The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Toxicologists have a saying: “The dose makes the poison.” In other words, there is no such thing as “toxic” or “non-toxic”—it always depends on how much of a substance you consume.
Methylmercury travels up the food chain, collecting in animal tissue in larger and larger amounts. Photo credit: lisa_eglinton/Flickr
So what’s a toxic level of mercury in your diet? This has long been a concern, because many fish contain measurable levels of mercury, which can cause profound neurological disease and death if consumed in sufficient amounts. The issue gained new urgency last week when a study in the journal Nature showed that mercury concentration at the ocean surface has tripled since the beginning of the industrial era.
How does mercury get into fish, anyway?
In the 19th and 20th centuries, factories dumped massive amounts of methylmercury—the most dangerous form of mercury, bonded to carbon and hydrogen—directly into waterways. The most infamous example occurred in Japan in the 1950s and '60s, when industrial mercury poisoned more than 2,000 people who ate fish from Minamata Bay. (The neurological syndrome caused by severe mercury poisoning is called “Minamata disease” after the tragedy.)
Mercury dumping has been a problem in the U.S., too. I grew up a few miles from New York’s Onondaga Lake, where the Allied Chemical Company disposed of as much as 20 pounds of mercury per day in the mid-2oth century. “America’s most polluted lake” is still recovering.
Mercury can also take a less direct route to the sea. Burning fossil fuels releases mercury into the air—around 160 tons per year in the U.S. The mercury settles to the ground, where rains eventually wash it to the ocean. There, elemental mercury turns into methylmercury. Scientists aren’t quite sure how this conversion occurs, but it probably involves the metabolism of a small but abundant living creature. When that creature is eaten by bigger creatures, the methylmercury travels up the food chain, collecting in animal tissue in larger and larger amounts. That's why predators like tuna have troubling levels of mercury—they eat a lot.
Credit: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutution
What are the effects of mercury exposure?
Cases of mercury poisoning go back thousands of years. Mercury probably killed the first Chinese emperor, Qin Shi Huang, in 210 B.C.E. at the age of 39. He believed mercury pills would grant him immortality (oops). But Mercury doesn’t just kill. It can first drive a victim to insanity. The phrase “as mad as a hatter” harkens back to Victorian England, where mercury was used in haberdasheries. (Mercury inhalation is still a problem in many workplaces.)
Mercury’s notoriety as a poison derives from these instances of acute exposure. Diagnosing these cases is clinical child’s play. The symptoms—like numbness in the extremities, weakness, and a narrowing of the field of vision—are well known, and they appear soon after exposure. The challenge for toxicologists is sussing out the more subtle effects of lower doses of mercury, like the ones you might get from eating fish.
Fetuses and small children, for example, are extremely sensitive to mercury. Exposure to mercury in the womb can affect cognitive development, impair memory and attention, and slow language acquisition, even when the doses are too low to cause any observable symptoms in the mother.
Chronic, low-dose exposure in adults could also be a concern. Some doctors believe that trace levels of mercury contribute to heart disease and high blood pressure, though the evidence for this is currently inconclusive. These claims are based on a small number of studies conducted on discrete populations living in remote areas. In addition, the precise mechanism that would link low-dose mercury to heart disease isn’t fully understood.
So how much is too much?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends consuming a daily maximum of 0.1 micrograms of mercury for each kilogram of your body weight. That would limit a 176-pound adult (the national average) to 8 micrograms of mercury each day.
What does that mean in terms of cans of tuna or pieces of sashimi? Well, you’ll need a species-by-species chart of mercury concentration to figure that out. The amount of mercury in certain types of fish varies greatly. For instance, the average adult could eat 13 ounces of fresh salmon per day while staying under the EPA recommended maximum. You should avoid swordfish, though—eating just 0.14 ounces, a mere forkful, would put you over the limit.
If you don’t want to break out your calculator and metric system conversion charts, use this handy seafood calculator from Natural Resources Defense Council (which publishes OnEarth) for an estimate of your weekly mercury consumption.
These calculations can be helpful, but there are caveats. Not all scientists agree with the EPA’s mercury limits, and many more would add the proviso that they represent an extremely rough guess at what constitutes a safe level. In addition, the recent Nature study shows that oceanic mercury levels are on the rise, and existing research suggests that trend may continue for centuries. As increasing mercury concentrations travel up the food chain, the amount of fish you’ll be able to consume while staying within the EPA’s “safe zone” will decrease over time.
The federal government (and the fishing industry, naturally) don’t recommend avoiding fish altogether. Almost immediately after I received notification of the Nature study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Twitter account recommended increased fish consumption for pregnant women. (My colleague Jason Bittel has more details about the new federal fish-eating guidelines.) It’s tough, with all the conflicting advice, to know for sure what to do.
But there’s hope! Last November, the U.S. joined the Minamata Convention on mercury. If enacted, this international agreement would prohibit new mercury mines, regulate the industrial use of mercury and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Now for the bad news. Although 100 countries have signed on, the U.S. is the only nation that has gone through the official legal processes required to accept the convention. It will take 49 others before the agreement goes into force. So after budgeting a few years for that, plus a century or two before ocean mercury levels actually begin to drop, maybe you should leave the swordfish to your distant descendants.
This article was originally posted in Natural Resources Defense Council’s OnEarth.
You Might Also Like
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
By Julia Conley
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
The climate crisis is a major concern for American voters with nearly 40 percent reporting the issue will help determine how they cast their ballots in the upcoming 2020 presidential election, according to a report compiled by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Of more than 1,000 registered voters surveyed on global warming, climate and energy policies, as well as personal and collective action, 38 percent said that a candidate's position on climate change is "very important" when it comes to determining who will win their vote. Overall, democratic candidates are under more pressure to provide green solutions as part of their campaign promises with 64 percent of Democrat voters saying they prioritize the issue compared with just 34 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.
President Donald Trump has agreed to sign a $19.1 billion disaster relief bill that will help Americans still recovering from the flooding, hurricanes and wildfires that have devastated parts of the country in the past two years. Senate Republicans said they struck a deal with the president to approve the measure, despite the fact that it did not include the funding he wanted for the U.S.-Mexican border, CNN reported.
"The U.S. Senate has just approved a 19 Billion Dollar Disaster Relief Bill, with my total approval. Great!" the president tweeted Thursday.