The One Thing No One Tells Women About Seafood

A new report has some bad news for fish lovers.

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-386528662/stock-photo-various-kinds-of-sushi-served-on-black-stone-sushi-set-sashimi-and-sushi-rolls-close-up-top-view.html?src=mlTrzFaYbq9wGzrrjxWsrQ-1-137">Malyugin</a>/Shutterstock


Pregnant? Time to ditch that tuna.

According to a new report from the Environmental Working Group, pregnant women who eat the amount of fish suggested by federal guidelines routinely have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood.

The Food and Drug Administration recommends that expecting mothers eat two to three servings of fish per week, with an emphasis on those high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in mercury, a neurotoxin that can put a developing fetus at risk. But the EWG, which tested mercury levels in 254 pregnant women following the recommendations, found that 1 in 3 participants had mercury levels deemed unsafe by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“These are savvy, health-conscious women who thought they were making the right choices, so they were shocked to find high levels of mercury in their bodies,” said author Sonya Lunder in a statement. “What’s more, the fish they ate didn’t provide enough omega-3s. The seafood advice from the FDA and EPA should be much more detailed and specific, to help women balance the harm from mercury and the benefits of omega-3s.”

Federal guidelines don’t specify exactly how much mercury in fish is too much, but generally speaking, the mercury-heavy fish tend to be at the top of the food chain—think tuna, swordfish, and marlin. They ingest the heavy metal when feeding on smaller contaminated fish, which, in turn, absorb it from water polluted by coal-fired power plants or other industrial sources.

For seafood lovers trying to avoid heavy metal, there are plenty of options low in mercury and high in omega-3 fatty acids:

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.