INDIANAPOLIS – Good news for people who love fresh fish.

Two U.S. agencies have released new advice on how much and which types of fish are safe to eat – especially for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency say more than 90 percent of fish are safe to eat.

The agencies have categorized more than 60 types of fish and shellfish as best, good or choices to avoid.

Elizabeth Southerland, director of science and technology at the EPA's Office of Water, says fish that are safe to eat contain essential nutrients and fatty acids that are beneficial for pregnant women.

"They're a high quality source of protein, which is especially important for fetal development and for young children,” she points out. “Again, the only concern we have about eating a lot of fish is if you're eating a lot of fish that's high in mercury."

The agencies recommend two to three servings a week from the "best choices" category and only one serving from the list of "good choices."

The recommended serving size is 4 ounces – or about the size your palm – for adults, and 2 ounces for children ages 4 to 7 years old.

The new guidelines are a shift from earlier messaging, when federal agencies advised the public about the dangers of eating too much fish.

Now, Southerland says federal agencies want to highlight a more positive message – even suggesting pregnant women or women who may become pregnant eat a minimum of 8 ounces of fish a week.

"FDA did an analysis of fish consumption back in 2005, and pregnant women ate fewer than 2 ounces a week,” she relates. “And that's a shame because again, it is a high nutrition source, with nutrients and high quality protein."

Southerland says as a general rule, fish that live longer tend to accumulate more mercury in their tissue and should be avoided.

Some of those on the list to avoid include shark, swordfish and bigeye tuna.

Many states also publish guidelines about where it's safe, or not, to catch and consume fish from local waters.





get more stories like this via email

A new report contends fossil fuel funding has biased Columbia University's climate research.

The report, by two Columbia students, shows the university has taken in close to $48 million in donations from the fossil fuel industry since 2005. Around $16 million went to fund Columbia's Center on Global Energy Policy.

Leel Dias, an environmental science major and report co-author, is convinced this funding has slanted the center's research. He cited a 2014 paper about the impacts of the U.S. ending its then-ban on exporting crude oil.

"A CEO of a natural gas company is listed as a contributor on this report. His name is Charif Souki; no disclaimers, no disclosures. All these reports by CGEP, I think the vast majority of them are not peer-reviewed, so there's no check. They're just published on the CGEP website," Dias said.

He added this study was a key factor when Congress ended the country's crude oil export ban in 2015. But Columbia isn't alone in this. Fossil fuel companies sponsor climate research at other schools, from Princeton and Stanford to George Washington University.

Other findings show some advisory board members for Columbia research centers are also on the boards of fossil fuel companies. Columbia University officials couldn't be reached for comment.

The research includes memos from fossil fuel companies suggesting Columbia University has been complicit in 'greenwashing' them.

Anika Kathuria, a computer science major and report co-author, said another conclusion is that Jason Bordoff, the Center for Global Energy Policy's founding director, might be swaying the center's research agenda.

"He has basically been talked about by numerous companies as this kind of 'corporate counselor' figure, where they will go to him to decide - to make decisions, decide what research paths they're going to go on. And it doesn't really make sense why the head of a center of research would be counseling corporate interests," Kathuria said.

The authors added that one goal of the report is to aid the newly formed student and faculty committee in examining fossil fuel research funding. The committee is slated to release a final report next fall, with guidelines for the university about this type of research funding.


get more stories like this via email

In Virginia's waters, the decline of a small but critically important fish is causing growing concern among conservation groups and fishermen alike.

Menhaden, often referred to as the "most important fish in the sea," are vital to the diets of predatory species like striped bass and osprey. Now, experts warn the decreasing menhaden population in the Chesapeake Bay could disrupt the ecosystem and threaten the sportfishing industry.

Steve Atkinson, chairman of the Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association, explained the ripple effect of the menhaden shortage on other species.

"The decline of menhaden in the bay is impacting the most important fishery that we have, which is striped bass," Atkinson pointed out. "That fishery has been in decline for over a decade now. Striped bass are overfished but we also believe they are underfed, because they rely heavily on menhaden."

The Chesapeake Bay is a primary spawning ground for menhaden and decades of overfishing have taken a toll on the species. The shortage is not only affecting sportfish. Research at the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William & Mary shows ospreys, which rely on menhaden to feed their chicks, have seen a dramatic reduction in nesting success.

Conservation groups said the problem stems from the current management of menhaden fishing. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has implemented catch limits but some experts believe they do not fully address the localized effects on ecosystems.

Jaclyn Higgins, forage fish program manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said more needs to be done.

"A huge amount of menhaden that are being taken out of arguably the most important estuary in the United States, by the third-largest fishery in the United States, and we have no idea what those impacts are to the greater ecosystem," Higgins emphasized.

Higgins noted about 75% of the Atlantic coastwide quota for menhaden is allocated to Virginia. She believes the management framework is robust but needs to be more region-specific.

Last month, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted to establish a workgroup to consider additional protections from industrial fishing of menhaden in the bay. These could include seasonal closures, to protect important fish and bird species.

A Knoxville-based environmental group is raising awareness about increasing U.S. nuclear weapons spending and supporting this week's global effort to ban nuclear arms.

The event, organized by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, is focused on nine countries, including the U.S., spending more than $90 billion annually on nuclear weapons, the equivalent of more than $173,000 per minute.

Tanvi Kardile, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said the campaign backs the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. She stressed this week's campaign, called "No Money for Nuclear Weapons," is a rallying cry worldwide.

"To talk about how much money is being spent on nuclear weapons and how disproportionate it is compared to other facets of society that maybe we aren't putting as much money into," Kardile contended. "Such as health care, education, combating climate change, etc.; things that could actually benefit us as a society."

Besides the tax implications, Kardile pointed out her group is concerned with the ongoing risks closer to home, tied to enriching uranium and other activities at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge.

Kardile argued addressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons is crucial because in recent years, some global leaders have made threats about using them, amid growing international tensions and discord. She added the production and use of nuclear weapons are environmental hazards.

"I'd say the biggest risk comes from groundwater, and recreational water as well," Kardile emphasized. "Production causes radioactive materials to seep into the waterways, so it's really detrimental to the water we're drinking, the water we're using recreationally."

This month, Gov. Bill Lee announced a nuclear power and renewable energy company based in France is building a uranium enrichment plant in Oak Ridge. The multibillion-dollar centrifuge uranium facility is 750,000 square feet and is expected to employee 300 workers.