Mercury advisories and household health trade-offs

Abstract

The conventional economic wisdom is that improving consumer information will enhance welfare. Yet, some scientists speculate that the Food and Drug Administration's prominent mercury in fish advisory may have harmed public health. Lower mercury intakes reduce neurological toxicity risks. However, since seafood is the predominant dietary source of healthful omega-3 fatty acids, reduced fish consumption may have significant offsetting health impacts. We explore this risk trade-off using a rich panel of household-level seafood consumption data. To control for confounding factors, we use a non-parametric changes-in-changes approach. We find strong evidence that while the advisory reduced mercury loadings, it did so at the expense of substantial reductions in healthful omega-3s. We find this response pattern even for consumers with low fish consumption. Using advisory response patterns as inputs into a prominent risk assessment model, the central estimate is that net benefits from the advisory were negative.2

Risk‐Benefit Analysis of Seafood Consumption: A Review

“…Changes in seafood types and amounts were investigated following the 2001 advisory for "at-risk" households with pregnant women, nursing women, or children under 6. Similar to the results reported by Oken and others (2003), a 17% decrease in fish consumption by pregnant women was observed following this advisory (Shimshack and Ward 2010 decreased fish consumption 21.4% and there was a 60% increase in the number of consumers with no significant fish and shellfish consumption. Overall, there was no evidence of differential avoidance of high mercury fish, with at-risk groups reducing consumption of low-mercury seafood like salmon (27.9% reduction) and shrimp (17.5% reduction).…”

“…These assessments can combine 2 or more types of common metrics, such as mortality, morbidity, or disease incidence, to quantify the cumulative effect on health. Most studies assessing the risks and benefits of seafood with composite metrics have utilized the QALYs to express the net health outcome (Ponce and others 2000;Cohen and others 2005a;Guevel and others 2008), and 1 study used a monetary value based on standard EPA health benefit transfer figures (Shimshack and Ward 2010). These studies are reviewed here.…”

“…The use of monetary values to quantify risks and benefits of seafood consumption was explored in a study that considered the effects of mercury advisories on dietary patterns (Shimshack and Ward 2010). The dietary changes following the 2001 U.S. FDA advisory on mercury in seafood were examined using household-level seafood consumption data obtained from the Information Resources, Inc.'s InfoScan Consumer Network database.…”

“…On the other hand, the decline in EPA + DHA intake was also associated with a net increase in CHD and stroke mortality of +0.63 deaths per 100000 adults (equivalent to U.S. −$91). The effects of an idealized scenario presented by Cohen and others (2005a;scenario 1), in which at-risk households maintain overall fish consumption amounts but only eat low-mercury fish, were also examined by Shimshack and Ward (2010) in terms of risks and benefits to neurodevelopment. This scenario resulted in a net benefit of 0.039 IQ points/child (U.S. $587).…”

Information strategies for energy conservation: A field experiment in India

“…Information strategies that aim to correct this information asymmetry are increasingly common (Foulon et al, 2002;Kennedy et al, 1994). These include mercury and air pollution advisories (Cutter and Neidell, 2009;Shimshack and Ward, 2010;Shimshack et al, 2007;Zivin and Neidell, 2009); mandatory and voluntary corporate disclosure (Bennear and Olmstead, 2008;Delmas, et al, 2010;Evans et al, 2009;Khanna, 2001;Konar and Cohen, 1997;Lyon and Maxwell, 2007;Powers et al, 2011) and ecolabels (Hallstein and VillasBoas, 2013;Teisl et al, 2002). Such strategies are based on the principle that more and better information about the environmental impact of activities will encourage consumers to conserve.…”