Review of food policy and consumer issues of mercury in fish.

Public health messages regarding seafood consumption are confounded by long standing dietary advice promoting the healthfulness of consuming fish and recent warnings concerning dangerous mercury levels in specified fish. The warnings vary by federal agency and are directed to vulnerable subpopulations, notably women of childbearing age, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children. The issue of mercury in fish has received considerable media coverage, attention from consumer organizations and public policy review. The net result is an area of seemingly contradictory advice directed to consumers and health professionals on the type and quantity of fish safe to consume. This message that fish is nutritious and healthy is particularly understood by educated and affluent subpopulations who can afford a variety of fish in their diet. This review addresses the contradictory rhetoric and reviews the state and federal agency policy positions. It considers the arguments for and against disclosing mercury-related information and its anticipated impact on the extended health benefits of fish consumption versus the risk to vulnerable subpopulations. The issue of balancing and targeting healthy messages and dietary warnings on fish is important because within the U.S. childbearing population, it is conservatively estimated that 250,000 women may be exposing their fetuses to higher levels of methylmercury than is in federal public health guidelines; two million more may not be consuming enough low-mercury fish.

Consumer perceptions of graded, graphic and text label presentations for qualified health claims.

On December 18, 2002, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition Initiative. The initiative's goal is to make available more and better information about conventional foods and dietary supplements to help Americans improve their health and reduce risk of disease by making sound dietary decisions. It included a rating system to assess the "weight of the publicly available evidence." It assigns one of four ranked levels to the claim thus resulting in qualified health claims. Two phases of research were conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation. Qualitative research to assess consumer understanding, vocabulary, and familiarity with claims helped with the design and orientation of the second quantitative research phase. The quantitative phase employed a Web-based survey. The claim formats included: report card graphic, report card text, embedded claim text, point-counterpoint, structure/function claim, and nutrient content claim. Respondents were asked to rate the product for perceived strength of scientific evidence provided to support the claim, and questions about the product's perceived healthfulness, quality, safety, and purchase intent. Consumers found it difficult to discriminate across four levels and showed inclination to project the scientific validity grade onto other product attributes. Consumers showed preference for simpler messages.