Environ Health PerspectEnviron. Health PerspectEHPEnvironmental Health Perspectives0091-67651552-9924NLM-Export247876434014771ehp.1307997R10.1289/ehp.1307997RCorrespondenceFish Consumption and Blood Mercury Levels: Golding et al. RespondGoldingJean1SteerColin D.1LoweryTony2JonesRobert3HibbelnJoseph R.4Centre for Child and Adolescent Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, United KingdomNational Seafood Inspection Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pascagoula, Mississippi, USAInorganic and Radiation Analytical Toxicology Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USANational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.E-mail: Jean.Golding@bristol.ac.uk0152014520141225A120A121Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
Obviously our article (Golding et al. 2013) must have been less than clear in leading Groth to assume findings that we had not claimed. For example, he states both that “there was no strong correlation between fish consumption and blood mercury levels” and that we “observed no association between fish intake and blood mercury.” Neither statement is true. We did show that the R2 for total blood mercury associated with seafood consumption was 8.75%, implying a correlation coefficient of about 0.3. The relationship between fish intake and blood mercury was highly significant (p < 0.0001).
The point that we were making in the article was that seafood did contribute to the total blood mercury levels, but that many other dietary items did so as well. The other studies quoted by Groth did not investigate other sources of mercury. However, two studies in the United Kingdom have shown that seafood provides only 25–33% of dietary mercury (Ysart et al. 1999, 2000); although we did not distinguish between types of fish, these authors assayed the mercury content of 500 different samples of seafood, typical of a normal UK diet.
In conclusion we do not disagree with Groth that excessive consumption of fish with high mercury content should be avoided, but would emphasize the overall beneficial effects of fish in general.
The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.
ReferencesGolding J, Steer CD, Hibbeln JR, Emmett PM, Lowery T, Jones R.2013Dietary predictors of maternal prenatal blood mercury levels in the ALSPAC birth cohort study.Environ Health Perspect12112141218; 10.1289/ehp.120611523811414YsartGMillerPCrewsHRobbPBaxterMde L’ArgyC1999Dietary exposure estimates of 30 elements from the UK Total Diet Study.Food Addit Contam1639140310755130YsartGMillerPCroasdaleMCrewsHRobbPBaxterM2000UK Total Diet Study—dietary exposures to aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, tin and zinc.Food Addit Contam1777578611091791