve,,,™,.,
H
22
f
8
17
13
3
I.1.V,,
14.8 i O.I
B*au
I3.5iM
16.0 i 0.2
17. 2 =5-0.3
1MN 0.8
Vaginal opening
N
5«t
21
21
,43
2S
11
(dayfl
285 ± 0.4
27.9 =t0.6
28.8 ± 0.4
29.9 ± 0.4
29 .3 ±0.3
31.3 ±0.5
First fstrus
•ft
47
21
21
43
27
s
£>
29.9*0.4
28.2*0.6
30.2 ±0.4
31.840.5
30.2 ± 0.3
30.9 ± 0.4
Pi'eputial separation
K
56
22
20
46
2S
4
Ac*
J0,5,0^
l(> -=02
2" 1 = 0_i
2^.2, 0^
2S.i = OJ
31.7= 1.1
-
'^-.
Summary
Developmental toxicity of PFOS and PFOA are indicated
in laboratory rodent models.
Survival at birth, postnatal growth, and development are
compromised by chemical exposure during pregnancy and
lactation.
Effects of these chemical exposures on maturation of
physiological functions should be investigated.
Body burdens of PFOS and PFOA in the animal models
should reflect the exposure levels and can be con-elated
with human levels (CDC/NHANES) for MOE estimation.
Routes of human exposure to these chemicals must be
investigated.
Lau
-------
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA
Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PFAA Contaminants in Lake Trout
from the Great Lakes
in ppb
Lake
Erie
Lake
Ontario
Late
Huron
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Superior
II"
137
113
48
15
, •) .,
4.7
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
1
0.9
4.9
3.0
1.3
2.2
• :l: ••
1.6
1.6
0.4
0.5
•.'] ' •
1.9
2.3
0.7
0.9
••••!:•
1 ;
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.4
V. Ftrdiu am d k'abur,
Collaborators
John Rogers
Barbara Abbott
Suzanne Fenton
„ „,. „ ,4 \'i'i'T. Ill' t
Garv Klinefelter
T i-' TI -u j Hugh Barton
Julie Ihibodeaux °
Brian Grey (>!>!>TS. i/'l
Monica Logan Jennifer Seed
Roger Hanson
Rayetta Grasty
Douglas Wolf
\'H:R;.. i::r.i _\n-;tis
Andrew Lindstrom Abraham Nyska
Mark Strynar
j.W ( tin>!~->!iiij1
Jolin Butenhoff
David Ehresman
('. Minn.-Hulut/t
Ken Wallace
.(/n'/'i'^uii S/UH' ?.
Jolin Giesy
PFAA Commonly Found in the Environment
pros CF!((CFZ)7-S*K'
O
-
a
o-
-/
O
Lau
-------
Overview of the National Toxicology Program Studies of Interactions
between Individual PCB Congeners
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health
Overview of the National Toxicology
Program Studies of Interactions
Between Individual PCB Conaeners
Effects of PCBs
Extensive body of literature on PCB mixtures and
individual PCBs
Health effects
• Reproductive
• Endocrine
• Neurological
• Immunological
Carcinogenicity
• Demonstrated Carcinogenicity of PCB mixtures (e.g., aroclors) in
laboratory animals
• Probable human carcinogens
* Uver (hepatocellular) neoplasms as primary response
Quantitative cancer risk assessment approaches
• PCB effects of a mixture
• Dioxin-like effects of mixture.
Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs)
» A risk-assessment tool
• Used for estimating exposure to mixtures of "dioxins"
» Single potency factor relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD
• Calculate index chemical equivalent dose (ICED)
• Total equivalents (TEQ) =
^([individual "dioxin"] x respective TEF)
Evaluating the TEF concept
« TEF methodology nominated for evaluation by the NTP
* Dose additivity for Carcinogenicity of mixture vs.
individual
• Are the shapes of individual dose-response curves the same?
• Are the effects seen for a mixture dose additive?
• Is the effect for a TEQ mixture same as TCDD alone?
• Testing interactions between different classes of PCBs
• Evaluate carcinogenic potency of specific PCBs
• No chronic Carcinogenicity studies of individual congeners
• Is the potency of a dioxin-like PCB affected by co-exposure to other
PCBs?
The NTP Dioxin TEF Evaluation
Chronic 2-year rat cancer studies
• Female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats; 5 days/week for 2 years
• Multiple doses, interim studies at 14, 31, 53 weeks
• Pathology. CYP450, thyroid clin chem. tissue dosimetry.
Phase I - Summary Results
• TCDD, PCB 126, PeCDF, and TEF mixture
+ Expected increases in dioxin responses
• Increases in CYP1 expression
• LowerT4 and increased T3 forall studies
• Increased TSH at earlytime points
* Hepatotoxicity
• Increase in incidence and severity
* Non-neoplastic effects in multiple organs
* Increased incidence of neoplasms
. Liver
• Cholangiocarcinoma
• Hepatocellular adenoma
• Lung-cystic keratinizing epithelioma
• Oral Mucosa-squamous cell carcinoma.
Walker — 1
-------
Overview of the National Toxicology Program Studies of Interactions
between Individual PCB Congeners
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health
General Findings - Cancer Data
» Dose-response models of four core studies
. TCDD, PeCDF, PCB126, and TEF mixture
• Administered dose for all tests
» Evaluating same shape dose-response curves
. Non-linear behavior
• Cannot reject they have same shape
» Dose additive model for the mixture
• Cannot reject at p<0.01.
Potency Factors Close to TEF Values
WHO TEF
Cholangiocarcinoma
He adenoma
Lung CKE
Gingival SCC
CYP1A1
CYP1A2
PCB126
0 1
0.11
0.10
0.19
0.09
0.02-0.19
0.17-0.51
PeCDF
0,5
0.16
0.35
0.34
0.24
0.1 -0.44
0.17-0.47
TEF Mixture
(1.0)
0.93
1.02
1.21
0.467
0.63-2.27
0.51-0.80
Phase 2 - PCB Interaction Studies
* PCB153
• Highest abundance PCB in human tissues on a mass basis
• Not in TEF scheme
* PCB126: PCB153 mixture
• Interaction between non-ortho and di-ortho RGBs
* PCB126: PCB118 mixture
• Additivity of non-ortho and mono-ortho PCBs
• Initially planned as a study of PCB118 alone
• PCB126 "contamination" of 0.6% prompted reclassification as
mixture
* PCB118 (study still in life phase)
• Restarted study (99% predicted TEQ attributed to PCB118)
• Highest abundance mono-ortho PCB in human tissue
• Highest TEQ contributor of mono-ortho class in TEF scheme.
Summary of Effects of PCB153
» Equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity
• Occurrences of rare cholangiomas
» Liver
• Increased cytochromes P450 activity
• Liver PROD increased at all doses 100 ltg/kg and higher at all times
• Weak increase on liver EROD and ACOH
• Hepatoctye hypertrophy, fatty change, bile duct hyperplasia, oval cell
hyperplasia
* Thyroid
• Decreases in T3 and T4: no effect on TSH
• Increase in incidence of follicular cell hypertrophy
* Other tissues
• Inflammatory responses in ovary, oviduct, and uterus.
PCB Mixtures Summary
PCB126/PCB153and PCB126/118
Increased incidence of neoplasms in multiple organs
• Liver - Cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular adenoma
• Lung - Cystic keratinizing epithelioma
• Oral Mucosa - Squamous cell carcinoma
Expected increases in dioxin-like responses
• Increases in CYP1 expression at all doses, all times, in both studies
• Lower T4 and increased T3 for both studies, inconsistent effect on TSH
Hepatotoxicity
• Dose- and duration-dependent increase in incidence and severity
Non-neoplastic effects in multiple organs
• Notably lung, oral mucosa. pancreas, adrenal cortex, thyroid, thymus.
and kidney.
Neoplasm
Cholangiocarcinoma
Hepatocellular adenoma
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Cholangioma
Hepatocholangioma
Lung - cystic keratinizing
epithelioma
Lung - SCC
Gingival - SCC
Pancreas - adenoma/
carcinoma
Uterus - SCC
Uterus - adenoma/
carcinoma
Adrenal cortex - adenoma/
carcinoma
TCDD
+++
+++
+
+
+++
-HHH
+
++
126
+++
++
+
++
+++
+
+++
+
PeCDF
++
++
+
++
+
+
Mix
+++
+++
+++
+
126/153
+++
+++
+
+++
+++
+
+++
++
+
126/118
+++
+++
+
+
+
+++
-H-
153
+
Walker — 2
-------
Overview of the National Toxicology Program Studies of Interactions
between Individual PCB Congeners
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health
PCB126/153 Mixture Design
PCB153
(M9'kg)
0
10
100
300
1,000
3,000
PCB 126 (ng/kg)
0
Group 1
TR529
TR529
TR529
TR529
TR529
10
Group 2
100
TR520
Groups
300
TR520
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
1000
TR520
Group/
Cholangiocarcinoma
40 Incidence (
PCB126 ng/kg
Hepatocellular Adenoma
Incidence (%)
PCB 126 ng/kg
Liver Non-neoplastic Interactions
» Effect of PCB153 on incidence induced by PCB126 at
300 ng/kg
« Decreased with increasing PCB153
Liver - EROD - 53 weeks
Liver- PCB126 ng/g concentration
• Increased with increasing PCB153
Hepatocyte hypertrophy
Fatty change, diffuse
Fatty change focal
Basophilic focus
Eosinophilic focus
Clear cell focus
Cholangiofibrosis
Bile duct hyperplasia
Liver EROD- 14 weeks
Pharmacokinetic Interactions - Liver
• Lower levels of PCB1
in co-exposed groups
Increase in PCB153 in
the liver in co-exposed
group
Cystic Keratinizing Epithelioma
Walker — 3
-------
Overview of the National Toxicology Program Studies of Interactions
between Individual PCB Congeners
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health
Lung -Interactions
Animals examined
AE, metaplasia,
bronchiolar
Cystic keratinizing
epithelioma
PCB126ng/g-2
years
300ng126/kg+^g153/kg
0
53
39'
1
553
100
50
39
1
902
300
53
34
1
459
3000
50
30"
1
478
126:153
1000:1000
52
32-
11-
479
126 alone
1000
51
40-
35"
1842
Altered Potency of PCB126 by PCB153
• Modeled assuming same c
shape of dose-response
curve
• Cholangiocarcinoma (ChCA)
. PCB126 alone •«
• ED5ll=952 ng/kg
. In presence of PCB153
• ED=n=556 ng/kg
• 1.7x increase in potency ' •;
• Cystic keratinizing CKE
epithelioma (CKE)
. PCB126 alone
• ED50=698 ng/kg ^
. In presence of PCB153
• ED5n=1213 ng/kg
. 1.7x decrease in potency. ' ' ™ ™ »OD ™L1 '."I
NTP Bioassays in Perspective
Lower potency vs.
aroclor studies
Lower potency vs.
TCDD dosed feed
study (Dow)
Why?
• Rat stock differences
• Pharmacokinetics
• Dietary vs. gavage
PCB interactions?
• Higher potency in
PCB126/153 study.
Implications
Support for the concept of TEFs and dose
additivity for mixtures
Interactions can impact interpretation of TEQ in
mixtures of PCBs with multiple modes of action.
Thanks
M.E. Easterling
P.W. Crockett
H. Toyoshiba
C.J. Portier
M.E. Wyde
A. Nyska
A.E. Brix
M.P. Jokinen
J.R. Hailey
J K. Haseman
D.M. Sells
MR. Hejtmancik
C.S. Smith
D.P Orzech
J.R. Bucher
R. Maronpot
R. Herbert
K.J. Cimon
G.P Flake
B.F. Hamilton
J. Mold
J. Ward
E. McConnell
J. Swenberg
M. Elwell
P. Bannasch
D. Wolf
J. Cullen
A. VanBirgelen
L. Birnbaum
M. DeVito
National Toxicology Program
* Multi-agency program headquartered at NIEHS
. NIEHS/NIH. NIOSH/CDC. NCI, NCTR/FDA
• Sponsored by the U.S. taxpayers
* Not a "regulatory" agency - does not set policies
* Coordinates toxicological research/testing in DHHS
• Strengthen the science base in toxicology
• GLP-compliant studies
• Provide information to health regulatory agencies and the public
* Data are publicly available
• ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov
• liaison@starbase.niehs.nih.gov
. (919)541-0530
Notional
Toxicology
Program
Walker — 4
-------
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science
JohnD. Schell, BBL, Inc.
Establishing PCB Fish
Advisories: Consideration
of the Evolving Science
John D. Schell, Ph.D.
BBL Sciences
Houston, TX
Types of PCB Fish Advisories
1. Risk/consumption-based: Great Lakes
Sport Fish Advisory Task Force (1993)
2. FDA-based: Based on established
tolerance level (2 ppm)
Risk/Consumption Based
Fish consumption goes up =
fish tissue level goes down
Example from GLSFATF:
- 0.2 ppm - 1 meal per week
- 1.9 ppm - 6 meals per year.
Allowable
How Are the Risk-Based Advisories
Established?
• Consumption results in a dose
• Risk associated with that dose
determined using state or federally
promulgated toxicity factors.
PCB Risk-Based Advisories
Establish trigger level:
1. Using toxicity factors (e.g., CSF) derived from aroclor
mixtures (U.S. EPA, 1996); PCBs in fish tissue
reported in aroclor equivalents.
2. Using toxicity factors from aroclor mixtures (U.S.
EPA, 1996); PCBs in fish tissue reported as "total
PCBs."
3. Using toxicity factors derived from PCB congeners
using TEF approach (U.S. EPA, 2003); PCBs in fish
tissue reported as individual congeners.
Procedure 1: Aroclor Based
• Establish trigger level using toxicity factors (e.g., CSF)
derived from aroclor mixtures.
• For exposure via fish consumption, use the upper
bound CSF from aroclor 1254-2.0 per mg/kg/day
(U.S. EPA, 1996).
• Trigger level is concentration plus consumption rate
corresponding to an "acceptable risk."
• Survey data reported as aroclor equivalents and
individual aroclor concentrations summed for total
PCBs.
Schell — 1
-------
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science
JohnD. Schell, BBL, Inc.
Procedure 1: Advisory Level and
Compliance Are Aroclor Based
Advantages:
1. Aroclor-based toxicity factors consider
response to multiple PCB congeners.
2. Current CSF based on well-performed
studies.
3. Allows consistency with historical
approaches.
4. Laboratory costs significantly lower than
alternatives.
Procedure 1: Advisory and
Compliance Are Aroclor Based
Disadvantages:
1. Mixture in fish not represented by aroclor
mixtures.
2. Because of "weathering" may underestimate
PCB concentration.
3. Some "dioxin-like" PCBs may be
proportionally higher, potential for
underestimating risk from these congeners.
Procedure 2: Advisory Aroclor-
Based Toxicity; Compliance Total
PCBs in Tissue
• Establish advisory level using toxicity
factors (e.g., CSF) derived from aroclor
mixtures.
• Survey data reported as individual
congeners or homologues, summed and
expressed as "total PCBs."
Procedure 2: Advisory Aroclor-
Based Toxicity; Compliance Total
PCBs in Tissue
Advantages:
1. Aroclor-based toxicity factors consider
response to multiple PCB congeners.
2. Current CSF based on well-performed
studies.
3. Analysis accounts for all congeners present
in tissue, total PCBs not underestimated.
Procedure 2: Advisory Aroclor-
Based Toxicity; Compliance Total
PCBs in Tissue
Disadvantages:
1. Congener or homologue pattern may differ
among reaches, but assume all equivalent.
2. Applying aroclor-based advisory level to
variable patterns may under- or over-estimate
risk.
3. Analytical costs, especially for congener-
specific data, very high.
Procedure 3: Advisory Is Congener
(TEF) Based; Compliance Is
Congener Based
Develop fish advisory level:
Advisory level actually based on 2,3,7,8-
TCDD cancer potency.
Establish acceptable dioxin concentration
based on TCDD CSF.
Apply TEFs for PCBs to determine
compliance.
Schell
-------
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science
JohnD. Schell, BBL, Inc.
Issue an Advisory?
• Assign dioxin-like PCB congener a dioxin toxic
equivalency factor (TEF) (WHO, 1998)
- [NTP recently completed cancer bioassay to confirm
TEF of 0.1 forPCB-126(3,3',4,4',5-
Pentachlorobiphenyl)]
• Multiply tissue congener concentration by
specific TEF - dioxin equivalent concentration
• Add dioxin equivalent concentration - total
dioxin toxic equivalency (TEQ).
What Approach Should Be Used?
Selection criteria:
1. Protect public health
2. Ability to implement the program
- Analytical cost
- Interpret results.
Are Procedures Equally
Protective?
• Example: Housatonic River Data - but
NOT the actual risk assessment!
-"Total PCB" in Fish Tissue: 1.3 mg/kg
- PCB-TEQ in Fish Tissue: 9.4 ng/kg*
-Assume 32 grams/day; 70 kg body weight
* TEQ dependent on accumulation of PCB-126 (TEF - 0.1)
Are Procedures Equally
Protective?
Source of CSF
Cancer risk
• AroclorCSF 1.2x 10~3
• Current U.S. EPA dioxin CSF 6x1Q-4
• Proposed U.S. EPA dioxin CSF 4.3 x 10~3
• Cal/EPA dioxin CSF 1 x 1CH
• Same [tPCB] different TEQ
Cost - Benefit Considerations
• Cost of approach a consideration - need
to be able to adequately monitor waters
of the state
• Aroclor analysis: $100
• PCB homologues: $245
• PCB congeners: $495 to $950.
Need to Adopt an Alternative
Approach?
If the TEQ cancer potency of "dioxin-like
PCBs" in fish is greater than the aroclor
cancer potency of total PCBs.
Schell
-------
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science
JohnD. Schell, BBL, Inc.
Summary
• Aroclor-based toxicity factors adequately
protective of public health.
• Use of homologues to estimate total RGBs in fish
tissue addresses concerns that environmental
mixture different from commercial mixture.
• Given uncertainties associated with TEQ
approach, hypothetical "protectiveness" not
commensurate with additional cost.
Schell
-------
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance
P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration
History of Mercury Action Level and
PCB Tolerance
P. Michael Bolger, Ph.D., DABT
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
College Park, MD
Overview
Statutory safety/risk thresholds
and/or standards for contaminants
Methylmercury - establishment of
fish and shellfish action level
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) -
establishment of fish and shellfish
tolerance
Food Adulteration Standards
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Contaminants -402(a)(l) "If it bears or
contains any poisonous or deleterious
substance which mav render it iniurious
to health: but in case the substance is not
an added substance such food shall not
be considered adulterated under this
clause if the quantity of such substance in
such food does not ordinarily render it
iniurious to health.''
Methylmercury (MeHg) in Fish
~r Mass poisoning episodes in Japan in the 1950s
and 60s resulted from environmental
contamination and accumulation of
methylmercury (MeHg) in fish.
^ Health effects included significant and gross
developmental abnormalities and death.
^ Poisoning outbreaks in Iraq resulted from grain
treated with MeHg used to make bake goods,
which also resulted in significant morbidity and
mortality.
Mercury Action Level
>Action level reviewed in 1970 by expert study
group (FDA and non-FDA scientists) and
reaffirmed.
> Action level reviewed in 1971 by ad hoc U.S. and
Canadian committee and reaffirmed.
r"In 1974, proposal published to establish action
level of 0.5 ppm by formal rulemaking.
>In 1979, proposal is withdrawn and an action level
of 1 ppm is established.
Mercury Action Level
> Proposed action level of 0.5 ppm was
withdrawn in 1979 and set at 1 ppm because of
2 issues raised in the Anderson Seafoods case
involving swordfish.
^ Newer analysis indicated MeHg exposure via fish was less
than originally estimated.
^ Analysis of dose-response data of newer data (e.g.,
Swedish fisherman) indicated the practical threshold for
adult effect (parathesia) was greater than 50 ppm (hail').
> In 1984, action level was changed from total
mercury to methylmercury.
Bolger —
-------
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance
P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration
FDA - 1 994 MeHg Advisory ff
~>FDA Consumer magazine (September
1994)
Pregnant women and women of child-bearing
age limit consumption of swordfish and shark
to no more than once a month
For the remainder of the population limit
consumption of these species to no more than
once a week.
Statutory Food Adulteration Standards -|
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
> Sec. 406. TOLERANCE FOR POISONOUS
INGREDIENTS IN FOOD (Contaminants),
Sec. 402(a)(l) applies and depending on
substance being "added," "may or ordinarily
render it injurious to health" applies, but also
consider detectability, avoidability, multi-
source exposure, competing dietary risks
> Sec. 409. FOOD ADDITIVES (Safe use),
"reasonable certainty of no harm" - safety
factors prescribed
Bolger — 2
-------
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance
P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration
Dioxin-like Contaminants
Program Goals
• Obtain profiles of background levels of
dioxin-like compounds (DLCs), which
include DLC-PCBs in a wide variety of
food and feed suspected to contain these
compounds.
Identify opportunities for DLC reduction
by identifying sources/pathways that can
be mitigated.
Total Diet Study - IDS
Annual market basket program initiated in 1961 involves
purchase of selected foods across the country and analysis
for essential minerals, toxic elements, radionuclides,
industrial chemicals, and pesticides.
Designed to monitor on a yearly basis nutrient and
contaminant content of food supply and observe trends over
time in more than 280 core foods.
In 1999, FDA's dioxin monitoring program began analyzing
TDS foods.
> 7 PCDD/10 PCDF congeners
> 3 dioxin-like PCB congeners (PCB-77, -126, -169) were
added in 2004.
TDS - Polychlormated Biphenyls (PCI
FDA DLC Targeted Sampling
TO 1
~00
°" 04-
n
»
A
/\
/ \
/ \
\
V . . fr,--i» ii"l
-»- 2 yr. toddler
--6yr
10 yr
14-16 yr Male
-x-14-16 Female
-t- 25-20 Male
—1—25-30 Female
"> Milk arid dairy products
> Fish, wild/aquaculture (retail/grower)
> Eggs
> Grains/cereals
^ Fats/oils
> Tree nuts
> Fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K)
^ Fruits/vegetables
"> Finished feed
^ Feed components
FDA DLC Targeted Fish and
Shellfish Sampling
> Finfish
Bluefish, flounder, halibut, sole, striped bass (Rockfish)
tuna (canned and fresh), salmon (wild and farmed), pollac
cod, sardine (canned), swordfish ocean perch, haddock,
> Shellfish
Scallop, shrimp, clam, oyster, crab, mussels, lobsl
Fish and cod liver oil
Bolger — 3
-------
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance
P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration
Dietary DLC Exposure
Dioxins and DLCs in the Food Supply: Strategies to Decrease
Exposure (2003),NAS/NRC,
Food and Nutrition Board (FNB1. Institute of Medicine (IQM)
Overall, the best strategy for lowering the risk of DLCs while
maintaining the benefits of a good diet is to follow the
recommendations in the Federal Dietary Guidelines. These
strategies help lower the intake of saturated fats, as well as
reduce the risk of exposure to dioxin.
Bolger — 4
-------
U.S. EPA's New Cancer Guidelines
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA's New Cancer
Guidelines
2005 National Forum
on Contaminants in Fish
September 18-21, 2005
RitaSchoeny: Ph.D.
Senior Science Advisor
U.S. EPA Office of Water
They're Official!!
Revision process has been underway since
the early 1990s
Many incarnations,reviewed extensively
Published March 2005
Concurrent release of Supplemental
Guidance for Assessing Cancer Risks from
Early-Life Exposures
• Supplemental guidance will be revised
periodically.
What's Different from 1986?
Analyze data before invoking default options
Mode of action is key in decisions
Weight-of-evidence narrative replaces the
previous "A-B-C-D-E" classification scheme
Two-step dose response assessment
« Model in observed range
« Extrapolate from point of departure
Consider linear and non-linear extrapolation
Address differential risks to children.
Use of Default Options
Analyze all data before use of default
options
Analyze the available data
* Tfte primary goal of U.S. EPA actions is public health
i • protection, accordingly, as an agency policy, the defaults
used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary
should be health protective (SAB. J999|-
What Is Mode of Action?
... a sequence of key events and processes,
starting with interaction of an agent with a
cell, proceeding through operational and
anatomical changes, and resulting in cancer
formation. . . Mode of action is contrasted
with "mechanism of action," which implies a
more detailed understanding and description
of events, often at the molecular level, than is
meant by mode of action.
U.S EPA Cancer Guidelines, 2005
Why Do You Care?
MOA is key in hazard identification
• Helps describe circumstances under which
agent is carcinogenic (High dose? Route?)
« Relevance of data for humans
• Alpha-2-u-globulin and kidney cancer- male
rats only
* Atrazine effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-
ovarian function - female Sprague Dawley rat
mammary tumors (but likely reproductive
toxicant).
Schoeny— 1
-------
U.S. EPA's New Cancer Guidelines
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Why Do You Care
Quantitatively?
Two-step dose response process
hssd'
[7] NOAEL
QLO.EL
Caring Quantitatively (cont.)
Choice of low-dose extrapolation depends on
MOA
Nonlinear extrapolation
• When there is no evidence of linearity, and
• Sufficient info to support MOA nonlinear at low
doses
Linear extrapolation
• Mutagenic MOA or another MOA expected to be
linear at low doses, or
• Linear extrapolation is default when data do not
establish the MOA.
And You Care About Kids?
Supplemental Guidance for Assessing
Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to
Carcinogens
• In risk characterization, mutegenlc MOA risk is
increased by age-dependent adjustment factor
(used with exposure info for age group)*
• <2yrs. old, 10-fold
• 2to< 16yre., 3-fold.
* In absence of data supporting separate risk estimates for childhood exposure.
Mode of Action Framework
Hypothesized MOA: summary description and
identification of key events
Experimental support:
• Strength, consistency, specificity of association
• Dose-response concordance
• Temporal relationship
• Biological plausibility and coherence
Consideration of the possibility of other MOAs
Relevance to humans.
Key Event
A "key event"is an empirically
observable precursor step that is itself a
necessary element of the mode of
action or is a biologically based marker
for such an element.
Example MOA
Chloroform
Sustained toxicity
Regenerative cell proliferation
Key Events [i
Tumor development
Schoeny — 2
-------
U.S. EPA's New Cancer Guidelines
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mutagenic MOA ?
Weight of evidence &
•Mutagenicity is not a component of
chloroform-induced neoplasia.
Jenetic Activity Profile
Genetic Activity Profile (cont.)
; i
1
Bottom Line, Mutagenic MOA
Mutagenic - however defined - is not
equal to mutagenic Mode of Action for
cancer or other health effects.
Mutagenic MOA Flowchart
Analyze mutagenicity data
• Obtain mutagenicity data
• Determine WOE for the data
Yesl
No/low concern.
Consider non-
mutagenic MOA if
data are available.
Flowchart 2
MOA framework applied
• Analyze all data for mutagenic MOA
• Determine support for mutagenic MOA in animals
• Determine support for mutagenic MOA in humans
Consider non-
mutagenic MOA if
data are available.
Schoeny — 3
-------
U.S. EPA's New Cancer Guidelines
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Some Conclusions
Genotoxic^ Mutagenic * Mutagenic MOA
U.S. EPA is working on guidance for
establishing both mutagenicity and mutagenic
MOA
• Way to organize data, decision points
• Look for some progress (but not the definitive
word) soon
Gene-tox data are best used in the context of
the whole database for MOA.
Schoeny — 4
-------
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
Heather M. Stapleton, Ph.D.
Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment
What Are PBDEs?
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
are brominated flame retardant chemicals
applied to consumer products
-TVs, carpet padding, furniture, circuit boards
lame retardant:
"A substance added or a tre.
applied to a material in order
suppress, significantly reduc
delay the combustion of the .
EHC:192, WHO 1997
Population-Based PBDE Levels
in U.S. Human Blood (n=50)
and Milk (n=62), 2005
ata from Schecter et al., 2005
Stapleton— 1
-------
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
Market Basket Survey
of U.S. Food, 2003
62 food samples purchased from 3 D
TX, supermarket chains in 2003
Measured 13 individual PBDE congeners
Total PBDE (22 Congener.
in House Dust Samples
- 30000-
E 25000
Hi 20000
a
£• 15000
III
Median = 4250
012345978-9 10111213141516171819
PBDE Levels in Fish from the
Great Lakes:
How Do PBDEs
Compare to PCBs?
POPs in Lake Michigan Smelt
Toxaphene
'
! V
J " • v •
NH.^
DDE
Stapleton — 2
-------
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
PBDE Levels Reported in Fish
(ng/g lipid)
Eastern Virginia Garp
Year Sampled Total PBDE
^rappie. bluegill
arge mouth bass 1999
Accumulation of Atmospheric and
Sedimentary PCBs and Toxaphene ii
Lake Michigan Food Web
Grand Traverse Bay,
Lake Michigan, 1997-199
Sampled: Phytoplan
Zooplankti
Benthic amphipods
Mysid shri
Trophic Alewife
Level Bloater ch
Deepwater sculpin
Whitefish
Lake trout
Baltimore Harbor Carp
Virginia Carp ( Hale etal., 2002)
Hadley Lake Carp (Dodder et al., 2002)
Lake Michigan Biota
70 5DE "pentaBDE"
Stapleton — 3
-------
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
Assimilation Efficiency (%
PCB 52
PCB153
PCB 180
BDE 28
BDE 47
BDE153
BDE 99
20 ±7
93 ±14
4 ±3
0
50±20a; 38
70±20a;4f
NA
NA
90 ±20
40 ± 10
60±2C
Stapleton — 4
-------
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
BDE 99 Becomes
2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether or BDE 47
BDE 209 Exposure
Decabromodiphenyl Ether
(DecaBDE)
Estimated log Kow =10
Common Carp
SO Days Exposure
Rainbow Trout
160 Days Exposure
Assimilation of BDE 209
Common Carp:
• Minimal % accumulated
iO-day exposure = 0.4%
Rainbow Trout:
• Minimal % accumulated
- 160-day exposure = -3.5%
Assimilation of PentaBDEs
Common Carp
• BDE28
-60-day exposure = 20%
• BDE 47
-60-day exposure = 68%*
Northern Pike (Burreau et al., 1997):
• BDE47 = 90%
• BDE 99 = 60%
• BDE 153 = 40%
Stapleton — 5
-------
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation
Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University
Summary and Conclusions
PBDEs are ubiquitous contaminants.
PBDE levels in human serum and milk are ~ 20 times higher in U.S.
population vs. Europe.
Voluntary phase-outs of pentaBDE and octaBDE have occurred in
the United States. However, products that contain PBDEs will be
around for years.
Tetra- and PentaBDE congeners have similar bioaccumulation
potentials as PCBs.
Significant biotransformation of PBDEs occurs enzymatically in fish
via debromination pathways.
Recommend using GC/ECNI-MS; measure nona- and octaBDEs.
Yes, they help save lives ... but are their better alternatives'
Acknowledgments
/isor: Joel E. Baker, University of Maryland Center for
Science, Solomons, MD
Dr. Dave Holbrook (NIST)
Dr. Brian Brazil and Sarah Anderson (USDA NCCWA)
Drs. Michele Schantz, Stephen Wise, and Marc Ny
Dr. Carys Mtehelmore and Rae Benedict (CBL)
Dr. Richard Kraus
Cambridge Isotope Laboratories
Hunting Creek Fisheries
U.S. EPASTAR Fellowship U-91556401-1
Stapleton — 6
-------
PBDEs: Toxicology Update
Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
,
tMa&i Birnbaum, PWT% DABT
Director, Experimental Toxicology
NHEERU0RIMu\S. EPA
Pish Forum - Baltimore, September 20,2005
DBDE - 97% DBDE; 3% NBDE
OBDE - 6% HxBDE; 42% HpBDE;
36% OBDE; 13% NBDE; 2% DBDE -
multiple congeners (unclear if any
PeBDE)
PeBDE - Mainly PeBDE+TeBDE, some
HxBDE
PeBDE»OBDE>DBDE
• Highly toxic to invertebrates (e.g., larval development,
LOECs in low u.g/1 range)
• DE71 - developmental^ toxic to fish at low concentrations
(Duke paper)
DBDE/OBDE
• May be low risk to surface water organisms and top
predators
• Concern for wastewater, sediment, and soil organisms
• Concern for lower brominated congeners in OBDE,
potential for debromination, and generation of
PBDDs/PBDFs
• Association of porpoise die-off with elevated PBDEs in
Baltic
' Hepatotoxic
' Enzyme Induction
• UDP-glucuronyl transferase
• Cyotochrome P450
• Induction of CYP2B1/2 via PXR/CAR
' DBDE - hepatocarcinogen (high
dose)
' Endocrine effects
' Developmental reproductive
toxicity
' Developmental neurotoxicity
AhR effects
• Relevance for commercial BFRs?
• Combustion can produce PBDDs/PBDFs
Thyroid homeostasis
• OH-PBDE metabolites bind to transthyretin
• Parent PBDEs - Effects on T4 seen in vivo
• Induction of UDP-glucuronyl transferase
- Not a low-dose effect
Estrogen Homeostasis (mostly in vitro)
• OH-PBDEs may be anti-estrogenic
• Sulfotransferase inhibition could be estrogenic
• New work from FIRE-T. Hamer
Birnbaum — 1
-------
PBDEs: Toxicology Update
Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DE71 (NHEERL) - Pubertal exposures
• Delay in puberty
• Effects on male organs
• Anti-androgenic in vitro - esp BDEslOO, 47
BDE-99 (Switzerland, Germany) - in
utero exposures
• Delay in puberty
• Ovarian toxicity
• Male organ effects and decreased sperm
DE-71 - Rats (NHEERL)
• Perinatal exposure
• Deficits in sensory and cognitive function
• Just reviewed study - PNd 6-13
BDE-99 - Mice (Sweden, Italy)
• Infantile exposure ("Rapid Brain Growth") - Permanent
effects on learning
• Also observed in rats
• Also seen with BDE^17, 153, and 209
• Perinatal exposure - Delay in sensory motor development
• BDE47, 153, 206,208, 209
BDE-99+PCB-52 - Mice (Sweden)
• Effects may be more than additive
• Both mice and rats
• Mice very sensitive (clear effects at 0.8 mg BDE-99/kg)
in infantile period
• F1 rats show effects following single dose of 60 ug/kg o
GD6 to pregnant dam
• Sensory and cognitive effects
• Mechanism unknown
• Depression in serum T4 as low as 0.8 mg/kg
• PBDEs alter cell signaling in vitro
• Kodavanti and Derr-Yellin, 2002
• Altered calcium-dependent release of arachidonic acid
(associated with learning and memory)
• New paper from Norway - changes in PKC
Absorption - DBDE is poorly absorbed; lower
brominated congeners are well absorbed
Distribution - lipid binding is important
• Fat: 47>99>»209
• Liver: covalent binding from 99,209
• Implies metabolism
Metabolism - hydroxylation, debromination,
O-methylation
Excretion - feces is major route
Dose/Response (NHEERL, NIEHS,
USDA, Sweden)
• Extrapolation issues
• Half-life
• Metabolism
Cell signaling in vitro (NHEERL)
• Altered calcium associated with changes in
learning and memory
' BDE 47, major BDE in most biota and
human samples
' Well absorbed
' Behavior is dose-dependent
' Very persistent in rats
' Rapidly eliminated UNCHANGED in
mice
' What does this mean for people???
Birnbaum — 2
-------
PBDEs: Toxicology Update
Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
' Well absorbed
' Higher urinary elimination in mice
than rats
' Urine elimination decreases as
the number of bromine atoms
increases
' BDE-99 is most metabolized
• Pattern of congeners is different from
commercial mixtures (and food)
• 47>99 (others: 100,153,183, 209?)
• Large inter-individual differences
• Increasing time trends - levels doubling every
2-5 years
• PBDEs and PCBs levels are not correlated
• Different sources and/or time sequence
• North American levels ~ 10X Europe/Japan
Adult Mammalian
Toxicity
• Hepatic enzyme induction
andtoxicity
• DBDE-
Hepatocarcinogen (high
dose)
• Endocrine Disrupter
• Thyroid
• Estrogen/anti-androgen
Developmental Reproductive
Toxicity
• Penta/Octa, BDE99
• Delayed puberty, sex organ wt.
changes, ovarian toxicity,
decreased sperm counts
Developmental Neurotoxicity
• Penta/BDE47, 99, 203, 206,
209
• Deficits in sensory, motor, and
cognitive function
•fs ,.-vi—.
Top 5% of current human exposure in U.S. - >400
ng/g lipid
• If humans are 25% lipid, then their "dose" is ~0.1 mg/kg
body weight
Significant dose causing DNT
• Mice - < 0.8 mg BDE99/kg
• Rats - <0.7 mg BDE47/kg
Mouse tissue concentrations associated with DNT
are only ~10X higher that total PBDE
concentrations in human tissues in North America
Margin of exposure for PBDEs appears low
Additional concern: Are PBDEs interacting with
other PBTs?
Deca
• Toxicity?
• Breakdown products?
Human variability
• Biological or exposure?
Interactions with other PBTs
• PCBs? Hg?
What next?
• HBCD
• Daniele Staskal, Janet Diliberto, Kevin
Crofton, Mike Devito, Prasada Kodavanti,
Tammy Stoker of NHEERL
• Dan Axelrad, Tala Henry of EPA HQ
• Tom Burka, Mike Sanders of NIEHS
• Tom McDonald, Tom Webster, Arnie
Schecter
Birnbaum — 3
-------
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics
William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
WILLIAM S. HARRIS, PhD
Lipid and Diabetes Research
Omega-3 Fatty Acids:
The Basics
What are omega-3 fatty acids?
What are common dietary sources?
Plant vs. fish omega-3 fatty acids
Omega-6:omega-3 ratio
Omega-3 fatty acid supplements
The omega-3 index
Blood omega-3 fatty acids and risk for
heart attack
Essential Fatty Acid Families
co-6 family
C18:2 co-6
Corn oil
Safflower oil
Sunflower oil
C20:4 (D-6
Meat, eggs.
COOH
Linoleic
Arachidonic
(D-3 family
C18:3co-3 I a-Linolenic
• Flaxseed oil
Canola oil
Soybean oil
I— C20:5 -3 Docosahexaenoic
DHA
Thrombotio Less Ihromtotic oiiytisti
Inflammatory Less inflammatory Fish oil caPsul«s
a-Linolenic Acid Conversion to EPA and DHA
20:4n-3
In adults, the conversion rate is "-Linolenic acid
less than 1% for ALA to EPA,
and <0.01% to DHA Stearidonic acid
No known need for ALA
independent of its conversion to
EPA/DHA
Adequate EPA/DHA may ©
eliminate the need for dietary ffft i;pft (20.5n^,
ALA @
With low consumption of .
EPA/DHA, higher n-6 FA intake If DP* (22:5n-3)
will inhibit conversion of ALA to ©
EPA/DHA DHA(22:6n-3)
Metabolism of n-6 and n-3 PUFA
Linoleic acid (18:2n-6) a-Linolenic acid (18:3n-3)
A6-de$liturase t
6LA (18:3n-6) SDA (18:4n-3)
Elongate
DSLA (20:3n-6)
Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6)
20:4n-3~'EPA
A6-desaturose
Faulty Assumptions Regarding
the n6/n3 Ratio
• That ALA is physiologically equivalent
to EPA and DHA H[n
• That LA is physiologically equivalent
to AA
• That amounts of consumed fatty acids is
irrelevant; only the ratio is important
• That lowering tissue AA content can be
achieved by lowering LA intake
Hams — 1
-------
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics
William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
Multiple Ways to Achieve a n-6/n-3
Ratio of 10
22| fl f=t
y\ '
/
6
s 5
5" 4
<
u- 3
2
1
0
x—
-" :
~^ — 7 —
I /^~~ ^T\
[ (nov'siJ
\A' \x/y
V_^
DLA
• ALA
• EPA+DHA
= U^
AHA Recommendations
For patients with documented CHD, about 1g of
EPA+DHA per day
-Fish
• About 3 oz sardines, salmon
• About 4 oz white tuna (albacore)
• About 12 oz light chunk tuna, clams,
shrimp
• Fast food fish sandwiches or breaded/fried
fish are not recommended
AHA Recommendations
For patients with documented CHD, about 1 g of
EPA+DHA per day
- Capsules
Low Potency -300 mg EPA+DHA/g
(Typical drug store capsules)
High Potency - 500-700 mg EPA+DHA/g
(CardioTabs, Triomega, OmegaRx)
Pharmaceutical - 850 mg EPA+DHA/g
(Omacor®, Reliant Pharmaceuticals)
- Cod Liver Oil
• 1 tsp (RDAfor Vit. D; 2x RDA Vit. A)
AHA Recommendations
For patients without CHD, "at least two (preferably
oily) fish meals per week" (or about 500 mg of
EPA+DHA per day)
-Fish
• 8-9 oz sardines, salmon and/or albacore
tuna per week
-Capsules
• 2 "low potency," or 1 "high potency"
-Cod Liver Oil
• 1 tbsp per week
Omega-3 Fatty Acid Content of
Wild vs. Farmed Fish
1 0.8 -
1 0.6 -
Farmed Wild
Atlantic Salmon
Farmed Wild
Rainbow Trout
Raw, skinless fillets analyzed; fat content varied from 1.3-16 g/100 flesh in both
farmed and wild AS
*p<0.05; **p<0.005vs. wild
Blanche!. C.. et al.. 2005. Liplds 40:529-531.
_ "All Of the pills
- contained roughly
_- as much EPA and
•^ DHA as their
labc-ls proinJNC-d.
'£??£?£ evidence of
" spoilage, and
J"*'^7H none contained
" significanl
~ worrisome PCBs.
Consumer Reports, July 2003
Hams — 2
-------
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics
William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
How REAL Men Get Their Omega-3s
First Question:
Will increased omega-3 fatty acid
intakes reduce risk for heart
disease?
Next Question:
What blood level of omega-3 fatty
acids is associated with the lowest
risk for death from CHD?
Risk of Primary Cardiac Arrest and
the RBC EPA+DHA
90%
reduction
3% 4.4% 5.1% 8.2%
Midrange RBC EPA+DHA by Quartile
Risk after adjustment for age. smoking, family history
of MI/SCD. fat Intake. HTN. DM. PA. Ht. Wt. Edu.
* p<0.05 vs. Q1
Adapted from Siscovlck. 1995. JAMA
Omega-3 Index
A measure of the amount of EPA+DHA in red
blood cell membranes expressed as the percent
of total fatty acids
C20:5o>-3 Eicosapentaenoic C22:6 (0-3 Docosahexaenoic
There are 64 fatty acids in
this model membrane, 3 of
which are EPA or DHA
3/64 = 4.6%
The omega-3 index = 4.6%
Omega-3 Index
Least protection
PHS8: 3.9% —
SCIMO5: 3.4% —
Seattle7: 3.3% —
1 vorrSchacky, 2004. p^evenffye Medicine.
Greatest protection
Stavanger':>9.5%:
No added protection?
GISSI-PS>, 9-10%
CHS3: 8.8%
DART4: = 8-9%
SCIMOe:8.3% 8.1%
5 epi. studies: =
PHS«: 7.3%
Seattle7: 6.5%
Omega-3 Index Risk Zones
Relative Risk for Death from CHD
Intermediate •
0% 4% 8% 10%
Percent of EPA+DHA in RBC
Harris and von Schacky, 2004. Preventive Medicine.
Hams — 3
-------
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics
William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
Hams — 4
-------
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Other Health Outcomes
Asthma
• Depression
• Diabetes
• Prostate cancer
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Cognitive function
Rimm— 1
-------
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Randomized Controlled Trials
• DART, 1989
Fatty fish intake 1-2/week -> CHD death J, 32%, p<0.01
' GlSSI-Prevenzione, 1999
Fish oil supplement 1 g/day -> CV death J, 32%, p<0.001
SCD|45%,p<0.001
' Burretal., 2003
Fatty fish intake 1-2'week
or fish oil capsules —> CHD death t 26%, p=0.05
Other Cardiovascular Outcomes
Nonfatal mvocardial infarction
Atrial fibrillation
1 Congestive heart failure
Rimm — 2
-------
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Other Cardiovascular Outcomes
1 Nonfatal myocardial infarction
• Atrial fibrillation
• Congestive heart failure
Fish Intake and Cardiovascular
Health - Potential Mechanisms
• Direct anti-arrhythmic
• Vascular resistance / blood pressure
• Heart rate / autonomic tone
• Left ventricular efficiency
• Anti-inflammatory effects
• Endothelial cell function
Meta-Analysis of 36 Randomized Controlled
Trials of Fish Oil and Blood Pressure
Systolic BP Diastolic BP
BP
reduction
with fish
oil intake
Among adults > age 45 years
Rimm — 3
-------
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Correlations with Plasma
Phospholipid EPA + DHA
Tuna/other fish intake: r = 0.5 5, p<0.001
Fried fish intake:
r=0.04, p=0.78
Tuna/other fish = Fatty (oily) fish
Fried fish = Lean (white) fish
Fried Fish - Unfavorable
Balance of Benefit vs. Harm?
Fish type: Low in n-3 fatty acids
Frying:
Trans-fatty acids
Other fats
Oxidation products
Rimm — 4
-------
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health
Risk of Myocardial Infarction by Quintile of
a-Linolenic in Adipose Tissue in Costa Rica
Multhariate
model
0.35 0.52 0.67 0.83 1.02
Quintiles of adipose tissue a-linolenic
Conclusions
1. Dietary habits likely affect cardiovascular healtli and many
other health outcomes via a wide range of mechanisms and
pathways.
2. Intake offish (n-3 fatty acids) likely reduces the risk of
sudden death and CHD death.
3. Fish intake may also influence other cardiovascular
outcomes, such as atrial fibrillation or heart failure.
4. Potential mechanisms include effects on arrhythmia., vascular
resistance, heart rate, left ventricular efficiency, and
inflammation.
5. The type offish consumed or the preparation method may
alter risk,
6. In the absence offish, n-3 from other sources reduces CHD
risk.
Rimm — 5
-------
DMA and Infant Development
Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center
DMA AND INFANT
DEVELOPMENT
Susan Carlson, Ph.D.
Midwest Dairy Council Professor of Nutrition
Departments of Dietetics and Nutrition and Pediatrics
University of Kansas Medical Center
scarlson@kumc.edu
Key Points
Fish (some sources) have the highest
concentration of DMA found in foods
DMA is a "conditionally essential"
nutrient for the developing infant
(RCTs)
DMA may be equally or more important
for the developing fetus (1 RCT/several
observational studies/animal models)
Key Points (cont.)
Based on human milk DMA, U.S. women's
DMA intake is among the lowest in the
world
The best way to increase DMA intake to
the fetus and breast fed infant is to
increase DMA intake of their mothers
The good news is that "clean" sources
with DMA (e.g., fish oil, algal oil, high-DMA
eggs) are marketed for use with women
and infants
Key Points (cont.)
The bad news is that evidence points to
optimal intakes being much higher than
current U.S. consumption, making it
important to retain viable food (fish)
and supplements as options for women
and children to consume this nutrient
DMA Dietary Sources: Fatty
Fish, Meat, Eggs
3 oz pink salmon filet, baked/broiled
3 oz white tuna, canned in water
3 oz smoked salmon (lox)
3 oz crab, steamed
12 large shrimp, steamed
3 oz tuna salad
2 pieces chicken, fried
1 large egg, hard-boiled
U.S. Deparlrnenl of Agrirullure, Ays-i*ulliiivP,!--^ -,-« di Service, 2003. USDA Nulrlenl
Database For Standard Reference. Release 16. Nutrient Data Laboratory. Available at
http://www Jiai.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp. Accessed February 9, 2004.
N-6 and N-3 Fatty Acids
Are Essential Nutrients
LA
18:2n-6
GLA
,18:3n-6
ALA
18:3n-3 — —-
Endoplasmic reticulum
DHGLA ARA
20:3n6 - 20:4n-6
EPA
- —- 20:5n-3-
DPA
-22:5n-6
DMA
—. 22:6n-3
Peroxisome
Carlson— 1
-------
DMA and Infant Development
Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center
Human Brain DMA Accumulation
DHA
DPA
EPA
Post menstrual age, wk
Martinez, H.. 1992. JPerfiafr20:S129-S138.
i
Some Effects of Lower Brain DMA
from Animal Models
Lower visual acuity
Changes in attention that suggest slower
brain maturation
Higher impulsivity and reactivity
Increased stereotyped behavior
Alterations in brain dopamine and serotonin
Randomized Trials of
DMA and Infant Development
Pre-Term Infants
Uauy et al.
Carlson etal. (3)
Finket al.
O'Connor et al.
Clandinin etal.
Term Infants
• Makrides et al. (2)
• Carlson etal. (2+)
• Auestad et al.
• Willatts et al.
• Agostoni et al.
• Clausen et al.
• Birch etal. (4)
• Lucas et al. (2)
• Jorgensen et al.
• Hadders-Algra
Positive Effects in Children
Supplemented with DHA as Infants
• Higher MFFT scores and speed at 6 yrs
• Higher Bayley PDI at 30 months of age
and longer sustained attention at 5 yrs*
• Higher IQ at 4 yrs of age*
• Lower diastolic and mean BP at 6 yrs
* Mother took DHA during pregnancy and/or lactation.
i
Where and When Do Infants
Obtain DHA?
a-Linolenic acid
U
DHA
Convert from
precursor
Highly variable
estimated 0.2-0.4% conversion
Preformed
Preformed
From human milk
or DMA-
supplemented
infant formula
U.S. Dietary DHA Intake Is Low
* Expert panel convened by NIH/ISSFAL.
Slmopoulos, A.P., et al., 1999. 3Am Coll Nutr 18:487-469.
Benisek, D., et al., 1999. 3Am Coff/Vutr 18:543-544.
Benisek, D., et al., 2000. Obstet G^/KW/95:775-785.
Carlson — 2
-------
DMA and Infant Development
Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center
Human Milk DHA*
Diet/Location
Sudan
U.S. Women
Pastoral China
Netherlands
Germany
Australia
France
Spain
Nigeria
Israel
Norway
Rural China
Urban China
Japan
Marine China
Is Highly
% DHA
0.07
ii i2
0.14
0.19
0.23
0.26
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.37
0.45
0.68
0.82
Variable
2 °° *Reflects intake of DHA
Postnatal Diet with DMA Positively
Influences Cortex DMA Level
Age at Death, wk
Makrides M, et al.. 1994. AmJClin Nutr 60:169-194 (me
•k DHA is 0.26% DMA in Australia).
Evidence that Prenatal DHA
Exposure Is Positively Associated
with Infant/Child Development
Helland trial - Norway-Higher 4-yr. IQ. Milk DHA was
increased from 0.45 to 1.4%.
AVON trial - higher maternal fish intake and higher
stereoacuity at 3.5 yr.
University of Connecticut study showing more mature
sleep behavior in newborns whose mothers' DHA were
above median
Studies from Kansas City* and Dundee showing more
mature attention in infants/toddlers and lower
distractibility with maternal DHA above median
* Colombo et al., 2004. Child Devel.
Latency to Turn to Television
Jpistracter at 18 Months (p<.05)
3 -i
«. 2.75 -
2.5 -
2.25-
Low DHA High DHA
Colombo et al., 2004. Child Devel.
Duration of Looking at the
Distracter at 18 Months (p<.05)
— 55-,
o
_l
o 40-
E
O
IS 35-
Low DHA High DHA
Colombo et al., 2004. ChildDev.
Basal Locomotor Activity in Rats
in Relation to Modest Reductions
in Brain DHA
0 20 «i 60 SO 100 120
Time (mill)
Levant et al., 2004. Behav. Brain Res.
Carlson — 3
-------
DMA and Infant Development
Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center
Cortical Auditory Responses in
Adult Rats in Relation to Dietary
Treatment
ao too 120
Radel et al., 2003. NeuroscienceAbst
Increased Gestation Length with
DMA: A Comparison Among Studies
Olsen FOTIP Carlson
D Control • LC-Omega-3
Conclusions
Converging evidence shows that DMA is critical for
optimal central nervous system function.
In human infants, there is strong evidence for benefit of
postnatal DMA. Available evidence likely underestimates
effects because in most cases observation stopped by 18
months.
Results of a clinical trial and four observational studies
suggest that higher prenatal DMA exposure enhances
early development.
Experimental studies of DMA-supplemented pregnant
women and their infants/children are planned or
underway.
Carlson — 4
-------
DMA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits
for Neuropsychological Function
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Disclaimer
• The opinions in this paper are those of the author and
should not be interpreted to be the policies of the
U.S. EPA.
Actually, Deborah Rice did all the work on this
presentation, and Rita is merely giving it on her
behalf.
Evidence for Adverse Effects
of Methylmercury
MeHg affects multiple developmental processes in brain
Large literature in rodents and monkeys documented
adverse developmental effects
Three longitudinal prospective studies and Haifa dozen
cross-sectional studies documented adverse effects
Sensory and motor deficits; deficits in learning, memory,
and attention in animals and humans; decreased IQ and
language processing in humans
Cardiovascular effects discussed in other talks.
Dose-Response for Mercury
U.S. EPA defined effect level based on MAS and
independent panel: doubling of number of children
performing in the abnormal range of multiple tests.
U.S. EPA calculated a range of levels; example 58 jg/L
mercury in cord blood (or 34 ,/g/L in maternal blood*).
U.S. EPA calculated a RfD using BMDL and
uncertainty factors; 0.1 ,/g/kg bw/day.
But no evidence of a threshold within ranges of body
burdens of epidemiological studies.
Exposure to Mercury in U.S.
Women
NHANES 1999-2000, 1709 ? 16-49 years old (M9/L
percentile 10th 25m 50m 75th 90th 95th
blood Hg 0.20 0.40 0.90 2.00 4.90 7.10
t I I
0.68 3.4 34
Lowest exposures EPA. RfD Defined effect
in Faroe study
Four-year data (1999-2002); 5.7% women above 5.8 /,g/l.
Evidence for Adverse Effects
of PCBs
• Multiple experimental studies in rodents and
monkeys: adverse effects of developmental
exposure
1 Four longitudinal prospective studies documented
adverse effects
• Decreased IQ and impaired language development
in humans; adverse effects on memory and
attention; increased impulsivity and perseveration;
impaired executive function; effects on sexually
dimorphic behavior in animals and humans
1 Effects observed in humans and monkeys at same
blood concentrations of PCBs.
Schoeny — 1
-------
DMA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits
for Neuropsychological Function
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Exposure to PCBs in U.S. Women
PCB congener 153, marker congener, ng/g lipid
percentile
5th 50lh 95th
NHANES 1,258 women
1999-2000 20 and older
Oswego Umbilical cord
1991-1994 blood
<29 <29 122
10 40 120
Results from Oswego study appear monotonic
when data are divided into tertiles.
co-3 Fatty Acids and Infant
Development
Susan Carlson just discussed
At least 12 clinical trials of infants fed formula
plus or minus DMA
- Compared growth; visual, motor, and mental
development
- Interpretation is complicated by
• Amount and ratio of linoleic and linolenic acids
• Duration of supplementation
• Age at testing
• Tests used
• Physiological significance of tests used.
IOM 2002
"Clinical studies of growth or
neurodevelopment with term infants fed
formulas currently yield conflicting
results on the requirements for n-3 fatty
acids in young infants, but do raise
concerns over supplementation [of
infant formulas] with long-chain n-3 fatty
acids without arachidonic acid."
What about Effects of DMA
Associated with Prenatal Exposure?
• Three studies report beneficial effects on visual
development associated with various measures
(breast feeding, DMA, ingestion of oily fish)
- DMA levels particularly high in retina
• Four studies of cognition and behavior
- Effects observed on some endpoints but not others
- Effects often associated with one marker and not
others
- One study completely negative.
Potential Confounding
in DMA Studies
Best predictor of child's IQ is mother's IQ
- Maternal IQ and fish intake may be correlated
- Only study measuring maternal IQ was negative
for DMA effect
HOME score may be particularly important for
visual development
- Development of the visual system is highly
dependent upon visual input
- Only one study measured HOME score
Influence of maternal IQ and HOME score on
neuropsychological function
- Accounted for beneficial effects associated with
breast feeding in PCB studies.
Randomized Study
Norway - 100 infant-mother pairs (Helland et a/.,
2003, 2001)
10 ml/day corn or cod-liver oil - 1.1 gm DHA
No effect on memory (preferential looking) at 6
and 9 months
Better performance on cognitive tests at 4 years
associated with plasma DHA at 4 weeks, but not
birth or 3 months.
Schoeny — 2
-------
DMA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits
for Neuropsychological Function
Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gm Fish for Maternal Ingestion
of 1.0 gm of DMA/day
Shrimp
Canned light tuna
Catfish
Salmon average
Atlantic
Chinook
DMA
(g/100g)
0.14
0.22
0.12
1.10
1.46
0.72
gm/day to get
1.0 gm DMA
714
454
833
91
Contamination in Selected Fish
Hg (^g/g)
Shrimp
Canned light tuna
Canned albacore tuna
Catfish
Salmon
Puget Sound
Alaska
Chile
Scotland
nd
0.16
0.37
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
PCBs (^g/kg)
low?
45
?
25
50
3-90
10
70
Maternal Ingestion of Contaminants
Associated with 1 .0 gm/day DMA
Hg [jg/kg/day PCB |jg/kg/day
Shrimp
Canned light tuna
Canned albacore
Catfish
Salmon
Alaska
Puget Sound
Chile
low
1.25
0.97
0.72
0.08
U.S. EPARfD
0.10
0.35
?
0.07
0.009-0.141
0.078
0.016
0.02
Inuit Study
Prospective study of neuropsychological effects
in children (Despres et a/., 2005)
- Measured contaminants including PCBs,
methylmercury, lead, and pesticides
- Measured omega-3 fatty acids
No beneficial effect of omega-3s on nervous
system function
No protective effects of omega-3s against
contaminant-associated neurotoxicity
- Motor effects published; cognitive not yet
published.
Conclusions
N-3 PUFA may enhance infant development
when ingested by the mother pre-partum,
during breastfeeding or both
Fish is a complex mixture
- Contains essential nutrients for mother and
infant
- Contains contaminants harmful to both
- Fish oils are less complex mixtures.
Schoeny — 3
-------
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Fish Consumption and
Reproductive and Developmental
Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, M.P.H., PH.D.
iptdemiology and Maternal and Child Health
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Birth Outcomes &
Neurodevelopment
Fish -> Reproductive Outcomes
H,: Fatty acids (FA) modulate prostaglandin production
associated with labor onset.
GA BW BW/GA
Denmark-fish:
Faroes-fish, whale:
Great Lakes -fish:
NY Anglers - fish duration:
Iceland - fish:
JPT, iLBW
TDHATHg
|PCB, DDE
0 In, fhead
Tin, Thead
I J.
Fish -> Developmental Outcomes
H,: Contaminants insult brain development
H,: FAs contribute to structure and function of brain
Seychelles: High intake offish low in mercury and PCBs:
fmost developmental tests, J. Boston naming
Faroes: Whale high in mercury and PCB:
J. motor, language, memory
New Zealand: High fish intake: J, language, achievement,
motor, intelligence
Effect size for all epidemiologic studies is rather
subtle
- Measure variation in normal development, rather than
clinical morbidity
- Subtle effects can be dwarfed by random or
systematic error
Inconsistencies due to
- Variation in type, source, and quantity offish
- Confounding by
• Other contaminants
• Lifestyle/social factors
• Beneficial nutrients
Verbal IQ Scores in Subjects
with High and Low Lead Levels
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
verbal IQ score
Darnels — 1
-------
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The Role of Fatty Acids
in Neurodevelopment
Long chain n-3 fatty acids, specifically DMA,
constitute 20-25% of total fatty acids in neuronal
membranes. Sufficient DMA is needed for proper
brain development (structure and function).
Mom's circulating DMA increases through
gestation, especially during the 3rd trimester.
Infant brain DMA accumulates during 3rd
trimester; is related to mom's dietary DMA intake.
Birth Outcomes <&
Neurodevelopment
The ALSPAC Study
Large population-based study in the United Kingdom.
Data on fish intake during pregnancy examined by three analyses:
• Fish, DMA, and stereoacuity - C. Williams
• Fish and reproductive outcomes - I. Rogers
- Gestation duration, birth weight, intrauterine growth retardation
• Fish and neurodevelopment - J. Daniels
— Fish and mercury
- Mercury and neurodevelopment
- Fish and language development at 15 & 18 months of age
Darnels — 2
-------
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ALSPAC - Study Population
Cohort born 4/91-12/92
Bristol, United Kingdom health districts
85% regional participation
10,040 singleton births, 7,421 term
ALSPAC - Data Collection
Clinical records for birth outcomes (n=10,040)
Maternal questionnaire (n=7421)
• 32nd gestational week: Prenatal diet, lifestyle, and
sociodemographic factors
• 6 & 15 months: Child's diet & social environment
• 15 & 18 months: Child's development
Maternal serum (n=4700)
Umbilical cord tissue (n=1054)
Maternal Prenatal Fish Intake
How often do you eat
• Any fish
- White fish - cod, haddock, plaice, fish sticks
Outcomes
Otherfish - salmon, sardine;
Frequency
• Rarely or never
• Once every 2 v
• 1-3 times per week
• 4-7 times per week
• > Once per day
>4 times per week
Reproductive outcomes (Rogers et al.)
• Gestation and preterm (from LMP and ultrasound)
• Birth weight, low birth weight (medical record)
• IUGR (<10% for gestational age)
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory*
• Vocabulary, social activity
• Mother completed 15 months after birth
Denver Developmental Screening Test*
• Total, language, social activity
• Mother completed 18 months after birth
Maternal Characteristics (% of 7,421)
Age (mean yrs) 29
Dental treatment 90
Fish Intake
Rarely/never )
Once per 2 wk 14
4+times per wk 38
lid fish intake
6 months 44
Prenatal Oily Fish Intake
Correlated with DMA Level
2weete Pi least once per week
Darnels — 3
-------
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Mercury Levels and MCDI
Vocabulary Score
Percentile of mercurv concentration
<25th 25-75 >75th
Prenatal Fish Intake and MCDI
Vocabulary Score
Frequency fish eaten weekly
0 0.5 1-3 4+
1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 OR low scon
0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 0.7-1.2 95% Cl
Prenatal Fish Intake and MCDI
Social Score
Frequency fish eaten weekly
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 OR low scon
0.6-1.1 0.5-0.8 0.5-0.9 95% Cl
ALSPAC. Daniels. J.. 2004. Epkle,
Darnels — 4
-------
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Prenatal Fish Intake and Denver
Total Score
Frequency fish eaten weekly
1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 OR low scon
0.7-13 0.5-10 0.6-1.1 95% Cl
Summary: Maternal Fish Intake
May Be Beneficial When Mercury
Levels Are Low
T Gestation & birth weight, J.IUGR, LBW -nms,
t Maternal circulating DMA -cM//™,»M
' Umbilical cord mercury -/a™*,aw
1 Language communication, 15 mo
'Visual acuity, 3.5 yrs
(OR1.6), breas
Other Findings
No difference by oily vs. white fish, but much
overlap.
Threshold effect: Some fish may be beneficial,
but more is not necessarily better.
Adjustment for mercury did not alter results
- Mercury level was relatively low.
ALSPAC study
Conclusions
Intake offish, which was low in mercury,
was associated with subtle improvement in
child's neurodevelopment
- Effect for both mother's & child's diet
- Effect apparent at 1 fish meal / 2 weeks.
Limitations:
• Sensitivity and focus of tests
• Relation may differ among older children
• Limited ability to measure variation offish in diet
• Uncontrolled confounding: Social, contaminants
Strengths:
• Large study with high fish intake, low mercury
• Prenatal diet assessed during prenatal period
• Dietary report validated for DMA & mercury
Darnels — 5
-------
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes
Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Goals of the PIN Pediatric Study
To assess the effect of maternal fatty acid & PBDE profiles
during pregnancy and breastfeeding on child's early
cognitive and behavioral development. (n=500)
Measurement
; cognitive and behavioral developn
FA and PBDE levels in 3-month milk samples
Correlation between fish intake and FA or PBDE
Relation between the maternal fatty acid levels during pregnancy and
breastfeeding and the child's neurodevelopment.
Preliminary relation t
neurodevelopment.
he PBDE levels in i
Preliminary Results...
Population characteristics
- 85% fish eaters
- 68% white, 24% African American
- Most low-mid income with varied education
- Extensive prenatal and early postnatal information
No effect of fish intake frequency with:
- Gestational age (p=0.5, p=0.46)
- Birth weight (p= - 0.8, p=0.36)
Expect results for PBDE and neurodevelopment
in 3 yrs
Neurodevelopment difficult to define & assess
• Measurement is logistically difficult & labor intensive
• Variation in 'normal' development, not clinical morbidity
Exposure difficult to assess
• Dietary details are difficult to recall
• Biomarkers are expensive and difficult in large popul
• Source, type, timing, and frequency of fish intake
• Dose of contaminants or nutrients
• Combinations of contaminants
Needs from Observational Studies
• Consistency among multiple studies
• Improved exposure assessment
• Evaluation of diverse developmental domains
• Long-term follow up
• Evaluation of both FA and contaminants in the
same population, considering prenatal and early
childhood exposure
• Careful control for confounding
• Consideration of other health outcomes
Caveats to Using Epidemiologic
Data to Support Public Advisories
Must consider the source and quantity of fish when
determining risks and benefits
• Often unknown in population-based studies
Fish high in FA and high in contaminants are not
mutually exclusive.
Threshold effect for quantity of fish should be considered
some=good, more t better
Recommendations should be as specific as possible,
address + and -, and rely on multiple studies.
Acknowledgments
Collaborators:
• M.L. Longnecker, A.S. Rowland, J. Golding
• Daniels, J.L., 2004. Epidemiology 15:394-402.
For other analyses from the ALSPAC Study Team:
• J. Golding, C. Williams, I. Rogers
• Williams, C., 2001. Am J Clin Nutr 73:316-322.
• Rogers, I., 2004. J Epidemiol Comm Health 58:486-492
Darnels — 6
-------
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks
Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
«
Nutrient Relationships
in Seafood
Selections to Balance Benefits
and Risks
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
JiWr K I'M ttra «\ If*.-* [iX«*^ unl Mtiiv
The National Academies
Washington, DC
THE NA1IONAI ACADEMIES
Origin of the National Academies
• In 1863, President Lincoln and Congress
created the National Academy of Sciences.
• It was set up as a separate entity from the
government that would honor top scientists
with membership.
• The Academy serves the nation without
compensation beyond expenses.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
The National Academies
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The Institute of Medicine
i As an independent scientific adviser, the
Institute of Medicine strives to provide
advice that is unbiased, based on
evidence, and grounded in science.
The Academy Process
• National Academy committees
deliberate in an environment free of
political special interest and agency
influence.
• Checks and balances are applied at
every step in the study process to
protect the integrity of the reports and
to maintain public confidence.
THE NATIONAl ACADEMIES
Yaktine — 1
-------
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks
Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
Data-gathering meetings are open to the
public.
The study task, committee biographies,
meeting dates, and summaries are posted
on the Academy Web site:
(www.nationalacademies.org).
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Public comments can be made through the
"Current Projects" link on the National
Academies Web site.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
"Nutrient Relationships in Seafood"
Sponsored by:
• U.S. Department of Commerce
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
• National Marine Fisheries Service
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Background for the Study
i Seafood contributes a variety of nutrients
to the diet
Protein, calcium, iodine, copper, zinc,
omega-3 fatty acids.
i Some nutrients may affect bio-
availability, toxicodynamics, and target
organ transport of contaminants.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
i Contamination of marine resources is a
concern for consumers.
i Some population groups have been
identified as being at greater risk from
exposure to compounds in seafood.
i Consumers, particularly those at
increased risk who include seafood in
their diets, need authoritative information
to inform their choices.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Study Objectives
i Assess evidence on availability of
specific nutrients in seafood compared to
other food sources.
i Evaluate consumption patterns among
the U.S. population.
THE NATIONA1 ACADEMIES
Yaktine — 2
-------
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks
Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
i Examine and prioritize exposure to
naturally occurring and introduced
toxicants through seafood.
i Determine the impact of modifying food
choices to reduce exposure.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
i Develop a decision path, appropriate to
the needs of U.S. consumers, for guidance
in selecting seafood to balance nutrient
benefits against exposure risks.
i Identify data gaps and recommend future
research.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Projected Timeline
November 2004 - Committee appointments
February 2005 - First meeting
April 2005 - Public workshop
October 2005 - Draft report
March 2006 - Release report
THE NATIONAi ACADEMIES
• Maiden Nesheim, Chair
Cornell University
• David Bellinger
Harvard School of Public
Health
• Ann Bostrom
Georgia Institute of
Technology
• Susan Carlson
University of Kansas
• Julie Caswell
University of Massachusetts
• Claude Earl Fox
Johns Hopkins Urban
Health Institute
THE NATIONAi ACADEMIES
Jennifer Hillard
Consumer Interest Alliance,
Inc.
Susan Krebs-Smith
National Cancer Institute
Stanely Omaye
University of Nevada-Reno
Jose Ordovas
Tufts University
W. Steven Otwell
University of Florida
Madeline Sigman-Grant
University of Nevada
Extension
Nicolas Stettler
Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia
Yaktine — 3
-------
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair
Mercury, and Infant Cognitio"
in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, M.D., M.P.H.
H0HB
and Prevention
Harvard Medical School am
Harvard Pilgrim Health Car
Outline
• Fish consumption during pregnancy
Fish, mercury, and cognition
• Future directions
Fish and Seafood Are
Primary Sources of Elongat,
n-3 FA
• Contain high amounts of elongated n-3 FA
(EPA and DHA)
• Fatty fish in particular have the highest lev>
of n-3 FA
• Higher levels of EPA and DHA among those
who eat more fish
- Also higher levels in cord blood and breast mill
n-3 FA and Pregnancy
Pregnancy complications
- Preeclampsia and gestational hypertension
Gestation length
- Some observational studies and trials suggest that n-3 FA
prolong gestation and reduce the risk of pre-term birth
Fetal growth
- Higher fish and FA intake in pregnancy associated with
higher birth weight, likely from longer gestation, but fetal
growth not well studied
Offspring cognition.
Prospective longitudinal cohort of 2,100+ women
Prenatal diet, maternal and offspring health
Enrollment at first obstetric visit
8 urban and suburban obstetric practices ir
eastern MA
Recruitment 4/1999 - 7/2002
ngoing follow-up through age 5 years.
!." M
» M*r*g« >c*r utHi ol tin** KxKta dung Ifus pregnancy. Fa* ou
w»o 1/2 0M1« of mm twwo o wot*, yw a^mjt wooW 6* I gto> pot
Oken—1
-------
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Canned tunu fish
(3-4 oz.)
O Never/less than 1 par month
O 1-3 servings per month
O 1 solving per week
O 2—4 servings per week
O 5 -6 servings per week
O 1 serving per day
O 2 or more servings per day
main dish (t serving)
' _i Novor.'Tes3 ttian 1 per month
O 1-3 servings pei month
O 1 serving per week
O 2-4 servings per week
O 5-6 servings par week
O 1 or more servings par day
Dark meat iif.lt, e.g.,
mackerol, salmon, sardines,
bluefish, swordfiah (3-5 oz.)
O Never/leas lhan 1 per rnonln
O 1-3 servings per month
O 1 serving per ween
O 2—9 servings per
O 5-6 servings per week
O l or more servings per day
Other fish, e.g., cod,
haddock, halibut
13-5 oz.)
O Neverrtess than 1 per i
O 1 -3 servings per month
O 1 serving pei week
O 2-4 servings per week
O G-6 servings pet week
O 1 or more servings per day
Maternal n-3 FA Intake and
Pregnancy Outcomes - Viva
No association with preeclampsia or
gestational hypertension
Oken etal., 2005. Circulation 111(4):e40.
No association with gestation length or
risk of pre-term.
Oken etal., 2004. Am JEpidemiology 160(8):774-783.
Maternal n-3 Fatty Acid Intake Inversely
Associated with Fetal Growth
'Adjusted for
maternal age. height.
BMI, weight gain,
race/ethnicity,
smoking, education,
gravidity, infant sex
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
quartile quartile quartile quartile
(referent)
1st trimester DHA+EPA intake
n-3 FA and Infant Cognition
(Prenatal Data)
DMA is an essential component of eye and
brain cell membranes
- Most fetal brain uptake occurs in late pregnancy
and early infancy
One RCT showed higher intelligence at age 4
among children of mothers given prenatal cod
liver oil (2.0 mg/day DHA+EPA) versus corn
Oil (n-6 FA). (Helland, 2003, Pediatrics)
Oken et al., 2004. Am J Epidemiology 160:774-83
n-3 FA and Infant Cognitio.
(Postnatal Data)
Breastfed babies 'smarter' in a number of
studies
- Breast milk contains DMA; formula did not
- (Caveat about sociodemographic confoundinc
Postnatal RCTs
- No consistent benefit of formula supplemented
with n-3 FA among term or pre-term infants
Thus, perhaps n-3 FA promote infant
coanitive development?
v ...There's Always
a Down Side
Mercury (Hg), which may contaminate fish,
may harm brain development
- Prenatal mercury exposure in high levels is toxic
- Moderate Hg exposure from fish and whale
consumption in Faroe Islands inversely associated
with cognition
- No association of Hg levels and cognition among
children in the Seychelle Islands (similar exposure
levels to Faroes).
Oken —2
-------
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Fish and Cognition
Unclear whether maternal fish consumption
during pregnancy is on balance beneficial or
harmful for offspring cognition
rMany women in the United States do not rely on fii
primary source of protein, unlike island populatior
U.S. Federal Mercury
Advisory, January 2001
Women who are pregnant, nursing
mothers, and children < 12 should:
-Avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and
tilefish
- Consume <12 oz per week of all other
commercially caught fish.
Did the 2001 Federal Mercu
Advisory Influence Pregnar
Women's Diets?
Oken, E, K.P. Kleinman, W.E.
Berland, S.R. Simon, J.W. Ric
Edwards, and M.W. Gillman. :
Decline in fish consumption among
pregnant women after a national
mercury advisory. Obstet Gynecol
102(2):346-51.
Hair collection 2/2002 - 2/2003
—100 strands from occiput, tied and stored in
envelope
409 deliveries during this period
- 107 not approached (weekend or no RA)
- 302 approached for hair collection
• 32 ineligible (hair too short or in braids)
• 270 eligible
• 211 consented
• 135 with available data on maternal second trimesterfish
intake and 6-month infant cognition.
Oken —3
-------
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Maternal Fish Intake
Second trimester SFFQ, administered ~2
weeks of gestation
Asked about intake over the previous 3
months (thus covers months 4-6)
Used 4 fish questions combined (canned tuna
+ dark meat + shellfish + other) to provide an
adequate range of exposure.
Mercury Assay
Proximal 3 cm length assayed
- Represents pregnancy months 6-8
Total Hg assayed with Direct Mercury Analyzer
80 (Milestone Inc., Monroe, CT)
Recovery of standard 90-110%
>95% precision.
r
Participant Characteristic.
n=135 Mother/Child Pairs
<30 years
30-34 years
Married or conabitatmg
Single
College graduate
Not college graduate
VRM score (95% Cl)
60(51,68)
61 (57, 65)
59 (52, 67)
60 (56, 63)
61 (54, 67)
Oken —4
-------
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Fish and Mercury in Viva
n=135 Mother/Child Pairs
Fish (maternal second trimester total
fish types)
- Mean 1.2 servings/week, range 0-5.5
-7% > 2 servings/week
Mercury (maternal hair at delivery)
- Mean 0.54 ppm, geometric mean 0.45
-10% > 1.2 ppm.
Fish and Mercury in Viva
n=135 Mother/Child Pairs
Fish & mercury
-Spearman r = 0.47
- Hair Hg 0.17 ppm (95% Cl 0.10, 0.24)
higher for each weekly fish serving
consumed.
Statistical Analysis
Exposures
- Fish, mercury, fish and mercury both
Outcome
- VRM score (novelty preference, continuous)
Covariates
- Maternal age, race, education, marital status; and
infant sex, gestational age, fetal growth,
breastfeeding, age attesting
Analysis
— Linear regression.
Mean VRM Score
by Fish Intake and Hg Lev
Hair mercury Hair mercury
>2 weekly
fish servings
<= 2 weekly
fish servings
<= 1.2 ppm
> 1.2 ppm
Unadiusted analysis
Summary
Higher second trimester fish intake
associated with higher Hg in moms' hair
Higher Hg associated with lower cognition at
age 6 months
But... increased fish intake associated with
higher cognition (especially in low Hg group)
-> Moms should eat fish during pregnancy,
but choose ones with low Hg (and
presumably high n-3 fatty acids).
Oken —5
-------
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Cautions
No measure of PCBs or other toxins
Total not organic Hg
Can't tease out which fish types most
important
No measure of parental IQ or home
stimulation
Small sample, may not be representative
larger U.S. population.
Next Steps - Viva
Associations with child development at
3 years of age
Maternal RBC n-3 fatty acids
Maternal RBC mercury levels.
How do we tell the kids that we're edible again?"
4 fish questions constitute
- 96% of EPA intake
- 86% of DMA intake
Project Viva women who ate more fii
while pregnant are more likely to be:
- Blacker Asian
-Older
- College graduates
Fish and Elongated n-3 PUFA
Intake Among Project Viva Moms
Total fish DHA+EPA
(servings/month) (g/day)
First trimester diet Mean (range)
Quartile 1 (lowest) 0 0.02 (0-0.05)
Quartile 2 3.1 (2-4) 0.09 (0.06-0.12)
Quartile 3 6.9(6-8) 0.18(0.12-0.24)
Quartile 4 (highest) 15.8(10-96) 0.36(0.24-2.53)
Oken —6
-------
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort
Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School
Fish and n-3 FA Intake Are
Fairly Stable Across
Trimesters
Fish
(servings/
week)
n-3 fatty acids
(% of energy)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
intake intake
1st trimester 2nd trimester
1.7(1.5) 1.7(1.6)
> change correlation
0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)
Viva Fatty Acid Intake Similar to
Other Populations ...
But Is It Adequate?
• 1987-88 USDA survey: mean DHA+EPA
consumption of 0.1g/day in U.S. women of
childbearing age (in our second quartile)
• Among pregnant women in Canada and
Holland, mean DHA+EPA consumption was
0.22 g/day (our third quartile)
• ISSFAL recommends at least 0.65 g/day for
pregnant and lactating women.
Rifas-Shiman et al.r 20
Hair Hg and DevelopmenJ
I Hg exposure
Faroes 917 Mean 4.3 ppm
25th percentile-2.6
75thpercentile- 7.7
Seychelles 779 Mean 6.8 ppm (SD 4
Range 0.5-26.7
Some lower test
scores, less strong
c/w cord blood
1/46 endpointsto
New
Zealand
i 3 controls harm if h
Maternal Hair Hg Levels
in the United States
Study N Hg measures Other
NHANES 702 Median 0.2 ppm 75% detectable
(non-pregnant) ggtti percentile 1.4 ppm
Lake Ontario 247 Median 0.5 ppm No association
25lh percentile 0.4, with Fagan test,
75'" percentile 0.7 but lower scorr
Mean 7.1 pprn (SD 2)
Ranqe 0.9-28.5
No effect on
neurodevelopment
189 Mean 0.53 ppm range 80% detectable
<0.2-9.1.
Oken —7
-------
"Eating Fish for Good Health": A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
I i\li: 2 Vleals a Week for (,
-------
"Eating Fish for Good Health": A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Sport-
Caught
Fish
Fish You Catch In Rlvert, Lakes, or the Ocean
llpjllliv Vpurl Rvb lor the Wbvlr I'^milr
UM| Ulltl J ..Hoi; I
• Low Hg fish —
• Fish with
limits L™
i Himi It w>-M' Ji' »
• Fish to avoid \ann\
%|M.I lull .vitli Vriy Sulil l-uiiu- Uiul
•Ml in n nut
ail >*iiimt*itrt fern
Barriers to Don'' "r *m«"y H«M
. ».» lll.llll.il
Behavior
Change
• How to buy
• How to store
Barriers to
Behavior
Change
(cont.)
• How to cook
fish
• What to eat at a
restaurant
Flih for Dinner: Cook In or Eat Out
Barriers to
Behavior
Change
(cont.)
• Scheduling-
Mode] behavior
• Cost
• How large is a
fish meal?
•..illicit- li*h Ml-.iK lord M«Dlll
Wni, I
IV*-) !• *IW» «W(/
T*«lrtr. tM Xn MT4
Commonly
Consumed
Fish
• Tuna
• Fish sticks
• Farm-raised
fish
OK to eat Tuna, Flih Sllcki,
and Farm-Railed Fhh
r-itJi Until mil wklu IBTJ tuvr tvatltit iimrti i fWi INK M
ru. a».r. init u tiv > r>» iri'i. •»,». rvk Itin Urn) KW «Xl
ligM 1IMU — .' inr«h ptf aHVfc I *l
lu «B >«Oa ***lll nnl UUUni Ifr i i.nt ••'i
ii.nJ Ihh
it. uhii^Ti -Mrm." '(ni.«d|vm
hlMOr tJTTun, <•! lh.T B^ t«r irnn
Uuuir Ifir, ^..1 cM o«n IWI
Commonly
Consumed
Fish (cont.)
•Canned
salmon
• Wild salmon
Salmon: ) Choices for Taste, Health
.....I Budget
Frolimberg — 2
-------
"Eating Fish for Good Health": A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Healthy Fish for Pregnant Women and Families
II.* I,,, in „,„»,, J...I bint I. IUK*. I li.lt oil, no, !..» If, «.„.,,,
Centerpiece:
• Post or save
• Testing suggests folks use to validate current practice
• Mercury is the easy part - what about PCBs/dioxins?
• Are omega-3 fatty acids good for babies or not?
Frohmberg — 3
-------
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Presentation Topic
The application of the conventional risk paradigm has
excluded the many abstract and multidisciplinary
aspects of environmental contamination and its cost
to indigenous lifeways.
Mohawk Nation
~l Kahniakehaka (possessors of the flint)
Nation within the Haudenosaunee Confederacy
« Traditional Homeland: Mohawk Valley of central NY state
- Occupied St. Lawrence River ~3,000-yr
Current Settlements: NY, ON, and PQ
-I Agriculture-, hunting-, and fishing-based cul
David—1
-------
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Primary Pollutant of Concern:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (RGBs)
Other contaminants
PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
PCDD/DF (polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins/furans)
Phenyls
Cyanides
Aluminum,1
VOCs (volatile organic compounds)
Fluorine
Other organics
Craig Arquette e 2005
David — 2
-------
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Four Basic Components of Physical Risk
Comprehensive Risk Framework
1. Broaden concept of risk:
2. Cost assessment:
• Beneficial uses
• Natural Resource Damages Assessment
3. Stakeholder engagement:
• Uses based on cultural and traditional uses
Four Basic Components of Physical Risk
^H
Source
Evaluating Indigenous Lifeways
• Non-conventional rates of exposure:
- Recreational angler 32.3 g/dy (0.5lbs/wk)
— Subsistence angler 150 g/dy (Great Lakes)
— Duration
• Non-conventional modes of exposure:
- Collection of medicinal plants (riparian wetlands)
- Harvest of contaminated animals
- Ceremonial pathways
Evaluating Indigenous Lifeways
i Cultural/religious significance of use
I Limited economic options
- Reservation unemployment rates
I Trust lands (and fiduciary responsibility)
- Treaty tribes
- Federal government liability
i United States vs. Mitchell 463 u.s. 206 naes)
David — 3
-------
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Comprehensive Risk Framework
Direct effects
Comprehensive Risk Framework
PCB
contamination
Fearof
breastfeeding
Alteration of
lifestyle
Indirect effects
Comprehensive Risk Framework
Benefits of Consuming Fish
Protein (salmon 27
•• Antioxidants
Support proper brain function
Indirect effects
Comprehensive Risk Framework
Obesity
Indirect effects
Traditional diet
"It has so many benefits you could characterize it [as a] drug
(Santerre, C., 2004. Bioscience, in Senkowsky.)
Comprehensive Risk Framework
PCB
contamination
Socio-cultural
Indirect effects
David — 4
-------
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne
Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Comprehensive Risk Framework
Socio-cultural
Economic
implications
Summary
Next Steps
Importance of utilizing a CRF
Original instructions organized these impacts
• Need for comprehensive impacts (costs) in risk
characterization and risk management
— Consequences and outcomes
U.S. EPA acknowledgment
Redefining risk: Direct and indirect cost
Early incorporation within assessment process
Further research: Evaluation of native lifeways
Formulation of a standardized process
Acknowledgments
U.S. EPA
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
SUNY Minority Fellowship
American Indian Program, Cornell University
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
James Gillett, Marianne Krasney, and Jery Sedinger
Questions and Comments
David — 5
-------
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
)mmunicating the Nutritional
Benefits and Risks of F"
Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Ph.D.
Foods and Nutrition
Presentation Overview
Rationale for developing advisbty
Background
Development of advisory
Training EFNEP participants
Future strategies
Rationale
Increase consumer awareness of advisory
j Reduce complexity of the advisory
• Harmonize recommendations fors~~
and commercial fish
• Provide nutritional recommendations
• Provide food safety information.
-38% of Indiana anglers don't follow advisory
(Williams, O'Leary, and Sheaffer, 1999)
^^^^^^.
Potential impact:
5,876 - fetuses
111,001 - 0-18 years of age
(Santerre and Schaul, 200
Santerre — 1
-------
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
Healthy Fats in Fish
^v
iHA - important for brain/eye development.
NAS, 2002
An estimated 250,000 Americans die each
year from sudden cardiac death.
AHA, 20051
'Consumption of long-chain omega-3 fatty
icids [as found in fatty fish] may reduce
isk of coronary heart disease."
ISSFAL, 1994
Possible Mechanisms
Preventing arrhythmias
Decreasing platelet aggregation
Decreasing plasma triglycerides
Moderately decreasing blood pres
Reducing atherosclerosis
Small increase in HDL cholesterol
Modulating endothelial function
Decreasing pro-inflammatory eicosanoi
ietary Guidelines
tional Academy of Sciences (NAS) - 2002
)HA -0.14 g/d (nursing/pregnant)
• Dietary Guidelines Advisory Comr.
" iport-2004
8 oz fish/wk
EPA + DMA = 0.5 g/d
American Heart Association (AHA)
- 2 servings (2-3 oz per serving) of fatty fish/w
EPA + DHA = 1 g/d (heart disease patients).
How Will Mercury Exposure
Change If Consumers Follow the
Dietary Guidelines Advis
lommittee's Recommendatio
8 Ounces/Week of Fish?
U.S. Fish Consumption - 2003
• Shrimp
t Canned Tuna
• Salmon
Pollock
Catfish
Cod
Crab
Tilapia
Clams
• Scallops
- Flatfish
Per capita
4.0 Ibs/person
x3,4
H.M. Johnson & Assoc.. 2004
Santerre — 2
-------
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
Development of the Advisory
• Fish consumption -AHA
- 6 oz/wkfor adults
-2 oz/wkfor 2-6 yrs old
• Sportfish - consult local agency
• Allergies - S. Taylor, U. of Nebraska
• Raw versus cooked fish - FDA food cc
• Omega-3 fatty acids - USDA nutrient
database
• Omega-3 intake - MAS recommendatioi
Mercury Advice
\l\ea\ frequency - max. 1 mea|
- Maximum fish consumption - T_
• Mercury residue data - FDA
• Exception - all tuna products were I
to a lower consumption rate due to th.
popularity of these products
Fish for Vogr Health
tot pregnant or nutvfl women
women Wat *r|l become pregnant and
un-Jer IS years of age
Mutt(3ourtoMo«iteMii»eMt»«**«ec*<>«a'W Cwunwfcwil-fl !«•*•» o<*9»
EPA«rdDH*i Trwmcther pre*ia«« H>A*naDMA W KM unborn eMS«r mir»*ig wfflnl
«n*utvou-Swrii*fi*
Level of Maximum
mercury amount
Commercial fish species
8 oz per wk
(1 meal/wk)
12 oz per wk
(2 meals/wk)
Light tuna (canned), mahi mahi, carp,fr
perch: skate, Spanish mackerel (S. Atlai
monkfish, tilefish (Atlantic), sheephead
Shrimp, salmon, pollock farm-raised catfish, cod,
crab, tilapia, flatfish (flounder, plaice, sole),
scallops, haddock, farm-raised trout, herring.,
crayfish, mackerel (Atlantic, Jack), mullet, oysters,
croaker (Atlantic), ocean perch, pickerel, hakL
sardines, squid, shad (American), whiting,
whitefish, anchovies, jacksmelt, spiny lobster, ,,,,,„„
mackerel (Pacific), butterfish
Santerre — 3
-------
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
Sportfish Advisories
'elephone survey across 12 states
!,015 women, ages 18-45
- 87% ate fish during past year
29% ate sportfish during past year
- 20% aware of state's sportfish advisory
Training Low-Income Females
• 721 Hoosier women (10-49 yrs of age)
• 253 (35%) pregnant and 39 (5%) nursing
• Enrolled in Expanded Food and Nutrition
Education Program (EFNEP)
• Completed pre- and post-tests
• Received a ~1-hour face-to-face train!
ling Low-Income Women
9% had not eaten fish in past 30 days
\
0% had eaten higher mercury fish
!3% understood that n-3s as found in
important for the fetus/infant advisory; aft
training 87%
6-7% had used Indiana fish consumption
advisory; after training 69-79% intend to use.
ncourage fish consumption - 8 oz/w
Use rapid, low-cost methods for measurei
and mercury
Consumer and health professional education
- County health departments
- Pediatricians, obstetricians, dietitians, family practice
- County cooperative extension offices
-WIC clinics
Focus educational efforts on at-risk populations
Replace alba core/white tuna in WIC and school lunch
Santerre — 4
-------
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
PCBs, 7 furans, 10 dioxins)
timated Costs for PCB Methods
"otal PCB - ELISA
(Aroclor™ Equivalents)
tetal PCB (GC/ECD)
-oclor Equivalents)
PQ - Indicator PCBs
:B-11S, PCB-138, PCB-153)
'Healthy'
btal fat < 5 g/RA (55 g) and /100 g
aturated fat < 2 g/RA and /100 g
iodium < 360 mg/RA and /label serv'
Cholesterol < 95 mg/RA and /100 g
10% DV for vitamins A, C, calcium, iro
irote/n or fiber
21CFR101.13(h)
Mercury (pg/kg bw/d)
Amount
4 oz/wk
8 oz/wk
12 oz/wk
16 oz/wk
Albacore
(mg/d)
4 oz/wk
8 oz/wk
12 oz/wk
16 oz/wk
Effective Al = 140 mg/d for pregnant worn
Absorption of Hg - Wheat Bran
0.05 g 0.1 g 0.5 g 1 g
Wheat bran (g)
Santerre — 5
-------
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption
Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University
http://fn.cfs.purdue.edu/anglingindiana/
Fish tor Your Health"'
Predicting TEQ
Using Indicator PCBs
TEQ = 0.95 + 0.21[PCB-138]
0.08[PCB-153] + 0.27[PCB-118
>-
= 0.95 +0.21 [PCB-138]
3CB-153] + 0.27[PCB-118
R2 = 0.68, p<0.0001
Santerre — 6
-------
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Implementation of the
FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
2005 Fish Forum
September 21,2005
David W. K. Acheson M.D.
Chief Medical Officer, Director, Office of Food Safety, Defense
and Outreach
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration
Overview
Background
Broad food-safety considerations
Specific examples that require a "risk/benefit'
approach to achieve the correct balance for
public health
- Mercury in fish
Background
FDA regulates 80% of the food supply, which
includes dietary supplements and bottled water.
'he mission of FDA is to protect public health.
FDA has a variety of tools to achieve the niissi(
Risk communication
What Is The expectation?
FDA provides the correct interpretation of
science to offer optimal public health
protection.
The traditional approach has been to look only
at the risk related to consumption of a
particular product
- In many instances, the risk is clear.
Food is contaminated with an agent
That agent causes harm to consumers
age that can be generated
Risk From Consumption Is Clear
• Foodbome pathogens
-E. coliO157:H7
Chemical agents
- Cyanide
Physical
- Broken glass
Acheson — 1
-------
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Increasing Number of Situations Where
There is a Need to Consider a "Balance"
• Food is contaminated with an agent
• That agent causes harm to consumers
• There is a risk from consuming the food
• BUT-
— There are benefits associated with consumin
food that contain the agent of concern
Mercury in Fish
Risk message needs to be balanced betwet
the degree of risk and the degree of benef1
Risks from mercury
— Neurotoxin
- Developing brain is most susceptible (fetal exposure,
young children)
- Cardiovascular?
Benefits of eating fish
— High protein
- Low in fat
- Contains important nutrients
- Affordability.
Mercury in Fish -
Important Considerations
Virtually all fish have some level of mercury
present.
The risk of exposure depends on the amount and
type of fish consumed.
The risk will vary with age.
Methylmercury has a half-life of about 70 days;
therefore, exposure prior to conception is
important.
Mercury in Fish - Who is at Risk?
Women who may become pregnant
Pregnant women
Nursing mothers
Young children
Risk/Benefit of Mercury in Fish -
Some Questions
What are the levels of mercury in fish?
What are the levels at which there are health
concerns?
How much of what type of fish it is safe to
onsume?
Vhat are the health benefits of consuming fish?
- Heart health
- Children's growth and development
Are all fish equally beneficial?
The Balance
Risks of mercury in fish is to the developing
Women who may become pregnant
Women who are pregnant
Nursing mothers
Young children
he nutritional benefits of eating fish.
Acheson — 2
-------
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Problems
• Pregnant women are very risk-averse.
• The "wash-over effect"
"If my wife should not eat these types offish, then
they are probably not good for me either."
«sr ^o yOU define "young child"?
• Regional differences in mercury levels in
2004 Joint Advisory Has Three
Main Elements
Risk/benefit message
Consumer advice
Additional information
Acheson — 3
-------
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Consumer Advice (cont.)
How Much Fish?
2. Eat up to 12 oz (2 average meals) a week ^ „ . „..
fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.
' Five of the most commonly eaten fish, low in mercury:
shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, catfish
• Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tu,
more mercury tfian canned light tuna. So, when choo
your tw;o meals, you may eat up to 6 oz (one average n
of albacore tuna per week.
Consumer Advice (cont.)
How Much Fish?
Check local advisories about the safety offish caught by
family and friends in your local rivers and coastal areas.
If no advice is available, eat up to 6 oz (one average meal)
per week offish you catch from local waters, but don't
nsume any other fish during that week.
Consumer Advice (cont.)
How Much Fish For Children?
Follow these same recommendations when feeding
fish and shellfish to your young child, but sen>e
smaller portions.
Additional Information
1. What is mercury and methylmercury?
2. I'm a women who could have children, but I'm not
pregnant — so why should I worry?
3. Is there mercury in all fish and shellfish?
4. I don't see the fish I eat in the advisory.
5. What about fish sticks and fast-food sandwiches?
6. What about tuna steaks?
7. What if I eat more than the recommended amount
in a week?
8. Where do I get more information?
Focus Group Conclusions - Balance
Will Be A Challenge
Women will not exceed the safe fish consumption
advice.
Education and Outreach
General and specialized media
- More than 9,000 electronic and print outlets
contacted with information reaching millions of
The concern is to ensure that women, and the children
they care for, continue to eat fish as an importan
protein and nutrient source of their diet.
Editors of pregnancy books urged to include
advisory in next editions.
Acheson — 4
-------
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Education and Outreach (cont.)
More than 50 organizations of health care
providers to women and their families contacted:
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American College of Obstetrics and Gynecol
- American College of Nurse-Midwives
- Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program, etc.
Education and Outreach (cont.)
More than 4 million brochures distributed
through medical offices in English and
Spanish; more than 30.000 requested each
week
- Target pediatricians and obstetricians
- Available soon in additional languages.
Education and Outreach (cont.)
MOMS TO BE food-safety education program for
pregnant women launched in September 2005:
- Food-safety messages
- Three specific agents (Listeria, Toxoplasma,
mercury)
- Provide tools for training programs for use by
health care workers, with video, CD, and handouts
for pregnant women.
Education and Outreach (cont.)
Funding provided for special populations
- Outreach to Asian and Native American women in
communities with high fish-eating practices.
Impact of Advisory
Decline in fish consumption among pregnant
women in obstetrics practice in Massachusetts
After 2001 Advisory [atenetaL, Mos.otewGyneooi.
Anecdotal evidence of decrease in fish s
after 2004 advisory, particularly tuna
Introduction of new product lines (low
methylmercury tuna).
Evaluation
FDA Survey of Consumer Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Behaviors
— General consumer survey, but includes questions
about fish consumption
- Plan to start in November 2005
Survey of pregnant women and mothers of
toddlers
Currently underway.
Acheson — 5
-------
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory
David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration
Summary
Complex risk-benefit message
Unified FDA/U.S. EPA advice reduces
confusion
;ensive and ongoing outreach
Evaluation studies may help determine cu
practices and indicate new mechanisms fo'
targeted outreach.
Acheson — 6
-------
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About
Message Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger
Michael Gochfeld
Fish Forum - September 21, ZOOS
Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation
Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute
Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences
Rutgers University
Outline
• How important is fishing?
• Is there benefit? - Do we need a message?
• Is there risk? - Do we need a message?
• Ethnic and socioeconomic factors
• Generality of findings
• Choosing the message
• Evaluation
How Important Is Fishing?
c
Ol5
Total anglers
Freshwater anglers
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
YEAR
2001
28.4-fi eshivarsi y.l Salnvar
Is There Risk -
Do We Need a Message?
Hy]
h
o
Dothetical Composite Curves
D=30. g ->G.Q9 ^g/kg/'d for a 65 kg woman eating fish at 0.2 ppm
~F=Olxen & Seeker benefit threshold @ 13.4 g/d
,
RJD
OS
t y
f | toxicity |
Net harm
\^^/
| benefit
Benefit range
15 30 45
Fish consumpl ion (grams/day)
Source: Gochfeld and Burger. 2005. Ne
iroToxicology.
Burger — 1
-------
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Mercury Levels in Fish from the Savannah River
with Percent of Samples above 0.5 ppm and above 1 pprn
on
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
0.
111
• % above 0.5 ppm
n % above 1 ppm
(wildlife effects level)
• Ll 1 . •
• •
Boy/fin Pickerel Spotted Shell- Amercan Red-
suckei cracker eel breasted
Bass Perch Grapple Catfish Blueglll Sunflsh
sunfish
Bra-ger-efraL,2Mt
Commercial Fish in New Jersey
llillllil
?.-
J-~
>• •
•-
- •
•
::.
The Information Base
New York Harbor
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
-
.1
D Crab
l"Rsh
rl...
Source of Advisory Information
3Q *0 50
Perceni
Information Sources for Fishing Advisories
No TV
warning
News- Other Signs Radio
paper people
Burger — 2
-------
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
New Jersey General Public
Have you heard...?
About Warnings
New Jersey General Public
While Black - - m Asian
Why People Fish in New Jersey
Relaxation
To Be Outdoors
Get Away From Demands
Commune With Nature
Challenge Or Sport
Be With Friends
Recreation
To Eat'
To Give Away
For Frys Or Socials
To Sell
To Trade
H A
Urban
H A
HH B
HH B
1— 1 B
HtH c
H-H C
H*H C
HH D
H E
" E
H E
2345
1 H A
Suburban
HB
HH c
HH D
>— 1 E
Hi_l E
H-l E
•— ' E
^ I
" G
«
1 G
1234
5
Newark Bay Jersey Shore
Different letters indicate statistically significant Burger. 2002.
differences byDnncan Multiple Range Test Burscr, inpra..
Ethnic and Socioeconomic Factors
in Risk and Knowledge
What does the public know?
What do we know?
Percent of Fishermen Who Consume Catch
ETHNICITY
Burger et al., 1999a.
Percent of Fisherman Saying It Is Safe
,„„ to Eat Crabs or Striped Bass
Burger — 3
-------
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Accuracy of Knowledge
Percent of Responses Concerning Risk
n.
nll
III III Hi
BBt TO «fiK TO
9-yr-dd girl ^
in .Aleutians
South Carolina General Public
CONSUMPTION (KG/Year)
BLACK WHITE
All meat & fish
Mean 125+103 83 + 2.9
Range 0-268 0-403
Wild-caught fish
& game
Mean 63 ± 1 1 26 ± 1 .8
Range 0-265 0-232
Burger, 2000b.
Savannah River Fishers
Consumption
• Black /While D
60-
£40-
y 30-
a- 20-
10-
I
T T
__r*i
r_d. . • . . .
KG 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Lbs.21 42 63 84 104 125 146 over 167
t/ff*&r"^£ Fish Eaten Per Year
^S^g"^^ Bw5«retal..l999b.
Savannah River Fishers:
Ethnicity, Education, and Consumption
fr EtfKO l«9>SO<00CMr
Education
Generality of Findings
Burger — 4
-------
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Number of Fish Meals Per Month
I I
I
, 1
I
Jamaica Arthur
Savannah
Rlvei
South
Carolina
Boqwraron Humacoo
Puerto Pu&tro
ftico n»co
•-Among Fishers--
Burger and Goclifeld. 1991.
May and Burger, 1996.
Burger etal.. 1999a.b.
Burger, 2005.
Burger el al.. in press.
Campbell etal.. 2002.
Generality of Perceptions
D Have You Heard Warnings?
• Are Fish Safe?
111
Jamacia Arthur Kill New Jersey
Puerto Rico Bay New New Jersey Shore
York
Savannah Oakridge General
iver South Tenn Public New
Carolina Jersey
Burger, 2000c.
Burger,2005.
Campbell et al., 2002.
Percent Monthly Meals for 3 Types
of Fish (Whites Only)
(South Carolina General Public)
100%'
80%
60% -
40% -
20% .
0%
Female
Wild-caught fish
Restaurant fish
Store-bought fish
>0to5to 10>10to30
Monthly Meals
Choosing the Message
Collaborative
Development of
fish fact sheet for
Savannah River
involving Sou Hi
Carolina and
Georgia, DOE.
EPA and CRESP
From Conflict
to
Consensus
Consensus
FISH FACT SHEFJ
Evaluation
Burger — 5
-------
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Major Message
% Black
Don't eat fish from river 35
Limit fish or species 21
Identify the contaminant 21
Can you reduce the risk?
% saying yes 91
How can you reduce risk?
Limit fishing in some way 86
Vr> annah River fishers
% White
25
21
22
92
81
Burger and Waisllwdl. 2001.
Additional Information Requested
Clean up river
Ecological pathways
Exposure
How to get fish sheet when available
Levels in fish
Risk levels
Source of contamination
Who has gotten sick
What is cesium/strontium
Other
X tP) = 64t(OOODO , ,.,.-,
Savannah River Fishers
% Black
8
12
3
17
6
17
6
0
3
28
Bm-E
% White
12
6
0
10
18
4
10
10
1
30
r and Waishwdl, 2001.
Pro!
'Do you thin!
"Wl
100»/ir
90% •
80%- '
70°-b-
60»/o-
50°
-------
Maine's Moms Survey - Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Brochure Development and Evaluation
"Easy to Read" brochure
Target pregnant women
- WIC. OB/GYN, FP/OB, CNM
Targeted mailings to sport-
fishing households
Baseline survey in 1999
Evaluation survey in 2000.
Design/Methods
pages, 75 questions
• Pre-tested
• Mail survey
• Sample drawn from Birth
Certificate Registry
'0% response rate
768)
• Asked for hair sample.
Fish
Consumption
Survey
2004 Moms: Who Reported
Getting Brochure
Of those who reported getting brochure
93% read it
469/o kept the brochure
91% reported trying to follow advice.
Frohmberg — 1
-------
Maine's Moms Survey - Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Frohmberg — 2
-------
Maine's Moms Survey - Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Frohmberg — 3
-------
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen in the
Baltimore Harbor & Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
Outline
Background
- Monitoring Summary
• PCB Sediment Mapping
• Fish Tissue Monitoring Map
- Risk Assessment Summary
• Methods
• Current Advisory
Advisory Communication & Outreach Efforts
- History
- Recent Actions
Porychlorinated Biphenyls
The Problem: PCBs!!!
- Drive all of the
Chesapeake Bay
associated fish
consumption advisories
— Highest levels in urban
areas (Baltimore Harbor;
Potomac River below
Washington DC), and
Northeast Bay tributaries
— Elk River, C&D Canal
etc.
Patapsco River Baltimore Harbor-
Total PCBs Distribution
Mean = 262 ppb
Range = 8 - 2150 ppb
Total 27/73 > ERM
(36.9 %)
10Sites = >2ERM
4 Sites = > 3 ERM (Yellow)
3 Sites = > 4 ERM (Brown)
2 Sites = > 5X ERM (Red)
1 Site =>10X (Black)
Mill
Risk Assessment & Advisory
Summary
MD Risk Assessment Policies:
• Provide Guidance for Three Populations:
- General population, women of child-bearing age (18-45), and
children (6)
• Consider Carcinogenic/Non-carcinogenic Effects
• Meal Size (Wet Weight in oz)
— 8 oz. - General population; 6 oz. - women of child-bearing
age; and 3 oz. - children 0-6 years of age
• Meal Thresholds For Allowable Fish Consumption
- Do Not Eat (Less than 4 meals/year)
-4 — 96 meals per year
— >96 meals per year (8 meals per month) = No advisory t
Beaman — 1
-------
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen in the
Baltimore Harbor & Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
MDE Risk Assessment
Use U.S. EPA Risk-Based Methods
RA Methodology has been reviewed by MD
stakeholders (2001)
Use Standard U.S. EPA Risk Assumptions
Use Population Specific Health Endpoints
— Cancer for adults
— Neurological development for young children
Protection For Sensitive Populations
— No cooking loss for women of child-bearing age or young
children (PCBs and other lipopliilic compounds)
«» Consumption Thresholds - PCBs
Meals/Month
8 meals/month
4 meals/month
2 meals/month
1 meals/month
< 1 meal/month
General Population
< 22 - 38
39-77
78-155
156-312
>352
Women 18-45
17-32
33-66
67 - 133
134-266
- 267
Children 0-6
13-25
26-51
52-103
104-207
208
8
BjHimnrfl Harbor
Sediment Mapping
Fish Tissue
Monitoring Stations
T- PCB levels in tissue (Z 120 C)
White Perch
- 20 Composite Samples (1997-2001)
- [T PCBs]-104-1621 ppb;Avg-505
- OP up to 5/year; Sensitive -AVOID
Blue Crab
- 5 Composite Samples ('01)
- [T PCBs] -104-1621 ppti;Avg- 505
• Crabmeat - 27-78 ppb; Avg - 36
• Hepatopancreas ("Mustard")
- 448-1311 ppb; Avg-889 ppb
- GP - 96 tyr, Sensitive -24-96/yr
Mustard- All populations AVOID
Catfish (also Carp and A. Eel) —
AVDID - all >-1000 ppb
MI* Patapsco River FCA Activity History
• 1988 - First Advisory Released
- Due to chlordane (exceeded FDA action level)
• 1995-6-BUERI Study
— Baltimore Urban Environmental Risk Initiative
• 2001 - First Updates due to PCBs
— Risk-based
— First advisories on crabs
• 2004 - Revised Recommendations due to PCBs
- New recommendations for carp, eel catfish, crabs, and white
perch
— Separate recommendations for crab meat and mustard i
m. Advisory Communication
• 1988 Advisoiy — Limited Communication — Press release
• BUERI Study — Release of first brochures to fishermen
and their families
- Phase 1 -1995-1995 by Sojourner-Douglas College
- Phase 2- 1997-1998 by UMAB
- 1999 - Additional outreach by MDE
• 2001 - Limited Communication - Web site and press
release — More public interest due to 1st advisory for crabs
- fielded ~ 1000 phone calls in following 12 months
• 2003 - Pilot Interview survey of Baltimore Harbor
conducted by JHU
Beaman — 2
-------
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen in the
Baltimore Harbor & Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
^•Advisory Communication Cont'd
2004-Expanded Effort
— May 2004 - Press release, story covered by Baltimore Sun
— May 2004 - Posted signs at various fishing locations (11 sites - 2
signs per site) around Harbor - repeat posting m onthly (57)
- May/June 2004 - Published and distributed ~ 5000 brochures to
Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel County Health
Departments for distribution to health related services
— June—October 2004 - Began weekly outreach to fishermen at
fishing access points - 273 brochures distributed for 2004
— Summer 2004 —Regions of Concern Fish Consumption Survey
CVA Tech) - Sponsored by Fish Advisory Workgroup -Chesapeake
Bay Program
- August 2004 - Baltimore County Health Department-Press
Release -Produces simplified brochure & distributed to health clinics
13;
Survey: Major Findings
Advisory Awareness Rate was 83% among
fishermen who answered interview
Overall. 53% said they ate at least some of the
fish they caught
— For whites, 45% consumed catch
- For African Americans, rate was 65%
78%) consumed more than the recommended
amount.
OUTREACH
Workgroup Focus for Fish Consumption
"'" Guidelines
Mid-Summer 2004 - Patapsco River Advisory
Workgroup formed
- Patapsco River and Baltimore Harbor
— Community recommendations
• Health Providers
• Citizen Groups
- Effective and sustainable outreach
• Distribution of materials - ID available networks and outlets
• Clear, understandable message (reading level testing)
Mill
Product(s)
New Brochures
- English and Spanish
- Ensured language consistency and readability with
State WIC program
— Distributed to both WIC clinics and Environmental
Health Offices
- ID'd future partnerships to include community
clinics, managed care organizations, community
groups, and doctors offices (e.g., OB/GYN,
pediatrics, family practice)
New Brochure
• Collaborative Effort
• Production:
- IbhFMsfor: - 120,000 English
.-___ • 80,000 MDE
• 40,000 DHMH
JJ ^ ... - 10,000 Spanish (MDE)
MDE Costs: -$6300.00
Incorporates U.S. EPA-
FDA recommendations for
commercially-caught fish
Beaman — 3
-------
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen in the
Baltimore Harbor & Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
Mill
New Brochure Front
New Brochure Back
Color-coded boxes
denoting consumption
levels.
Baltimore Harbor
Health Advisory Signs
Health Advisory Signs
12" x 24" laminated paper
Full color with pictures
Unit Cost: ~ $12.00 per poster-
Annual ~ 750.00 for Baltimore
Harbor
Posted in English and Spanish
Color-coded consumption levels
Phone # and Web site provided
for more info
Mill
Poster (cont.)
Uses symbols (i.e., plate with
knife and fork) and pictures
(i.e., fish, anatomical crab,
meal on plate) to help convey
important messages and
concepts
Prominent "Do Not Eat"
symbols overlaid on species of
special concern
Special message to avoid crab
"mustard" (hepatopancreas)
Baltimore Harbor Sign Posting
2004-2005 Efforts
18 Locations ID'd (See map)
- 15 Sites Posted - 2 with no
access or place to post
Public Access Sites Only
Sites are maintained regularly
(checked monthly from
March through November)
2004 - 273 brochures
distributed June-October - 7
field davs — No weekends
Beaman — 4
-------
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen in the
Baltimore Harbor & Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)
Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)
Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)
Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)
Partnering
MDE seeking partnerships with local groups
- Watershed groups, fishing clubs, churches, etc.
Baltimore Harbor Watershed Organization
Ways to partner:
- ID new sites for posting signs
- Help with posting and maintaining signs
- Getting the word out to fishermen
- ID new outlets for brochure distribution within the
community
Beaman — 5
-------
Communication of Fish Consumption Associated Risks to Fishermen in the
Baltimore Harbor & Patapsco River Area: Perspectives and Lessons Learned
Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
Lessons Learned
MDE outreach and communication techniques were
effective in for "getting the word out" — 80°'o awareness
rate in VA Tech survey.
Survey indicated limited behavior change - Why??
— Newness of message — Lack of repetition
- Lack of outreach on previous advisories (remember- fish
advisories continuously in Harbor since 1988)
— Lack of understanding by population at risk or necessity to
continue consumption despite contamination
MDE hypothesis - Combination of the three
Actions — Continue expanded outreach program, then re-
evaluate behavior change in 3 to5 years — provide
adequate opportunity for message repetition and
reception 31
More Information
MDE Web site with links
http://www.mde.state.md.us/CitizensInfoCenter/Health/
fish_advisories/index.asp
Joe Beaman
410-537-3633, jbeaman@mde.state.md.us
Phil Heard, M.D.
410-537-3601, pheard@mde.state.md.us
Anna Soehl
410-537-3509. asoehlwjmde.state.md.us
QUESTIONS???
Beaman — 6
-------
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory
Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Results of Angler Interviews, Summer 2004
Joshua C. Gibson
Julie A. McClafferty
Karen S. Hockett*
Conservation Management Institute,
Virginia Tech
For full report:
http://www. cmiweb.orgyVidd.htni
Objectives
To identify populations at greatest risk for
consuming contaminated fish, and...
1. Assess their fishing behaviors and consumption
patterns,
2. Evaluate their perceptions of risk and levels of
advisory awareness, and
3. Identify ways to better reach these at-risk groups.
Survey Protocol
• A team of 2 interviewers was on-site for 40 sampling days
lune 1-August 10. 2004.
1 Interviewers rotated between 9 sampling sites along the
Baltimore Harbor, Patapsco River, and Back River.
• Each site was sampled for 8-hour shifts both in the morning
(6am-2pm) and evening (12pm-8pm) and on weekdays and
weekends.
1 Boat, pier, and shore anglers were approached and
interviewed using a pre-tested questionnaire.
1 When a group was encountered, only one member was
interviewed.
Types of Questions Asked
How far did you travel to get here today'?
How frequently do you fish?
Why do you fish?
Do you eat the fish you catch? How
often? What species?
Do you provide the fish to others in your
home or give it away to others?
How do you usually clean/cook the fish
you catch?
Are you aware of advisories in this area?
How/when did you find out about them,
and what do you recall?
Demographics (gender, age,
race/ethnicity, education, income)
Advisory Status
Different advisories
for Baltimore Harbor
and surrounding
waters
Outreach campaign
launched for new
Harbor advisory
approx. 1 mouth
before interviews
began.
Sampling Sites
Site Name
1 . Cox's Point
2. Rocky Point
3. Inverness
A. Merritt Point
5. Turner's Station
6. Canton WaterSont
7. Middle Branch
8, Broening Part
9. Fort Armistead
Total
n
37
0
18
29
16
6
14
1
17
135
Hockett— 1
-------
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Respondent Demographics
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
* 6 interviews could not be
completed due to language barriers.
Respondent Demographics
Educational A ttainm tnt H Quiet old In come
60% i . .. —, in* •
40*
51*
4S*
Some B! Adv.
College Degree
IIOK
40K IDE
Respondent Demographics
40'/,
10%
0%
24%
9%
12%
14 3-10 11-JS 36-50 50 +
t Times Fished In Put Ye»f
Travel Distance:
• Anglers are local; 79%
traveled less than 10 miles
to reach their fishing spot.
Experience Level:
• Anglers are experienced;
80% had fished or crabbed
in the area for more than
10 years. (Average age =
48)
Motivations for Fishing
Fishing Motivation
Fresh Fish Dinner*
Relaxation
Time Outdoors
Reduce Food Expenses*
Challenge/Sport
Very
Important
31%
96%
85%
12%
57%
Somewhat
Important
28%
4%
13%
16%
28%
Total
59%
100%
98%
28%
85%
*Fishing as a means of getting
food is an important motivation
for many Baltimore anglers.
Fish Consumption
53% of Baltimore anglers eat the fish they catch;
62% give their fish to others. j_
Most Often Consumed Species:
Striped Bass
White Perch
Catfish
Blue crab
(all four species were under advisory)
Consumption Rates by Season
Most Frequent Consumption
ist Frequent Consumption
'S —
June July .August
January February March
Hockett — 2
-------
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Consumption Rates by Species
> What types of self-caught fish or crabs do you most often eat,
and how often do you eat them? (Anglers listed up to 4 species.)
Most Frequently Meals Consumed (Annual Average)
Consumed
Advisory Species 5+/wk 3-4/wk 1-2/wk 1-3/mo <1/mo Total
Back River
Striped bass 000538
White perch 0 0 0 i 4 12
Catfish 0 0 0 4 5 4
Blue crab 00021 3
Harbor/ Patapsco
Striped bass 0 7 3 3 14 33
White perch 0 0 9 S n 28
Catfish 0 0 3 0 8 11
Blue crab 1 1 3 4 10 19
Advisory Compliance
#
Eat
Back River: 37 anglers,
17 (46%) eat their catch
Striped bass 8
White perch 12
Catfish 4
Blue crab 3
Harbor/Patapsco: 98 anglers,
54 (55%) eat their catch
Striped bass 33
White perch 28
Catfish 1 1
Blue crab 19
Exceeding
Advisory
Up to 5 (63%)
Up to 3 (75%)
4(100%)
0
Up to 19(58%)
Up to 28 (100%)
11 (100%)
2(11%)
General Pop. Advisory
12 meals/yr trophy;
24 meals/yr non-trophy
22 meals/yr
6 meals/yr
No advisory
12 meals/yr trophy:
24/yr non-trophy
5 meals/yr
No consumption
96 meals/yr
Advisory Compliance
Summary
42-65% of all species consumption reports for
advisory species exceeded advisory recommendations.
Up to 69°'b of Harbor/Patapsco River anglers exceed
advisory recommendations for at least 1 species (37%
for 2 species, 4% for 3 species).
Up to 53% of Back River anglers exceed advisory
recommendations for at least 1 species (35% for 2
species, 18% for 3 species).
Higher Risk Populations
How often do other members of your
household eat the fish you catch?
Household Members n
Children 5 or younger* 1 1
Children 6-1 5 26
Adults 60 or older 15
Pregnant/nursing* 3
Other women 18-44* 37
n(%)
Eat
10(91%)
24 (92%)
13 (87%)
3(100%)
36 (97%)
n(%)
Eat Same
or More
1 (9%)
14 l'54%)
12(92%)
1 C33%)
26 (72%)
Meal Sizes
12oz.
8-12oz.
8oz.
4-8oz.
4oz.
:
Zl
ZD
i
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Typical reported meal sizes were
consistent with the 8 oz. used in general
population advisory development, though
26% of anglers reported larger meals.
50%
Preparation Methods
MOST OF
TIME
£ar mustard from crabs 40%
Eat fish whole {skin and tat} 24%
Eat fish raw 0%
Pan fry/deep fry 52%
Re-use fat/cooking oil 9%
Steam, poach, or boil 1 9%
Broil, grill, bake, or roast 48%
Filet fish 64%
Trim fat before cooking 45%
Puncture/remove shin before cooking 54%
Make soup or chowder 4%
Freeze or can for later 51 %
SOMETIMES TOTAL
19% 59V,
9% 3.".',
1% ' ' -A
30% 357r.
18% 27-v
39%
36%
20%
16%
22%
26% 30%
26% 77%
Hockett — 3
-------
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Advisory Awareness
>84% of anglers were aware of the advisories
^ Large majority (74%) had seen them in the last
month (when new advisory was issued).
\VIien did you last see or hear about the advisory?
»lyrago
7-12 months ago
4-6 months ago
2-3 months ago
within last month
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Advisory Dissemination Mode
How did you learn about the advisory?
£ so-
il 40-
8 30-
H 20-
10-
0-
•t
&
-*-!
Taifiins to asencv personnel or
^H community leaders
• 1 II IB™r-|r— Ir— ,„
ysyys'%?
| Most effective in changing behavior (33%)
sjc Most preferred by anglers
Racial Differences
African Americans are more at-risk than
Caucasians for a variety of reasons...
Blacks were more likely to consume their catch than
Whites (65% vs. 45%).
Of those. Blacks were more likely to provide it to
their households than Whites (100% vs. 43%).
Blacks were less likely to use risk-reducing
preparation methods than Whites. For example...
• Puncture or remove skin before cooking most of the time:
27% of Blacks vs. 67% of Whites
• Pan or deep fry fish most of the time:
69% of Blacks vs. 41 % of Whites
Racial Differences (cont.)
4. Blacks placed more importance on fishing as a
means of obtaining food than Whites.
& | 60% -
J5 | 40% -
1 1" zo% -
^ >
54%
6 5 %
Fresh Fish Dim
| G C aucasians
44%
er Reducing F ood
Expenses
H A frit an A m erica ns |
Racial Differences (cont.)
5. Blacks were slightly more aware (88%) of
advisories than Whites (81%).
6. Consumption frequencies and meal sizes did not
differ by race.
Key Points
Most anglers (84%) are aware of advisories and
have seen them recently (74%).
Still, advisory species are among the most
frequently consumed, usually at a rate greater
than is suggested in the advisory.
A substantial proportion of anglers (28%) give
some importance to the reduction of family food
expenses as a reason for fishing.
African Americans appear to be at greater risk
than Caucasians, primarily based on needs
(motivations) and cultural differences
(preparation).
Hockett — 4
-------
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers
Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Potential Improvements
1. Increase use of the most effective/preferred
dissemination modes: Signs and personal
communication.
2. Consider going out into community and/or
training community members in advisoiy
outreach - Word of mouth often better received
than "official" statements.
3. Target communities of at-risk populations.
4. Simplify advisories as much as possible (e.g.,
range of meal frequencies, meal sizes).
For more information:
hllp:/ \\\vu.cim\VL'h.org human,CBP_fiyh;Klvi*urvQ4.hlinl
(Download full report and/or data)
Or contact:
Julie McClaflerty
iincclalT'tV'vledu
540-231-8709
Hockett — 5
-------
Problems with Media Reports of Fish-Contaminant Studies: Implications
for Risk Communication
Barbara A. Knuth for Judy D. Sheeshka, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition,
University of Guelph
Problems with Media Repor
of Fish Contaminant Studie
Implications for Risk
Communication
Judy Sheeshka, Ph.D. R.D.
September 21, 2005
Outline
Contaminants in farmed vs.
wild salmon
Media coverage
Health Canada's response
Consumer reaction
, Implications for risk
communication
Wild vs. Farmed Salmon
i Analysis of PCBs in raw fish collected
from 7 countries (Hites et al., 2004.
Science 303)
i Analysis used U.S. EPA cut-points
Health Canada uses FDA values.
Study Confirms Farmed Salmon
More Toxic Than Wild Fish
• CBC News, Friday, January 9, 2004
• "We are certainly not telling people
to eat fish," said study co-author Da'
Carpenter of the University at Alban
NY. "We're telling them to eat less
farmed salmon."
In Depth: Salmon Something Fishy
About Farmed Salmon?
• CBC News Online, January 9, 2004
• "Officials at Health Canada and the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency say
the dangers of eating contaminated
farmed salmon are overstated, as is the
suggestion that intake of farmed salmon
be severely restricted."
Sheeshka/Knuth — 1
-------
Problems with Media Reports of Fish-Contaminant Studies: Implications
for Risk Communication
Barbara A. Knuth for Judy D. Sheeshka, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition,
University of Guelph
Scientists Defend Farmed
Salmon
CBC News, Friday, January 9, 2004
"A controversy over farmed salmon
making consumers pay attention ...
not all scientists agree with the study's
findings and are questioning the validity
of the claims of the study."
Consumer Reactions
"I was buying salmon or trout once or
twice a week, but after that [Hites et al.
study] I just stopped eating it. I know it's
good for you, but just the thought of eating
fish now makes me sick."
Salmon Farming Industry
Reeling
lobe and Mail, January 11, 2004
"Canada's $700-million Atlantic salr
farming industry have been handed
sharp reminder that when it comes 1
the business of food, public percept
is everything."
Plummeting Fish Sales Could
Risk Public Health
Globe and Mail, February 16, 2004
• "While this is an economic blow to the
industry, nutritionists believe it also has
the makings of a public-health disaster."
• Consumers reported giving up fish and
taking omega-3 FA supplements.
More Bad News About Farmed
Salmon
"Flame-retardant chemicals that may harm
human health are found in higher levels in
farmed salmon than in wild salmon, says a
;w study." (August 10, 2004)
"The cancer-causing chemical malachi
green has been found in a second
Vancouver Island salmon farm."
UK Consumers Seem to Have
Ignored the Latest Health Scare over
Scottish Farmed Salmon
"There had been fears that shoppers
would be put off buying salmon after a
damning report last week,,. but initial
figures from the major supermarkets
suggest sales have actually continued to
Sheeshka/Knuth — 2
-------
Problems with Media Reports of Fish-Contaminant Studies: Implications
for Risk Communication
Barbara A. Knuth for Judy D. Sheeshka, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition,
University of Guelph
What Went Wrong?
Journalists did not understand that the
study used U.S. EPA cut-off values, while
Health Canada uses FDA values.
Scientists were confused and appeared to
disagree.
Risk-reduction strategies were absent.
What Went Wrong?
Can We Learn from Thi
What Can We Learn from This?
"Different populations react differently.
formation on risk-reduction strategi
elps people to make informed choic
• Environmental scientists and toxicoloi
might consider greater efforts to educ
dietitians, physicians, and nutrition
researchers.
Fish * Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Equating fish with omega-3 fatty acid:
backfire - people will take supplemen.
Fish has the highest quality protein,
second only to egg protein in digestibi
and supporting growth.
From a public health perspective, oth<
nutrients in fish (selenium, vitamin D,
are important.
Sheeshka/Knuth —
-------
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, Michigan State University
Preserving our past..
The Presentation of Fish in Eve,
Life: Seeing Culture Through Si
in the Upper Peninsula of Michii
Geoffrey Habron and Melanie Bar
Michigan State University
MSU Personnel
Principal Investigator:
• Geoffrey Habron, Fisheries and
Wildlife/Sociology/Bailey Scholars
f Project Coordinator:
. Ron Kinnunen, Sea Grant
'f MSU Extension FNP Liaisons:
. Joan Vinette
f Graduate Student:
. Melanie Barbier, Ph.D. student
ncy for Toxic SUD:
Disease Registry Identified
U.P. as region of
particular concern on the
uncertain effectiveness of
fish advisories
Vast rural and isolated
nature of the area
Relatively large presence
of Native American
populations who may
consume large amounts
Upper Peninsula Advisories
> Great Lakes: PCBs>
chlordane> dioxin>
mercury
* Inland lakes:
mercury> PCBs>
chlordane> dioxin.
Introductions.
Barbier — 1
-------
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, Michigan State University
Barbier — 2
-------
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, Michigan State University
Match Game
sco Lake -
unlimited walleye
*• St. Mary's River-
monthly walleye limit
> Deer Lake - no fish
consumption
Angler #1 -eats
fish
Angler #2- mon
fish consumptior
Angler #3 - catc
release only
Post-i
The Presentation of Fish
in Daily Life
Symbols/Imagery
. Fishermen retailing
. Local restaurants
. Restaurant chains
. Pristine environment/traditional ties to natural
resource use
Barbier — 3
-------
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, Michigan State University
E FISH HOUSE
VANLANDSCHOOT & SONS
We Will Be OPEN For Buiineii
THURSDAY, MAY 17
•Just in time for yottt
Uemorltl day Cootioufs
GRADUATION SPECIA1 •!
Lake Superior WhltcFish
Barbier — 4
-------
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, Michigan State University
Barbier — 5
-------
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, Michigan State University
Site Design
County Lake Superior
Gogebic Blads River
Iharbor
Marquette IIMaEquette
IMunising Bay West Branch Lakes (SW Au Train Lake
of Grand Marals)
Baraga/L'Anse Unamed Lake (west of Worm Lake
Craig Lake State Park) (Covington)
Tahquamenon St. Mary's River (Sault Caribou or
ste. Marie) Frenchman
Lake
Blads River Lahgfor«!>Pomeroy= Cisco Lake
larbor Duck Lakes (Watersroeet) tWateismeet!
Matquette Deer Lake Independence.!
or Shag Lakes
Data Collection Per Site
Demographic Group
Data Collection
Methods
Outcome Indicators
Community Residents Surveys (phone, mail) Knowledge
Women Focus groups Understanding
Youth Community gatherings Behavior
Creel surveys
Search conferences
Observation (fish fry,
•store)'1
Photographs (access
sites, signs)
Community capacity
Summary of Findings
(+) Knowledge offish advisory
. Large, fatty fish risk
(-) Knowledge offish advisory
. Infrequent reading
. Fish-eating fish consumption risk
. DNR vs. DCH advisory responsibility
Most people report trusting the DNR, as
the most .as a reliable source offish
GQhsuWplofi Mytsory information
Summary of Findings
> Uncertainty
. Conflicting science and media reports
> UP. fish consumption > non-U.P. fish
consumption
> Best way to reach people
. Television
. Newspaper/fishing license
. In grocery stores next to where they sell fish
• Schools/radio
• Doctors'offices
Barbier — 6
-------
The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, Michigan State University
Barbier — 7
-------
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study
Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
U.S. EPA & ATSDR
Traditional Collaboration
Dissemination/Outreach To
• Infomediaries:
- Healthcare providers rather than to a target
audience
• Traditional Channels
- Conferences, presentations, brochures in multiple
languages, direct mail, etc.
\W'!iMDHealth-{
Pilot Project Concept
Dissemination/Outreach
- Direct to consumer
Channel -Web: Selection Criteria
- Users/Audience: Must match desired
demographic
- Reach: Traffic volume, syndication
- Content focus: Health site or channel
- Protocols: Past collaboration with CDC.
\\HdMOHealth \
Project Overview
Objective
- To educate users about the potential risks of
mercury in fish
Target Audiences
- Women who are trying to become pregnant
- Women who are already pregnant or nursing
- Parents of young children
\\i'iMDHealth
Hatch er/Robiiison — 1
-------
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study
Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Promotion
Across the WebMD Consumer Network and Relevant WebMD
Consumer Newsletters
Promotional Areas
- WebMD Splash/Home Page
- WebMD Consumer Home Page
- Channels
* Pregnancy Center, Parenting Center, Diet and Nutrition,
Healthy Women, and Healthy Men
- eNewsletters
• Pregnancy and Family, Trying to Conceive, Diet and
Nutrition, Women's Health, Men's Health, and Living
Better
Ut'/MDHeaWr
Hatch er/Robiiison — 2
-------
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study
Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Metrics Topline Summary
• Campaign Duration: 4/12/05 - 8/31/05 (5 months of data)
• Traffic: 155,508 unique visitors; 451,577 page views
• 3:1 Ratio of Page Views to Unique Visitors: Users clearly
engaged with the content.
• Performance Declined in June: Was elevated with
increased promotion in last 2 months.
• Most Viewed Article: The new WebMD article based on
the U.S. EPA/FDA brochure.
\\MMDHealth-
Hatcher/Robinson —:
-------
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study
Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Summary
Think beyond your destination site (.gov) to achieve
reach into desired audiences
Good content is key, but promotion is crucial
Match your needs with needs held by potential Web
outlet partners
Understand your partners' constraints (e.g., editorial,
policy, etc.)
Next enhancement: Cross-promotion beyond the
Web (earned media, point-of-use, mail, radio, etc.).
Hatcher/Robinson — 4
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe,
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Seafood Safe
EAFOOD'-M
Are IS
I Lib TeHcd for Matury A PCBf •
Case Study:
Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and
Labeling Program
EcoFish as First Adopter
Nationwide Sustainable Seafood Distributor
• 1,500 grocery stores
• 125 restaurants
Evolution
Media attention
Consumer demographics
Project research
Conflicting and Confusing Messages
"Sound's Salmon Cany High PCB Levels: But State Says
Health Benefits of Eating the Fish Outweigh Risks"
"Mercury Debate Gets Murkier - No Clear Choices on
Which Fish are Best"
"Rich Folks Eating Fish Feed on Mercury too - 'Healthy
Diet' Clearly Isn't"
"Study Finds Mercury Levels in Fish Exceed U.S.
Standards"
"EPA Says Mercury Taints Fish Across U.S."
"EPA Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury
Exposure''
Consumers Are Confused
Something Fishy: The Salmon Debate
The Miami Herald
November 4, 2004
"Eat salmon, we're urged. It is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which help our
hearts, cholesterol and blood pressure, fights rheumatoid arthritis, and
might even ease depression.
Eat salmon only sparingly, we're warned. The fish, especially when farm-
raised - as is 65 percent of the salmon sold in U. S. supermarkets -
contains PCBs and other toxins that may cause cancer.
What's a health-conscious consumer to do? Studies and counter-studies,
alarms and assurances, :^±l;:'^.;^:^_^'-:'-_'v:. -^Ai'l.^-"
Business Model
Autonomous independent structure
- Advisory panel
- Sampling
- Labs (Axys Analytical, Brooks Rand)
- Consumer advocacy organization
(Environmental Defense)
Precautionary principle
EcoFish first adopter. •t__--
Lovejoy et al. — 1
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe,
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Marketing Strategy
Positive industry message
Consumer driven
State agency driven (CA A.G.)
Media follow through.
Future Financial Model
Industry pays
Consultation with client
Customized programs
-Species life history, regionality, size range,
seasonality, historical data, etc.
Testing
Licensing.
Future Participation
Seafood industry (fisheries,
processors, distributors, packers)
Grocery store chains
Restaurant chains.
EcoFish Species Tested
Wild Alaskan salmon - Oncorhynchus keta
Wild Alaskan halibut - Hippoglossus stenolepsis
Wild Peruvian mahi mahi - Coryphaena hippurus
Wild Oregon/Washington albacore tuna - Thunnus
alalunga
Wild California squid - Loligo opalescens
Farmed Chinese bay scallops - Argopecten irradians
Farmed Florida white shrimp - Penaeus vannamei
Contaminants Tested
Mercury
PCBs
Additional future contaminants?
Labeling
How to read?
Guidance derivation
- U.S. EPA's Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in
Fish Advisories
- U.S. EPA's risk-based consumption
tables
Lovejoy et al. — 2
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe,
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
'SAFElO'
Re
i)K*
jxzr
U*:TI 1ft
IVtVrr*
I»W»
b,?oi*i
>**j
Iwitw
^commendations
i^»
-_
•;ij
*££*
i
i
S5
m
u
i»
.iTJ
r
ti
n
1ST
43
M
S"
ft-»=«-
^Itra
Label in Use
Risk Perception Constructs
• Volition, choice
• Control
• Seriousness
• Dread
• Certainty
• Causality - natural or not
• Distribution of risks and benefits
• Responsiveness
• Trust, credibility.
Risk Communication Strategy
Focus on behavior
-Addresses choice, volition
• For consumer
• For industry/markets
- Provides "control."
Risk Communication Strategy
• Focus on message to women of
childbearing age
-Addresses concerns about distribution
of benefits and risks
-Addresses seriousness, dread.
Risk Communication Strategy
• Supporting information addresses
- Dread
- Seriousness
- Causality
• Consistent message
- Reduces uncertainty
- Personalized calculations
- Cumulative consumption charts (under
development).
OU'OOO'-lp,.
SAFE [Qi
Lovejoy et al. — 3
-------
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe,
Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Risk Communication Strategy
• Provide testing details (independent
labs, advisory panel)
-Credibility
-Confidence
- Trust.
Future Considerations
Risks vs. benefits
- Contaminants vs. omega-3s?
Evaluation
- Consumer response
• Purchasing
• Consumption
• Environmental advocacy
• Food safety advocacy
- Industry participation.
www.seafoodsafe.com
Share your comments!
Lovejoy et al. — 4
-------
Proceedings of the 2005 National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Appendix A
Biosketches of Speakers
and Moderators
-------
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
DavidAcheson, M.D., F.R.C.P.
David Acheson graduated from the University of London Medical School in 1980, and following training in internal
medicine and infectious diseases in the United Kingdom, moved to the New England Medical Center and Tufts
University in Boston in 1987. As an associate professor at Tufts University, Dr. Acheson undertook basic molecular
pathogenesis research on food-borne pathogens, especially Shiga toxin-producing E. coll. In 2001, Dr. Acheson
moved Ms laboratory to the University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore to continue research on food-borne
pathogens. In September 2002, he accepted a position as the Chief Medical Officer at die Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA's) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). In January 2004, Dr. Acheson
became CFSAN's Director of Food Safety and Security, and in January 2005, he became the Director of CFSAN's
Office of Food Safety, Defense, and Outreach.
Dr. Acheson has published extensively and is internationally recognized both for his public health expertise in food
safety' and his research in infectious diseases. Additionally, he is a Fellow of both the Royal College of Physicians
(London) and the Infectious Disease Society of America.
Linda L. Andreasen, M.S.
Linda Andreasen is a fisheries biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS's) national office in
Arlington. VA. Ms. Andreasen is currently working on policy and budget in the Division of the National Fish
Hatchery System, including developing national policy for contaminant issues at federal hatcheries. Previous work
with the FWS includes projects to restore sturgeon and striped bass in the mid-Atlantic and to investigate
environmental contaminant investigations. Ms. Andreasen received her M.S. in Fisheries Science from the
University of Maryland in 1994.
Scott M. Arnold, Ph.D.
Scott Arnold is an environmental toxicologist for the Environmental Public Health Program, Alaska Division of
Public Health. Dr. Arnold interprets the public health significance of environmental contaminant exposures.
Previously, he worked for Ecology and Environment, Inc., in Anchorage, AK (1996 to 2000), where he developed
risk assessments to support hazardous waste site investigations and prepared scientific background documents for
private -industry clients. Dr. Arnold received his Ph.D. degree in Environmental Toxicology from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison in 1995.
Melanie Barbier, M.S.
Melanie Barbier is a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. She
received a B.S. degree in Social Sciences and an M.S. degree in Environmental Policy from Michigan Technological
University. Currently, Ms. Barbier is working on a project to improve fish consumption advisory risk
communication in Michigan's Upper Peninsula using community-based research methodologies and local
collaboration. Her research interest is the interaction of science, policy, and culture in natural resource management.
Joseph Beaman, M.S.
Joseph Beaman is head of the Ecotoxicology and Standards Section for die Technical and Regulatory Services
Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment. He received his B.S. degree in Forest Biology
from the College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse University and his M.S. degree in
Environmental Science from Hood College. Mr. Beaman worked as a military scientist for the U.S. Army.
performing research on arboviruses for seven years at the U.S. Army Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at
Fort Detrick. He then transitioned to work for the Anny as a civilian contractor, performing aquatic toxicology
research for eight years at the U.S. Anny Center for Environmental Health Research at Fort Detrick. For the past
three years, Mr. Beaman has been a toxicologist at the Maryland Department of the Environment, where his main
duties include serving as technical lead for the state's water quality standards program and as programmatic lead for
monitoring, risk assessment, and risk communication related to fish consumption advisories.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-l
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Jerry BigEagle
Jerry BigEagle is the fishery biologist of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, which is located in the north-central
portion of South Dakota. The reservation encompasses about 2.6 million acres; 370 linear miles of aquatic-riverine
habitat; and nearly 280 lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and impoundments of cold- and warm-water fish communities. Mr.
BigEagle received his B.S. degree in Fish and Wildlife Management from Montana State University-Bozeman, with
an emphasis in Coldwater Ecology and a minor in Native American Policy and Law. He completed four years as a
technician in Montana, providing management assistance to 13 Tribes doing recovery work regarding various fish,
including bull trout arid Yellowstone cutthroat trout. He served as a Student Career Experience Program (SCEP)
student with the FWS and worked as a fishery biologist for ecological services, completing two-dimensional
modeling and instream-flow incremental methodology (IFIM) on the Sacramento River in northern California. For
the past five years, Mi'. BigEagle has served as a fishery biologist for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for its Game,
Fish & Parks department. His duties have included serving as a technical adviser for the Sioux Tribe's consumption
advisory, stocking largemouth bass for an ongoing bioaccumulation study, and undertaking risk communication
related to Native American groups among small communities, where people fish as a priority of subsistence.
Other personal achievements include being a member of the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society, a member
of the National Nature Conservancy, a certified diver with the Professional Association of Diving Instructors
(PADI), a certified electrofishing team leader with the FWS, and a member of the American Fisheries Society.
Jeffrey D. Bigler
Jeff Bigler serves as National Program Manager and National Technical Expert for EPA's National Fish and
Wildlife Contamination Program. He has managed the development of national guidance on advisory development
and management, as well as national databases such as the Web-based National Listing of Advisories. In
cooperation with the FDA, Mr. Bigler was the co-lead for the development and implementation of the 2001 and
2004 Joint EPA/FDA National Mercury Advisories. He also serves as chair for the Annual National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish.
Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D.
Linda S. Birnbaum is a division director at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research
and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory. Her professional experience includes
teaching at the University of Illinois in Urbana, IL, where she received her Ph.D. degree in Microbiology. Dr.
Birnbaum is the recipient of several awards and honors for the leadership she has provided to the scientific
community and to EPA. She is also the current president of the Society of Toxicology.
MichaelBolger, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Michael Bolger received his B.S. degree in Biology in 1971 from Villanova University and his Ph.D. degree in
Physiology and Biophysics in 1976 from Georgetown University. After a two-year postdoctoral position at
Georgetown University Medical Center, Dr. Bolger became a staff fellow in toxicology with the Bureau of Foods in
the FDA. Upon completion of his staff fellowship, Dr. Bolger accepted a position as a lexicologist with the FDA's
Contaminants Branch. Since 1980, Dr. Bolger has been involved in the hazard/safety/risk assessment of
anthropogenically and naturally derived contaminants in food. A board-certified toxicologist by the American Board
of Toxicology, Dr. Bolger is currently Director of the of Risk Assessment Staff in the Office of Plant and Dairy
Foods, which is responsible for the hazard/safety/risk assessment of food-borne contaminants and for reporting FDA
monitoring efforts on food-borne environmental contaminants. Dr. Bolger is also currently serving as a member of
the Expert Advisory Panel on Food Safety of the World Health Organization.
Robert K. Brodberg, Ph.D.
Robert Brodberg is a senior toxicologist in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which is part of
the California Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Brodberg received Ms B.S. degree in Biology from Heidelberg
College and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Biology from Bowling Green State University. He has worked as a risk
assessor for the state of California since 1989, including work 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.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-2
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Gary A. Buchanan, Ph.D.
Gary Buchanan is Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Natural Resources Science within the Division of Science,
Research and Technology of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). He received Ms
B.S. and M. A. degrees in Biology from Montclair State University and a Ph.D. degree in Environmental Science
from Rutgers University. Dr. Buchanan was an environmental consultant for 17 years, conducting numerous
environmental, ecological, and ecotoxicological investigations at sites across the United States. He also managed
several technical groups under EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USAGE) contracts. For the past six years.
Dr. Buchanan lias been with the NJDEP, initially as a research scientist and ecotoxicologist, conducting studies on
fish biomarkers and contaminant bioaccumulation. He was the Chair of the Ecological Quality Work Group for the
New Jersey Comparative Risk Project, which broadly examined the risk of stressors to New Jersey's ecosystems. He
is also the Chair of the Interagency Toxics in Biota Committee, which develops and recommends New Jersey's fish
consumption advisories, as well as the Co-Project Manager for the Toxics in Fish Monitoring Program. Most
recently, his duties as Bureau Chief have involved leading a team of scientists in providing technical and research
support to apply the most up-to-date science in meeting the natural resource protection goals of the NJDEP.
Joanna Burger, Ph.D.
Joanna Burger is a Distinguished Professor of Biology at Rutgers University. Her interests are in the intersection of
toxicology and human health, fish consumption and risk from chemicals, the effects of heavy metals on
neurobehavioral development, human health risk assessment, and bioindicators of human health and well-being. She
has published numerous articles on fishing, fish consumption, risk from consuming contaminated fish, fish
availability, human health risk assessments with fish and game consumption, risk perception, and risk
communication. She has been principal investigator on many studies that have spanned the pure laboratory aspects
to human health risk assessments and risk communication. She has been involved with several state and federal
governmental agencies, collecting fish, analyzing mercury and other heavy metals, assessing fish consumption rates
and cooking methods, and combining the laboratory results with consumption patterns to examine human health
risks from consuming fish. Her laboratory studies have dealt with using avian models to examine the effect of heavy
metals (e.g., lead, chromium, manganese, mercury) on behavioral development, and developing bioindicators for
environmental conditions and human health. Her interest in understanding food-chain effects of contaminants has
resulted in studying fish, fishing behavior, consumption patterns, and the contaminants in fish. This research
involves risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication.
Dr. Burger is an adviser to several companies, state and federal governmental agencies, and the National Research
Council (NRC). She has served on several NRC committees and panels and on international panels on
environmental health issues, including endocrine disrupters and heavy metals. In addition, she serves on several
international committees for SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment) and currently co-
chairs the SCOPE International Committee of Endocrine Disrupters.
Janet F. Caklr, Ph.D., M.S.
Janet Cakir is an environmental protection specialist in the Innovative Strategies and Economics Group in the Office
of Air Quality and Planning Standards at the EPA. She received her B.S. degree in Geography from Radford
University and her M.S. degree in Geography from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University7 (Virginia
Tech), and her Ph.D. work at North Carolina State University focused on developing and automating models of
hiking-trail degradation. She has worked at EPA for two years, performing geographic and statistical analyses in
support of regulatory impact analyses. Her main duties include mapping, visualization, and the geographic analysis
of air quality data, population, and other landscape characteristics.
Susan E. Carlson, Ph.D.
Susan Carlson is the Midwest Dairy Council Professor of Nutrition at the University of Kansas Medical Center,
where she is appointed in the Departments of Dietetics and Nutrition and Pediatrics. She also holds an honorary
faculty appointment in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Dr. Carlson received
her B.S. degree in Home Economics from Washington State University and her Ph.D. degree in Nutrition from Iowa
State University. Her postdoctoral work at the Universities of Wisconsin and South Florida was funded by the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Most of Dr. Carlson's career lias been spent serving on faculties in
Pediatrics at the University of South Florida, University of Mississippi Medical Center, and University of
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-3
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Tennessee, Memphis. She lias been at the University of Kansas Medical Center since 1999. Dr. Carlson's major
research interest during the past 20 years has been the role of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid, docosahexaenoic
acid (DHA), in infant development. Recently, that interest has extended to the role mat intrauterine exposure to
DHA has on the developing fetus.
Paul Cocca, M.S.
Paul Cocca is an environmental engineer with EPA's Office of Water. Mr. Cocca received liisB.S. degree in Civil
Engineering from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo and his M.S. degree n Environmental
Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. He has worked as a consultant, conducting human health risk
assessments for coal-tar contaminated hazardous waste sites, and was a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala. Mr.
Cocca has worked in EPA's Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology for nine years. As a member of the
Modeling and Information Technology team he has helped develop software products for modeling the fate and
transport of pollutants in watersheds. He also developed the Mercury Maps (MMaps) project—an approach to
linking mercury air deposition and fish tissue contamination on national, regional, or local scales.
Lisa Conner, M.E.
Lisa Conner is an economist in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. She received her Master of Economics degree
from North Carolina State University, and for nearly 15 years, she has conducted benefit-cost analyses of air
pollution regulations for EPA. Ms. Conner was the Project Lead for the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the recently
promulgated Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and worked with experts throughout EPA to characterize and assess
the risks of mercury exposure and the benefits of the mercury reductions from the CAMR.
John R. Cosgrove, Ph.D., M.Sc.
John Cosgrove began his career in the fields of physiology/endocrinology (Ph.D. degree and research at the
University of Nottingham and University of Alberta) and population genetics (M.Sc. degree and research at the
University of Edinburgh). During the past decade, however, he lias been a Senior Manager in the Canadian meat
genetics industry. In 2003, Dr. Cosgrove joined AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd., as President. That year, AXYS
coauthored publications in Science and other journals reporting comparisons of PCBs and polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDEs) in wild and fanned salmon. AXYS also completed analytical work in support of EPA's National
Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue in 2005.
For more than 20 years, AXYS has prided itself on the refinement of organo-halogen contaminant analysis in a wide
variety of matrices, including many fish tissues, via high-resolution mass spectrometry for PCBs, dioxin/furans, and
brominated diphenyl ethers. AXYS has founded its reputation on supporting its clients via the provision of not only
the highest quality analytical data but also interpretive support of the underlying chemistry and its environmental
context. AXYS works closely with many federal, state, and municipal agencies and private-sector companies to
enhance their research, regulatory, and quality assurance processes.
Lyle Ctnvles
Lyle Cowles is an environmental scientist within EPA's Region 7 Environmental Services Division in Kansas City,
KS. Mr. Cowles currently coordinates all the regional R-EMAP projects for EPA Region 7 and is the Region's
Water Monitoring Coordinator, working with states on drafting and implementing their state water monitoring
strategies. He drafts and coordinates the water monitoring strategy for Region 7, including the strategy for fish
tissue. Mr. Cowles has more than 20 years experience planning, conducting, and analyzing data from a wide variety
of water quality studies. He recently led a regional multiagency (federal and state) collaboration effort to overhaul
and redesign Region 7's fish tissue monitoring program. Mr. Cowles received his B.S. degree from Drake
University in Des Moines, IA.
Julie L. Daniels, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Julie Daniels is an assistant professor in the Departments of Epidemiology and Maternal and Child Health at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research focuses on perinatal environmental exposures that may be
associated with pediatric health. Dr. Daniels is specifically interested in exposure to chemical pollutants and
nutrients during gestation that may affect children's neurodevelopment. She is the Principal Investigator of the
North Carolina Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Epidemiology.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-4
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Anthony Mark "Teharatats" David, M.P.S.
Anthony Mark David is member of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and its Canadian counterpart, the Mohawk Council
of Akwesasne. He has been with the Environment Division for approximately three years as a student intern and
technician, and hi June 2004, returned from educational leave to become the Program Manager of Water Quality. He
received a Master of Professional Studies degree from the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University in
August 2005 and his B. A. degree in Environmental Studies from SUNY-Buffalo in 2001. His academic and
professional interests are in the importance of revising human health risk assessment policies to better characterize
indigenous peoples.
Colin Davies, M.B.A
Colin Davies is president and owner of Brooks Rand LLC, a specialized trace metals and metals speciation
analytical laboratory. Mr. Davies currently focuses on business development and oversight of laboratory operations
management. Prior to Ms current position, Mr. Davies was Lab Director of Brooks Rand, where he managed all
operations and projects for the laboratory and developed new analytical methodology. In 1992, Mr. Davies became
the first quality assurance (QA) manager at Brooks Rand, where he developed and implemented the laboratory's
first comprehensive QA program. He began his career as a scientist with a medical diagnostics division of Baxter,
where he learned the rigors of quality assurance in die medical products industry. Mr. Davies received his B.S.
degree in Biology from Whitman College and his M.B.A. degree from the University of Washington.
David De Vault, M.S.
David De Vault is a contaminant biologist with FWS Ecological Services, Region 3, in Fort Snelling, MM. He
received a B.S. degree in Biology and a M.S. degree in Aquatic Biology from SUNY. Prior to coming to FWS. he
was employed by EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office for 17 years, where he managed the Fish
Contaminant Monitoring Program, the Green Bay Mass Balance Study, and other contaminant programs and studies.
While at EPA. he also had extensive experience working with die Great Lakes states on development of common
criteria for sport fish consumption advisories. His research interests focus on contaminant bioaccumulation and
modeling, as well as impacts of contaminants on fish and wildlife populations. He lias published more tiian 20
articles in peer-reviewed literature and numerous reports and book chapters on subjects ranging from contaminant
bioaccumulation to ecological risk assessment in complex systems. He is currently working on several complex
natural resource damage cases and serves on the faculty of the Department of Fisheries. Wildlife, and Conservation
at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. MN.
Katie Egan, R.D.
Katie Egan is a dietary exposure analyst in the Office of Plant and Dairy Foods in the FDA's Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). Since joining CFSAN in 1999, she lias provided technical guidance to FDA's Total
Diet Study and other food safety monitoring programs. As a member of the Risk Assessment Staff, Ms. Egan also
compiles analytical data from CFSAN's monitoring programs and provides estimates of dietary exposure for food
safety assessments. She lias participated in international meetings related to food safety monitoring and dietary
exposure, including the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants and WHO--
sponsored Total Diet Study workshops. Prior to joining FDA, Ms. Egan gained experience in dietary exposure
assessment and food regulations while working for private consulting finns (TAS, Inc., and Novigen Sciences) in
Washington, D.C. She received her B.S. degree in Nutrition from Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA. She is a
Registered Dietitian and is a member of the American Dietetics Association and the Institute of Food Technologists.
Eric J. Frohmberg, Ph.D.
Eric Frolimberg is a lexicologist with the Maine Environmental and Occupational Health Program. He lias been
involved in the development offish consumption advisories and the Bureau's fish advisory communication program.
This work lias included development of the new brochures, testing efforts with low literacy focus groups, and
surveys to evaluate effectiveness of the risk communication program.
Benjamin H. Grumbles, L.L.M., J.D.
Benjamin Grumbles was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 20, 2004, as Assistant Administrator for the
EPA's Office of Water. Prior to being appointed Acting Assistant Administrator in December 2003. Mr. Grumbles
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-5
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
served as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water and Acting Associate Administrator for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations. Before coming to EPA in 2002, Mr. Grumbles was Deputy Chief of Staff and
Environmental Counsel for the Science Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. For more man 15 years, he
served in various capacities on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff, including Senior
Counsel for the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, where he focused on programs and activities of
the EPA and USAGE. From 1993 to 2004, he was 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, J.D. from Emory University, and LL.M. in
Environmental Law from George Washington University Law School.
GeoffreyB. Habron, Ph.D., M.S.
Geoffrey Habron arrived at Michigan State University in 1999 and currently serves as an associate professor, with a
joint appointment in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Department of Sociology and with the
Michigan State University Extension. He participates in the Liberty Hyde Bailey Scholars Program within the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Dr. Habron's scholarship across learning, discovery, and engagement
focuses on democratic approaches to natural resource inquiry. Originally from Pleasantville, NJ, he obtained Ms
B.A. degree from the University of Miami in Florida, Ms M.S. degree from Mississippi State UMversity, and Ms
Ph.D. degree from Oregon State UMversity. Dr. Habron also served as a Peace Corps volunteer in St. Lucia, Eastern
Caribbean.
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
William Harris obtained an undergraduate degree in Chemistry from Hanover College in Hanover. IN, and a Ph.D.
degree in Nutritional Biochemistry from the UMversity of Minnesota. He did postdoctoral fellowships in Clinical
Nutrition and Lipid Metabolism at the Oregon Health Sciences UMversity between 1978 and 1983 and then moved
to Kansas UMversity Medical Center (UKMC), where he became the Director of the Lipid Research Laboratory in
1985. In 1996. Dr. Harris became die first recipient of the DaMel J. Lauer/Missouri Chair in Metabolism and
Vascular Research at the UMversity of Missouri-Kansas City and the Mid-America Heart Institute of Saint Luke's
Hospital. He currently is Co-Director of the Lipid and Diabetes Research Center at Saint Luke's and is a Professor
of Medicine at UKMC School of Medicine.
Dr. Harris' research has generally focused on the effects of drags and nutrients on lipid metabolism in humans;
however. Ms specialty is in fish oils (omega-3 fatty acids) and cardiovascular disease. Dr. Harris has been the
Principal Investigator on two previous National Institutes of Health (NTH)-funded grants and is currently examining
the effects of Macin and fish oils on lipid metabolism in patients with the "metabolic syndrome." TMs project is also
funded tlirough NTH. Dr. Harris has 90 peer-reviewed research publications to Ms credit in the scientific literature,
and he was also the developer of the Omega-3 Index, a new blood test to assess risk for cardiovascular disease.
Karen S. Hockett, M.S.
Karen Hockett is a Human Dimensions Division Project Associate at the Conservation Management Institute in the
College of Natural Resources at VirgiMa Tech. She received a B.S. degree in Biology from OMo Northern
UMversity, an M.S. degree in Zoology from the UMversity of Maine, and an M.S. degree in Outdoor Recreation
from VirgiMa Tech. Ms. Hockett is currently working toward a Ph.D. degree in Outdoor Recreation in the
Department of Forestry at VirgiMa Tech. She lias worked on fisheries research projects at both the UMversity of
Maine and VirgiMa Tech, focusing on Atlantic salmon and brown and rainbow trout. For her outdoor recreation
degrees, Ms. Hockett lias specialized in conducting research on visitors, mostly for the National Park Service. These
studies have focused on developing communication messages to reduce risky behavior (e.g., feeding wildlife) or
depreciative behaviors (e.g., fossil theft) among park visitors. She has also evaluated the effectiveness of different
communication tecliMques in gaining the attention of and commuMcating information to park visitors. During her
two years at the Conservation Management Institute, Ms. Hockett has been involved with projects assessing the
stewardship attitudes and behaviors of the public, boaters, and anglers and has interviewed anglers to assess their
knowledge of and adherence to consumption advisories.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-6
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Ph.D.
Lynda Knobeloch received her Ph.D. degree in Environmental Toxicology from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison in 1988. Since 1990, she has worked for the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, where
she manages the Research and Toxicology Unit. Dr. Knobeloch also provides regulatory support to Wisconsin's air
quality, drinking water safety, groundwater protection, and pesticide regulation programs. She was a member of the
NRC Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Mercury and served as an external reviewer of the Institute of
Medicine's Immunization Safety Review and EPA's Mercury Report to Congress. Dr. Knobeloch is a current
member of EPA's National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee and the newly formed Homeland
Security Advisory Committee. She recently published her findings from a large, population-based arsenic exposure
and health study and has just completed a two-year study mat assessed methylmercury exposure and fish
consumption rates among more than 2,000 Wisconsin residents. As an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Molecular
and Environmental Toxicology Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dr. Knobeloch is a frequent
lecturer and guest speaker. She has authored numerous scientific articles on a broad range of environmental health
issues, including the health effects of contaminated drinking water, methylmercury exposure, and chronic exposure
to carbon monoxide.
Barbara A. Knuth, Ph.D.
Barbara Knuth is a professor hi and the chair of the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University and is a
Co-Leader of the Human Dimensions Research Unit. She received two bachelor's degrees (in Zoology and
Interdisciplinary Studies) and a Master of Environmental Science degree from Miami University in Ohio. Dr. Knuth
received her Ph.D. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences from Virginia Tech. Her research interests focus on die
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, most recently focusing on the implications of reducing dioxins in the food supply, and 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.
While on sabbatical leave from Cornell University, Dr. Knuth authored the first risk communication guidance
document used by EPA in its support to states and tribes on issues related to contaminants in fish. She is the
immediate Past President of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) and received the AFS Distinguished Service
Award in 1999. She has served as Associate Editor for Society and Natural Resources and for the North American
Journal of Fisheries Management.
David Krabbenhoft, Ph.D.
David Krabbenlioft began his career with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) after completing his Ph.D. degree at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1988. Immediately after joining the USGS, he began working on
environmental mercury cycling, transformations, and fluxes in aquatic ecosystems with the Mercury in Temperate
Lakes project: since then, the topic has consumed his professional life. In 1994. Dr. Krabbenlioft established the
USGS's Mercury Research Laboratory, which includes a team of multidisciplinary mercury investigators. The
laboratory' is a state-of-the-art, analytical facility strictly dedicated to the analysis of mercury. with low-level
speciation. In 1995. he initiated the multiagency Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades project. More
recently. Dr. Krabbenlioft lias been a Primary Investigator on the internationally conducted Mercury Experiment to
Assess Atmospheric Loadings in Canada and the U.S. (METAALICUS) project, which is a novel effort to examine
the ecosystem-level response to loading an entire watershed with mercury. The Wisconsin Mercury Research Team
is currently active on projects from Alaska to Florida and from California to New England. Since 1990. Dr.
Krabbenlioft has authored or co-authored more than 50 papers on mercury in the environment. In 2006. he will serve
as the cohost for the 8th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant in Madison, WI.
AmyD. Kyle, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Amy Kyle holds appointments as associate researcher and lecturer in the Environmental Health Sciences Division in
the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a Co-Investigator at the Center for
Excellence in Environmental Public Health Tracking. She received her M.P.H. degree and her Ph.D. degree in
Environmental Health Sciences and Policy from the University of California at Berkeley and her B.A. degree from
Harvard College. Early in her career. Dr. Kyle spent 13 years in public service in a variety of positions in
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-7
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
environmental protection, natural resources management and public health and retains a keen interest in improving
public health practice. Her research currently focuses on the translation of scientific results for policy and
stakeholder audiences, policy approaches relevant to persistent pollutants, and children's environmental health. Dr.
Kyle teaches graduate students in the environmental health science disciplines about the role of science, as well as
other factors, in policy. She works with a variety of nongovernmental and public interest organizations; serves on
the California Breast Cancer Research Council and the Committee on Emerging Contaminants of the National
Academy of Sciences; and has recently served as an adviser to the Environmental Council of the States, National
Drinking Water Advisory Committee, California Environmental Protection Agency, Division of School and
Adolescent Health in die Centers for Disease Control, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
and California Energy Commission.
Christopher Lau, Ph.D.
Christopher Lau is a pharmacologist in the Developmental Biology Branch of the Reproductive Toxicology Division
within EP A's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development. He received both Ms A.B. degree in Chemistry and Zoology and Ph.D. degree in Pharmacology from
Duke University. Dr. Lau has worked for EPA at Research Triangle Park, NC, since 1984. His research interests
include developmental toxicology, teratology, and risk assessment modeling.
Henry W. Lovejoy
Henry Lovejoy is the president and founder of EcoFish, Inc.. and Seafood Safe, LLC. Established hi 1999 and based
in Dover. NH. EcoFish was founded as the world's first distributor of seafood exclusively from environmentally
sustainable fisheries. Today. EcoFish can be purchased in more than 1,500 grocery stores and 125 top restaurants
nationwide. In 2005, Mr. Lovejoy established Seafood Safe. LLC— a testing and labeling program for contaminants
in seafood that provides consumers with an easy-to-use system to derive the maximum health benefits from seafood
without exposing themselves to dangerous levels of contaminants.
A native of northern New England, Mr. Lovejoy gained a deep respect for the oceans early in his life, inspired by
Jacques Cousteau's conservation ethic. Having spent his entire career in the global seafood industry, from pulling
lobster traps in Maine to exporting seafood and traveling throughout Europe, Asia, and North America, it became
evident to Mr. Lovejoy that man's increasing ability to remove sea life from the ocean far outstripped the ocean's
ability to replenish itself. Seeking a sustainable and safe solution for the oceans and consumers, he lias been a
pioneer in die seafood industry, believing that ultimately die consumer is die force for change in marine
conservation.
Mr. Lovejoy received a liberal arts education at Boston University and later attended die Program for Global
Leadership at die Harvard Business School. He is considered an innovative entrepreneur and industry' expert on
sustainability issues. He lias been a guest on numerous national radio and television shows, lias been quoted in
dozens of national newspapers and magazines, and has made presentations to numerous national audiences.
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Ph.D.
Kathryn Maliaffey's professional career is in exposure assessment and toxicology of metals, and 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 die U.S.
government, she has been influential in lowering lead exposures for die U.S. population tiirough actions to remove
lead from foods and beverages and from gasoline additives during the 1970s and 1980s. In die past decade, Dr.
Maliaffey lias been actively involved in risk assessments for mercury and assessments of human exposure to
mediylmercury. She was die author of the NTH Report to Congress on Mercury and a primary author of EPA's
Mercury Study Report to Congress. Dr. Maliaffey was one of the primary developers of EPA's Mercury Research
Strategy, which was released in late 2000. Along with other team members, she was responsible for die 2001
EPA/FDA national advisory on fish consumption Dr. Maliaffey was one of a group of three EPA healtii scientists
who revised die basis for the Agency's reference dose for mediylmercury, which was used in developing the
Mediylmercury Water Quality Human Healtii Criterion. In 2002, she received EPA's Science Achievement Award
in Healtii Sciences for this work. This is EPA's highest healtii sciences award and is presented in conjunction with
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-8
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
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 EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. This division
runs EPA's Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Validation Program. Dr. Mahaffey remains active in research and
developing EPA's policies on methylmercury.
Randall O. Manning, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Randall 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. degree 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.
David McBride
David McBride is a toxicologist with the Washington State Department of Health. He received Ms B.S. degree in
Biology and Chemistry from die California State University at Cliico and Ms M.S. degree in Environmental
Toxicology from the University of Washington, Seattle. Mr. McBride was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Thailand,
where he directed a rural hospital laboratory. After Ms service, he directed a medical research laboratory at Tufts
University's New England Medical Center in Boston, MA. Since 1991. Mr. McBride has been a toxicologist at the
WasMngton State Department of Health, where his main duties include serving as technical lead for the state's
human health sediment quality standards and fish advisory program.
Pat McCann, M.S.
Pat McCann is a scientist with the Minnesota Department of Health. She received a B.S. degree in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Minnesota Institute of Teclinology in 1984 and an M.S. degree in Environmental
Health from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health in 1995. Ms. McCann coordinates the Fish
Consumption Advisory Program at the Minnesota Department of Health. She is involved with site selection for
sampling fish for contaminants, performing data analysis, researching the health effects of fish contaminants,
developing consumption advice, and communicating tMs advice to the public.
George Noguchi, Ph.D.
George Noguchi is an environmental toxicologist with the FWS Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in
Washington D.C. He received Ms B. S. degree in Environmental Sciences from the University of Wisconsin-Green
Bay, Ms M.S. degree in Natural Resources from the University of Micliigan, and Ms Ph.D. degree in Fisheries and
Wildlife/Environmental Toxicology from Michigan State University. Prior to joining the DEQ, Dr. Noguchi worked
for 19 years in research, first with the University of Micliigan (Great Lakes Research Division) and later with FWS
(Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory). His research interests included contaminant bioaccumulation and the effects of
contaminants on fish reproductive and immune systems. He is currently working on national water quality issues for
FWS and is coordinating with the National Fish Hatchery Program on the evaluation of contaminants in hatchery
fish.
Emily Oken, M.D., M.P.H.
Emily Oken is an instructor in the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention (DACP) at Harvard Medical
School. She is a graduate of Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health. She has completed
cliMcal traiMng in both internal medicine and pediatrics and currently practices as a primary care physician at the
Women's Health Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital. Her research interests include childhood anemia,
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-9
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
international nutrition, women's health, and the impact of nutrition during pregnancy and early life on outcomes of
pregnancy and later maternal and child health. At the D ACP, Dr. Oken has led funded studies of maternal fish
consumption, fatty acid intake, and mercury exposure during pregnancy.
Dr. Oken has authored a recent review of the fetal origins of obesity. She recently received an award from the
American Scandinavian Foundation to study associations of maternal diet during pregnancy and infant diet with
child development.
John R. Olson
John Olson has worked in the Water Quality Bureau. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), for 20 years
and has coordinated Iowa's annual fish contaminant monitoring program during that time. Since 1994, he has
prepared the state's biennial water quality reports, as required by Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Mr. Olson has also been involved with the preparation of Iowa's lists of "impaired waters," as required by Section
303(d) of the CWA. He represents the Iowa DNR on the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association's Water Quality Task Force, and EPA's Region 7 technical workgroup
on nutrient criteria development. Mr. Olson earned a B.S. degree in Animal Ecology from Iowa State University,
with an emphasis in Fisheries Biology.
James F. Pendergast, M.S.E.
James Pendergast is the chief of the Fish, Shellfish, Beach and Outreach Branch in the EPA Office of Water, where
he manages the fish and beach advisory programs and provides technical support for shellfish and sediment
contamination assessments. He has 29 years of professional experience in environmental engineering, water quality
modeling, and regulatory controls. Since moving to EPA headquarters in 1990. he has worked on the 2000 revision
to the TMDL rule and die reauthorization of the CWA and as a Section and Branch Chief and Acting Director of the
NPDES Permits Division. He was a principal in leading the Water Protection Task Force, where he helped manage
EPA'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 six years in EPA Region 6 in
the NPDES permits and Superfund programs. Prior to joining EPA 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 aB.S. degree in Environmental Engineering in 1976 and an M.S. degree in Water
Resources Engineering in 1978, both from the University of Michigan. He is a registered professional engineer and a
member of the Water Environment Federation, American Society of Civil Engineers, and Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. Mr. Pendergast has published several papers on water quality modeling in engineering
journals and conference proceedings.
Kendl (Ken) P. Philbrick, M.B.A.
Kendl Philbrick was appointed Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) by Governor
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., on March 5, 2004. Secretary Philbrick also served as the Acting Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of the MDE prior to becoming Secretary. As Secretary, Mi'. Philbrick oversees pollution prevention,
environmental regulation, and environmental enforcement in Maryland, including the administration of a combined
operating and capital budget of approximately $199 million. MDE's programs include air quality control of
stationary and mobile sources, the management of hazardous and solid waste, oil control, the regulation of
wastewater discharges and public drinking water, wetlands protection, environmental risk assessment, and financial
assistance for environmental restoration.
Prior to Ms appointment, Mr. Philbrick served as the executive vice president of LMC Properties, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. For 10 years, he was responsible for a broad range of matters,
including the coordination of environmental assessments and investigations and the development, approval, and
implementation of remediation activities for environmentally affected properties. Prior to his position with LMC,
Mr. Philbrick managed real estate operations for Colgate-Palmolive Company, American Can Company and
PepsiCo during the 1980s and early 1990s. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Richmond and
his M.B.A. degree from the University of Chicago.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-10
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Nicholas V. Ralston, Ph.D.
Nicholas Ralston, a research scientist at the University of North Dakota Energy arid Environmental Research Center,
is the lead investigator in several multidisciplinary studies of heavy metal toxicity. Dr. Ralston received Ms B.S.
degree in Biology from Mayville State University and Ms Ph.D. degree in Biomedical Research Biochemistry from
the Mayo Graduate School at Mayo Medical Center. He worked in trace mineral nutrition for 10 years at the Grand
Forks Human Nutrition Research Center; on the molecular basis of inflammatory disease for six years at the Mayo
CliMc; on stereospecific phospholipase-resistant phospholipid metabolism for three years at Bowman Gray Medical
School of Wake Forest University: and on boron arid selenium biochemistry for tliree years at the Grand Forks
Human Nutrition Research Center. For the past four years, he has studied the toxicity and pathophysiology of
mercury and methylmercury interactions with selenium at the Energy and Environmental Research Center. Dr.
Ralston is the Health Effects Program Area Manager of the EPA-sponsored Center for Air Toxic Metals at the
Energy and Environmental Research Center, where he leads several studies mat focus on selenium interactions with
mercury. His current projects include studies of how seleMum-dependent mercury retirement decreases mercury
bioaccumulation in fish; the effects of mercury exposure on seleMum-dependent enzyme physiology: and seleMum's
protective effect against mercury toxicity.
Eric Rimm, Ph.D.
Eric Rimm is an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Charming Laboratory at the
Harvard Medical School and is the associate director of the Health Professional Follow-up Study. His main interests
include the study of associations between diet in relation to risk of obesity', diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, and
he lias specifically examined the associations between intake of dietary fiber, flavonoids. alcohol, B vitamins, and
antioxidants from diet or supplements that may aid in the prevention of coronary heart disease and cancer. In
addition, he has examined biological predictors of chronic disease as measured in blood, toenails, and DNA, as well
as how these predictors may modify the underlying risk of disease associated with diet. TMs includes the assessment
of trace metals in toenails, gene-diet interactions, and interactions of diet withlipids, inflammatory markers,
adipocyte-related cytokines, clotting factors, and other metabolic parameters.
Dr. Rimm has published more than 280 peer-reviewed manuscripts hi such journals as the New England Journal of
Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, Circulation, British Medical Journal, and Journal
of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rimm served on the Institute of Medicine's Dietary Reference Intakes for
Macronutrients Committee and is an Associate Editor of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
Susan J. Robinson, M.S.
Susan Robinson currently serves as the deputy director for the Office of Communication for the CDC National
Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). In
(Ms capacity, she consults to programs regarding communication research and strategies for engaging NCEH and
ATSDR audiences. She is an expert in commuMcation planMng and development, with a specialty hi Web-based
outreach, bridging the disciplines of social marketing, health commuMcation. and human-computer interaction
(HCI). Ms. Robinson lias a B. A. degree in Economics from the UMversity of North Carolina and an M.S. degree in
Human-Computer Interaction from the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree in
Digital Media at Georgia Institute of Technology.
Charles R. Santerre, Ph.D.
Charles Santerre is an associate professor of Food Toxicology in the Department of Foods and Nutrition and is the
director of the Purdue UMversity Toxicology (PUT) Program. Prior to these positions, he served as an operations
manager of chemistry at Silliker Laboratories, Inc.; as an associate professor in the Environmental Sciences Program
at OMo State UMversity; and as an assistant professor hi the Environmental Health Science Program and the
Institute of Ecology at the UMversity of Georgia. Dr. Santerre's research involves food toxicology and nutrition. He
lias conducted studies to examine the effects of cooking on xenobiotics and lias developed rapid methods for
measuring chemical contaminants. Dr. Santerre was the National Spokesperson for the Institute of Food
Technologists and lias served as the Chairperson for the Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Division and as the
Director of the Food Toxicology Center of the National Alliance for Food Safety. He is currently a scientific advisor
for the American Council on Science and Health, a scientific expert for the International Food Information Council,
and a full member of the Society of Toxicology7.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-l 1
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
Dr. Santerre received a B.S. degree in Human Nutrition and a Ph.D. degree in Environmental Toxicology and Food
Science, both from Michigan State University.
John D. Schell, Ph.D.
John Schell is a vice president and principal lexicologist with BBL Sciences. He has more than 15 years of
environmental assessment experience, focusing on human health and the ecological impacts of PCBs, dioxins,
volatile organics, chlorinated pesticides, and metals. He received a Ph.D. degree from the Joint Graduate Program in
Toxicology, Rutgers University, and has held adjunct teaching positions at the University of South Florida and
University of Florida. Dr. Schell has experience performing human health and ecological risk assessments under
state and federal programs, such as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and state
risk-based corrective action programs. His experience includes assessing the toxicity of PCBs, dioxins, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals (particularly as they are found in aquatic
systems) and their impact on human health and the environment. Prior to joining BBL in his current position, Dr.
Schell was a staff lexicologist at the St. Johns River Waler Managemenl Dislricl in Florida, where he developed a
sedimenl assessment program for the St. Johns River. While at the District, he worked with scientists from the
Florida Department of Health in developing fish advisory levels and a monitoring program to evaluate the need for
them in the St. John River. In addition. Dr. Schell continues to serve as a consultant to the District for its Lake
Apopka and Everglades restoration programs. He is a member of EPA's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee,
has served on advisory bodies on chemical risk assessment issues in Florida and Michigan, and has provided
congressional briefings in Washington, D.C., concerning the use of risk assessment in developing clean-up
strategies.
Rita Schoeny, Ph.D.
Rita Schoeny is senior science advisor for the EPA Office of Water. She received her B.S. degree in Biology at the
University of Dayton and a Ph.D. degree in Microbiology from the School of Medicine of the University of
Cincinnati. (U.C.) After completing a postdoctoral fellowship at the Kettering Laboratory. Department of
Environmental Health, she was appointed assistant professor in mat department of the U.C. Medical School. Dr.
Schoeny has held several adjunct appointments and regularly lectures at colleges and universities on risk
assessment.
Dr. Schoeny joined EPA hi 1986. Prior to her current position, she was associate director of the Health and
Ecological Criteria Division of the Office of Science and Technology. In that position, she was responsible 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 determinalions from the
Contaminant Candidate List. She has held various positions in the Office of Research and Development, including
chief of die Methods Evaluation and Development staff, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office; associate
director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment-Cincinnati Division: 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; principles
of human health risk assessment; and drinking water contaminants. She was a lead and coauthor of the Mercury
Study Report to Congress and was a principal scientist and manager for Ambient Water Quality criterion for
methylmercury. Recently, she lias been heading an EPA workgroup on characterization of benchmark doses and
other points of departure for quantitative assessment of human health risks. She participates in many EPA scientific
councils, as well as national scientific advisory and review groups.
Dr. Schoeny is the recipient of several awards, including EPA Gold, Silver and Bronze Medals: EPA's Science
Achievement Award for Health Sciences; the Greater Cincinnati Area Federal Employee of the Year Award; the
University of Cincinnati Distinguished Alumnae Award; Staff Choice Award for Management Excellence: and most
recently, the FDA Teamwork Award for publication of national advice on mercury -contaminated fish.
H. Joseph Sekerke, Jr., Ph.D.
Joseph Sekerke is an environmental consultant with the Florida Department of Health, Division of Environmental
Health. His primary technical responsibility' is for evaluating risk and providing information about fish consumption
advisories in Florida. (Health advisories can only be issued by the State Health Officer.) He evaluates criteria used
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-12
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
to assess risk from consuming contaminated fish by reviewing toxicity data and exposure assessments for one
primary contaminant per year. In addition, he monitors laboratory reports of biomarkers for mercury, arsenic, and
cadmium exposure in Florida as part of the Florida Reportable Disease Program. Dr. Sekerke also provides
assistance to the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and the Pesticide Surveillance Program.
Judy Sheeshka
Judy Sheeshka is an Associate Professor at die University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, and a registered dietitian.
Her research has focused on the nutritional and health benefits of eating fish compared with the potential
contaminant risks. She is particularly interested in how people's perceptions of risk influence their food choices and
nutrition behaviors.
Andreas Sjodin, Ph.D.
Andreas Sjodin earned his Ph.D. in Environmental Chemistry at Stockholm University, Sweden, in 2000. His area of
research was mainly directed toward assessing work-related exposure to brominated flame retardants, in particular
PBDEs. in occupational settings at special risk, as well as assessing background levels in the general Swedish
population. Dr. Sjodin has published journal articles in such publications as Talanta, Analytical Chemistry, Health
Perspectives, and Chemosphere.
Dr. Sjodin was employed from September 2000 to December 2002 under the research participation program at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as arranged by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and
Education. In January 2003, he was employed as a senior service fellow at CDC. Dr. Sjodin's area of research at
CDC has been dedicated to the development and improvement of methods for analyzing halogenated organic
pollutants and PAHs in biological matrices, as well as searching for unknown environmental pollutants. At CDC. he
has supervised the development of an automated analytical method for the extraction, cleanup, and fractionation of
human serum and human milk. This method is at present certified for PBDEs, polybrominated biphenyls.
polychlorinated biphenyls. and persistent pesticides. Polybrominated and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
furans (PXDD/F) are to be included in the near future. The method has good reproducibility and accuracy, as lias
been shown by analyzing quality control samples. Since May 2004. Dr. Sjodin has assumed supervisory
responsibility for the combustion and biomarkers laboratory at CDC. He has supervised the development of a new
extraction method for hydroxylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites (OH-PAHs) hi human urine. The
developed methodology will be applied to epidemiological studies during spring 2005. The developed methodology
is currently applied to biomonitoring studies aimed at identify ing and quantifying exposures to environmental
contaminants in the general population, as well as hi certain populations at special risk.
Heather Stapleton, Ph.D.
Heather Stapleton is an assistant professor of Environmental Chemistry at Duke University's Nicholas School of the
Environment and Earth Sciences. Dr. Stapleton received her B.S. degree in Marine Biology and Marine Chemistry
from Long Island University's Southampton College. She received her M.S. degree and Ph.D. degree in
Environmental Chemistry from the University of Maryland and then spent two years as a National Research Council
postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, MD. During her
graduate school training and postdoctoral experience at NIST, Dr. Stapleton focused her research on the
environmental fate and transport of persistent organic pollutants, specifically on PBDEs. She lias particular interest
in examining the accumulation and biotransformation of PBDEs in fish, with emphasis on potential toxicity
resulting from biotransformation processes. Her current research at Duke is focusing on biotransformation of PBDEs
in in vitro systems to assess the fate and toxicity of PBDEs across species, and specifically, people.
Alan H. Stern, Dr.P.H.
Alan Stem is the section chief for Risk Assessment in the Division of Science, Research, and Technology of the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; an adjunct associate professor in the Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-School of
Public Health; and an adjunct associate professor hi the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at
the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. He received a
bachelor's degree in Biology from SUNY-Stony Brook; a master's degree in Cellular and Molecular Biology from
Brandeis University; and a doctorate degree hi Public Health from the Columbia University School of Public Health
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-13
-------
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators
(1987). Dr. Stern is board-certified in toxicology by the American Board of Toxicology (Diplomate of the American
Board of Toxicology)- He was a member of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences
Committee on the Toxicology of Methylmercury. Dr. Stem's areas of expertise include human health risk
assessment and exposure assessment, including probabilistic approaches. He has pursued an abiding interest in the
risk assessment for mercury in general and methylmercury in particular and is also involved with the consumption
advisory process in the State of New Jersey.
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 hasanMS. degree andaPLD. degree in Environmental Engineering from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. VanDerslice has worked for the past four 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.
NigelJ. Walker, Ph.D.
Nigel Walker is a staff scientist in the Toxicology Operations Branch of the Environmental Toxicology Program at
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). NIH. Dr. Walker received his B.Sc. degree in
Biochemistry from the University of Bath in 1987 and his Ph.D. degree in Biochemistry from the University of
Liverpool hi England hi 1993. Following postdoctoral training in environmental toxicology at the Johns Hopkins
School of Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore. MD. he moved to NIEHS. where he has been since 1995.
Dr. Walker is currently the lead scientist for several initiatives of the National Toxicology Program (NTP). including
the NTP's evaluation of the Toxic Equivalency Factor approach for assessing risks to persistent organic pollutants.
including dioxins and PCBs. Other research interests include the use of toxicogenomics hi hazard characterization
and the health risk posed by exposure to materials produced through nanotechnology. He is an adjunct assistant
professor in the Curriculum in Toxicology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is currently the
president of the North Carolina Society of Toxicology.
Ann L. Yaktine, Ph.D.
Ann Yaktine is a senior program officer at the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) (Fl 13), Institute of Medicine
(IOM). She has previously been an instructor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Virginia Tech. Since
joining IOM hi 2001, Dr. Yaktine has directed studies on dioxins and dioxin-like compounds hi the food supply and
the safety of genetically engineered foods and has coordinated a workshop on Nutrition and the Human Genome,
which was presented at the Federation of Experimental Biology annual meeting hi 2003. She is currently serving as
the director for two studies—Assessing Worksite Preventive Health Programs for NASA Employees and Nutrient
Relationships hi Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks.
Dr. Yaktine received her Ph.D. degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the Eppley Cancer Research
Center at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. While at the University of Nebraska, she co-authored a
chapter on Chemoprevention of Cancer for the nutrition text. Modem Nutrition in Health and Disease. Prior to
joining the FNB, she was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Massachusetts General Hospital.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-14
-------
Proceedings of the 2005 National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Appendix B
Final Participant List
-------
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Marriott Baltimore Inner Harbor at Camden Yards
Baltimore, Maryland
September 17-22, 2005
Final Participant List
Todd Abel
Science Manager
Chlorine Chemistry Council
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209
Tel: 703-741-5856
Fax: 703-741-6084
E-mail: todd_abel@americanchemistry.com
David Acheson, M.D., F.R.C.P.
Director
Office of Food Safety, Defense and
Outreach
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration
HFS-32
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20704
Tel: 301-436-1910
E-mail: david.acheson@cfsan.fda.gov
Linda L. Andreasen, M.S.
Fisheries Biologist
National Fish Hatchery System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel: 703-358-2458
Fax: 703-558-8770
E-mail: Linda_Andreasen@fws.gov
Scott M. Arnold, Ph.D.
Environmental Toxicologist
Alaska Division of Public Health
Suite 540
P.O. Box 240249
3601 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99542-0249
Tel: 907-269-8000
E-mail: scott arnold(3>health.state.ak.us
Debbie Arnwine
Environmental Specialist V
Water Pollution Control
Tennessee Department of Environment
and
Conservation
L&C Annex, 7th Floor
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
Tel: 615-532-0703
Fax:615-532-0046
E-mail: debbie.arnwine@state.tn.us
Holly M. Arrigoni
Life Scientist
Water Quality Branch
Water Division, Region 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WQ-16J
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-886-6822
Fax: 312-886-0168
E-mail: arrigoni.holly@epa.gov
Leslie K.L. Au, M.Sc.
Toxicologist
Hazard Evaluation and Emergency
Response
Office
Hawaii Department of Health
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 206
Honolulu, HI 96814
Tel: 808-586-7539
Fax: 808-586-7537
E-mail: lau@eha.health.state.hi.us
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-l
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Daniel Axelrad
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1809T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-2304
Fax: 202-566-2336
E-mail: axelrad.daniel@epa.gov
Donald M. Axelrad
Environmental Administrator
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
MS-200
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Tel: 850-245-3007
Fax: 850-245-3147
E-mail: don.axelrad@dep.state.fl.us
Bashiru A. Balogun
Ph.D. Candidate (Environmental Chemistry)
NOAA Researcher/Graduate Student
University of Maryland, Eastern Shore
NOAA LMRCSC
74 Magruder Road
Highlands, NJ 07732
Tel: 732-872-3114
E-mail: Bashiru.Balogun@noaa.gov
Melanie Barbier, M.S.
Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and
Sociology
Michigan State University
13 Natural Resources Building
East Lansing, Ml 48824-1222
E-mail: barbierm@msu.edu
Rob Barrick
Senior Consultant
ENTRIX, Inc.
12565 42nd Avenue, N.E.
Seattle, WA 98121
Tel: 206-418-1260
Fax:206-418-1261
E-mail: rbarrick@entrix.com
Alex M. Barren
Environmental Specialist II
Fish Tissue Monitoring Program
Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: 804-698-4119
Fax: 804-698-4116
E-mail: ambarron@deq.virginia.gov
Charles Barton
State Toxicologist
Iowa Department of Public Health
321 East 12th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0075
Tel: 515-281-6881
E-mail: cbarton@idph.state.ia.us
Joseph R. Beaman, M.S.
Chief
Chemical Assessment Division
Technical and Regulatory Services
Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
Suite 540
1800 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21201
Tel: 410-537-3633
Fax:410-537-3998
E-mail: jbeaman@mde. state, md. us
Lara Beaven
Senior Editor
Water Policy Report
Suite 1400
1225 South Clark Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Tel: 703-416-8564
Fax: 703-416-8543
E-mail: lara.beaven@iwpnews.com
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-2
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Nancy Beck, Ph.D.
Toxicologist
Office of Management and Budget
Suite 241
3100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-395-3258
Fax: 202-395-7245
E-mail: nbeck@omb.eop.gov
Paige Beckley
Research Intern
Center for Food Safety
Suite 302
660 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: 202-547-9359
E-mail: paige@icta.org
Michael T. Bender
Mercury Policy Project
1420 North Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Tel: 802-223-9000
E-mail: mercurypolicy@aol.com
Jerry BigEagle
Fishery Biologist
Fish & Wildlife Management
Game, Fish & Parks
Environmental Protection Department
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
P.O. Box 293
Dupree, SD 57623
Tel: 605-964-7812
Fax: 605-964-7811
E-mail: crstfish@lakotanetwork.com
Jeffrey Bigler
National Program Manager
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-0389
E-mail: bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Thomas J. Billy, B.S.Ch.E.
Consultant
International Seafood Consulting, LLC
4802 Chevy Chase Boulevard
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Tel: 202-251-0218
Fax: 301-951-8833
E-mail: tombilly@comcast.net
Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D.
Division Director
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Experimental Toxicology Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD B143-01
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Tel: 919-541-2655
Fax: 919-541-4284
E-mail: birnbaum.linda@epa.gov
Barbara A. Blakistone, Ph.D.
Director, Regulatory Affairs
National Fisheries Institute
Suite 700
7918 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22102
Tel: 703-752-8887
Fax: 703-752-7583
E-mail: bblakistone@nfi.org
Todd J. Blanc, M.S.
Environmental Specialist
Section for Environmental Public Health
Missouri Department of Health and Senior
Services
930 Wildwood Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Tel: 573-751-6160
Fax: 573-526-6946
E-mail: todd.blanc@dhss.mo.gov
P. Michael Bolger
Toxicologist
Food and Drug Administration
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 21401-3835
Tel: 301-436-1941
E-mail: mbolger@cfsan.fda.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-3
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Eric A. Boring, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Chemist
Managed Security Services
Computer Sciences Corporation
15000 Conference Center Drive
Chantilly, VA 20151
Tel: 703-818-4292
Fax: 703-818-4601
E-mail: eboring@csc.com
Frank Borsuk, M.S., Ph.D.
Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist
Region III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 303
1060 Chapline Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Tel: 304-234-0241
Fax: 304-234-0260
E-mail: borsuk.frank@epa.gov
John M. Bradley, M.S.
Member of Trustee Conservation Committee
New England Aquarium
9 Eaglehead Road
Manchester, MA 01944
Tel: 978-526-1992
Fax: 978-526-1541
E-mail: frolicsail@verizon.net
Antonio Bravo
Communications Specialist
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Brodberg, Ph.D.
Senior Toxicologist
Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology
Section
Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box4010
Sacramento, CA 95812-4010
Tel: 916-323-4763
Fax: 916-327-7320
E-mail: rbrodber@oehha.ca.gov
Connie U. Brower
Industrial Hygienist
Environment and Natural Resources
Water Quality Standards
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Tel: 919-733-7015, ext. 380
Fax: 919-715-5637
E-mail: connie.brower@ncmail.net
Ellen S. Brown
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-0169
E-mail: brown.ellen@epa.gov
Lucretia S. Brown
Environmental Specialist
Department of Health
Water Quality Division
Environmental Health Administration
5th Floor
51 N Dtreet, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: 202-535-1807
Fax:202-535-1363
E-mail: lucretia.brown@dc.gov
Steven Brown
Rohm and Haas Company
727 Morristown Road
Spring House, PA 19444
Tel: 215-619-5323
E-mail: stevenbrown@rohmhaas.com
Gary A. Buchanan, Ph.D.
Bureau Chief
Science, Research and Technology
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box 409
Trenton, NJ 08625-0409
Tel: 609-633-8457
E-mail: gary.buchanan@dep.state.nj.us
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-4
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Yolanda Bulls
Teacher
Richmond High School
1250 23rd Street
Richmond, CA 94804
Tel: 510-776-3370
E-mail: yrobbulls@yahoo.com
Rich Burdge
Environmental Specialist II
Natural Resources - Water Protection
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
1101 Riverside Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Tel: 573-526-1582
Fax: 573-522-9920
E-mail: rich.burdge@dnr.mo.gov
Joanna Burger, Ph.D.
Ecology and Evolution
Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences Institute
Rutgers University
604 Allison Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Tel: 732-445-4318
E-mail: burger@biology.rutgers.edu
Shonali Burke
Ruder Finn
Suite 600
808 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-974-5027
E-mail: burkes@ruderfinn.com
Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D., M.S.
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
C339-01
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-4853
E-mail: cakir.janet@epa.gov
Michael Call am
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
Suite 400
1200 N Street
Lincoln, NE 68509
Tel: 402-471-4249
E-mail: michael.callam@ndeq.state.ne.us
Richard Carlson
Staff Chemist
Dionex Corporation
Suite A
1515 West 2200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Tel: 801-972-9292
E-mail: richard.carlson@dionex.com
Susan E. Carlson, Ph.D.
Professor
Dietetics and Nutrition
School of Allied Health
University of Kansas Medical Center
DandN/MS4013
3901 Rainbow Boulevard
Kansas City, KS 66160
Tel: 913-588-5359
Fax: 913-588-8946
E-mail: scarlson@kumc.edu
LizCarr, M.E.S.
Fish Consumption Advisories Program
Manager
Office of Environmental Health
Assessments
Washington State Department of Health
Building 15, P.O. Box 47846
7211 Cleanwater Lane
Olympia, WA 98504-7846
Tel: 360-236-3191
E-mail: liz.carr@doh.wa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-5
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Ruth A. Chemerys, M.S.
Environmental Protection Specialist
Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4503-T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-1216
Fax: 202-566-1437
E-mail: chemerys.ruth@epa.gov
P.C. Chinyavong
Computer Sciences Corporation
15000 Conference Center Drive
Chantilly, VA 20151
Tel: 703-818-4229
E-mail: pchinyavong@csc.com
Ann L. Choi, Sc.D.
Research Fellow
Department of Occupational Health
Harvard School of Public Health
Landmark Center East, 3-112-15
401 Park Drive
Boston, MA 02215
Tel: 617-384-8646
E-mail: achoi@hsph.harvard.edu
Patricia A. Cirone
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Stop: OEA-095
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1597
Fax:206-553-0119
E-mail: cirone.patricia@epa.gov
Paul A. Cocca
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 4305-T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-0406
E-mail: cocca.paul@epa.gov
Lisa Conner
Economist
Innovative Strategies and Economics
Group
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
C-339-01
109 Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-5060
Fax: 919-541-0839
E-mail: conner.lisa@epa.gov
Jason Cook
Environmental Management Fellow
Toxics Subcommittee
Chesapeake Research Consortium
645 Contees Wharf Road
Edgewater, MD 21037
Tel: 410-267-9860
E-mail: Cook.Jason@epamail.epa.gov
William S. Cooter, Ph.D.
Research Environmental Scientist
RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Tel: 919-316-3728
Fax: 919-541-7155
E-mail: sid@rti.org
Lori M. Copan, M.P.H., A.E.-C., R.Ph.
Project Manager
Environmental Health Investigations
Branch
California Department of Health Services
1325 Albina Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94706-2506
Tel: 760-960-8881
E-mail: lcopan@dhs.ca.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-6
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Chris S. Corwin
Environmental Health Educator
Environmental Health Section
Division of Health
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
6th Floor
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720
Tel: 208-334-5508
Fax: 208-334-6573
E-mail: corwinc@idhw.state.id.us
John R. Cosgrove, Ph.D., M.Sc.
President
AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.
2045 Mills Road, West
Sidney, BC V8L 3S8
Canada
Tel: 250-655-5800
E-mail: jcosgrove@axys.com
Lyle Cowles
Environmental Scientist
Region 7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: 913-551-7081
E-mail: cowles.lyle@epa.gov
Steve Crawford, M.Sc.
Environmental Director
Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point
7 Sakom Drive, Route 190
Perry, ME 04667
Tel: 207-853-2600, ext. 238
Fax: 207-853-6039
E-mail: stevecrawford@wabanaki.com
Patricia A. Cunningham, Ph.D., M.S.
Environmental Biologist
Center for Environmental Analysis
RTI International
800 Park Place Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Tel: 919-360-3722
E-mail: patc@rti.org
John Curry
Analytical Services and Quality Assurance
Branch
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division
Region 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3EA20
701 Mapes Road
FortMeade, MD 20755-5350
Tel: 410-305-2608
Fax:410-305-3095
E-mail: curry.john@epa.gov
Emmet F. Curtis
Senior Ecological Risk Assessor
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting
Suite 100
3200 Town Point Drive, N.W.
Kennesaw, GA 30144
Tel: 770-499-6671
Fax: 770-421-3486
E-mail: efcurtis@mactec.com
Betty Dabney, Ph.D.
Technical and Regulatory Services
Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21230
Tel: 410-537-3851
E-mail: bdabney@mde.state.md.us
Julie L. Daniels, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Assistant Professor
Department of Epidemiology
School of Public Health
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB 7435
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7535
Tel: 919-966-7096
Fax: 919-966-2089
E-mail: juliedaniels@unc.edu
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-7
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Anthony M. David, M.P.S.
Program Manager
Water Quality
Environment Division
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
412 State Route 37
Akwesasne, NY 13655
Tel: 518-358-6066
Fax: 518-358-6252
E-mail: tony_david@srmtenv.org
Colin Davies
Brooks Rand, LLC
3958 6th Avenue, N.W.
Seattle, WA 98107
Tel: 206-632-6206
E-mail: colind@brooksrand.com
Mary E. Davis, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Environmental Earth and Ocean Sciences
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125-3393
Tel: 617-283-3467
E-mail: mary.davis@umb.edu
Dana J. Davoli
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Stop: OEA-095
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-2135
Fax:206-553-0119
E-mail: davoli.dana@epa.gov
Jeff DeBerardinis
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Tel: 919-733-6946
E-mail: jeff.deberardinis@ncmail.net
Ashok D. Deshpande
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
74 Magruder Road
Highlands, NJ 07732
Tel: 732-872-3043
E-mail: ashok.deshpande@noaa.gov
David De Vault
Contaminant Biologist
Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1 Federal Drive
FortSnelling, MN 55111
Tel: 612-713-5340
Fax:612-713-5292
E-mail: davedevault@fws.gov
Khuoane Ditthavong, J.D.
King & Spalding, LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-626-5546
Fax: 202-626-3737
E-mail: kditthavong@kslaw.com
Charles Dobroski
Avatar Environmental
107 South Church Street
West Chester, PA 19382
Tel: 610-692-8330, ext. 15
E-mail: cdobroski@avatarenviro.com
Alex A. Dominguez
The Associated Press
Suite 330
218 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Tel: 410-837-8315
E-mail: adominguez@ap.org
Katie Egan, R.D.
Food and Drug Administration
HFS-308
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740-3835
Tel: 301-436-1946
Fax: 301-436-2632
E-mail: kegan@cfsan.fda.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-8
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Eric C. Eisiminger
Fish Tissue Program Coordinator/Aquatic
Biologist
Department for Environmental Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Tel: 502-564-3410
Fax: 502-564-0111
E-mail: Eric.Eisiminger@ky.gov
Andrew Elias
Chief Operating Officer
Quicksilver Scientific, LLC
1408 Chelsea Avenue
Bethlehem, PA 18018
Tel: 610-659-1499
E-mail: aelias@4cmd.com
Mike J. Ell
Environmental Scientist
Water Quality
North Dakota Department of Health
Room 203
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
Tel: 701-328-5214
Fax: 701-328-5200
E-mail: mell@state.nd.us
Katie Emme
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources
Fisheries Annex
1 Game Farm Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Tel: 502-564-7109, ext. 375
E-mail: Kathryn.Emme@ky.gov
Thomas J. Fikslin, M.S., Ph.D.
Head, Modeling and Monitoring Branch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
25 State Police Drive
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Tel: 609-883-9500, ext. 253
Fax: 609-883-9522
E-mail: thomas.fikslin@drbc.state.nj.us
Tim Fitzgerald, M.S.
Research Associate
Oceans Program
Environmental Defense
257 Park Avenue, South
New York, NY 10010-7386
Tel: 212-616-1230
Fax: 212-533-6748
E-mail:
tfitzgerald@environmentaldefense.org
Bethany Fleishman
Toxic Metals Research Program
Dartmouth College
7660 Butler Building
Hanover, NH 03755
Tel: 603-650-1543
E-mail: bethany.fleishman@dartmouth.edu
Erica Fleisig
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4305T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-1057
Fax: 202-566-0409
E-mail: fleisig.erica@epa.gov
Henry G. Folmar, M.S.
Laboratory Director
Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality
1542 Old Whitfield Road
Pearl, MS 39208
Tel: 601-664-3910
Fax: 601-664-3928
E-mail: henry_folmar@deq.state.ms.us
Ralph Ford-Schmid
Environmental Scientist
New Mexico Environment Department
Building 1
2905 Rodeo Park Drive, East
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Tel: 505-428-2559
E-mail: ralph.ford-schmid@state.nm.us
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-9
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Tony Forti
New York Department of Health
Room 330
547 River Street
Troy, NY 12180
Tel: 518-402-7800
Fax: 518-402-7819
E-mail: AJF01 ©health.state.ny.us
Ivar Frithsen, M.D.
Instructor
Department of Family Medicine
Medical University of South Carolina
P.O. Box 250192
295 Calhoun Street
Charleston, SC 29425
Tel: 843-792-3678
Fax: 843-792-3598
E-mail: frithse@musc.edu
Eric Frohmberg
Toxicologist
Environmental Health Unit
Maine Bureau of Health
State House Station 11
286 Water Street
Augusta, ME 04355
Tel: 207-287-8141
Fax: 207-287-3981
E-mail: eric.frohmberg@maine.gov
Cynthia Fuller, M.P.H.
Health Risk Assessor
Rhode Island Department of Health
Room 208
3 Capitol Hill
Providence, Rl 02908
Tel: 401-330-1220
E-mail: CFuller@essgroup.com
Russell J. Furnari, M.A.
Environmental Policy Manager
PSEG Services Corp.
80 Park Plaza
Newark, NJ 07102
Tel: 973-430-8848
Fax: 975-565-0525
E-mail: Russell.Furnari@pseg.com
Suzanne Garrett, M.A.
Marine Science Intern
Oceana
Suite 300
2501 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: 202-833-3900
Fax: 202-833-2070
E-mail: sgarrett@oceana.org
Margy Gassel, Ph.D.
Research Scientist II
California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
16th Floor
1515 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94706
Tel: 570-622-3166
Fax: 570-622-3218
E-mail: mgassel@oehha.ca.gov
Robert F. Gerlach, V.M.D.
State Veterinarian
Environmental Health
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
5th Floor
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Tel: 907-269-7635
Fax: 907-269-7510
E-mail: bob_gerlach@dec.state.ak.us
Michael Gochfeld, M.D.
Professor
UMD Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School
Room EOH51
170 Frelinghuysen Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Tel: 732-445-0123, ext. 627
Fax: 732-445-0130
E-mail: gpchfeld@eohsi.rutgers.edu
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-10
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Fenix Grange, M.S.
Agency Toxics Coordinator
Laboratory Division
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
1712 S.W. 11th Avenue
Portland, OR 97214
Tel: 503-229-5983, ext. 260
Fax: 503-229-6924
E-mail: grange.fenix@deq.state.or.us
Richard W. Greene, M.C.E.
Environmental Engineer
Watershed Assessment
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Suite 220
820 Silver Lake Boulevard
Dover, DE 19904-2464
Tel: 302-739-4590
Fax: 302-739-6140
E-mail: richard.greene@state.de.us
Kory J. Groetsch
Toxicologist
Division of Environmental and Occupational
Epidemiology
Michigan Department of Community Health
3423 North Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
Lansing, Ml 48909
Tel: 517-335-9935
Fax: 517-335-9775
E-mail: groetschk@michigan.gov
Benjamin Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code 4101M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-5700
E-mail: grumbles.benjamin@epa.gov
Eliseo Guallar
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
Room 2-639
2024 East Monument Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
Tel: 410-614-0574
E-mail: eguallar@jhsph.edu
Marisa Guarinello
Superfund
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5204G
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 703-603-9028
Fax: 703-603-9100
E-mail: guarinello.marisa@epa.gov
Annette Guiseppi-Elie, Ph.D.
Principal Consultant
Corporate Remediation Group
DuPont Engineering
SPOT 912
5401 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23234
Tel: 804-383-4584
Fax: 804-383-3785
E-mail: annette.guiseppi-
elie@usa.dupont.com
Geoffrey B. Habron, Ph.D., M.S.
Associate Professor
Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and
Sociology
Michigan State University
13 Natural Resources Building
East Lansing, Ml 48824-1222
Tel: 517-432-8086
Fax: 517-432-1699
E-mail: habrong@msu.edu
Mark T. Hale
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: 919-733-6946
E-mail: mark.hale@ncmail.net
Julie Hamann
Auditor
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: 913-551-7693
Fax: 913-551-7837
E-mail: hamann.julie@epa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-ll
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Joel A. Hansel, B.Sc., M.P.H.
Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
15th Floor, SMTB
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-562-9274
Fax: 404-562-9224
E-mail: hansel.joel@epa.gov
Ryan Hansen
Environmental Scientist
Computer Sciences Corporation
6101 Stevenson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 20001
Tel: 703-461-2245
E-mail: rhansen23@csc.com
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
School of Medicine
University of Missouri - Kansas City
Suite 128
Wornall Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Tel: 816-932-8235
Fax: 816-932-8278
E-mail: wharris@saint-lukes.org
Michael Hawthorne
Chicago Tribune
435 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel: 312-222-3540
E-mail: mhawthorne@tribune.com
Sekeenia Haynes, M.S.
Physical Science Technician
Biological Resource Division
U.S. Geological Survey
2010 Levy Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Tel: 850-942-9500, ext. 3062
Fax: 850-942-9521
E-mail: shaynes@usgs.gov
Camilla Heaton
Environmental Scientist
Center for Environmental Analysis
RTI International
Suite 740
1615 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: 202-974-7817
Fax: 202-728-2095
E-mail: heaton@rti.org
Michael Helfrich
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper
11 West Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17403
Tel: 717-779-7915
E-mail: lowsusriver@hotmail.com
Greg Hellyer
Environmental Scientist
New England Regional Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11 Technology Drive
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
Tel: 617-918-8677
Fax:617-918-8577
E-mail: hellyer.greg@epa.gov
Roland B. Hemmett, Ph.D.
Science Advisor
Region 2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Tel: 732-321-6754
E-mail: Hemmett.Roland@epa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-12
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
George Henderson
Senior Research Scientist
Information Science and Management
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission
1008th Avenue, S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tel: 727-896-8626
Fax: 727-893-1679
E-mail: george.henderson@myfwc.com
Jennifer Hickman
Hydrologist II
TMDL Program, Water Quality
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
5th Floor
1110 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Tel: 602-771-4542
Fax: 602-771-4528
E-mail: hickman.jennifer@azdeq.gov
Doris T. Hicks, M.S.
Seafood Technology Specialist
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service
University of Delaware
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958-1242
Tel: 302-645-4297
Fax: 302-645-4213
E-mail: dhicks@udel.edu
Winfred E. Hill, M.S.
EMS, LLC
P.O. Box 216
Bowdon, GA 30108
Tel: 770-402-6998
E-mail: win_hill@southwire.com
Karen S. Hockett, M.S.
Human Dimensions Associate
Human Dimensions Division
Conservation Management Institute
Virginia Tech University
Suite 250
1900 Kraft Drive
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tel: 540-231-9605
E-mail: khockett@vt.edu
Razelle S. Hoffman-Contois, M.S.
Chief
Assistant Office of Environmental Health
Protection
Agency of Human Services
Vermont Department of Health
195 Colchester Avenue
Burlington, VT 05402
Tel: 802-863-7558
Fax: 802-863-7632
E-mail: rhoffma@vdh.state.vt.us
David Hohreiter
BBL, Inc.
P.O. Box 66
6723 Towpath Road
Syracuse, NY 13214
Tel: 315-446-9120
E-mail: dh@bbl-inc.com
Thomas C. Hornshaw, Ph.D.
Manager
Toxicity Assessment Unit
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box19276
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Tel: 217-785-0832
Fax:217-782-1431
E-mail: thomas.hornshaw@epa.state.il.us
Matt Hudson
Environmental Biologist
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
P.O. Box 9
Odanah, Wl 54861
Tel: 715-682-6619, ext. 109
E-mail: mhudson@glifwc.org
Pamela Imm
Research Program Manager
Population Health Sciences
Division of Public Health
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Room 150
1 West Wilson Street
Madison, Wl 53703
Tel: 608-267-3565
E-mail: immpb@dhfs.state.wi.us
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-13
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Neal A. Jannelle
Environmental Engineer
Computer Sciences Corporation
6101 Stevenson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22304
Tel: 703-461-2145
Fax: 703-461-8056
E-mail: njannelle@csc.com
Rebecca A. Jeffries, M.P.H.
Senior Research Analyst
Environmental Epidemiology
Westat
RW 3652
1650 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
Tel: 240-314-2488
E-mail: RebeccaJeffries@westat.com
Frank Jernejcic
Fishery Biologist
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 99
Farmington, WV 26571
Tel: 304-825-6787
E-mail: frankjernejcic@wvdnr.gov
Lijun Jin
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
6th Floor
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83712
Tel: 208-334-5682
E-mail: jinl@idhw.state.id.us
Denise Keehner
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code 4305T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-1566
E-mail: keehner.denise@epa.gov
Russell E. Keenan, Ph.D.
Vice President and Technical Director
AM EC Earth and Environmental
15 Franklin Street
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: 207-879-4222
Fax: 207-879-4223
E-mail: russell.keenan@amec.com
Michael D. King
National Sales Director
Specialty Services
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
Suite 200
1700 Elm Street
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Tel: 317-774-9068
Fax: 317-774-9069
E-mail: mking@pacelabs.com
Susannah L. King
Environmental Analyst
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control
Commission
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 02453
Tel: 978-323-7929
Fax: 978-323-7919
E-mail: sking@neiwpcc.org
Bruce A. Kirschner
Environmental Scientist
Great Lakes Regional Office
International Joint Commission
P.O. Box43124
Detroit, Ml 48243-0124
Tel: 519-257-6710
E-mail: kirschnerb@windsor.ijc.org
Lon F. Kissinger
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Stop: OEA-095
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-2115
Fax:206-553-0119
E-mail: kissinger.lon@epa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-14
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Karen Knaebel
Mercury Education and Reduction
Coordinator
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
Tel: 802-241-3455
Fax: 802-241-3273
E-mail: Karen.knaebel@state.vt.us
Dominique LaShawn Knighten
Student
Richmond High School
Suite 580
1742 North Jade Street
Richmond, CA 94801
Tel: 510-860-3194
E-mail:
greencoookiemonster07@yahoo.com
Lynda M. Knobeloch, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Public Health
Wisconsin Department of Health and Family
Services
Room 150
1 West Wilson Street
Madison, Wl 53701-2659
Tel: 608-266-0923
Fax: 608-267-4853
E-mail: knobelm@dhfs.state.wi.us
Barbara A. Knuth, Ph.D., M.En.
Professor and Chair
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY 14850
Tel: 607-255-2822
Fax: 607-255-0349
E-mail: bak3@cornell.edu
Kathleen M. Koehler, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Epidemiologist
Food and Drug Administration
HFS-728
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740-3835
Tel: 301-436-1767
E-mail: kkoehler@cfsan.fda.gov
David Krabbenhoft, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
U.S. Geological Survey
8505 Research Way
Middleton, Wl 53562
Tel: 608-821-3843
Fax:608-821-3817
E-mail: dpkrabbe@usgs.gov
Donald W. Kraemer
Acting Director
Office of Seafood
Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
HFA-400
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Tel: 301-436-2300
Fax: 301-436-2599
E-mail: DKraemer@cfsan.fda.gov
Elaine T. Krueger, M.P.H.
Director
Environmental Toxicology Program
Center for Environmental Health
Massachusetts Department of Public
Health
250 Washington Street
Boston, MA 02108-4603
Tel: 617-624-5757
Fax:617-624-5777
E-mail: Elaine.Krueger@state.ma.us
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-15
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Joanne Kuprys
Business Development Coordinator
Enviro-Test Laboratories
9936 67th Avenue
Edmonton, AL T6E OPS
Canada
Tel: 780-717-8717
Fax: 780-437-2311
E-mail: jkuprys@envirotest.com
Arnold M. Kuzmack
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4301T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-0432
Fax: 202-566-0441
E-mail: kuzmack.arnold@epa.gov
John Kwedar
Client Services Team
Analytical Services and Quality Assurance
Branch
Region 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-5350
Tel: 410-305-3021
Fax:410-305-3095
E-mail: kwedar.john@epa.gov
Amy D. Kyle, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Research Scientist and Lecturer
Environmental Health Sciences
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
3181 Mission Street, Room 8
San Francisco, CA 94110-4515
Tel: 510-642-8847
Fax:415-869-2866
E-mail: adkyle@berkeley.edu
James Lake, Ph.D.
Research Environmental Scientist
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Tel: 401-782-3173
Fax: 401-782-3030
E-mail: lake.jim@epa.gov
Randolph K. Larsen, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Chemistry
St. Mary's College of Maryland
18952 East Fisher Road
St. Mary's City, MD 20686
Tel: 240-895-4597
Fax: 240-895-4996
E-mail: rklarsen@smcm.edu
Christopher Lau, Ph.D.
Pharmacologist
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Reproductive Toxicology Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Drop 67
2525 Highway 54
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-5097
Fax: 919-541-4017
E-mail: lau.christopher@epa.gov
Elliott P. Laws
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: 202-663-8246
Fax: 202-663-8007
E-mail: elliott.laws@pillsburylaw.com
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-16
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Diana M. Lee, M.P.H., R.D.
Research Scientist
Environmental Health Investigations Branch
California Department of Health Services
Building P, 3rd Floor
850 Marina Parkway
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: 510-620-3665
E-mail: dlee1@dhs.ca.gov
John W. Leffler, Ph.D.
Biologist
Hollings Marine Laboratory
Marine Resources Research Institute
South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources
331 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412
Tel: 843-762-8955
Fax: 843-762-8737
E-mail: LefflerJ@dnr.sc.gov
Fred A. Leslie, M.S.
Chief
Environmental Indicators Section
Field Operations Division
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
Building A, P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
Tel: 334-260-2748
Fax: 334-272-8131
E-mail: fal@adem.state.al.us
Becky Lindgren
Standards and Planning Unit
Office of Water and Watersheds
Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OW-131
12006th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1774
E-mail: lindgren.becky@epa.gov
Shirley C. Louie, M.S.
Chief
Environmental Epidemiologist
Arkansas Department of Health
Slot 32
4815 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Tel: 501-661-2833
Fax: 501-661-2992
E-mail: slouie@healthyarkansas.com
Eric Loring
Senior Environmental Researcher
Inuit Tapririit Kanatami
170 Laurier Avenue, West
Ottawa, ON K1P5V5
Canada
Tel: 613-238-8181
E-mail: loring@itk.ca
Henry W. Lovejoy
President
Seafood Safe, LLC
EcoFish, Inc.
340 Central Avenue
Dover, NH 03820
Tel: 603-834-6034
E-mail: henry@ecofish.com
Lisa Lovejoy
EcoFish
340 Central Avenue
Dover, NH 03820
Tel: 603-834-6034
E-mail: lisa@ecofish.com
Amund Maage
Senior Scientist
Documentation Programme
Norwegian Institute of Nutrition and
Seafood Research
P.O. Box 2029, Nordnes
Bergen
Norway
Tel: 47-95025505
Fax: 47-55905299
E-mail: ama@nifes.no
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-17
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Lucia Machado
Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80246
Tel: 303-692-3585
Fax: 303-782-0390
E-mail: lucia.machado@state.co.us
Mike Magner
Reporter
Natural Resources News Service
Suite 1310
110 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-466-4310
E-mail: magner@publicedcenter.org
Kate Mahaffey, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
East Building, Room 4106A,
Mail Code 7201 M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-8463
Fax: 202-564-8482
E-mail: mahaffey.kate@epamail.epa.gov
Mike Mahoney
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division
Region 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3EA20
701 Mapes Road
FortMeade, MD 20755-5350
Tel: 410-305-2631
Fax:410-305-3095
E-mail: mahoney.mike@epa.gov
Randall Manning, Ph.D.
Environmental Toxicologist
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
745 Gaines School Road
Athens, GA 30605
Tel: 706-369-6376
E-mail: randy_manning@dnr.state.ga.us
Glenn Markwith
Risk Communicator
Environmental Program
Navy Environmental Health Center
Suite 1100
620 John Paul Jones Circle
Portsmouth, VA 23708
Tel: 757-953-0951
Fax: 757-953-0675
E-mail: markwithg@nehc.med.navy.mil
Carlos Martins
Risk Assessor
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: 804-698-4115
E-mail: camartins@deq.virginia.gov
Angela Matz, M.S., Ph.D.
Environmental Contaminants Specialist
Department of the Interior
Fairbanks Field Office
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Room 100
101 12th Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Tel: 907-456-0442
Fax: 907-456-0208
E-mail: angela_matz@fws.gov
Brandon M. Mayes
Research Assistant
Department of Biology
Dartmouth College
Gilman Life Science Laboratory
Hanover, NH 03755
Tel: 603-646-2376
E-mail: bmm@dartmouth.edu
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-18
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
David McBride
Toxicologist
Office of Environmental Health Assessments
Washington State Department of Health
Building 2, P.O. Box 47846
7171 Cleanwater Lane
Olympia, WA 98504-7846
Tel: 360-236-3176
Fax: 360-236-2251
E-mail: dave.mcbride@doh.wa.gov
Pat McCann, M.S.
Research Scientist
Health Risk Assessment
Environmental Health Division
Minnesota Department of Health
625 North Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
Tel: 651-215-0923
Fax:651-215-0975
E-mail: patricia.mccann@health.state.mn.us
Renee McGhee-Lenart, M.S.
Assignment Manager
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: 913-551-7534
Fax: 913-551-7837
E-mail: mcghee-lenart.renee@epa.gov
Patricia Mclsaac
Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
3452 Lyrac Street
Oakton, VA 22124-2213
Tel: 703-758-8381
E-mail: pmcisaac@stl-inc.com
Michael J. McKee, Ph.D., M.S.
Resource Scientist
Environmental Health Unit
Resource Science
Missouri Department of Conservation
1110 South College Avenue
Columbia, MO 65201-5204
Tel: 573-882-9909, ext. 3255
E-mail: mike.mckee@mdc.mo.gov
Jesse C. Meiller
Fishery Biologist
Office of Science Coordination and Policy
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 7203M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-8479
E-mail: meiller.jesse@epa.gov
Elizabeth W. Murphy, M.P.H.
Environmental Scientist
Great Lakes National Program Office
Monitoring, Indicators, and Reporting
Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
G-17J
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-353-4227
Fax: 312-353-2018
E-mail: murphy.elizabeth@epa.gov
Cara Muscio
Marine Agent
Rutgers Cooperative Research and
Extension
1623 Whitesville Road
Toms River, NJ 08755
Tel: 732-349-1210
E-mail: muscio@rcre.rutgers.edu
Andrianna Natsoulas
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: 202-454-5188
E-mail: anatsoulas@citizen.org
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-19
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
George Noguchi, Ph.D.
Division of Environmental Quality
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 320
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel: 703-358-2148
Fax: 703-358-1800
E-mail: george_noguchi@fws.gov
Emily Oken, M.D., M.P.H.
Instructor
Ambulatory Care and Prevention
Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim
Health Care
133 Brookline Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
Tel: 617-509-9835
Fax:617-509-9846
E-mail: emily_oken@hphc.org
John R. Olson
Water Quality Specialist
Environmental Services Division
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
502 East 9th Street
DesMoines, IA 50319
Tel: 515-281-8905
Fax: 515-281-8895
E-mail: John.olson@dnr.state.ia.us
Antoon Opperhuizen
Head of the Laboratory for Toxicology,
Pathology and Genetics
National Institute for Public Health and the
Environment
P.O. Box 1
A. Van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9
Bilthoven
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 274 3667
Fax: +31 274 4446
E-mail: A.Opperhuizen@rivm.nl
Mary (Toney) A. Ott
Enviromental Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8EPR-EP
Suite 300
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Tel: 303-312-6909
Fa: 303-312-6955
E-mail: ott.toney@epa.gov
Nicole Owens
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA-West
MC 1809T
120 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-2302
E-maiL owens.nicole@epa.gov
Marshall Pattee
Chief Executive Officer
Elemental Application Consulting
11179 N.W. Timeric Street
North Plains, OR 97133
Tel: 503-901-5465
E-mail: marshall@icpmsapplication.com
James F. Pendergast, M.S.E.
Chief
Fish, Shellfish, Beach and Outreach
Branch
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 4205 T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: 202-566-0398
Fax: 202-566-0409
E-mail: pendergast.jim@epa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-20
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Peter J. Peshut, M.S.
Manager
Technical Services
American Samoa Environmental Protection
Agency
Utulei Office Building, P.O. Box PPA
Pago Pago
Territory of American Samoa
Tel: 684-633-2304
Fax: 684-633-5801
E-mail: ppeshut@yahoo.com
Kendl (Ken) P. Philbrick, M.B.A.
Secretary of the Environment
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21230
Tel: 410-537-3084
Fax:410-537-3888
Jennifer L. Pitt
Environmental Scientist
TetraTech, Inc.
Suite 200
400 Red Brook Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21117
Tel: 410-356-8993
Fax:410-356-9005
E-mail: Jennifer.Pitt@tetratech.com
Jackie Poston
Environmental Engineer
Alaska Operation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 19
222 West 7th Avenue
Anchorage, AK
Tel: 907-271-3541
Fax: 907-271-3424
E-mail: poston.jacqueline@epa.gov
Ruth M. Quinn
Program Coordinator
Department of Environmental Health
Sciences
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
E6640
615 North Wolfe Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
Tel: 410-614-3275
Fax: 434-287-6414
E-mail: rquinn@jhsph.edu
Carla Rae Ralston, M.S.
Research Scientist
EERC
15 North 23rd Street
Grand Forks, ND 58205
Tel: 701-799-5379
E-mail: spiderlady201@yahoo.com
Nicholas V. Ralston, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Energy and Environmental Research
Center
University of North Dakota
P.O. Box9018
15 North 23rd Street
Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
Tel: 701-777-5066
Fax: 701-777-5181
E-mail: nralston@undeerc.org
Melanie L. Ramson, M.S.P.H.
Environmental Health Scientist Coordinator
Section of Environmental Epidemiology
and
Toxicology
Office of Public Health
Louisiana Department of Health and
Hospitals
Room 210
325 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Tel: 504-568-7430
Fax: 504-568-4359
E-mail: mlramson@dhh.la.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-21
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Rosalee S. Rasmussen
Graduate Student
Food Science and Technology
Seafood Lab
Oregon State University
Room 253
2001 Marine Drive
Astoria, OR 97103
Tel: 503-325-4531
E-mail: rsr_420@yahoo.com
Dhitinut Ratnapradipa, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Office of Environmental Health Risk
Assessment
Rhode Island Department of Health
Canon Building, Room 201
3 Capitol Hill
Providence, Rl 02908
Tel: 401-222-3424
Fax: 401-222-6953
E-mail: dhitinut.ratnapradipa@health.ri.gov
Samuel Rector
Aquatic Contaminant Specialist
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
1110 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Tel: 602-771-4536
E-mail: smr@azdeq.gov
Mark Reed
Supervisor
Public Health Protection and Safety
Food Safety Branch
HS1CF
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40621
Tel: 502-564-7181
Fax: 502-564-0398
E-mail: Mark.Reed@ky.gov
Howard L. Reid
Manager
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Program
Montana Department of Public Health and
Human Services
Cogswell Building
1400 Broadway Street
Helena, MT 59620-2951
Tel: 406-444-5306
Fax: 406-444-4135
E-mail: hreid@mt.gov
Eric B. Rimm, Sc.D.
Associate Professor
Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition
Harvard School of Public Health
665 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02115
Tel: 617-432-1843
Fax:617-432-2435
E-mail: erimm@hsph.harvard.edu
Susan Robinson
Health Communication Specialist
Office of Communication
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Mail Stop E29
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30333
Tel: 404-498-0312
Fax: 404-498-0061
E-mail: susan.robinson@cdc.hhs.gov
Helen Rueda
Oregon Operations Office
Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3rd Floor
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1334
Tel: 503-326-3250
E-mail: rueda.helen@epa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-22
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Sharee M. Rusnak, Sc.D., M.S.P.H.
Epidemiologist
Environmental and Occupational Health
Assessment Program
Connecticut Department of Public Health
410 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06134
Tel: 860-509-7583
E-mail: sharee.rusnak@po.state.ct.us
Stephan A. Ryba
Atlantic Ecology Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, Rl 02835
Tel: 401-782-9606
E-mail: ryba.stephan@epa.gov
Tamara Saltman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
6204J
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-343-9621
Fax: 202-343-2360
E-mail: saltman.tamara@epa.gov
Charles R. Santerre
Associate Professor
Department of Foods and Nutrition
Purdue University
700 West State Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2059
Tel: 765-496-3443
Fax: 765-494-0674
E-mail: santerre@purdue.edu
Rodney Deshay Saucer
Student
Richmond High School
1412 Filbert Street
Richmond, CA 94801
Tel: 510-233-6995
E-mail: rodbabyroy2007@yahoo.com
John D. Schell, Ph.D.
Vice President/Principal Toxicologist
BBL Sciences
Suite 329
2929 Briarpark Drive
Houston, TX 77042
Tel: 713-785-1680
Fax: 713-785-1640
E-mail: js1@bbl-inc.com
Gary Schiffmiller, M.S.
Fisheries Biologist
Surface Water Quality Bureau
New Mexico Environment Department
Runnels, N2108
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Tel: 505-827-2470
E-mail: gary.schiffmiller@state.nm.us
David Schmeltz
Office of Air and Radiation
Clean Air Markets Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
6204 J
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-343-9255
E-mail: schmeltz.david@epa.gov
Pamela W. Schnepper, M.S.
Toxicologist
Department of Environmental Services
State of New Hampshire
P.O. Box 95
29 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03302
Tel: 603-271-3994
E-mail: pschnepper@des.state.nh.us
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-23
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Rita Schoeny, Ph.D.
Senior Science Advisor
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ML4301T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-1127
Fax: 202-566-0441
E-mail: schoeny.rita@epa.gov
David J. Scholl, Ph.D.
Toxicologist
Environmental Epidemiology Program
Utah Department of Health
P.O. Box 142104
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Tel: 801-538-6191
Fax: 801-538-6564
E-mail: dscholl@utah.gov
Candy S. Schrank, M.S.
Toxicologist
Fisheries Management and Habitat
Protection
Water Division
Department of Natural Resources
FH/4
101 South Webster Street
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
Tel: 608-267-7614
Fax: 608-266-2244
E-mail: Candy.Schrank@dnr.state.wi.us
Keith Seiders
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47710
Olympia, WA 98504
Tel: 360-407-6689
E-mail: kese461@ecy.wa.gov
Joseph Sekerke, Ph.D.
Toxicologist
Division of Environmental Health
Florida Department of Health
Bin A08
4052 Bald Cypress Way
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1710
Tel: 850-245-4248
Fax: 850-922-8473
E-mail: joe_sekerke@doh.state.fl.us
Nancy Serrell, M.A.
Outreach Director
Toxic Metals Research Program
Dartmouth College
7660 Butler Building
Hanover, NH 03755-3851
Tel: 603-650-1626
Fax:603-650-1183
E-mail: nancy.serrell@dartmouth.edu
Shyann M. Shabaka, M.P.H., Ph.D.
Executive Director
EcoVillage Farm Learning Center
5188 Coronado Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
Tel: 510-329-1314
Fax: 510-223-1693
E-mail: sms2020@aol.com
Christopher W. Shade, Ph.D.
President/Chief Executive Officer
Quicksilver Scientific, LLC
402 Baron Avenue
Lafayette, CO 80026
Tel: 303-926-0349
Fax: 303-926-0349
E-mail: chris.shade@gmail.com
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-24
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
William D. Shade
Senior Scientist
Toxicology Department
Rohm and Haas Company
Building 5, P.O. Box 0904
727 Norristown Road
Spring House, PA 19477-0904
Tel: 215-641-7486
Fax:215-619-1621
E-mail: wshade@rohmhaas.com
Mylynda M. Shaskus, M.P.H.
Environmental Specialist
Surface Water
Standards and Technical Support
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Lazarus Government Building
122 South Front Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: 614-466-6308
Fax: 614-644-2745
E-mail: mylynda.shaskus@epa.state.oh.us
Tony E. Shaw, M.S.
Water Pollution Biologist
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
400 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467
Tel: 717-787-9637
Fax: 717-772-3249
E-mail: tshaw@state.pa.us
Judy D. Sheeshka, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Family Relations and Applied
Nutrition
Macdonald Institute
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G2W1
Canada
Tel: 519-824-4120, ext. 54479
Fax: 519-766-0691
E-mail: jsheeshk@uoguelph.ca
Nicoline Shulterbrandt
Water Quality Division
D.C. Government
5th Floor
51 N Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: 202-535-2194
Fax:202-535-1363
E-mail: nicoline.shulterbrandt@dc.gov
Halldor Sigfusson, Ph.D.
Research Food Scientist
Research and Development/Quality
Assurance
Gorton's
303 Main Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
Tel: 978-675-4176
Fax: 978-281-5416
E-mail: halldor.sigfusson@gortons.com
Elana Silver, M.S.
Research Scientist
Delta Watershed Fish Project
Environmental Health Investigations
Branch
California Department of Health Services
Building P, 3rd floor
850 Marina Bay Parkway
Richmond, CA 94804
Tel: 510-620-3633
E-mail: esilver@dhs.ca.gov
Kandiah Sivarajah, Ph.D., M.Sc.
State Toxicologist
Environmental Health Epidemiology
Pennsylvania Department of Health
Health and Welfare Building
925 Forster Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Tel: 717-787-1708
Fax: 717-772-6975
E-mail: ksivarajah@state.pa.us
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-25
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Andreas Sjodin, Ph.D.
Research Chemist
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Mail Stop F-17
4770 Buford Highway
Atlanta, GA 30341
Tel: 770-488-4711
E-mail: asjodin@cdc.gov
Andrew E. Smith, Sc.D., S.M.
State Toxicologist
Environmental Health
Bureau of Health
Department of Health and Human Services
11 State House Station
286 Water Street
Augusta, ME 04333
Tel: 207-287-5189
Fax: 207-287-3981
E-mail: andy.e.smith@maine.gov
Barbara J. Smith, M.S.
Epidemiologist II
Office of Environmental Health Services
Bureau for Public Health
West Virginia Department of Health and
Human
Resources
1 Davis Square, Suite 200
Capitol and Washington Streets
Charleston, WV 25301-1798
Tel: 304-558-6779
Fax: 304-558-6020
E-mail: barbarajsmith@wvdhhr.org
Patricia Smith, M.A.
Task Leader
MasiMax Resources, Inc.
Suite 175
1375 Piccard Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Tel: 240-632-5629
Fax: 301-926-3156
E-mail: psmith@masimax.com
Janice E. Smithson, M.S.
Wildilife Biologist
West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection
601 57th Street
Charleston, WV 25304
Tel: 304-926-0499, ext. 1051
E-mail: jsmithson@wvdep.org
Blaine D. Snyder
TetraTech, Inc.
Suite 200
400 Red Brook Boulevard
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Tel: 410-356-8993
E-mail: Blaine.Snyder@tetratech.com
Gerry Snyder
General Engineer
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Western Resource Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300, 8 IG
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 303-312-6623
Fax: 303-312-6063
E-mail: snyder.gerry@epa.gov
Anna Soehl, M.S.
Environmental Specialist
Technical and Regulatory Services
Administration
Chemical Assessment Division
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 20231
Tel: 410-537-3509
Fax:410-537-3873
E-mail: asoehl@mde.state.md.us
Mary Lou Soscia
Columbia River Coordinator
Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
811 S.W. 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: 503-326-5873
E-mail: Soscia.marylou@epa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-26
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
James R. Stahl
Senior Environmental Manager
Biological Studies Section
Office of Water Quality
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
65-40-2jrs (WSP)
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: 317-308-3187
Fax: 317-308-3219
E-mail: jstahl@idem.in.gov
Leanne L. Stahl
National Lake Fish Tissue Study Manager
Office of Water/Office of Science and
Technology
Standards and Health Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4305 T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-0404
Fax: 202-566-0409
E-mail: stahl.leanne@epa.gov
Heather M. Stapleton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Nicholas School of Environmental Science
Duke University
Levine Science Research Center
Box 90328
Science Drive
Durham, NC 27708
Tel: 919-613-8717
E-mail: heather.stapleton@duke.edu
Alan H. Stern, Dr.P.H.
Division of Science, Research, and
Technology
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402
Tel: 609-633-2374
E-mail: alan.stern@dep.state.nj.us
Kenneth L. Stewart
Director
Analytical Laboratory
West Virginia University
NRCCE Building, P.O. Box 6064
Evansdale Drive
Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
Tel: 304-293-2867, ext. 5472
Fax: 304-293-8177
E-mail: ken.stewart@mail.wvu.edu
Dave L. Stone
Toxicologist
Health Services
Department of Human Services
800 N.E. Oregon Street, Room 608
Portland, OR 97219
Tel: 503-673-0444
E-mail: Dave.Stone@state.or.us
Randi P. Thomas
U.S. Tuna Foundation
Suite 609
1101 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-857-0610
Fax: 202-331-9686
E-mail: TunaRPThom@aol.com
Valerie E. Thomas
Environmental Protection Specialist
Division of Environmental and Cultural
Resource
Management
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alaska Regional Office
Federal Building, Room 3470
709 West 9th Street
Juneau, AK 94801
Tel: 907-586-7146
Fax: 907-586-7044
E-mail: svalthomas@gci.net
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-27
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Kirby H. Tyndall, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Senior Toxicologist
Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC
Suite 300
2000 South Mays Street
Round Rock, TX 78664
Tel: 512-671-3434
E-mail: kirby.tyndall@pbwllc.com
Cindy L. Ulch
Rating and Survey Officer
Bureau of Health Protection
Nevada State Health Division
Suite 52
475 West Haskell Street
Winnemucca, NV 89445-6700
Tel: 775-623-6591
Fax: 775-623-6592
E-mail: culch@nvhd.state.nv.us
Jay Unwin
National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc.
Western Michigan University
Parkview Campus A-114, MS-5436
Kalamazoo, Ml 49008
Tel: 269-279-3549
E-mail: jay.unwin@wmich.edu
Eric Dram
Regional Representative
Sierra Club Midwest Office
Suite 203
214 North Henry Street
Madison, Wl 53703-2200
Tel: 608-257-4994
Fax:608-257-3513
E-mail: eric.uram@sierraclub.org
Alexis Van Dyke
MoveMeMedia and Productions, LLC
4301 Embassy Park Drive, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
Tel: 202-362-1211
Fax:202-362-1896
E-mail: alexisvandyke@yahoo.com
Jim VanDerslice
Senior Epidemiologist
Environmental Epidemiology, Health
Education
and Spatial Analysis Section
Washington State Department of Health
P.O. Box 47846
7171 Cleanwater Lane
Olympia, WA 98504-7846
E-mail: jim.vanderslice@doh.wa.gov
Amy Viengvilai
Student
Richmond High School
537 Barrett Avenue
Richmond, CA 94801
Tel: 510-412-2154
E-mail: amyvieng@yahoo.com
Micah Vieux
Ohio Environmental Council
1207 Grandview Avenue, Suite 201
Columbus, OH 43212
Tel: 614-487-7506
Fax:614-487-7510
E-mail: Micah@theoec.org
Milena Viljoen
Outreach Coordinator
Montrose Settlements Restoration Program
Suite 4470
501 West Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: 562-980-3236
Fax: 562-980-4065
E-mail: milena.viljoen@noaa.gov
Paul F. Wagner, Ph.D.
Research Ecologist
Landscape Characterization Branch
Emissions Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
243-05
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Durham, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-2255
E-mail: wagner.paulf@epa.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-28
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Nigel J. Walker, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist
Environmental Toxicology Program
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
P.O. Box 12233, MDEC-34
111 Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Tel: 919-541-4893
Fax: 919-541-4255
E-mail: walker3@niehs.nih.gov
Michael J. Walsh, M.S.
Database Manager
Computer Sciences Corporation
6101 Stevenson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22304-3540
Tel: 703-461-2464
E-mail: mwalsh23@csc.com
Vera Wang
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Programs
Navy Environmental Health Center
620 John Paul Jones Circle
Portsmouth, VA 23708
Tel: 757-953-0940
E-mail: wangv@nehc.med.navy.mil
Kimberly A. Warner, Ph.D.
Marine Scientist, North America
Oceana
Suite 300
2501 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: 202-467-1932
Fax: 202-833-2070
E-mail: kwarner@oceana.org
KhizarWasti, Ph.D.
Director
Division of Health Hazards Control
Virginia Department of Health
Room 341
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: 804-864-8182
Fax: 804-864-8190
E-mail: khizar.wasti@vdh.virginia.gov
John B. Wathen
Assistant Branch Chief
Fish, Shellfish, Beaches, and Outreach
Branch
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Health Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4205 T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-0367
Fax: 202-566-0409
E-mail: wathen.john@epa.gov
Jeri Weiss
Regional Mercury Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code CAB
1 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114
Tel: 617-918-1568
Fax:617-918-0568
E-mail: weiss.jeri@epa.gov
Stephen P. Wente
U.S. Geological Survey
National Center, MS 413
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 20192
Tel: 703-648-6846
E-mail: spwente@usgs.gov
Chris G. Whipple, Ph.D.
Principal
ENVIRON International
Suite 700
6001 Shellmound Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Tel: 510-420-2522
Fax: 510-655-9517
E-mail: cwhipple@environcorp.com
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-29
-------
Appendix B
Final Participant List
Judson W. White, Ph.D.
Environmental Manager
Environmental Services
Dominion
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Tel: 804-273-2948
Fax: 804-273-3410
E-mail: juson_white@dom.com
John Whitehead
Division of Water Quality
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144870
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Tel: 801-538-6053
E-mail: jwhitehead@utah.gov
Kirk Wiles
Manager
Seafood Group
Texas Department of State Health Services
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, TX 78756
Tel: 512-719-0215
Fax: 512-719-0220
E-mail: kirk.wiles@dshs.state.tx.us
James J. Wilson
Research Analyst
Center for Consumer Freedom
Suite 1200
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-463-7112
E-mail: wilson@consumerfreedom.com
Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D.
State Toxicologist
Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology
Branch
North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services
1912 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1912
Tel: 919-715-6429
Fax: 919-733-9555
E-mail: Luanne.Williams@ncmail.net
David Witting, Ph.D.
Fish Biologist
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
501 Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: 562-980-3235
Fax: 562-580-3065
E-mail: david.witting@noaa.org
Susan N. Wolf
RTI International
P.O. Box12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Tel: 919-541-6799
E-mail: snw@rti.org
Steven Wolff
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
5400 Bishop Boulevard
Cheyenne, WY 82006
Tel: 307-777-4559
E-mail: steve.wolff@wgf.state.wy.us
Jay Wright, M.S.E.S.
Statewide Monitoring Coordinator
Department of Environmental Quality
707 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Tel: 405-702-1039
Fax:405-702-1001
E-mail: jay.wright@deq.state.ok. us
Ann L. Yaktine, Ph.D.
Senior Program Officer
Food and Nutrition Board
Institute of Medicine
The National Academies
Room 735
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-334-1380
Fax: 202-334-2316
E-mail: ayaktine@nas.edu
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
B-30
-------
Appendix B Final Participant List
Charles T. Young, M.S.
Senior Technical Manager
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Suite 4-2
1400 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
Tel: 610-701-3787
Fax:610-701-7401
E-mail: charles.young@westonsolutions.com
Edward "Butch" M. Younginer
Section Manager
Aquatic Biology Section
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: 803-898-4399
Fax: 803-898-4200
E-mail: youngiem@dhec.sc.gov
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-31
-------
-------
Proceedings of the 2005 National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Appendix C
Poster Abstracts
-------
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Poster Abstracts
September 19, 2005
Contaminant Loads in Salmonid Fish in the National Fish Hatchery System, Northeast Region
Mike Millard and Bill Fletcher. USFWS, Northeast Fisheries Center, Lamar PA; Jaime Geiger, USFWS,
Regional Office, Hadley, MA; and Linda Andreasen. USFWS, Arlington, VA.
Following published reports of elevated levels of poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in farm-raised
salmon, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service tested contaminant levels in salmonids from select national fish
hatcheries in the northeast. Skin-on fillets from discrete age groups of Atlantic salmon, lake trout,
rainbow trout, and cutthroat trout were analyzed via standard methodology for PCBs, dioxins, and
mercury concentrations. Mean PCB levels in Atlantic salmon were consistent with levels previously
reported for farmed salmon. Fiighest PCB levels were seen in sea-run Atlantic salmon in the Merrimack
River. As a species, lake trout brood stock exhibited the highest mean PCB concentrations, with some
triggering a 0.5 meal/month EPA consumption advisory. With respect to EPA consumption advisories,
dioxin levels were at least as restrictive as PCB levels. Dioxin caused 14 of 22 composited fish samples to
fall within the 0.5 or 0 meals per month EPA categories. Mercury, dieldrin, and endrin levels were far less
restrictive than either dioxins or PCBs. Natural prey, environmental inputs, and/or commercial feed may-
be significant sources of PCBs in Atlantic salmon in the North Atlantic. Dioxins were viewed as the
limiting factor when considering the fate of these fish.
Fair Warning: Why Grocery Stores Should Tell Parents About Mercury in Fish
Michael Bender. Mercury Policy Project, Montpelier, VT.
Recent testing conducted for the Mercury Policy Project indicates that the mercury concentrations found
today in swordfish and tuna sold across the United States places consumers at risk. The average mercury
concentrations in swordfish samples were 1.11 parts per million, with half of the samples above 1 ppm,
and the average levels in tuna were 0.33 ppm. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data from the 1990s
show similar results, indicating that 36% of the swordfish and nearly 4% of the tuna sampled exceeded
the agency's 1 part per million "action level" for mercury. A joint Environmental Protection Agency-
FDA advisory issued in 2004 warns pregnant women, women of childbearing age, and young children to
avoid certain fish, including swordfish, and limit consumption of other fish, particularly tuna. Yet FDA
scientists have estimated that between 30% and 50% of women of childbearing age are not aware of the
exposure risks of mercury. To increase consumer awareness, the State of California requires grocery
stores to post warnings where fish are sold. In addition, the American Medical Association passed a
resolution in 2004 encouraging the FDA to require the posting of point-of-purchase warnings wherever
fish is sold: "Given the limitations of national consumer fish consumption advisories, the Food and Drug
Administration should consider the advisability of requiring that fish consumption advisories and results
related to mercury testing be posted where fish, including canned tuna, are sold."
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-l
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Does Living Near a Superfund Site Lead to Higher Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCS) Exposure?
Anna L. Choi1. Jonathan I. Levy1, Douglas W. Dockery1, Louise M. Ryan2, and Susan A. Korrick1^
'Department of Environmental Health and Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health,
Boston. MA. "Charming Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard
Medical School, Boston, MA.
We assessed the determinants of cord serum polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels among infants of
mothers living near a PCB-contaminated Superfund site in southeastern Massachusetts. Mother-infant
pairs were recruited at birth between March 1993 and December 1998. We measured 51 PCB congeners
(ZPCB) in the 718 cord serum samples. Each family's address, diet, PCB exposure risk factors,
occupation, and demographics were obtained from maternal interviews and medical record reviews.
Addresses were geocoded to obtain distance to the Superfund site and data on neighborhood
characteristics. We modeled loglOZPCB as a function of individual exposure pathways and potential
individual and neighborhood risk factors, mapping model residuals to provide information on any
unmeasured spatial correlates of PCB exposure. Similar analyses were performed for the light (mono- to
tetra-CBs) and heavy (penta- to deca-CBs) PCBs and congener 118 to assess potential differences in
exposure pathways as a function of relative volatility. Cord serum ZPCB levels had a geometric mean of
0.40 ng/g serum (maximum 18.1 ng/g serum). Maternal age and birthplace were the strongest predictors
of ZPCB, with a significant association with organ meat and local dairy consumption. Infants born later
in the study had lower levels of XPCB, possibly due to secular declines in exposure and site remediation.
No association was found between ZPCB levels and distance of residence from the Superfund hot spot.
Similar results were found with light and heavy PCBs, and congener 118. We conclude that maternal age.
early exposures to PCBs, smoking, lactation, and diet, including consumption of some locally produced
foods, were important determinants of cord serum PCB levels. Infant birth year and local factors related
to Superfund site dredging, but not residential proximity to the site, were additional determinants of cord
serum PCBs in the study community.
(This study was funded by NIEHS grant number 5 P42 ES05947.)
Fish Advisories and Tissue Data: National Picture Compared to Tribal Lands
William Cooter. Patricia Cunningham. Kevin Pickren, and Kim Sparks. RTI International, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Using tribal polygon GIS coverages obtained from the American Indian Environmental Office and GIS
coverages offish consumption advisories and associated fish tissue residue data from the National Listing
of Fish Advisories (NLFA) database, the authors evaluated differences between the national perspective
and tribal lands. Several differences were apparent. First, the fish advisories issued for tribal lands were
overwhelmingly issued for mercury and secondarily for several organochorine pesticides, whereas
advisories even within 10 and 50 miles of tribal lands have been issued for a much larger number of
chemical contaminants including organophosphates, other heavy metals, PCBs, PBDs, and dioxins. In
addition, the amount of tissue data supporting advisories issued for nationally was almost three times
greater than for advisories issued for tribal lands. These differences may have several causes including
geographic differences (e.g., tribal areas in the West may have small numbers of perennial rivers
compared to the United States as a whole), differences in sampling intensity (e.g., primarily associated
with resource constraints of tribal monitoring programs), and/or differences in the rates of tribal reporting
of the results obtained in their fish tissue monitoring programs to the NLFA. Any or all of these factors
maybe responsible for differences in the magnitude and patterns observed in fish advisories and tissue
data collected by the Nation as a whole vs. data collected on tribal lands.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-2
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Idaho's Fish Consumption Advisory Program: How to Maintain a Program through Cooperative
Agreements.
Chris Corwin. Environmental Health Education and Assessment Program. Boise, ID.
The Idaho Fish Consumption Advisory Program (IFCAP) was started 5 years ago to help protect the
public from adverse health risks associated with consuming contaminated fish from Idaho and tribal
waters. The program is run collectively by a committee of representatives from at least six state and
federal agencies. The program has no money earmarked for its activities and thus relies on the
'Volunteering" of the agencies participating in the program. Using the resources at each agency (for
example, Idaho Department of Fish and Game collect fish for their counts and keep and bottle samples for
IFCAP), we are able to collect fish from select bodies of water and have them tested for contaminants
such as mercury and PCB's. Through this cooperative agreement, IFCAP has issued fish advisories for
seven water bodies in Idaho and has others in the works.
The Ouincv Bay Study Revisited 20 Years Later
Mary E. Davis and William Robinson, University of Massachusetts Boston.
In April 1988, an EPA-funded study was released mat identified concentration levels of certain heavy
metals, pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs in sediment and marine life in the Quincy Bay area of Massachusetts.
In particular, the histopathological conditions of Quincy Bay flounder, lobsters, and soft-shelled clams
and of transplanted, caged oysters were examined for the purposes of performing a detailed risk
assessment of seafood in that area. The lifetime cancer risk associated with consuming Quincy Bay's
seafood was then determined, and the risk of noncarcinogenic adverse health effects were calculated.
This study was performed when this coastal region was notoriously contaminated with pollutants, with
the goal of better understanding the public health impacts of contaminated seafood for residents and
consumers. Since 1988, many changes have occurred in Quincy Bay and the larger Boston Harbor area.
These changes directly affect the levels of contamination and, therefore, likely impact associated health
risks from eating contaminated shellfish. However, there are still Massachusetts Department of Public
Health advisories against eating fish and shellfish from Boston Harbor based on that Quincy Bay study
nearly 20 years later.
A reanalysis of Quincy Bay seafood is currently under way at the University of Massachusetts Boston,
and preliminary data from lobster tissue and hepatopancreas suggest some interesting trends. Although
these results are still being analyzed, and certain contaminants have not yet been reported, lobster tissue
concentrations from all of the reported chemicals were down from their 1988 levels. However,
hepatopancreas levels were elevated for some of the contaminants, including certain PAHs and PCB
congeners, while pesticides and total PCBs were down. Once the pilot data have been thoroughly
reviewed, we plan to resample a larger population of lobster and other shellfish, to perform a detailed
comparative risk assessment of Quincy Bay seafood.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Development of Hatchery Feed Criteria
Dave DeVault. Stephanie Millsap, and Crystal LeGault Anderson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PCB concentrations in lake trout brood stock maintained in U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) Region 3
National Fish Hatcheries occasionally exceed the fish consumption advisory trigger for PCBs used by
Great Lakes States. The available data indicate mat a primary source of PCBs to hatchery fish is
contaminated food. We used a simple bioaccumulation model to calculate a PCB criteria for hatchery
food that will result in PCB concentrations in brood stock below thresholds posing risk to
1. Human consumers.
2. Wildlife mat consume stocked brood stock.
3. Fry produced in hatcheries.
Modeling results indicate that, for hatchery lake trout, a PCB concentration of 0.057 (ig/g, or less, in food
will result in concentrations in lake trout that are below the Great Lakes fish consumption advisoiy trigger
of 0.05 (.ig/g and pose minimal risk to mink and lake trout fry. FWS Region 3 contracts now specify that
PCB concentrations in fish oils not exceed 0.02 (ig/g, and the finished feed not exceed 0.057 jag/g. FWS
will conduct random testing to ensure compliance.
Engaging New Audiences: NGOs as Sources of Information on Contaminants in Seafood
Tim Fitzgerald, Environmental Defense. New York. NY.
The risks of consuming contaminated fish have traditionally been conveyed to the public in two ways: (1)
through the federal methylmercury advisory for commercial seafood and (2) via state health or natural
resources agencies for recreational and subsistence catches. Sources of information are increasing,
however, as a number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) now issue consumption advice through
tools such as mercury calculators and healthy fish guides. Few NGOs conduct their own contaminants
testing, but rather rely on state advisory information and fish tissue data from such programs as the
Environmental Protection Agency's National Listing of Fish Advisories and the Food and Drug
Administration's Mercury Monitoring Program. The resulting consumption advice varies depending on
data sources evaluated, study areas surveyed, subpopulations targeted, and contaminants considered.
Environmental Defense, an environmental NGO that links science, economics, law, and private-sector
partnerships, provides species-specific ecological advice and consumption recommendations to
consumers through seafood wallet cards and an online seafood database
(http://wr\vw.oceansalive.org/go/seafood). Mean contaminant levels for each species are based on
mercury, PCB, dioxin, and pesticide data collected from more than 60 government databases and
scientific studies. The data are filtered through a series of decision rules governing data credibility and
quality, and advisories are men generated according to the EPA's "National Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." This method provides consumers with reliable
and accurate consumption advice for many of the most popular seafood items in the United States.
Environmental Defense presents this information on contaminants alongside information on ecologically
responsible seafood choices. Our findings show that fish high in contaminants are often produced using
environmentally harmful fishing and aquaculture practices. Thus, our food safety and ecological advice to
consumers tend to reinforce each other.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-4
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Upper Rio Grande Watershed, 2000-2003 Surface Water, Soils,
and Sediment Sampling: A Cooperative Study
Ralph Ford-Schmid. New Mexico Environment Department. ralph.ford-schmid@state.nm.us
Ken Mullen, Los Alamos National Laboratory. MS-K497. laiiullen@lanl.gov
From 2000 to 2003 researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory. New Mexico Environment
Department, San Ildefonso Pueblo, and Los Alamos County determined levels of poly chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in ambient water, storm water, background soils, and sediments in the upper Rio
Grande watershed. All samples were analyzed using EPA method 1668A, a high-resolution method, for
the determination of PCB congener concentrations. PCB concentrations in stream channel sediments
ranged from 0.03 pg/g to 2,500 pg/g. We found levels of PCBs in the upper Rio Grande watershed soils
ranging from 5 pg/g to 253 pg/g with a mean concentration of 45.4 pg/g. This likely represents
background concentrations in soils from atmospheric deposition. The New Mexico Water Quality Control
Commission (NMWQCC) has established the Wildlife Habitat Standard to protect aquatic organisms and
wildlife that consume fish. Total PCBs in storm runoff in tributaries to the Rio Grande ranged from 1.4
ng/L to 925 ng/L (mean 226 ng/L) and often exceeded the Wildlife Habitat Standard of 14 ng/L. Total
PCBs in the Rio Grande ranged from 0.03 ng/L to 12.8 ng/L (mean 2.57 ng/L) and often exceed the
NMWQCC Human Health Standard of 0.64 ng/L. The Human Health Standard represents a level in water
where PCBs may accumulate in fish and pose an unacceptable health risk for people who eat the fish.
This finding is consistent with previous studies of fish in the Rio Grande that show concentrations of
PCBs in tissues of some fish species exceed EPA recommendations for fish consumption and may
warrant fish consumption advisories. Levels of PCBs in the Rio Grande did not at any time exceed the
EPA drinking water standard for PCBs (500 ng/L). Semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) were
also deployed at four locations along the Rio Grande from Embudo through Albuquerque to provide a
measure of dissolved PCB concentrations. The levels of dissolved PCBs in the Rio Grande, based on
SPMD data, increase below Cochiti Reservoir and remain elevated through Albuquerque. This may
indicate conversion to lesser chlorinated and more soluble PCB congeners due to anaerobic
dechlorination in bottom sediments of Cochiti Reservoir. The level of dioxin-like congeners increases
from the Cochiti Reservoir outlet to our most downstream sample below Albuquerque. This may indicate
additional industrial sources of PCBs below Cochiti Reservoir and through Albuquerque.
Pilot Study to Assess Fish Consumption Patterns and Knowledge of Fish Advisories
Ivar Fritlisen, Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Family Medicine, Charleston, SC.
Background: In March of 2004, a joint FDA/EPA advisory was issued warning certain at-risk
populations to limit their fish intake based on potentially unsafe levels of mercury. Pregnant women,
women who may become pregnant, and young children are warned to limit their total intake offish to 12
ounces per week. They should eat no more than a single six-ounce can of Albacore tuna each week and
should avoid certain species offish (shark, tile fish, king mackerel and swordfish) altogether. People are
also encouraged to eat a variety of different fish and observe local advisories when applicable.
Objectives: This project was a pilot study to determine if local sport fishermen were aware of any
advisories concerning fish consumption and if so, where they found out about them. An additional goal
was to assess if fish consumption patterns for at-risk populations were consistent with those outlined in
the federal mercury advisory. Sport fishermen were chosen since they would know more about fish
advisories and possibly eat more fish than the general population.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-5
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Methods: A survey tool was developed and administered to sport fishermen at a local fishing pier and
fishing club meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, from December, 2004 to February, 2005. In addition
to the fishermen, data were collected on other household members to determine their fish consumption
patterns.
Results: A total of 34 surveys were completed with the following results:
72% (23) of respondents were aware offish consumption advisories and 83% (19) of them could name a
specific contaminant. 95% (18)* of respondents that identified a specific contaminant named mercury,
while PCB's, parasites, and heavy metals were also mentioned. 68% (13)* named a specific fish, with
king mackerel (9), swordfish (4), and tuna (3) noted most. Barracuda, blackfm tuna, and wahoo were
other species respondents listed as having consumption advisories. Newspaper or magazine (53% (18)*)
was the most common source of information for those who knew about advisories. Respondents picked
newspaper or magazine (50% (17)*) as the most reliable source of information, whereas only one person
named government material as the most reliable source of information. 77% (26) of the respondents were
interested in learning more about fish consumption advisories.
*More than one response was accepted for these questions.
Conclusions: The results of this pilot study show mat respondents and their household members
consistently consume fish at levels lower than the safe threshold outlined in the FDA/EPA mercury
advisor}'. These fishermen were aware offish consumption advisories, were able to name mercury as a
contaminant, and were aware of some specific fish identified in the federal advisory. Conducting this
survey was a valuable learning experience, and the lessons learned will be applied to future research in
this area. A new survey tool is currently being developed that will be administered specifically to women.
Future work could also include education aimed at health care workers or the general public.
To Post or Not To Post? Results from OEHHA's 2004 Survey of Posting in Fish Advisory
Programs
Robert K. Brodberg, Ph.D., Margy Gassel. Ph.D., and Sue Roberts, M.S., Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) circulated a survey, during the 2004 Fish Forum, among fish advisory' program staff from
states and tribes on the issue of posting advisories as part of state communication efforts. Twenty-seven
staff representing 26 states and the District of Columbia submitted responses. One state responded mat
they have no advisories. Therefore, because the questions in the survey were not applicable to this state,
the total number of respondents used to report findings was 26. Although 20 states reported posting at
least some advisories, only 7 indicated that they have a requirement, mandate, or policy to do so. One
state that no longer posts signs reported that signs posted in the past were destroyed. About half of the
states post signs in English only, while the other half post signage in at least two (English and Spanish)
and up to six different languages. Sixty-five percent of the states that conduct posting considered signs a
useful communication tool. One state that does not post suggested that other communication methods
could be better for reaching target audiences of women and children (for mercury advisories). Of all the
states that post some advisories, only three states indicated that they have a program for evaluating the
effectiveness of signage. The expense of posting and maintaining signs, and vandalism were common
concerns expressed in respondents" comments.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-6
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts-
Fish Tissue Sampling Program in Alaska: Update
Robert Gerlach and Howard Teas, State of Alaska, Anchorage, AK.
The presence of environmental contaminants in fish has been of major concern for the general public and
has raised some questions regarding the benefit of consuming fish as part of a healthy diet. Recent articles
focusing on mercury, PCB, and dioxin content of salmon have been of particular interest to Alaskans who
eat salmon at a much higher consumption rate than the general population of the United States.
To answer some of these concerns, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is
working in collaboration with the Alaska Department of Public Health (ADPH). ADEC is collecting fish
from Alaskan waters to analyze for heavy metals (methylmercury, total mercury, total arsenic, inorganic
arsenic, cadmium, lead, chromium, nickel, selenium) and inorganic contaminants (PCBs, dioxins, furans,
organocholorine pesticides, PBDEs). The ADPH initiated a statewide mercury biomonitoring program,
which involves analyzing hair from women of childbearing years. The results of the biomonitoring study
will be used with mercury data from the fish collected to develop public health advice for fish
consumption in Alaska.
This poster presents the mercury data from the 1776 fish samples collected from 2001 to 2004. Sample
numbers of each species offish from each corresponding year are listed, and comparisons among species
offish and geographic locations are highlighted. PBDE congener (47, 99, 100, 153, 154) data from 89
fish (salmon: Chinook, chum, sockeye; sheefish; halibut; and sablefish) are also illustrated.
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Anglers in Three Regions of Concern
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Joshua C. Gibson, Julie A. McClafferty1, and Karen S. Hockett2. Conservation Management Institute,
College of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
Email: 'jmcclaffiffivt.edu. 2khockett@vt.edu.
Full report (CMI-HDD-05-01) is available online: http://wwrw.cmiweb.org/hdd.btm.
The Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech received a grant from the Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP) to (1) identify populations at risk for consuming contaminated self-caught fish and (2)
examine the fish consumption advisories and protocols to identify possible improvements. In June, July,
and August, 2004, we conducted 8 weeks of on-site angler interviews in the three regions of concern:
Baltimore. MD (135 interviews); Washington. DC (247 interviews); and the Tidewater area of Virginia
(493 interviews). The three regions had several key differences in the status of their advisories. The
Baltimore area had just received anew set of advisories accompanied by an aggressive, multimedia
outreach campaign approximately a month before our interviews began. The Washington, DC, area
advisories had been in effect, unchanged, with a less-aggressive outreach campaign for about 10 years. In
Virginia, only one very mild advisory was in effect during the whole sampling period (with one additional
advisory effective halfway through), and outreach was relatively low-key.
These differences were clearly reflected in the fish consumption patterns and advisory awareness levels
among anglers and their households. Perhaps most reflective of this relationship is that 91% of Virginia
anglers said they consumed their catch at least part of the time, whereas 53% of Baltimore anglers, and
only 37% of Washington, DC, anglers reported similarly. In all cases, a significant portion of anglers
(85%, 65%, and 54%, respectively), including some anglers who do not eat the fish themselves, reported
that they sometimes give their fish to others. When asked specifically about advisories, 85% of Baltimore
anglers were aware of them, and 56% of Washington. DC, anglers were aware. This question was not
asked of Virginia anglers, but very few mentioned the advisories during the interview. Unfortunately, of
the anglers who consume their catch in all three regions, the most popular species for consumption are
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-7
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
still those under advisory, including catfish (a no-consumption species in all three regions), white perch,
striped bass, largemouth bass, and blue crab. In fact, a large proportion of the consumption instances
reported (51% in Washington, DC; 78% in Baltimore) exceeded advisory recommendations, even though
anglers overwhelmingly indicated that they believed advisories were important to follow. The one
sociodemographic factor that stood out as a critical risk factor in Baltimore and Washington, DC, was
race. African Americans in Baltimore and minorities in general in Washington. DC, appear to be at an
increased risk because they more often consumed their catch, more often provided their catch to their
families, placed a higher importance on the reduction of food expenses as a motivation to fish, and were
less likely to prepare their fish using risk-reducing techniques than other races, primarily white anglers. In
Virginia, where advisories are a relatively new occurrence and outreach is less aggressive, all ethnic
groups were at an increased risk.
Additional analyses of angler interviews included the effectiveness of various dissemination modes in
both reaching anglers (creating awareness) and changing consumption behavior. Follow-up stakeholder
meetings also resulted in some suggestions for bridging the cultural gaps that may lead to lower levels of
advisory compliance among certain groups. We offer some suggestions for addressing these issues in
each of the three regions.
Children's Consumption of Commercial and Sport-caught Fish: Findings from a Twelve State
Study
Pamela Imm. Lynda Knobeloch, and H.A. Anderson, Division of Public Health, Madison, WI.
Is TEQ Enrichment of PCBs in Fish Tissue a Common Phenomenon? Implications for Risk
Assessment
Russell E. Keenan and John H. Samuelian. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Portland, ME
When fish tissues are analyzed for PCBs, some public health agencies have recommended analyzing for
"dioxin-like" PCB congeners and converting the results into dioxin toxic equivalency (TEQ)
concentrations for use in risk assessments based on the cancer slope factor (CSF) for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. This recommendation implies that environmental PCBs possess enriched
toxicity compared to that of the commercial PCB test mixtures upon which U.S. EPA's upper-bound PCB
CSF is based. Because the highest PCB test mixture contained 46.4 mg-TEQ/kg-PCB, the PCB CSF by
definition is protective of exposures to PCBs containing TEQ levels less than or equal to this
concentration. Our analysis revealed that fish fillet PCB samples taken from a large variety of PCB-
impacted waterways across the United States that varied in the type of PCBs mat were the source of the
contamination had mean and 95% statistical confidence limit TEQ levels lower than 46.4 mg-TEQ/Kg-
PCB. Consequently, the use of the PCB CSF appears to be adequately protective for evaluating potential
cancer risks of PCB mixtures found in these fish tissues. There does not appear to be a need to use the
TEQ approach to ensure that cancer risks are not underestimated. Implications for risk assessment and
public health protection are discussed.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-8
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Outreach Strategies to Sensitive Populations Regarding Mercury in Fish
Karen Knaebel. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Waterbury, VT.
Special efforts have been made in Vermont to reach women of childbearing age. pregnant women.
nursing mothers, and parents of young children. Health providers, childbirth educators, midwifes, doulas,
naturopathic physicians, nutritionists, childcare providers, and nurses were given materials and instruction
to provide this information to their clients. Also, populations where fish is a staple in their diet were
provided information through tribal education, pow wow meetings, and refugee resettlement programs.
Other avenues to get the word out to the general public included posting advisories at fishing access areas,
libraries, stores mat sell fishing licenses, schools, physician offices, and direct mailings to newly married
couples. To measure the success of outreach to pregnant women, a survey is currently being conducted of
mothers of newborns as to their knowledge of the advisories, their fish consumption patterns during
pregnancy, and a measure of behavior change based on this knowledge. As a part of the outreach, an
animated video and video games that cover various aspects of mercury in the environment were
developed for use by 8th-grade students.
Mercury in Scales as an Assessment Method for Predicting Muscle Tissue Mercury Concentrations
in Largemouth Bass
J.L. Lake.1 S.A. Ryba,1 J.R. Serbst,1 A.D. Libby,2 S. Ayvazian1
1 National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory - Atlantic Ecology Division, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 27 Tarzwell Dr. Narragansett, R.I.
02882
2 Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 218, West Kingston, R.I. 02892
This study is the first of two related studies designed to predict total mercury (Hg) concentrations in fish
tissue without the necessity of sacrificing the fish. In this study, the relationship between total Hg
concentration in fish scales and in tissues of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) from 20 freshwater
sites was developed and evaluated to determine whether scale analysis would allow a non-lethal and
convenient method for predicting Hg concentrations in tissues. The relationship of total Hg concentrations
between untreated scale samples and tissues showed high variance. Several different scale treatments
were tried to increase the coefficient of determination, and thereby, to enhance the effectiveness of this
predictive technique. Washing treatments with acetone, deionized water, solutions of a detergent, and a
soap were used in conjunction with ultra sonication to treat scales. The use of a mild soap solution with
heating and ultrasonication increased the r2 the most (from 0.69 [untreated scales] to 0.89). As a result of
variance remaining in this relationship and with the inclusion variance in scale analysis, rather wide
predictions of tissue concentrations from scale analysis were obtained. Scale analysis can be used to
establish the acceptability offish given a criterion based on Hg concentration in fish muscle tissue and
also appears to have potential for assessing general trends in contamination, for comparison of levels from
different geographical areas, and as a first level screen for assessing Hg contamination at sites.
Hexabromocvclododecane in Chesapeake Bay Fish
Randolph Larsen1. Elizabeth Davis1, Aaron Peck2, Daniel Liebert3, and Kristy RichardsonJ
Affiliations: 'St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, MD. 2NOAA, Hollings Marine Lab,
Charleston, SC. ^University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Hexabromocvclododecane (HBCD) is a brominated flame retardant commonly used in polystyrene
foams. Global demand for HBCD was 16,700 tons in 2001, making it the third most widely used
brominated flame retardant. Commercial HBCD mixtures contain three diastereomers: alpha, beta, and
gamma. This study used LC/MS/MS to analyze 52 composite fish samples from the Chesapeake Bay and
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-9
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts-
its tributaries. The majority of the samples were between 0-20 ng HBCD/g lipid, with a few samples,
notably channel catfish and striped bass, with concentrations between 40-80 ng HBCD/g lipid. These
concentrations are similar to previous research conducted in Europe. HBCD concentrations were not
correlated with PCB and BDE concentrations measured from the same composite samples. This indicates
that the sources, transport processes, or bioavailability of HBCDs are different from PCBs and BDEs. The
HBCD alpha form occurred most frequently, however in some species, gammaHBCD was the dominant
stereoisomer. This indicates differences in metabolic processes between fish species. This study is the
first of its kind for the Chesapeake Bay and represents a baseline of HBCD concentrations in Mid-
Atlantic fisheries. HBCD production may increase as a result of the phase out of other forms of flame
retardants. Therefore, continued monitoring and research into the environmental consequences of HBCDs
are needed.
Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program
Henry Loveiov. Seafood Safe, LLC, Dover, NH.
Seafood contaminant testing and labeling program helps consumers maximize the health benefits of
seafood. Solution for consumers receiving confusing/conflicting messages. Proactive industry-sponsored
approach. Autonomous independent structure consists of
• Advisory panel (Dr. Knuth, Cornell University; Dr. Carpenter, SUNY Albany)
• Sampling program (SureFish)
• Participating labs (Axys Analytical—PCBs; Brooks Rand—mercury)
• Consumer advocacy organization (Environmental Defense)
Program highlights
• Precautionary principle
• Recommendation based on women of childbearing age
• Consultation with client
• Customized testing protocols
• Positive industry message
• Medical community overwhelmingly recommends the consumption of seafood; majority of
seafood is safe to consume
Guidance Derivation
• EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories
• EPA's Risk-Based Consumption Tables
Seafood Safe First Adopter = EcoFish
Consumption Recommendations for EcoFish Products: Alaskan Salmon 16+; S. American Mahimahi 7;
California Calamari 16+; White Shrimp 16+; Oregon Tuna 6; Bay Scallops 16+; Alaskan Halibut 10;
Organic Shrimp 16+.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-10
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Norwegian Surveillance of Seafood Safety
Amund Maage1. Mette K. Lorentzen2, Malin Florvag2, Agathe Medhus2, and Kaare Julshamn1
'National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES), P.O. Box 2029 Nordnes, N-5817 Bergen,
Norway.2 Norwegian Food Safety Authority. National Centre of Fish and Seafood, Bergen, P.O. Box
383, N-2381 Brummundal, Norway.
Several surveillance programs with the aim of controlling and documenting the content of undesirable
substances in marine foods are ongoing in Norway. Some of these programs are focused directly toward
food quality while others are designed more for environmental monitoring than food monitoring. The
latter includes several "hot spot" programs at sites and areas with known pollution and is financed
through the Ministry of Environment.
Several of the programs aimed at food and marine feed quality were administered by the Directorate of
Fisheries until January 1, 2004, but the responsibility was then taken over by the Norwegian Food Safety
Authority (NFSA), which then also took over surveillance responsibilities of marine foods. The regular
programs include
• Surveillance of marine feed and feed ingredients for aquaculture
• Surveillance of cultured bivalves
• Surveillance of medical residues in cultured fish, mainly salmon
• European Union (EU) program on dioxins in food, where Norway provides data on a large
number offish samples.
The National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES) is responsible for running the above-
mentioned programs also in 2004 and 2005 on behalf of the NFSA.
Since 1994, NIFES has also built up their own surveillance program focusing the concentration of
undesirable substances in important wild-caught fish species. The aim is to deliver independent quality
data for the government, consumers, and industry, and the data will eventually be used to show time
trends. In this program, sampling frequencies of different marine species are selected based on their
economic importance or by virtue of their catch volume (industrial fish). Sampling frequency is thereby
every year or every second year for species such as salmon, cod, herring, and mackerel, while more
infrequent for species like ling, tusk, and Greenland halibut.
NIFES has gradually built up its capacity for different chemical and microbiological analyses for the
purpose of the surveillance. The portfolio now includes total metal content analyzed by ICP-MS; TBT
and inorganic arsenic by LC-ICP-MS; dioxins and dioxin-like PCB's by HRGC-FIRMSS; additional
polybrominated flame retardants by GC-MS; PCB, PAH, and pesticides by GC-MS and also further
compounds such as antioxidants. Speciation of metals now includes Me-Hg+ by GC-ICP-MS. From this
year on, analyses of a variety of nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, amino acids, and
different carbohydrates will be included in this program. Examples of results will be presented, and
results from the latter program can be found at www.nifes.no.
Colorado Fish Tissue Study: Mercury Concentrations in Fish in Selected Waterbodies, Sampled in
2004 and 2005
Lucia Machado. James Dominguez, Kenan Diker, PhD, Monitoring Unit, Water Quality Control
Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
PROBLEM: Fish spend all their life in a waterbody; due to bioconcentration and bioaccumulation
mechanisms, mercury found in trace amounts in the water column may be found at high concentrations in
fish. When such fish are consumed, they may pose a threat to human health.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-11
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether mercury concentrations in fish tissue are above levels of concern for
human consumption or not. If they are. fish consumption advisories are issued for those waterbodies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
• 5-year monitoring plan to investigate mercury in fish in almost 100 lakes, reservoirs, and river
segments in Colorado, starting in 2004.
• Waterbodies were chosen based on the following criteria:
o A need to update existing fish consumption advisories.
o The waterbody is a highly desirable fisher}'.
o There are no historical data available.
• A total of 120 fish were collected per waterbody: 60 fish from two species; each species
represented by fish of two sizes: larger and smaller, 30 of each size. Not possible at every
waterbody. The outcome of the sampling effort depended on the natural diversity, abundance, and
availability offish in each lake.
• Samples consisted most often of material composited from three to five fish; a few samples
consisted of material from a single fish. Always, the compositing scheme was such that the
standard error was kept at 0.024 or less.
• Composite samples in this study met the following criteria:
o All specimens in a composite were of the same species;
o The smallest specimen in the composite was not smaller than 85% of the length of the
largest specimen in the composite;
o Fish composites were made from fish collected during the same sampling event.
RESULTS:
• 22 lakes and reservoirs were sampled in a 18-month period.
• A total of 1,253 samples were submitted for analysis.
• Of the five waterbodies with fish consumption advisories (FCAs) in Colorado, three were
resampled, and all three will be updated and the FCAs maintained.
• At the current action level of 0.5 (.ig/kg, six additional waterbodies exceeded mat value.
• Seven waterbodies had very low mercury concentrations in the tissue of the fish.
• Two waterbodies had mercury levels above 0.4 (ig/kg.
• Fish species found with elevated mercury levels were northern pike, walleye, largemouth bass
and smallmouth bass.
• All trout species sampled were found to have very low mercury levels.
CONCLUSIONS:
• There is a need for the State to continue evaluating mercury concentrations in fish in Colorado
waterbodies.
• There is a need to evaluate the geographic distribution of mercury-impacted waterbodies.
• There is a need for the State to issue additional FCAs.
• Trout species do not pose a significant mercury contamination threat in any waterbody sampled.
• Large top predator fish should not be consumed, especially by certain subpopulations at larger
risk.
The Monitoring Unit acknowledges the Division of Wildlife for all the collaboration and help collecting
fish for this study. For more information, consult www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/FisbCon/FisbCon.htm
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-12
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Patterns of Hg Bioaccumulation and Transfer in Aquatic Food Webs across Multilake Studies in
the Northeast U.S.
Brandon M. Mayes. Dartmouth College, Hanover. NH.
The northeastern United States receives some of the highest levels of atmospheric mercury (Hg)
deposition of any region in North America. Moreover, fish from many lakes in this region carry Hg
burdens that present health risks to both human and wildlife consumers. The overarching goal of this
study was to identify the attributes of lakes in this region that are most likely associated with high Hg
burdens in fish. To accomplish this, we compared data collected in four separate multilake studies.
Correlations among Hg in fish (four studies) or in zooplankton and fish (two studies) and numerous
chemical, physical, land use, and ecological variables were compared across more than 150 lakes. The
analysis produced three general findings. First, the most important predictors of Hg burdens in fish were
similar among datasets. As found in past studies, key chemical covariates (e.g.. pH, acid neutralizing
capacity, and SO4) were negatively correlated with Hg bioaccumulation in the biota. However, negative
correlations with several parameters that have not been previously identified (e.g., human land use
variables and zooplankton density) were also found to be equally important predictors. Second, certain
predictors unique to individual datasets and differences in lake population characteristics, sampling
protocols, and fish species in each study likely explained some of the contrasting results that we found in
the analyses. Third, lakes with high rates of Hg bioaccumulation and trophic transfer have low pH and
low productivity with relatively undisturbed watersheds, suggesting that atmospheric deposition of Hg is
the dominant or sole source of input. This study highlights several fundamental complexities when
comparing datasets over different environmental conditions, but also underscores the utility of such
comparisons for revealing key drivers of Hg trophic transfer among different types of lakes.
Sport-Caught Fish Consumption in Missouri: 2002 Mail Survey
M.J. McKee. K. Bataille, and R.A. Reitz, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO.
The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and other state agencies collect fish contaminant data,
which are provided to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) to determine if a
fish consumption advisoiy is warranted. In an effort to ensure the accuracy and effectiveness of the
advisories, MDC, with DHSS input, developed a survey to collect information on key fish consumption
variables such as species consumed and rate of consumption as well as awareness and understanding of
Missouri fish advisories.
A mail survey was sent to 2,379 selected individuals meeting the following criteria: had a valid Missouri
hunting and fishing permit; had fished and consumed fish in 2002 (they or a family member); and had a
woman of childbearing age or a child 12 years or younger in their household. A total of 1,621 people
responded to the survey for a 69.6% response rate. Results indicated the most frequently consumed
species were (in order of preference) crappie, channel catfish, bluegill. and largemouth bass. Filleting fish
and removing/puncturing the skin were the most common methods of preparing the fish. Respondents
(approximately 50%) would remove the red meat/mud line and other fatty tissues during preparation,
especially women. Pan and deep frying were the predominant methods of cooking. The "all fish" daily
consumption rates for all respondents at the 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles were 50, 80.0, 113.4,
and 140.0 grams/day with an estimated mean value of 38.7 grams/day. For children, the "all fish" daily
consumption rates at the 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles were 26.1, 36.6, 52.2, and 67.9 grams/day
with an estimated mean value of 17.0 g/day. The percentile values were considered a better representation
of the data than the mean values since the data were not normally distributed.
Most anglers were aware of health advisories, but were not specifically aware of the recent mercury
advisor^' regarding largemouth bass consumption. The largemouth bass advisory recommends that
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-13
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
pregnant women, women that may become pregnant, or children aged 12 years or less not consume
largemouth bass greater than 12 inches in length. Survey data indicated that some individuals in these
potentially sensitive populations likely did consume largemouth bass in 2002. Although there was a lack
of knowledge regarding the mercury fish advisory, it may be a result not only of the methods used to
disseminate the information, but also the receptiveness of anglers and others to the message. When asked
if survey respondents perceived consumption of Missouri sport-caught fish to be risky or somewhat risky,
only 12.9% indicated some concern, compared to 26.2% expressing concern for drinking tap water and
83.1% expressing concern for drinking alcohol. More awareness of, and response to, the mercury
advisory may be gained by more effective methods of distribution. However, special attention must be
paid to the public's concern for the issue and their willingness to follow the advisory.
Communicating Seafood Safety
Cara Muscio and Gef Flimlin, Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension Monmouth, Ocean, and
Atlantic Counties, Toms River, NJ.
Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension is publishing a Web site intended to help consumers make
appropriate seafood choices for their families. This site is based on a 2004 conference entitled "Seafood:
Assessing the Benefits and the Risks." The site will present research-based information on the benefits
and the risks of eating seafood, and will link to other organizations presenting pertinent information. In
addition, a survey was designed to collect information on seafood consumption habits and perception of
risk. A pretest of this survey was given to 100 faculty and staff of Cook College, Rutgers University.
The Use of Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE) in the Determination of PCBs. PBDEs. PCDDs
and PCDFs in Fish Tissue Samples
B. Richter, S. Henderson, E. Francis, J. Peterson, and R. Carlson. Dionex, SLCTC, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The use of accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) has grown rapidly since its introduction in 1995. ASE is
an extraction technique that utilizes elevated temperature and pressures with organic solvents or solvent
mixtures to obtain rapid extractions with small volumes of solvents. ASE complies with the requirements
of Method 3545 A for the extraction of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), semivolatile compounds
(BNAs), chlorinated herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organophosphorus pesticides (OPP),
polychlorinated dibenzo-/>-dioxins and furans, diesel range organics (DROs) and waste oil organics
(WOOs) from solid and semisolid samples. The advantages of ASE include short extraction times
(generally less than 15 minutes) and small solvent quantities used (generally less than 50 mL) for
extracting solid and semisolid samples.
ASE is also widely used for the extraction of pollutants and contaminants from animal tissues including
fish. This presentation will discuss results of comparisons of data generated by ASE to those generated by
conventional extraction methods such as sonication and Soxhlet. Data will be presented showing the
recovery of PCBs, PBDEs, PCDDs, and PCDFs from fish and other aquatic animal tissues. In many
cases, selective extractions can be performed using ASE that generate extracts free from lipids that can be
injected onto GC or GC-MS systems without any further cleanup.
Fish Consumption Outreach at Supermarkets in Connecticut
Rusnak. Toal, and Ginsberg, Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, CT
While the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDPH) has set advisories for fish caught from
local waterbodies over the past 20 years, only in the last few years have we developed guidance for
commercially available fish. This guidance has appeared as a sidebar on our pamphlets that focus on local
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-14
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts-
fish consumption. Over the past 6 months we have developed a new pamphlet titled "A Woman's
Supermarket Guide to Fish Consumption." The supermarket guidance is based upon the recent
FDA/USEPA general consumption advisory and specific information on contaminant levels in individual
species of commercial fish. The fact sheet emphasizes that a moderate level offish consumption is part of
a healthy diet during pregnancy and early life development. Some fish (flounder, haddock, light tuna, cod,
shellfish, sardines, etc.) have lower levels of mercury and PCBs and so should be selected more often than
others (halibut, tuna steak, white tuna, red snapper). Still other fish should not be eaten at all (swordfish,
shark, king mackerel, tilefish, striped bass, large bluefish). CTDPH has partnered with a large
supermarket chain for a pilot project in which these pamphlets are being distributed at the fish counter in
a single store. At the end of a 6-month test period (December 1st) we will evaluate whether this is a useful
method for education on commercial fish consumption and, if so, what the best avenues are for expansion
of the pilot to additional stores and chains. A bill in the Connecticut legislature that would require posting
offish consumption warnings in the supermarket did not pass during the spring 2005 legislative session.
Mercury in Fin Clips as an Assessment Method for Predicting Muscle Tissue Mercury
Concentrations in Largemouth Bass
S.A. Rvba.1 J.L. Lake.1 J.R. Serbst,1 A.D. Libby,2 S. Ayvazian1
1 National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory - Atlantic Ecology Division, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 27 Tarzwell Dr. Narragansett. R.I.
02882
2 Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 218, West Kingston, R.I. 02892
The relationship between total Hg concentration in clips from the caudal fin and muscle tissue of
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) was developed and evaluated to determine whether analysis of
fin clips would allow a non-lethal and convenient method for predicting Hg concentrations in tissues.
Clips of the caudal fin were taken from the inside section of the fin after it had been cleaned with a soap
solution, scrubbed, and rinsed to remove mucus. The relationship of total Hg concentrations in fin clips
and muscle tissue showed an r2 of 0.82, which may be compared with an r2 of 0.89 for Hg concentrations
between scales and muscle tissue. Although the fin clip method of estimating Hg in tissues is more
variable, the Hg concentration in fin clip samples [mean = 0.196 ug/g (dry)] was more than a factor of
ten greater than in the scale samples [mean = 0.012 ug/g (dry)]. Therefore, the fin clip method may be
more applicable than the scale method where Hg concentrations in largemouth bass tissues are low, or for
other fish species that may have reduced Hg concentrations.
Mercury and Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Fish Sandwiches from Retail Restaurants
Lasrado, J.A., C.R. Santerre1. S.M. Shim, and L.E. Dorworth
'Purdue University
Mercury (Hg) and omega-3 fatty acids in fish sandwiches sold at six retail restaurants were
measured. Total mercury ranged from 0.005 to 0.132 ppm and was well below the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) action limit of 1 ppm. The sandwiches provided between 8 and 146%
of the RfD for Hg for a 60 kg individual. The omega-3 fatty acid content eicosapentaenoic acid
(EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) ranged from 0.021 to 0.259 g per fish sandwich.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-15
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Mercury and Omega-3 Long-Chain Fatty Acids in Canned Fish
Shim, S.M., L.E. Dorworth, J.A. Lasrado, and C.R. Santerre1
'Purdue University
Canned tuna (n=240), salmon (n=16), and mackerel (n=16) were analyzed for mercury and fatty
acids. Mean mercury residues were 188, 45, and 55 ppb, respectively, and were well below the FDA
action level of 1000 ppb. "Chunk Light Tuna in Water" contained lower mercury (=50 ppb) when
compared to all other tuna products; however, other tuna products were higher in EPA
eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DELA). Salmon and mackerel had lower
mercury residues, but provided higher EPA plus DHA, than canned tuna. This information will help
women of childbearing age to limit their intake of mercury while obtaining important long-chain
omega-3 fatty acids from fish.
Mercury Analysis for Fish Consumption Advisories
Lasrado, J.A., C.R. Santerre1. S.M. Shim, and J.R. Stahl
'Purdue University
Sportfish tissue (n=189) collected during 1999-2000 were analyzed for total mercury by inductively
coupled plasma/atomic emission spectrophotometry (ICP/AES) and thermal decomposition,
amalgamation/atomic absorption spectrophotometry (TDA/AAS) to compare methods. Total
mercury measurements using these techniques were not significantly different (a = 0.05).
TDA/AAS is a precise technique for the analysis of total mercury in fish tissue and is also less
expensive, easy to use. and rapid (6 min/assay).
Mercury residue data for sportfish samples (n=211) collected from lakes across the United States
were statistically analyzed to develop a predictive model for total mercury. Significant parameters
were the feeding pattern of the fish (i.e., bottom feeder vs. predator) and the sampling location
(p<0.05). Regression models were developed for bottom-feeders (p<0.0001, r-square = 0.45) and
predators (p<0.0001, r-square = 0.73).
A Rapid Method to Improve the Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory
Lasrado, J.A., C.R. Santerre1. J.R. Stahl, T. Noltemeyer, and D.C. Deardorff
'Purdue University
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue were analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA) and gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD) methods. Fish samples were
collected in 2000-2001 during an Indiana fish survey. For fish tissue from 0.05 to 5.0 ppm, ELISA was
not significantly different from GC/ECD (p<0.05). This research has demonstrated the effectiveness of
using ELISA for analyzing fish samples. With this rapid assay, state agencies will be able to expand their
monitoring programs and improve fish consumption advisories.
Semipermeable Membrane Devices (SPMDs) to Predict Total PCS in Fish Tissue
Shim, S.M., C.R. Santerre'. L.E. Dorworth, B.K. Miller, J.R. Stahl, and D.C. Deardorff
'Purdue University
Triolein-filled semipermeable membrane devices (SPMD) were immersed at three locations along the St.
Joseph River in northern Indiana for 30 days to see if the PCB content offish from the same location
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-16
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
could be predicted with this model device. Triolein from the SPMDs was analyzed for PCB using
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and compared to residues detected in fish collected from
the same locations. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in total PCB concentrations between
SPMD samples from the three locations; however, due to variability in PCB residues between species and
low PCB residues in SPMDs, a direct correlation between PCBs in fish and SPMDs could not be
determined.
Case Studies of Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin.
Knobeloch. L., Steenport. D., Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services; Schrank. C.,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI; Anderson, H. A., Wisconsin Department of
Health and Family Services, Madison, WI.
Many popular varieties of commercially sold fish, including tilefish, seabass, shark, and swordfish,
contain enough mercury that eating them more than once or twice a month can lead to high mercury body
burdens. Wisconsin has issued sport-fish consumption advice to all people of all ages since 1985.
Wisconsin's advisory was revised in 2000 to address all inland waters and again in 2004 to integrate
information about sport-caught fish with advice for commercially sold fish. Because of the increased
popularity offish as a source of dietary protein, a significant percentage of the U.S. population may be at
risk of methylmercury-induced health problems. Although several studies have assessed exposure of
children and women of childbearing age to mercury, very little is known about mercury body burdens
among men or post-menopausal women. This article describes fish consumption and mercury exposure
among 14 people who consumed fish twice or more per week and one individual who ate no fish. Steady-
state blood mercury levels available for ten adults and one child ranged from < 5 to 58 ug/L and
correlated well with dietary mercury intake estimates. Three of these individuals reported vague,
subclinical symptoms such as mental confusion, sleep difficulty, balance problems, or visual disturbances
that improved after their mercury levels returned to nonnal.
A Snapshot: Conversations with New Hampshire Grocery Shoppers on Fish Consumption
Guidelines
Nancy Serrell. Outreach Director, Toxic Metals Research Program, Dartmouth College
Bethany Fleishman. Outreach Assistance, Toxic Metals Research Program, Dartmouth College, Hanover,
NH.
Risk assessments that form the basis offish consumption advisories are developed by scientists and other
experts and men communicated to the public. The traditional "deficiency" model of risk communication
represents this as a linear process: the transfer of rational knowledge to a passive, knowledge-deficient
public. However, a pilot study involving direct examination of the way lay people make meaning of
information about fish consumption information in one specific context—a grocery store—suggests that
audiences for fish consumption advisories are active participants in communication. When presented with
new information on this topic, people must fit the new knowledge into their past experience and
knowledge. Their beliefs and information exchanged through social networks also affect their
determination of whether the information is relevant or meaningful and whether the messenger is
trustworthy. In addition, many people approach this kind of information with specific questions in mind.
This study suggests that audiences do not receive fish advisory information as much as interact with it,
translating, transforming, and in some cases resisting the information presented.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-17
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
Advances in Hg Testing Technology: Liquid Chromatography and Solid Phase Extraction
Strategies with Applications for Environmental, Medical/Dental, and Fishing Industries.
Christopher W. Shade'1. Andrew Ellas', and Robert J.M. Hudson*
t Quicksilver Scientific, LLC, Lafayette, CO 80026
J Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
Despite advances in Hg analytical chemistry through the 1980s and 1990s, quantification of both
monomethyl (MeHg) and mercuric (Hgn) mercury in environmental matrixes is still very labor intensive
and thus costly. The future of environmental Hg science holds the potential for widespread environmental
monitoring in the form of TMDL development and assessments of Cap-and-Trade recipient areas, for
human biomonitoring of expectant mothers, subsistence fisherpeoples, and occupationally exposed
workers, and for industrial monitoring of manufacturing and water-treatment waste, dental effluents, and
fishery stocks. In order to facilitate large-scale testing programs, new technologies for rapid, automated
analyses need to be developed and made available. Quicksilver Scientific, LLC., is developing such
systems using novel solid-phase extraction chemistries and liquid chromatographic speciation systems.
Our core analytical system, which comprises a novel ion-chromatographic separation of MeHg and Hgn
complexes coupled to online cold-vapor generation and atomic fluorescence detection, is highly sensitive
(absolute detection of < Ipg) and repeatable (typically < 5% RSD). The system is designed for automated
introduction of a variety of prepared samples, with robust preparation chemistries specific to different
matrixes (e.g., biologic tissues and fluids, sediments, water). Quantitative sample introduction is possible
through a unique online trap and elute system, which, coupled to the low system detection limit, allows
use of small sample quantities (e.g., 50 (.iL of blood or a single insect). We are also developing on-site
tests for fish in order to facilitate the rapid turn-around needed to make widespread Hg testing feasible for
the fishing industry; this test will also be applicable to testing dental effluents. Rapid throughput
capabilities (with consequent lower costs) and on-site analyses should advance scientific understanding of
this especially dynamic element, improve dietary recommendations for fish and safety of our food supply,
and facilitate better control of Hg emissions to our environment.
A Description of Ohio's Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Program
Mylynda Shaskus , Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH;
and Micah Vieux. Ohio Environmental Council, Columbus, OH.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio Environmental Council have been working
together for the past 2 years to increase fish advisory awareness in Ohio by improving and expanding
outreach efforts to Ohioans. The Ohio Environmental Council has received several grants to develop and
oversee fish consumption advisor}' outreach in numerous contaminated areas, as well as statewide to
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program participants. Outreach has included the development and
distribution of easy-to-understand graphical pamphlets for WIC participants in multiple languages,
focused outreach in highly contaminated areas in Ohio, and training for WIC clinicians on fish advisory
outreach. In addition, through the Cuyahoga County Board of Health, a creel survey was conducted on the
Cuyahoga River to determine the level of subsistence fishing and advisory awareness. Future outreach
efforts include outreach to Amish and Mennonite populations, and Chinese translations of outreach
materials.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-18
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
California's Delta Watershed Fish Project
Elana Silver1. Alyce Ujiliara2, Jessica Kaslow1, May Lynn Tan1, Sun Lee1, Erica Weis2, Diana Lee2, Lori
Copan1
'impact Assessment. Inc. and California Department of Health Services. Environmental Health
Investigations Branch, Richmond, CA
It has been estimated that 6% of U.S. women of childbearing age may be exposed to mercury at levels of
health concern. This exposure is due primarily to consumption offish. National advisories recommend
that women of childbearing age limit consumption of all fish, regardless of source, because of mercury
contamination. In California, elevated levels of mercury in fish have been found throughout the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed due to historic mercury and gold mining activities. The Delta is
also an area with abundant fishing and an ethnically diverse population. To address this problem, the
California Department of Health Services (DHS) coordinates the Delta Watershed Fish Project, an
interorganizational effort to reduce exposure to mercury through research, outreach, education, and
training. Recent project activities include
• Survey of low-income women. DHS interviewed 500 women at a Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) clinic in the Delta about their fish consumption practices. Interviewers spoke six languages
in order to include the ethnically diverse population served by the clinic. Nearly all women (95%)
ate commercial fish and 30% ate sport fish. One in eight Asians exceeded sport fish advisories
limits. Pregnancy status, ethnicity, age, and advisory awareness were all significant predictors of
fish consumption.
• Stakeholder advisory group. DHS convened a stakeholder advisory group, comprised of
community leaders, environmental organizations, and local agencies, to guide the project's
outreach and education activities. The advisory group helps DHS to develop, translate, test, and
distribute written materials (cards, brochures, posters, and warning signs) in multiple languages.
• Mini-grants. DHS awarded four $10,000 mini-grants to groups serving Cambodian, Latino,
Russian, and African American communities to develop outreach and education activities. Mini-
grant recipients have trained high school students as community educators, held community
workshops, distributed materials at community events, and used ethnic media to disseminate
messages about fish contamination.
• Training programs. DHS has developed a five-module training curriculum on fish contamination
to assist public health agencies, health care providers, community groups, and others in educating
the public about fish contamination issues in the Delta watershed. DHS offers "training for
trainers" to help groups incoiporate the curriculum into existing programs.
Recent Risk Communication Efforts in Maryland
Anna Soehl and Joseph Beaman. Maryland Department of the Environment.
The purpose of this poster is to provide an overview of the Maryland Department of the Environment's
(MDE's) outreach efforts throughout Maryland on issues relating to the States' fish consumption advisory
program. The poster will summarize method development and provide examples of utilized tools.
According to a summer 2004 Virginia Tech study, the vast majority of local Baltimore Harbor area
recreational fishermen are highly aware of existing fish consumption guidelines. This is partly due to
MDE's boost in fish consumption advisory outreach initiated in early May 2004. By posting signs at
public fishing sites, providing guidelines on MDE's Web site, and distributing fish consumption
brochures with specific health information, MDE contributed to this significant increase in public
awareness.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-19
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
However, in spite of the increase in public awareness, a large portion of the population interviewed during
the Virginia Tech study did not follow the guidelines and consumed white perch and catfish more
frequently than recommended. Also, a large percentage of those who eat crabs caught in Baltimore
Harbor consume crab mustard, which goes against Baltimore Harbor recommendations. Thus, it is
important for MDE to continue its outreach efforts.
In 2005, MDE and the Maryland Women, Infants & Children (WTC) program at the Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene developed and published a simplified informational brochure entitled: "Fish Facts
for Pregnant Women, Women Who May Become Pregnant, Nursing Mothers, and Children Age 6 and
Younger." The new brochure contains national recommendations (U.S. EPA/FDA) relating to
commercially caught fish and local information for recreationally caught fish from Maryland waters. The
brochure is published in English and Spanish and is distributed to the general public, fishermen at
Baltimore Harbor fishing locations, comity environmental health departments, and new or expectant
mothers visiting WIC clinics and other health outlets throughout Maryland.
For more information about Maryland's fish consumption advisory visit MDE's Fish Advisory Web site
www.mde.state.md.us/fishadvisorv/ or call MDE at 410-537-3906. The Virginia Tech Conservation
Management Institute study can be obtained at
http://www.cmiweb.org/human/publications/CBP Fish Advisory 2004/BaltimoreInterviewResults.pdf.
EPA's National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Primary author: Leanne Stahl. U.S. EPA. OW/Office of Science and Technology.
Other authors: Elaine Snyder & Jennifer Pitt, Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD.
The Office of Water is conducting the largest national freshwater fish contamination survey undertaken
by EPA. The National Lake Fish Tissue Study includes the largest set of chemicals studied in fish and is
the first national fish contamination survey to have sampling sites statistically selected. Agencies in 47
states and three tribes, along with two other federal agencies, collaborated with EPA for 4 years to collect
fish from 500 lakes and reservoirs in the lower 48 states. Sampling teams applied consistent methods
nationwide to collect samples of predator and bottom-dwelling species from each lake. EPA is analyzing
the fish tissue for 268 chemicals, including mercury, arsenic, PCBs, dioxins/furans. and pesticides.
Preliminary results for the 4-year dataset show that mercury was detected in predator species at all 486
sites where predator samples were collected, while PCBs and dioxins/furans were detected in predator
samples at more than 99% and 80% of these sites, respectively. When completed in 2006, this study will
provide the first national estimates of mean concentrations of the 268 target chemicals in fish. It will also
provide a national baseline for assessing progress of pollution control activities mat limit release of these
chemicals into the environment.
Mercury in Commercial Fish: Availability, Suitability, and Risk
Joanna Burger1"% Alan H. Stern4, and Michael Gochfeld2 3
'Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences Institute and CRESP. 3UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 08854.
4NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
Most attention to the risks from fish consumption has focused on recreational anglers and self-caught fish,
although most people eat fish that are purchased from stores. Fish were equally available in both upscale
and downscale markets throughout New Jersey. In most cases, labels gave only a fish name and price, but
not where the fish came from. Consumers would be able to make more informed choices if the
provenance offish were clearly stated. State agencies might improve information available to consumers
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-20
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
by providing distributors and markets with guidelines about the types of information necessary for
consumers to make informed decisions about the fish they eat. We then examined mercury levels in three
types offish (tuna, flounder, bluefish) commonly available in New Jersey stores, sampling different
regions of the state—in communities with high and low per capita incomes, and from both supermarkets
and specialty fish markets. We were interested in species-specific levels of mercury in New Jersey fish.
Such information is critical for generating public health advice. There was only one regional difference;
flounder from fish markets along the Jersey shore had higher mercury levels than flounder bought in other
markets. We also examined mercury levels in six other commonly available fish and two shellfish from
central New Jersey markets. There were significant differences in availability and in mercury levels
among fish and shellfish. Both shrimp and scallops had total mercury levels below 0.02 ppm (wet
weight). Large shrimp had significantly lower concentrations of mercury than small shrimp. For tuna, sea
bass, croaker, whiting, scallops and shrimp, the levels of mercury were higher in New Jersey samples than
those reported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumers optimizing for easy availability
(present in over 50% of markets) would select flounder, snapper, bluefish and tuna (tuna had the highest
mercury value), and those selecting only for price would select whiting, porgy, croaker and bluefish (all
with average mercury levels below 0.3 ppm wet weight). Flounder was the fish with the best relationship
between availability, cost, and low mercury levels. From previous work, salmon provided the best
tradeoff between low mercury and high omega-3 fatty acids (but high PCBs levels have been reported in
farmed salmon). We suggest that state agencies responsible for protecting the health of their citizens
should obtain information on fish availability in markets and fish preferences of diverse groups of
citizens, and use this information to select fish for analysis of contaminant levels, providing data on the
most commonly eaten fish that will aid their citizens in making informed decisions about risks from fish
consumption.
Montrose Settlements Restoration Program: Providing Public Information to Restore Lost Fishing
Services
David Witting and Milena VTijoen. Montrose Settlements Restoration Program, Long Beach, CA.
From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, millions of pounds of DDTs and PCBs were discharged from the
Montrose Chemical Corporation and other industrial sources through a wastewater outfall into the ocean
at White Point, near Los Angeles, California. After final settlement of litigation in 2000, a group of
federal and California state natural resource agencies formed the Montrose Settlements Restoration
Program (MSRP) and began preparing a Restoration Plan to address natural resource injuries resulting
from these discharges.
For several decades, high levels of DDTs and PCBs have been found in several species offish commonly
caught by anglers along the Southern California coast. White croaker, surfperches, kelp bass, and other
species offish collected from several sites along the Los Angeles County and Orange County coasts carry
concentrations of DDTs and PCBs in edible tissues mat exceed the guidelines and standards set by federal
and state agencies for safe consumption. This situation represents a loss of natural resource value to the
public and constitutes a per se injury under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The MSRP Restoration Plan includes projects to address these lost fishing services. The poster will
describe MSRP's current work with EPA human health risk reduction efforts (which focus on which fish
and areas should be avoided), and how MSRP will compliment that work with additional communication
to further empower anglers with information that allows them to make sound decisions about where and
for which species to fish. MSRP proposes to expand contamination information to encompass mercury. In
addition, MSRP will provide outreach materials that establish the link between the ecology and life
history of a particular species and its tendency to bioaccumulate contaminants. This effort aims not to
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-21
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
simply reduce public exposures to contamination, but to enable and encourage people to continue to fish
and to make knowledgeable choices about where, when, and for which species to fish.
Use of ReVA's Web-based Environmental Decision Toolkit (EOT) to Assess Vulnerability to
Mercury Across the United States
Paul F. Wagner. Elizabeth R. Smith, and Megan Mehaffey, Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
The problem of assessing risk from mercury across the nation is extremely complex involving integration
of (1) our understanding of the methylation process in ecosystems, (2) the identification and spatial
distribution of sensitive populations, and (3) the spatial pattern of mercury deposition. Unfortunately,
both our understanding of the processes involved and the availability of data to make this assessment are
currently imperfect, yet there are effective ways to make use of data and information that currently exist.
ORD's Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Program was designed to develop and demonstrate
methods to use existing data and models to infonn environmental decision making regarding broad-scale
comparative and cumulative risks. Focusing on the integration of available spatial data and model results,
ReVA has developed a Web-based Environmental Decision Toolkit (EOT) that is the perfect vehicle for
evaluating alternative ways of assessing the risks associated with mercury deposition from energy
generating units and subsequent methylation into the more toxic methylmercury (MeHg) mat accumulates
in fish tissue. Given that mere is no obvious "right" way to assess the risk from MeHg, a toolkit with the
flexibility to consider and compare alternative data, model inputs, and assumptions and alternative ways
to combine these inputs into indices of relative risk will allow a broader understanding of where the
greatest uncertainties lie and where there is agreement among data and methods.
The EDT is a statistical toolkit that displays information spatially. The advantage of using a statistical
package over a GIS is that it allows rapid reanalysis of data such that different combinations of variables
can be displayed and compared quickly. This makes it ideal for problems that have a great deal of
uncertainty or where a number of "what if scenarios might be explored. Within the Hg-EDT,
• the raw data can be viewed and explored;
• choices can be made as to which data or model results are used in determining overall risk when
multiple options exist;
• different weights for influential parameters can be set for estimating a methylation potential
index;
• comparisons can be made between estimated values and monitored data; and
• distributions of sensitive populations, estimated indices of methylation potential, and estimated
mercury deposition can be integrated into relative rankings of risk from mercury generated from
energy generating units.
Pilot Survey of Fish Consumption Rates, Mercury Levels and Advisory Effectiveness in Coastal
Alabama
S. Garrett and K.A. Wanier. Oceana, Washington, B.C.
A survey was conducted by Oceana at the 2005 Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo to estimate a fish
consumption rate among Gulf residents, as well as assess the effectiveness of state and federal advisories
concerning mercury-contaminated seafood. Respondents were surveyed about fish consumption rates of
fish landed at the Rodeo and seafood consumption in general. Mercury concentrations were also
determined on 30 species offish landed at the Rodeo and compared to fish preferences and consumption
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-22
-------
Appendix C Poster Abstracts
rates. Based on the responses of 63 Rodeo anglers and attendees, results demonstrate local seafood
preferences, consumption patterns and rates, and variable knowledge of and adherence to fish
consumption advisories. Preliminary data on fish preferences and their mercury levels indicate which
species are in need of more monitoring and may require advisories. As this is a pilot survey, suggested
modifications to the survey instrument are addressed as well.
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-23
------- |