Even in the best of times, spring’s long days, warming temperatures, greening landscapes, and sunshine represent a time of growth and optimisma time to open windows, go outdoors, perhaps even try one’s hand at gardening or fishing.
This spring, during a moment in history that will be remembered for its uncertainty, the arrival of spring feels especially welcome and fishing is among the activities that people will be engaged in as the weather warms.
For some, fishing is a means of outdoor recreation. For others, it is a livelihood. And for others, it represents an affordable way to meet their nutritional needsespecially pressing now, given the economic hardship and potential supply-chain disruptions brought on by the novel coronavirus virus.
Since the pandemic began, grocery store fish and shellfish sales in the United States have risen and the consumption of self-harvested fish and shellfish may also increase as a result of this pandemic.
Changes in dietary patterns have public health and environmental implications, and it is important for health and environmental professionals to consider revisiting the usual approach to weighing benefits and risks of fish and shellfish consumption to better reflect a full scope of considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In some cases, this may mean shifting the narrative around fish consumption advisories from the current harm-prevention framework, to more of a risk-reduction model.
Fish consumption presents a critical tradeoff to consumers even under normal circumstances.
Fish are a major source of protein and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, a class of lipids associated with a wide range of health benefits, including decreased risk of cardiovascular disease.
Unfortunately, environmental contaminants accumulate in fish tissue, posing health risks to consumers.
Contaminants known to be associated with adverse health effects that are commonly found in fish include methylmercury; per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs); and other organochlorines.
In the U.S., state agencies use a traditional risk assessment process to establish fish consumption advisories. The process is predicated on harm prevention and estimates how much fish can safely be consumed from a specific body of water or region that is contaminated.
The advisories state the frequency with which fish servings of a given size (e.g., two 4-oz servings of locally-harvested trout per month) should be consumed by sensitive populationsusually women of child-bearing age and young children.
While fish consumption advisories are considered best practice for protecting fish consumers there are key shortcomings. Common limitations include:
— The risk-only approach, which does not adequately address the trade-offs between health benefits and risks,
— The individual-chemical approach used for calculating advisories, which addresses each contaminant but does not account for the combined health effects of multiple chemicals,
— The cultural or personal significance of fish or shellfish in one’s diet.
It is important for health and environmental professionals to identify their own communities’ specific needs with respect to self-harvested fish. While we know that fishing confers many nutritional and psychological benefits, the salience of different benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic will vary across populations.
Advising the public effectively about fish consumption requires an understanding of the risks presented by contaminant exposures, but it also requires a willingness to listen.
Knowledge about environmental hazards is only as valuable as knowledge of their context, and as the context shifts, so must we all.
Environmental Health Sciences