Exposure of South Carolinians to commercial meats and fish within their meat and fish diet

Socio-demographic influences on trends of fish consumption during later adult life in the Whitehall II study

Our aim was to investigate how socio-demographic factors influence trends and age-related trajectories of fish consumption. We examined consumption of total, fried and recommended fish (white and oily fish, and shellfish) in the Whitehall II study over 11 years in participants aged 39–59 years at phase 3. The cohort included 8358 British civil servants who completed a FFQ at phase 3 (1991–3), phase 5 (1997–9, n 5430) and phase 7 (2002–4, n 5692). Occupational grade, ethnicity, marital and retirement status were collected at each phase. To analyse changes in age-related trends of fish intake over time according to socio-demographic characteristics, we applied a random mixed-effect model. Over the follow-up a significant increase in consumption of ‘recommended’ (mean: 1·85 to 2·22 portions/week) and total fish (mean: 2·32 to 2·65 portions/week) and a decreasing trend in fried-fish intake (mean: 0·47 to 0·43 portions/week) was observed. Recommended, fried and total fish consumption differed by occupational status, ethnicity, marital status and sex. The trend of age-related fish intake diverged significantly by ethnicity. In South Asian participants (n 432), slope of recommended-fish consumption was significantly higher compared with white participants (0·077 v. 0·025 portions/week per year). For black participants (n 275) slope of fried-fish intake was significantly higher compared with white participants (0·0052 v. − 0·0025 portions/week per year). In terms of public health, our descriptive and analytical work allows detailed understanding of the impact of socio-demographic factors on fish intake and its age-related trends. Such information is valuable for food policies that seek to promote health equity.

Fishing, fish consumption, and awareness about warnings in a university community in central New Jersey in 2007, and comparisons with 2004

Fish are a healthy source of protein, but the risks from consuming fish have become a national concern. Over the past 7 years, there have been a number of national advisories regarding saltwater fish. Fish consumption patterns and public knowledge about advisories and warnings have been examined for at-risk populations, but there is little information about the latter for a general population, or of temporal trends in such information acquisition. Information about the benefits and health risks of consuming fish, health warnings from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Food and Drug Administration, belief in these warnings, and trust in different sources of information were examined in a sample of 460 people within a university community in central New Jersey in 2007. The null hypothesis of no differences in fishing, consumption, and knowledge about advisories as a function of age, gender, ethnicity, and education was tested. In 2007, only 30% of the study population fished, and 83% of the study population ate fish, either commercial or self-caught. There were differences in fishing behavior, consumption patterns, and awareness of advisories as a function of gender, ethnicity, age, and education. Most notably, nearly twice as many men as women fished, Whites fished more and Blacks and Indian/Pakistanis fished less than other ethnic groups, and people aged 23-35 fished more than did others. About 8% of fish meals were from self-caught fish, 32% were eaten in restaurants, and 60% were of fish bought in stores and cooked at home. Men ate more meals of self-caught fish than did females, and Asians ate more meals of fish in restaurants, and Blacks ate more meals of store-bought fish than other ethnic groups. The total number of fish meals consumed per month increased significantly with age. Overall, more people had heard about the benefits (92%) than the risks (78%) of fish consumption. When asked whom they trust for information about health benefits and risks from eating fish, doctors were rated the highest, followed by professors; friends and fishermen were rated the lowest. We then examined whether there were any changes from 2004 to 2007 in the knowledge of the health benefits and warnings about fish consumption, and the trustworthiness of different sources of information. In other words, have communication efforts of the state and federal agencies resulted in any appreciable increase in overall awareness of the benefits or risks of fish consumption. The greatest change in the parameters examined from 2004 to 2007 was an overall decrease in fish consumption from an average of 7.9 meals per month in 2004 to about six meals per month in 2007. This suggests that the unintended effect of some of the warnings and advisories is to decrease overall fish consumption, rather than to switch from fish species with high levels of contaminants to those with low levels.

Heavy metals in commercial fish in New Jersey

Levels of contaminants in fish are of particular interest because of the potential risk to humans who consume them. While attention has focused on self-caught fish, most of the fish eaten by the American public comes from commercial sources. We sampled 11 types of fish and shellfish obtained from supermarkets and specialty fish markets in New Jersey and analyzed them for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and selenium. We test the null hypothesis that metal levels do not vary among fish types, and we consider whether the levels of any metals could harm the fish themselves or their predators or pose a health risk for human consumers. There were significant interspecific differences for all metals, and no fish types had the highest levels of more than two metals. There were few significant correlations (Kendall tau) among metals for the three most numerous fish (yellowfin tuna, bluefish, and flounder), the correlations were generally low (below 0.40), and many correlations were negative. Only manganese and lead positively were correlated for tuna, bluefish, and flounder. The levels of most metals were below those known to cause adverse effects in the fish themselves. However, the levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium in some fish were in the range known to cause some sublethal effects in sensitive predatory birds and mammals and in some fish exceeded health-based standards. The greatest risk from different metals resided in different fish; the species of fish with the highest levels of a given metal sometimes exceeded the human health guidance or standards for that metal. Thus, the risk information given to the public (mainly about mercury) does not present a complete picture. The potential of harm from other metals suggests that people not only should eat smaller quantities of fish known to accumulate mercury but also should eat a diversity of fish to avoid consuming unhealthy quantities of other heavy metals. However, consumers should bear in mind that standards have a margin of safety.

Fishing, fish consumption, and knowledge about advisories in college students and others in central New Jersey

Risks to humans and other organisms from consuming fish have become a national concern. Over the past 3 years there have been a number of national advisories regarding saltwater fish. Although information on fishing, consumption patterns, and public knowledge about advisories has been examined for at-risk populations, there is little information about the latter for a general population. Overall knowledge about advisories, ratings for information about the risks and benefits of eating fish, and the relationship between fishing, consumption patterns, and knowledge about advisories was examined in a sample of 180 college students and others residing in central New Jersey, USA. The null hypothesis of no differences in fishing, consumption, and knowledge about advisories as a function of age, gender, ethnicity, and education was tested. A significantly higher proportion of men fished compared to women, and significantly fewer Blacks and Asians fished than did Whites or Hispanics. More Asians who fished did so in salt water, compared to others. There were no gender differences in consumption patterns, and few age or ethnic differences, mainly due to low sample sizes in some ethnic groups. Significantly fewer young people and fewer Asians ate fish compared to others. Overall, more people knew about the benefits of eating fish than the risks. Half as many people had heard about advisories concerning tuna, and less than a third knew about advisories concerning shark and swordfish than had heard general warnings. There were no gender differences in knowing about advisories, but there were several ethnic differences: a lower percentage of Asians generally knew that there were advisories, and fewer Blacks knew that there were benefits from eating fish than others. People in the age group 21-45 years were less aware of both the benefits and the risks from eating fish compared to older people. These data suggest that risk managers need to target younger people for information about the risks and benefits of consuming fish, particularly given that this is the population that will become pregnant over the next few years. Contrary to some previous research, subjects trusted family, friends, and other fishermen less for knowledge about the risks and benefits of fish consumption than other sources, such as doctors, governmental officials, and university professors. Even with this limited sample size, it is clear that people have heard more about the benefits of fish consumption than the risks, and a relatively low percentage have heard about the recent US Food and Drug Administration warnings about swordfish and shark.

Correlates of regular fish consumption in French elderly community dwellers: data from the Three-City study

OBJECTIVE

Several studies have found an inverse association between fish consumption and risk of dementia. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of older fish consumers, in order to identify potential confounders in this relationship.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of the baseline data of a prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Bordeaux, Dijon, and Montpellier (France) in 1999-2000.

SUBJECTS

A total of 9280 community dwellers aged 65 y and above participating in the baseline examination of the Three-City Study.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants answered a face-to-face interview and underwent a physical examination. Cross-sectional analyses were performed by logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Regular fish consumers (at least weekly) had a higher education (OR from 1.19 to 1.65, P = 0.0003) and income (OR from 1.37 to 1.89, P < 0.0001). Controlling for age, sex, education, and city, they had a higher consumption of pulses, fruit, and vegetables (P < 0.001). They were more often alcohol drinkers (P < 0.0001). They felt in better health (P < 0.05), exhibited less depressive symptoms (P < 0.001), and scored higher on the Mini Mental Status Examination (P < 0.05). However, their objective physical health status was not better, except that they were leaner. They suffered more often from hypertension and past stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic status, dietary habits, depression, and vascular risk factors could act as confounders in the relationship between fish consumption and risk of dementia.

Fish, shellfish, and meat meals of the public in Singapore

Understanding different patterns of fish consumption is an important component of the assessment of risk from contaminants in fish. While there have been extensive studies of fish consumption in Western cultures, less attention has been devoted to the role of fish and meat in the diets of people in other cultures. A survey of 212 people living in Singapore was conducted to examine the relative importance of fish, shellfish, and other meat in their diets and to ascertain whether there were differences as a function of age, income, education or gender. As expected, fish and shellfish played an important role in their daily diets. On average, people ate fish in about 10 meals a week, chicken for eight meals, and shrimp and pork for about six meals each. While nearly 8% never ate fish, 18% ate fish at all 21 meals a week and over 20% ate shellfish for all 21 meals. Income explained about 14% of the variation in the number of fish meals consumed, and age explained about 8% of the variation in number of chicken meals per week. There were no gender differences in the number of meals of each type. People less than 26 years old ate significantly more pork, chicken, and other meat meals and fewer shellfish meals than older people. People with higher incomes ate significantly more fish meals than those with lower incomes. Chinese individuals ate significantly more meals of pork, chicken, and other meat than other ethnic groups, and they ate only 26% of their meals at home, while others ate 33% of their meals at home. The data indicate a great deal of variation in the number of meals of fish, shellfish, and other meats eaten by the people interviewed, making dietary and risk assessments challenging.

Daily consumption of wild fish and game: exposures of high end recreationists

There has been widespread interest in the exposure of indigenous and subsistence populations to a variety of contaminants through the consumption of wild fish and game, yet there is little information on recreationists. Information on wild fish and game consumption in South Carolina are presented here, data on other sources of animal protein are presented elsewhere. Data are presented for use in probabilistic risk assessment. Fish and deer were the most commonly eaten wild-caught foods. High-end consumers were eating at nearly 10x the median consumption rate for most wild-caught foods. There were significant differences in consumption as a function of age and ethnicity that should be taken into account when conducting risk assessments for the consumption of wild-caught meat and fish. Men consumed more of these foods, while white sportsmen consumed more deer and black sportsmen consumed more fish. Similar data are not generally available, either for the U.S. as a whole, or for specific geographical locations, although there are data for self-caught fish because of the issuance of consumption advisories for U.S. waters.