Mercury, The FDA & The Truth, Wake Up America The FDA recently declared mercury safe for the food supply, claiming that there was no danger in consuming mercury in fish. Yet the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has declared mercury to be toxic to human consumption. Studies have connected mercury with neurological brain disorders including autism and ms. Its time the FDA cleaned up its act.

FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!

www.naturalnews.com...

Brain Neuron Degeneration via Mercury

www.youtube.com...

Be My Friend

www.myspace.com...

Visit Radhia's Website at

www.advancedhealthinstitute.com...
www.aimmd.com...

Visit Peter McCarthy's website

www.lifeenergyholisticcenter.com...

Visit Texas Health Freedom Coalition

www.texashealthfreedom.com...

Radhia Gleis is certified in Clinical Nutrition, C.C.N. She is also a Certified BioNutritional Analyst.

In January, FDA published what’s called a draft assessment of the benefits and risks of eating fish. It asked for public comment. While it’s hard summarize the technically dense, 350-page report, FDA’s conclusions seem to be that mercury risks are very small, and that telling women to eat more fish has greater public health benefits than telling them to eat low-mercury fish. (The focus is on women because fetuses are at the highest risk from mercury. Mercury is a neurotoxin and the developing brains of fetuses and kids are most vulnerable to its poisonous effects.) Next step (though FDA doesn't say this): stop telling people to limit their consumption of high-mercury fish.
Advertisement

Bizarrely, FDA has structured the choice as “either/or:” Eat more fish, or eat low-mercury fish. For reasons I can’t imagine, FDA left out of its analysis the scenario that combines the two: eat more fish, but only low-mercury fish. In every scenario it ran, fish benefits and mercury damage largely offset each other. Obviously, the eat-more-low-mercury fish approach would have greater benefits than doing one but not the other—as researchers (and FDA) have been saying for years. Why would you want to wipe out the brain-healthy effects of fish by having a little neurotoxin on the side?...
...
Research scientists and EPA, however, say FDA’s analysis is junk science. For one thing, FDA’s estimate of mercury risk is based on a 22-year-old study in Iraq that observed the age when kids first talk—but the children’s actual ages were unknown. FDA “adjusted” that risk estimate with data from the Seychelles Islands, where the harmful effects of mercury were obscured by the benefits of eating fish

We are writing to express significant concerns with FDA’s January 2009 draft report entitled “Quantitative Risk and Benefit Assessment of Consumption of Commercial Fish” (FDA 2009a). FDA has used this analysis in large part to conclude that the health benefits of eating large amounts of seafood outweigh the health risks from exposures to methylmercury. But the purpose, assumptions, data, models, and conclusions inherent in and derived from this draft assessment are fundamentally flawed and are so far from standard scientific practice that we consider FDA’s effort to be beyond repair....
...
Among numerous methodological errors and faulty assumptions EPA describes in nearly 50 pages of comments, the Agency notes that FDA relies on science regarding neurodevelopmental risks that “had been completely abandoned by the scientific community as a basis for risk assessment for more than a decade.” EPA’s review provides dozens of examples in which FDA scientists make questionable, faulty or unfounded choices with the effect of boosting boosting benefits or reducing risks from seafood consumption above what is justified scientifically...
...
No reviewer has yet been able to conduct a complete review of FDA’s complex and poorly documented model, but flaws in assumptions and methodology outside of the model code are more than sufficient to support the position that the draft be completely withdrawn.