3 ms·

>Train how you live as soon as possible. There are dangerous caveats to this advice! For example, don't feed infants fish or shellfish more than this allergy t

by 1970-01-01 4y ago

>Train how you live as soon as possible. There are dangerous caveats to this advice! For example, don't feed infants fish or shellfish more than this allergy test. They contain one of the highest levels of mercury in the entire food web. Best to wait until the they've grown.

eloff 4y ago
Unless you feed them huge quantities of seafood, I fail to see how this is an issue. From an allergy standpoint small exposure would be enough to reduce risk of developing an allergy.
- 1970-01-01 4y ago
  The new FDA risk-benefit analysis is currently ongoing and will be published later this year. Right now, it's no more than 2oz/week for certain fish. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-role-of-seafood-in-child-growth-and-development https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-role-of-seafo...
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  Even small amounts of mmercury during early development can have significant effects.
_yb2s 4y ago
Most seafood is actually very low in mercury, only a few species that are high in the food chain (e.g. shark) are high in mercury due to bio-magnification. Moreover, it has been observed that traditional fishing cultures that have a high mercury intake have zero symptoms of mercury toxicity. The leading hypothesis of this is that the high selenium content in these same fish is protective against mercury exposure[1]. Consider also the observation that cultures with high fish intake have good health outcomes, and that omega-3 supplementation fails to recover those benefits. This makes me feel that eating a lot of fish is likely much healthier than avoiding it, and avoiding it is probably leading to nutrition deficiency, including possibly selenium, which is a much bigger risk than the potential for mercury toxicity. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161813X20301546 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01618...

eloff 4y ago

Unless you feed them huge quantities of seafood, I fail to see how this is an issue. From an allergy standpoint small exposure would be enough to reduce risk of developing an allergy.

1970-01-01 4y ago
The new FDA risk-benefit analysis is currently ongoing and will be published later this year. Right now, it's no more than 2oz/week for certain fish. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-role-of-seafood-in-child-growth-and-development https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-role-of-seafo...
CameronNemo 4y ago
Even small amounts of mmercury during early development can have significant effects.

_yb2s 4y ago

Most seafood is actually very low in mercury, only a few species that are high in the food chain (e.g. shark) are high in mercury due to bio-magnification. Moreover, it has been observed that traditional fishing cultures that have a high mercury intake have zero symptoms of mercury toxicity. The leading hypothesis of this is that the high selenium content in these same fish is protective against mercury exposure[1]. Consider also the observation that cultures with high fish intake have good health outcomes, and that omega-3 supplementation fails to recover those benefits. This makes me feel that eating a lot of fish is likely much healthier than avoiding it, and avoiding it is probably leading to nutrition deficiency, including possibly selenium, which is a much bigger risk than the potential for mercury toxicity. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161813X20301546 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01618...