The Gazette’s John McCoy already commented on the state Department of Environmental Protection’s somewhat bizarre thinking on mercury in fish. The other day on his Woods and Waters blog, John joked that maybe West Virginians could sell “mercury offsets” to folks in other states who want to eat more fish contaminated with mercury.

Now, the Center for Progressive Reform, a network of scholars who follow such issues, has weighed in.Writing on the CPR blog, Seattle University law professor Catherine O’Neill says that the WVDEP is ignoring the important fact that fish is good for our health — if it isn’t contaminated with unsafe amounts of mercury.

Remember, as both the Gazette and West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported,  WVDEP officials want to keep the state’s limit on mercury in fish tissue, which is weaker than that recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Currently, West Virginia’s standard is 0.5 parts per million, while EPA recommends 0.3 parts per million. WVDEP says this is just fine, because a recent survey showed West Virginians eat less fish than the national average that the EPA number is based on.

In her commentary, O’Neill describes WVDEP’s logic as slippery:

… Why might people in West Virginia eat less fish? One reason is likely the statewide fish consumption advisory warning people to limit their consumption of fish caught in all West Virginia waters, due to mercury contamination.

But isn’t the amount of mercury contamination permitted in the state’s waters limited by the WVDEP? Well, yes. But any limitations on sources’ releases of mercury are keyed to the WVDEP’s water quality standard for mercury — the one that is relatively lenient — so sources in this case can release relatively more mercury. Which leads West Virginia to issue more restrictive fish consumption advisories. Which leads people to eat less fish. Which registers as a lower fish consumption rate in studies. Which supports WVDEP in promulgating even more lenient water quality standards for mercury. Which allows sources to release more mercury. Which leads West Virginia to issue more restrictive fish consumption advisories …

O’Neill also explains that most health experts advocate eating fish:

Nutritionists continue to extol the health benefits of eating fish. Fish are an excellent source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and a host of other nutrients essential to human health. And, if one can drop a line or dip a net into nearby waters, fish can be a relatively inexpensive source of these nutrients as well. In fact, the American Heart Association recommends that adults eat two 6-ounce fish meals per week, in order to ensure cardiovascular health. The EPA and the Food and Drug Administration similarly recommend that pregnant and nursing women eat two 6-once fish meals per week, in order to ensure the healthy development of their babies.

She continues:

Yet if a woman in West Virginia were to consume this amount of fish, she could be exposed to methylmercury at levels nearly four times the level determined to be safe for any babies she carried. Methylmercury (the form of mercury that bioaccumulates in fish) is a potent neurotoxin. Exposure to even very small amounts of methylmercury in utero or during childhood can lead to irreversible neurological damage. For this reason, EPA has determined a threshold for exposure at 0.1 μg/kilogram bodyweight per day. Given that WVDEP’s water quality standards allow 0.5 micrograms of mercury per gram of fish tissue, and assuming a bodyweight of 65 kilograms (i.e., 142 pounds – the average bodyweight for women assumed by EPA), a woman eating fish at the level recommended by the American Heart Association would be exposed to 0.38 μg/kilogram bodyweight per day. This amount, obviously, is more than enough to put the neurological health of her babies at risk.

And:

We should reject West Virginia’s logic and, instead, take every opportunity to eliminate mercury releases – and there are several at hand. We should, for example, require meaningful reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities; phase out the remaining mercury cell chlor-alkali plants (see my recent congressional testimony on this  ); and regulate mercury releases from gold mining. We should, in short, get serious about risk reduction if we are to ensure the health of our children and the viability of fish as a food source.

WVDEP has posted information about its proposals here, and  you can read another view on this subject on Charleston lawyer David Yaussy’s West Virginia Environmental Law Blog. Dave seems to think WVDEP’s logic makes sense, and supports the idea that there’s no reason to tighten the state’s mercury fish limit. He doesn’t mention that one of his clients, PPG Industries, is among West Virginia’s biggest mercury polluters, or that the company convinced WVDEP to help it get out of a citizen suit to enforce water pollution limits for mercury at its Marshall County plant.  (More on PPG and mercury in this previous Sustained Outrage post).

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 12:18 pm and is filed under Environment, Public safety. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.