Abstract
Purpose of Review
Our comparative analysis sought to understand the factors which drive differences in fish consumption advisories across the USA — including exposure scenarios (acute and chronic health risk, non-cancer and cancer health endpoints), toxicity values (reference dose, cancer slope factor, acute tolerance level), and meal size and bodyweight assumptions.
Recent Findings
Fish consumption provides essential nutrients but also results in exposure to contaminants such as PCBs and methylmercury. To protect consumers from the risks of fish contaminants, fish consumption advisories are established, most often by state jurisdictions, to estimate the amount of a certain fish species a person could consume throughout their lifetime without harm. However, inconsistencies in advisories across the USA confuse consumers and undermine the public health goals of fish advisory programs. To date, no rigorous comparison of state and national fish consumption advisories has been reported.
Summary
Our work identifies discrepancies in key assumptions used to derive risk-based advisories between US states, reflecting differences in the interpretation of toxicity science. We also address the implications for these differences by reviewing advisories issued by contiguous states bordering two waterbodies: Lake Michigan and the Lower Mississippi River. Our findings highlight the importance of regional collaboration when issuing advisories, so that consumers of self-caught fish are equipped with clear knowledge to make decisions to protect their health.
Challenges in regional collaboration
