Seafood Choices Balancing Benefits and Risks (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Analysis of the Balancing of Benefits and Risks of Seafood Consumption
5 Analysis of the Balancing of Benefits and Risks of Seafood Consumption
Pages 195-216
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 195... ...
Thus it relied on its expert judgement to produce a qualitative scientific benefit-risk analysis and balancing of the benefits and risks of seafood consumption. INTRODUCTION Advice to consumers about balancing the benefits and risks of seafood consumption must be based on the best available scientific information.
|
From page 196... ...
Diverse evidence, of varying levels of completeness and uncertainty, on different types of benefits and risks must be combined to carry out the balancing required in the first step in designing consumer guidance. To produce coordinated benefit-risk advice requires combining expertise from several disciplines, as this committee has done.
|
From page 197... ...
The committee outlined an approach to balance benefits against risks, conducted an analysis of the trade-offs, and considered additional factors that informed each in order to produce a decision framework that incorporates benefit and risk analysis. Over time, the process of balancing benefits and risks must be iterative, with systematic, objective reviews following strict profiles, and updates and reinterpretation as new evidence is developed.
|
From page 198... ...
For Step 1 of the three-step process, the committee developed the approach of benefit-risk analysis to design consumer guidance on balancing benefits and risks associated with seafood consumption, shown in Box 5-1. The approach points to the types of information needed to improve benefitrisk decisions.
|
From page 199... ...
. Though the committee recognized that the RfD was not a "bright line" that established a firm cutoff for risk, the FDA/EPA fish advisory provides reasonable guidelines for pregnant women to consume seafood in amounts that may confer benefit without significantly increasing risk.
|
From page 200... ...
Given the current evidence reviewed in this report, decisions about seafood consumption for the general population consuming commercially available seafood fall into four target populations: (1) females who are or may become pregnant, and those who are breastfeeding; (2)
|
From page 201... ...
The committee did not consider potential impacts of seafood choices on other vitamins and minerals because it relied on the conclusions already drawn by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) that the substitution of two servings of seafood for two servings of animal protein foods would not substantially impact the vitamin and mineral content of the diet of the average American consumer (DGAC, 2005)
|
From page 202... ...
Although most seafood choices are lower in fat than animal meats, poultry, and eggs, the impact on energy and saturated fat intake depends on the particular substitution being made. For example, although salmon provides less energy and saturated fat than either of the beef choices shown in Table 5-1, it is higher in both these nutrients than chicken or eggs.
|
From page 203... ...
0 ANALYSIS OF ThE BALANCING OF BENEFITS AND RISKS dioxins and DLCs. Food choices are compared in Table 5-1.
|
From page 204... ...
Salmon N/A 175 N/A 2.1 2 54 2 1.8 White (albacore) tuna N/A 109 N/A 0.7 N/A 36 N/A 0.7 Light tuna N/A 99 N/A 0.2 3 26 5 0.2 Shrimp N/A 84 N/A 0.2 0 166 11 0.3 Beef, 20% fat N/A 230 35 5.8 36 77 N/A 0 Beef, 10% fat N/A 184 35 4 36 72 N/A 0 Chickeni N/A 140 N/A 0.9 0 72 N/A 0.03 Eggi N/A 132 N/A 2.8 7 360 37 0.04 Point of Reference EER1,d As low as possible while As low as possible while AI of total omega-31,e consuming a nutritionally consuming a nutritionally Men = 1.6 g/day Men ≈ 2700 kcal/day adequate diet1 adequate diet1 Women = 1.1 g/day Women ≈ 2100 kcal/day Pregnant = 1.4 g/day Pregnant ≈ +300 kcal/day Lactating = 1.3 g/day Lactating ≈ +500 kcal/day Assume that 0% of total omega- fatty acids come from EPA/DhA Dioxin/Dioxin-like Selenium Iron Methylmercury Compounds Food Choice # Data points # Data points mg/3 oza,*
|
From page 205... ...
gRfd = Reference Dose; an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups)
|
From page 206... ...
0 SEAFOOD ChOICES TABLE 5-1 Continued hTDI = Tolerable Daily Intake; represents an index for a contaminant similar to the Adequate Daily Intake, used for food additives. These limits are based on the assumption of an experimental threshold dose level below which no toxic effect is found in animal models and includes an additional uncertainty factor for extrapolation to humans.
|
From page 207... ...
. Native Alaskans who switched from their traditional diet high in seafood products had few affordable healthful substitution foods from which to choose.
|
From page 208... ...
First, the information combines benefit and risk information to yield coordinated statements. Second, the information comprehensively covers everyone in the population so that population groups are not left with uncertainties about which information applies to them.
|
From page 209... ...
Intake levels of iron will be lower than meat selections. Seafood Choices for Children up to Age 12 Choice May benefit from consuming seafood, especially those with relatively higher concentrations of EPA and DHA.
|
From page 210... ...
Intake levels of iron will be lower than meat selections. Seafood Choices for Adolescent Males, Adult Males, and Females Who Will Not Become Pregnant Choice Consume seafood regularly, e.g., two 3-ounce servings per week; if more are consumed, then insure a variety of choices are made to reduce exposure to contaminants.
|
From page 211... ...
These three variables, as they apply to the target population groups, are arrayed in a decision pathway, shown in Figure 5-2, that illustrates the committee's final analysis of the balance between benefits and risks associated with seafood consumption. Acknowledging Limitations of the Benefit-Risk Analysis The committee believes that it is fundamentally important to acknowledge that benefit-risk analysis as conducted here will always have limitations related to the availability of data on and evaluation of benefits and risks.
|
From page 212... ...
FIGURE 5-2 A decision pathway or representation of the balance between benefits and risks associated with seafood consumption. This diagram highlights the variables that group consumers into specific target populations who should receive tailored advice.
|
From page 213... ...
Sparse data on adverse health effects associated with some contaminants make it difficult to estimate the variability of specific contaminant levels in seafood, as well as levels of EPA and DHA. • Levels of EPA and DHA in seafood depend upon the fatty acid content of the type of seafood consumed, the source of fat in feed for farmed fish, and serving size.
|
From page 214... ...
2. Given the uncertainty in the underlying exposure data and evolving health impacts, there is no summary metric that can adequately capture the complexity of seafood choices to balance benefits and risks for purposes of providing guidance to consumers.
|
From page 215... ...
Risk Analysis 20(5)
|
From page 216... ...
2005. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release .
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.