Unsubscribe

By JOAN LOWY, Scripps Howard News Service

The chairman of a key obstetrics panel said there is not enough scientific evidence to justify doctors "terrifying" pregnant women by cautioning them not to eat mercury-laden large fish like tuna.

At the same time, members of a National Academy of Sciences committee that reported on the dangers of mercury contamination insisted that women who don't limit their consumption of tuna and other big fish might be putting their children at risk of subtle brain damage, particularly learning disabilities.

Revealing a broad schism in scientific and medical opinion on the dangers of low-level mercury exposure to the developing fetus, Dr. Charles Lockwood, chairman of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' panel on obstetric practice, dismissed the academy's conclusions as unproven.

"There is some junk science at work here," Lockwood, who is also chairs the department of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University's School of Medicine, said in an interview. "They can say whatever they want; we've reviewed the basis for their findings and there isn't a lot of substance to it ... The jury is not in on the real risk to women."

People are exposed to mercury primarily by eating larger, long-lived fish that have accumulated mercury in their flesh. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning to pregnant women not to eat four types of fish - shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tile - and to limit their consumption of all other fish to no more than 12 ounces per week.

However, FDA officials have resisted specifically citing tuna - the nation's most commonly consumed fish - in their warning, saying pregnant women are already overburdened with too many warnings and they may cease eating fish at all if told to cut back on tuna. Lacking incontrovertible proof that mercury is harming babies, obstetricians generally aren't cautioning pregnant women to avoid eating certain kinds of fish or to reduce their overall fish consumption despite the FDA warning, Lockwood said.

"Almost every obstetrician I talk to knows about the (FDA mercury) recommendations," Lockwood said. "If the patient asks, almost everybody knows what to say, but I don't think anybody is volunteering information."

"It's already tough enough because we terrify pregnant women with every conceivable turn of the page," he said. "They are worried about having babies with Down syndrome or chromosomal abnormalities; they go through all these screening tests, which result in patients being scared out of their wits for no reason, and here's yet another thing coming down the road - you can't eat fish anymore ... We've made pregnancy a very un-fun thing."

The college's 40,000 members include virtually every board-certified obstetrician in the country.

The National Academy of Sciences report, released in July 2000, estimated that each year about 60,000 children might be born in the United States with neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance because of exposure to mercury in the womb.

Last year, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a landmark survey that used blood and urine samples from hundreds of people across the country to assess the exposure of Americans to mercury and other environmental chemicals.

The survey found that 10 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their bodies high enough to pose a potential threat to their fetuses should they become pregnant. That would represent about 6 million women or 375,000 annual births - substantially higher than the academy committee's projection, which was based on estimates of fish-consumption patterns rather than actual data about human exposure.

"I am stunned and shocked that any medical scientist could make that statement because the peer-reviewed literature says the opposite," said Vasken Aposhian, an expert on mercury toxicology and a member of the national academy committee, referring to Lockwood's contention that dangers of low-level mercury exposure are unproven.

"Pregnant women should be made aware that eating a large amount of fish during their pregnancy might be harmful to the child they are carrying," Aposhian said. "If obstetricians do not want to tell them that, then someone else should do so."

Thomas Burke, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University who was a member of the academy panel, said no one is telling women not to eat fish at all - only to avoid or reduce their consumption of certain kinds of fish, including tuna.

"What we're talking about is avoiding an avoidable risk," Burke said. "This is one (professional) society and, unfortunately, they are a very important one. You would hope that they would move forward with taking a more prevention-oriented approach" rather than waiting for "the devastating effects of measurable birth defects."

• 
• Print this page