Proceedings of the 2005 

National Forum on 

Contaminants in Fish

Baltimore, Maryland, September 18-21, 2005

Toxicology

Coordination Between States, Eating Fish: Risks, B

e

n

efits, R

si k

Commun ci at oi n

S

ma

pl ni

g and Ana

yl

s

si

Regions, and Tribes

and

Managem

e

nt Stra

et

g

ei

s

and

mI

pact

sI

sues

to Risk Management

State and Tribal Approaches

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC 20460

EPA - 823-R-05-006

November 17, 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 

iii 

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................x 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ xi 

Section I. Agenda 

Section II. Summaries 

Section II-1. State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

Northeast..................................................................................................................................... II-1 

- Evaluation of Advisories........................................................................................... II-1 

- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes.. II-1 

- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings..................................................... II-1 

- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants.................................................. II-1 

- 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........................................................................................... II-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 .............................................. II-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.................................................. II-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 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Table of Contents 

iv 

- 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 ........................................................................................................................... II-10 

- Evaluation of Advisories......................................................................................... II-10 

- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes II-10 

- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings................................................... II-10 

- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants................................................ II-10 

- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites......................................................................... II-10 

- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards II-10 

- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs ............................................ II-11 

- Issues/Concerns....................................................................................................... II-11 

West .......................................................................................................................................... II-11 

- Evaluation of Advisories......................................................................................... II-11 

- Coordination of Advisory Development/Management between States and Tribes II-11 

- Collection of Data on Adult Mercury Poisonings................................................... II-12 

- Biomonitoring for Bioaccumulative Contaminants................................................ II-12 

- Revisiting Mercury Advisory Sites......................................................................... II-12 

- Mercury Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion in Water Quality Standards II-12 

- Fish Tissue-Based Water Quality Criterion for PCBs ............................................ II-12 

- Issues/Concerns....................................................................................................... II-12 

Nongovernmental...................................................................................................................... II-13 

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 ...................................................................................... II-15 

James Pendergast, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast ............................. II-16 

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health 

Great Lakes Mercury Protocol.................................................................................................. II-17 

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health 

Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols in the 

Upper Mississippi River Basin ..................................................................................... II-18 

John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Gulf Coast State Fish Consumption Advisory for King Mackerel........................................... II-20 

Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Table of Contents 

v 

Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice.................................. II-21 

Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication............................................................... II-22 

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe 

Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Indian Reservation ........................................................................................................ II-23

Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Section II-3. Welcoming Remarks 

Welcoming Remarks, Monday, September 19, 2005 ............................................................... II-25 

Benjamin Grumbles, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

- The Release of the 2004 Fish Advisory Data Increased Monitoring...................... II-26 

- U.S. EPA/FDA Memorandum of Understanding ................................................... II-26 

- Future Prospects...................................................................................................... II-26 

Welcoming Remarks, Monday, September 19, 2005 ............................................................... II-27 

Kendyl P. Philbrick, Maryland Department of the Environment 

EPA Advisory Program Update................................................................................................ II-29 

James Pendergast for Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update ....................................................... II-30 

Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration 

Section II-4. Sampling and Analysis Issues 

Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design............................................................... II-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 ............................................................................................ II-34 

Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health 

US FDA’s Total Diet Study...................................................................................................... II-35 

Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration 

Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State ...... II-36 

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health 

Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program .. II-37 

Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical 

Services, Ltd.; and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Table of Contents 

vi 

Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks from Chemical Contamination of Fish from 

National Fish Hatcheries............................................................................................... II-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 ........ II-41 

Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis ............. II-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 ................................................................................................................. II-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................................................................. II-45 

Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Section II-5. Toxicology 

Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin............................................................................................... II-49 

Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services 

Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions................... II-50 

Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota 

NHANES 1999–2002 Update on Mercury............................................................................... II-51 

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD .................... II-52 

Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective ........................... II-53 

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health 

Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data ................................................... II-54 

Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 

Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA........................................................................... II-55 

Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Table of Contents 

vii 

Overview of the National Toxicology Program Studies of Interactions between Individual 

PCB Congeners............................................................................................................. II-56

Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National 

Institutes of Health 

Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science ............................ II-57 

John D. Schell, BBL, Inc. 

History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance ............................................................. II-58 

P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration 

U.S. EPA’s New Cancer Guidelines......................................................................................... II-60 

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation....................... II-61 

Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University 

PBDEs: Toxicology Update..................................................................................................... II-62 

Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Section II-6. Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics ............................................................................................ II-65 

William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine 

Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption............................................................................. II-66 

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health 

DHA and Infant Development.................................................................................................. II-66 

Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center 

DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits for Neuropsychological 

Function ........................................................................................................................ II-67 

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes ...................................... II-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......................... II-70 

Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies 

Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort ............... II-71 

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Table of Contents 

viii 

Section II-7. State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management 

“Eating Fish for Good Health”: A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits ............................ II-73 

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health 

The Use of Human Biomonitoring as a Risk Management Tool for Deriving Fish 

Consumption Advice .................................................................................................... II-74 

Scott M. Arnold, Alaska Division of Public Health 

A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne....................... II-74 

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe 

Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption............................... II-75 

Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University 

Section II-8. Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory............................................................. II-77 

David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration 

Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination.... II-78 

Joanna Burger, Rutgers University 

Maine’s Moms Survey – Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts..................................... II-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 ........................... II-80 

Joseph R. Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment 

Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers...... II-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”............. II-83 

Barbara A. Knuth, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University 

Problems with Media Reports of Fish-Contaminant Studies: Implications for Risk 

Communication............................................................................................................. II-83

Barbara A. Knuth for Judy D. Sheeshka, Department of Family Relations and 

Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Table of Contents 

ix 

The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life: Seeing Culture through Signs in the Upper Peninsula 

of Michigan................................................................................................................... II-84 

Melanie Barbier, Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology, 

Michigan State University 

Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study................................................. II-85 

Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program .. II-88 

Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, Barbara A. Knuth, 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 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Acknowledgments 

x 

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 RTI’s 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

xi 

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 

y 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 III 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 
2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings Introduction

xii 

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 
Proceedings of the 2005 National 

Forum on Contaminants in Fish 

Section I 

Agenda 

1

Sunday, September 18, 2005

7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Registration Grand Ballroom Foyer

9:00 – 10:20 a.m. State and Tribal Regional Workgroups

Topics of Interest to Group Members

10:20 – 10:40 a.m. Break

10:40 a.m. – 12:00 noon State and Tribal Regional Workgroups (continued)

12:00 noon – 1:15 p.m. Lunch (on your own)

1:15 – 1:30 p.m. Welcome State and Tribal Coordinators Grand Ballroom

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

1:30 – 1:50 p.m. 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

State/Regional Cooperation Projects

1:50 – 2:10 p.m. Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish Along the Atlantic Coast

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

2:10 – 2:30 p.m. Great Lakes Mercury Protocol

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health

2:30 – 2:50 p.m. Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory

Protocols in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

2:50 – 3:10 p.m. Gulf Coast State Fish Consumption Advisory for King Mackerel

Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health

3:10 – 3:40 p.m. Break

3:40 – 4:00 p.m. Advisories in Shared Waters––Two States Achieve Consistent Advice

Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

4:00 – 4:20 p.m. Q&A Session

Coordination Between State and Tribal Nations

4:20 – 4:40 p.m. Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

4:40 – 5:00 p.m. Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the

Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation

Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

5:00 – 5:20 p.m. Q&A Session

Break for Dinner (on your own)

7:00 – 9:00 p.m. Workgroup Meeting: Atlantic Coast PCB Advisory Chesapeake Room

9:00 p.m. Adjourn for the Day

2005 National Forum on

Contaminants in Fish

Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor at Camden Yards • Baltimore, Maryland

September 18-21, 2005

Agenda
2

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

Sampling and Analysis Issues (continued)

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)
3

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

Toxicology

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
4

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

8:10 – 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

9:10 – 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

Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management

Moderator: Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley

10:20 – 10:30 a.m. Introduction––Current Approach to Risk-Based Fish Advisories

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health

Moderator: Amy D. Kyle, University of California, Berkeley

' Omega-3 Fatty Acids

10:30 – 10:50 a.m. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics

William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine

' Health Benefits of Fish Consumption

10:50 – 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

11:30 – 11:50 a.m. DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits

for Neuropsychological Function

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

11:50 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (on your own)
5

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

' Balancing Risks and Benefits

1:40 – 2:00 p.m. 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

5:20 p.m. Adjourn for the Day
6

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts

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

' Communicating to Populations: Issues and Answers

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

' Novel Ways To Communicate

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
Proceedings of the 2005 National 

Forum on Contaminants in Fish 

Section II 

Summaries 

II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues

II-5 Toxicology 

II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

II-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-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-1 

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 of fish 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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-2 

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-trifluoromethyl-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 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-3 

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 

 3rd 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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-4 

- 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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-5 

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 [1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)], 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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-6 

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 of fish 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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-7 

# 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 μg/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 nondioxin-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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-8 

# 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 μg/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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-9 

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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-10 

# 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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-11 

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. 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-12 

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). 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-13 

# 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 of fish 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 of fish 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 
Section II-1 State and Tribal Regional Workgroups 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-14 

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. 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-15 

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 

majority of consumers, and (3) keeping the 

message simple. 

The advisory is consistent with the 

one meal/week consumption rate used in 

most statewide mercury advisories, as well 

as with the coarse meal categorization 

used by many states for waterbodyspecific advisories. The use of the two 

meals/month category is inconsistent 

across the country. 

Second, the U.S. EPA’s risk 

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 speciesspecific 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 highconcentration 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 shorter 

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 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-16 

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 of fish 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 polychlorinated 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 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-17 

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://mainegovimages.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-locationbased 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 

Pat McCann, 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 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-18 

protective values (HPVs) of 0.1 and 0.3 μg/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 

consumption rates were analyzed, and a 

two meal/week option was added. The 

addendum covers sensitive populations, 

emphasizes the meal size to body weight 

ratio, and provides more options for 

defining site-specific and general data 

analyses. The benefits statement uses a 

tiered approach to outline risks and 

benefits for both commercial and locally 

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 of fish consumption rates for PCBs, chlordane, and mercury based on 

the GLP. Iowa and Missouri continue to use an FDA action level-based approach. 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-19 

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 of fish 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, 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-20 

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.
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-21 

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 of fish, and for different cancer risks (10-4 and 10-5 in New Jersey and 10-5 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 twotier 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 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-22 

fish consumption rate and, in some cases, size of fish 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 of fish, 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 of fish, 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 of fish 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 

of fish 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). 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-23 

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. 

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. 
Section II-2 Coordination between States, Regions, and Tribes 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-24 

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 of fish 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. 
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-25 

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 waterrelated 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. 
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-26 

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 of fish 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. 
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-27 

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 

Kendyl P. 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 Marylanders. 

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. 
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-28 

The public also wants to know why they are limited to the amount of fish 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 
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-29 

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 taking 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. 

EPA Advisory Program Update 

James Pendergast for 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.
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-30 

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 

of fish 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 of fish 

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 
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-31 

# 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 

Perchlorate Assignment, 

investigators looked at 35 domestic 

and import samples. The Mercury 

Assignment measured total 

mercury in both domestic and 

imported samples. Twenty-nine 

(29) species made up 470 samples 

of fresh/frozen fish. Investigators 

also measured 100 fresh/frozen 

samples of tuna and 50 samples of 

canned tuna. 

The Methyl Mercury Risk 

Benefit is a project by FDA with 

contribution from International 

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. 
Section II-3 Welcoming Remarks 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-32 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-33 

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: 

# 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. 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-34 

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 VanDerslice, 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 of fish. 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. 

Washington State has a goal to 

develop and communicate defensible, 

consistent advice about healthy 

consumption of fish. 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 of fish tissue concentration needed 

# Calculate sample size needed 

# Conduct sensitivity analyses. 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-35 

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 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-36 

analytes are posted on the TDS 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 TDS food. The TDS 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 

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health 

Fish advisories in Washington State have focused primarily on risks to recreational or 

subsistence fishers, yet the vast majority of fish 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.
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-37 

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 Analytical Services, 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 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-38 

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: 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-39 

# Highest [PCB] in albacore tuna; lowest in mahi mahi. 

# [PCB]high resolution (HR) > [PCB]low resolution (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 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 finfish 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 Noguchi, 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 μg/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 μg /g wet weight, with most samples (> 90%) containing less than 0.1 μg /g. 

Concentrations of PCBs and dioxin TEQs in some samples were above U.S. EPA screening 

values. 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-40 

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 of fish 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 at NFHs). 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-41 

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 coldseason 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 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-42 

concentrations to correlate with higher 

growth rates. Doyon et al. (1998) found 

dwarf whitefish to bioaccumulate mercury 

more rapidly than normal-size whitefish in 

the same lakes, and they attributed this to 

slower growth rates and earlier maturity in 

the dwarf fish. Both Doyon et al. (1998) 

and Greenfield et al. (2001) point out that 

slower growing fish would allocate more 

energy towards maintenance and less to 

flesh production and that faster growing 

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 Ö condition factor. 

# Measure age as well as length Ö 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. 

# 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. 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-43 

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 of fish. 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. 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-44 

Sources of variability in mercury concentrations, such as the age or size of the fish, 

species, and cut of fish, 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 of fish from a sample of another size, 

species, or cut of fish (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 of fish 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 of fish with different sampling methods. The 

NDMMF algorithm uses those 

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. 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-45 

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 toxicological 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 of fish 

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 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-46 

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 

States (Texas to East Coast). And finally, 

most of the change in mercury deposition 

will occur over freshwater sources in the 

eastern half of the United States. 

When modeling exposure to 

mercury, the amount of fish consumed and 

populations exposed to mercury were 

assessed for: women of childbearing age, 

Native Americans, Southeast Asian 

Americans, and subsistence fishers. The 

two approaches considered include the 

population-centroid approach and anglerdestination approach. The populationcentroid approach estimates the populations exposed within the distances typically traveled from 

the household to fish recreationally in freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams. The second 

approach, the angler-destination approach, evaluates exposure based on waterbody 

characteristics that are desired by anglers. The average mercury concentration of fish in each 

hydrological unit code (HUC) is used to determine exposure. Exposures from both the 

population-centroid approach and the angler-destination approach are then translated into 

estimates of intelligence quotient (IQ) decrements in children exposed in utero.

Analyses conducted using a simple average of the NLFWA and NLFTS data were not 

able to identify if differences in mercury concentrations among the samples were due to location 

(and possibly air deposition), or due to fish species, size, or sampling method (fillet, whole, fillet 

skin on, composite, etc.). Normalization of data using the U.S. Geological Survey model—

National Descriptive Model of Mercury in Fish Tissue (NDMMFT)—allows for direct 

comparison by location. The NDMMFT runs were conducted for six key consumable fish 

species (bass, trout, perch, crappie, catfish, walleye). The model uses all National Listing of Fish 

Advisories (NLFA) and NLFTS samples for each run. Estimates are then combined into one 

average “fish” by location and applied to the two approaches. A 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 

(Tennessee, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Virginia, West Virginia, Missouri, and Pennsylvania). Fish 

tissue concentrations are then calculated for the time period prior (baseline) to CAMR and post-
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-47 

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. 

. 
Section II-4 Sampling and Analysis Issues 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-48 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-49 

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 of fish 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 μg/g (ppm) and 

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. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-50 

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 freeradical 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 seleniumdeficient lakes have been found to 

decrease mercury bioaccumulation in fish 

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 

predatory creatures that consume them. 

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. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-51 

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-Hispanics, and 

the highest average 

concentrations reported 

among “other” races. 

Similar rankings were 

observed at the 90th and 

95th 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 μg/kg-bw/day and is associated with a cord blood mercury concentration of 

5.8 μg/L. The methylmercury RfD is based on a benchmark dose lower limit of 58 μg 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 μg Hg/L whole blood is equivalent to 5.8 μg 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 μg/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. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-52 

A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment 

in the Methylmercury 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. 

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 

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. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-53 

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. 

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 μg/g and in 

matched controls was 0.74 

μg/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 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-54 

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 of fish 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 CHD. 

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 HDL (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 μg/g. Dietary intakes of fish and mercury were associated with 

significantly increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Men in the highest tertile (≥ 2 

μg/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 μg/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 μg/g). Men in the highest third of hair mercury 

content (>2 μg/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, 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-55 

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. 

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: For the 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. et al. 2005. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. 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 Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(Note: This 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 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-56 

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 

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 PFOStreated 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 

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 nonneoplastic effects seen in these studies, and to test for interactions between compounds within 

mixtures and interactions between dioxin-like and non-dioxin-like PCBs. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-57 

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 PCB118 and the 

other a mixture of PCB126 and 

PCB153, the pattern of carcinogenic 

responses was consistent with that 

seen with PCB126 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 

John D. 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 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-58 

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. 

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 

interpret results). Housatonic River data 

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 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-59 

basis of different portions of the federal food and drug statute. Section 402(a)(1) 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 of fish 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 of fish 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 of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 

oz (1 average meal) of albacore tuna per week. 

# Check local advisories about the safety of fish 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 of fish 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 DLCPCBs 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 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-60 

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 (PCB77, 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. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-61 

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. 

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 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-62 

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. BDE 47 (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: This 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. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-63 

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, antiprogestin, 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. 
Section II-5 Toxicology 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-64 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-65 

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. 

These fatty acids appear to have antiarrhythmic 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, α-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. 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-66 

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. 

Fish intake may impact 

cardiovascular health through the 

following potential mechanisms: 

direct anti-arrhythmic; vascular 

resistance; blood pressure; heart 

rate; autonomic tone; left 

ventricular efficiency; antiinflammatory effects; triglycerides; and/or endothelial cell function. The type of fish and 

preparation method are also important. For example, eating tuna or salmon higher in n-3 fatty 

acids has greater positive health outcomes than eating fried lean fish. 

DHA and Infant Development 

Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center 

Some sources of fish have a very high concentration of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), 

and fish in the maternal diet are a major source of DHA for the fetus and breast-fed newborn. 

Declines in maternal DHA intake, such as have been documented following the Food and Drug 

Administration advisories for some fish related to their mercury content, are of concern because 

the evidence points toward the importance of DHA for both the fetus and newborn infant. The 

evidence is strongest that DHA is important postnatally, but that is likely because the majority of 

randomized clinical trials have studied the effects of postnatal DHA intake on infant 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-67 

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 

by the fact that benefits are more obvious 

after children develop more sophisticated 

cognitive function. 

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 

supplementation via the mother. The 

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 shortand 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. 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-68 

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 μg/L mercury in cord blood (or 34 μg/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 μg/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 μg/L. 

There is also evidence for adverse effects of polychlorinated 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; 

and effects on sexually dimorphic behavior 

in animals and humans. Effects observed in 

humans and monkeys involved the same 

blood concentrations of PCBs. 

Studies of T-3 fatty acids on infant 

development are difficult to interpret. There 

are at least 12 clinical trials of infants fed 

formula plus or minus docosahexaenoic acid 

(DHA). Results were compared to review 

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 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-69 

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 of fish 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 of fish consumption on 

reproductive and developmental outcomes. 

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. 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-70 

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 

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. 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-71 

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 

DHA. 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). 

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 
Section II-6 Eating Fish: Risks, Benefits, and Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-72 

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. 
Section II-7 State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-73 

“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, highomega-3-fatty-acid fish. Focus groups and key informant testing have identified a series of 

significant barriers to fish 

consumption. Significant 

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. 

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 of fish meals 
Section II-7 State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-74 

# 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 of fish 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 of fish 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 

of fish 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 of fish, 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). 
Section II-7 State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-75 

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 Onkwehonwehneh.

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 of fish per week, one may 

meet the recommended levels, but this depends on the type of fish. 

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 of fish per week, but provided an exception for tuna. 
Section II-7 State and Tribal Approaches to Risk Management 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-76 

Efforts to deliver this information 

to low-income women living in Indiana 

were discussed. Seven hundred twentyone (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-3s. 

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. 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-77 

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 of fish 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 of 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. 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-78 

# 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. 

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. 

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 of fish 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 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-79 

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 of fish 

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 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-80 

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 of fish. 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. Beaman, 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 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-81 

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 Sun) 

# 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. 

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. 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-82 

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 

within the past month). Of the anglers we 

interviewed, 53 percent reported that they 

consumed their catch at least sometimes, 

and 62 percent (including some who do 

not eat the fish themselves) stated they 

give their fish to others. Unfortunately, of 

the anglers who consume their catch, the 

most popular species for consumption are 

still those under advisory, including white 

perch, striped bass, catfish (a noconsumption species), and blue crab. In 

fact, 78 percent of 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). 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-83 

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 

(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 of Guelph 

Published studies comparing the contaminant levels in wild versus farmed salmon (e.g., 

Hites 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 “farmed 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 of fish. 

The estimates for salmon were that sales had dropped 20 to 50 percent in the 2 months following 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-84 

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. 

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 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-85 

(ATSDR) identifies the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as a particular region of concern regarding 

the uncertain effectiveness of fish 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 of fish (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 of fish 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: 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-86 

# 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. 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-87 

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 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-88 

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. 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-89 

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. 
Section II-8 Risk Communication Strategies and Impacts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish – Proceedings II-90 

Risk perception constructs include: 

# Volition, choice 

# Control 

# Seriousness 

# Dread 

# Certainty 

# Causality – natural or not 

# Distribution of risks and 

benefits 

# Responsiveness 

# Trust, credibility. 

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. 
Proceedings of the 2005 National 

Forum on Contaminants in Fish 

Section III 

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

Pendergast ⎯ 1

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

Office of Water

U.S. EPA

Our Goals in Developing the Limit

• Maintain consistency with state advisories

• Protect the majority of consumers

• 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

Examine existing

fish tissue data 

against this full 

range, rather 

than just the 

1 meal/week rate

US EPA, 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 2. Risk Assessment and 

Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition. EPA 823-B-00-008. 

( = 1 meal/week)

Protect the Majority of Consumers

• Existing fish tissue data

– EPA National Listing of Fish Advisory (NLFA) fish tissue 

database

– State and tribe submitted data, 1987−2003

– Represents noncommercial fish

• 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

Approach: Compare available fish data against the

2, 3, and 4 meals/month concentration limits

Average Tissue Mercury Concentrations in Noncommercial Fish

Caution: Mercury concentrations in fish vary considerably from region to region and waterbody to waterbody. Consumers should, first and foremost, consider any local advisories.

www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish

Species

National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1

Species

English sole

Gizzard shad

Black bullhead

Rainbow trout

White sucker

Brown bullhead

Pumpkinseed sunfish

Common carp

Carp

Bluegill sunfish

Brown trout

Rainbow smelt

Channel catfish

Rock bass

Black crappie

White crappie

White bass

Freshwater drum

White perch

Yellow perch

Redear sunfish

Striped bass

Yellow bullhead

Smallmouth bass

Sauger

Lake trout

Northern pike

Spotted bass

Flathead catfish

Warmouth sunfish

Walleye

Largemouth bass

Chain pickerel

Bowfin

27 species within the 2 – 4 meal/month limits 

(> 0.12 ppm to 0.47 ppm)

2 species above the 2 meal/month max

(0.47 ppm)

5 species below the 4 meal/month 

min. (0.12 ppm)
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

Pendergast ⎯ 2

• 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

Keep the Message Simple 

Risk communication approach: A simplified message to 

inform consumers without scaring them away

Additional Analyses

• Additional risk assessment analyses

• Conservative bias in the data

Analyses performed since advisory’s release 

further justifies the 1 meal/week limit

Additional Risk Assessment Analyses

y 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

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/1-meal-per-week.pdf

y 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)

Raw data

Random 

sample

NLFA 

data

A Conservative Bias in the Data

y Comparison of NLFA data with national random sample

y The NLFA data is clearly biased high relative to the national 

random sample.

A Conservative Bias in the Data

y Comparison of 2 data sets after normalizing to standard species,

size, and sample type 

Normalized data

Random 

sample

NLFA 

data

y This inherent NLFA bias means the above risk assessment 

is conservative
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 1

Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish

along the Atlantic Coast

Eric Frohmberg

Maine Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Background

• 3-10 fold increase in PCB levels in year 

2000 striped bass in Maine

• This resulted in a discussion about 

consistent advisories for migratory species

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Organization

• Data Workgroup

• Biology Workgroup

• Toxicology Workgroup

• Advisory Workgroup

• Organization Workgroup

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

• Compile and describe the PCB data for 

these species along the coast.

• Are these data comparable, should we 

recommend consistency of sampling 

methods?

• How should we measure PCBs?

Data: Goals

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

• Summarize migratory patterns of these fish.

• What are these fish eating?

• What do we know about the regulations and 

catch of these species?

Biology: Goals
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 2

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

• Review the basis of the existing toxicology 

numbers used to set advisories.

• Briefly review any new literature. 

• Evaluate feasibility of developing new 

toxicology number. 

Toxicology: Goals

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Advisories: Goals

• Summarize how states vary in their advice.

• Summarize how states vary in their 

procedures. 

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

• Lots of state-to-state variation

• PCB levels in striped bass appear to be 

going down over time.

• A new coastal-wide study of PCBs in 

striped bass and bluefish would be helpful.

• Unlikely to recommend consistency of 

methods

Data: Issues of Interest

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Biology Workgroup

Figure 1: Major spawning stocks of Atlantic striped bass

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Biology Workgroup

Figure 2: Summer distribution of adult female striped bass

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Biology Workgroup

Figure 3: Winter distribution of all stocks

adult female striped bass
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 3

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Biology: Issues of Interest

• Migratory striped bass are large adult 

females.

• Diet variable for both species, but not a lot 

of overlap.

• Can’t predict arrival times for populations 

of striped bass.

• Draft chapter online

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Toxicology: Issues of Interest

• Toxicology estimates need to be updated.

• Goal should be not increasing body burden 

in young women.

• Quality of omega-3 benefits data to babies 

is not compelling.

• Draft chapter online

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Advisories: Issues of Interest

• Procedures variable from state to state; 

advisories aren’t that different

• Unlikely to recommend common 

procedures 

• Think about age breakdowns to specify who 

you want to protect and to simplify 

communication.

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

ME NH MA RI CT NY NJ DE MD VA NC SC GA FL

Age

State-by-State Variations in Age 

Definitions of a “Child”

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Eric’s Draft Thoughts

• Bluefish – Not a lot of data, but conceptually, a 

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.

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Thanks

• Bruce Ruppel (NJ)

• Luanne Williams (NC)

• Lydia Munger (ASFMC)

• Jack Schwartz (MA)

• Brian Toal (CT)

• Andy Smith (ME)

• Gary Buchanan (NJ)

• Deb Rice (ME)

• Joe Beaman (MD)

• Rick Greene (DE)

• Ron Sloan (NY)

• Ashok Deshpande (NOAA)

• Gary Ginsburg (CT)

• Elaine Krueger (MA)

• Alan Stern (NJ)

• Bob Vanderslice (RI)

• Joe Sekerke (FL)

• George Henderson (FL)

• Rich McBride (FL)

• Byron Young (NY)

• Victor Crecco (CT)

• Paul Caruso (MA)

• Sharee Rusnak (CT)

• Tony Forti (NY)
Consistent Advice for Striped Bass and Bluefish along the Atlantic Coast

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 4

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Finally

• Meeting tonight at 7 p.m.

• http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/ehu/fish/

PCBSTBhome.shtml

• Or email me at ehu@maine.gov
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health

McCann ⎯ 1

Great Lakes Mercury Protocol

Pat McCann

September 18, 2005

Protocol Components

Advisory Introduction Components

1. General statement about contaminants, benefits, and hazards

2. Statement on cancer risk

3. Statement on benefits of fish consumption

4. Preparation and cooking advice

Consumption Advice Components

5. Meal unit dose reduction

6. Uniform meal size

7. Easily understood meal frequency advisory groups

Hazard Identification Components

8. Fish flesh sample collection protocol for residue analysis

9. Uniform limits of detection

10. Fish size and contaminant concentration based consumption categories

Risk Assessment Components

11. RA for assigning fish to consumption frequency groups

12. Multiple contaminants

Prospective Advisory Items

13. Uniform method for deciding when to shift size/species class into another advisory 

category

14. Coordinate release of annual advisory

1. Health protection value = 0.05 ug PCB/kg/day

2. Average meal = 227 g (1/2 lb) uncooked fish 

3. Representative target consumer is a 70 kg adult 

4. Five advisory groups – Meal rates 

5. Assume skinning/trimming/cooking reduces 

residues 50% from raw, skin-on filet used to 

assess PCB residue level.

Assumptions for PCB 

Protocol Calculations

Great Lakes Protocol 

Advice Categories –

PCBs

Fish meals Fish tissue concentrations (ppm)

Unrestricted (225 meals/yr = 18.75/mo) 0 - 0.05

1 meal/week (52 meals/yr) 0.06 - 0.2

1 meal/mo (12 meals/yr) 0.21 - 1.0

6 meals/yr 1.1 - 1.9

No consumption > 1.9

Mercury

# Each Great Lakes state has mercurybased fish consumption advice

– Both site-specific and statewide
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health

McCann ⎯ 2

“Health Protection Values”

# IL, IN*, WI, MN (two-tier advice)

– Sensitive population RfD = 0.1 μg/kg/day

– General population RfD = 0.3 μg/kg/day

# PA, OH (same advice for all populations)

– RfD = 0.1 μg/kg/day

# NY, MI (two-tier advice)

– FDA/modified FDA action level

* IN sensitive population RfD = 0.3/(30.4 days per month/7 days per week) = 0.07 

Definition – Sensitive Population

# NY, MI, 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 NY PA OH MI IN IL WI MN

Unrestricted 0-0.12 0-0.05 <= 0.06 <= 0.05

1 meal/week 0.13-0.25 0.05-0.219 0.06-0.2 >0.06-0.23 0.05-0.22 > 0.05-0.2

2 meals/month 0.26-0.50

1 meal/month 1.0 - 2.0 0.51-1.0 0.220-.999 > 0.5 0.2-1.0 >0.23-0.94 0.22-1 > 0.2-1.0

6 meals/year 1.1-1.90 1.0-1.99 1.1-1.9

No consumption > 2.0 > 1.9 >2 > 1.5 > 1.9 > 0.94 > 1.0 > 1.0

Meal Categories – Sensitive Population 

(cont.)

Fish meals NY PA OH MI IN IL WI MN

Unrestricted 0-0.12 0-0.05 <= 0.06 <= 0.05

1 meal/week 0.13-0.25 0.05-0.219 0.06-0.2 >0.06-0.23 0.05-0.22 > 0.05-0.2

2 meals/month 0.26-0.50

1 meal/month 1.0 - 2.0 0.51 0.22 > 0.5 0.2 >0.23 0.22 > 0.2

6 meals/year 1.1-1.90 1.0-1.99 1.1-1.9

No consumption > 2.0 > 1.9 >2 > 1.5 > 1.9 > 0.94 > 1.0 > 1.0

Fish meals NY MI IN IL WI MN

Unrestricted < 0.16 <= 0.18 <0.16 <= 0.16

1 meal/week > 0.5 0.16-0.65 >0.18-0.69 0.16-0.65 >0.16-0.65

1 meal/month 0.66-2.8 >0.69-2.82 >0.65 >0.65-2.8

6 meals/year 2.81-5.6

No consumption >= 1.0 > 1.5 > 5.6 >2.82 > 2.8

Meal Categories – General Population

General – Statewide Advice

State

Sensitive 

Population 

Advice

General 

Population 

Advice

Waterbodies 

Included Basis

New York One meal/week all 

fish species and 

sizes 

Same as SP Fresh waters 

and some 

marine waters at 

mouth of Hudson

Some chemicals are 

commonly found in New 

York State fish (mercury and 

PCBs for example), fish from 

all waters have not been 

tested and fish may contain 

unidentified contaminants.

Pennsylvania One meal/week all 

fish species and 

sizes 

Same as SP All waters 

including Great 

Lakes

Officially based on mercury 

but includes BJP for all 

contaminants

Ohio One meal/week all 

fish species and 

sizes 

Same as SP All waters 

including Great 

Lakes

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 > 

0.05ppm)
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health

McCann ⎯ 3

State

Sensitive 

Population 

Advice

General 

Population 

Advice

Waterbodies 

Included Basis

Michigan One meal/month for 

crappie, rock bass 

or perch over 9 

inches in length and 

any size largemouth 

bass, smallmouth 

bass, walleye, 

northern pike, or 

muskie

One meal/week for 

crappie, rock bass 

or perch over 9 

inches in length 

and any size 

largemouth bass, 

smallmouth bass, 

walleye, northern 

pike, or muskie

Inland lakes only Established about 15 years 

ago based on Hg, regression 

analysis, about 2/3 of lakes 

had samples exceding 

0.5ppm Hg

Illinois One meal/wk for all 

predators 

Unlimited for all 

species and sizes

All waterbodies 

except Great 

Lakes

Means analysis across 

years and sizes, limited 

data for regression analysis, 

distribution within meal 

advice category (2/3 to 3/4 

of predator fish sampled 

required 1/wk advice for SP), 

BPJ

Wisconsin 1 meal/wk: panfish, 

bullhead, perch; 1 

meal/mo: all other 

species; Do not 

eat: muskie

Unlimited: panfish, 

bullhead, perch; 1 

meal/wk: all other 

species

All waterbodies 

except Great 

Lakes

Hg, means analysis, 

frequency distribution within 

meal category 

Minnesota 1 meal/wk: panfish, 

bullhead, perch; 1 

meal/mo: all other 

species, walleye < 

20", northern < 30"; 

Do not eat: muskie 

and large northern 

and walleye

Unlimited: panfish, 

bullhead, perch; 1 

meal/wk: all other 

species

All waters 

including Great 

Lakes

Hg and PCBs, means 

analysis, frequency 

distribution within meal 

category, length cut-offs 

considered regression 

analysis and harvest rates 

State

Sensitive 

Population 

Advice

General 

Population 

Advice

Waterbodies 

Included Basis

Indiana 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

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 

28 inches, rock 

bass

All waters 

including Great 

Lakes

Predominance of data for 

PCBs and Hg, BPJ (few 

samples of same species 

and size)

State Site-specific data analysis/logic

New York

Regression analysis if supported by data, otherwise arithmetic mean. GP: listed if 

concentration warrants either 1/mo or eat none. SP: if advice for GP is more restrictive 

than statewide advice for any species then SP = eat none for all species and size

Pennsylvania

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. 

Ohio Regression analysis if enough data, otherwise means analysis. 

Illinois

Listed if mean of panfish > 0.06 ppm or predator > 0.23 ppm (need 2 yrs of data). 

Currently 10 waters are listed for Hg advice.

Wisconsin

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

Michigan Regression analysis if r2 > 0.6 otherwise use median within size classes

States that list site-specific advice if it is more restrictive than statewide advice

State Site-specific data analysis/logic

Indiana

Generally not enough data for statistical analysis. Predominance of data – BPJ. Use 

composite samples w/focus on variety of species, sizes, and waterbodies. Will use one 

composite sample for advice. 

Michigan

Use regression analysis if enough data, otherwise, medians within a length group. If 

advisory is more or less stringent, list it in the book.

State Site-specific data analysis/logic

Minnesota

Means analysis by species and size class and within five years of most recent sampling. 

Composites for bottom feeders and panfish. Individual fish samples for predator 

species.

States that list site-specific advice if different than statewide advice – list both 

less & more restrictive

States that list site-specific advice for all tested waters

“And” 

vs. 

“Or”

And vs. Or

New York Silent, probably would choose "and"

Pennsylvania Or

Ohio Silent on web/verbal 'Or'

Michigan

Not specified, some language on 

spacing meals impies "or"

Indiana Silent

Illinois

Not specified, some language on 

spacing meals

Wisconsin And

Minnesota 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
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health

McCann ⎯ 4

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

# U.S. EPA RfD for Sensitive Population 

# 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
Great Lakes Mercury Protocol

Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health

McCann ⎯ 5

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 sitespecific

Purchased Fish Consumption 

Advice

# Optional

– Follow Hg protocol

– Use published data, such as FDA 

Draft Addendum

# Welcome review comments

# Complete benefits statement

# And vs. Or

# Discuss implementation
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols

in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Olson ⎯ 1

Dealing with Interstate Dealing with Interstate 

Inconsistencies in Fish Inconsistencies in Fish 

Consumption Advisory Protocols in Consumption Advisory Protocols in 

the Upper Mississippi River Basin

John Olson

Iowa Department of Iowa Department of Natural Resources

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish

Overview: Overview:

 Background

 The Upper Mississippi River Basin The Upper Mississippi River Basin 

Association (UMBRA) & the UMRBA Association (UMBRA) & the UMRBA 

Water Quality Task Force Water Quality Task Force 

 Levels of inconsistency

 UMRBA coordination effort UMRBA coordination effort

 Recommendations

 Show-stoppers

The Upper The Upper 

Mississippi River Mississippi River 

Basin

Background of This Fight. . . of This Fight. . .

 Interstate inconsistency on fish consumption Interstate inconsistency on fish consumption 

advisory (FCA) protocols, advisory advisory (FCA) protocols, advisory 

methodologies, and consumption advice is a methodologies, and consumption advice is a 

nationwide issue

 Involves the five states of the Upper Involves the five states of the Upper 

Mississippi River basin (IA, IL, MN, MO, & WI) Mississippi River basin (IA, IL, MN, MO, & WI) 

(also, EPA Regions 5 and 7) (also, EPA Regions 5 and 7)

 Inconsistencies in FCA protocols is but one of Inconsistencies in FCA protocols is but one of 

several interstate issues for the Upper several interstate issues for the Upper 

Mississippi River and the UMR basin

Background (continued) (continued)

 IL, MN, & WI [Great Lake States] IL, MN, & WI [Great Lake States] 

 Have consistent Have consistent Rfds for PCBs, chlordane, Hg for PCBs, chlordane, Hg 

[Great Lakes Protocol(s)]

 From there, states use slightly different methods, From there, states use slightly different methods, 

but the end product is similar:

 Predator fish: 1 meal/mo

 Other species: 1 meal/wk

 IA & MO: Continue to use an FDA action IA & MO: Continue to use an FDA action 

level-based approach

Comparison of Advisory Levels ( Comparison of Advisory Levels (ppm) for 

PCBs in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

> 0.05 – > 0. 2 – 1.0 >1.0 – 1.9 > 1.9

0.2

Wisconsin 0 – 0.05

Missouri NA NA NA NA > 2.0

> 0.05 – > 0. 2 – 1.0 >1.0 – 1.9 > 1.9

0.2

Minnesota 0 – 0.05

Iowa NA NA NA NA > 2.0

Illinois 0 – 0.05 0.06-0.22 0.23 – 0.95 0.96 – 1.89 > 1.9

Do not 

1 meal/wk 1 meal/mo 1 meal/2 mo eat

UnState restricted
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols

in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Olson ⎯ 2

Comparison of Advisory Levels for Mercury Comparison of Advisory Levels for Mercury 

(Sensitive Populations) in the UMR Basin

Wisconsin 0 – 0.05 > 0.05 – 0.2 > 0.2 – 1.0 >1.0 – 1.9 > 1.9

> 0.3 

(sensitive 

pops. only)

Missouri NA NA NA NA

Minnesota 0 – 0.05 > 0.05 – 0.2 > 0.2 – 1.0 NA > 1.0

> 1.0 

(all pops.)

Iowa* NA NA NA NA

Illinois Illinois 0 – 0.05 0.06 – 0.22 0.23 – 0.95 0.96 – 1.89 > 1.9

State Un-restricted 1 meal/wk 1 meal/mo 1 meal/2 mo Do Not Eat

* In 2004, Iowa issued 1 meal/wk consumption advice to warn sensitive populations about 

levels of mercury in IA fish; the advisory level remains at 1.0 ppm.

UMRBA

 The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association:

 A 501[c](3) nonprofit organization est. in 1981 by the A 501[c](3) nonprofit organization est. in 1981 by the 

governors of the 5 UMR states, with each state having , with each state having 

a governor-appointed representative

 Located in St. Paul, MN

 Goal: To facilitate dialogue and cooperative action Goal: To facilitate dialogue and cooperative action 

among the 5 UMR states and to work with federal among the 5 UMR states and to work with federal 

agencies on inter jurisdicti agencies on inter jurisdictional programs and policies

 http://www.umrba.org www.umrba.org/

The UMRBA’s UMRBA’s

Water Quality Task Force Water Quality Task Force

 Formed in 1998 due to a lack of interstate consultation a lack of interstate consultation 

on WQ-related issues involving the UMR

 Includes representatives from the relevant water quality 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

UMRBA’s UMRBA’s Interest in FCA Interest in FCA 

Protocols Protocols

 Identified in the January 2004 UMRBA report on CWA Identified in the January 2004 UMRBA report on CWA 

Monitoring & Assessment as an area where progress Monitoring & Assessment as an area where progress 

in consistency could be made in the short term

 i.e., FCAs are used by states to assess support of the “fish 

consumption use” for the UMR for Section 305(b) reporting 

& 303(d) listing & inconsistent listings exist

 Identified as an achievable goal by the WQTF Identified as an achievable goal by the WQTF 

(including a certain now-retired biologist from EPA retired biologist from EPA 

Region 5) in 2004 during a “brainstorming” session

 The Great Lakes states in the UMR basin (IL, MN, the UMR basin (IL, MN, 

WI) all use the GLP for PCBs (1993), and these states WI) all use the GLP for PCBs (1993), and these states 

saw an opportunity to extend the GLP westward
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols

in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Olson ⎯ 3

The Levels of Inconsistency. . . The Levels of Inconsistency. . .

 FDA vs. risk-based approaches (e.g., GLP) based approaches (e.g., GLP)

 Different approaches for issuing and rescinding Different approaches for issuing and rescinding 

FCAs

 Different FCA approaches exist in the states to the Different FCA approaches exist in the states to the 

west of IA and MO

 Different approaches for assessing support of fish Different approaches for assessing support of fish 

consumption uses [for Section 305(b)] consumption uses [for Section 305(b)]

 Different approaches for identifying Section Different approaches for identifying Section 

303(d)-impaired waters

The Levels of Inconsistency (cont.) The Levels of Inconsistency (cont.)

 Irrespective of FCA protocols, approaches for Irrespective of FCA protocols, approaches for 

issuing and rescinding issuing and rescinding FCAs differ: differ:

 IL & IA: Need 2 consecutive samples showing levels IL & IA: Need 2 consecutive samples showing levels 

< criteria before rescinding

 MN & WI: Use a mean contaminant level MN & WI: Use 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 MO: Uses the % of samples > action level 

 <10%, unlimited; 11 to 49%, limited; >50%, no 

consumption.

UMRBA’s UMRBA’s Coordination Effort Coordination Effort

 Made possible with a grant from U.S. EPA

 Contractor: FTN Associ Contractor: FTN Associates, Little Rock, AR

 Surveys of state approaches conducted in early 2005

 FCA consistency workshop in March 2005:

 In addition to UMRBA & contractor, attended by U.S. In addition to UMRBA & contractor, attended by U.S. 

EPA & state water quality, health, & fisheries agencies

 Discussed: Monitoring & analysis, guidance & issuance, alysis, guidance & issuance, 

assessment & listing

 FCA Background report summarized state approaches mmarized state approaches 

and discussions from the March workshop

UMRBA’s UMRBA’s Coordination Effort (cont.) Coordination Effort (cont.)

 Draft FCA options paper Draft FCA options paper

 May 2005 meeting in St. Paul, MN

 Final report in August 2005: Final report in August 2005: 

Upper Mississippi River Fish Consumption Upper Mississippi River Fish Consumption 

Advisories: State approaches to issuing and using Advisories: State approaches to issuing and using 

fish consumption advisories on the Upper fish consumption advisories on the Upper 

Mississippi River

[available at: http://www.umrba.org/reports.htm]
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols

in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Olson ⎯ 4

Five-state Data Comparison

 Suggested at the March 2005 meeting by MN Suggested at the March 2005 meeting by MN 

Dept. of Health to better determine the degree Dept. of Health to better determine the degree 

of inconsistency

 All states supplied data for Hg & PCBs in fish filet All states supplied data for Hg & PCBs in fish filet 

samples for the last 10 years

 Data were compiled by MN Dept. of Health and Data were compiled by MN Dept. of Health and 

presented to the UMRBA Water Quality Task presented to the UMRBA Water Quality Task 

Force at the May 2005 meeting

Five-state data comparison (cont.) state data comparison (cont.)

 For the Iowa reach of the UMR (sensitive & general For the Iowa reach of the UMR (sensitive & general 

populations):

 PCBs are the driver for bottom-feeding fish:

 CCAT & common carp <20”: 1 meal/wk; >20”: 1 meal/mo.

 Mercury is the driver for predator fish:

 Range from unlimited consumption (BLG) to 1 meal/wk for 

smaller predator fish to 1 meal/mo for 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 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

UMRBA’s UMRBA’s Coordination Effort: Coordination Effort: 

Recommendations Recommendations

 There should be consistent There should be consistent FCAs for the UMR for the UMR 

(FCA=guidance & issuance) because

 The UMR is a shared waterbody

 Inconsistency generates unfavorable public perception

 Currently have different messages coming from the Currently have different messages coming from the 

UMR states

 For monitoring and analysis

 Establish a minimum set of contaminants, fish species, Establish a minimum set of contaminants, fish species, 

sizes, sampling locations, sizes, sampling locations, sample frequency, sample sample frequency, sample 

preparation methods, etc., for all states

UMRBA’s UMRBA’s Coordination Effort: Coordination Effort: 

Recommendations (cont.) Recommendations (cont.)

 All UMR states should participate in EPA’s All UMR states should participate in EPA’s 

national fish contaminant forum

 If necessary, hold a meeting after the 2005 If necessary, hold a meeting after the 2005 

Fish Contaminant Forum to specifically Fish Contaminant Forum to specifically 

address protocols for consistent FCA guidance address protocols for consistent FCA guidance 

& issuance

 CWA Section 305(b) & 303(d) processes CWA Section 305(b) & 303(d) processes 

should be revisited after obtaining should be revisited after obtaining 

consistency in data and consistency in data and FCAs

“Show-Stoppers” Stoppers”

 In the discussion about risk-based (GLP) vs. FDA:

 Primary issue is whether risk-based FCA approaches overstate 

the risk to human health from Hg & PCBs, thus diverting 

people away from consuming fi people away from consuming fish and recreational fishing

 Other issues:

 “Skin-on” vs. “skin-off” filet

 Use of different laboratories to analyze samples

 Different approaches in issui Different approaches in issuing & rescinding advisories

 Little communication and sharing of information between the 

states regarding monitoring protocols and advisory protocols

Summary Summary

 Information exchange was very useful Information exchange was very useful

 Both the background report and options paper Both the background report and options paper 

serve as excellent references

 However, little progress in achieving consistency However, little progress in achieving consistency 

in FCAs was made

 Each state feels that it has a good approach

 No consequences of continuing the inconsistency, No consequences of continuing the inconsistency, 

other than public confusion

 This outcome was not unexpected & is typical of This outcome was not unexpected & is typical of 

attempts to resolve interstate inconsistencies
Dealing with Interstate Inconsistencies in Fish Consumption Advisory Protocols

in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

John R. Olson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Olson ⎯ 5

The Little Progress Made. . . The Little Progress Made. . .

 IA, for a number of reasons, IA, for a number of reasons, may abandon FDA abandon FDA 

action levels in favor of a risk-based approach:

 Would continue to be inconsistent with all adjacent Would continue to be inconsistent with all adjacent 

states, but would move a bit closer to a consistent states, but would move a bit closer to a consistent 

protocol and a consistent message

Mercury 0 – 0.2 ppm > 0.2 – < 1.0 ppm > 1.0 ppm

PCBs 0 – 0.2 ppm > 0.2 – < 2.0 ppm > 2.0 ppm

Parameter Unrestricted 1 meal / wk 1 meal / wk Do not eat

John Olson

Iowa Dept of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

515/281-8905

john.olson@dnr.state.ia.us
Gulf Coast State Fish Consumption Advisory for King Mackerel

Joseph Sekerke, Florida Department of Health

Sekerke ⎯ 1

Gulf Coast State

Fish Consumption Advisory

for King Mackerel

Participating States

• Texas

• Louisiana

• Mississippi

• Alabama

• Florida

Criteria/Assumptions in 1999

TX >43 TL 1/w 37-43 1/m 37-43 1/m 37-43 (age?)

LA >39 FkL 1/w < 39 1/m < 39 <7 1/m 33-39

MS >39 FkL 2/m 33-39 1 q 2M 33-39 <7 1 q 2m 33-39

AL >39 FkL 1/m < 39 No < 39 <15 No < 39

FL >39 FkL 1/w 33-39 1/m 33-39 <10 1/m 33-39

Children

Women of 

State Do not eat Adults childbearing

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 children 

under 15 should not consume king 

mackerel

• All others may consume two 2-oz meals 

per month of king mackerel < 31 inches 

fork length. Do not consume king 

mackerel > 31 inches.

Status in Each State

• Texas Katrina

• Louisiana Katrina

• Mississippi Katrina

• Alabama Katrina

• Florida Action in October 2005
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice

Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Buchanan ― 1

Advisories in Shared Waters Advisories in Shared Waters –

Two States Two States 

Achieve Consistent Advice Achieve Consistent Advice

Gary A. Buchanan, Ph.D., NJDEP

Richard Greene, DNREC

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments

 NJDEP: Alan Stern and Bruce Ruppel NJDEP: Alan Stern and Bruce Ruppel

 DE DNREC: Roy Miller DE DNREC: Roy Miller

 DE DPH: Jerry Llewellyn

Are State Boundaries Barriers? Are State Boundaries Barriers? Can Fish Swim? Can Fish Swim?

 Fish (and crabs) don’t obey state Fish (and crabs) don’t obey state 

boundaries

 Anglers consuming the “same” fish

 Public confused by different or Public confused by different or 

conflicting advisories

 Concern from health and outreach Concern from health and outreach 

perspective

 Many rivers are state boundaries (e.g., Many rivers are state boundaries (e.g., 

Mississippi, Ohio, and Colorado rivers) Mississippi, Ohio, and Colorado rivers)

Consistent Consistent Advisories Advisories – Potential Potential 

Problems & Problems & Barriers Barriers

 Inconsistency Inconsistency – Intrastate water bodies; Intrastate water bodies; 

multiple interstate boundaries

 Unwillingness or inability to compromise

 Assumption that current advisory is Assumption that current advisory is 

protective/adequate

 Policy of current administration

 Current intrastate agency agreements

 Recognition of shared resources

Source: DRBC
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice

Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Buchanan ― 2

Source: DELEP

Prior to Consistent Advisory Prior to Consistent Advisory

Waterbody Species 

NJ PCB 

Advisory 

using 10-5 

Cancer Risk 

NJ PCB 

Advisory using 

10-4 Cancer 

Risk 

Delaware 

Striped bass Do not eat 4 meals per 

year 

1 meal per 

year 

Bluefish 

Do not eat 

(>24") 

1 meal/year 

(<24") 

4 meals per 

year (>24") 

1 meal/month 

(<24") 

No advisory 

American eel 1 meal per 

year 

4 meals per 

year 

1 meal per 

year 

Delaware 

Bay 

(C&D Canal 

to mouth of 

bay) 

Channel catfish

White catfish 

White perch 

1 meal per year (DE 

advisory) 

1 meal per 

year 

Delaware 

River 

(DE/PA 

border to 

C&D canal) 

All finfish Do not eat (DE) Do not eat 

???  NJDEP Commissioner Campbell and NJDEP Commissioner Campbell and 

DNREC Secretary Hughes DNREC Secretary Hughes requested the 

development of consistent fish nsistent fish 

consumption advisories in the shared consumption advisories in the shared 

waters of Delaware and New Jersey

Key to Success Key to Success

History of Past Advisories History of Past Advisories 

 NJ since 1982 (1989 in DE Estuary) NJ since 1982 (1989 in DE Estuary)

 DE since 1986 (1994 in DE Estuary) DE since 1986 (1994 in DE Estuary)

 Developed separately

 NJ adopted some DE advisories in NJ adopted some DE advisories in 

1990s

 DE, NJ, PA, U.S. EPA, and DRBC: Fish DE, NJ, PA, U.S. EPA, and DRBC: Fish 

Consumption Advisory Team (FCAT) Consumption Advisory Team (FCAT) 

under Delaware Estuary Program

May 2003 Meeting May 2003 Meeting

 Delaware DNREC: Delaware DNREC:

– Division of Water Resources

– Division of Fish and Wildlife

 Delaware DHSS: Delaware DHSS:

– Division of Public Health Division of Public Health 

 New Jersey DEP: New Jersey DEP:

– Division of Science, Research, and Division of Science, Research, and 

Technology
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice

Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Buchanan ― 3

Reasons for Differences Reasons for Differences

 DE: Multiple contaminants

 NJ: Individual contaminants (PCBs) NJ: Individual contaminants (PCBs)

 DE: 10-5 cancer risk (mandated by 5 cancer risk (mandated by 

Delaware’s waste clean-up law) up law)

Reasons for Differences (cont.) Reasons for Differences (cont.)

 NJ: “Range approach” (10 NJ: “Range approach” (10-5 and 10-4)

 Different datasets

 Differences in risk assumptions (e.g., Differences in risk assumptions (e.g., 

30-yr vs. 70-yr exposure) yr exposure)

 Striped bass: DE = 1 meal per year; NJ Striped bass: DE = 1 meal per year; NJ 

= Do not eat = Do not eat 

 Bluefish Bluefish – DE = no advisory; NJ = DE = no advisory; NJ = 

statewide advisory

 American eel American eel

Advisory Differences Advisory Differences

in Delaware Bay (10-5 cancer risk) cancer risk) Similarities in Advisories Similarities in Advisories

 Delaware Bay: Channel catfish, white catfish, tfish, white catfish, 

white perch white perch – NJ lists DE advisory

 Delaware River: NJ lists DE advisory of “Do Delaware River: NJ lists DE advisory of “Do 

not eat” for all species not eat” for all species 

 High-risk population: both states recommend risk population: both states recommend 

“do not eat” “do not eat”

 Build on consistencies!! Build on consistencies!!

Resolution for Consistent Resolution for Consistent

Advisories in Shared Waters Advisories in Shared Waters

 DE agreed to add bluefish to state’s DE agreed to add bluefish to state’s 

advisories (NJ data) advisories (NJ data)

 NJ agreed to use 10-5 cancer risk

 DE/NJ agreed to use DE 2002 striped DE/NJ agreed to use DE 2002 striped 

bass data and NJ assumptions for bass data and NJ assumptions for 

advisory

NJ and DE NJ and DE 

Issue Consistent Advisories Issue Consistent Advisories 

March 2004 March 2004
Advisories in Shared Waters—Two States Achieve Consistent Advice

Gary A. Buchanan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Buchanan ― 4

Prior to Consistent Advisory Prior to Consistent Advisory

Waterbody Species 

NJ PCB 

Advisory 

using 10-5 

Cancer Risk 

NJ PCB 

Advisory using 

10-4 Cancer 

Risk 

Delaware 

Striped Bass Do not eat 4 meals per 

year 

1 meal per 

year 

Bluefish 

Do not eat 

(>24") 

1 meal/year 

(<24") 

4 meals per 

year (>24") 

1 meal/month 

(<24") 

No advisory 

American eel 1 meal per 

year 

4 meals per 

year 

1 meal per 

year 

Delaware 

Bay 

(C&D Canal 

to mouth of 

bay) 

Channel catfish 

White catfish 

White perch 

1 meal per year (DE 

advisory) 

1 meal per 

year 

Delaware 

River 

(DE/PA 

border to 

C&D canal) 

All finfish Do not eat (DE) Do not eat 

 

Area Species Advisory Contaminants 

of Concern** 

DE/NJ/PA 

Border to the 

Chesapeake & 

Delaware 

Canal 

All finfish Do not eat 

PCBs, dioxin, 

chlorinated 

pesticides, 

mercury 

Do not eat fish larger than 6 

lbs or 24 inches 

Bluefish No more than 1 meal per 

year for fish less than 6 lbs 

or less than 24 inches* 

PCBs, mercury

Chesapeake & 

Delaware 

Canal to the 

mouth of the 

Delaware Bay Striped bass 

White perch 

American eel

Channel 

catfish 

White catfish

No more than 1 meal per 

year* PCBs, mercury

Notes: 

* Women of childbearing age and children should not consume these fish. 

** Proper trimming and cooking of fish can reduce but not eliminate the risk associated with PCBs, dioxins, 

and chlorinated pesticides. Trimming and cooking does not reduce the risk associated with mercury.

2004 New Jersey and Delaware Fish Consumption Advisories

for Shared Waters of the Delaware Estuary/Delaware Bay

 Uniform and more ef Uniform and more effective message to fective message to 

anglers and fish consumers in both anglers and fish consumers in both 

states

 Improved comprehension by the public

 Increase public health protection

Benefits of Consistent Advisories Benefits of Consistent Advisories

 Coordinated state outreach efforts

 Sharing of resources and data

 Meets the DE/NJ and Delaware Estuary Meets the DE/NJ and Delaware Estuary 

Program’s goal of consistent advisories

 Consistent basis for 303(d) listing and Consistent basis for 303(d) listing and 

TMDL development (leading to clean up) TMDL development (leading to clean up)

Benefits of Consistent Benefits of Consistent

Advisories (cont.) Advisories (cont.)

Lessons Learned Lessons Learned

 Need (simple) consistent advisories. Need (simple) consistent advisories.

 Public has difficulty understanding the Public has difficulty understanding the 

advisory even without conflicting and advisory even without conflicting and 

complex messages for the same fish in the complex messages for the same fish in the 

same waterbody. same waterbody. 

 Clear message to the public (risk Clear message to the public (risk 

communication) is more important than re important than 

differences in techni differences in technical procedures (risk cal procedures (risk 

assessment assumptions). assessment assumptions). 

Conclusions Conclusions

 Share data

 Compromise

 Management mandate

 Public better informed

 Benefits Benefits – Reach more of the public Reach more of the public 

and leverage cleanups and leverage cleanups 
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

David ⎯ 1

Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Akwesasne Mohawk Fish 

Advisory Communication Advisory Communication

Tony David, Environment Division

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish

Marriott Inner Harbor Marriott Inner Harbor 

Baltimore, MD

Mohawks of Akwesasne Mohawks of Akwesasne

 40,000-ac

 U.S. and Canadian U.S. and Canadian 

 St. Lawrence River St. Lawrence River

 Fish-consuming community

 10,000–12,000 people

 Fish and agriculturally based traditional Fish and agriculturally based traditional 

culture

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

 Tribal government established circa 1934

 Environment division

 15,000-ac 

Canada

United States

Cornwall Cornwall

Quebec Ontario

Massena

New York

NY

Mohawks of Mohawks of Akwesasne Akwesasne

NY

TM TM

Superfund Sites Superfund Sites Public Health Studies Public Health Studies

 1980s, Ward Stone, NYS wildlife pathologist 1980s, Ward Stone, NYS wildlife pathologist

 1986, Selikoff Selikoff and Hammond, Mt. Sinai and Hammond, Mt. Sinai 

 1992, Chemical contaminants in breast milk

 1999, NYS DOH/ATSDR, public health assessment 1999, NYS DOH/ATSDR, public health assessment

 2000, SUNY Albany, blood serum PCBs

 2006? update
Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

David ⎯ 2

Non-Government Efforts Government Efforts

 The Women’s Dance

 Katsi Cook, 

Midwife to the Six Midwife to the Six 

Nations Nations 

 Breast milk Breast milk 

exposure concern

 Risk vs. benefit Risk vs. benefit

©Scott Hess

A Presentation of State 

and Tribal fish advisories

 SRMT Health Service (1986) SRMT Health Service (1986)

 Women: Consume no fish

 Children: Consume no fish

 Men: 1 meal per week

 NYS DOH (2005) NYS DOH (2005)

 Specific advisories

 Grasse River: Consume no fish, all species

 Bay at General Motors: Consume no fish, all species

 Other general advisories

The Advisories The Advisories Contaminant Contaminant-Reducing Reducing 

Preparation

Cooking techniques

 Avoid using fat in recipes Avoid using fat in recipes 

 Don’t deep or fat fry

 Filet off when cooking and smoking

Other Recommendations Other Recommendations General Advisories General Advisories 

 Select for generally cleaner species

 Harvest from Harvest from “clean” locations

 Select for smaller size fish Select for smaller size fish
Akwesasne Mohawk Fish Advisory Communication

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

David ⎯ 3

Contrary Information

 Environment Canada advisories

 Greater species specificity

 More recent and complete data More recent and complete data 

 Regional breakdown in the St. Lawrence Regional breakdown in the St. Lawrence 

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

 Focus on Hg and PCBs
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the

Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation

Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

BigEagle ⎯ 1

Mr. Jerry BigEagle, CRST Fishery Biologist Mr. Jerry BigEagle, CRST Fishery Biologist

Development Processes of Consumption Development Processes of Consumption 

Advisories for the Cheyenne River Sioux Advisories for the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Indian Reservation

LAKE ISABEL LAKE ISABEL

• 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

• Lake Roosevelt, Tripp County

– Species Largemouth bass (fish > 18 inches)

– Contaminant Mercury

– Healthy adults No more than one 7-oz. meal per week (52 meals/year)

– High risk groups No more than one 7-oz. meal per month (12 meals/year)

– Children under age 7 No more than one 4-oz. meal per month (12 meals/year)

• Lake Hurley, Potter County

– Species Largemouth bass (fish > 18 inches)

– Contaminant Mercury

– Healthy adults No more than one 7-oz. meal per week (52 meals/year)

– High risk groups No more than one 7-oz. meal per month (12 meals/year)

– Children under age 7 No more than one 4-oz. meal per month (12 meals/year)

• Lake Isabel, Dewey County

– Species Northern pike (fish >25 inches), Largemouth bass (fish >17 inches)

– Contaminant Mercury

– Healthy adults No more than one 7-oz. meal per week (52 meals/year)

– High risk groups No more than one 7-oz. meal per month (12 meals/year)

– Children under age 7 No more than one 4-oz. meal per month (12 meals/year)

Healthy adults – Healthy adults should limit consumption of this fish to no more than one 7 oz. meal per week 

(7 oz. is equal to two medium-size portions or roughly the size of two decks of playing cards). High risk 

groups - women who plan to become pregnant, are pregnant, or are breast-feeding should eat no more 

than one 7-oz. meal of this fish per month. Children under age 7 should eat no more than one 4-oz. meal of 

this fish per month. (4oz. is equal to one medium-size portion or roughly the size of one deck of playing 

cards)
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the

Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation

Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

BigEagle ⎯ 2

REVISED FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY

July 15, 2002

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is concerned about the levels of mercury found in the fish of the Cheyenne 

River, Moreau River, Lake Oahe, and all surface waters of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, 

especially when those fish are consumed in large quantities, eaten by children, elderly, women of 

childbearing age, women that are pregnant and women that are breast-feeding. Based upon samples 

taken by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s Environmental Protection Department in cooperation with the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Tribe is expanding the coverage of its original fish consumption 

advisory beyond the three largest water bodies to include all surface waters reservation-wide (including 

but not limited to stock ponds, dams, lakes, reservoirs, rivers, creeks, etc.).

IF YOU DO FISH HERE REDUCE YOUR HEALTH RISK BY:

• DO NOT KEEP AND EAT LARGE, OLDER FISH (greater than 4 pounds). 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 young children, nursing mothers, elderly and childbearing women are at 

greatest risk of adverse health effects. Such people should be especially concerned about fish eating 

habits. PREGNANT WOMEN, WOMEN THAT ARE BREAST-FEEDING AND CHILDREN LESS THAN 6 

YEARS OF AGE SHOULD NOT EAT FISH CAUGHT HERE

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL THE CRST ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION DEPARTMENT AT 964-6568 OR THE CRST GAME, FISH AND PARKS AT 964-7812.

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
Development Processes of Consumption Advisories for the

Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation

Jerry BigEagle, Environmental Protection Department, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

BigEagle ⎯ 3

• 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

Acknowledgments

Question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one’s 

around, and it hits a toxicologist, does anyone care?
EPA Advisory Program Update

James Pendergast for Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Pendergast/Keehner ⎯ 1

EPA Advisory Program Update

James Pendergast, Chief

Fish, Shellfish, Beach, and Outreach Branch

Office of Science and Technology

Office of Water

U.S. EPA

2

A Measure of National Interest

Thanks to Mort Walter

3

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

4

Percentage of River Miles and Lake Acres

Under Advisory, 1993-2004

5

Number of Safe-Eating Guidelines by State 

(2004)

6

Outreach at Conferences
EPA Advisory Program Update

James Pendergast for Denise Keehner, Office of Science and Technology,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Pendergast/Keehner ⎯ 2

7

Joint Federal Advisory

• Published advisory for 

methylmercury in commercial and 

non-commercial fish in March 

2004.

• To improve our outreach, we plan 

to conduct various surveys about 

the public’s perception of, and 

sources of information about, the 

benefits and risks of fish 

consumption.

8

MOU with FDA

• In June 2005, U.S. EPA’s Office of Water and FDA CFSAN signed a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding greater collaboration 

between U.S. EPA and 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, and 

– Promoting uniformity where appropriate in public health messages

regarding consumption of commercial and noncommercial fish and 

shellfish. 

9

What Are the Future Directions?

• Look at emerging contaminants:

– PBDEs and PFOA

• 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 shellfish for consumption by 

U.S. consumers

• Look at advisories in interstate waters

• Work with U.S. EPA programs on using advisories to leverage clean- ups

• Plan for the 2007 forum
Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update

Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration

Kraemer ⎯ 1

U.S. Food & Drug Administration

SEAFOOD SAFETY PROGRAM

Donald W. Kraemer Donald W. Kraemer

Acting Director Acting Director

Office of Seafood

Food Safety by Design Food Safety by Design

 FDA Published “Seafood HACCP Regulation” FDA Published “Seafood HACCP Regulation” 

in 1995

 Effective 1997

 Requires processors to: Requires processors to:

 Assess potential food safety hazards to determine Assess potential food safety hazards to determine 

if they are “reasonably likely to occur”

 Develop and implement a HACCP plan to control Develop and implement a HACCP plan to control 

those hazards those hazards

Seafood Safety Hazards Seafood Safety Hazards

 Natural toxins Natural toxins

 Histamine formation in tuna, Histamine formation in tuna, mahi mahi, and 

bluefish

 Paralytic shellfish poisoning ( Paralytic shellfish poisoning (saxitoxin) and 

amnesic shellfish poisoning ( amnesic shellfish poisoning (domoic acid) in colder acid) in colder 

temperate zone oysters, clams, and mussels temperate zone oysters, clams, and mussels 

 Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning ( shellfish poisoning (brevetoxin) in 

warmer temperate zone and subtropical oysters, warmer temperate zone and subtropical oysters, 

clams, and mussels clams, and mussels

 Ciguatera toxin in subtropical and tropical Ciguatera toxin in subtropical and tropical 

barracuda, grouper, and snapper barracuda, grouper, and snapper

Seafood Safety Hazards Seafood Safety Hazards

 Parasites in many species of near Parasites in many species of near-shore fish shore fish 

consumed raw

 Drug residues Drug residues

 Chloramphenicol Chloramphenicol in aquacultured shrimp and shrimp and 

crabmeat crabmeat

 Fluoroquinolones Fluoroquinolones in aquacultured basa (catfish) (catfish)

 Malachite green in salmon

 Unapproved use of food and color additives Unapproved use of food and color additives

 Unlabeled sulfites in warm water shrimp

Seafood Safety Hazards Seafood Safety Hazards

 Microbiological contamination: Microbiological contamination:

 Vibrio vulnificus vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus parahaemolyticus in 

Gulf Coast oysters Gulf Coast oysters

 Listeria monocytogenes monocytogenes in smoked and pickled fish

 Norovirus Norovirus, Hepatitis A virus, and Hepatitis A virus, and Vibrio cholerae

in oysters, clams, and mussels in oysters, clams, and mussels

 Clostridium Clostridium botulinum toxin in vacuum-packaged packaged 

seafood

 Staphylococcus Staphylococcus aureus toxin in stuffed seafood

 Salmonella Salmonella in many seafood products in many seafood products

Seafood Safety Hazards Seafood Safety Hazards

 Allergens: Allergens:

 Unlabeled milk, eggs, and peanuts in seafood Unlabeled milk, eggs, and peanuts in seafood 

products products

 Physical hazards: Physical hazards:

 Metal fragments in breaded fish

 Glass fragments in packaged fishery products Glass fragments in packaged fishery products

 Environmental chemicals and pesticides: Environmental chemicals and pesticides:

 Industrial chemicals, pesticides, and toxic elements Industrial chemicals, pesticides, and toxic elements 

in near in near-shore fish

 Methyl mercury in shark, swordfish, king Methyl mercury in shark, swordfish, king 

mackerel, tilefish, and albacore tuna
Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update

Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration

Kraemer ⎯ 2

Chemical Contaminants Chemical Contaminants

 Total Diet Study: Total Diet Study:

 Tuna, salmon, Tuna, salmon, pollack, shrimp, and catfish

 Radionuclides Radionuclides, pesticides, PCBs, , pesticides, PCBs, VOCs, toxic and , toxic and 

nutritional elementals, and folic acid

 Chemical Contaminants Field Assignments: Chemical Contaminants Field Assignments:

 Pesticide program

 Toxic elements program

 Dioxin program

 Perchlorate assignment assignment

 Mercury assignments Mercury assignments

FY’05 Pesticide Program

 175 domestic, 300 import samples 175 domestic, 300 import samples

 Pesticides and PCBs Pesticides and PCBs

 Domestic: locally caught, commercial, Domestic: locally caught, commercial, 

non-migratory, and bottom feeders migratory, and bottom feeders

 Import: salmon from Canada and Norway, Import: salmon from Canada and Norway, 

aquacultured catfish, crayfish, tilapia, Nile catfish, crayfish, tilapia, Nile 

perch, basa, shellfish, and crustaceans , shellfish, and crustaceans

FY’05 Toxic Elements Program

 10 domestic, 160 import samples 10 domestic, 160 import samples

 Lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury

 Fresh or frozen striped bass, salmon, flounder, Fresh or frozen striped bass, salmon, flounder, 

herring, sardine, cod, bluefish, halibut, Alaska herring, sardine, cod, bluefish, halibut, Alaska 

pollack, crab, oyster, squid, scallop, and , crab, oyster, squid, scallop, and 

American lobster American lobster

FY’05 Dioxin Program

 520 domestic and import samples, 85 feed samples 520 domestic and import samples, 85 feed samples

 Dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs like PCBs

 Domestic: Domestic: Aquacultured catfish, striped bass, tilapia, catfish, striped bass, tilapia, 

and salmon

 Import: Salmon, bluefish, flounder, halibut, sole, Import: Salmon, bluefish, flounder, halibut, sole, 

striped bass, wild salmon, scallop, shrimp, clam, striped bass, wild salmon, scallop, shrimp, clam, 

oyster, crab, mussel, lobster, Alaska oyster, crab, mussel, lobster, Alaska pollack, cod, 

sardines, swordfish, ocean perch, tuna, haddock , sardines, swordfish, ocean perch, tuna, haddock , 

crayfish, mackerel, croaker, sablefish, orange crayfish, mackerel, croaker, sablefish, orange roughy, 

shark, weakfish, and shark, weakfish, and pogy

FY’05 Perchlorate Perchlorate Assignment Assignment

 35 domestic and import samples 35 domestic and import samples

 Perchlorate

 Aquacultured catfish and salmon, wild-caught 

salmon, and shrimp

FY’05 Mercury Assignments FY’05 Mercury Assignments

 Domestic and import Domestic and import

 470 samples fresh/frozen fish 470 samples fresh/frozen fish – 29 species 29 species

 100 fresh/frozen tuna, 50 samples canned tuna

 Total mercury
Seafood Safety Program FDA Advisory Program Update

Donald W. Kraemer, Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration

Kraemer ⎯ 3

Methylmercury Risk Benefit Methylmercury Risk Benefit

 Project by FDA with contribution from International Project by FDA with contribution from International 

Food Safety Consulting, LLC

 Working on new approach for managing and Working on new approach for managing and 

communicating risks associated with methylmercury

 May impact on risk management and communication May impact on risk management and communication 

for other hazards for other hazards

 Risk/benefit analysis Risk/benefit analysis 

 Risk to U.S. consumers of methylmercury in seafood

 Nutritional benefits from consuming seafood
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design

Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cowles ⎯ 1

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: How to design and implement 

a monitoring system to meet your needs?

{ 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

{ Know all the questions. For states, tribes, 

and EPA, the Clean Water Act asks two basic 

questions:

1.What is the condition of all the waters, 

what % 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

{ Know all the questions (inc. pollutants of 

interest)

{ 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.
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design

Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cowles ⎯ 2

303(d)/305(b) Monitoring

Network Design Table

Small public, 10,000 N Y Represent probability 2008

private (C)

Rotating 2008

census

Medium 300 Y Y Census

public lakes 

(B)

Annual annual

census

Large public 75 Y Y Census

lakes (A)

Probability/ 2009

None

Represent/ 

None

Urban lakes/ hundreds Y/N Y/N

small streams

100,000 N N None N/A N/A

miles

Small/int. 

streams

Represent Probability 2007

all miles

25,000 N Y

miles

Wadeable

Streams

Census of Census annual

streams

25 streams Y Y

2,500 miles

Non-wade

Targeted- annual

Represent

Represent all 

segments

500 miles Y Y

50 segmts

Big Rivers

Year to 

Sample

Monitoring 

Design

Monitoring 

Coverage

Needed

Significant 

Fishing 

Pressure

Significant 

Public 

Profile/Use

Population

Size

Resource 

class

Recap of Consideration 1 – Preparation

{ You need all these in order to be able to 

choose monitoring designs that meet 

your needs. 

z Know the questions (seek to balance 

them).

z Know the resources, sub-classes, and size.

z Know your coverage needs for each class.

z Have supportable design rationale and 

data. 

z Don’t limit your thinking.

Key Consideration 2 – Design Pros & Cons

• 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

• Well suited to 303(d)

• Can provide some 

303(d) sites if targeting 

methods work

Targeted – Sites are 

selected via 

determinative methods 

usually to investigate 

known or suspected 

problems/areas

• Assumptions are necessary 

• No guarantee sites are 

representative

• Work required to develop and 

implement targeting methodology

• Does not ID all impaired waterbodies 

for 303d

• Can usually be 

implemented simply 

and efficiently 

Targeted-Representative – Sites are 

selected by BPJ or 

other means to 

represent an area or 

population

• Does not ID all impaired waterbodies 

for 303(d) 

• Sites require inventory and recon

• Logistical problems accessing remote 

sites

• 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

Probability – Sites are 

selected at random to 

represent a population

Expensive and not practical if large 

number of water bodies to sample

Answers both 305 and 

303

Census – All sites are 

sampled

Design Pros Cons

Consideration 3 – Balancing

and Integrating Designs

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. Adequate resources, planning, and coordination are the 

keys to balancing and implementing multiple designs.

4. Resources can be created! How?

z Have good rationale 

z Eliminate existing program inefficiencies

z Look at what your data is telling you

Key Considerations in Sampling Design

{ Balancing the CWA Questions:

z We should seek through state strategies 

to balance the monitoring needed to 

answer both 305(b) and 303(d) 

questions.

z 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

z GIS work: ID of populations and areas of 

interest

z Agreement on definitions and sub-classes

z Agreement on coverage needs

z Obtaining the required information and 

making design decisions may be 

compounded by the number of 

collaborators, old program considerations, 

and thinking.
Key Considerations in Fish Tissue Sampling Design

Lyle Cowles, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cowles ⎯ 3

Clean Water Act

“Waters of the U.S.”

Obligation to monitor No obligation to monitor

(Ecological Monitoring?)

Decreasing priority to 

monitor and assess

Waters 

named in 

State 

standards

Waters not 

named in 

State 

standards

‘De-Monitorized 

Zone’

DMZ

(e.g., class B and C lakes)

Isolated waters 

not hydrologically

connected to 

‘navigables’

Water quality

Fish tissue

Waterbodies and CWA Monitoring
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size

for Developing Fish Consumption Advice

Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of 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, Ph.D.

David McBride, M.S.

Rob Duff, M.S.

Office of Environmental Health Assessments

Washington State Department of Health

How Many Fish Do You Need?

z Precision of estimate of mean concentration

– Relative (e.g. +/- 15%)

– Absolute (e.g. +/- 50 ppb)

z Fish populations

– Species that are consumed

– Size classes that may have different levels of 

contamination

z Response: HOW many?

z Alternate: n=($$ available)/(cost per sample)

WA Approach For Fish 

Consumption Advice

z Goal is to develop and communicate 

defensible, consistent advice about healthy 

consumption of fish

z Assessment Î Meal recommendations

Meal Recommendations

z Meal recommendation (meals per month) = 

(noncancer endpoints) Rfd * 30.4 * BW

meal size * Conc.

(cancer endpoints) Risk level * 30.4 * BW

CSF * meal size * Conc.

Meal Recommendations

Meals per month

012345678

3.72

Standard Meal Recommendations

Meals per month

012 3 4 567 8

3.72
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size

for Developing Fish Consumption Advice

Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health

Monday afternoon

VanDerslice_sb_7.ppt VanDerslice et al. ⎯ 2

Cut-points

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

3.72

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

Sampling Distribution of Meal 

Recommendation Estimate

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

y

Sampling Distribution of Meal 

Recommendation Estimate

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

y

Sampling Distribution of Meal 

Recommendation Estimate

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

Pr (μ <= 3) y

Sampling Distribution of Meal 

Recommendation Estimate

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

Pr (μ <= 3) y

Sampling Distribution of Meal 

Recommendation Estimate

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

Pr (μ <= 3) y
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size

for Developing Fish Consumption Advice

Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health

Monday afternoon

VanDerslice_sb_7.ppt VanDerslice et al. ⎯ 3

Decision Rule

z If Pr (μ <= cut-point) > 0.10 

then consider using lower standard meal 

recommendation (10% is arbitrary)

z Provides basis for sampling objective

– Have an 80% chance of 

z Detecting the difference between the expected 

meal recommendation and the lower cut-point 

(i.e., minimum detectable difference)

z At a significance of 0.10 (one-sided)

Minimum Detectable Difference

of Meal Frequency

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

Pr (μ <= 3) < 0.10

Minimum detectable difference (MDD)

y

Estimated Meal Recommendation 

and 80% Confidence Interval

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

80% confidence interval

Minimum detectable difference MDD

y

But We’re Sampling Fish...

z For a given contaminant and target population:

Meal recommendation =

Rfd * 30.4 * BW = A

meal size * Conc. Conc.

Hg Concentration vs. 

Recommended Meals 

Calculated Meal Recommendations

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Mercury fish tissue conc. (ppb)

Meals per month

70 kg body weight

0.227 kg per meal

Minimum Detectable Difference

of Meal Frequency

Meals per month

012 3 4 5 7 8

0.5 1.5 3 6

6

Cut-points

80% confidence interval

Minimum detectable difference (MDD)

y
How Many Fish DO We Need? Protocol for Calculating Sample Size

for Developing Fish Consumption Advice

Jim VanDerslice, Washington State Department of Health

Monday afternoon

VanDerslice_sb_7.ppt VanDerslice et al. ⎯ 4

Calculated meal recommendations

0

1

2

3

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Mercury fish tissue conc. (ppb)

Meals per month

Minimum Detectable Difference 

of Contaminant Concentration 

x

Minimum 

detectable 

difference

y

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 (MDD)

4. Determine MDD of fish 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.

z Calculation of sample size for given MDD

z Iterative solution of optimum number of fish per 

composite 

z Based on variability of contaminant 

concentrations, variability of lab analyses, cost of 

additional fish samples, and cost of additional lab 

analyses 

Calculated meal recommendations

0

1

2

3

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Mercury fish tissue conc. (ppb)

Meals per month

Minimum Detectable Difference 

of Contaminant Concentration 

x

y

Acknowledgments

z 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)
US FDA’s Total Diet Study

Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration

Egan ― 1

Katie Egan

U.S. FDA/CFSAN

Presented at the

National Forum on Contaminants in Fish

September 18-21, 2005, Baltimore, MD

US FDA’s Total Diet Study

Introduction

hWhat is a Total Diet Study (TDS)?

hBrief history of FDA’s TDS

hReview of study design

hBrief discussion of TDS results

Total Diet Studies

hPurpose is to

 Measure levels of various substances in 

foods

 Estimate dietary intakes of the substances

hInvolves purchase and analysis of foods 

representing all components of the diet

hFocus is the average diet rather than 

extreme or atypical consumers

Total Diet Studies (cont.)

hConducted by many countries

hStudy design depends on specific

 Health/safety concerns

 Resources

hModel can be adapted to meet specific 

needs (e.g., selected foods, regions)

FDA’s Total Diet Study

hInitiated in 1961 due to concern about 

radioactive fallout 

hConducted continuously since then

hOver time has evolved to include

−More analytes

−More foods

−Improved analytical methods

−Intakes for more population groups

Current TDS Design

h~ 280 foods & beverages

h~ 500 analytes

−Pesticides, elements, industrial 

chemicals, nutrients

hEstimated dietary intakes for

−Total United States

−14 age/gender groups
US FDA’s Total Diet Study

Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration

Egan ― 2

Current TDS Design

WEST NORTH

CENTRAL

NORTH

EAST

SOUTH

4 regional market baskets each year

~ 280 foods collected in 3 cities per region

− 3 samples are composited for analysis

TDS Design Components

hTDS food list

hSample collections

hSample preparation/compositing

hSample analyses

hEstimation of dietary intakes

TDS Food List

hIncludes major components of the 

average American diet

hIs based on national food consumption 

survey results

hLimited to foods available nationwide

hIs revised periodically to reflect changing 

dietary patterns

Selecting TDS Foods

TDS food: Applesauce 

Survey codes and consumption amounts 

Survey 

code Survey Food Description 

62101200 Apple, dried, cooked 0.001

62101230 Apple, dried, cooked, with sugar 0.009

63101110 

Applesauce/stewed apples, NS as to added 

sweetener 0.694

63101120 Applesauce/stewed apples, unsweetened 1.252

63101130 Applesauce/stewed apples, with sugar 1.290

63101140 

Applesauce/stewed apples, with low calorie 

sweetener 0.063

63101150 Applesauce with other fruits 0.028

63101210 Apple, cooked or canned, with syrup 0.039

63101310 Apple, baked, NS as to added sweetener 0.030

63101320 Apple, baked, unsweetened 0.081

63101330 Apple, baked, with sugar 0.132

63101420 Apple, pickled 0.008

63101500 Apple, fried 0.095

Total consumption: 3.7

Fish/Seafood in TDS

hSpecies consumed nationwide by most 

Americans

hIncludes:

− Canned tuna

− Fish sticks

− Fish sandwich (fast food)

− Shrimp

− Haddock (through 1997)

− Salmon (added in 1997)

− Catfish (added in 2003)

Foods are “table ready”

hFresh orange, peeled

hGreen beans, cooked

hSalmon, baked

hMicrowaved popcorn

hTaco/tostada, carry-out 
US FDA’s Total Diet Study

Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration

Egan ― 3

Sample Collection Sites

hSelected from Standard Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas (SMSAs) close to FDA 

district or field offices

h3 cities selected per region

hCities vary from year to year

TDS Analytes

Each food is analyzed separately for

 Pesticide residues (>150)

 Industrial chemicals (43)

 Radionuclides (13)

 Elements (4 toxic, 14 nutrient)

 Folate

 Dioxin (since 1999); acrylamide (since 

2003); perchlorate, furan (since 2004)

Analytical Results

hResults for TDS analytes posted on TDS 

Web site:

 Individual data (as .txt files)

 Data summaries by analyte and/or food

hCurrent Web site includes data from 1991 

through 2001/2002

hResults for additional analytes posted 

elsewhere on CFSAN Internet 

Results for Fish/Seafood:

Mercury (total)

Hg concentrations 

(mg/kg) TDS Food n 

(detected)

Average Range 

Canned tuna 40 0.163 0.06 – 0.322

Fish sticks 39 0.004 0 – 0.030 

Shrimp 39 0.027 0 – 0.071 

Salmon 17 0.030 0 – 0.060 

TDS Intake Estimates

hDietary intake = 

Analyte concentration x amount of foods 

consumed

hTDS “diets” developed for 14 age-gender 

groups + total U.S. population

hEach diet = Consumption amount for each 

TDS food

Dietary Intake of Mercury from 

Fish/Seafood

Intake (μg/day) 

TDS Food 

Hg conc 

(mg/kg)

Total 

US 

MF 

2 yrs 

F 

25-30 yrs

Canned tuna 0.163 0.541 0.186 0.490 

Fish sticks 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.005 

Shrimp 0.027 0.091 0.013 0.212 

Salmon 0.030 0.085 0.025 0.058 
US FDA’s Total Diet Study

Katie Egan, Food and Drug Administration

Egan ― 4

TDS Intake Estimates

hProvide reasonable estimates of

−Background intakes/exposure

−Average intake over time

hAre 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
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health

McBride ⎯ 1

Analysis of Chemical Analysis of Chemical 

Contaminant Levels in Contaminant Levels in 

Store-Bought Fish from Bought Fish from 

Washington State 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

Olympia, WA

Study Objectives Study Objectives

 To characterize levels of mercury and To characterize levels of mercury and 

PCBs in canned tuna and fresh fish sold in PCBs in canned tuna and fresh fish sold in 

grocery stores

 To estimate contaminant levels in the most 

frequently consumed fish in Washington State

 To identify fish with lower levels for making 

recommendations to consumers

 Expanded analysis to include PBDEs

Sampling Fresh and Frozen Fish

 Species chosen based on frequency of Species chosen based on frequency of 

consumption and expected contaminant levels

 Catfish

 Cod

 Flounder

 Halibut

 Red snapper

 Pollack 

 Salmon

 Tuna (canned white and light)

 Tuna steaks, carp U.S, EPA, 1996; U.S. FDA, 1994

Study Design

 Sampling objective: Sampling objective: 

 Obtain a probability sample of fish available for retail Obtain a probability sample of fish available for retail 

sale in Washington State

 Target: Target: 

 60 of white/light canned tuna

 Follow up to 2003 study

 20 of each species of fresh/frozen fish

 Two-stage sampling: stage sampling:

 Store

 Fish sample

Fish Collection Fish Collection – Selecting Stores Selecting Stores

 Primary sampling unit: Primary sampling unit:

 Retail outlets (small and large grocery stores)

 Obtained listing of all retail food outlets 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
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health

McBride ⎯ 2

Location of Grocery Stores Location of Grocery Stores Sampling Fresh and Frozen Fish

 Collected samples between October 2004 and Collected samples between October 2004 and 

February 2005 February 2005 

 Collected one sample of each available fish type 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, Total of 390 fish samples collected (118 cans, 

172 fillets) 172 fillets)

Store Labeling of Fish

 Fish labels on store packages or signs can Fish labels on store packages or signs can 

include different species: 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”

Sampling Canned Tuna

 Listed all available “products” of canned Listed all available “products” of canned 

tuna on the shelf: tuna on the shelf:

 6-oz cans

 No specialty products

 Randomly selected: Randomly selected:

 2 cans from all albacore types 

 2 cans from all light tuna types

Preparation and Analysis Preparation and Analysis

 Individual fish samples analyzed

 Homogenized and frozen

 Lab analysis Lab analysis – WA Dept. of Ecology Manchester lab

 Mercury analyzed by CVAA, U.S. EPA Method 245.6

 PCB Aroclors analyzed by GC/ECD, U.S. EPA Method 8082 

(1016, 1221, 1232,1242, 1248, 1254,1260, 1262, 1268)

 PBDE Analyzed by GC/MS/MS, U.S. EPA Method 8270

 Analyzed for BDE-47, 66, 71, 99, 100, 138, 153, 154, 183, 

190, and 209

 Estimated quantitation limits:

 0.12-0.52 ng/g (ppb) for all congeners except BDE-209

 0.41-6.5 ng/g for BDE-209

Mercury Results Mercury Results

Tuna – white 357 52 – 912 63 100

Red snapper 223 21 – 674 27 100

Halibut 215 20 – 1260 30 100

Flounder 147 28 – 303 18 100

Tuna – light 126 8.5 – 1160 55 96

Cod 115 34 – 391 33 100

Salmon 71 8.5 – 150 17 94

Pollack 9.1 8.5 – 22 24 4

Catfish 8.5 8.5 – 8.5 23 0

Species Mean (ppb) Range (ppb) N Det. Freq. (%)

ND = 1⁄2 DL
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health

McBride ⎯ 3

Mercury Concentrations Mercury Concentrations

0 500 1,000 1,500

Albacore tuna

Red snapper

Halibut

Flounder

Cod

Ligh t tuna

Salmon

Catfish

Total Mercury (ppb) Total Mercury (ppb)

PCB Results PCB Results

Salmon 31.5 10.9 – 68.4 17 76

Catfish 15.1 9.0 – 45.4 24 8

Red snapper 14.7 9.0 – 27.0 27 74

Halibut 14.6 9.5 – 27.4 29 62

Tuna – white 12.6 9.0 – 18.9 20 0

Tuna - light 12.6 8.6 – 31.4 20 5

Pollack 9.9 9.0 – 18.5 23 0

Cod 9.8 9.0 – 18.5 33 0

Flounder 9.6 9.0 – 10.7 19 5

Species Mean (ppb) Range (ppb) N Det. Freq. (%)

ND = 1⁄2 DL

PCB Concentrations PCB Concentrations

0 20 40 60 80

Salmon

Re d snapper

Ha libut

Total PCBs (ppb) Total PCBs (ppb)

PBDE Results PBDE Results

Salmon 5.3 1.5 – 15.7 17 88

Catfish 3.3 1.4 – 10.1 24 25

Cod 2.5 0.8 – 9.8 33 12

Tuna – white 2.4 1.6 – 4.5 20 15

Tuna – light 2.4 1.5 – 6.5 20 5

Red snapper 2.3 0.8 – 3.9 27 56

Halibut 2.1 1.2 – 7.2 29 41

Flounder 2.0 1.2 – 3.7 19 16

Pollack 2.0 1.4 – 3.8 23 0

Species Mean (ppb) Range (ppb) N Det. Freq. (%)

ND = 1⁄2 DL

PBDE Concentrations PBDE Concentrations

0 5 10 15

Salmon

Catfish

Red snapper

Flounder

Halibut

Albacore tuna

Cod

Total PBDEs (ppb)

PBDE Congeners Congeners

Tuna – white 00550000005

Tuna – light 55500500000

Salmon 82 0 414129 0 2424 00 12

Red snapper 50 8004404040

Pollack 00000000000

Halibut 20 3 10 70000030

Flounder 11 0000000050

Cod 90000000006

Catfish 17 00440 80000

Species 47 66 71 99 100 138 153 154 183 190 209

% of Samples with Detected Congeners
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health

McBride ⎯ 4

Calculating Concentration As a Calculating Concentration As a 

Function of CR  Concentration in fish = Concentration in fish = RfD x BW x CF

MS x CR

CR − Consumption Rate 0 - 16 meals/month

MS − Meal Size 0.227 (8 oz) kg/meal kg/meal

BW − Body Weight 70 (adult) kg

CF − Conversion Factor 30.4 days/month

2.0E-5 mg/kg-day

1.0E-4

NA

RfD − Reference Dose

PCBs

Mercury

PBDEs

Parameter Parameter Value Units

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mercury Fish Tissue Concentration (ppb)

Meals Per Month for 70 kg 

Person

Calculated Meal Recommendations

Based on Hg Concentration

Meal Recommendation Calculations

 Meals per month = Meals per month = RfD x BW x CF

MS x Concentration

Conc. − Concentration mean mg/kg

MS − Meal Size 0.227 kg/meal kg/meal

BW − Body Weight Body Weight 70 (adult) 70 (adult) kg

CF − Conversion Factor Conversion Factor 30.4 days/month

2.0E-5 mg/kg-day

1.0E-4

NA

RfD − Reference Dose

PCBs

Mercury

PBDEs

Parameter Parameter Value Units

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mercury Fish Tissue Concentration (ppb)

Meals Per Month for 70 kg 

Person

Calculated Meal Recommendations

Based on Hg Concentration

FDA

Action

Level

Catfish, pollack

Salmon

Cod

Tuna - light

Flounder

Halibut

Tuna - white

Red snapper

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 50 100 150 200

PCB Fish Tissue Concentration (ppb)

Meals Per Month for 70 kg 

Person

Calculated Meal Recommendations

Based on PCB Concentration

Flounder, cod, pollack

Halibut, red snapper, catfish

Salmon

FDA

Tolerance

Level

2000 ppb

Tuna (light & white)

Drivers of Meal Recommendations Drivers of Meal Recommendations

Value in parenthesis based on 6-oz (1 can) meal size.

Tune – white 2 ( 4 ) 16 ( unlimited )

Tuna – light 8 16 ( unlimited )

Salmon 16 8

Red snapper 4 16

Pollack unlimited unlimited

Halibut 4 16

Flounder 8 unlimited

Cod 8 unlimited

Catfish unlimited 16

Species Hg meals per month PCB meals per month
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health

McBride ⎯ 5

Conclusions 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 had only halibut, red snapper, and salmon had 

detected frequency >10%

 Salmon had highest mean (32 ppb)

 PCB levels more restrictive in catfish and salmon

 Levels of PBDEs measured in fish sold in Washington Levels of PBDEs measured in fish sold in Washington 

State grocery stores are similar to levels previously State grocery stores are similar to levels previously 

reported

 BDE-47 most frequently detected in fish

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments

 Washington State Department of Ecology, Manchester Washington State Department of Ecology, Manchester 

lab:

 Stuart Magoon 

 Dolores Montgomery (Principal chemist)

 Jeff Westerlund

 Cherlyn Milne

 Kelly Donegan

 Daniel Baker

 Danette Hanttula

 Dickey Huntamer

 Pamela Covey

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments

 Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Headquarters: Headquarters:

 Keith Seiders, Cheri Peele (PBDE lead policy analyst)

 Washington State Department of Health: Washington State Department of Health:

 Judy Bardin, Nancy West, Glen Patrick, Helen Murphy, Milo 

Straus, Rob Banes, Marnie Boardman

 Funded by: 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 

(U50/CCU022438-01,02)

BRFSS Fish Consumption Questions

 How often do you eat canned tuna?

 In the past 30 days, how often did you eat In the past 30 days, how often did you eat 

either fresh or frozen store bought fish, either fresh or frozen store bought fish, 

including fish items, such as fish sticks?

 Not counting shellfish, please tell me all the Not counting shellfish, please tell me all the 

types of FRESH FISH you ate in the past 30 types of FRESH FISH you ate in the past 30 

days (purchased at a grocery store or fish purchased at a grocery store or fish 

market).

Meals Per Month

(mean, 95% CI) (mean, 95% CI) BRFSS 2002

5.0 (1.5 5.0 (1.5 – 8.5) 4.7 (0.5 4.7 (0.5 – 9.4) Pregnant women Pregnant women 

(N=61)

7.3 (6.1 7.3 (6.1 – 8.4) 2.4 (2.1 2.4 (2.1 – 2.7)

Women

(18-44 years old) 44 years old) 

(N=1270) (N=1270)

Women (N=2839) Women (N=2839) 6.5 (5.8 6.5 (5.8 – 7.3) 2.8 (2.6 2.8 (2.6 – 3.0)

Men (N=1917) Men (N=1917) 8.2 (7.0 8.2 (7.0 – 9.5) 2.8 (2.6 2.8 (2.6 – 3.0)

All adults (N=4756) All adults (N=4756) 7.4 (6.6 7.4 (6.6 – 8.1) 2.8 (2.6 2.8 (2.6 – 3.0)

Canned tuna Store-bought

Types of Fish Eaten in Last Month

(preliminary 2005) (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%
Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store Bought Fish from Washington State

David McBride, Washington State Department of Health

McBride ⎯ 6

Mercury Results Mercury Results

Tuna – white 63 100 357

Red snapper Red snapper 27 96 223

Halibut Halibut 30 100 215

Flounder Flounder 18 100 147

Tuna – light 55 96 126

Cod 33 100 114

Salmon 17 94 71

Pollack 24 4 9.1

Catfish 23 0 8.5

Species Sample Size Det. Freq. Det. Freq. (%) Mean (ppb) Mean (ppb)

PCB Results PCB Results

Salmon 17 76 31.5

Catfish 24 8 15.1

Red snapper Red snapper 27 74 14.7

Halibut Halibut 29 62 14.6

Tuna – white 20 0 12.6

Tuna – light 20 5 12.6

Pollack 23 0 9.9

Cod 33 0 9.8

Flounder Flounder 19 5 9.6

Species Sample Size Det. Freq. Det. Freq. (%) Mean (ppb) Mean (ppb)

PBDE Results PBDE Results

Salmon 17 88 5.3

Catfish 24 25 3.3

Cod 33 12 2.5

Tuna – white 20 15 2.4

Tuna – light 20 5 2.4

Red snapper Red snapper 27 56 2.3

Halibut Halibut 29 41 2.1

Flounder Flounder 19 16 2.0

Pollack 23 0 2.0

Species Sample Size Det. Freq. (%) Det. Freq. (%) Mean (ppb) Mean (ppb)
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program

Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;

and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 1

Seafood Safe Seafood Safe

Case Study: Case Study:

Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing 

and Labeling Program

EcoFish as First Adopter: EcoFish as First Adopter:

Nationwide Sustainable Seafood Distributor: Nationwide Sustainable Seafood Distributor:

•1,500 grocery stores

•125 restaurants 125 restaurants

Evolution Evolution

• Media attention

• Consumer demographics

• Project research

Conflicting & Confusing Messages Conflicting & Confusing Messages

“Sound's Salmon Carry 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 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 farmraised ⎯ 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, leave the public unsure, anxious.”

Business Model Business Model

• Autonomous, independent structure

– Advisory panel

– Sampling

– Labs (Axys Analytical, Brooks Rand)

– Consumer Advocacy Organization 

(Environmental Defense)

• Precautionary principle

• EcoFish first adopter
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program

Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;

and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 2

Marketing Strategy Marketing Strategy

• Positive industry message

• Consumer driven

• State agency driven (CA A.G.)

• Media follow through

Future Financial Model Future Financial Model

• Industry pays

• Consultation with client

• Customized programs:

– Species life history, regionality, size range, 

seasonality, historical data, etc.

• Testing

• Licensing

Future Participation 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 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
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program

Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;

and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 3

Recommendations Recommendations Label in Use Label in Use

4 fin-fish species (n=7) 3 shellfish species (n=3)

Thaw, homogenize, and sub-sample Thaw, homogenize, and sub-sample

To Brooks Rand for Hg

7 Extracts:

Analyzed by

LR GC-MS

Frozen samples received, homogenized, and sampled at:

AXYS Analytical Services Ltd., Sidney, B.C., Canada

1 Extract:

Analyzed by

HR GC-MS

Sub-sample extraction, and clean-up

3 Extracts:

Analyzed by

LR GC-MS

1 Extract:

Analyzed by

HR GC-MS

Sub-sample extraction, and clean-up

Results: HR vs. LR Comparability 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 (ng/g, ww) by HR and LR GC-MS

Total HR PCB

(Total of 209 

congeners, ng/g)

Range Total LR 

PCB

(Total of 18 

congeners ng/g)

Ratio of LR PCBs 

to Total HR PCBs

Albacore tuna 6.60 4.0 – 7.5

Mahi mahi 0.10 <0.10 – <0.10

Halibut 0.91 0.10 – 0.43

Keta salmon 1.48 <0.10 – 0.95

Calamari 1.50 0.76 – 0.90

White shrimp 1.20 0.76 – 0.78

Scallop 0.20 <0.10 – <0.10

Seafood PCB (ng/g, ww) by HR and LR GC-MS

Total HR PCB

(Total of 209 

congeners, ng/g)

Total LR PCB

(Total of 18 

congeners ng/g)

Ratio of LR 

PCBs to Total 

HR PCBs

Albacore tuna 6.60 4.80 0.72

Mahi mahi 0.10 <0.10 (0) 0

Halibut 0.91 0.43 0.47

Keta salmon 1.48 0. 51 0.34

Calamari 1.50 0.89 0.60

White shrimp 1.20 0.78 0.65

Scallop 0.20 <0.10 (0) 0
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program

Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;

and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 4

Seafood PCB (ng/g, ww) by HR and LR GC-MS

Total HR PCB

(Total of 209 

congeners, ng/g)

Range LR PCB

(Total of 18 

congeners ng/g)

Ratio of LR 

PCBs to Total 

HR PCBs

Albacore tuna 6.60 4.0 – 7.5 (4.80) 0.72

Mahi mahi 0.10 nd** (0.00) 0

Halibut 0.91 0.10 – 0.43 (0.43) 0.47

Keta salmon 1.48 nd – 0.95 (0. 51) 0.34

Calamari 1.50 0.76 – 0.90 (0.89) 0.60

White shrimp 1.20 0.76 – 0.78 (0.78) 0.65

Scallop 0.20 nd (0.00) 0

* (bracketed value): LR PCB of paired HR PCB sample 

** ‘nd’: below detection limit (0.1 ng/g) of LR analysis

Conclusions 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 > 0.1ng/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 

values.)

4 fin-fish species (n=7) 3 shellfish species (n=3)

Thaw, homogenize, and sub-sample Thaw, homogenize, and sub-sample

From Axys Analytical Services

Total Hg 

by CVAFS

(n=7)

Methyl Hg

by CVAFS

(n=3) 

Sub-sample

Total Hg 

by CVAFS

(n=3)

Methyl Hg

by CVAFS

(n=1) 

Sub-sample

Methodology:Total Methodology:Total Hg and Methyl Hg

Total Hg – Appendix to U.S. EPA 1631

• HNO3/H2SO4/BrCl digestion & oxidation

• SnCl2 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

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

Seafood Hg (ng/g, ww) by CVAFS

Total Hg

(ng/g)

Methyl Hg

(ng/g)

Mean Ratio

of Methyl Hg

to Total Hg

Albacore tuna 226-275 (249) 214-258 95.1%

Mahi mahi 98.4-538 (223) 102-595 110.1%

Halibut 82.7-233 (169) 86.3-284 110.9%

Keta salmon 21.2-37.1 (28.4) 20.5-30.0 90.7%

Calamari 21.5-23.7 (22.3) 23.1 97.5%

White shrimp 5.47-11.0 (6.49) 5.67 51.5%

Scallop 8.45-9.35 (8.79) 7.38 78.9%

* (bracketed value) = mean
Seafood Safe Case Study: Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Labeling Program

Henry W. Lovejoy, Seafood Safe, LLC; John R. Cosgrove, AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.;

and Colin Davies, Brooks Rand

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 5

Conclusions 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 of fish 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
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

Noguchi et al. ― 1

1 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks Strategy for Assessing and Managing Risks 

from Chemical Contamination of Fish from from Chemical Contamination of Fish from 

National Fish Hatcheries National Fish Hatcheries

2005 National Forum on 2005 National Forum on 

Contaminants in Fish

September 18 September 18 – 21

Baltimore, MD

George Noguchi1

Linda Andreasen2

Dave Devault3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1Division of Environmental Quality, Washington DC

2Division of the National Fish Hatchery System, 

Washington DC 3Ecological Services, Fort Ecological Services, Fort Snelling, MN

2 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

U.S. FWS Investigators U.S. FWS Investigators

Ann Gannam (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 Krise (Director, Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Bozeman, MT)

Mike Millard (Director, Northeast Fishery Center, Lamar, PA)

Tim Kubiak (Asst. Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, 

Pleasantville, NJ)

3 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

EWG Advises 

Consumers to Choose 

Wild Not Farmed 

Salmon. - EWG 2003

High Levels of PCBs in Farmed 

Salmon. - San Francisco 

Chronicle 30jul03

Farmed salmon not so safe, report 

says. Toxins higher than EPA 

recommends in fish from wild

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS

Dangerous PCBs Found in Salmon The Washington Post July 29, 2003

Farmed 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 Newsletter

Study Finds PCBs in Farmed 

Salmon. Reuters – WIRED News

4 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

5 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Hatchery Fish Sampling (2004) 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

6 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Facilities 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
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

Noguchi et al. ― 2

7 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation 8 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

9 (47) 23 (144) 5 (30) 37 (221)

TOTAL 

Composites (fish)

Steelhead 2 2

Rainbow trout 5 4 2 11

Lake trout 4 1 5

Cutthroat trout 2 1 3

Brown trout 1 1

Brook trout 1 1

Atlantic salmon 14 14

R1 R5 R6 TOTAL

Sampling Summary Sampling Summary

9 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Chemical Analysis Chemical Analysis

• PCB, dioxin, and furan congeners

• Dioxin total dioxin equivalents (TEQs)

• Organochlorine pesticides

• Mercury and other metals

• Trace elements

10 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Summary of 2004 Hatchery Fish 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.

11 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Mercury in Hatchery Fish

0.00

0.05

0.10

Sea Run

Mercury (ppm wet wt.)

Brook

trout

Lake trout

Atlantic salmon Rainbow trout

Brown

trout

Cutthroat

trout

Steelhead

EPA Screening Value 0.4 ppm

12 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

PCBs in Hatchery Fish

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Sea Run

Total PCB (ppm wet wt.)

Brook

trout

Lake trout

Atlantic salmon Rainbow trout

Brown

trout

Cutthroat

trout 

Steelhead

92% < 0.1 ppm

76% < 0.05 ppm

Farmed Salmon (Hites et al. 2004)
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

Noguchi et al. ― 3

13 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

PCBs in Hatchery Fish

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.01 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.31

Total PCB (ppm wet wt.)

Frequency (# of samples)

EPA screening value 0.08 ppm (noncancer endpoint)

EPA screening value 0.02 ppm (cancer endpoint)

Threshold for Great Lakes advisories 0.05 ppm

14 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Dioxins ( Dioxins (TEQs) in Hatchery Fish

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.0

Dioxin (pg TEQs/g wet wt)

Frequency (# of samples)

EPA screening value 0.256 ppt

15 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Analysis of Fish Feed

• Fish Feed Study*: Collaboration between

U.S. FWS and USGS

• Analyzed fish feed used at 11 national fish 

hatcheries

• 6 different feed manufacturers

• Sampled multiple batches of feed from 2001–

2003

* A Survey of Chemical Constituents in National Fish Hatchery Fish

Food. Alec Maule (USGS), Ann Gannam (U.S. FWS), and Jay 

Davis (U.S. FWS).

16 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Chemical Analysis (Fish Feed) Chemical Analysis (Fish Feed)

14 PCB Congeners

PCB 77 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

17 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

PCBs in Fish Feed (2001 PCBs in Fish Feed (2001–2003)

Sum of 14 PCB Congeners (ppb) Sum of 14 PCB Congeners (ppb)

Manufacturer N Mean (ppb) CV

A 6 2.56 42%

B 7 1.32 64%

C 4 1.02 56%

D 14 1.85 75%

E 12 0.41 127%

F 3 9.87 5%

18 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

1

10

100

1000

PCB (ppb) wet wt.

Total PCB Sum of 14

PCB Congeners

Pre 1979

Mac et al., 1979

1996 & 1999 1996 & 1999

Easton et al., 2002

2001−2003

USGS-U.S. FSW Study

PCBs in Fish Feed (Manufacture A) PCBs in Fish Feed (Manufacture A)
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

Noguchi et al. ― 4

19 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Now What? Now What?

20 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Hatchery Contaminants Workshop

February 2005

Strategy for assessing and Strategy for assessing and 

managing risks from chemical managing risks from chemical 

contamination of fish from contamination of fish from 

national fish hatcheries national fish hatcheries

1. NFHS “healthy fish” goal

2. Clean feeds

3. Monitoring

4. Guidance

21 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Strategy 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 aquaculture and feed industries to identify and 

meet feed contaminant limits for healthy fish production

22 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

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

Strategy Strategy

23 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Interim Guidelines for Hatchery Fish Management Interim Guidelines for Hatchery Fish Management 

Decisions Regarding Contaminants in Decisions Regarding Contaminants in Catchable-Size Fish Size Fish 

Produced by the National Fish Hatchery System

When contaminant data are available for fish from the 

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.

24 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

Interim Guidelines for Hatchery Fish Management Interim Guidelines for Hatchery Fish Management 

Decisions Regarding Contaminants in Decisions Regarding Contaminants in Catchable-Size Fish Size Fish 

Produced by the National Fish Hatchery 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 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 (e.g., stocking/transfer to states, tribes, 

and federal lands; fishing events at NFHs).
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

Noguchi et al. ― 5

25 Fisheries & Habitat Conservation

References References

Easton, M.D.L., D. Luszniak, and E. Von der Geest. 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 S.J. Schwager. 2004. Global assessment of organic contaminants 

in farmed salmon. Science 303(5655):226−229. 

Mac, M.J., L.W. Nicholson, and C.A. McCauley. 1979. PCBs and 

DDE in commercial fish feeds. The Progressive Fish-Culturist

41(4):210−211.
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition

Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cocca ⎯ 1

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 of fish 

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 et al., 1998)

• Explanatory hypotheses:

– Concentrations increase when fish lose weight 

– Spring bioproduction dilutes the available mercury.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Hg Conc. (ng/g) *

Guanabara Bay Ilha Grande Bay Conceicao Lagoon Sepetiba Bay

Summer

Autumn

Winter

Spring

micropogonias furnieri

whitemouth croaker

* All concentrations normalized to 700 g fish, wet wt.

Measured Seasonality in Fish Hg

• Perch in the southern Baltic Sea (Szefer et al., 2003)

– Concentrations not normalized

Perca fluviatilis

European Perch

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

ug/g wet wt.

Summer

'96

Autumn

'96

Winter

'96/'97

Spring

'97

• Seasonal differences supported through factor analysis

• Striped bass in San Francisco Bay (Greenfield et al., 2005)

• 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

Morone Saxatilis

Striped Bass

(from

Greenfield et al., 2005)

High

Low Note: Vertical axis

is log scale

• Largemouth bass in Oregon reservoirs (Park and Curtis, 1997)

• Explanatory hypotheses

– Environmental conditions influence MeHg production, bioavailability 

– Concentration decreases caused by growth dilution.

Dorena Reservoir, OR

Fig. 7

Park and Curtis, 1997

Cottage Grove Reservoir, OR

Fig. 6

Park and Curtis, 1997

1993

1994

1995

Measured Interannual Variability in Fish Hg

Micropterus salmonides

Largemouth Bass
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition

Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cocca ⎯ 2

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

• Fish MeHg depuration half-lives 

(Huckabee et al.,1979)

– Northern pike: 100 days

– Bullheads: 178 – 277 days

– Ling: 433 – 707 days

– Rainbow trout: 1,000 days

• Central tendency: 300 days

Fish Depuration of MeHg with Ambient 

MeHg Absent: 300 Day Half-Life

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0 100 200 300 400

Days

Relative Concentration

81%

or 1.2X 43%

or 2.3X

90 days 365 days

• Depuration may account for some 

literature-reported variability.

• Were depuration fast, fish MeHg would mirror ambient levels

• Instead MeHg depuration is slow, which dampens variability

More Important: Variable Fish Nutrition 

• Fish Hg levels decrease during Growth Dilution

– Negative correlation with growth rate (r2 = 0.92) (Simoneau et al., 

2005)

– Higher concentrations in dwarf fish than in normal fish (Doyon et al., 

1998)

– Faster growth reflects efficiency; flesh added with proportionally less 

food and mercury intake (Greenfield et al., 2001)

• Fish Hg levels increase during Starvation Concentration

– Higher concentrations in skinny fish than in robust fish (Hinners, 2004; 

Cizdziel 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

• How to quantify fish body condition

– Condition Factor, K (Williams, 

2000)

– W/L3 x 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: 0.78

Brown trout, K Factor: 1.66 from: Barnham & Baxter 1998

• 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

Measured Variability with

Fish Body Condition 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)
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition

Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cocca ⎯ 3

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

• Barnham, C., and A. Baxter, 1998. Condition Factor, K, for Salmonid Fish. Fisheries 

Notes, State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries. ISSN 1440-2254.

• Burrows, W.D., and P.A. Krenkel, 1973. Studies on uptake and loss of 

methylmercury-203 by bluegills (Lepomis marcochirus Raf.). ES&T 7(13):1127-1130.

• Cizdziel, 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 freshwater fish from Lake Mead, USA. J. 

Environ. Monit. 5:802-807.

• Doyon, J.F., R. Schentagne, and R. Verdon, 1998. Different mercury bioaccumulation 

rates between sympatric populations of dwarf and normal lake whitefish (Coregonus 

clupeaformis) in the La Grande complex watershed, James Bay, Quebec. 

Biogeochemistry 40:203-216.

• Foster E.P., D.L. Drake, and G. DiDomenico, 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. Sci. Invest. Fish, Div. Scot. Reprt, 20. 

• Giblin and Massaro, 1973. Pharmacodynamics of methylmercury in the rainbow trout 

(Salmo gairdneri): Tissue uptake, distribution and excretion. Toxicology and Applied 

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, T.A., 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.
Variability of Mercury Concentrations in Fish with Season, Year, and Body Condition

Paul Cocca, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cocca ⎯ 4

References

• Kehrig, H.A., O. Malm, and I. Moreira Kehrig, 1998. Mercury in a widely consumed 

fish Micropogonias furnieri (Demarest, 1823) from four main Brazilian estuaries. 

Science of the Total Environment 213(1-3):263-71.

• Lizama, M., A.P. Delos, and A.M. Ambrosio, 2002. Condition factor in nine species of 

fish of the Characidae family in the upper Paraná River floodplain, Brazil. Braz. J. 

Biol. 62(1):113-124. 

• McKim, J.M., G.F. Olson, G.W. Holcombe, and E.P. Hunt, 1976. Long-tem effects of 

methylmercuric chloride on three generations of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis): 

toxicity, accumulation, distribution, and elimination. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 

2726-2739. 

• Nicholls, A., and Teichert-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 

rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Aquatic toxicology 2:271-290. 

References

• Simoneau, M., M. Lucotte, S. Garceau, and D. Laliberte, 2004. Fish growth rates 

modulate mercury concentrations in walleye (Sander vitreus) from eastern Canadian 

lakes. Environmental Research 98:73-82.

• Suns, K., and G. Hitchin, 1990. Interrelationships between mercury levels in yearling 

yellow perch, 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 fluviatilis) from the Pomeranian Bay and Szczecin Lagoon, 

southern Baltic. Food Chemistry 81(1):73-83. 

• Williams, J.E., 2000. The coefficient of condition of fish. 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 

http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/manual/SMII%20Chapter13.p

df.
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis

Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cakir ⎯ 1

Establishing Baseline Establishing Baseline 

Mercury Fish Tissue Mercury Fish Tissue 

Concentrations for Concentrations for 

Regulatory Analysis Regulatory Analysis

Application and Evaluation of Application and Evaluation of 

the National Descriptive Model the National Descriptive Model 

of Mercury and Fish (NDMMF) of Mercury and Fish (NDMMF) 

for the Clean Air Mercury Rule for the Clean Air Mercury Rule

Overview of the Benefit Overview of the Benefit 

Methodology Methodology

 Step 1: Establish baseline fish tissue Step 1: Establish baseline fish tissue 

concentrations in freshwater fish. concentrations in freshwater fish.

 Step 2: Model reductions in methylmercury Step 2: Model reductions in methylmercury 

fish tissue concentrations resulting from fish tissue concentrations resulting from 

decreased Hg deposition. decreased Hg deposition.

 Step 3: Conduct population-level exposure level exposure 

modeling. modeling.

 Step 4: Link reductions in population-level 

exposure to health impacts and valuation. exposure to health impacts and valuation.

Step 1: Estimate Typical MeHg Step 1: Estimate Typical MeHg 

Concentrations in Fish

 Goal:

Reliable estimates of Reliable estimates of Hg concentrations Hg concentrations 

to establish a to establish a “baseline” from which to from which to 

predict concentration changes after predict concentration changes after 

proposed new regulation proposed new regulation 

implementations. implementations.

Available Data Available Data – National Listing National Listing 

of Fish Advisories (NLFA) of Fish Advisories (NLFA)

 NLFA database NLFA database 

contains several contains several 

key pieces of key pieces of 

information: information:

 Hg sampled from 

aquatic life

 Species

 Location (extensive 

additional geocoding 

in 2002)

 Date

 Size of fish (length and 

weight).

Locations of NLFA Samples

Advantages/Disadvantages of National Listing Advantages/Disadvantages of National Listing 

of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) 

Database

 Advantages:

 Larger number of samples than any other single source.

 Disadvantages:

 Waterbody to waterbody variability is confounded by a 

variety of factors:

 More than 400 different species sampled, ranging in size from 

1 inch to 1,700 inches (~141 ft.).

 Several different sample methods employed by surveyors (fillet, 

whole, fillet skin 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).

Available Data Available Data – National Lake National Lake 

Fish Tissue Study (NLFTS) Fish Tissue Study (NLFTS)

Locations of NLFTS Samples  NLFTS database NLFTS database 

contains several key contains several key 

pieces of information:

 Hg sampled from Hg sampled from 

aquatic life

 Species

 Location (extensive 

additional geocoding in 

2002)

 Date

 Size of fish (length and 

weight).
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis

Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cakir ⎯ 2

Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages/Disadvantages 

of NLFTS Database of NLFTS Database

 Advantages:

 Samples are from larger consumable fish.

 Sample locations were selected based on a stratified random 

sample.

 Disadvantages:

 Not enough samples for a benefits analysis.

The National Descriptive Model The National Descriptive Model 

of Mercury and Fish (NDMMF) of Mercury and Fish (NDMMF)

 Developed by Dr. Steve Wente of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) (study funded by a grant from the U.S. 

EPA Office of Research and Development [ORD]).

 Establishes a statistical relationship between samples 

taken at different locations from different species and 

lengths of fish with different sampling methods. 

 The NDMMF algorithm uses those relationships to 

estimate a fish tissue concentration for a selected, predefined species, size, and sampling method chosen 

from an actual sample with different parameters. 

What the NDMMF Model Does What the NDMMF Model Does 

and Does Not Do and Does Not Do

 Does:

 Removes confounding factors, allowing the analyst Removes confounding factors, allowing the analyst 

to control for species, length, and sampling to control for species, length, and sampling 

method. method.

 Makes samples comparable Makes samples comparable to each other within to each other within 

and across sampling locations. and across sampling locations.

 Does not: Does not:

 Estimate Hg concentrations where samples were Estimate Hg concentrations where samples were 

not already taken (i.e., no spatial interpolation or not already taken (i.e., no spatial interpolation or 

extrapolation). extrapolation).

The Covariance Model Enables a More Complete les a More Complete 

Use of the NLFWA Database for This Study

 Estimates mercury concentrations for Estimates mercury concentrations for 

consumable fish. consumable fish.

 A combination of the NLFA and NLFTS would A combination of the NLFA and NLFTS would 

provide enough sampled concentrations to provide enough sampled concentrations to 

establish a establish a “baseline” from which to predict from which to predict 

concentration changes after proposed new concentration changes after proposed new 

regulation implementations. regulation implementations.

Preparing NLFWA and NLFTS Preparing NLFWA and NLFTS 

Databases for Use with the NDMMF Databases for Use with the NDMMF

 Examine and convert where required: Examine and convert where required:

 Ensure all Hg samples are in parts per Ensure all Hg samples are in parts per 

million ( million (ppm)

 Ensure all length units are in inches

 Create unique identifier for each unique Create unique identifier for each unique 

sample for future relational database sample for future relational database 

analyses. analyses.

Prepare Data for Benefits Analysis Prepare Data for Benefits Analysis –

NLFWA Data Filtering

 Remove samples taken prior to 1990

 Remove samples that are not georeferenced

 Remove data entry errors:

 Compare recorded “world record” size fish lengths and weights. If 

recorded samples were greater (by 10%) than trophy record length

and weight fish, the observation was considered likely to be outside 

the realm of possibility and a data entry error and removed from

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).
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis

Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cakir ⎯ 3

Results

Locations of NDMMF Estimated Samples

Results

Locations of All Samples

Examination of NDMMF Performance

 Method: Method:

 Withhold a random 10% of the Withhold a random 10% of the 

observations where at least two samples observations where at least two samples 

were available from a single sample were available from a single sample 

location. location.

 Re-run the NDMMF model without the run the NDMMF model without the 

samples, then predict the withheld data set samples, then predict the withheld data set 

based on the statistical relationships based on the statistical relationships 

established by the NDMMF. established by the NDMMF. 

Examination of NDMMF Performance

 Results Results –

 Spread of the data 

remained similar.

 Residual for a 

majority of the data majority of the data 

is balanced around 

zero, and there is a 

slightly unbalanced 

tail indicating a 

slight underprediction of 

extremely high 

values.

Box and Whisker Plots of Withheld Data

Examination of NDMMF Performance

 Scatterplots also indicate slight under Scatterplots also indicate slight under-prediction of high values. 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 transformation 

bias is likely responsible for the slight underprediction. For future 

studies, where possible, it is recommended that predictions 

remain in the log scale. 

Implementation of Estimated Hg Implementation of Estimated Hg 

Concentrations from Wente Concentrations from Wente’s Algorithm s Algorithm 

 All samples are used to estimate fish tissue All samples are used to estimate fish tissue 

concentrations for a typical catch size of key concentrations for a typical catch size of key 

target fish species for target fish species for every sample location every sample location 

(e.g., largemouth bass, (e.g., largemouth bass, brown trout, catfish, brown trout, catfish, 

white crappie, walleye, white perch). white crappie, walleye, white perch).

 All samples within specific geographies are All samples within specific geographies are 

averaged by lake and river environments. averaged by lake and river environments.

 Geographies that were not sampled are Geographies that were not sampled are 

assigned the national average. assigned the national average.
Establishing Baseline Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations for Regulatory Analysis

Janet F. Cakir, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cakir ⎯ 4

2001 Baseline Concentrations 2001 Baseline Concentrations −

Lake Averages Lake Averages

Averages by Hydrologic Unit Code Averages Applied to Block Groups

(HUC) Based on Travel Distance of Fishers 
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes

in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule

Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conner ― 1

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 2

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

 Fish tissue concentrations after implementation of the Clean Air

Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CAMR 

 Maximum potential reduction due to utility emissions

3

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

 Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 

estimates changes in air quality and mercury 

deposition from the air

4

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.

5

Framework for Assessing Benefits 

of Reduced Mercury Emissions

Sources

change in 

emissions

Deposition Fish 

Contamination

Human 

Exposure

Human 

Health 

Effects

Valuation 

of Health 

Effects change in 

amount and 

pattern of 

deposition

change in 

level of fish 

contamination

change in 

body burdens

change in 

incidence of 

health effects

$ value of 

health 

changes

Linkage

One

Linkage

Two 

Linkage

Three

Linkage 

Four

Linkage

Five

6

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 in the eastern half of the United States 

(Texas to East Coast)
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes

in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule

Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conner ― 2

7

> 0.3 ppm

<= 0.3 ppm

Raw Data of Fish Tissue Samples from the NLFWA and NLFTS

8

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 

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)

9

Mercury Deposition Attributable

to Utility Emissions

Percent change 

in deposition 

(associated with 

a 100% decrease 

in utility 

emissions)

10

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 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 saltwater fish were considered by U.S. EPA in a 

qualitative manner

11

 Assessing the amount of fish 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

 Angler destination approach

Modeling Exposure to Mercury

The selected method influences the 

aggregation approach of fish tissue 

concentrations used in our analysis

12

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

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Avg. Hg 

at 20 miles

Avg. Hg

At 50 miles
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes

in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule

Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conner ― 3

13

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 of fish in each HUC is 

used to determine exposure

 Average of normalized fish tissue 

concentrations across 6 species for each HUC

Total # Days

Fishing in State

Apportioned to

HUCs

10%

50%

25%

0%

14

Mercury Concentrations in 

Freshwater Fish Applied to 

Exposure Models

15

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

 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

16

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)

Overall 0.24

Average

Perch 0.26

Crappie 0.14

Catfish 0.22

Trout 0.11

Walleye 0.41

Bass 0.32

Average Hg for 

Study Area* 

(ppm)

* Average value represents the overall 

average concentration for the eastern 

half of the United States (Texas to East 

Coast).

17

NDMMF Estimated and Raw Data 

Sample Locations

18

Baseline Scenario: Average Estimated 

Fish Tissue Concentration by HUC Prior 

to CAMR in 2001

Hg concentration in 

fish Tissue (ppm)
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes

in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule

Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conner ― 4

19

Post-Reg Scenario: Average Estimated 

Fish Tissue Concentration by HUC after 

CAMR in 2020

Hg concentration in 

fish tissue (ppm)

20

Baseline Scenario: Average Estimated 

Fish Tissue Concentration by Population 

Centroid Prior to CAMR in 2001

Hg concentration in 

fish tissue (ppm)

21

Post-Reg Scenario: Average Estimated 

Fish Tissue Concentration by Population 

Centroid after CAMR in 2020

Hg concentration in 

fish tissue (ppm)

22

Maximum Potential Reduction from 

Utilities: Average Estimated Fish Tissue 

Concentration by HUC in 2020

Hg concentration in 

fish tissue (ppm)

23

Maximum Potential Reduction from Utilities: 

Average Estimated Fish Tissue Concentration 

by Population Centroid in 2020

Hg concentration in 

fish tissue (ppm)

24

Changes in Exposure Resulting 

from CAMR

Change in exposure resulting from CAMR in 2020

(relative to a 2001 baseline, including CAIR benefits)

$22.2 – $27.4 

million

Population-centroid 76,470 – 91,770

approach

$38.4 – $46.8 

million

Angler-destination 124,020 – 143,960

approach

Total monetized 

benefits**

Total avoided IQ 

decrements*

* Estimates of total avoided IQ decrements are rounded to the nearest 10.

**Monetized benefits are rounded to the nearest thousands and do not reflect the 

potential for a threshold in IQ effects at the RfD.

Source: Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final CAMR; Tables 10-19,21, 27, 29. 

(U.S. EPA 452/R-05-003), March 2005.
Projected Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish and Changes

in Exposure Resulting from the Clean Air Mercury Rule

Lisa Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conner ― 5

25

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
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin

Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services

Knobeloch ― 1

Lynda Knobeloch and Henry Anderson 

Wisconsin Dept of Health and Family Services

Gemma Gliori, University of Wisconsin

Department of Population Health

Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin 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

Research Questions

• How much fish are people eating?

• What types of fish are they eating?

• How much mercury are Wisconsin residents 

being exposed to?

• How much mercury are men being exposed 

to?

94%

95%

50%

59%

95%

49.4

48%

53%

Hair Donors

N = 2,028

Average age in years 49.2 NO

Had heard about Hg in fish 78%

% who eat fish 83%

Fishing license in home 37%

College graduates 30%

White race 90%

Male gender 49% NO

Income above $50,000/yr 35%

Different? BRFSS

N = 4,206 Characteristic

Demographics of Study Populations

Fish Intake & Mercury Hair Levels

2,028

1,933

95

1,043

983

1,928

100

978

1,050

N

All participants 7.7 0.73 20%

20%

21%

0.73

0.65

7.6

9.2

White (1,936)

Other races (95)

27%

14%

0.87

0.57

8.2

7.1

Fishing license holders 

Non-license holders 

21%

0%

0.75

0.09

8.1

0.0

Fish consumers 

Non-consumers

29%

13%

0.93

0.52

7.7

7.7

Men

Women

% > 1 ppm Mean Hg 

ppm

Ave # 

meals/month

Types of Fish Consumed

Sport-caught fish 17%

Restaurant servings 25%

Total number of meals reported 15,635

Commercial fish cooked at home 28%

Albacore tuna 12%

Light tuna 11%

Types of fish reported eaten
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin

Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services

Knobeloch ― 2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

zero 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 >19

Total meals per month

Ave. MeHg (ppm)

Women

Average

Men

Mercury Levels vs.

Fish Consumption by Gender

Correlation of Fish Intake

and Hair Hg Level

>8 1.00 222/703 = 32%

5-8 0.71 140/717 = 18%

1-4 0.46 63/570 = 11%

0 0.09 0/97 = 0%

No (%) > 1 ppm Ave Hg Level

in ppm 

# Meals/month

y = 35.042x + 237.29

R2

 = 0.9303

y = 65.607x + 374.46

R2

 = 0.9447

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Ave. Fish meals/month

Hair Mercury Levels in ppb

Women

Men

Average Hair Mercury Levels vs. 

Average Meals/Month Hair Mercury by Gender and Age

Hg Level in ppm

18.7%

32.9%

0.398, 5.4

0.637, 15.2

0.674

1.030

310

670

Men

<46 yrs.

>45 yrs.

11.8%

13.3%

0.284, 3.8

0.382, 5.3

0.465

0.568

413

637

Women

<46 yrs.

>45 yrs.

Age group N Mean Median, Max > 1 ppm

Hair Mercury Levels vs.

Month of Collection

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month of Year

Hg Level in ppm

Women

Men

Median Hair Hg Level among 

Women of Childbearing Age

NHANES, 12-State, WI 2004

0.08 ppm 0.22 ppm 0.54 ppm 12%

12-state

N = 414

% above

1 ppm

# Meals/month

0.34 ppm

0.38 ppm

> 3

0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 12%

WI 2004

N = 413

0.11 ppm 0.20 ppm ~12%

NHANES

N = 1,726

0 1 to 2
Mercury Exposure in Wisconsin

Lynda M. Knobeloch, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services

Knobeloch ― 3

Men without Licenses

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Hair Hg Level

Licensed Fishermen

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Total fish meals/month

Hair Hg Level

Low vs. High Exposure Groups

48% 

12 meals/mo.

4 meals/mo.

49% 

3 meals/mo.

0.3 meals/mo.

Income > $50,000/yr

Ave. fish intake rate

Ave. sportfish intake rate

54 yrs

63%

70% 

87% 

43 yrs

33%

30% 

62%

Average age

% over 50 yrs. of age

Fishing license holders

Advisory awareness

78% men

>98% white

66% women

94% white 

Gender

Race

>2.0 ppm 

N = 131

< 0.1 ppm

N = 188

Hair mercury level

Summary

• Approx 12% of Wisconsin adults are likely to 

exceed the exposure guideline for methylmercury

• Exposure risk factors:

– Male gender, age over 50, sportfish consumption, 

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?

Thanks!!!

Questions?
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions

Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota

Ralston ⎯ 1

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPORTANCE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPORTANCE 

OF MERCURY–SELENIUM INTERACTIONS

Nicholas V.C. Ralston

Energy & Environmental Research Center

Fish Forum 2005

September 19, 2005

Chemical Context

1b 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 I Xe

Au Hg Ti Pb Bi Po At Rn

Mercury Sulfur

Also known as Cinnabar, Also known as Cinnabar, 

stability coefficient stability coefficient 1039

Mercuric Sulfide Selenium
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions

Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota

Ralston ⎯ 2

Also known as Tiemannite, Also known as Tiemannite, 

stability coefficient 1045

Mercury Mercury Selenide 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.

CH

N

H

H COO C 3

Methionine

2

CH

Se

N

H

H COO C 3

Selenomethionine

2

CH S CH 2 2 CH 3 CH 3

Sulfur and Selenium Amino Acids Sulfur and Selenium Amino Acids

CH

SH

N

H

H COO C 3

2

CH

SeH

N

H

H COO C 3

Selenocysteine

2

Cysteine

Selenoprotein Synthesis

H Se 2

(selenide)

SePO

(selenophosphate)

Selenoenzymes 

(25+ discrete forms) 

Selenoprotein

breakdown

products

Food

Selenomethionine

Selenocysteine

Se-methyl selenocysteine

4

Selenocysteine is the only amino

acid that must be recreated for

each cycle of protein synthesis

Selenocysteine 

(at active site) 

SeP Synth.

Muscle

Lung

Spleen

Heart

MW standards

Brain

Kidney

Liver

65.1Æ

56.9Æ

50.7Æ

27.5Æ

21.1Æ

16.6Æ

9.8Æ

8.0Æ

Selenoproteins in Various Tissues
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions

Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota

Ralston ⎯ 3

Selenoprotein Physiology Is Selenoprotein Physiology Is 

Important, But Vulnerable. Important, But Vulnerable.

H Se 2

(selenide)

SePO

(selenophosphate)

Selenoenzymes 

(25+ discrete forms) 

Selenoprotein

breakdown

products

Food

Selenomethionine

Selenocysteine

Se-methyl selenocysteine

4

Selenium enables enzymes to detoxify free radicals, 

convert thyroid hormones into their active forms, and 

support normal brain functions. 

Selenocysteine 

(at active site) 

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 Mercury stops selenium 

from doing its work. from doing its work. 

H2Se

(No free selenide)

SePO4

(No selenophosphate)

Selenoenzymes 

(loss of functions) 

Selenoprotein

breakdown

products

Food 

selenium

and

MeHg

Selenocysteine 

(No selenocysteine) 

Hg-Se

Hg

Se cycle stoppage

Effects of MeHg in Rats Fed Low, Effects of MeHg in Rats Fed Low, 

Normal, and Selenium-Rich Diets Rich Diets 

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63

Experiment day

Body weight (g)

0.1 μmol Se, 75 μmol Hg

1.0 μmol Se, 75 μmol Hg

10 μmol Se, 75 μmol Hg

Molar Concentrations of Mercury Molar Concentrations of Mercury 

and Selenium in Seafood

Aside from pilot whale (Julshamn et al., 1987) and swordfish 

(Friedman et al. 1978), data depicted originate from Hall et al. (1978). 

0

5

10

15

20

Sole

Flounder

Salmon 

Tuna 

PollockHalibut

Cod

Snapper 

Grouper

Swordfish

US average

Pilot Whale 

nmol/g

Mercury

Selenium

Mercury: Selenium Molar Ratios

0

1

2

3

4

Sole

Flounder

Salmon 

Tuna 

Pollock

Halibut

Cod

Snapper 

Grouper

Swordfish

US average

Pilot Whale 

Hg: Se molar ratio
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions

Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota

Ralston ⎯ 4

Selenium: Mercury Molar Ratios

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sole

Flounder

Salmon 

Tuna 

Pollock

Halibut

Cod

Snapper 

Grouper

Swordfish

US average

Pilot Whale 

Se:Hg molar ratio

Generalized Dose-Effect 

Curve for Selenium

Elemental Concentration

Toxicity

Window of 

Deficiency "Essentiality"

Supernutritional

Performance

Generalized Toxic Element Generalized Toxic Element 

Dose-Effect Curve

40

60

80

Elemental Concentration

Performance

Toxicity

 No Observed

Adverse Effect Level 

 Lowest Observed

Adverse Effect Level

Effect of Dietary Se on Hg Effect of Dietary Se on Hg 

Dose-Toxicity Curve Toxicity Curve 

Elemental Concentration

Normal Se Status

Deficient Se Status

Enriched Se Status

Performance

Mercury

Effects of Eating Whale vs. Fish

Subtle

adverse 

effects

Health

Benefits

Whale Consumption

 0

Hg Fish Consumption

EERC NR25981.CDR

Selenium Health Status

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.
Physiological and Environmental Importance of Mercury Selenium Interactions

Nicholas V.C. Ralston, University of North Dakota

Ralston ⎯ 5

Summary

• The molecular mechanism of mercury toxicity and the 

molecular mechanism of selenium’s protective effects are 

related, possibly identical.

• 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:Se ratio in ways that may result in 

enhanced risk. 
NHANES 1999–2002 Update on Mercury

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mahaffey ⎯ 1

NHANES 1999-2002

Update on Mercury

R

Fish Forum – 2005

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Exposure Assessment 

Coordination and Policy

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

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 trend 

data.

• Comparison with exposures associated 

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.

Distribution of Blood Organic Mercury (μg/L)

Adult Women – NHANES 1999–2002

Other race 139 2.46 (1.72-3.19) 3.70 6.70 9.02

789 1.61 (1.28-1.94) 1.82 3.62 5.22 Non-Hispanic

Blacks

1,368 1.38 (1.07-1.68) 1.42 3.42 6.00 Non-Hispanic

Whites

218 1.54 (0.84-2.24) 1.72 3.30 4.50 Other

Hispanic

1,099 0.89 (0.77-1.02) 1.02 2.10 3.32 Mexican/

American

Total 3,613 1.43 (1.19-1.67) 1.52 3.52 5.8

90 95th th 95% CI 75th Arithmetic

Mean

Sample

Persons Group

Comparison of Blood Organic [Hg] μg/L 

for Adult Women NHANES 1999 – 2002

by Income

2,432 1.52 (1.26-1.79) 1.60 3.92 6.20 $20,000

or more

1,164 1.19 (0.88-1.49) 1.30 2.80 4.22 Less than 

$20,000

3,613 1.43 (1.35-1.50) 1.52 3.52 5.8 Total (all 

incomes)

95 (95% CI) 75th% 90th% th% Arithmetic

Mean

Sample

Persons

Annual 

Income
NHANES 1999–2002 Update on Mercury

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mahaffey ⎯ 2

Women Statistically More Likely to Have 

Higher Blood Mercury Concentrations

• “Other” category, which includes Asians, Native 

Americans, persons of “Island” ethnicity. [ Also 

see Hightower et al., 2005. Environmental health 

perspectives on line, in press.]

• Women with incomes higher than the “poverty” 

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 with 

Organic Hg Data – NHANES 1999 − 2002 

by Coastal and Non-Coastal Categories

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)

Comparison of Blood Organic [Hg] by Coastal and NonCoastal Residence and by Region for Adult Women

Aged 16−49 Years, NHANES 1999−2002: μg/L

184 1.31 0.6 - 2.0 3.2 Gulf of 

Mexico

Pacific 649 1.73 1.5 - 1.9 4.7

Atlantic 598 2.72 2.4 - 3.1 7.7

Coastal 1,431 2.21 1.8 - 2.6 5.9

Non-Coastal 2,182 1.03 0.8 - 1.2 2.4

Total 3,613 1.43 1.2 - 1.7 3.5

90th (95th % C.I.) Arithmetic

Mean Group N

Findings for Fish Intake by Coastal 

Subpopulations Consistent with Higher 

Blood Mercury Concentrations

• In France, fish consumption by coastal 

residents reported to be three times higher than 

fish intake by non-coastal residents (Crepet et 

al., 2005. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 42:179-

189).

• Observed for fish intake in Florida in the 1990s. 

50th percentile intake comparable to 90th 

percentile intake of NHANES survey (Denger et 

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.
NHANES 1999–2002 Update on Mercury

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mahaffey ⎯ 3

Number of Years of NHANES Data 

Needed for Comparisons

• Generally recommended that at least 3 

years of data be utilized for national 

estimates.

• Estimates based today utilize 4 years of 

NHANES data: 1999, 2000, 2001, and 

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

• Coastal 

n = 744 or 42.9%

% fish consumers: 18.3

Mean g eaten (consumers 

only): 58.0

• Non-Coastal 

n = 991 or 57.1%

% fish consumers: 10.6

Mean g eaten (consumers 

only): 48.1

2001 and 2002 Release

• Coastal 

n = 676 or 35.0% 

% fish consumers: 16.7

Mean g eaten (consumers 

only): 59.9

$ Non-Coastal 

n = 1,257 or 65.0%

% fish consumers: 13.0

Mean g eaten (consumers 

only): 69.3 

Question

• Does the decline reported in blood 

mercury between the 1999/2000 release 

and the 2001/2002 release reflect the ratio 

of coastal to non-coastal residences or 

other 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’s not a NOAEL. 

• It’s a Benchmark Dose (BMD). A dose that produces a 

predetermined change in response rate of an adverse 

effect compared to background. Specifically a BMD 

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 (P0 = 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 μg/kg-bw/day for the mother that will 

produce a cord blood concentration measured in μg/L.
NHANES 1999–2002 Update on Mercury

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mahaffey ⎯ 4

Are There Estimated BMDLs Lower than 

the 58 μg/L Recommended by the NAS?

• BMDL for Methylmercury (IRIS, U.S. EPA, 2001)

utilized a number of endpoints from three major cohort 

studies: Faroes, Seychelles, and New Zealand

– Median values, calculated as μg Hg/L cord blood

• Faroes

– BMDL05 ppb mercury = 48 μg/L cord blood

• Integrative

– BMDL05 ppb mercury = 32 μg/L cord blood

• New Zealand

– BMDL05 ppb mercury = 24 μg/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 μg 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 past 5 

years.

• However, there are additional data regarding 

maternal-fetal methylmercury kinetics between 

2001 and 2005.

• What do these advances in understanding 

physiology mean for the exposure assessment 

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 Blood 

[Hg] Subsequent to Stern & Smith, 2003

• Sakamoto et al., 2004. Range 1.1 to 2.2; r = 0.92. 

x = 1.6 for ratio of cord to maternal RBC-Hg. Japanese 

63 maternal-fetal pairs.

• Morrisette et al., 2004. Average cord blood OHg was 

1.7 times O Hg in maternal blood. 92 Canadian 

maternal-fetal pairs.

• Butler et al., 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/Métis, Inuit, and others.

Understanding the BMDL in 

Biomonitoring Values

• BMDL of 58 μg/L in cord blood is equivalent to 35 μg/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 μg/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.
NHANES 1999–2002 Update on Mercury

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mahaffey ⎯ 5

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 μg/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 μg/L: 

10.2% x 4,016,427 = 409,676 or ~ 410,000

______________________

Martin, J.A., et al., Births: Final Data for 2002. National Vital Statistic Reports, Vol. 52, Number 10. 

Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_10pdf. (accessed August 26, 2005).

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 

CH3Hg 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 μg/L (no bioconcentration) and ~ 

410,000 using 3.5 μg/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

• Is: Nationally representative data

• Is not: Representative of the highest 

exposures. 

• Published reports of higher exposures to 

methylmercury within the United States 

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 μg/L. 16% > 20 

μg/L. 4 patients > 50 μg/L.

New York City rehabilitation clinic –

neuropathies – blood Hg: 27-96 

μg/L.

• Island population

Vieques (Puerto Rican women) –

hair Hg: 90th percentile, 9 ppm; 3 

women had values of 15, 25, and 

101 ppm.

• Commercial fishermen and families

Louisiana – blood [Hg] ranging from 

< 0.3 to 35 μg/L. 2% > 20 μg/L.

• Coastal populations

New Jersey – pregnant women

1% to 2% had hair [Hg] > 4 ppm.

These Data Indicate

• Should use larger sample size for 1999 through 2002 

NHANES, which is more geographically representative 

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 μg/L) greater than those associated 

with U.S. EPA’s 2000/2001 RfD based on cord blood 

mercury (i.e., 5.8 μg/L).
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD

Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Stern ― 1

A Fresh Look at the 

Uncertainty Factor Adjustment 

in the Methylmercury 

RfD

Alan H. Stern, Dr.PH, DABT

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection

RfD Derivation 101 – UFs

• RfD = NOAEL (or LOAEL, or BMDL)

(UF1 x UF2 ....UFi)

• 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.)

• Uncertainty 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 1⁄2 log unit

• However, there is no formal requirement 

restricting the UF to these values

The Current RfD 

• UF = 10

• There are at least 2 new developments that 

could affect the appropriate value of the UF

– Cord blood:maternal 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
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD

Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Stern ― 2

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 reference 

dose for methylmercury by the U.S. EPA.

– Rice (2004)

• The U.S. EPA reference dose for methylmercury: 

sources of uncertainty

The Current RfD UF Issues (cont.)

• These sources do not agree as to how and whether 

the cord blood:maternal blood Hg ratio was 

addressed in the UF for toxicokinetics

• If the dose conversion is now adjusted from a 1.0 

cord:maternal 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.”

• UFD (database uncertainty)

– EPA allocated the entire UF of 10 to 

toxicokinetics (i.e., variability in the dose 

conversion, with or without cord:maternal 

ratio) and toxicodynamics (i.e., sensitive 

humans)

– It is clear that uncertainty about whether other 

endpoints might be more sensitive than 

neurodevelopment is not addressed in the UF

• cardiovascular

• sequalae with aging

• immunotoxicity

The Current RfD Issues (cont.)

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:maternal 

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

• the variability is the UF of 3 for “toxicokinetic variability”
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD

Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Stern ― 3

The Dose Conversion (cont.)

• Recent re-analysis (Stern, 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

• e.g., 58 ug/L

The Dose Conversion (cont.)

• Updated cord:maternal ratio (1.7) and its 

variability (Stern and Smith 2003) are 

incorporated directly

• Estimated maternal dose for a cord blood 

BMDL of 58 ug/L

– 5th percentile (lower 95th) = 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 UFD ?

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 supporting data

• In the Finnish studies, the mean hair Hg conc. 

is approx. 2.0 ppm

– This is equivalent to approx 90th percentile 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 

dietary 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
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD

Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Stern ― 4

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

– 26% Maori

– 66% Pacific Islanders

• 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

– 1st (lower 99th) percentile incorporating cord:maternal and 

toxicokinetic variability

• This is percentile used in current RfD

– 0.2 ug/kg/day

• UF toxicodynamics (current EPA factor – default)

– 3

• UFH (sensitive populations - alternate toxicodynamic)

– 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/day = 0.1 ug/kg/day

10

Some Possible Calculations

(Based on My Own Conclusions)

• Using new dose conversion and U.S. EPA’s 

current UF for toxicodynamics

– i.e., UFH = 3

0.2 ug/kg/day = 0.07 ug/kg/day 

3
A Fresh Look at the Uncertainty Factor Adjustment in the Methylmercury RfD

Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Stern ― 5

Some Possible Calculations

(Based on My Own Conclusions)

• Using new dose conversion

– Maximum UFD and

– Current U.S. EPA UF for toxiocdynamics

– UFtotal (= 9)

0.2 ug/kg/day = 0.02 ug/kg/day 

3 x 3

Some Possible Calculations

(Based on My Own Conclusions)

• Using new dose conversion and

– Minimum UFD and UFH

– UFtotal (= 3)

0.2 ug/kg/day = 0.07 ug/kg/day 

2 x 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 

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

Rimm ⎯ 1

Review of Cardiovascular 

Health Effects of Mercury −

A U.S. Perspective

Eric B. Rimm, Sc.D.

Associate Professor

Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition 

Harvard School of Public Health

The Top 10 Causes of Death in 2001

6. Diabetes: 71,372

7. Pneumonia: 62,034

8. Alzheimer’s: 53,852

9. Kidney disease: 39,480

10. Septicemia: 32,328

1. Heart Disease: 700,142

2. Cancer: 553,768

3. Stroke: 163,538

4. COPD: 123,013

5. Accidents: 101,537

Source: Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 2004

World Health Report, 2003

Mercury Toxicity

• Brain

• Kidney

• Fetus

Mercury Toxicity in the Heart

• Systemic Effects

– ↑ Free radicals and reactive O2 species

– ↓ Antioxidant system function (e.g., glut. peroxidase)

– ↑ Lipid peroxidation

– ↑ Coagulation

• Direct Cardiovascular Effects

– ↓ Myocardial contractile force

– ↑ Ca++ release from myocardial sarcoplasmic reticulum

– ↓ Left ventricular myosin ATP-ase activity

– ↓ HR variability and ↑ blood pressure

Health Professionals’ Follow-up Study

• Prospective cohort of 51,529 U.S. male 

health professionals aged 40-75 years in 

1986

– Dentists

– Veterinarians

– Pharmacists

– Osteopaths

– Podiatrists

– Optometrists
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 2

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Diet Diet Diet Diet

Toenails

(n=32,000)

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.

Health Professionals’ Follow-up Study

(n = 51,529)

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 Cases Controls

Age (years) * 60.6 60.6

Mercury (μg/g) 0.72 0.74

BMI (kg/m2) 26.0 25.3

Current smokers (%)* 10.1 10.8

Diabetes 7.4 3.8

Hypertension 33.9 24.1

Hypercholesterolemia 15.2 10.5

Alcohol (g/day) 10.4 12.9

Baseline Characteristics by Quintile of 

Toenail Mercury (Controls Only)

Diabetes 3 (4%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 4 (4%) 7 (8%) 0.12

Hypertension 22 (26%) 28 (30%) 21 (22%) 23 (24%) 20 (22%) 0.37

Dentist (%) 40 61 62 70 84 <0.001

BMI (kg/m 26.2 24.9 25.8 25.0 24.7 0.02 2)

Age 61 64 62 60 62 0.22

N 85 94 97 97 91

1.34

(0.87-14.56)

0.67

(0.55-0.86)

0.45

(0.36-0.54)

0.28

(0.22-0.35)

0.15

(0.03-0.21)

Median Mercury Levels in Toenails P,value

Yoshizawa et al., 2002. NEJM.

Baseline Characteristics by Quintile of 

Toenail Mercury (Controls Only)

Alcohol (g) 4.7 6.5 7.5 9.2 10.9 0.006

4.7 4.8 4.6 5.1 6.0 0.01 Fruits/veg

(servings)

0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.02 Poultry 

(servings)

1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 <0.001 Red meat 

(servings)

Fish (g) 20.7 26.1 30.4 37.2 51 <0.001

N 85 94 97 97 91

1.34

(0.87-14.56)

0.67

(0.55-0.86)

0.45

(0.36-0.54)

0.28

(0.22-0.35)

0.15

(0.03-0.21)

Median Mercury Levels in Toenails P,value

Yoshizawa et al., 2002. NEJM.
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 3

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

Quintiles of Toenail Mercury

1 2 3 4 5 p, trend

_______________________________________________________________________

Toenail 

Mercury (ug/g) 0.15 0.28 0.45 0.67 1.34

All CHD Cases (n) 101 93 90 90 96

Relative risk adjusted for

matching factors* 1.0 0.83 0.77 0.77 0.87 0.83

(95% CI) (ref) (0.55, 1.25) (0.51, 1.16) (0.51, 1.16) (0.57, 1.31)

Multivariate 1.0 0.93 0.83 0.96 1.03 0.55

(95% CI) (ref) (0.60, 1.43) (0.53, 1.30) (0.62, 1.51) (0.65, 1.65)

_______________________________________________________________________________

• Age, smoking, and month of toenail return.

• Multivariate model includes BMI, age, smoking, alcohol, diabetes, hypertension, 

hypercholesterolemia, family history of MI, and folate intake, n-3 intake.

Predictors of Toenail Mercury

• Dentist vs. non-dentist

• General practice vs. 

specialist

• Amalgam preparation 

methods

• Dietary Predictors

– Tuna fish

– Other fish

– Dark Fish

– Rice

– Coffee

– Skim Milk

%

49

19

9

2

2

1

GISSI Trial of n-3 Supplements and 

Secondary Prevention Of CVD

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

1 2 3 4 5 p, trend

_______________________________________________________________________

Toenail 

Mercury (ug/g) 0.15 0.28 0.45 0.67 1.34

All CHD cases (n) 101 93 90 90 96

Relative risk adjusted for

matching factors* 1.0 0.83 0.77 0.77 0.87 0.83

(95% CI) (ref) (0.55, 1.25) (0.51, 1.16) (0.51, 1.16) (0.57, 1.31)

Multivariate 1.0 0.93 0.83 0.96 1.03 0.55

(95% CI) (ref) (0.60, 1.43) (0.53, 1.30) (0.62, 1.51) (0.65, 1.65)

_____________________________________________________

• Age, smoking, and month of toenail return

• Multivariate model includes BMI, age, smoking, alcohol, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, 

family history of MI, and folate intake, n-3 intake.

Multivariate Adjusted Relative Risks of CHD: 

Quintile 5 vs. Quintile 1 after Exclusion of Dentists

Q5 Vs Q1

• Total Cohort 0.87 (0.57, 1.31)

• Exclude Dentists 1.27 (0.62, 2.59)

• Control for n-3 1.70 (0.78, 3.73)

No interaction with selenium

Future Directions

Nurses’ Health Study (n=121,700)

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Diet Diet Diet Diet Diet Diet

Health Professionals Follow-up Study (n=52,000) 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Diet Diet Diet Diet

Toenails CHD

Toenails CHD
Review of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—A U.S. Perspective

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 4

Strengths

• Large sample size with wide variability

• Neutron activation analysis

• Nested prospective data

Limitations

• Relative short follow-up with only a single 

measure of exposure

• Measurement error

• Unmeasured confounding

Conclusions

• Toenail mercury reflects intake

• The CVD benefit of n-3 fatty acids in fish is strongly 

supported by a wide range of scientific evidence

• Whether the mercury content of fish 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
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data

Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Guallar ― 1

Department of Epidemiology

Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research

Cardiovascular Health Effects 

of Mercury – European Data

Eliseo Guallar, M.D., Ph.D.

Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

Baltimore, MD

eguallar@jhsph.edu

Presenter’s Name

Date

Etiology of Atherosclerotic CVD

 Some key pathogenic processes

 Oxidative stress

 Endothelial dysfunction

 Inflammation

 Thrombosis

 Some key risk factors

 High blood pressure

 High LDL cholesterol

 Low HDL cholesterol

 Diabetes, insulin resistance

Presenter’s Name

Date

Possible Mechanisms of Action

of Mercury on CVD

 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

 Effects on blood pressure and heart rate 

variability

 Effects on endothelial cells and 

inflammatory response

 Effect on intima-media thickness

Presenter’s Name

Date

Blood Cord MeHg Levels and Blood 

Pressure at Ages 7 and 14 ⎯

The Faroe Islands Study

Grandjean, P., et al., 2004. J Pediatr 144:169–76.

Presenter’s Name

Date

Blood Cord MeHg Levels and R-R 

Interval Variation at Age 14 ⎯

The Faroe Islands Study

Grandjean, P., et al., 2004. J Pediatr 144:169–76.

Presenter’s Name

Date

Blood Hg Levels and 24-h ABPM Pulse 

Pressure among Danes and Greenlanders

Pedersen, E.B., et al., 2005. AJH 18:612–618.
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data

Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Guallar ― 2

Presenter’s Name

Date

Blood Hg Levels and SBP among Women 

16 – 49 Years Old in NHANES, 1999 – 2000

Vupputuri, S., et al., 2005. Env Res 97:195–200.

Presenter’s Name

Date

 Cohort study of 1,833 men in Eastern Finland

 42 to 60 years of age

 High intake of freshwater fish from locally 

contaminated Hg lakes

 Hair Hg content measured by flow injection analysis 

– cold vapor AAS and amalgamation

 CV for duplicate measurements ~ 8%

 Mean hair Hg 1.98 μg/g

 Mean follow-up ~ 5 years

Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease 

Study

Salonen, J.T., et al., 1995. Circulation 91:645–655.

Presenter’s Name

Date

Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease 

Study – RR of Fatal or Nonfatal MI

 No. of men with event 73

 Mercury intake, g/d 1.028 P=.006 1.008 to 1.048

 Fish, ≥ 30 g/d 2.08 P=.004 1.26 to 3.40

 Fish intake, g/d 1.005 P=.002 1.002 to 1.008

 Hair mercury, ≥ 2.0 μg/g 1.96 P=.005 1.23 to 3.13

 Hair mercury, μg/g 1.094 P=.037 1.01 to 1.19

RR 95% CI

Salonen, J.T., et al., 1995. Circulation 91:645–655.

Adjusted for age, examination year, ischemic exercise ECG, and maximal 02 uptake.

Presenter’s Name

Date

Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study –

Association of Hg and n–3 Fatty Acids 

with Acute Coronary Events

Rissanen, T.R., et al., 2000. Circulation 102:2677–2679.

Presenter’s Name

Date

Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study –

Association of Hair Hg and Acute 

Coronary Events

Virtanen, J.K., et al., 2005. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 25:228–233.

Presenter’s Name

Date

Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study –

4-year Change in IMT by Quintile of Hg

Salonen, J.T., et al., 2000. Atherosclerosis 148:265–273
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data

Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Guallar ― 3

Presenter’s Name

Date

Presenter’s Name

Date

Västerbotten Intervention 

Programme – ORs of MI

Hallgren, C.G., et al., 2001. Br J Nutr 86:397–404.

Presenter’s Name

Date

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Study Population

 Men aged 70 years or younger; native 

residents of 8 European countries or 

residents of Israel

 Subjects 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

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Case Selection

 Cases were men with a first acute MI, 

confirmed by 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

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Control Selection

 Controls: Men without history of MI, frequency matched 

to cases in 5-year intervals

 In Finland, Israel, Germany, Scotland, and Switzerland, 

selected by random sampling from local population 

registers

 In Russia and Spain, from patients admitted to hospital 

for disorders not known to be associated with dietary 

factors

 In the Netherlands, from the catchment area of the 

patient’s general practitioners

 In Norway, by inviting friends and relatives of the cases

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data

Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Guallar ― 4

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Description of 

Cases and Controls

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Association between 

Hg and DHA among Controls

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Docosahexaenoic acid (%)

0.1

0.2

0.5

1.0

2.0

Toenail mercury (mg/Kg)

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Case/Control 

Ratios of Toenail Hg

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Odds Ratios of MI 

by Quintile of Toenail Hg

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

Presenter’s Name

Date

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25

0.7

1

2

3

0

100

200

300

400

500

Odds ratio

Frequency (count)

Toenail mercury (mg/kg)

DHA-adjusted

DHA-unadjusted

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25

0.7

1

2

3

0

100

200

300

400

500

Odds ratio

Frequency (count)

Toenail mercury (mg/kg)

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25

0.7

1

2

3

0

100

200

300

400

500

Odds ratio

Frequency (count)

Toenail mercury (mg/kg)

DHA-adjusted

DHA-unadjusted

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

EURAMIC Study – Non-parametric Odds 

Ratios of MI by Level of Toenail Hg

Presenter’s Name

Date

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

EURAMIC Study – Odds Ratios of MI 

by Quintile of Adipose Tissue DHA
Cardiovascular Health Effects of Mercury—European Data

Eliseo Guallar, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Guallar ― 5

Presenter’s Name

Date

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

0.25

0.5

1

1.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

Odds ratio

Frequency (count)

DHA (% of fatty acid peak area)

Hg-unadjusted

Hg-adjusted

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

0.25

0.5

1

1.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

Odds ratio

Frequency (count)

DHA (% of fatty acid peak area)

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

0.25

0.5

1

1.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

Odds ratio

Frequency (count)

DHA (% of fatty acid peak area)

Hg-unadjusted

Hg-adjusted

Guallar, E., et al., 2002. N Engl J Med 347:1747–1754.

EURAMIC Study – Non-parametric Odds 

Radios of MI by Level of Adipose Tissue 

DHA

Presenter’s Name

Date

EURAMIC Study – Strengths and 

Limitations

 Strengths 

 Large sample size

 Use of toenail Hg / neutron activation analysis

 Use of adipose tissue DHA

 Multicenter design

 Limitations

 Case-control design 

 Lack of data on dietary intake

 Measurement error

 Non-fatal cases of MI

Presenter’s Name

Date

Conclusions

 More data is needed to assess the effect of 

Hg on CVD 

 Hg seems to oppose the effect of n-3 fatty 

acids in fish

 Effect of Hg needs to be analyzed in 

combination with effect of n–3 fatty acids 

 Other contaminants / micronutrients in fish 

may also need to be considered
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA

Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lau ⎯ 1

Developmental Toxicity of PFOS

and PFOA

Christopher Lau

Reproductive Toxicology Division

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

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 perfluoroctanoic acid – PFOA for short. 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 other goods.

EPA charges DuPont 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 hiding information suggesting that 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 perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, in the blood of people 

worldwide, and it takes 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. In 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

Human serum samples 7-82 (28)

Children 7-515 (44)

Blood bank pools 9-56 (30)

Non-production employees 28-96 (47)

Production workers 300-8,000 (2,500)

Sources Serum Levels (ppb)

G. Olsen

Environmental Exposure − Wildlife

Polar bears 180-680 −

200-300

50-100

400-600

300-2600

400-500

Sources Liver (ppb) Plasma (ppb)

Turtles and Frogs 100

Fish −

Birds 400-500

Fresh water mammals −

Marine mammals 10-100

J. Geisy and K. Kannan

Agency Concerns

• PFAA are stable, persistent, and bio-accumulated in the 

environment.

• PFOS (C8), PFOA (C8), 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 in humans for PFOS is 5.4 yr; 

PFOA, 3.8 yr; PFHS (C6), 8.7 yr; and PFBS (C4), 2-3 wk.

• Results from laboratory animal studies indicated developmental 

toxicity, hepatotoxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity, 

metabolic, and endocrine-disrupting potentials of these chemicals, 

but modes of their action are ill-defined.

• Replacement products of PFOS are in the market or being 

developed, yet little is known about their health-risk potentials.
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA

Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lau ⎯ 2

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-1 mouse: 

GD 1-18, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 mg/kg

Prenatal Findings: Rat

Implantations per Dam

PFOS (mg/kg)

0 1 2 3 5 10

number

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Live Fetuses at term

PFOS (mg/kg)

0 1 2 3 5 10

percent

0

25

50

75

100

Fetal Body Weight at term

PFOS (mg/kg)

0 1 2 3 5 10

grams 0

1

2

3

4

5

Notable Malformations in Rat Fetuses at Term

Vent. sep. 0 0 0 0 13 " 6 15 " 5

defect %

Large rt. 0 2 " 2 8 " 8 0 23 " 7 9 " 4

atrium %

Anasarca % 0 0 0 18 " 9 17 " 8 44 " 12

# Sternal 1.2 " 0.3 1.7 " 0.3 2.1 " 0.3 2.6 " 0.2 2.1 " 0.2 3.4 " 0.4

defects/f

Cleft palate 0 9 " 9 14 " 14 10 " 10 0 60 " 13

%

Control 1 mg/kg 2 mg/kg 3 mg/kg 5 mg/kg 10 mg/kg

Prenatal Findings: Mouse

Implantations per Dam

PFOS (mg/kg)

0 1 5 10 15 20

number

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 Live Fetuses at term

PFOS (mg/kg)

0 1 5 10 15 20

percent

0

25

50

75

100

Fetal Body Weight at term

PFOS (mg/kg)

0 1 5 10 15 20

grams 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Notable Malformations in Mouse Fetuses at Term

Vent. sep. 2 " 2 − − 5 " 3 5 " 3 30 " 16

defect %

Large rt 0 − − 26 " 8 23 " 7 35 " 9

atrium %

# Sternal 0.5 " 0.1 − − 2.1 " 0.2 2.6 " 0.2 3.3 " 0.7

defects/f

Cleft 0 0 0 2 " 2 21 " 8 73 " 12

palate %

Control 1 mg/kg 5 mg/kg 10 mg/kg 15 mg/kg 20 mg/kg

Influences of PFOS on prenatal development 

of rat and mouse are unremarkable ...
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA

Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lau ⎯ 3

Postnatal Survival: Rat

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20

Postnatal Age (days)

percent

Control

1 mg/kg

2 mg/kg

3 mg/kg

5 mg/kg

10 mg/kg

Newborn Rat Lung

10 55.2 ± 2.2* 43.6 ± 1.9

5 56.7 ± 2.1 41.2 ± 2.0

0 63.9 ± 1.5 31.6 ± 1.3

Septal Space 

(%)

Air Space 

(%)

PFOS 

(mg/kg)

Control PFOS Control PFOS

Pre

Post

Postnatal Survival: Mouse

Postnatal Age (days)

0 5 10 15 20 25

percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Control

1 mg/kg

5 mg/kg

10 mg/kg

15 mg/kg

20 mg/kg

Eye Opening

Age

PFOS Treatment (mg/kg)

01235

Postnatal Age (days)

0

2

14

15

16 Age

PFOS Treatment (mg/kg)

0 1 5 10

Postnatal Age (days)

0

2

13

14

15

16

17

Rat Mouse

... 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.

Developmental Study of PFOA

• Major sex difference in PFOA elimination in rat: serum t1⁄2 in 

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 t1⁄2 in males = 

19.1days and in females = 16.6 days after oral exposure.
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA

Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lau ⎯ 4

Study Design

• CD-1 mouse

• PFOA-NH4

+

• GD 2-18

PFOA Dose (mg/kg)

0 1 3 5 10 20 40

μg/ml

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Maternal serum PFOA at term

Prenatal Findings of PFOA − Mouse

Microcardia (%) 0 0 0 0 5.0 ± 5.0 30.0 ± 18.3

Enlarged fontanel 17.3 ± 9.1 66.7 ± 21.1 53.6 ± 15.8 18.29.6 45.0 ± 20.0 95.0 ± 5.0

(%)

Calvaria (%) 13.5 ± 9.2 62.5 ± 15.5 66.7 ± 13.0 22.7 ± 10.4 35.0 ± 12.7 55.0 ± 20.0

Ossified proximal 3.9 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 0.3 1.5 ± 1.0 2.8 ± 0.9 1.0 ± 0.6 0

hindlimb (#)

Ossified proximal 4.8 ± 0.8 1.8 ± 1.0 2.2 ± 0.9 2.9 ± 0.9 1.0 ± 0.6 0

forelimb (#)

Ossified caudal 4.3 ± 0.3 4.1 ± 0.1 4.0 ± 0.2 4.3 ± 0.3 3.7 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 0.7

vertebrate (#)

Ossified 5.9 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.1 5.5 ± 0.3 5.7 ± 0.2 4.0 ± 1.1

sternabrae (#)

Fetus weight (g) 1.05 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.03 1.03 ± 0.04 1.03 ± 0.04 0.98 ± 0.05 0.86 ± 0.11

Prenatal loss (%) 4.1 ± 1.4 1.0 ± 0.7 7.4 ± 2.5 2.4 ± 0.8 7.7 ± 3.3 25.9 ± 11.7

Control 1 mg/kg 3 mg/kg 5mg/kg 10 mg/kg 20 mg/kg

Postnatal Survival

Postnatal Age (days)

0 5 10 15 20 25

percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Control

1 mg/kg PFOA

3 mg/kg PFOA

5 mg/kg PFOA

10 mg/kg PFOA

20 mg/kg PFOA

Postnatal Growth

Postnatal Age (days)

0 5 10 15 20 25

grams

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Control

1 mg/kg

3 mg/kg

5 mg/kg

10 mg/kg

20 mg/kg

Developmental Landmarks

20 3 17.9 ± 0.8 11 31.3 ± 0.5 8 30.9 ± 0.4 4 31.7 ± 1.1

10 13 17.2 ± 0.3 28 29.3 ± 0.3 27 30.2 ± 0.3 28 28.5 ± 0.3

5 17 16.0 ± 0.2 43 29.9 ± 0.4 43 31.8 ± 0.5 46 28.2 ± 0.2

3 8 15.5 ± 0.1 21 28.8 ± 0.4 21 30.2 ± 0.4 20 27.1 ± 0.2

1 8 15.2 ± 0.2 21 27.9 ± 0.6 21 28.2 ± 0.6 22 26.7 ± 0.2

0 22 14.8 ± 0.1 54 28.9 ± 0.4 47 29.9 ± 0.4 56 30.5 ± 0.2

Age 

(days) N Age(days) N Age(days) N Age(days) N PFOA Dose (mg/kg)

Eye opening Vaginal opening First estrus Preputial separation

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 correlated 

with human levels (CDC/NHANES) for MOE estimation.

• Routes of human exposure to these chemicals must be 

investigated.
Developmental Toxicity of PFOS and PFOA

Christopher Lau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lau ⎯ 5

PFAA Contaminants in Lake Trout

from the Great Lakes

Lake 15 0.9 0.9 2.2 0.5 0.9 0.4

Superior

Lake 48 1.4 2.4 1.3 0.4 0.7 0.5

Michigan

Lake 113 0.4 0.8 5.8 1.6 2.3 0.9

Huron

Lake 137 4.7 0.9 3.0 1.6 1.9 0.9

Ontario

Lake 410 11.7 0.7 4.9 3.9 3.1 1.1

Erie

PFDoA

(C12)

PFUnA

(C11)

PFDA

(C10)

PFNA

(C9)

PFOA

(C8)

PFDS

(C10)

PFOS

(C8)

in ppb

V. Furdui and S. Mabury

Collaborators

NHEERL, EPA

John Rogers

Barbara Abbott

Suzanne Fenton

Gary Klinefelter

Julie Thibodeaux

Brian Grey

Monica Logan

Roger Hanson

Rayetta Grasty

Douglas Wolf

OPPTS, EPA

Jennifer Seed

NIEHS

Abraham Nyska

3M Company

John Butenhoff

David Ehresman

Michigan State U.

John Giesy

U. Minn.-Duluth

Ken Wallace 

NERL, EPA

Andrew Lindstrom

Mark Strynar

NCCT, EPA

Hugh Barton

PFAA Commonly Found in the Environment
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

Walker ― 1

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

The National Institutes of Health

The Department of Health and Human Services

Overview of the National Toxicology 

Program Studies of Interactions 

Between Individual PCB Congeners

Nigel Walker Ph.D.

Environmental Toxicology Program

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

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

z Probable human carcinogens

 Liver (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)

O

O

O

Clx Clx Clx Clx Cl Clx x

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

z 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.

O

O

O

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran

PCB126

PCB118 PCB153

Phase I − Summary Results

 TCDD, PCB 126, PeCDF, and TEF mixture

 Expected increases in dioxin responses

 Increases in CYP1 expression

 Lower T4 and increased T3 for all studies

 Increased TSH at early time points

 Hepatotoxicity

 Increase in incidence and severity

 Non-neoplastic effects in multiple organs

 Increased incidence of neoplasms

 Liver

z Cholangiocarcinoma

z Hepatocellular adenoma

 Lung-cystic keratinizing epithelioma

 Oral Mucosa-squamous cell carcinoma.
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

Walker ― 2

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.

Walker, N.J., P. Crockett, et al., 2004. Dose-additive carcinogenicity of a defined mixture of ”dioxin-like compounds.” 

Environ Health Perspect doi:10.1289/ehp.7351.

Potency Factors Close to TEF Values

CYP1A2 0.17 - 0.51 0.17 - 0.47 0.51 - 0.80

CYP1A1 0.02 - 0.19 0.1 - 0.44 0.63 - 2.27

WHO TEF 0.1 0.5 (1.0)

Gingival SCC 0.09 0.24 0.467

Lung CKE 0.19 0.34 1.21

Hc adenoma 0.10 0.35 1.02

Cholangiocarcinoma 0.11 0.16 0.98

PCB126 PeCDF TEF Mixture

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 PCBs

 PCB126: PCB118 mixture

 Additivity of non-ortho and mono-ortho PCBs

 Initially planned as a study of PCB118 alone

z 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

z Liver PROD increased at all doses 100 Fg/kg and higher at all times

z 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

 PCB 126/PCB153 and 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. 

Cholangioma + + + +

Hepatocholangioma + ++ +++ +

Lung – SCC + +

Hepatocellular carcinoma + +

+

+++

+++

+++

Mix

+

++

+++

+++

+++

+++

126/153

++

+++

+++

+++

126/118

Cholangiocarcinoma +++ +++ ++

+ + Pancreas – adenoma/ 

carcinoma

Gingival – SCC +++ +++ ++

+++ +++ + Lung – cystic keratinizing 

epithelioma

+

++

PeCDF

+

++

126

Adrenal cortex – adenoma/ 

carcinoma

Uterus – adenoma/ 

carcinoma

Uterus – SCC ++

Hepatocellular adenoma +++

Neoplasm TCDD 153
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

Walker ― 3

PCB126/153 Mixture Design

3,000 TR529 Group 6

1,000 TR529 Group 7

300 TR529 Group 5

100 TR529 Group 3 Group 4

10 TR529 Group 2

0 Group 1 TR520 TR520 TR520

0 10 100 300 1000

PCB153 

(Fg/kg)

PCB 126 (ng/kg)

Cholangiocarcinoma

0

10

30

100

175

300

550

1,000

10

0

100

1,000

300

3,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Incidence (%)

PCB153 ug/kg PCB126 ng/kg

Hepatocellular Adenoma

0

10 30 100 175 300 550 1,000

0

10

100

1,000

300

3,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Incidence (%)

PCB 126 ng/kg

PCB153 ug/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 PCB126 

in co-exposed groups

 Increase in PCB153 in 

the liver in co-exposed 

group

0

10

30

100

175

300

550

1,000

100

10

0

1,000

300

3,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Liver PCB levels ng/g

PCB126 ng/kg PCB153 ug/kg

0

10

30

100

175

300

550

1,000

100.00

10.00

0.00

1,000.00

300.00

3,000.00

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

PCB153 ng/g liver

PCB153 ng/kg PCB126 ng/kg

PCB126

PCB153

Cystic Keratinizing Epithelioma

0

10

30

100

175

300

550

1000

0

100

10

1,000

300

3,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Incidence (%)

PCB126 ng/kg

PCB153 ug/kg
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

Walker ― 4

Lung – Interactions

479

11*

32*

52

1000:1000

126:153

PCB126 ng/g – 2 553 902 459 478 1842

years

300 ng126/kg + Fg153/kg 126 alone

1

30*

50

3000

Cystic keratinizing 

epithelioma

AE, metaplasia, 

bronchiolar

Animals examined

1 11 35*

39* 39 34 40*

53 50 53 51

0 100 300 1000

Altered Potency of PCB126 by PCB153

 Modeled assuming same 

shape of dose-response 

curve

 Cholangiocarcinoma (ChCA)

 PCB126 alone

z ED50=952 ng/kg

 In presence of PCB153

z ED50=556 ng/kg

z 1.7x increase in potency

 Cystic keratinizing 

epithelioma (CKE)

 PCB126 alone

z ED50=698 ng/kg

 In presence of PCB153

z ED50=1213 ng/kg

z 1.7x decrease in potency. 200 400 600 800 1,000

ChCA

CKE

NTP Bioassays in Perspective

 Lower potency vs. 

aroclor studies

 Lower potency vs. 

TCDD dosed feed 

study (Dow)

 Why?

 Rat stock differences

 Pharmacokinetics

z Dietary vs. gavage

 PCB interactions?

 Higher potency in 

PCB126/153 study.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Arcolor 1016 (Mayes 1998)

Aroclor 1242 (Mayes 1998)

Aroclor 1254 (Mayes 1998)

Aroclor 1260 (Mayes 1998)

TCDD (NTP 2004)

PCB126 (NTP 2004)

TCDD (Kociba1978) PCB126+118 (NTP2005)

TEF Mixture (NTP 2004)

PeCDF (NTP 2004)

PCB126+153 (NTP 2005)

ng TEQ/kg/d

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

M.R. Hejtmancik

C.S. Smith

D.P. Orzech

J.R. Bucher

R. Maronpot

R. Herbert

K.J. Cimon

G.P. Flake

B.F. Hamilton

J. Nold

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
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science

John D. Schell, BBL, Inc.

Schell ⎯ 1

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 ⇒ Allowable 

fish tissue level goes down

• Example from GLSFATF:

– 0.2 ppm – 1 meal per week

– 1.9 ppm – 6 meals per year.

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.
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science

John D. Schell, BBL, Inc.

Schell ⎯ 2

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 AroclorBased 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 AroclorBased 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 AroclorBased 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 congenerspecific 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.
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science

John D. Schell, BBL, Inc.

Schell ⎯ 3

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 for PCB-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

• Aroclor CSF 1.2 x 10-3

• Current U.S. EPA dioxin CSF 6 x 10-4

• Proposed U.S. EPA dioxin CSF 4.3 x 10-3

• Cal/EPA dioxin CSF 1 x 10-4

• 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.
Establishing PCB Fish Advisories: Consideration of the Evolving Science

John D. Schell, BBL, Inc.

Schell ⎯ 4

Summary

• Aroclor-based toxicity factors adequately 

protective of public health.

• Use of homologues to estimate total PCBs 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.
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance

P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration

Bolger ― 1

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

3⁄4Statutory safety/risk thresholds 

and/or standards for contaminants

3⁄4Methylmercury − establishment of 

fish and shellfish action level

3⁄4Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) −

establishment of fish and shellfish 

tolerance

Food Adulteration Standards 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

Contaminants − 402(a)(1) “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.”

Methylmercury (MeHg) in Fish

3⁄4 Mass poisoning episodes in Japan in the 1950s 

and 60s resulted from environmental 

contamination and accumulation of 

methylmercury (MeHg) in fish.

3⁄4 Health effects included significant and gross 

developmental abnormalities and death.

3⁄4 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

3⁄4Action level of 0.5 ppm established in 1969.

3⁄4Action level reviewed in 1970 by expert study 

group (FDA and non-FDA scientists) and 

reaffirmed.

3⁄4Action level reviewed in 1971 by ad hoc U.S. and 

Canadian committee and reaffirmed. 

3⁄4In 1974, proposal published to establish action 

level of 0.5 ppm by formal rulemaking.

3⁄4In 1979, proposal is withdrawn and an action level 

of 1 ppm is established. 

Mercury Action Level

3⁄4 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.

3⁄4 Newer analysis indicated MeHg exposure via fish was less 

than originally estimated.

3⁄4 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 (hair).

3⁄4 In 1984, action level was changed from total 

mercury to methylmercury.
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance

P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration

Bolger ― 2

FDA – 1994 MeHg Advisory

3⁄4FDA Consumer magazine (September 

1994)

3⁄4 Importance of fish as source of protein

3⁄4 Consumption of a variety of fish 

3⁄4 Pregnant women and women of child-bearing 

age limit consumption of swordfish and shark 

to no more than once a month

3⁄4 For the remainder of the population limit 

consumption of these species to no more than 

once a week. 

Estimated Mercury Hair Levels in Women of 

Child-Bearing Age (ages 16 – 49)

FDA – Current MeHg Advisory

(http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg.html)

1. Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish because they 

contain high levels of mercury. 

2. Eat up to 12 oz (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and 

shellfish that are lower in mercury. 

3⁄4 5 of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are 

shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. 

3⁄4 Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more 

mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your 2 meals 

of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 oz (1 average meal) of 

albacore tuna per week. 

3. Check local advisories about the safety of fish 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 of fish you catch 

from local waters, but don't consume any other fish during that week. 

Statutory Food Adulteration Standards −

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

3⁄4 Sec. 406. TOLERANCE FOR POISONOUS 

INGREDIENTS IN FOOD (Contaminants), 

Sec. 402(a)(1) applies and depending on 

substance being “added,” “may or ordinarily 

render it injurious to health” applies, but also 

consider detectability, avoidability, multisource exposure, competing dietary risks 

3⁄4 Sec. 409. FOOD ADDITIVES (Safe use), 

“reasonable certainty of no harm” − safety 

factors prescribed

PCB Food Tolerances

3⁄4 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. 

3⁄4 In 1973, a temporary tolerance of 5 ppm was established.

3⁄4 In 1977, a proposal was published to lower the temporary 

tolerances. The temporary tolerance for fish was lowered to 

2 ppm.

3⁄4 In 1979, 3 of the 4 tolerances were finalized. The proposed 

revision of the tolerance for fish and shellfish was stayed pending 

the outcome of an administrative hearing process.

3⁄4 In 1984, the tolerance for fish and shellfish was formally 

established. 

PCB Risk-Based Tolerance in Fish

Cordle, F., 1983. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 3:252-274.

Allen - primate 883 811 595 367

reproduction

Kinbrough - 3.4 3.1 2.3 1.4

liver cancer

NCI - 7.0 6.5 4.7 2.9

hematopoietic

cancers

NCI - liver 2.5 2.3 1.7 1.0

cancer and 

adenoma

NCI - total 10.6 9.8 7.2 4.4

cancers

No 5 ppm 2 ppm 1 ppm

tolerance

Bioassay

Lifetime risks/100,000 – 90th percentile consumers
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance

P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration

Bolger ― 3

Dioxin-like Contaminants 

Program Goals

3⁄4 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.

3⁄4 Identify opportunities for DLC reduction 

by identifying sources/pathways that can 

be mitigated.

Total Diet Study − TDS

3⁄4 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.

3⁄4 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. 

3⁄4 In 1999, FDA’s dioxin monitoring program began analyzing 

TDS foods.

3⁄4 7 PCDD/10 PCDF congeners

3⁄4 3 dioxin-like PCB congeners (PCB-77, -126, -169) were 

added in 2004.

TDS – Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

19761977197819791980

1981/821982-841984-861986-881991-931993-96

Year

PCB (μg/da y)

2 yr. toddler

6 yr 

10 yr

14-16 yr Male

14-16 Female

25-20 Male

25-30 Female

FDA DLC Targeted Sampling

3⁄4 Milk and dairy products

3⁄4 Fish, wild/aquaculture (retail/grower)

3⁄4 Eggs

3⁄4 Grains/cereals

3⁄4 Fats/oils

3⁄4 Tree nuts

3⁄4 Fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K)

3⁄4 Fruits/vegetables

3⁄4 Finished feed

3⁄4 Feed components

FDA DLC Targeted Fish and 

Shellfish Sampling

3⁄4 Finfish 

3⁄4 Bluefish, flounder, halibut, sole, striped bass (Rockfish), 

tuna (canned and fresh), salmon (wild and farmed), pollack, 

cod, sardine (canned), swordfish ocean perch, haddock, 

mackerel, croaker (Atlantic), sablefish, orange roughy, shark, 

weakfish (Sea Trout), porgy (Scup), catfish (farmed), tilapia, 

Basa (farmed)

3⁄4 Shellfish

3⁄4 Scallop, shrimp, clam, oyster, crab, mussels, lobster, crayfish, 

or crawfish

3⁄4 Fish and cod liver oil

PCDD/PCDF Exposure Estimates from 

2001, 2002, and 2003 TDS Foods

Total U.S. population (ND=0)

Meat

44%

Other

19%

Poultry

2%

Dairy

15% Eggs

2%

Fats/oils

2%

Fish

12%

Fruit/veg.

4%
History of Mercury Action Level and PCB Tolerance

P. Michael Bolger, Food and Drug Administration

Bolger ― 4

Dietary DLC Exposure

3⁄4 Dioxins and DLCs in the Food Supply: Strategies to Decrease 

Exposure (2003), NAS/NRC, 

Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), Institute of Medicine (IOM)

3⁄4 Interrupt the cycle of DLCs through forage, animal feed, and foodproducing animals

3⁄4 Reduce DLC exposures in girls and young women

3⁄4 Expand data collection in NHANES National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey

3⁄4 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

Schoeny ⎯ 1

U.S. EPA’s New Cancer 

Guidelines

2005 National Forum

on Contaminants in Fish

September 18-21, 2005

Rita Schoeny, 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

Is there too much 

uncertainty or is critical 

information lacking?

Invoke a 

default option*

N

Y

* “The primary goal of U.S. EPA actions is public health 

protection, accordingly, as an agency policy, the defaults 

used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary 

should be health protective (SAB, 1999).”

Analyze the available data

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-pituitaryovarian function − female Sprague Dawley rat 

mammary tumors (but likely reproductive 

toxicant).
U.S. EPA’s New Cancer Guidelines

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Schoeny ⎯ 2

Why Do You Care 

Quantitatively?

 Two-step dose response process

MOE

Dose

Response (Tumor or nontumordata)

0%

10%

Environmental

exposure levels

of interest

LED10 ED10 

Nonlinear Default

Empirical

range of 

observation

Range of

Lin

extrapolation ear Default

(Lowest 95%Confidence Limit on Dose)

x

x

(Central Estimate)

x x

x

x NOAEL

LOAEL

x

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, mutagenic MOA risk is mutagenic MOA

increased by age-dependent adjustment factor 

(used with exposure info for age group)*

 <2 yrs. old, 10-fold

 2 to < 16 yrs., 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.

CYP2E1 Chloroform

Phosgene

Regenerative cell proliferation

Example MOA

metabolism

Oxidative

Sustained toxicity

Tumor development

Key Events
U.S. EPA’s New Cancer Guidelines

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Schoeny ⎯ 3

Mutagenic MOA ?

Weight of evidence

Mutagenicity is not a component of 

chloroform-induced neoplasia.

Genetic Activity Profile

- 4

- 2

 0

 2

 4

 6

 8

L

O

G

D

O

S

E

U

N

I

T

S

G ENETIC A CTIV ITY PRO FIL E

PRO KA RY LOW EUK PLNT INS MA MM V ITRO HUMA N F MA MM V IV O HU

67-66-3

IA RC_ V 7 3

1999

CHLOROFORM

B

R

P

E

C

L

D

S

B F

A

S

0

A

S

5

A

S

7

A

S

8

A

S

9

A

S

S

A

S

W

C

E

2

C

E

G

C

S

S

C

H

G

N

A

S

C

R

F

N

A

N

C

S

A

N

N

X

M

D A

I

D

P

R

U

A

I

U H

9

G

C

I

S

S

I

R

T

7

S

L

H

U

H

I

U

S

H

L

L

H

C

B

F

A

M

M

H

A

V

D

R

P

U

M

V

U

A

V

G

S

V

A

M

V

M

M

V

R

C

B

A

IA RC p o s s ib le h u ma n c a rc in o g e n (g r o u p 2 B : h u ma n - in a d e q u a te , a n ima l - s u f f ic ie n t)

- 4

- 2

 0

 2

 4

 6

 8

L

O

G

D

O

S

E

U

N

I

T

S

G E N E T IC A C T IV IT Y P R O F IL E

PR O K A R Y LO W EU K PLNT IN S M A M M V IT R O HUMA N F M A M M V IV O H U

7 5 -2 1 -8

IA R C _ V 6 0

1994

E T H Y L E N E O X ID E

B

R

D

F

P

B

S

A

0

S

A

2

S

A

5

7

A

S

9

A

S

E

C

F

E

C

W

E

C

2

E

C

R

B

S

M

S

C

G

G

N

A

S

C

R

R

G

S

S

Z

F

A

N

F

N

C

R

H

S

M

P

L

M

H

S

C

T

S

C

D

M

M

D

M

X D

M

H

G

C

O

G

9

H

G

9

O M

I

A

C

I

C T

C

M

T

7

S

U

H

L

G

I

H

S

H

F

S

H

L C

H

T

D

V

A G

V

A

P

L

S

S

L

O

S

V

A

M

V

M

M

V

R

C

B

A

C

L

A

C

C

C

D

L

M

D

L

R

M

H

T

A

V

A

U

V

H

S

L

H

M

V

H

C

L

H

IA R C h u m a n c a r c in o g e n ( g r o u p 1 : h u m a n - lim it e d , a n im a l - s u f f ic ie n t )

- 4

- 2

 0

 2

 4

 6

 8

L

O

G

D

O

S

E

U

N

I

T

S

G E N E T IC A C T IV IT Y P R O F IL E

PR O K A R Y LO W EU K PLN T IN S M A M M V IT R O HUM A N F M A M M V IV O H U

5 0 -3 2 -8

G ER M C EL L

1994

B E N Z O (A )P Y R E N E

P

R

B

E

C

L

E

R

D

B

S

D

S

A

F

S

A

0

S

A

5

S

A

7

S

A

8

S

A

9

S

A

S

E

C

K

E

C

W

E

C

R

D

S

S

S

C

G

H

C

S

R

C

S

F

Z

S

S

C

N

T

S

M

T

S

I

D

M

M

X

M

D

D

M

N

D

I

A

R

I

A

U

R

P

U

I

A

G

C

O

G

9

H

G

9

O G

5

T

G

5

1

G

I

A

S

I

C

S

I

R

S

I

S

C

I

C C

I

R

T

B

MT

C

M

T

C

S

T

R

R

T

7

S

T

E

V

G

I

H

B

F

A

M

M

H R

P

U

M

S

T

O

L

S

S

V

A

M

V

M D

L

M

Genetic Activity Profile (cont.)

Bottom Line, Mutagenic MOA

 Mutagenic – however defined – is not 

equal to mutagenic Mode of Action for 

cancer or other health effects.

No

Yes 

Analyze mutagenicity data

• Obtain mutagenicity data

• Determine WOE for the data

Is chemical Is chemical

mutagenic?

No/low concern.

Consider nonmutagenic MOA if

data are available.

Mutagenic MOA Flowchart

MOA framework applied

• Analyze all data for mutagenic MOA

• Determine support for mutagenic MOA in animals

• Determine support for mutagenic MOA in humans

Is 

mutagenic MOA

established?

Consider nonmutagenic MOA if

data are available.

Yes

No

Flowchart 2
U.S. EPA’s New Cancer Guidelines

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Schoeny ⎯ 4

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.
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation

Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University

Stapleton ⎯ 1

PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: 

The Impact of Biotransformation

Heather M. Stapleton, Ph.D.

Duke University

Nicholas School of the Environment

• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) 

are brominated flame retardant chemicals 

applied to consumer products

– TVs, carpet padding, furniture, circuit boards

What Are PBDEs?

Flame retardant:

• “A substance added or a treatment 

applied to a material in order to 

suppress, significantly reduce or 

delay the combustion of the material.”

EHC:192, WHO 1997

>98

12

34

2.5

44

1.7

6.7

1.1

9.3

8.5

9.8

43

1.6

27 

Percent of total

BDE-209 (10)

Deca-BDE commercial mixture

nona-BDE

3 octa-BDEs

2 hepta-BDEs

BDE-183 (7)

BDE-154 (6)

BDE-153 (6)

Octa-BDE commercial mixture

hexa-BDE

BDE-154 (6)

BDE-153 (6)

BDE-100 (5)

BDE-99 (5)

BDE-85 (5)

BDE-47 (4)

Penta-BDE commercial mixture

Congener (# Br) O 2

3

4

5

2'

3'

4'

5'

6 6'

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE)

Brn n=1-10

>98

12

34

2.5

44

1.7

6.7

1.1

9.3

8.5

9.8

43

1.6

27 

Percent of total

BDE-209 (10)

Deca-BDE commercial mixture

nona-BDE

3 octa-BDEs

2 hepta-BDEs

BDE-183 (7)

BDE-154 (6)

BDE-153 (6)

Octa-BDE commercial mixture

hexa-BDE

BDE-154 (6)

BDE-153 (6)

BDE-100 (5)

BDE-99 (5)

BDE-85 (5)

BDE-47 (4)

Penta-BDE commercial mixture

Congener (# Br) Flame retardant U.S. demand (MT)

Flexible

polyurethane foam

(furniture)

7,100

Acrylonitrile-butadienestyrene

(business equipment)

1,500

High-impact poylstyrene

(electronic enclosures) 24,500

(2001)

X

X

PBDE Concentrations in Human 

Blood, Milk, and Tissue

Hites, 2004. ES&T

7 18 26

52

8 18 32

62

4.0

133

366

6.2

295

419

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

min 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% max

n g /g p p b . lip id

blood milk

Data from Schecter et al., 2005

Population-Based PBDE Levels

in U.S. Human Blood (n=50)

and Milk (n=62), 2005
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation

Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University

Stapleton ⎯ 2

Data from Schecter et al., 2004, 2005

Market Basket Survey

of U.S. Food, 2003

• 62 food samples purchased from 3 Dallas, 

TX, supermarket chains in 2003

• Measured 13 individual PBDE congeners.

Miscellaneous, n=5 84-2835

Dairy, n=15 32.2

Meat, n=18 190

Fish, n=24 616

Sum PBDEs

Median (ppt, ww) Volatilization

Atmospheric 

transport

Deposition

Gas phase Particle phase

Sediment

Diet Bioaccumulation

Human 

blood and milk

Volatilization

House dust

Atmospheric 

transport

Office dust

Exposure?

PBDE Fate and Transport

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Total PBDE (ng/g dry mass)

0

5000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Mean = 5,900 

Median = 4250

Stapleton et al., 2005. ES&T

Total PBDE (22 Congeners)

in House Dust Samples

17, 28, 47, 66, 71, 85, 99, 100, This Study

138, 153, 154, 156, 183, 184, 190, 

191, 196, 197, 206, 207, 208, 209

3.3 U.S.A. c Dust Adults

ingestion

17, 28, 47, 66, 71, 85, 99, 100, This Study

138, 153, 154, 156, 183, 184, 190, 

191, 196, 197, 206, 207, 208, 209

120-1180 Children U.S.A. b

1-4

Dust 

ingestion

United 20 47, 99, 100, 153, 154 Harrad et al., 2004

Kingdom

Inhalation Adults

96 47, 99, 100, 153, 154 Lind et al., 2003 a Nursing Newborns Sweden

210 47, 99, 100, 153, 154 Kalantzi et al., 2004 United a

Kingdom

Nursing Newborns

17, 28, 47, 66, 77, 85, 99, 100, Schecter et al., 2003

138, 153, 154, 209

1770 Nursing Newborns U.S.A. a

United 107 47, 99, 100, 153, 154 Harrad et al., 2004

Kingdom

Diet Adults

Diet Adults Spain 80-97 Tetra- through octaBDEs Bocio et al., 2003

Diet Adults Finland 44 47, 99, 100, 153, 154 Kiviranta et al., 2004

Diet Adults Sweden 40-51 47, 99, 100, 153, 154 Darnerud et al., 2001

Congeners Included Reference Intake 

(ng/day) Population Country Exposure 

Route

a-assuming milk sampled is 3% lipid and that a 5-kg infant ingests 800 mL milk/day.

b-assuming an average PBDE concentration of 5,900 ng/g dust and that children ingest between 0.02 g to 0.2 g of dust/day.

c- assuming an average PBDE concentration of 5,900 ng/g dust and that adults ingest 0.00056 g/day of dust. 

A Comparison of PBDE Intake 

Rates Among People

PBDE Levels in Fish from the 

Great Lakes:

How Do PBDEs

Compare to PCBs?

PCBs Toxaphene

Chlordane DDE

Cherynak et al., 2005. ET&C

POPs in Lake Michigan Smelt
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation

Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University

Stapleton ⎯ 3

Lake Huron (Dt = 1.6 y) Lake Michigan (Dt = 1.8 y)

Lake Superior (Dt = 2.2 y)

Cherynak et al., 2005. ET&C

PBDEs in Great Lakes Smelt

Location Fish Year Sampled Total PBDE

Columbia River Whitefish 1992-2000 50 to 1,060

Eastern Virginia Carp 1998-1999 100 to 47,900

Lake Michigan Trout 1996 2,970 

Great Lakes Trout, walleye 2000 369 to 1,395

Indiana Crappie, bluegill 1999 150 to 300

Detroit River Large mouth bass 1999 86 to 251

From Review in Hites, 2004 (ES&T 38:945-956)

and Rice et al., 2002 (Chemosphere 49:731-737)

PBDE Levels Reported in Fish 

(ng/g lipid)

Grand Traverse Bay, 

Lake Michigan, 1997-1999

Sampled: Phytoplankton

Zooplankton

Benthic amphipods

Mysid shrimp

Alewife

Bloater chub

Deepwater sculpin

Whitefish

Lake trout

Trophic

Level

Accumulation of Atmospheric and 

Sedimentary PCBs and Toxaphene in a 

Lake Michigan Food Web

PCB (ng/g ww)

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

BDE (ng/g ww)

0

40

80

120

160

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

SA

BB

SN

WF WFWFWF

WF

WF

SC SC SCSC SCSCSCSC

SM SM

BT

BT BT BTBT

Bt

BT BT

BT BTBT BT

BTBT BT

BT

AL

AL AL

AL AL

AL

AL

AL

ZPAPZPZPAPAP APAP MYMY

R2 = 0.89

y= 0.082x + 0.84

LT = lake trout; BB = burbot; SA = salmon; AL = alewife; 

BT = bloater chub; SC = sculpin; WF = whitefish; AP = amphipod

Food Web Magnification Factor:

BDE 47 = 3.2

PCB 153 = 4.0

Stapleton et al., 2002. Arch. Environ. Contam. 45:227-234

BDE Congener

47 99 100 153 154

Fractional Composition

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Bromkal 70 5DE

DE-71

GTB Biota

Commercial PentaBDE Mixtures vs. 

Food Web

BDE Congener

47 99 100 153 154

Fractional Composition 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 Baltimore Harbor Carp

Virginia Carp ( Hale et al., 2002)

Hadley Lake Carp (Dodder et al., 2002) 

Lake Michigan Biota

70 5DE "pentaBDE"

BDE Congener Patterns in Biota
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation

Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University

Stapleton ⎯ 4

Concentration (ng/g ww)

1

10

100

1000

 PCB 52 

 PCB 153 

 PCB 180 

Exposure Depuration

Day

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0.1

1

10

100

BDE 28 

BDE 47 

BDE 99 

BDE 153 

Exposure Depuration

Congener Carp Pikea; rainbow troutb

PCB 52

PCB 153

PCB 180

BDE 28

BDE 47

BDE 153

BDE 99

38 ± 7

43 ± 4

40 ± 3

20 ± 7

93 ± 14

4 ± 3

0

50 ± 20a; 38 ± 2b

70 ± 20 a; 48 ± 3 b

NA

NA

90 ± 20 a

40 ± 10 a

60 ± 20 a

a Burreau et al., 1997

b Fisk et al., 1998

Assimilation Efficiency (%)

Separate intestine and

gut contents, and extract

for BDEs

Undigested food particles

Intestine

Uptake across 

intestinal wall

Fish exposed

to BDE 99

only

Feed and wait

2.5 ± 1 hour

Concentration (ng/g ww)

300

600

40

80

Body Burden (ng)

0

50

100

150

BDE 47 BDE 99

40

80

Spiked Food Before Feeding

Gut Contents 2 hours post feeding

Intestinal Tissue 2 hours post feeding (Day 5 of experiment)

Whole Body Tissue (Day 5 of experiment)

Stapleton et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:1054-1061.

Dietary Exposure to BDE 99

• Food spiked with 

BDE 99

• Only BDE 47 is 

observed in whole 

body tissues

• BDE 47 appears in 

gut contents 2.5 

hours later

BR

BR

BRBR

BR O

Biological 

Debromination?

BDE 99
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation

Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University

Stapleton ⎯ 5

BR

BRBR

BR O

2,2’,4,4’-tetrabromodiphenyl ether or BDE 47

BDE 99 Becomes

Estimated log Kow = 10

O

Br

Br

Br

Br

Br

Br

Br

Br

Br

Br

BDE 209 Exposure

Decabromodiphenyl Ether 

(DecaBDE)

Food Exposure

1% body weight/day

Abundance

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Control Fish 

Day 160

Retention Time (min)

20 30 40 50 60 70

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

BDE 209

Rainbow Trout

160 Days Exposure

Retention Time (min)

35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Abundance

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Common Carp

60 Days Exposure 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

BDE 209

BDE 208

BDE 207

BDE 206

BDE 203

BDE 155

BDE 154

BDE 155

BDE 153

BDE 209

BDE 183

BDE 196

BDE 197

BDE 204?

Hexa-1

Octa-1 Octa-1

Octa-2

Hepa-1 Hepa-2 Hepa-1 Hepa-2

Hexa-2

Assimilation of BDE 209

Common Carp:

• Minimal % accumulated

– 60-day exposure = 0.4%

Rainbow Trout:

• Minimal % accumulated

– 160-day exposure = ~ 3.5%

Assimilation of PentaBDEs

Common Carp

• BDE 28

– 60-day exposure = 20%

• BDE 47

– 60-day exposure = 68%*

Northern Pike (Burreau et al., 1997):

• BDE 47 = 90%

• BDE 99 = 60%

• BDE 153 = 40%
PBDE Exposure and Accumulation in Fish: The Impact of Biotransformation

Heather M. Stapleton, Duke University

Stapleton ⎯ 6

BDE Congener 

47 99 100 153 154

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

alewife

lake trout

bloater

sculpin

Fractional Composition

What Other Fish Can Debrominate

PBDEs?

• Common carp (Cyprinus

carpio)

• Largescale suckers

• Deepwater sculpin (Great 

Lakes)

• American eel (Anguilla

anguilla)

• Striped bass? 

• Smallmouth bass?

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

Advisor: Joel E. Baker, University of Maryland Center for Environmental 

Science, Solomons, MD

Dr. Dave Holbrook (NIST)

Dr. Brian Brazil and Sarah Anderson (USDA NCCWA)

Drs. Michele Schantz, Stephen Wise, and Marc Nyden from NIST 

Dr. Carys Mitchelmore and Rae Benedict (CBL)

Dr. Richard Kraus

Cambridge Isotope Laboratories

Hunting Creek Fisheries

U.S. EPA STAR Fellowship U-91556401-1
PBDEs: Toxicology Update

Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Birnbaum ― 1

Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., DABT

Director, Experimental Toxicology

NHEERL/ORD/U.S. EPA

Fish Forum – Baltimore, September 20, 2005

PBDEs:

Toxicology Update

O

Br Br

Br Br

Composition of Commercial 

PBDE Mixtures

● 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

Ecotoxicity

● PeBDE>>OBDE>DBDE

 Highly toxic to invertebrates (e.g., larval development, 

LOECs in low μg/l range)

 DE71 – developmentally 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 

Mammalian Toxicity

of PBDEs in Adult Rodents

● Hepatotoxic

● Enzyme Induction

 UDP-glucuronyl transferase

 Cyotochrome P450

• Induction of CYP2B1/2 via PXR/CAR

● DBDE – hepatocarcinogen (high 

dose)

New Information

● Endocrine effects

● Developmental reproductive 

toxicity

● Developmental neurotoxicity

Endocrine-Disrupting Effects

● 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
PBDEs: Toxicology Update

Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Birnbaum ― 2

Developmental 

Reproductive Effects

● DE71 (NHEERL) – Pubertal exposures

 Delay in puberty

 Effects on male organs

 Anti-androgenic in vitro – esp BDEs100, 47

● BDE-99 (Switzerland, Germany) – in 

utero exposures

 Delay in puberty

 Ovarian toxicity

 Male organ effects and decreased sperm

Developmental Neurotoxicity

● 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-47, 153, and 209

 Perinatal exposure – Delay in sensory motor development

 BDE 47, 153, 206, 208, 209

● BDE-99+PCB-52 – Mice (Sweden)

 Effects may be more than additive

Developmental Neurotoxicity of PBDEs

● 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

Pharmacokinetics of PBDEs

● 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

Other Ongoing PBDE

Health Effects Research

● 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

New Data on PBDE 47

● 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???
PBDEs: Toxicology Update

Linda S. Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Birnbaum ― 3

PK of BDE 99, 100, and 153

● Well absorbed

● Higher urinary elimination in mice 

than rats

● Urine elimination decreases as 

the number of bromine atoms 

increases

● BDE-99 is most metabolized

PBDEs in Human Samples

● 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

PBDE Toxicity

● Adult Mammalian 

Toxicity

 Hepatic enzyme induction 

and toxicity

• DBDE –

Hepatocarcinogen (high 

dose)

 Endocrine Disruptor

• 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

Potential Health Risk of PBDEs

● 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?

Big Questions

● Deca

 Toxicity?

 Breakdown products?

● Human variability

 Biological or exposure?

● Interactions with other PBTs

 PCBs? Hg?

● What next?

 HBCD

Special thanks to ...

● 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

... and all of my colleagues worldwide.
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics

William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine

Harris ⎯ 1

Omega-3 Fatty Acids: 3 Fatty Acids: 

The Basics 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

H3C COOH

C18:3 ω-3

ω-3 family

α-Linolenic

Flaxseed oil

Canola oil

Soybean oil

COOH

C20:5 ω-3 Eicosapentaenoic

EPA

H3C

COOH

C22:6 ω-3 Docosahexaenoic

DHA

H3C

Essential Fatty Acid Families Essential Fatty Acid Families

Oily fish

Fish oil capsules 

H3C

H3C

COOH

COOH

ω-6 family

C20:4 ω-6

C18:2 ω-6 Linoleic

Arachidonic

Thrombotic

Inflammatory

Corn oil

Safflower oil

Sunflower oil

Less thrombotic

Less inflammatory

Meat, eggs, 

brains

a-Linolenic Acid Conversion to EPA and DHA

• In adults, the conversion rate is 

less than 1% for ALA to EPA, 

and <0.01% to DHA

• No known need for ALA 

independent of its conversion to 

EPA/DHA

• Adequate EPA/DHA may 

eliminate the need for dietary 

ALA

• With low consumption of 

EPA/DHA, higher n-6 FA intake 

will inhibit conversion of ALA to 

EPA/DHA

α-Linolenic acid (18:3n-3)

Stearidonic acid (18:4n-3)

20:4n-3

⇑⇑ EPA (20:5n-3)

⇑ DPA (22:5n-3)

DHA (22:6n-3)

/

/

.

.

.

Metabolism of Metabolism of n-6 and n-3 PUFA -6 and n-3 PUFA

Linoleic acid (18:2n-6)

GLA (18:3n-6)

DGLA (20:3n-6)

Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6)

∆6-desaturase

Elongase

∆5-desaturase

a-Linolenic acid (18:3n-3)

SDA (18:4n-3)

20:4n-3 EPA DHA

∆6-desaturase

X

Faulty Assumptions Regarding Faulty Assumptions Regarding 

the n6/n3 Ratio

n6/n3

• That ALA is physiologically equivalent 

to EPA and DHA

• 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
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics

William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine

Harris ⎯ 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

FA/d (g)

LA

ALA

EPA+DHA

Multiple Ways to Achieve a n-6/n-3 

Ratio of 10

22

n6/n3

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 1g 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 (RDA for 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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Farmed Wild Farmed Wild

Atlantic Salmon Rainbow Trout

g FA/100 g svg

EPA

DHA

Sum 

Blanchet, C., et al., 2005. Lipids 40:529-531. *p<0.05; **p<0.005 vs. wild

* **

**

**

N=46 N=10 N=37 N=10

Raw, skinless fillets analyzed; fat content varied from 1.3-16 g/100 flesh in both 

farmed and wild AS 

Omega-3 Fatty Acid Content of 3 Fatty Acid Content of 

Wild vs. Farmed Fish

“All of the pills 

contained roughly 

as much EPA and 

DHA as their 

labels promised. 

None showed 

evidence of 

spoilage, and 

none contained 

significant 

amounts of 

mercury, the 

worrisome PCBs, 

or dioxin.”

Consumer Reports, July 2003
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics

William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine

Harris ⎯ 3

How REAL Men Get Their Omega-3s First Question: First Question:

Will increased omega-3 fatty acid 

intakes reduce risk for heart 

disease?

Next Question: Next Question: 

What blood level of omega-3 fatty 

acids is associated with the lowest 

risk for death from CHD?

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

3.3% 4.3% 5.0% 6.5%

Risk of Primary Cardiac Arrest and Risk of Primary Cardiac Arrest and 

the RBC EPA+DHA

Risk after adjustment for age, smoking, family history 

of MI/SCD, fat intake, HTN, DM, PA, Ht, Wt, Edu.

Midrange RBC EPA+DHA by Quartile

*

*

*

* p<0.05 vs. Q1

Adapted from Siscovick, 1995. JAMA.

Odds ratio

3% 4.4% 5.1% 8.2%

90% 

reduction 

in risk

A measure of the amount of EPA+DHA in red 

blood cell membranes expressed as the percent 

of total fatty acids

Omega-3 Index 3 Index

COOH

C22:6 ω-3 Docosahexaenoic

H3C COOH

C20:5 ω-3 Eicosapentaenoic

H3C

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%

Greatest protection

Least protection

GISSI-P2:≈ 9-10%

CHS3: 8.8% 

DART4: ≈ 8-9%

SCIMO5: 8.3%

5 epi. studies: ≈ 8%

PHS6: 7.3%

Seattle7 4% : 6.5%

8%

PHS6: 3.9%

Seattle7: 3.3%

Omega-3 Index

Stavanger1: > 9.5%: 

No added protection?

6%

10%

1Nilsen, 2001. AJCN 74:50; 2Marchioli, 2002. Circulation 105:1897; 3Mozaffarian, 2003. Circulation 107:1372; 4Burr, 1989. Lancet 2:757; 5von 

Schacky, 1999. Ann Intern Med 130:554; 6Albert, 2002. NEJM 346:1113; 7Siscovick, 1995. JAMA 274:1363.

8.1%

SCIMO5: 3.4%

Harris and von Schacky, 2004. Preventive Medicine.

Omega-3 Index Risk Zones 3 Index Risk Zones

Relative Risk for Death from CHD

0% 4% 8% 10%

Percent of EPA+DHA in RBC

Undesirable Intermediate Desirable 

Harris and von Schacky, 2004. Preventive Medicine.
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The Basics

William S. Harris, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine

Harris ⎯ 4
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 1

Adult Health Benefits

of Fish Consumption

Eric B. Rimm, Sc.D.

Associate Professor

Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition 

Harvard School of Public Health

Simopoulos, AP., 1999. Am J Clin Nutr 70:560-9S. 

The Traditional Diet-Heart Paradigm

Total Fat,

Saturated Fat

Serum Total and

LDL Cholesterol

Coronary Heart

Disease

• Obesity

• Diabetes

• Atherosclerosis

• Acute coronary 

syndromes

• Sudden death

• Other arrhythmias

• Heart failure

• Stroke

Measured

lipid levels

Dietary habits

Modifying

factors

Lipid

function

• Inflammation

• Insulin sensitivity

• Endothelial function

• Satiety & weight gain

• Blood pressure

• Arrhythmia

• Autonomic tone

• Thrombosis

Modifying

Factors

A More Complete Diet-Heart Paradigm

Mozaffarian, D., 2005. Curr Atheroscler Rep.

n-3

Contaminants

Genetics

n-6 

Oxidants

Other Health Outcomes

• Asthma

• Depression

• Diabetes

• Prostate cancer

• Rheumatoid arthritis

• Cognitive function

Dietary n-3 Fatty Acids and Sudden Death

OR (95% CI) n-3 Fatty acid

intake

No seafood: 34 19

Seafood (N-3):

I 92 91

II 77 101

III 45 94

IV 47 95

0.25 0.75 0.5 1.0

Cases

n=295

Controls

n=398

Risk reduction

Quartile Mean

mg/d

30

200

470

100

Siscovick, D.S., 1995. JAMA.
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 2

Membrane n-3 Fatty Acids and Sudden Death

OR (95% CI) n-3 FA

quartile

I 36 25

II 21 24

III 15 26

IV 10 33

0.5 1.0

Cases

n=82

Controls

n=108

Risk Reduction

n-3 FA

(% total)

3%

4%

5%

7%

0.25 0.75

Siscovick, D.S., 1995. JAMA. 

Dietary n-3 Fatty Acids and Sudden Death

Quartile RR (95% CI)

Referent 9 7,715

I 40 65,223

II 19 56,083

III 37 61,936

IV 28 62,820

0.25 0.75 0.5 1.0

Cases Person-yrs

Risk reduction

0.3-2.6

4.9-7.3

≥7.4

2.7-4.8

Range of n-3 

Intake, g/mo

1.25

<0.3

Albert, C.M., 1998. JAMA.

Blood n-3 Fatty Acids and Sudden Death

Quartile OR (95% CI)

I 3.6 2.1 - 4.3

II 4.8 4.3 - 5.2

III 5.6 5.2 - 6.1

IV 6.9 6.1 - 10.2

0.25 0.5 1.0

Mean Range

Risk reduction

1.25

n-3 Fatty acid levels (% total)

0.75

Albert, C.M., 2002. NEJM.

Meta-Analysis of Fish Intake and CHD Death

in 13 Cohorts Totaling 222,364 Individuals

He, K., 2004. Circulation.

• DART, 1989 

Fatty fish intake 1-2/week → CHD death ↓ 32%, p<0.01

• GISSI-Prevenzione, 1999

Fish oil supplement 1 g/day → CV death ↓ 32%, p<0.001

SCD ↓ 45%, p<0.001

• Burr et al., 2003

Fatty fish intake 1-2/week

or fish oil capsules → CHD death ↑ 26%, p=0.05

Randomized Controlled Trials

Lancet, 1989; Lancet, 1999; Eur J Clin Nutr, 2003.

• Nonfatal myocardial infarction

• Atrial fibrillation

• Congestive heart failure

Other Cardiovascular Outcomes
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 3

Calo, L.J., 2005. Am Coll Cardiol.

Randomized Controlled Trial Among 160 Patients 

Undergoing Coronary Bypass Surgery

• Nonfatal myocardial infarction

• Atrial fibrillation 

• Congestive heart failure

Other Cardiovascular Outcomes

Tuna/Other Fish and Congestive Heart Failure

Servings of fish OR*(95% CI)

<1 / mo 120 4,051

1-3 / mo 228 9,751

1-2 / wk 441 20,319

3-4 / wk 131 6,930

5+ / wk 35 1,878

0.25 0.75 0.5 1.0

Cases Person-yrs

Risk reduction

Mozaffarian, D., 2005. J Am Coll Cardiol.

Potential Mechanisms

• Direct anti-arrhythmic

• Vascular resistance / blood pressure

• Heart rate / autonomic tone

• Left ventricular efficiency

• Anti-inflammatory effects

• Endothelial cell function

Fish Intake and Cardiovascular 

Health – Potential Mechanisms

Meta-Analysis of 36 Randomized Controlled

Trials of Fish Oil and Blood Pressure

Among adults > age 45 years

*p<0.01 

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

Systolic BP Diastolic BP

BP

reduction

with fish 

oil intake * 

* 

Geleijnse, J.M., 2002. J Hypertens.
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 4

Meta-Analysis of 30 Randomized Controlled

Trials of Fish Oil and Heart Rate

*p<0.001 

Mozaffarian, D., 2005 (in press). Circulation.

-3

-2

-1

0

HR

reduction

with fish 

oil intake

* 

Heart rate

Among individuals with baseline HR ≥ 69 bpm.

Type of Fish Meal /

Preparation Method

Tuna/other fish intake: r = 0.55, p<0.001 

Fried fish intake: r = 0.04, p=0.78

Tuna/other fish = Fatty (oily) fish

Fried fish = Lean (white) fish

Correlations with Plasma 

Phospholipid EPA + DHA

Tuna/Other Fish Intake and Arrhythmic Death

Servings of fish OR*(95% CI)

<1 / mo 22 3,324

1-3 / mo 51 8,156

1 / wk 35 7,442

2 / wk 23 5.683

3+ / wk 17 11,593

0.25 0.75 0.5 1.0

Cases Person-yrs

Risk Reduction

Mozaffarian, D., 2003. Circulation.

Fried Fish Intake and Arrhythmic Death

Servings of fish OR*(95% CI)

<1 / mo 40 11,969

1-3 / mo 73 17,177

1 / wk 11 1,804

2+ / wk 23 4,725

0.5 1.5 1.0 2.0

Cases Person-yrs

Risk increase

Mozaffarian, D., 2003. Circulation.

Fish type: Low in n-3 fatty acids

Frying: Trans-fatty acids

Other fats

Oxidation products

Fried Fish – Unfavorable 

Balance of Benefit vs. Harm?
Adult Health Benefits of Fish Consumption

Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health

Rimm ⎯ 5

Other Contaminants

• Mercury

• Dioxin

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

• Other Pesticides

Fish intake

CV risk

?

CV risk

Metabolism of n-3 and n-6 PUFAs

AA=arachidonic acid, ALA=alpha-linolenic acid, EPA=eicosapentaenoic acid,

ETA=eicosatetraenoic acid, DGLA=dihomogamma linolenic acid, GLA=gamma linolenic acid,

LA=linoleic acid, LT=leukotriene, PG=prostaglandin, SDA=stearidonic (octadecatetranoic) acid 

n-3 PUFAs:

n-6 PUFAs:

ALA SDA

LA GLA

ETA

DGLA

EPA

AA

delta-6 delta-5

PGE3

PGE2

LTB4

–

–

.

18:3

0.35 0.43 0.50 0.59 0.72

p trend < 0.0001

Odds 

ratio

N=964

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

1.25

1.50

Quintiles of adipose tissue a-linolenic

Median

Risk of Myocardial Infarction by Quintile of

α-Linolenic in Adipose Tissue in Costa Rica

Multivariate 

model

Baylin et al., 2003. Circulation.

0.35 0.52 0.67 0.83 1.02

p trend < 0.0001

Odds 

ratio

Risk of Myocardial Infarction by Quintile of

α-Linolenic in Adipose Tissue in Costa Rica

N=3294

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

1.25

1.50

Quintiles of adipose tissue a-linolenic

Median

Multivariate 

model

Adjusted for age (5-year categories), BMI (quintiles), smoking (5 categories), physical activity (quintiles), 

history of diabetes, hypertension or hypercholesterolemia, aspirin use, alcohol use (quintiles), and intakes 

of protein, SFA, MUFA, trans-fatty acids, dietary fiber, EPA+DHA, and calories (each in quintiles). 

EPA+DHA and ALA

Among men with EPA+DHA intake ≥100 mg/d (n=38,367) 

Among men with EPA+DHA intake <100 mg/d (n=7,355)

0

0.5

1

Sudden death Nonfatal MI Total CHD

RR for

each 1 g/d

ALA intake

P interaction

=0.006

P interaction

=0.003

*p<0.01

* *

Mozaffarian D., and E.B. Rimm, 2004. Circulation.

Conclusions

1. Dietary habits likely affect cardiovascular health and many 

other health outcomes via a wide range of mechanisms and 

pathways.

2. Intake of fish (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 of fish consumed or the preparation method may 

alter risk.

6. In the absence of fish, n-3 from other sources reduces CHD 

risk.
DHA and Infant Development

Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center

Carlson ⎯ 1

DHA 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 DHA found in foods

 DHA is a “conditionally essential” 

nutrient for the developing infant 

(RCTs)

 DHA may be equally or more important 

for the developing fetus (1 RCT/several 

observational studies/animal models)

Key Points (cont.)

 Based on human milk DHA, U.S. women’s 

DHA intake is among the lowest in the 

world 

 The best way to increase DHA intake to 

the fetus and breast fed infant is to 

increase DHA intake of their mothers

 The good news is that “clean” sources 

with DHA (e.g., fish oil, algal oil, high-DHA 

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

DHA Dietary Sources: Fatty 

Fish, Meat, Eggs

3 oz white tuna, canned in water 535

1 large egg, hard-boiled 19

2 pieces chicken, fried 37

3 oz tuna salad 47

12 large shrimp, steamed 96

3 oz crab, steamed 196

3 oz smoked salmon (lox) 227

3 oz pink salmon filet, baked/broiled 638

Food DHA (mg)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, 2003. USDA Nutrient 

Database for Standard Reference. Release 16. Nutrient Data Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.nai.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp. Accessed February 9, 2004.

N-6 and N-3 Fatty Acids

Are Essential Nutrients 

LA GLA DHGLA ARA DPA

18:2n-6 18:3n-6 20:3n6 20:4n-6 22:5n-6

ALA EPA DHA

18:3n-3 20:5n-3 22:6n-3

Endoplasmic reticulum Peroxisome
DHA and Infant Development

Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center

Carlson ⎯ 2

Human Brain DHA Accumulation

Martinez, M., 1992. J Pediatr 20:S129-S138.

Post menstrual age, wk

n-3 LCPUFA, mol/FB

DHA

DPA

EPA

Some Effects of Lower Brain DHA 

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 

DHA and Infant Development

Pre-Term Infants

 Uauy et al.

 Carlson et al. (3)

 Fink et al.

 O’Connor et al.

 Clandinin et al.

Term Infants

 Makrides et al. (2)

 Carlson et al. (2+)

 Auestad et al.

 Willatts et al.

 Agostoni et al.

 Clausen et al.

 Birch et al. (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.

Convert from Convert from 

precursor

Highly variable

estimated 0.2-0.4% conversion

α-Linolenic acid

⇓

DHA

Preformed

From human milk

or DHAsupplemented 

infant formula

Preformed

In utero

Where and When Do Infants 

Obtain DHA? U.S. Dietary DHA Intake Is Low

Adult Women 220 mg 61 mg

Adult Men 220 mg 78 mg

300 mg 54 mg

Pregnant/

Lactating Women

Average Daily 

DHA Intake

Recommended 

Daily DHA Intake*

* Expert panel convened by NIH/ISSFAL.

Simopoulos, A.P., et al., 1999. J Am Coll Nutr 18:487-489.

Benisek, D., et al., 1999. J Am Coll Nutr 18:543-544.

Benisek, D., et al., 2000. Obstet Gynecol 95:77S-78S.
DHA and Infant Development

Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center

Carlson ⎯ 3

Human Milk DHA* Is Highly Variable

Diet/Location % DHA

Sudan 0.07

U.S. Women 0.12

Pastoral China 0.14

Netherlands 0.19

Germany 0.23

Australia 0.26

France 0.32

Spain 0.34

Nigeria 0.34

Israel 0.37

Norway 0.45

Rural China 0.68

Urban China 0.82

Japan 1.00

Marine China 2.78 *Reflects intake of DHA Makrides M, et al., 1994. Am J Clin Nutr 60:189-194 (mean milk DHA is 0.26% DHA in Australia). Brain cortex DHA, wt%

Age at Death, wk

Postnatal Diet with DHA Positively 

Influences Cortex DHA Level

 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.

Evidence that Prenatal DHA 

Exposure Is Positively Associated 

with Infant/Child Development

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

Low DHA High DHA

Latency to turn (sec)

Colombo et al., 2004. Child Devel.

Latency to Turn to Television 

Distracter at 18 Months (p<.05)

30

35

40

45

50

55

Low DHA High DHA

Duration of Looking (sec)

Colombo et al., 2004. Child Dev.

Duration of Looking at the 

Distracter at 18 Months (p<.05)

Levant et al., 2004. Behav. Brain Res.

Basal Locomotor Activity in Rats 

in Relation to Modest Reductions 

in Brain DHA
DHA and Infant Development

Susan E. Carlson, University of Kansas Medical Center

Carlson ⎯ 4

Cortical Auditory Responses in 

Adult Rats in Relation to Dietary 

Treatment

Radel et al., 2003. Neuroscience Abst.

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

Olsen FOTIP Carlson

Control LC-Omega-3

Gestation Length (days)

*

*

*

Increased Gestation Length with 

DHA: A Comparison Among Studies

 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.

 Experimental studies of DHA-supplemented pregnant 

women and their infants/children are planned or 

underway.

Conclusions
DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits

for Neuropsychological Function

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Schoeny ― 1

DHA and Contaminants in Fish:

Balancing Risks and Benefits for 

Neuropsychological Function

DHA and Contaminants in Fish:

Balancing Risks and Benefits for 

Neuropsychological Function

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish

September 2005

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish

September 2005

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.

• MeHg affects multiple developmental processes in brain

• Large literature in rodents and monkeys documented 

adverse developmental effects

• Three longitudinal prospective studies and half a 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.

Evidence for Adverse Effects

of Methylmercury Dose-Response for Mercury

• U.S. EPA defined effect level based on NAS 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 Fg/L 

mercury in cord blood (or 34 Fg/L in maternal blood*).

• U.S. EPA calculated a RfD using BMDL and 

uncertainty factors: 0.1 Fg/kg bw/day.

• But no evidence of a threshold within ranges of body 

burdens of epidemiological studies.

Exposure to Mercury in U.S. 

Women

percentile 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th

blood Hg 0.20 0.40 0.90 2.00 4.90 7.10

3.4

EPA RfD

0.68

Lowest exposures

in Faroe study

34

Defined effect

NHANES 1999-2000, 1709 2000, 1709 &16-49 years old ( 49 years old (Fg/L)

Four-year data (1999–2002); 5.7% women above 5.8 Fg/l.

Evidence for Adverse Effects 

of PCBs • Multiple experimental studies in rodents and 

monkeys: adverse effects of developmental 

exposure

• 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

• Effects observed in humans and monkeys at same 

blood concentrations of PCBs.
DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits

for Neuropsychological Function

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Schoeny ― 2

Exposure to PCBs in U.S. Women

PCB congener 153, marker congener, ng/g lipid

 percentile 

 5th 50th 95th

NHANES 

1999-2000 

1,258 women 

20 and older 

<29 <29 122

Oswego 

1991-1994 

Umbilical cord 

blood 

10 40 120

Results from Oswego study appear monotonic 

when data are divided into tertiles.

T-3 Fatty Acids and Infant 

Development

• Susan Carlson just discussed

• At least 12 clinical trials of infants fed formula 

plus or minus DHA

– 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 DHA 

Associated with Prenatal Exposure?

• Three studies report beneficial effects on visual 

development associated with various measures 

(breast feeding, DHA, ingestion of oily fish)

– DHA 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 DHA 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 DHA 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 al., 

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.
DHA and Contaminants in Fish: Balancing Risks and Benefits

for Neuropsychological Function

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Schoeny ― 3

Gm Fish for Maternal Ingestion

of 1.0 gm of DHA/day

DHA 

(g/100g) 

gm/day to get 

1.0 gm DHA

Shrimp 0.14 714 

Canned light tuna 0.22 454 

Catfish 0.12 833 

Salmon average 

 Atlantic 

 Chinook 

1.10 

1.46 

0.72 

91 

Contamination in Selected Fish

Hg (Fg/g) PCBs (Fg/kg)

Shrimp nd low? 

Canned light tuna 0.16 45 

Canned albacore tuna 0.37 ? 

Catfish 0.05 25 

Salmon 

 Puget Sound 

 Alaska 

 Chile 

 Scotland 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

50 

3-90 

10 

70 

Maternal Ingestion of Contaminants 

Associated with 1.0 gm/day DHA

Hg μg/kg/day PCB μg/kg/day

Shrimp low ? 

Canned light tuna 1.25 0.35 

Canned albacore 0.97 ? 

Catfish 0.72 0.07 

Salmon 

 Alaska 

 Puget Sound 

 Chile 

0.08 

0.009-0.141 

0.078 

0.016 

U.S. EPA RfD 0.10 0.02 

Inuit Study

• Prospective study of neuropsychological effects 

in children (Després et al., 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 breast feeding 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.
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes

Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Daniels ⎯ 1

Fish Consumption and 

Reproductive and Developmental 

Outcomes

Julie L. Daniels, M.P.H., Ph.D.

Departments of Epidemiology and Maternal and Child Health 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish

Birth Outcomes &

Neurodevelopment

PBDE

mercury 

PCB

n-3 FAs

minerals

protein

H1: Fatty acids (FA) modulate prostaglandin production 

associated with labor onset. 

GA BW BW/GA Other

Denmark – fish: ↑↑↑ ↓PT, ↓LBW

Faroes – fish, whale: ↑ ↓↑DHA ↑Hg

Great Lakes – fish: Ø, Ø Ø, ↓ ↑PCB, DDE

NY Anglers – fish duration: Ø Ø ln, ↑head

Iceland – fish: ↑ ↑ln, ↑head 

(no/lo grp)

Mass – fish: Ø ↓↓ ↑DHA

Fish Æ Reproductive Outcomes

Olsen, 2002. BMJ; Grandjean, 2001. J Epi; Weisskopf, 2004. Env Res; Buck, 2003. Envr Hlth; Thorsdottir, 2004. AJE.

H1: Contaminants insult brain development 

H2: FAs contribute to structure and function of brain

Seychelles: High intake of fish low in mercury and PCBs: 

↑most developmental tests, ↓ Boston naming

Faroes: Whale high in mercury and PCB: 

↓ motor, language, memory

New Zealand: High fish intake: ↓ language, achievement, 

motor, intelligence 

Fish Æ Developmental Outcomes

• 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 of fish

– Confounding by

• Other contaminants

• Lifestyle/social factors

• Beneficial nutrients

0

25

50

75

100

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

verbal IQ score

cumulative frequency 

distribution (%)

Verbal IQ Scores in Subjects 

with High and Low Lead Levels

After Needleman 1982, 1994

high

lead

low

lead
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes

Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Daniels ⎯ 2

Neurogenesis

Proliferation & Migration

Programmed Cell 

Death

Conception Birth

Differentiation & Synaptogenesis

Myelination

embryonic fetal postnatal

Neurodevelopment

The Role of Fatty Acids

in Neurodevelopment

• Long chain n-3 fatty acids, specifically DHA, 

constitute 20-25% of total fatty acids in neuronal 

membranes. Sufficient DHA is needed for proper 

brain development (structure and function).

• Mom’s circulating DHA increases through 

gestation, especially during the 3rd trimester.

• Infant brain DHA accumulates during 3rd

trimester; is related to mom’s dietary DHA intake.

Mercury: Mother Æ Fetus

Maternal

Plasma RBC

Placenta

Placental Barrier

Plasma

RBC

Brain

Liver

Kidney

Gut

Gray 1995

Birth Outcomes &

Neurodevelopment

PBDE

mercury 

PCB

n-3 FAs

protein

The ALSPAC Study

Large population-based study in the United Kingdom. 

Data on fish intake during pregnancy examined by three analyses:

• Fish, DHA, 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
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes

Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Daniels ⎯ 3

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

• Other fish – salmon, sardines, mackerel, tuna, herring, kippers, 

trout, pilchards

Frequency

• Rarely or never

• Once every 2 weeks

• 1-3 times per week

• 4-7 times per week

• > Once per day >4 times per week

Outcomes

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

Adjusted for: Maternal age, education, prenatal dental treatment, smoking, alcohol, HOME 

score, paternal education. Child’s age, sex, birth order, breastfeeding

Maternal Characteristics (% of 7,421)

Age (mean yrs) 29

Education

Low 23

Moderate 62

Degree 16

Smoke 15

Alcohol 56

Dental treatment 90

Breastfed 67

Fish Intake

Rarely/never 12

Once per 2 wk 18

1-3 times per wk 31

4+ times per wk 39

Oily fish 62

White fish 84

Child fish intake

6 months 44

12 months 81

Prenatal Oily Fish Intake 

Correlated with DHA Level

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Never-Rarely Once per 2 weeks At least once per week

ALSPAC Study, Williams, C., 2001. Am J Clin Nutr.

n=2057 1525 1151

Fish intake

DHA % of 

total red 

blood cell 

fatty acid
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes

Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Daniels ⎯ 4

0.008

0.009

0.01

0.011

0.012

0.013

0.014

0.015

0.016

0.017

1234

μg/g Mercury

Prenatal Fish Intake Correlated with the 

Geometric Mean Mercury Level in Cord Tissue 

ALSPAC, Daniels, J., 2004. Epidemiology.

Mercury level

Geo. Mean=0.01 μg/g

N=1054

0 0.5 1-3 4+

Frequency fish eaten weekly

Mercury Levels and MCDI 

Vocabulary Score

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

. <25th 25-75 >75th

Percentile of mercury concentration

Adjusted Mean Score

ALSPAC, Daniels, J., 2004. Epidemiology.

Trend

β= 6.1 +24.1 p=0.8

N~1054

Frequency of Low Birth Weight, Preterm, and 

Intrauterine Growth Retardation by Frequency 

of Maternal Prenatal Fish Intake

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

none low medium high

LBW Preterm IUGR

%

ALSPAC, Rogers, 2004.

p=0.06 p=0.7 p=<0.001

Fish intake

N=10,040

Prenatal Fish Intake and MCDI 

Vocabulary Score

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

. 0 0.5 1-3 4+

Frequency fish eaten weekly

Adjusted Mean Score

1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 OR low score

0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 0.7-1.2 95% CI

ALSPAC, Daniels, J., 2004. Epidemiology.

Trend

β= 0.0003, p=0.9

N~7400

Prenatal Fish Intake and MCDI 

Social Score

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

. 0 0.5 1-3 4+

Frequency fish eaten weekly

Adjusted Mean Score

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 OR low score

0.6-1.1 0.5-0.8 0.5-0.9 95% CI

ALSPAC, Daniels, J., 2004. Epidemiology.

Trend

β= -0.2, p=.02

Child’s Fish Intake and MCDI 

Receptive Language

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

. No Yes No Yes

Child intake fish weekly by

6m 12m

Adjusted Mean Score

1.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 OR low score

0.8-1.1 0.5-0.8 95% CI

ALSPAC, Daniels, J., 2004. Epidemiology.
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes

Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Daniels ⎯ 5

Child’s Fish Intake and MCDI

Social Score 

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

. No Yes No Yes

Child intake fish weekly by 

6 mo 12 mo

Adjusted Mean Score

0.8 0.7 OR low score

0.7-1.0 0.6-0.9 95% CI

ALSPAC, Daniels, J., 2004. Epidemiology.

Prenatal Fish Intake and Denver

Total Score

35

36

37

38

39

40

. 0 0.5 1-3 4+

Frequency fish eaten weekly

Adjusted Mean Score

1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 OR low score

0.7-1.3 0.5-1.0 0.6-1.1 95% CI

ALSPAC – J Daniels, Epidemiology 2004

Trend

β= 0.02, p=0.03

Summary: Maternal Fish Intake 

May Be Beneficial When Mercury 

Levels Are Low

↑ Gestation & birth weight, ↓IUGR, LBW – I Rogers, 2004

↑ Maternal circulating DHA – C Williams, 2001

↑ Umbilical cord mercury – J Daniels, 2004

↑ Language communication, 15 mo – J Daniels, 2004

↑ Visual acuity, 3.5 yrs 

[oily fish (OR1.6), breastfed (OR 2.8)] – C Williams, 2001

ALSPAC study

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.

Conclusions

• Intake of fish, 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 of fish 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 DHA & mercury
Fish Consumption and Reproductive and Developmental Outcomes

Julie L. Daniels, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Daniels ⎯ 6

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

• Child’s cognitive and behavioral development at age 3, 12, & 24 

months

• FA and PBDE levels in 3-month milk samples

Analysis

• 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 between the PBDE levels in milk and child’s

neurodevelopment. 

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 (β=0.5, p=0.46) 

– Birth weight (β= - 0.8, p=0.36) 

• Expect results for PBDE and neurodevelopment 

in 3 yrs

Challenges for All Observational Studies

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 population

 Source, type, timing, and frequency of fish intake

 Dose of contaminants or nutrients

 Combinations of contaminants

Subtle effects may be dwarfed by random or systematic error

 Confounding by SES

 Non-fish eaters differ from fish eaters

 Exposure misclassification

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 ≠ 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
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks

Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies

Yaktine ⎯ 1

Nutrient Relationships 

in Seafood

Selections to Balance Benefits 

and Risks

The National Academies

Washington, DC

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

 National Academy of Sciences

 National Academy of Engineering

 Institute of Medicine

 National Research Council

The Institute of Medicine

 As an independent scientific adviser, the 

Institute of Medicine strives to provide 

advice that is unbiased, based on 

evidence, and grounded in science.

 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 Academy Process
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks

Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies

Yaktine ⎯ 2

 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).

Public comments can be made through the 

“Current Projects” link on the National 

Academies Web site.

“Nutrient Relationships in Seafood”

Sponsored by:

 U.S. Department of Commerce

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

 National Marine Fisheries Service 

Background for the Study

 Seafood contributes a variety of nutrients 

to the diet

Protein, calcium, iodine, copper, zinc, 

omega-3 fatty acids.

 Some nutrients may affect bioavailability, toxicodynamics, and target 

organ transport of contaminants.

 Contamination of marine resources is a 

concern for consumers.

 Some population groups have been 

identified as being at greater risk from 

exposure to compounds in seafood.

 Consumers, particularly those at 

increased risk who include seafood in 

their diets, need authoritative information 

to inform their choices.

 Assess evidence on availability of 

specific nutrients in seafood compared to 

other food sources.

 Evaluate consumption patterns among 

the U.S. population.

Study Objectives
Nutrient Relationships in Seafood: Selections to Balance Benefits and Risks

Ann L. Yaktine, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies

Yaktine ⎯ 3

 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.

 November 2004 – Committee appointments

 February 2005 – First meeting

 April 2005 – Public workshop

 October 2005 – Draft report

 March 2006 – Release report

Projected Timeline  Malden 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

 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
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School

Oken ⎯ 1

Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair 

Mercury, and Infant Cognition

in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, M.D., M.P.H.

Department of Ambulatory Care 

and Prevention

Harvard Medical School and

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care

Outline

• Fish consumption during pregnancy

• Fish, mercury, and cognition 

• Future directions

Fish and Seafood Are 

Primary Sources of Elongated 

n-3 FA

• Contain high amounts of elongated n-3 FA 

(EPA and DHA) 

• Fatty fish in particular have the highest levels 

of n-3 FA

• Higher levels of EPA and DHA among those 

who eat more fish 

– Also higher levels in cord blood and breast milk

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 in 

eastern MA

• Recruitment 4/1999 - 7/2002

• Ongoing follow-up through age 5 years.
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School

Oken ⎯ 2

Maternal n-3 FA Intake and 

Pregnancy Outcomes – Viva

• No association with preeclampsia or 

gestational hypertension

Oken et al., 2005. Circulation 111(4):e40.

• No association with gestation length or 

risk of pre-term.

Oken et al., 2004. Am J Epidemiology 160(8):774-783.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Fetal growth 

z value

1st

quartile

2nd

quartile

3rd

quartile

4th

quartile

(referent)

1st trimester DHA+EPA intake

*Adjusted for 

maternal age, height, 

BMI, weight gain, 

race/ethnicity, 

smoking, education, 

gravidity, infant sex

Oken et al., 2004. Am J Epidemiology 160:774-83

Maternal n-3 Fatty Acid Intake Inversely 

Associated with Fetal Growth

n-3 FA and Infant Cognition

(Prenatal Data)

• DHA 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)

n-3 FA and Infant Cognition

(Postnatal Data)

• Breastfed babies ‘smarter’ in a number of 

studies

– Breast milk contains DHA; formula did not

– (Caveat about sociodemographic confounding)

• 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 

cognitive development?

But ...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).
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School

Oken ⎯ 3

Fish and Cognition

• Unclear whether maternal fish consumption 

during pregnancy is on balance beneficial or 

harmful for offspring cognition

– Limited data about associations of fish intake and child 

development (one exception is Daniels et al., 2004)

– Many populations in the United States not at high risk 

from local contamination

– Many women in the United States do not rely on fish as 

primary source of protein, unlike island populations.

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 Mercury 

Advisory Influence Pregnant 

Women’s Diets?

Oken, E, K.P. Kleinman, W.E. 

Berland, S.R. Simon, J.W. RichEdwards, and M.W. Gillman. 2003. 

Decline in fish consumption among 

pregnant women after a national 

mercury advisory. Obstet Gynecol

102(2):346-51.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02

Month surveyed

Mean servings per month

Decline in Fish Consumption After 2001 

Federal Mercury Advisory

4 fish combined

canned tuna

dark meat fish

Pre-advisory Post-advisory

Does Fish Consumption Harm 

or Benefit Infant Cognition?

Oken, E., R.O. Wright, K.P. 

Kleinman, D. Bellinger, C.J. 

Amarasiriwardena, H. Hu, J.W. 

Rich-Edwards, and M.W. 

Gillman. 2005. Maternal fish 

consumption, hair mercury, and 

infant cognition in a US cohort. 

Environmental Health 

Perspectives (in press). 

“With all these omega-3 fatty acids, 

you’d think I’d feel better.”

Maternal Hair Collection

• 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 trimester fish 

intake and 6-month infant cognition.
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School

Oken ⎯ 4

Maternal Fish Intake

• Second trimester SFFQ, administered ~28 

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.

6-month cognitive test: VRM 6-month cognitive test: VRM

Outcome: % of time spent looking at novel stimulus

Correlated with later IQ

Mean score in Viva = 60, range = 10-90

Participant Characteristics

n=135 Mother/Child Pairs

59 (56, 62)

63 (58, 68)

80

20

College graduate

Not college graduate

60 (57, 63)

61 (51, 70)

92

8

Married or cohabitating

Single

60 (56, 63)

61 (54, 67)

82

18

White

Nonwhite

60 (51, 68)

61 (57, 65)

59 (52, 67)

16

53

31

<30 years

30-34 years

≥ 35 years

Mothers Percent VRM score (95% CI)

Participant Characteristics

54 (47, 62)

60 (53, 67)

61 (57, 66)

19

23

58

Breastfed < 2 months

2-4 months

≥ 5 months

53 (28, 70)

60 (57, 63)

59 (49, 69)

2

85

13

SGA (<10th percentile)

AGA (10th–90th percentile)

LGA (> 90th percentile)

65 (50, 79)

58 (51, 65)

61 (57, 65)

58 (50, 65)

4

22

54

19

<37 weeks gestation

37-38 weeks

39-40 weeks

≥ 41 weeks

59 (55, 62)

61 (56, 66)

51

49

Male

Female

Children Percent VRM score (95% CI)
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School

Oken ⎯ 5

Fish and Mercury in Viva

n=135 Mother/Child Pairs

• Fish (maternal second trimester total 4 

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 ppm

– 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% CI 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 at testing

• Analysis

– Linear regression.

Change in VRM score

Mercury* – -4.0 (-10.0, 2.0)

Maternal hair 

mercury at 

delivery 

(per ppm)

Maternal second 

trimester 

fish intake 

(per svg/wk)

Fish and mercury*

Fish *

4.0 (1.3, 6.7) -7.5 (-13.7, -1.2)

2.8 (0.2, 5.4) –

* Adjusted for maternal age, race, education, marital status; and 

infant sex, gestational age, fetal growth, breastfeeding, age at

testing.

Mean VRM Score

by Fish Intake and Hg Level

55

(n=2)

72

(n=7)

>2 weekly 

fish servings

<= 2 weekly 

fish servings

53

(n=12)

60

(n=114)

Hair mercury 

> 1.2 ppm

Hair mercury 

<= 1.2 ppm

Unadjusted 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)

• Æ Moms should eat fish during pregnancy, 

but choose ones with low Hg (and 

presumably high n-3 fatty acids).
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School

Oken ⎯ 6

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 of 

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?”

Questions?

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02

Month surveyed

Mean servings per month

shellfish

white meat fish

Pre-advisory Post-advisory

Maternal Dietary Patterns

• 4 fish questions constitute

– 96% of EPA intake

– 86% of DHA intake

• Project Viva women who ate more fish 

while pregnant are more likely to be:

– Black or Asian

– Older

– College graduates

Fish and Elongated n-3 PUFA

Intake Among Project Viva Moms 

DHA+EPA

(g/day)

Total fish 

(servings/month)

0.02 (0-0.05)

0.09 (0.06-0.12)

0.18 (0.12-0.24)

0.36 (0.24-2.53)

0

3.1 (2-4)

6.9 (6-8)

15.8 (10-96)

Quartile 1 (lowest)

Quartile 2

Quartile 3

Quartile 4 (highest)

First trimester diet Mean (range)

Oken et al., 2004. AJE 160:774.
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort

Emily Oken, Harvard Medical School

Oken ⎯ 7

Fish and n-3 FA Intake Are 

Fairly Stable Across 

Trimesters

4.0

-0.9

% change

in mean

n-3 fatty acids 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.45

(% of energy)

Fish 1.7 (1.5) 1.7 (1.6) 0.61

(servings/ 

week)

Individual 

correlation

(r)

Mean (SD) 

intake 

2nd trimester

Mean (SD) 

intake 

1st trimester

Rifas-Shiman et al., 2005. PPE (in press).

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.

Hair Hg and Development

5/26 tests showed 

harm if hair Hg>6 

ppm

73/1000 with>6.0 ppm

matched with 3 controls

New 237

Zealand

No effect on 

neurodevelopment

Mean 7.1 ppm (SD 2)

Range 0.9-28.5

Peru 131

1/46 endpoints to 

107 months

Mean 6.8 ppm (SD 4.5)

Range 0.5-26.7

Seychelles 779

Some lower test 

scores, less strong 

c/w cord blood

Mean 4.3 ppm

25th percentile - 2.6

75th percentile - 7.7

Faroes 917

Study N Hg exposure Outcomes

Maternal Hair Hg Levels

in the United States

Median 0.2 ppm 75% detectable

90th percentile 1.4 ppm

NHANES 702

(non-pregnant)

Mean 0.53 ppm range 80% detectable

<0.2-9.1, 

97th percentile 2.0

NJ 189

No association 

with Fagan test, 

but lower score 

with higher PCBs

Median 0.5 ppm

25th percentile 0.4, 

75th percentile 0.7

Lake Ontario 247

Study N Hg measures Other
“Eating Fish for Good Health”: A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 1

Motivation

• Sportfish focus on 

brochure

• Multiple brochures 

circulating

Methods

What Did We Learn?

• Multiple key informant and focus group tests

• Written in “easy to read” format

• Folks want commercial and sport-caught fish advice in 

one spot

• Folks pretty aware about mercury and omega-3 fatty 

acids

• Strong barriers to eating fish

• Everyone in the family needs to be addressed

Goals

• Focus on commercial fish

• Discuss health benefits

• Identify what TO DO, not what not to do

• Address barriers

• Deal with conflicting information, e.g., salmon

Tell Folks 

What to Do

• Identify fish 

“high” in 

omega-3 fatty 

acids and low 

in Hg

• Identify fish 

low in Hg

Limits

• Fish to avoid

• Fish to limit

• Advice for 

others
“Eating Fish for Good Health”: A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 2

• Low Hg fish

• Fish with 

limits

• Fish to avoid

SportCaught 

Fish

Barriers to

Behavior 

Change

• How to buy

• How to store

• How to cook 

fish

• What to eat at a 

restaurant

Barriers to

Behavior 

Change 

(cont.)

• Scheduling –

Model behavior

• Cost

• How large is a 

fish meal?

Barriers to

Behavior 

Change 

(cont.)

Commonly 

Consumed 

Fish

• Tuna

• Fish sticks

• Farm-raised 

fish

• Canned 

salmon

• Wild salmon

• Farm-raised 

salmon 

“advice”

Commonly 

Consumed 

Fish (cont.)
“Eating Fish for Good Health”: A Brochure Balancing Risks and Benefits

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 3

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?
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

David ⎯ 1

A Comprehensive Risk Framework A Comprehensive Risk Framework 

Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne

Tony Teharatats David

Water Quality Program Manager

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

Environment Division

2005 National Conference 

on Contaminants in Fish

2

Presentation Topic 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. 

3

Canada

NY

AKWESASNE

United States

Cornwall Cornwall

Quebec Ontario

Massena

New York

Raquette River

St Regis River

Grasse River

4

Mohawk Nation

Kahniakehaka (possessors of the flint) 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

Agriculture-, hunting-, and fishing-based culture

NY

5

Mohawks of Akwesasne

• Traditional government system

• Catholic mission (est. circa 1756)

• Tribal government (est. circa 1934)

• 12,000 residents

• 37,000 ac (U.S. ~15,000 ac)

• Growing economic development 

• Tribally owned casino Mike Galban © 2004

6
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

David ⎯ 2

7

Superfund sites: Superfund sites: 

NY

TM TM

TM

TM

8

Primary Pollutant of Concern: Primary Pollutant of Concern:

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Other contaminants

PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)

PCDD/DF (polychlorinated PCDD/DF (polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins/furans) dioxins/furans)

Phenyls

Cyanides Cyanides 

Aluminum Aluminum 

VOCs (volatile organic compounds) (volatile organic compounds)

Fluorine Fluorine 

Other organics

SRMT ED, 2001 Craig Arquette © 2005 10

11 12

NYS DOH Advisories 2002-2003

2. Unnamed bay

within reservation boundary

Consume no fish all Sp. Consume no fish all Sp.

1. Lower Grassse River

Consume no fish all Sp. Consume no fish all Sp.
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

David ⎯ 3

13

Conventional Risk Paradigm

Source

Four Basic Components of Physical Risk

Transport 

Media

Point 

Exposure

(uptake)

Toxicity

14

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

1. Broaden concept of risk:

• Direct

• Indirect

2. Cost assessment:

• Beneficial uses 

• Natural Resource Damages Assessment 

3. Stakeholder engagement:

• Uses based on cultural and traditional uses

15

Adapting Conventional Risk Adapting Conventional Risk

Evoked 

outcome

Source

Four Basic Components of Physical Risk

Transport 

Media

Point 

Exposure

(uptake)

Toxicity

16

Evoked 

outcome

Adapting Conventional Risk Adapting Conventional Risk

Source Transport 

media

Point 

exposure

(uptake)

Indigenous lifeways Cultural 

community impacts

Toxicity

17

Evaluating Indigenous Lifeways Evaluating Indigenous Lifeways

Non-conventional rates of exposure: conventional rates of exposure:

– Recreational angler 32.3 Recreational angler 32.3 g/dy (0.5lbs/wk) (0.5lbs/wk)

– Subsistence angler 150 Subsistence angler 150 g/dy (Great Lakes) (Great Lakes)

– Duration

Non-conventional modes of exposure: conventional modes of exposure:

– Collection of medicinal plants (riparian wetlands) Collection of medicinal plants (riparian wetlands)

– Harvest of contaminated animals

– Ceremonial pathways Ceremonial pathways 

18

Evaluating Indigenous Lifeways Evaluating Indigenous Lifeways

Cultural/religious significance of use

Limited economic options

– Reservation unemployment rates

Trust lands (and fiduciary responsibility) Trust lands (and fiduciary responsibility)

– Treaty tribes

– Federal government liability

United States vs. Mitchell United States vs. Mitchell 463 U.S. 206 (1983)
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

David ⎯ 4

19

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

PCB 

contamination

Direct 

exposure

Health

effects

Direct effects

20

Direct 

exposure

Health

effects

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

PCB 

contamination

Economic

implications

Alteration of

lifestyle

Fear of 

breastfeeding

Alternate 

food sources

Trade 

system

Indirect effects

21

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

PCB 

contamination

Health

implications

Indirect effects

Loss of 

fish

Direct 

exposure

Health

effects

22

Benefits of Consuming Fish

Omega 3

Protein (salmon 27%)

Antioxidants

Vitamin D

Support proper brain function

Cardiovascular function

“It has so many benefits you could characterize it [as a] drug.”

(Santerre, C., 2004. Bioscience, in Senkowsky.)

Polyunsaturated trans-fatty acids

Omega-3

23

Direct 

exposure

Health

effects

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

PCB 

contamination

Health 

issues

Loss of 

fish

Obesity

CHD

Diabetes

Traditional diet 

Indirect effects

24

Health

effects

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

PCB 

contamination

Socio-cultural 

impairment

Religious 

practices

Indirect effects

Cultural 

Items

Direct 

exposure
A Comprehensive Risk Framework Presented to the Mohawks of Akwesasne

Anthony M. David, Environment Division, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

David ⎯ 5

25

Direct 

exposure

Health

Effects

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

PCB 

contamination

Socio-cultural 

impairment

Indirect effects

Traditional 

diet 

Family

values

Parent-child

interactions

26

Comprehensive Risk Framework Comprehensive Risk Framework

PCB 

contamination

Health 

issues

Direct effects

Original 

Instructions

Cultural 

identity Socio-cultural 

impairment

Economic

implications

27

Summary

Importance of utilizing a CRF

Original instructions organized these impacts

Need for comprehensive impacts (costs) in risk Need for comprehensive impacts (costs) in risk 

characterization and risk management characterization and risk management 

Consequences and outcomes

28

Next Steps

U.S. EPA acknowledgment U.S. EPA acknowledgment

Redefining risk: Direct and indirect cost Redefining risk: Direct and indirect cost

Early incorporation within assessment process

Further research: Evaluation of native lifeways

Formulation of a standardized process

29

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments 

U.S. EPA U.S. EPA 

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

SUNY Minority Fellowship

American Indian Program, Cornell University

Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University 

James Gillett, Marianne James Gillett, Marianne Krasney, and Jery Sedinger Sedinger

GM and Alcoa logos are registered trademarks.

Questions and Comments Questions and Comments

Wilfred David Sr.
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption

Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University

Santerre ― 1

Communicating the Nutritional Communicating the Nutritional 

Benefits and Risks of Fish Benefits and Risks of Fish 

Consumption Consumption

Charles R. Santerre, Ph.D. Charles R. Santerre, Ph.D.

Foods and Nutrition

Presentation Overview

z Rationale for developing advisory

z Background

z Development of advisory

z Training EFNEP participants

z Future strategies

Rationale .... Rationale ....

Rationale Rationale

z Increase consumer awareness of advisory Increase consumer awareness of advisory 

z Reduce complexity of the advisory

z Harmonize recommendations for sportfish Harmonize recommendations for sportfish 

and commercial fish

z Provide nutritional recommendations

z Provide food safety information. Provide food safety information.

Background .... Background ....

Fish Advisory Compliance Fish Advisory Compliance

~38% of Indiana anglers don’t follow advisory ~38% of Indiana anglers don’t follow advisory 

(Williams, O’Leary, and Williams, O’Leary, and Sheaffer Sheaffer, 1999) , 1999)

z Potential impact: Potential impact: 

5,876 - fetuses

111,001 111,001 - 0-18 years of age

(Santerre and (Santerre and Schaul, 2002) , 2002)
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption

Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University

Santerre ― 2

Healthy Fats in Fish Healthy Fats in Fish

z DHA - important for brain/eye development. important for brain/eye development.

NAS, 2002

z An estimated 250,000 Americans die each An estimated 250,000 Americans die each 

year from sudden cardiac death. year from sudden cardiac death.

AHA, 2005

z “Consumption of long-chain omega-3 fatty 3 fatty 

acids [as found in fatty fish] may reduce the acids [as found in fatty fish] may reduce the 

risk of coronary heart disease.” risk of coronary heart disease.”

ISSFAL, 1994

Possible Mechanisms Possible Mechanisms

z Preventing arrhythmias

z Decreasing platelet aggregation Decreasing platelet aggregation 

z Decreasing plasma triglycerides Decreasing plasma triglycerides 

z Moderately decreasing blood pressure Moderately decreasing blood pressure 

z Reducing atherosclerosis

z Small increase in HDL cholesterol Small increase in HDL cholesterol

z Modulating endothelial function

z Decreasing pro-inflammatory inflammatory eicosanoids.

NAS, 2002

Dietary Guidelines Dietary Guidelines

z National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - 2002

– EPA + DHA ~ 0.14 EPA + DHA ~ 0.14 g/d (nursing/pregnant) (nursing/pregnant)

z Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 

Report - 2004

– 8 oz fish/wk

– EPA + DHA = 0.5 g/d EPA + DHA = 0.5 g/d 

z American Heart Association (AHA) American Heart Association (AHA)

– 2 servings (2-3 oz per serving) of fatty fish/week

– EPA + DHA = 1 g/d (heart disease patients). EPA + DHA = 1 g/d (heart disease patients).

If You Consume 8 Ounces/Week, If You Consume 8 Ounces/Week, 

What Percentage of Recommended What Percentage of Recommended 

Levels Do You Get?

497

267

41 31

74

12 8

140

37 6 4

70

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Atlantic

salmon

Rainbow

trout

Channel

catfish

Lt. tuna

(canned)

NAS

DG04

AHA

Percentage

How Will Mercury Exposure How Will Mercury Exposure 

Change If Consumers Follow the Change If Consumers Follow the 

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Dietary Guidelines Advisory 

Committee’s Recommendation of Committee’s Recommendation of 

8 Ounces/Week of Fish?

U.S. Fish Consumption U.S. Fish Consumption – 2003

z Shrimp 4.0 lbs/person

z Canned Tuna 3.4

z Salmon 2.2

z Pollock 1.7

z Catfish 1.1

z Cod 0.6

z Crab 0.6

z Tilapia 0.5 

z Clams 0.5

z Scallops 0.3

z Flatfish 0.3

Per capita Per capita 16.3

H.M. Johnson & Assoc., 2004
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption

Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University

Santerre ― 3

Development .... Development .... Development of the Advisory Development of the Advisory

z Fish consumption Fish consumption – AHA

– 6 oz/wk for adults

– 2 oz/wk for 2-6 yrs old

z Sportfish Sportfish – consult local agency

z Allergies Allergies – S. Taylor, U. of Nebraska

z Raw versus cooked fish Raw versus cooked fish – FDA food code

z Omega-3 fatty acids 3 fatty acids – USDA nutrient USDA nutrient 

database

z Omega-3 intake 3 intake – NAS recommendations. NAS recommendations.

Mercury Advice Mercury Advice

z Meal frequency Meal frequency – max. 1 meal / 2 wks

z Maximum fish consumption Maximum fish consumption – 12 oz / wk

z Mercury residue data Mercury residue data – FDA

z Exception Exception – all tuna products were bumped all tuna products were bumped 

to a lower consumption rate due to the to a lower consumption rate due to the 

popularity of these products

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, hake, 

sardines, squid, shad (American), whiting, 

whitefish, anchovies, jacksmelt, spiny lobster, chub 

mackerel (Pacific), butterfish

12 oz per wk 

(2 meals/wk)

Lowest

Light tuna (canned), mahi mahi, carp, freshwater 

perch, skate, Spanish mackerel (S. Atlantic), 

monkfish, tilefish (Atlantic), sheephead

8 oz per wk 

(1 meal/wk)

Low

Albacore/white tuna (canned), halibut, snapper, 

saltwater bass, bluefish, buffalo fish, white croaker 

(Pacific), sea trout, northern lobster, sablefish, 

scorpion fish

4 oz per wk 

(1 meal/2 wk)

Moderate

Tilefish (Gulf of Mexico), swordfish, shark, king 

mackerel, tuna (fresh or frozen), orange roughy, 

Spanish mackerel (Gulf of Mexico), marlin, grouper

High Never eat

Commercial fish species Maximum

amount

Level of

mercury

Training .... Training ....
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption

Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University

Santerre ― 4

Sportfish Advisories Sportfish Advisories

z Telephone survey across 12 states

z 3,015 women, ages 18-45

– 87% ate fish during past year 87% ate fish during past year

– 29% ate sportfish during past year 29% ate sportfish during past year

– 20% aware of state’s sportfish advisory

Anderson et al., 2004. Envir. Res.

Training Low-Income Females Income Females

z 721 Hoosier women (10-49 yrs of age) 49 yrs of age)

z 253 (35%) pregnant and 39 (5%) nursing

z Enrolled in Expanded Food and Nutrition Enrolled in Expanded Food and Nutrition 

Education Program (EFNEP) Education Program (EFNEP)

z Completed pre- and post and post-tests

z Received a ~1-hour face-to-face training. face training.

Santerre (2005)

Training Low-Income Women Income Women

z 39% had not eaten fish in past 30 days

z 10% had eaten higher mercury fish 10% had eaten higher mercury fish 

z 33% understood that n-3s as found in fish are 3s as found in fish are 

important for the fetus/infant advisory; after important for the fetus/infant advisory; after 

training 87%

z 6-7% had used Indiana fish consumption 7% had used Indiana fish consumption 

advisory; after training 69-79% intend to use. 79% intend to use.

Santerre (2005)

Future .... Future ....

Recommendations Recommendations

z Encourage fish consumption Encourage fish consumption - 8 oz/week 8 oz/week 

z Use rapid, low-cost methods for measurement of PCBs cost methods for measurement of PCBs 

and mercury

z Consumer and health professional education to: Consumer and health professional education to:

– County health departments

– Pediatricians, obstetricians, dietitians, family practice

– County cooperative extension offices

– WIC clinics

z Focus educational efforts on at Focus educational efforts on at-risk populations

z Replace albacore/white tuna in WIC and school lunch Replace albacore/white tuna in WIC and school lunch 

programs with programs with Kid Healthy tuna.

Rapid Measurement of Mercury Rapid Measurement of Mercury

Lasrado et al., 2005

• Total mercury in 5 minutes

• Hair, blood, fish tissue
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption

Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University

Santerre ― 5

Estimated Costs for PCB Methods Estimated Costs for PCB Methods

$ 200

TEQ - Indicator PCBs

(PCB-118, PCB-138, PCB-153)

Total PCB (GC/ECD)

(Aroclor Equivalents) $ 200

(12 PCBs, 7 furans, 10 dioxins) $ 1,000

TEQ

Total PCB Total PCB - ELISA

(AroclorTM Equivalents) $ 40

Light tuna in water Light tuna in water

Hg < 80 ppb

DHA 300 mg/oz (max 500) DHA 300 mg/oz (max 500)

582 mg DHA /serving (55 g) 582 mg DHA /serving (55 g)

‘Healthy’ Healthy’

z Total fat < 5 g/RA (55 g) and /100 g

z Saturated fat < 2 g/RA and /100 g

z Sodium < 360 mg/RA and /label serving

z Cholesterol < 95 mg/RA and /100 g

z 10% DV for vitamins A, C, calcium, iron, 10% DV for vitamins A, C, calcium, iron, 

protein or fiber or fiber

21CFR101.13(h)

Mercury Mercury (μg/kg bw/d)

Amount Albacore ‘Healthy’

4 oz/wk 0.09 0.02

8 oz/wk 0.18 0.04

12 oz/wk 0.28 0.07

16 oz/wk 0.37 0.09

U.S. EPA RfD = 0.1 U.S. EPA RfD = 0.1 μg/kg bw/d

DHA (mg/d)

Amount Light ‘Healthy’

4 oz/wk 30 171

8 oz/wk 59 343

12 oz/wk 88 513

16 oz/wk 118 686

Effective AI = 140 Effective AI = 140 mg/d for pregnant women

a

b b

bc

c

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Blank 0.05 g 0.1 g 0.5 g 1 g

Wheat bran (g)

ug mercury / mg protein 

Absorption of Hg Absorption of Hg – Wheat Bran
Communicating the Nutritional Benefits and Risks of Fish Consumption

Charles R. Santerre, Purdue University

Santerre ― 6

http://fn.cfs.purdue.edu/anglingindiana/

Predicting TEQ Predicting TEQ 

Using Indicator PCBs Using Indicator PCBs

TEQ = 0.95 + 0.21[PCB-138] -

0.08[PCB-153] + 0.27[PCB-118]

R2 = 0.68, p<0.0001
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory

David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration

Acheson ⎯ 1

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.

• The mission of FDA is to protect public health.

• FDA has a variety of tools to achieve the mission

– Regulations

– Guidance

– 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.

Risk

• Food is contaminated with an agent

• That agent causes harm to consumers

• There is a risk from consuming the food

• Clear risk message that can be generated

Risk From Consumption Is Clear

• Foodborne pathogens

– E. coli O157:H7

• Chemical agents

– Cyanide

• Physical

– Broken glass
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory

David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration

Acheson ⎯ 2

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 consuming the 

food that contain the agent of concern

• Risk message needs to be balanced between 

the degree of risk and the degree of benefit.

Mercury in Fish

• 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 

consume?

• What 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 

brain, hence the target group of:

– Women who may become pregnant

– Women who are pregnant

– Nursing mothers

– Young children

• The nutritional benefits of eating fish.
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory

David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration

Acheson ⎯ 3

Problems

• Pregnant women are very risk-averse.

• The “wash-over effect”

“If my wife should not eat these types of fish, then 

they are probably not good for me either.”

• How do you define “young child”?

• Regional differences in mercury levels in fish.

2004 Joint Advisory Has Three 

Main Elements

Risk/benefit message

Consumer advice

Additional information

Risk/Benefit Message

Who Is At Risk?

WOMEN WHO MIGHT BECOME 

PREGNANT, WOMEN WHO ARE 

PREGNANT, NURSING MOTHERS, 

AND YOUNG CHILDREN

Risk/Benefit Message (cont.)

What Are The Benefits?

Fish and shellfish are an important part of a healthy diet. Fish and 

shellfish contain high-quality protein and other essential nutrients, are 

low in saturated fat, and contain omega-3 fatty acids.

Why They Are At Risk?

Some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm 

an unborn baby or young child’s developing nervous system. The risks 

from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish eaten 

and the levels of mercury in the fish and shellfish. 

Consumer Advice

Benefits and Risk

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.

Consumer Advice 

Three Recommendations 

1. Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish 

because they contain high levels of mercury.

How Much Fish?
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory

David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration

Acheson ⎯ 4

Consumer Advice (cont.)

2. Eat up to 12 oz (2 average meals) a week of a variety of 

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”) 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. 

How Much Fish?

Consumer Advice (cont.)

3. Check local advisories about the safety of fish 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 of fish you catch from local waters, but don’t 

consume any other fish during that week.

How Much Fish?

Consumer Advice (cont.)

Follow these same recommendations when feeding 

fish and shellfish to your young child, but serve 

smaller portions.

How Much Fish For Children?

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.

• The concern is to ensure that women, and the children 

they care for, continue to eat fish as an important 

protein and nutrient source of their diet.

Education and Outreach

• General and specialized media

– More than 9,000 electronic and print outlets 

contacted with information reaching millions of 

women.

– Editors of pregnancy books urged to include 

advisory in next editions.
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory

David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration

Acheson ⎯ 5

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 Gynecology

– 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 [Oken et al., 2003. Obstet Gynecol. 

102(2): 346-51]

• Anecdotal evidence of decrease in fish sales 

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

• Infant Feeding Practices study

– Survey of pregnant women and mothers of 

toddlers

– Currently underway.
Implementation of the FDA/U.S. EPA Joint Advisory

David W.K. Acheson, Food and Drug Administration

Acheson ⎯ 6

Summary

• Complex risk–benefit message

• 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.

Questions?
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination

Joanna Burger, Rutgers University

Burger ⎯ 1

Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About 

Message Development and Dissemination

Joanna Burger

Michael Gochfeld

Fish Forum – September 21, 2005

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?

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

YEAR

Total anglers

Freshwater anglers

Saltwater anglers

2001 

34 million total fisherman

28.4-freshwater 9.1 Saltwater

U.S.

Is There Risk –

Do We Need a Message?

benefit

toxicity

Net harm

Benefit range

Source: Gochfeld and Burger, 2005. NeuroToxicology.

15 30 45

OS

OS=Olsen & Secher benefit threshold @ 13.4 g/d

RfD

RfD=30 g Æ0.09 Fg/kg/d for a 65 kg woman eating fish at 0.2 ppm

Hypothetical Composite Curves

Fish consumption (grams/day)
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination

Joanna Burger, Rutgers University

Burger ⎯ 2

Burger et al., 2001.

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 % above 0.5 ppm

% above 1 ppm

(wildlife effects level)

Bowfin

Bass

Pickerel

Perch

Spotted 

sucker

Crappie

Shellcracker 

Catfish 

American 

eel

Bluegill 

sunfish

Redbreasted 

Sunfish

Mercury Levels in Fish from the Savannah River

with Percent of Samples above 0.5 ppm and above 1 ppm

Burger et al., 2004, 2005.

Commercial Fish in New Jersey

The Information Base

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Word of mouth

TV

Newspaper

Signs

Magazines/journals

Radio

Pamphlet

Source of Advisory Information

Percent

Crab

Fish

Burger et al., 1999.

Pflugh et al., 1999.

New York Harbor

Pflugh et al., 1999.

New 

Jersey

No 

warning

TV NewspaperOther 

people

Signs Radio 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent

Black

White

Multiple replies allowed

Burger et al., 1998b.

Savannah River

Information Sources for Fishing Advisories
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination

Joanna Burger, Rutgers University

Burger ⎯ 3

(New Jersey)

New Jersey General Public

Burger et al., in press.

New Jersey General Public

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

To Trade L

To Sell

For Frys Or Socials

To Give Away

To Eat

Recreation

Be With Friends

Challenge Or Sport

Commune With Nature

Get Away From Demands

To Be Outdoors

Relaxation

12345

Newark Bay

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

12345

Jersey Shore

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

C

E

E

D

E

B

C

D

E

E

E

E

G

G

F

G

A

Why People Fish in New Jersey

Burger, 2002.

Burger, in press.

Urban Suburban

Different letters indicate statistically significant 

differences by Duncan Multiple Range Test

Ethnic and Socioeconomic Factors

in Risk and Knowledge

What does the public know?

What do we know?

Burger et al., 1999a.

Percent of Fishermen Who Consume Catch

Burger et al., 1999a.

Percent of Fisherman Saying It Is Safe

to Eat Crabs or Striped Bass 
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination

Joanna Burger, Rutgers University

Burger ⎯ 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AWARE

OF

WARNINGS

AWARE OF

CORRECT

WARNINGS

THINK

FISH ARE

SAFE TO EAT

ASIAN

WHITE

HISPANIC

BLACK

Burger et al., 1999a.

Accuracy of Knowledge

Burger et al., 1999a.

7-yr-old 

girl in NJ

9-yr-old girl 

in Aleutians

Percent of Responses Concerning Risk

BLACK WHITE

All meat & fish

Mean 125 ± 103 83 ± 2.9

Range 0 – 268 0 – 403

Wild-caught fish 

& game 

Mean 63 ± 11 26 ± 1.8

Range 0 – 265 0 – 232

CONSUMPTION (KG/Year)

Burger, 2000b.

South Carolina General Public 

Burger et al., 1999b.

Fish Eaten Per Year

Lbs.21 42 63 84 104 125 146 over 167

Savannah River Fishers

Savannah River Fishers:

Ethnicity, Education, and Consumption

Burger et al., 1999b.

Generality of Findings
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination

Joanna Burger, Rutgers University

Burger ⎯ 5

Burger, 2000c.

Burger and Gochfeld, 1991.

May and Burger, 1996.

Burger et al., 1999a,b.

Burger, 2005.

Burger et al., in press.

Campbell et al., 2002.

---------------------------Among Fishers--------------------------

Number of Fish Meals Per Month Generality of Perceptions

Burger, 2000c.

Burger, 2005.

Campbell et al., 2002.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Humanacao

Puerto Rico

Jamacia

Bay New

York

Arthur Kill

New Jersey

New Jersey

Shore

Savannah

River South

Carolina

Oakridge

Tenn

General

Public New

Jersey

Have You Heard Warnings?

Are Fish Safe?

60%

80%

100%

Wild-caught fish

Restaurant fish

Store-bought fish

Female 

0%

20%

40%

>0 to <1 1 to 5 >5 to 10>10 to 30

Monthly Meals

1

Percent Monthly Meals for 3 Types

of Fish (Whites Only)

(South Carolina General Public)

Choosing the Message

Iterative

Revisions

Write 

Fish Fact

Sheet

Preliminary

Discussions

about Risk from Fish 

Consumption

Conflicting

Policies

Response

Action

CRESP

FACILITATES

From Conflict

to 

Consensus

Burger et al., 2001c.

Collaborative 

Development of 

fish fact sheet for 

Savannah River 

involving South 

Carolina and 

Georgia, DOE, 

EPA and CRESP

Evaluation
Risk Communication: Lessons Learned About Message Development and Dissemination

Joanna Burger, Rutgers University

Burger ⎯ 6

% Black % White

Don’t eat fish from river 35 25

Limit fish or species 21 21

Identify the contaminant 21 22

Can you reduce the risk?

% saying yes 91 92

How can you reduce risk?

Limit fishing in some way 86 81

Major Message

Burger and Waishwell, 2001.

Savannah River fishers

% Black % White 

Clean up river 8 12

Ecological pathways 12 6

Exposure 3 0

How to get fish sheet when available 17 10

Levels in fish 6 18

Risk levels 17 4

Source of contamination 6 10

Who has gotten sick 0 10

What is cesium/strontium 3 1

Other 28 30

X 2 (P) = 64.8 (0.0001)

Additional Information Requested

Burger and Waishwell, 2001. Savannah River Fishers

Figure 2

Program Developed for W.I.C.

Tested with Fishermen

“Do you think a woman can harm baby by eating fish from Port?”

“What does fish with red dots show?

“What does picture of pregnant woman show?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Can Harm

Baby-Yes

Fish red

dots=food

chain

Picture

shows

what?

WIC

Fishers

After Burger, 2000.

Chess et al., 2005.

Risk Communication Issues

• Historical

• Interagency conflict

• Agency mandate and structure

• Risk assessment disagreement

• Political considerations

• Public involvement

Funding:

CRESP, NJDEP, EOHSI, EPA, SCDHEC, GDNR

Collaborators

• Joanna Burger, Rutgers University

• Michael Gochfeld, UMDNJ

• Caron Chess, Rutgers University

• Karen F. Gaines, University Of Georgia

• Joel Snodgrass, Towson

• Kerry Kirk Pflugh, NJDEP

Others

• Shane Boring

• I.L. Brisbin, Jr.

• Carline Dixon

• B.D. Goldstein

• Justin Leonard

• Chris Lord

• R. Manning

• R. Manning

• Charles Powers

• Robert A. Ramos II

• Carl Schopfer

• Sheila Shukla

• W.C. Stephens

• Lynn Waishwell
Maine’s Moms Survey – Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 1

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Maine’s Mom Survey

Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts

Eric Frohmberg

Maine Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Brochure Development and Evaluation

• “Easy to Read” brochure

• Target pregnant women

– WIC, OB/GYN, FP/OB, CNM

• Targeted mailings to sportfishing households

• Baseline survey in 1999

• Evaluation survey in 2000.

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Design/Methods

• 24 pages, 75 questions

• Pre-tested

• Mail survey

• Sample drawn from Birth 

Certificate Registry

• ~60% response rate 

(n=768)

• Asked for hair sample. Fishing License 39% 40% 44%

Aware State 32% 41% 60%

Has Advice

Women of Moms

childbearing age

Women of 

childbearing age

Target 

Population

Race

Mean Age

Sample Size

95% white 96% white 96% white

34 ± 7.5 34 ± 8.6 27 ±

535 493 768

1998/9 Pre-Survey 2000 Post-Survey 2004 Moms

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Comparison of Studies

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

2004 Moms: Total Surveyed Population

• 31% of the total sample reported getting our 

brochure

• Of the total surveyed population

– 4% received the survey in the mail

– 24% received the survey from doctor/CNM

– 9% received the survey from WIC

• 41% of the sample were on WIC 

– 29% of those in WIC remember getting it from WIC.

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

2004 Moms: Who Reported

Getting Brochure

• Of those who reported getting brochure

– 93% read it

– 46% kept the brochure

– 91% reported trying to follow advice.
Maine’s Moms Survey – Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 2

Income <=$25,000 33% (28-40) 33% (29-37) 0.88

Education <=High School 35% (29-41) 35% (31-40) 0.99

p Value Did Not Get 

Brochure Got Brochure

1st Pregnancy 51% (46-57) 40% (36-44) <0.01

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

2004 Moms: Who Reported

Getting Brochure

93% (90-96) 82% (79-85) <0.01 Eat Any Fish While 

Pregnant

Told Fish Good for Baby 35% (30-41) 28% (24-32) 0.04

Told Fish Good for You 60% (54-66) 49% (45-53) <0.01

p Value Did Not Get 

Brochure Got Brochure

Told Hg in Fish Bad for 

Baby 97% (94-98) 86% (83-89) <0.01

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

2004 Moms: Who Reported

Getting Brochure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Change last Trimester Change at Birth After Reading Brochure

%

More

Same

Less

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

2004 Moms: Behavior Change

5% (3-7)

n=18

Ate Fish and Did Not 

Get Brochure

0.35

p Value

3% (2-6)

n=6

Ate Fish and Got 

Brochure

Ate Any 

Sportfish

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

2004 Moms: Ate Fish and Got Brochure

64% (59–68)

Ate Fish and Did 

Not Get Brochure

0.02

p Value

54% (48–60)

Ate Fish and Got 

Brochure

Ate White Tuna

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Ate Light Tuna 39% (33–46) 30% (25–35) 0.02

2004 Moms: Ate Fish and Got Brochure

8% (6 –11)

n=34

Ate Fish and Did 

Not Get Brochure

Ate Forbidden Fish 8% (5–12)

n=16

Ate Fish and Got 

Brochure p Value

0.84

Of Total Surveyed Population

1%

<1%

2%

Tilefish

Shark

Swordfish n=15

n=6

n=10

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

2004 Moms: Ate Fish and Got Brochure
Maine’s Moms Survey – Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts

Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health

Frohmberg ― 3

Mean 0.39 (0.31–0.47) 0.42 (0.35–0.61) 0.22

90 0.75 (0.59–[?]) 0.99 (0.60–1.18) th Percentile

Hair Mercury – ppm p Value Did Not Get 

Brochure Got Brochure

Maine DHHS Public Health • Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Ate Fish While 

Pregnant

Supplied Hair Did Not Supply Hair p Value

93% (87–96) 84% (82–87) <0.01

Of Those Requesting Hair Test

2004 New Moms: Hair Samples
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

Beaman ⎯ 1

Communication of Fish Communication of Fish 

Consumption Associated Risks to Consumption Associated Risks to 

Fishermen in the Baltimore Harbor Fishermen in the Baltimore Harbor 

& Patapsco River Area: & Patapsco River Area: 

Perspectives and Lessons Learned Perspectives and Lessons Learned

21 September 2005

Joseph Beaman 2

Outline

• Background

– Monitoring Summary

• PCB Sediment Mapping

• Fish Tissue Monitoring Map

– Risk Assessment Summary

• Methods

• Current Advisory

• Advisory Communication & Outreach Efforts

– History

– Recent Actions

3

Polychlorinated 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. 4

Patapsco River Baltimore Harbor –

Total PCBs Distribution 

• Mean = 262 ppb

• Range = 8 – 2150 ppb

• Total 27/73 > ERM

• (36.9 %)

• 10 Sites = > 2 ERM

• 4 Sites = > 3 ERM (Yellow)

• 3 Sites = > 4 ERM (Brown)

• 2 Sites = > 5X ERM (Red)

• 1 Site = > 10X (Black)

5

Risk Assessment & Advisory 

Summary

6

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
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

Beaman ⎯ 2

7

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 lipophilic compounds)

8

Consumption Thresholds - PCBs

Meals/Month General Population Women 18-45 Children 0-6

8 meals/month < 22 - 38 17 - 32 13 - 25

4 meals/month 39 - 77 33 - 66 26 - 51

2 meals/month 78 - 155 67 - 133 52 - 103

1 meals/month 156 - 312 134 - 266 104 - 207

< 1 meal/month > 352 > 267 > 208

9

Fish Tissue 

Monitoring Stations 

10

T- PCB levels in tissue (Σ 120 C)

• White Perch

– 20 Composite Samples (1997-2001)

– [T PCBs] -104-1621 ppb; Avg - 505

– GP up to 5/year; Sensitive – AVOID

• Blue Crab

– 5 Composite Samples (’01)

– [T PCBs] -104-1621 ppb; Avg – 505

• Crabmeat - 27-78 ppb; Avg - 36

• Hepatopancreas (“Mustard”)

– 448-1311 ppb; Avg - 889 ppb

– GP – 96 /yr; Sensitive – 24-96/yr 

Mustard – All populations AVOID

• Catfish (also Carp and A. Eel) –

AVOID – all > ~1000 ppb

11

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 12

Advisory Communication

• 1988 Advisory – 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
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

Beaman ⎯ 3

13

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 monthly (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 

(VA Tech) – Sponsored by Fish Advisory Workgroup –Chesapeake 

Bay Program

– August 2004 – Baltimore County Health Department – Press 

Release –Produces simplified brochure & distributed to health clinics

14

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.

15

OUTREACH

16

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)

17

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)

18

New Brochure

• Collaborative Effort 

• Production:

– 120,000 English

• 80,000 MDE

• 40,000 DHMH

– 10,000 Spanish (MDE)

• MDE Costs: ~$6300.00 

• Incorporates U.S. EPAFDA recommendations for 

commercially-caught fish
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

Beaman ⎯ 4

19

New Brochure Front

Focused on sensitive populations

Provides fish preparation 

and cooking direction 20

New Brochure Back

Color-coded boxes 

denoting consumption

levels.

Rules for safe 

consumption

21

Baltimore Harbor 

Health Advisory Signs

22

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

Endorsed by

Governor’s Office !!

23

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) 24

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 days – No weekends
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

Beaman ⎯ 5

25 26

Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)

27

Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)

28

Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)

29

Harbor Posting Pictures (cont.)

30

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
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

Beaman ⎯ 6

31

Lessons Learned

• MDE outreach and communication techniques were 

effective in for “getting the word out” – 80% 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 reevaluate behavior change in 3 to5 years – provide 

adequate opportunity for message repetition and 

reception 32

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, asoehl@mde.state.md.us

33

QUESTIONS???

? ?
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers

Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Hockett ⎯ 1

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.org/hdd.htm

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 

June 1–August 10, 2004.

• 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.

• Boat, pier, and shore anglers were approached and 

interviewed using a pre-tested questionnaire.

• 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 month 

before interviews 

began.

Sampling Sites

9. Fort Armistead 17

Site Name n

Total

8. Broening Park 

7. Middle Branch

6. Canton Waterfront

5. Turner's Station

4. Merritt Point

3. Inverness

2. Rocky Point

1. Cox’s Point

135

6

14

6

16

29

10

0

37
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers

Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Hockett ⎯ 2

Respondent Demographics

Females 

11%

Males

89%

Hispanic, 

1%

Caucasian

65%

AfricanAmerican, 

34%

American Asian, 1% Indian, 

2.4%

Gender Race/Ethnicity*

* 6 interviews could not be 

completed due to language barriers.

Respondent Demographics

E d u ca tio n a l A tta in m en t

16%

51%

22%

8 %

3 %

0 %

20%

40%

60%

<HS HS Some

C o lle g e

B S A dv.

D e g re e

H o u seh o ld In co m e

12%

26%

45%

16%

0 %

20%

40%

60%

<$20K $20-

40K

$40-

80K

>$80K

Respondent Demographics

9 %

17%

12%

38%

24%

0 %

10%

20%

30%

40%

1 -2 3 -1 0 11 -25 2 6-5 0 5 0 +

# T im es F ish ed in P a st Y ea r

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

28%

16%

13%

4%

28%

Somewhat 

Important

Challenge/Sport 57% 85%

Reduce Food Expenses* 12% 28%

Time Outdoors 85% 98%

Relaxation 96% 100%

Fresh Fish Dinner* 31% 59%

Very Total

Important

Fishing Motivation

*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.

Most Often Consumed Species:

Striped Bass

White Perch

Catfish

Blue crab

(all four species were under advisory)

Consumption Rates by Season

Least Frequent Consumption

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

January February March

Most Frequent Consumption

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

June July August

Percent of Anglers

Don’t Eat

<1/Month

1-3/Month

1-2/Week

3-4/Week

5+/Week
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers

Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Hockett ⎯ 3

Consumption Rates by Species

Blue crab 1 1 3 4 10 19

Catfish 0 0 3 0 8 11

White perch 0 0 9 8 11 28

Striped bass 0 2 8 9 14 33

Harbor/Patapsco

Blue crab 0 0 0 2 1 3

Catfish 0 0 0 4 0 4

White perch 0 0 0 8 4 12

Striped bass 0 0 0 5 3 8

Back River

5+/wk 3-4/wk 1-2/wk 1-3/mo <1/mo Total

Most Frequently Meals Consumed (Annual Average)

Consumed

Advisory Species

3⁄4 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.)

Advisory Compliance

Blue crab 19 2 (11%) 96 meals/yr

Catfish 11 11 (100%) No consumption

White perch 28 Up to 28 (100%) 5 meals/yr

12 meals/yr trophy;

Striped bass 33 Up to 19 (58%) 24/yr non-trophy

Harbor/Patapsco: 98 anglers, 

54 (55%) eat their catch

Blue crab 3 0 No advisory

Catfish 4 4 (100%) 6 meals/yr

White perch 12 Up to 8 (75%) 22 meals/yr

12 meals/yr trophy;

Striped bass 8 Up to 5 (63%) 24 meals/yr non-trophy

Back River: 37 anglers,

17 (46%) eat their catch

General Pop. Advisory

Exceeding 

Advisory

#

Eat

Advisory Compliance

Summary

• 42–65% of all species consumption reports for 

advisory species exceeded advisory recommendations.

• Up to 69% 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? 

Other women 18–44* 37 36 (97%) 26 (72%)

Pregnant/nursing* 3 3 (100%) 1 (33%)

Adults 60 or older 15 13 (87%) 12 (92%)

Children 6–15 26 24 (92%) 14 (54%)

Children 5 or younger* 11 10 (91%) 1 (9%)

n (%)

Eat Same 

or More

n (%)

Household Members n Eat

Meal Sizes

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

<4oz.

4oz.

4-8oz.

8oz.

8-12oz.

12oz.

>12oz.

Typical reported meal sizes were 

consistent with the 8 oz. used in general 

population advisory development, though 

26% of anglers reported larger meals.

Preparation Methods
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers

Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Hockett ⎯ 4

Advisory Awareness

When did you last see or hear about the advisory?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

within last month

2-3 months ago

4-6 months ago

7-12 months ago

> 1 yr ago

3⁄484% of anglers were aware of the advisories

3⁄4Large majority (74%) had seen them in the last 

month (when new advisory was issued).

Advisory Dissemination Mode

How did you learn about the advisory?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

TV

Sign Posted at Site

Newspaper

Other 

Fishing Reg's Book

Internet

Radio

Other Anglers

Bait Shop

Friend

Family

Doc/Health Prov.

Warden/Health Off.

Encounters

*

*

* Talking to agency personnel or 

community leaders

Most effective in changing behavior (33%)

Most preferred by anglers *

Racial Differences

African Americans are more at-risk than

Caucasians for a variety of reasons...

1. Blacks were more likely to consume their catch than 

Whites (65% vs. 45%).

2. Of those, Blacks were more likely to provide it to 

their households than Whites (100% vs. 43%).

3. 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.

54%

17%

65%

44%

0 %

20%

40%

60%

80%

F r e sh F ish D in n e r R e d u c in g F o o d

E xpenses

C a u c a sia n s A fr ic a n A m e r ic a n s

% Somewhat or

Very Important

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

1. Most anglers (84%) are aware of advisories and 

have seen them recently (74%).

2. Still, advisory species are among the most 

frequently consumed, usually at a rate greater 

than is suggested in the advisory.

3. A substantial proportion of anglers (28%) give 

some importance to the reduction of family food 

expenses as a reason for fishing.

4. African Americans appear to be at greater risk 

than Caucasians, primarily based on needs 

(motivations) and cultural differences 

(preparation). 
Fish Consumption Patterns and Advisory Awareness Among Baltimore Harbor Anglers

Karen S. Hockett, Conservation Management Institute,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Hockett ⎯ 5

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 advisory 

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: 

http://www.cmiweb.org/human/CBP_fishadvisory04.html

(Download full report and/or data)

Or contact:

Julie McClafferty

jmcclaff@vt.edu

540-231-8709
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

Sheeshka/Knuth ― 1

Problems with Media Reports

of Fish Contaminant Studies: 

Implications for Risk 

Communication

Judy Sheeshka, Ph.D. R.D.

September 21, 2005

Outline

 Contaminants in farmed vs. Contaminants in farmed vs. 

wild salmon

 Media coverage

 Health Canada’s response

 Consumer reaction

 Implications for risk Implications for risk 

communication

Wild vs. Farmed Salmon

 Analysis of PCBs in raw fish collected Analysis of PCBs in raw fish collected 

from 7 countries ( from 7 countries (Hites et al., 2004. et al., 2004. 

Science 303)

 Analysis used U.S. EPA cut Analysis used U.S. EPA cut-points

 Health Canada uses FDA values. Health Canada uses FDA values.

 CBC News, Friday, January 9, 2004

 “We are certainly not telling people not 

to eat fish,” said study co-author David 

Carpenter of the University at Albany, 

NY. “We're telling them to eat less 

farmed salmon.”

Study Confirms Farmed Salmon 

More Toxic Than Wild Fish

In Depth: Salmon Something Fishy 

About Farmed Salmon?

 CBC News Online, January 9, 2004

 “Officials at Health Canada and the Officials at Health Canada and the 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency say Canadian Food Inspection Agency say 

the dangers of eating contaminated the dangers of eating contaminated 

farmed salmon are overstated, as is the farmed salmon are overstated, as is the 

suggestion that intake of farmed salmon suggestion that intake of farmed salmon 

be severely restricted. be severely restricted.”
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

Sheeshka/Knuth ― 2

 CBC News, Friday, January 9, 2004 CBC News, Friday, January 9, 2004 

 “A controversy over farmed salmon is A controversy over farmed salmon is 

making consumers pay attention making consumers pay attention ... but 

not all scientists agree with the study’s 

findings and are questioning the validity findings and are questioning the validity 

of the claims of the study. of the claims of the study.”

Scientists Defend Farmed 

Salmon Consumer Reactions

 “I was buying salmon or trout once or I was buying salmon or trout once or 

twice a week, but after that [ twice a week, but after that [Hites et al. 

study] I just stopped eating it. I know it study] I just stopped eating it. I know it’s 

good for you, but just the thought of eating good for you, but just the thought of eating 

fish now makes me sick. fish now makes me sick.”

Salmon Farming Industry 

Reeling

 Globe and Mail Globe and Mail, January 11, 2004

 “Canada’s $700-million Atlantic salmon million Atlantic salmon 

farming industry have been handed a farming industry have been handed a 

sharp reminder that when it comes to sharp reminder that when it comes to 

the business of food, public perception the business of food, public perception 

is everything. is everything.”

Plummeting Fish Sales Could 

Risk Public Health

 Globe and Mail Globe and Mail, February 16, 2004

 “While this is an economic blow to the While this is an economic blow to the 

industry, nutritionists believe it also has industry, nutritionists believe it also has 

the makings of a public-health disaster. health disaster.”

 Consumers reported giving up fish and Consumers reported giving up fish and 

taking omega-3 FA supplements. 3 FA supplements.

More Bad News About Farmed 

Salmon

 “Flame-retardant chemicals that may harm retardant chemicals that may harm 

human health are found in higher levels in human health are found in higher levels in 

farmed salmon than in wild salmon, says a farmed salmon than in wild salmon, says a 

new study. new study.” (August 10, 2004) (August 10, 2004)

 “The cancer The cancer-causing chemical malachite causing chemical malachite 

green has been found in a second green has been found in a second 

Vancouver Island salmon farm. Vancouver Island salmon farm.”

UK Consumers Seem to Have 

Ignored the Latest Health Scare over 

Scottish Farmed Salmon

 “There had been fears that shoppers There had been fears that shoppers 

would be put off buying salmon after a would be put off buying salmon after a 

damning report last week damning report last week Y but initial ut initial 

figures from the major supermarkets figures from the major supermarkets 

suggest sales have actually continued to suggest sales have actually continued to 

increase. increase.”
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

Sheeshka/Knuth ― 3

What Went Wrong?

Can We Learn from This?

What Went Wrong?

 Journalists did not Journalists did not understand that the understand that the 

study used U.S. EPA cut study used U.S. EPA cut-off values, while off values, while 

Health Canada uses FDA values. Health Canada uses FDA values. 

 Scientists were confused and appeared to Scientists were confused and appeared to 

disagree. disagree.

 Risk-reduction strategies were absent. reduction strategies were absent.

What Can We Learn from This?

 Different populations react differently. Different populations react differently.

 Information on risk-reduction strategies reduction strategies 

helps people to make informed choices. helps people to make informed choices. 

 Environmental scientist Environmental scientists and toxicologists s and toxicologists 

might consider greater efforts to educate might consider greater efforts to educate 

dietitians, physicians, and nutrition dietitians, physicians, and nutrition 

researchers. researchers.

Wild vs Farmed Salmon – Raw

Fish ≠ Omega-3 Fatty Acids

 Equating fish with omega-3 fatty acids will 3 fatty acids will 

backfire backfire – people will take supplements! people will take supplements!

 Fish has the highest quality protein, Fish has the highest quality protein, 

second only to egg protein in digestibility second only to egg protein in digestibility 

and supporting growth. and supporting growth.

 From a public health perspective, other From a public health perspective, other 

nutrients in fish (selenium, vitamin D, etc.) nutrients in fish (selenium, vitamin D, etc.) 

are important. 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

Barbier ― 1

Preserving our past...

Creating our future

The Presentation of Fish in Everyday 

Life: Seeing Culture Through Signs 

in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Geoffrey Habron and Melanie Barbier

Michigan State University

MSU Personnel MSU Personnel

3⁄4 Principal Investigator:

z Geoffrey Habron, Fisheries and 

Wildlife/Sociology/Bailey Scholars

3⁄4 Project Coordinator:

z Ron Kinnunen, Sea Grant

3⁄4 MSU Extension FNP Liaisons:

z Joan Vinette 

3⁄4 Graduate Student:

z Melanie Barbier, Ph.D. student

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry Identified

3⁄4 U.P. as region of 

particular concern on the 

uncertain effectiveness of 

fish advisories

3⁄4 Vast rural and isolated 

nature of the area

3⁄4 Relatively large presence 

of Native American 

populations who may 

consume large amounts 

of fish.

Upper Peninsula Advisories

3⁄4 Great Lakes: PCBs> 

chlordane> dioxin> 

mercury

3⁄4 Inland lakes: 

mercury> PCBs> 

chlordane> dioxin.

Introductions...
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

Gogebic County – Cisco Lake Chain

Walleye Unlimited for Women

Chippewa County – St. Mary’s River

Impaired Carp and Walleye 

Monthly Limits for Women

Marquette County – Deer Lake

Inland/Impaired Do Not Eat Fish Angler #1

Angler #2 Angler #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

Barbier ― 3

Match Game

3⁄4 Cisco Lake –

unlimited walleye

3⁄4 St. Mary’s River –

monthly walleye limit

3⁄4 Deer Lake – no fish 

consumption

3⁄4 Angler #1 – eats all 

fish

3⁄4 Angler #2 – monthly 

fish consumption

3⁄4 Angler #3 – catch and 

release only 

3⁄4 Cisco Lake –

unlimited walleye

3⁄4 St. Mary’s River –

monthly walleye limit

3⁄4 Deer Lake – no fish 

consumption

Mismatch Reality

Explanation?

Post-normal Risk

Agency Culture

Structure

Post-normal Risk

Culture

http://www.touchoffinland.com/images/yooper-man.gif

The Presentation of Fish

in Daily Life

3⁄4 Symbols/Imagery

z Fishermen retailing 

z Local restaurants

z Restaurant chains

z Pristine environment/traditional ties to natural 

resource use
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 ― 4

Commercial – Alger County Commercial – Chippewa County

Commercial/Restaurant –

Chippewa County Commercial – Marquette County
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

Alger County Restaurants Marquette County Restaurants

Chippewa County Restaurants Gogebic County Restaurants

Global gone local

Local gone global

The Presentation of Fish in Everyday Life:

Tail of Two Cities

Marquette Munising

Pristine Environment and 

Tradition of Natural Resource Use
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 ― 6

Methods and Procedures

Independence 

or Shag Lakes 

Marquette Marquette Deer Lake

Cisco Lake

(Watersmeet)

Langford>Pomeroy=

Duck Lakes (Watersmeet)

Black River 

harbor

Gogebic

Caribou or 

Frenchman 

Lake

St. Mary’s River (Sault 

Ste. Marie)

Chippewa Tahquamenon

Worm Lake 

(Covington)

Unamed Lake (west of 

Craig Lake State Park)

Baraga Baraga/L’Anse

West Branch Lakes (SW Au Train Lake

of Grand Marais)

Alger Munising Bay

County Lake Superior Impaired Inland

Site Design

• Awareness

• Knowledge

• Understanding

• Behavior

• Trust

• Community capacity

• Interviews

• Surveys (phone, mail)

• Focus groups

• Community gatherings

• Creel surveys

• Search conferences

• Observation (fish fry, 

store)

• Photographs (access 

sites, signs)

• Anglers

• Community Residents

• Women

• Youth

Outcome Indicators Data Collection 

Methods Demographic Group

Data Collection Per Site Summary of Findings

(+) Knowledge of fish advisory

z Large, fatty fish risk

(–) Knowledge of fish advisory

z Infrequent reading

z Fish-eating fish consumption risk 

z DNR vs. DCH advisory responsibility

• Most people report trusting the DNR as 

the most as a reliable source of fish 

consumption advisory information

Summary of Findings

3⁄4 Uncertainty

z Conflicting science and media reports

3⁄4 U.P. fish consumption > non-U.P. fish 

consumption

3⁄4 Best way to reach people

z Television

z Newspaper/fishing license

z In grocery stores next to where they sell fish

z Schools/radio

z Doctors’ offices

Conclusion
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

Questions?
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study

Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Hatcher/Robinson ⎯ 1

Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web:

WebMD Case Study 

September 21, 2005

Susan J. Robinson, M.S., NCEH/ATSDR

Jennifer Dyer-Herrick, WebMD

Michael T. Hatcher, Dr.PH, ATSDR

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.

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.

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

Mini-Health Zone: Content Offering

Four timely and 

relevant WebMD 

articles reflecting the 

latest U.S. EPA/FDA 

guidelines

New WebMD article 

based on U.S. EPA/ 

FDA brochure 

Links to relevant U.S. 

EPA and FDA Web 

sites

Links to related 

WebMD message 

boards

WebMD created a new 

article based on the 

latest U.S. EPA/FDA 

guidelines on mercury 

and fish.

Eating Fish: A Primer
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study

Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Hatcher/Robinson ⎯ 2

Links to U.S. EPA, FDA

 Links to U.S. EPA & FDA Fish Advisory Information

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

The campaign 

was promoted 

within high 

traffic areas 

and featured as 

the top story 

on the WebMD 

Splash & 

Consumer 

Home Pages.

WebMD Splash Page

WebMD Splash 

page featured a 

rotating 

contextual link 

to the campaign.

WebMD Splash Page

WebMD Home 

Page also 

featured a 

rotating 

contextual link 

to the 

campaign.

WebMD Health Home Page

The campaign 

was promoted 

within several 

relevant 

condition/ 

wellness areas, 

including the 

Pregnancy 

Center. 

WebMD Health Centers
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study

Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Hatcher/Robinson ⎯ 3

Several WebMD 

newsletters also 

featured contextual 

links to the 

campaign.

WebMD Newsletters 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.

Sessions 162,389 41,792 43,889 9,380 32,499 34,829 

Unique Visitors 155,508 39,769 41,876 9,113 31,357 33,393 

Page Views 451,577 125,670 126,250 25,823 83,265 90,569 

Program Summary Sum Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Page Views

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Metrics: Page Views

Sessions 162,389 41,792 43,889 9,380 32,499 34,829 

Unique Visitors 155,508 39,769 41,876 9,113 31,357 33,393 

Page Views 451,577 125,670 126,250 25,823 83,265 90,569 

Program Summary Sum Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Unique Visitors

-

5,000

10 , 0 0 0

15 , 0 0 0

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Metrics: Unique Visitors

1.04 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.04 1.04 

Sessions/Unique 

Visitor

2.90 3.16 3.01 2.83 2.66 2.71 

Page Views/Unique 

Visitor

Ratio Analysis Totals Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Page Views/Unique Visitor

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Sessions/Unique Visitor

1.02

1.02

1.03

1.03

1.04

1.04

1.05

1.05

1.06

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Performance Ratio Analysis

Mercury Levels in Most Women Safe 10,145 2,057 3,117 675 2,103 2,193 

62,341 11,484 20,003 3,670 13,795 13,389 

Avoiding Mercury in Fish -- Topic 

Overview

94,071 18,117 25,417 4,971 23,198 22,368 

What You Need to Know About Mercury 

in Fish

Facts About Fish Home 136,279 22,735 39,971 7,280 32,126 34,167 

Pregnancy: Eating Healthy for 2 147,772 71,052 37,520 9,155 12,043 18,002 

Page Views Totals Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Facts About Fish Home

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Pregnancy: Eating Healthy for 2

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Page View Analysis – Promotional Effects
Promoting Fish Advisories on the Web: WebMD Case Study

Michael Hatcher for Susan Robinson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Hatcher/Robinson ⎯ 4

What You Need to Know About Mercury in 

Fish

5 ,000

1 0,000

15,000

2 0,000

25,000

3 0,000

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Avoiding Mercury in Fish -- Topic Overview

5 ,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Mercury Levels in Most Women Safe 10,145 2,057 3,117 675 2,103 2,193 

62,341 11,484 20,003 3,670 13,795 13,389 

Avoiding Mercury in Fish -- Topic 

Overview

94,071 18,117 25,417 4,971 23,198 22,368 

What You Need to Know About Mercury 

in Fish

Facts About Fish Home 136,279 22,735 39,971 7,280 32,126 34,167 

Pregnancy: Eating Healthy for 2 147,772 71,052 37,520 9,155 12,043 18,002 

Page Views Totals Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Promotional Effects (cont.)

7,881 1,543 2,479 166 1,780 1,913 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/

advice.html

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/ 1,349 267 428 30 311 313 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov 381 79 106 8 90 98 

http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/states.htm 2,109 398 643 41 527 500 

Clicks to EPA/FDA Web sites Totals Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05

Click Through to U.S. EPA, FDA Sites

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.).
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

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 1

Seafood Safe Seafood Safe

Case Study: Case Study:

Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and Voluntary Seafood Contaminant Testing and 

Labeling Program

EcoFish as First Adopter EcoFish as First Adopter

Nationwide Sustainable Seafood Distributor Nationwide Sustainable Seafood Distributor

• 1,500 grocery stores

• 125 restaurants 125 restaurants

Evolution Evolution

• Media attention

• Consumer demographics

• Project research

Conflicting and Confusing Messages Conflicting and Confusing Messages

“Sound's Salmon Carry 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 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 farmraised -- 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, leave the public unsure, anxious.”

Business Model Business Model

• Autonomous independent structure

– Advisory panel

– Sampling

– Labs (Axys Analytical, Brooks Rand)

– Consumer advocacy organization 

(Environmental Defense)

• Precautionary principle

• EcoFish first adopter.
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

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 2

Marketing Strategy Marketing Strategy

• Positive industry message

• Consumer driven

• State agency driven (CA A.G.)

• Media follow through.

Future Financial Model Future Financial Model

• Industry pays

• Consultation with client

• Customized programs

– Species life history, regionality, size range, 

seasonality, historical data, etc.

• Testing

• Licensing.

Future Participation 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 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
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

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 3

Recommendations Recommendations Label in Use Label in Use

Risk Perception Constructs Risk Perception Constructs

• Volition, choice

• Control

• Seriousness

• Dread

• Certainty

• Causality – natural or not

• Distribution of risks and benefits

• Responsiveness

• Trust, credibility.

Risk Communication Strategy Risk Communication Strategy

• Focus on behavior

– Addresses choice, volition

• For consumer

• For industry/markets

– Provides “control.”

Risk Communication Strategy 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 Risk Communication Strategy

• Supporting information addresses

– Dread

– Seriousness

– Causality

• Consistent message

– Reduces uncertainty

– Personalized calculations

– Cumulative consumption charts (under 

development).
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

Lovejoy et al. ⎯ 4

Risk Communication Strategy Risk Communication Strategy

• Provide testing details (independent 

labs, advisory panel)

– Credibility

– Confidence

– Trust.

Future Considerations 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!
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 A-1 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish 

Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

David Acheson, 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. coli. In 2001, Dr. Acheson 

moved his laboratory to the University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore to continue research on food-borne 

pathogens. In September 2002, he accepted a position as the Chief Medical Officer at the 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 the 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 Army as a civilian contractor, performing aquatic toxicology 

research for eight years at the U.S. Army 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. 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-2 

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 and 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, Mr. 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. 

Michael Bolger, 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 toxicologist 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 his 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. 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-3 

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 his 

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 (USACE) contracts. For the past six years, 

Dr. Buchanan has 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 disruptors and heavy metals. In addition, she serves on several 

international committees for SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment) and currently cochairs the SCOPE International Committee of Endocrine Disruptors. 

Janet F. Cakir, 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 University (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 has been spent serving on faculties in 

Pediatrics at the University of South Florida, University of Mississippi Medical Center, and University of 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-4 

Tennessee, Memphis. She has 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 that 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 his B.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 has 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 farmed 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 Cowles 

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. 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-5 

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 in 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 his 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 the 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, MN. 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 the 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 has published more than 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 has 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 has 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 firms (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 Frohmberg is a toxicologist with the Maine Environmental and Occupational Health Program. He has been 

involved in the development of fish consumption advisories and the Bureau’s fish advisory communication program. 

This work has 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 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-6 

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 than 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 USACE. 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. 

Geoffrey B. 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 his 

B.A. degree from the University of Miami in Florida, his M.S. degree from Mississippi State University, and his 

Ph.D. degree from Oregon State University. 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 University of Minnesota. He did postdoctoral fellowships in Clinical 

Nutrition and Lipid Metabolism at the Oregon Health Sciences University between 1978 and 1983 and then moved 

to Kansas University Medical Center (UKMC), where he became the Director of the Lipid Research Laboratory in 

1985. In 1996, Dr. Harris became the first recipient of the Daniel J. Lauer/Missouri Chair in Metabolism and 

Vascular Research at the University 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 drugs and nutrients on lipid metabolism in humans; 

however, his 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 (NIH)-funded grants and is currently examining 

the effects of niacin and fish oils on lipid metabolism in patients with the “metabolic syndrome.” This project is also 

funded through NIH. Dr. Harris has 90 peer-reviewed research publications to his 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 Virginia Tech. She received a B.S. degree in Biology from Ohio Northern 

University, an M.S. degree in Zoology from the University of Maine, and an M.S. degree in Outdoor Recreation 

from Virginia Tech. Ms. Hockett is currently working toward a Ph.D. degree in Outdoor Recreation in the 

Department of Forestry at Virginia Tech. She has worked on fisheries research projects at both the University of 

Maine and Virginia Tech, focusing on Atlantic salmon and brown and rainbow trout. For her outdoor recreation 

degrees, Ms. Hockett has 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 techniques in gaining the attention of and communicating 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. 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-7 

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 that 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 in 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 the 

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 Krabbenhoft 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. Krabbenhoft 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. Krabbenhoft has 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. 

Krabbenhoft 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. 

Amy D. 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 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-8 

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 the 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 EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and 

Development. He received both his 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 in 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 has been a 

pioneer in the seafood industry, believing that ultimately the consumer is the force for change in marine 

conservation. 

Mr. Lovejoy received a liberal arts education at Boston University and later attended the Program for Global 

Leadership at the Harvard Business School. He is considered an innovative entrepreneur and industry expert on 

sustainability issues. He has been a guest on numerous national radio and television shows, has been quoted in 

dozens of national newspapers and magazines, and has made presentations to numerous national audiences. 

Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Ph.D. 

Kathryn Mahaffey’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 the U.S. 

government, she has been influential in lowering lead exposures for the U.S. population through actions to remove 

lead from foods and beverages and from gasoline additives during the 1970s and 1980s. In the past decade, Dr. 

Mahaffey has been actively involved in risk assessments for mercury and assessments of human exposure to 

methylmercury. She was the author of the NIH Report to Congress on Mercury and a primary author of EPA’s 

Mercury Study Report to Congress. Dr. Mahaffey 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 the 2001 

EPA/FDA national advisory on fish consumption. Dr. Mahaffey was one of a group of three EPA health scientists 

who revised the basis for the Agency’s reference dose for methylmercury, which was used in developing the 

Methylmercury Water Quality Human Health Criterion. In 2002, she received EPA’s Science Achievement Award 

in Health Sciences for this work. This is EPA’s highest health sciences award and is presented in conjunction with 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-9 

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 Disruptor 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 his B.S. degree in 

Biology and Chemistry from the California State University at Chico and his 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 his 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 

Washington 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 Technology 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 this 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 his B.S. degree in Environmental Sciences from the University of Wisconsin–Green 

Bay, his M.S. degree in Natural Resources from the University of Michigan, and his 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 Michigan (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 

clinical training 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, 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-10 

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 DACP, 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 the 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 LimnoTech, Inc., where he developed models of water quality impacts from nonpoint and point sources on rivers, lakes, 

and estuaries. 

Mr. Pendergast received a B.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, Mr. 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 his 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. 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-11 

Nicholas V. Ralston, Ph.D. 

Nicholas Ralston, a research scientist at the University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center, 

is the lead investigator in several multidisciplinary studies of heavy metal toxicity. Dr. Ralston received his B.S. 

degree in Biology from Mayville State University and his 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 

Clinic; on stereospecific phospholipase-resistant phospholipid metabolism for three years at Bowman Gray Medical 

School of Wake Forest University; and on boron and selenium biochemistry for three 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 that focus on selenium interactions with 

mercury. His current projects include studies of how selenium-dependent mercury retirement decreases mercury 

bioaccumulation in fish; the effects of mercury exposure on selenium-dependent enzyme physiology; and selenium’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 Channing 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 has 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. This includes the assessment 

of trace metals in toenails, gene-diet interactions, and interactions of diet with lipids, inflammatory markers, 

adipocyte-related cytokines, clotting factors, and other metabolic parameters. 

Dr. Rimm has published more than 280 peer-reviewed manuscripts in 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 

this capacity, she consults to programs regarding communication research and strategies for engaging NCEH and 

ATSDR audiences. She is an expert in communication planning and development, with a specialty in Web-based 

outreach, bridging the disciplines of social marketing, health communication, and human-computer interaction 

(HCI). Ms. Robinson has a B.A. degree in Economics from the University 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 University 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 Ohio State University; and as an assistant professor in the Environmental Health Science Program and the 

Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia. Dr. Santerre’s research involves food toxicology and nutrition. He 

has conducted studies to examine the effects of cooking on xenobiotics and has developed rapid methods for 

measuring chemical contaminants. Dr. Santerre was the National Spokesperson for the Institute of Food 

Technologists and has 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 Toxicology. 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-12 

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 toxicologist 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 toxicologist at the St. Johns River Water Management District in Florida, where he developed a 

sediment 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 that 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 in 1986. Prior to her current position, she was associate director of the Health and 

Ecological Criteria Division of the Office of Science and Technology. 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 determinations from the 

Contaminant Candidate List. She has held various positions in the Office of Research and Development, including 

chief of the Methods Evaluation and Development staff, 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 polycyclic 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 has 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 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-13 

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 the 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 Sjödin, Ph.D. 

Andreas Sjödin 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. Sjödin has published journal articles in such publications as Talanta, Analytical Chemistry, Health 

Perspectives, and Chemosphere. 

Dr. Sjödin 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. Sjödin’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 has 

been shown by analyzing quality control samples. Since May 2004, Dr. Sjödin 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) in 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 identifying and quantifying exposures to environmental 

contaminants in the general population, as well as in 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 has 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 Stern 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 in 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 in Public Health from the Columbia University School of Public Health 
Appendix A Biosketches of Speakers and Moderators 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish A-14 

(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. Stern’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 has an M.S. degree and a Ph.D. 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. 

Nigel J. 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 in England in 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 in 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) (F113), Institute of Medicine 

(IOM). She has previously been an instructor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and Virginia Tech. Since 

joining IOM in 2001, Dr. Yaktine has directed studies on dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in 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 in 2003. She is currently serving as 

the director for two studies—Assessing Worksite Preventive Health Programs for NASA Employees and Nutrient 

Relationships in 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. 
Proceedings of the 2005 National 

Forum on Contaminants in Fish 

Appendix B 

Final Participant List 

Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-1 

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@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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-2 

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, MI 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. Barron 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-3 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-4 

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. Box 4010 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-5 

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 Callam 

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 

D and N/MS 4013 

3901 Rainbow Boulevard 

Kansas City, KS 66160 

Tel: 913-588-5359 

Fax: 913-588-8946 

E-mail: scarlson@kumc.edu 

Liz Carr, 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-6 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-7 

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 

Fort Meade, 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-8 

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 

Fort Snelling, 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-9 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-10 

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, RI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-11 

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, MI 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.guiseppielie@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, MI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-12 

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 

Camille 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-13 

George Henderson 

Senior Research Scientist 

Information Science and Management 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

 Commission 

100 8th 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. Box 19276 

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, WI 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, WI 53703 

Tel: 608-267-3565 

E-mail: immpb@dhfs.state.wi.us 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-14 

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 

AMEC 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. Box 43124 

Detroit, MI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-15 

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, WI 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, WI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-16 

Joanne Kuprys 

Business Development Coordinator 

Enviro-Test Laboratories 

9936 67th Avenue 

Edmonton, AL T6E 0P5 

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, RI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-17 

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 

1200 6th 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-18 

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 

Fort Meade, 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-19 

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 McIsaac 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-20 

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 

Des Moines, 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-21 

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 

Tetra Tech, 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 

EE RC 

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. Box 9018 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-22 

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, RI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-23 

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, RI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-24 

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, WI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-25 

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 N1G 2W1 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-26 

Andreas Sjödin, 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 

Tetra Tech, 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-27 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-28 

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, MI 49008 

Tel: 269-279-3549 

E-mail: jay.unwin@wmich.edu 

Eric Uram 

Regional Representative 

Sierra Club Midwest Office 

Suite 203 

214 North Henry Street 

Madison, WI 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-29 

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 

Khizar Wasti, 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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-30 

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. Box 12194 

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 
Appendix B Final Participant List 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish B-31 

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 

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 C-1

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 polychlorinated 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. Highest 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.” 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-2

Does Living Near a Superfund Site Lead to Higher Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Exposure?

Anna L. Choi1

, Jonathan I. Levy1, Douglas W. Dockery1, Louise M. Ryan2, and Susan A. Korrick1,3

1

Department of Environmental Health and 2Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, 

Boston, MA. 3

Channing 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 

(∑PCB) 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 log10∑PCB 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 ∑PCB 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 ∑PCB, with a significant association with organ meat and local dairy consumption. Infants born later 

in the study had lower levels of ∑PCB, possibly due to secular declines in exposure and site remediation. 

No association was found between ∑PCB 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 of fish 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-3

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 Quincy 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 that 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-4

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 that 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 that consume stocked brood stock. 

 3. Fry produced in hatcheries. 

Modeling results indicate that, for hatchery lake trout, a PCB concentration of 0.057 μg/g, or less, in food 

will result in concentrations in lake trout that are below the Great Lakes fish consumption advisory trigger 

of 0.05 μg/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 μg/g, and the finished feed not exceed 0.057 μg/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://www.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 then 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-5

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, kmullen@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 polychlorinated 

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 Frithsen, 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 of fish 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 of fish (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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-6

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 of fish 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, blackfin 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 that respondents and their household members 

consistently consume fish at levels lower than the safe threshold outlined in the FDA/EPA mercury 

advisory. These fishermen were aware of fish 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 that 

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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-7

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 of fish from each corresponding year are listed, and comparisons among species 

of fish 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: 1

jmcclaff@vt.edu, 2khockett@vt.edu. 

Full report (CMI-HDD-05-01) is available online: http://www.cmiweb.org/hdd.htm. 

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 a new 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 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-8

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 PCBimpacted waterways across the United States that varied in the type of PCBs that were the source of the 

contamination had mean and 95% statistical confidence limit TEQ levels lower than 46.4 mg-TEQ/KgPCB. 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-9

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 that 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 of fish 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. 

Hexabromocyclododecane in Chesapeake Bay Fish

Randolph Larsen1

, Elizabeth Davis1, Aaron Peck2, Daniel Liebert3, and Kristy Richardson3

Affiliations: 1

St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, MD. 2NOAA, Hollings Marine Lab, 

Charleston, SC. 3

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 

Hexabromocyclododecane (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 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-10

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 MidAtlantic 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 Lovejoy, 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+. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-11

Norwegian Surveillance of Seafood Safety

Amund Maage1

, Mette K. Lorentzen2, Malin Florvåg2, Agathe Medhus2, and Kaare Julshamn1

1

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 of fish samples. 

The National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES) is responsible for running the abovementioned 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-HRMSS; 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-12

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 fishery. 

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 of fish 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 μg/kg, six additional waterbodies exceeded that value. 

• Seven waterbodies had very low mercury concentrations in the tissue of the fish. 

• Two waterbodies had mercury levels above 0.4 μg/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/FishCon/FishCon.htm
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-13

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 advisory 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 

advisory regarding largemouth bass consumption. The largemouth bass advisory recommends that 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-14

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 3545A for the extraction of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), semivolatile compounds 

(BNAs), chlorinated herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organophosphorus pesticides (OPP), 

polychlorinated dibenzo-p-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 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-15

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 of fish 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 

of fish 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. Ryba,

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 

1

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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-16

Mercury and Omega-3 Long-Chain Fatty Acids in Canned Fish

Shim, S.M., L.E. Dorworth, J.A. Lasrado, and C.R. Santerre1

1

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 (DHA). 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 

1

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 (α = 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 

1

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 PCB in Fish Tissue

Shim, S.M., C.R. Santerre1

, L.E. Dorworth, B.K. Miller, J.R. Stahl, and D.C. Deardorff 

1

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 of fish from the same location 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-17

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 of fish 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. Steadystate 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 normal. 

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 of fish consumption advisories are developed by scientists and other 

experts and then 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-18

Advances in Hg Testing Technology: Liquid Chromatography and Solid Phase Extraction 

Strategies with Applications for Environmental, Medical/Dental, and Fishing Industries.

Christopher W. Shade*†, Andrew Elias†

, and Robert J.M. Hudson‡ 

† Quicksilver Scientific, LLC., Lafayette, CO 80026 

‡ 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 (HgII) 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 HgII

complexes coupled to online cold-vapor generation and atomic fluorescence detection, is highly sensitive 

(absolute detection of < 1pg) 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 μL 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 advisory 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-19

California’s Delta Watershed Fish Project

Elana Silver1

, Alyce Ujihara2, Jessica Kaslow1, May Lynn Tan1, Sun Lee1, Erica Weis2, Diana Lee2, Lori 

Copan1

1

Impact Assessment, Inc. and 2California 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 of fish. 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. Minigrant 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 incorporate 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. 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-20

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 (WIC) 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, county 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/fishadvisory/ 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: Blaine 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 that limit release of these 

chemicals into the environment. 

Mercury in Commercial Fish: Availability, Suitability, and Risk 

Joanna Burger1,2, Alan H. Stern4

, and Michael Gochfeld2,3

1

Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. 2Environmental and Occupational Health 

Sciences Institute and CRESP. 3

UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 08854. 

4

NJ 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 of fish were clearly stated. State agencies might improve information available to consumers 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-21

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 of fish (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 VIljoen, 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 of fish commonly 

caught by anglers along the Southern California coast. White croaker, surfperches, kelp bass, and other 

species of fish collected from several sites along the Los Angeles County and Orange County coasts carry 

concentrations of DDTs and PCBs in edible tissues that 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 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-22

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 (EDT) 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 inform 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 (EDT) 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) that accumulates 

in fish tissue. Given that there 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. Warner, Oceana, Washington, D.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 of fish landed at the Rodeo and compared to fish preferences and consumption 
Appendix C Poster Abstracts 

2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish C-23

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.