4/18/99

Mercury standards may dip

By JAN HOLLINGSWORTH of The Tampa Tribune

Critics fear a proposal to weaken guidelines for fish consumption advisories poses a risk, especially to children.

It is an annual rite of spring: Great schools of king mackerel swarm up the coast of West Central Florida as Gulf waters begin to warm.

Swift and large, the mighty macks are good sport and great eating. But the tasty kingfish and several other local species harbor a hazard: mercury, a poisonous metal that can cause irreversible nerve and kidney damage.

A 33-inch kingfish contains enough mercury to warrant a state health advisory that pregnant women and children consume no more than one serving per month. Other adults are limited to one per week.

Steaks from the larger kings - those that measure more than 39 inches - contain so much mercury the Health Department says it's dangerous to eat them at all.

Shark, Spanish mackerel, catfish, jack, ladyfish and spotted sea trout also are subject to regional consumption advisories. So are bass, bowfin and gar found in 2,100 miles of rivers and 183,000 acres of lakes in Florida.

MOST STATES look to federal agencies - especially the Environmental Protection Agency - in setting their mercury consumption standards.

But the Agency for Toxic Studies and Disease Registry, a sister to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is expected to issue new, weaker mercury guidelines Monday that set safe consumption levels three times higher than EPA's.

The impending report has set off controversy among some public health officials and environmentalists who say lowering the standard places children and the unborn at higher risk of developmental and nervous system disorders.

``We are very concerned by the high level of disagreement in the scientific community and federal government over the [Agency for Toxic Studies'] proposed minimum risk level for mercury and the methodology used to derive it,'' wrote Richard Levinson in a letter last month to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.

Levinson, associate executive director for the American Public Health Association, asked Shalala to delay release of the weaker health standards ``to await greater scientific consensus.''

THE NATIONAL Academy of Sciences is due to complete a major review of the health risks posed by mercury next summer.

Numerous members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have written Shalala asking her to postpone the Agency for Toxic Studies' report until the academy releases its analysis.

The debate over safe levels of mercury has been complicated by two conflicting studies. One found that very low levels of mercury affect the developing brain in fetuses and young children. The other didn't.

The Agency for Toxic Studies chose to base its proposed standard on the study that showed no effects, an approach that has led to accusations that federal officials are bowing to pressure from mercury-producing industries to minimize the health hazard.

``Unfortunately, politics has gotten in the middle of science here,'' said Michael Bender of Mercury Policy Project in Montpelier, Vt.

Tom Atkeson, mercury coordinator for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, doesn't believe the Agency for Toxic Studies' impending action ispolitically motivated.

``Their previous numbers were very low,'' said Atkeson. ``A lot of people would have characterized their earlier standards as overly conservative.''

But with pregnant women and children at risk and the scientific community at odds, ``shouldn't we err on the side of safety until we know more?'' Bender asked.

FORTY STATES currently issue mercury health advisories - most for fish caught in lakes and rivers. According to an analysis by the utilities industry, under the proposed weaker standard, ``most of those state fish advisories go away,'' said Bender.

That's not likely to happen in Florida, said Atkeson.

``The debate seems to oscillate around where Department of Health recommendations have always been,'' he said.

While Florida's mercury standards are weaker than EPA's, they are stricter than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's, which doesn't take into account local fish consumption patterns.

``We have information that people in Florida eat more fish than the national average. So to be protective, we feel we need a stricter value,'' said Andrew Reich, a Health Department toxicologist.

About a dozen other states use stricter standards than Florida in issuing their mercury advisories.

Industries that emit mercury already are touting the disease registry's proposal as evidence that the public health hazards of fish contamination are overstated.

THE CONTROVERSY comes at a time when coal-fired power plants, incinerators and other industries are trying to fend off attempts to crack down on their mercury emissions.

Earlier this month, EPA announced that Tampa Electric Company's Big Bend power plant is among 84 coal-fired plants in the nation that will be required to monitor how much mercury they release. The monitoring is considered an initial step toward instituting mercury pollution control strategies for the plants.

The agency estimates coal-fired plants release more than 52 tons of mercury each year, although the emissions have never been measured or regulated.

Commercial fishermen also have a large stake in the mercury debate, with some groups expressing concern over the possibility of potential federal consumption advisories.

``I think the fishing industry has aligned itself with the wrong side of the issue, because mercury levels are ultimately going to impact the world's food supply,'' said Bender.

An exception is the U.S. Tuna Foundation, whose members - StarKist Foods, Bumble Bee Seafoods and Chicken of the Sea International - adopted a resolution in January that underscores its concern over unregulated mercury emissions.

Meanwhile, EPA is sticking to its guns until the academy completes its review next year.

``This revised profile should not change any warning or advisory presently in place,'' according to an agency spokeswoman. ``When the [National Academy of Sciences] comes out with its report, all of the federal agencies will work together.''

The Agency for Toxic Studies isn't waiting until then, saying it has a mandate to update its toxicology profiles every three years.

Critics say the agency already missed its three-year deadline and that there is precedence to wait for a scientific consensus. A standard for the controversial compound dioxin, for instance, was delayed for eight years.

``For the life of me, I don't understand why they don't just want to step back and wait,'' said Bender.