Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Mar-20-04, 08:17
nobimbo's Avatar
nobimbo nobimbo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 443
 
Plan: low carb
Stats: 00/00/130 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 0%
Default U.S. Urges Limits On Eating Albacore: Concerns About Mercury Levels

U.S. urges limits on eating albacore
Concerns about mercury levels in some canned tuna

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Saturday, March 20, 2004

Top federal health officials released long-awaited advice to consumers Friday on how to avoid eating mercury in fish and for the first time suggested limiting consumption of popular white albacore canned tuna for children and women who are particularly vulnerable to the toxic metal.

The advisory from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency comes after months of controversy and the discovery of high mercury levels in some of the most popular types of fish in the American diet. Although the recommendations have no binding force, they carry enormous weight as a guide to states, physicians, nutritionists and the public on how to best control mercury in the food supply.

Despite singling out albacore tuna as moderately high in mercury, the guidelines were praised by the canned-tuna industry for emphasizing the health benefits of eating fish. But environmental health advocacy organizations said the new guidelines don't go nearly far enough in warning consumers of the mercury danger.

After the release of the new advisory Friday, a nationally known mercury expert, Vas Aposhian, a University of Arizona professor of molecular and cellular biology, resigned from the FDA's Food Advisory Committee, saying the FDA ignored the committee's recommendations.

The advisory sets a weekly allowance on albacore tuna at 6 ounces -- or roughly one standard-size can -- for those considered sensitive to mercury, including children, pregnant and nursing women, or any woman who may become pregnant.

That amount of white albacore canned tuna is "dangerous to the health of 99 percent of U.S. pregnant women and their unborn children,'' said Aposhian, a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed and approved the EPA's mercury safety guideline. The FDA's Food Safety Group fails to meet the high standard of its Therapeutic Drug Approval Group, he said.

Sensitive individuals may safely eat up to 12 ounces a week of certain fish species with relatively low mercury levels, as long as they avoid high- mercury swordfish, shark, king mackerel and Gulf of Mexico tilefish, according to the advisory.

The five most commonly eaten types of seafood low in mercury are shrimp, chunk light canned tuna, salmon, catfish and pollack, which is frequently used in frozen fish sticks.

No advice for men

Children are cautioned to eat smaller portions than adults, but no specific amounts were included in the guidelines. Men were offered no specific advice at all, other than to eat a balanced diet of fish.

The agencies said they wanted to warn people about mercury, known to damage the human nervous system, and at the same time persuade them to eat a wholesome food low in artery-clogging fat and cholesterol and rich in protein and heart-healthy omega fatty acids.

"Americans can and should feel comfortable in consuming fish,'' Lester Crawford, FDA deputy commissioner, told reporters during a Washington, D.C., news conference.

Government test results have found that albacore tuna had mercury levels three times higher than the chunk light tuna. The advisories that resulted from those findings represent "a conservative approach," Crawford said.

The U.S. Tuna Foundation, which represents StarKist, Chicken of the Sea and other canned tuna producers, issued a statement applauding the FDA for taking care to "affirm the nutritional benefits of seafood'' and for emphasizing that "consumption advice is not necessary for the general population."

Dozens of consumer, health and environmental groups have been pressuring the government to adopt tougher regulations on mercury in fish as well as on mercury emissions from power plants.

Critics charged that albacore mercury levels are so high that the 6-ounce recommended weekly allowance would expose fetuses, infants, toddlers and growing young people to levels many times higher than the EPA's safety guideline.

"If American women follow the FDA's advice and eat a can of albacore tuna a week, a bad situation will be made far, far worse,'' said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group in Washington. He said the advisory "flies in the face of all scientific understanding of the hazards of mercury to children."

Fish contaminated in oceans and lakes are the main source of mercury in the human diet. The primary sources are coal-fired power plants, incinerators and mines. Mercury can cause irreversible damage to the developing central nervous system. Mothers eating mercury-contaminated fish may expose their offspring to chronic, low doses resulting in lowered IQ, abnormal muscle tone and loss of motor function, among other difficulties.

Using 1999-2000 data, EPA researchers recently analyzed blood mercury concentrations in women to estimate how many newborns might have been exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb. They found that about 630,000 newborns -- or more than 15 percent of the total born -- may have been exposed before birth to mercury at levels that are considered to increase risk of adverse neurological developmental effects.

'Shirking duty'

A San Francisco pediatrician, Dr. Michelle Pepitone, expressed disappointment that the advisory wasn't more protective. "The government is shirking its duty to protect our children. I'm shocked and saddened,'' she said.

Pepitone is advising her young patients not to eat tuna. "At this time, I think we're stuck with free-range salmon, flaxseed and canola oil,'' Pepitone said.

One of her young patients, 10-year-old Matthew Davis, ate tuna fish almost every day over a year's time. His fingers began to look deformed, and he was having trouble playing the guitar. Tests showed he had more than twice the normal level of mercury in his body.

No one can say whether mercury contributed to his problems or his sudden lack of focus at school, said his mother, San Francisco resident Joan Davis. But she's seen dramatic improvements since he's been off tuna for four months.

"At school, they've noticed quite an improvement. His focus is much stronger, and his verbal ability is back. He can now play the guitar,'' Davis said.

She called for stronger government warnings, including labels on tuna cans. "I wish we would have known,'' Davis said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNG355OKV51.DTL

Mercury in fish
Women and young children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and reduce their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury if they follow these guidelines, the Food and Drug Administration says. More information can be found at these Web sites: www.oehha.ca.gov/fish.html, www.environmentaldefense.org/go/seafood.

FDA advisory
-- Because they contain high levels of mercury, do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish.
-- You may eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury. Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned chunk light tuna, salmon, pollack and catfish. Don’t exceed six ounces a week of canned white albacore tuna, which has three times more mercury than canned chunk light.
-- Check advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but don’t consume any other fish during that week.
-- Follow these recommendations for children, but serve smaller portions.
High mercury concentration
Mean mercury concentration
Fish (parts per million)
Mackerel, king 0.73
Shark 0.99
Swordfish 0.97
Tilefish (Gulf of Mexico) 1.45.

Low mercury concentration
Mean mercury concentration
Fish (ppm)
Anchovies 0.04
Catfish 0.05
Clams ND
Crawfish 0.03
Flounder/Sole 0.05
Haddock 0.03
Herring 0.04
Mackerel, Atlantic (N. Atlantic) 0.05
Mackerel, chub (Pacific) 0.09
Oysters ND
Perch, ocean ND
Pollack 0.06
Salmon (canned) ND
Salmon (fresh/frozen) 0.01
Sardines 0.02
Scallops 0.05
Shrimp ND
Squid 0.07
Trout (freshwater) 0.03
Tuna (canned, chunk light) 0.12.
Source: Food and Drug Administration; Natural Resources Defense Council
ND = Concentration below level of detection (0.01 ppm)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...&type=chart
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Mar-20-04, 10:21
Marillia's Avatar
Marillia Marillia is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 189
 
Plan: Minimal Crap (Atkinsish)
Stats: 170/137/140 Female Five feet, three inches
BF:
Progress: 110%
Default

Times like this make me glad I don't like fish anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Mar-21-04, 09:25
TBoneMitch TBoneMitch is offline
OOOOOOOOOH YEAH!
Posts: 692
 
Plan: High Fat/IF
Stats: 215/170/160 Male 5 feet 10 inches
BF:27%/12%/8%
Progress: 82%
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Default

It's a legitimate concern, but I'll start to listen when the gov. issues warnings to cut back on sugar...which is not for tomorrow!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Mar-21-04, 10:59
woodpecker woodpecker is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 265
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 185/180/165 Male 68 inches
BF:25
Progress: 25%
Location: Nova Scotia
Default

Tbone,

I think the US government just declined a recommendation on reduced sugar consumption from the WHO.

Here's another picture of the mercury problem that doesn't sound too good. Note that it says the Eskimos still have great heart heart heath from eating all that blubber.

Research finds pollutants such as PCBs and mercury - carried north on the wind from industrial countries - have contaminated the bodies of native Arctic people to such an extreme that the breast milk and tissues of many qualifies as hazardous waste.

Ref: http://eces.org/articles/000754.php (Jan. 13, 2004)

According to the Los Angeles Times, the bodies of Arctic people, particularly Greenland's Inuit, contain the highest human concentrations of industrial chemicals and pesticides found anywhere on Earth - levels so extreme that the breast milk and tissues of some Greenlanders could be classified as hazardous waste. Nearly all Inuit tested in Greenland and more than half in Canada have levels of PCBs and mercury exceeding international health guidelines.

Living on the top of a contaminated food chain, the inhabitants of the Arctic have become the industrialized world's lab rats, the involuntary subjects of an accidental human experiment demonstrating what can happen when a heaping brew of chemicals builds up in human bodies. About 200 hazardous compounds, which are carried on the wind from industrialized regions and accumulate in ocean-dwelling animals, have been detected in the inhabitants of the far north.

Studies of infants in Greenland and Arctic Canada who have been exposed in the womb and through breast milk suggest that the chemicals are harming children. Babies there are suffering greater rates of infections because their immune systems seem to be impaired, and their brain development is being altered, reducing their intelligence and memory skills. Scientists say the immune suppression could be responsible, at least in part, for the Arctic's inordinate number of sick babies. And they believe the neurological damage to newborns is similar in scope to the harm done if the mothers drank moderate amounts of alcohol while pregnant.

Pitching a makeshift tent on the sea ice, where the Arctic Ocean meets the North Atlantic, brothers Mamarut and Gedion Kristiansen are ready to savor their favorite meal. Nearby lies the carcass of a narwhal, a whale with an ivory tusk like a unicorn's. Mamarut slices off a piece of muktuk, the whale's raw pink blubber and mottled gray skin, as a snack. "Peqqinnartoq," he says in Greenlandic. Healthy food.

Mamarut's wife, Tukummeq Peary, a descendant of famed North Pole explorer Adm. Robert E. Peary, is boiling the main entree on a camp stove. The family dips hunting knives into the kettle, pulling out steaming ribs of freshly killed ringed seal and devouring the hearty meat with some hot black tea.

Living closer to the North Pole than to any city, factory or farm, the Kristiansens appear unscathed by any industrial-age ills. They live much as their ancestors did, relying on foods harvested from the sea and skills honed by generations of Inuit. But as northbound winds carry toxic pollutants from faraway lands to their hunting grounds in extraordinary amounts, their close connection to the environment and their ancestral diet of marine mammals have left the Arctic's indigenous people vulnerable to the pollutants of modern society.

The tragedy for the Inuit is that they have few, if any, ways to protect themselves. Many Arctic natives say that abandoning their traditional foods would destroy a 4,000-year-old society rooted in hunting.

In this hostile and isolated expanse of glacier-carved bedrock and frozen sea, survival means that people live as marine mammals live, hunting like they do, wearing their skins. No factory-engineered fleece compares with the warmth of a sealskin parka, mittens and boots. No motorboat sneaks up on a whale like a handmade kayak latched together with rope. No snowmobile flexes with the ice like a dog-pulled sledge crafted of driftwood.

And no imported food nourishes their bodies, warms their spirit and strengthens their hearts like the flesh they slice from the flanks of a whale or seal. "Our foods do more than nourish our bodies. They feed our souls," said the late Ingmar Egede, a Greenlandic educator who promoted the rights of indigenous peoples. "When many things in our lives are changing, our foods remain the same. They make us feel the same as they have for generations. When I eat Inuit foods, I know who I am."

In 1987, Dr. Eric Dewailly, an epidemiologist at Laval University in Quebec, was surveying contaminants in breast milk of mothers near the industrialized, heavily polluted Gulf of St. Lawrence when he met a midwife from Nunavik, the Arctic portion of Quebec province. She asked whether he wanted to gather milk samples from women there. Dewailly reluctantly agreed, thinking it might be useful as "blanks," samples with nondetectable pollution levels.

A few months later, the first batch of samples from Nunavik - glass vials holding a half-cup of milk from each of 24 women - arrived by air mail at the lab in Quebec. Dewailly soon got a phone call from the lab director. Something was wrong with the Arctic milk. The chemical concentrations were off the charts. The peaks overloaded the lab's equipment, running off the page. The technician thought the samples must have been tainted in transit.

Upon checking more breast milk, the scientists soon realized that the peaks were, in fact, accurate: The Arctic mothers had seven times more PCBs in their milk than mothers in Canada's biggest cities.

Dewailly contacted the World Health Organization in Geneva, where an expert in chemical safety told him that the PCB levels were the highest he had ever seen. Those women, the expert said, should stop breast-feeding their babies.

Dewailly hung up the phone, his mind reeling. He knew that mother's milk is the most nutritious food of all, and that Nunavik, located on Hudson Bay, is so remote that mothers had nothing else to feed their infants. As a doctor, he couldn't in good conscience tell them to quit breast-feeding. But he knew he couldn't hide the problem, either.

"Breast milk is supposed to be a gift," said Dewailly, who today is among the world's leading experts on the human health effects of contaminants. "It isn't supposed to be a poison."

Nearly a generation has passed since those first vials of breast milk arrived in the Quebec laboratory. The babies Dewailly agonized over are now 16 years old, about to pass to their own children the chemical load amassing in their bodies.

From ice-clinging algae to polar bears, the Arctic has a long and intricate ladder of life. An estimated 650,000 indigenous people inhabit the top rung, and their population is steadily growing. About 90,000 are the Inuit of Eastern Canada and Greenland - a territory of Denmark under its own home-rule government. Others, spread across eight nations and speaking dozens of languages, include the 350,000 Yakuts of Siberian Russia, Alaska's Inupiat and Yup'ik, and Scandinavia's Saami.

Environmental scientists suspect that industrial chemicals first started to appear in the Arctic in the 1940s. The chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, originate in the cities of North America, Europe and Asia. They travel thousands of miles north via winds, ocean currents and rivers. In the Arctic, the sea is a deep-freeze archive, storing contaminants that are slow to break down in cold temperatures and low sunlight. Ingested first by zooplankton, the chemicals spread through the food web as one species consumes another.

Scientists say the Arctic's water and air are much cleaner than they are in urban environments. PCBs and DDT in the fish and mammals of such areas as the Great Lakes, the Baltic and the North Sea are 10 to 100 times higher in concentration than in the Arctic Ocean. But most urban dwellers consume food from a host of sources, eating comparatively limited amounts of seafood and no marine mammals or other top predators high on the food web. Instead, they consume mostly land-raised foods with low contaminant levels.

lnuit, by contrast, eat much like a polar bear does, consuming the blubber and meat of fish-eating whales, seals, walruses and seabirds four or five links up the marine food chain. Contaminants, which accumulate in animals' fat, magnify in concentration with each step up, from plankton to people.

In newborns' umbilical cord blood and mothers' breast milk, average PCB and mercury levels are 20 to 50 times higher in remote villages of Greenland than in urban areas of the United States and Europe, according to a 2003 report by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, or AMAP, a scientific consortium created by the eight Arctic nations, including the United States.

In far northern villages such as Qaanaaq, where the Kristiansens live, one of every six adults tested exceeds 200 parts per billion of mercury in the blood, a dose known to cause acute symptoms of mercury poisoning, according to a 2003 United Nations report. "That's a huge amount of mercury," said John Risher, a mercury specialist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's toxic substances agency. "At that level, I would really expect to see effects, such as paresthesia, an abnormal sensation, tingling or numbness, especially in the hands."

Few details are known about Russia's Siberia, but AMAP scientists are expected to soon release data showing that residents of the region are even more contaminated than Greenlanders. In contrast, Alaska's Inupiat carry low concentrations because they eat bowhead whales that eat low on the food web.

PCBs and DDT, the so-called legacy chemicals banned three decades ago in most developed nations, peaked in the Arctic in the 1990s and since then have declined, although they remain at substantially higher levels in people there than elsewhere.

Other compounds are increasing, including mercury and brominated flame retardants called PBDEs. Much of the mercury comes from coal-burning power plants, and the United States is the major source of the flame retardants, used in plastics and polyurethane foam.

Evidence has emerged that the contaminants are threatening the health of Inuit infants and young children. "Subtle health effects are occurring in certain areas of the Arctic due to exposure to contaminants in traditional food, particularly for mercury and PCBs," according to a 2002 AMAP report.

Building up over a lifetime, chemicals stored in a mother's body cross into the womb, contaminating a fetus before birth. Then the newborn gets an added dose from breast milk.

A study in Arctic Canada, soon to be published, has shown for the first time that the risks of traditional foods seem to outweigh their benefits, said Gina Muckle of Laval University's Department of Social and Preventive Medicine in Quebec, who directed the study. In Muckle's study, 11-month-old Nunavik babies were repeatedly shown a picture while researchers recorded how readily the children recognized images they already had seen. The infants with high amounts of PCBs in their bodies were 10% less likely to recognize the images than infants with low PCB levels.

A separate, smaller study has also linked PCBs with neurological effects in older children in Qaanaaq. The studies confirm similar neurological effects detected in children elsewhere, including the Great Lakes region.

Also in Nunavik, infants exposed in the womb to high levels of DDT and PCBs suffer more ear and respiratory infections, particularly in the first six months of life, according to a study by Laval University's Frederic Dallaire, also about to be published. Dewailly said the increased infection rate is the most serious of the known threats because Arctic children suffer extremely elevated rates of ear infections, which often lead to hearing loss, and respiratory infections. "Nunavik has a cluster of sick babies," he said. "They fill the waiting rooms of the clinics."

A year-round icy shield - thicker than a mile in some places - covers 85% of Greenland. The island has no trees, no grass, no fertile soil, which means no cows, no pigs, no chickens, no grains, no vegetables, no fruit orchards. Instead, the ocean is Greenland's food basket.

Sandwiched between Canada and Scandinavia, Greenland gets the brunt of the world's contaminants because it is in the path of winds from both European and North American cities.

In the remote parts of Greenland, such as the Kristiansens' village of Qaanaaq, people eat marine mammals and seabirds 36 times a month on average, consuming about a pound of seal and whale each week. About one-third of their calories come from traditional foods. "We eat seal meat as you eat cow in your country," said Jonathan Motzfeldt, who was Greenland's premier for almost 30 years and is now its finance minister. "It's important for Greenlanders to have meat on the table."

The Inuit say their native food strengthens their bodies, warming them from within like a fire glowing inside a lantern. When they eat anything else, instead of fire inside, they feel ice. "We are living in a place that is very cold, and it's not by accident we eat what we do. We are not able to survive on other food," Lars Rasmussen, a 52-year-old hunter from Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, said through a translator. "Hunting is so important to us, so fundamental, that we will not be able to survive without it."

Everything else, from tea to bread, must be imported. In remote villages, stores stock processed and canned food that is expensive, frequently stale and not very tasty or nutritious. In Nunavut, across Baffin Bay from Greenland, store-bought food for a family of four would cost $240 per week, more than one-third of the average family income there, according to a report by Canada's Northern Contaminants Program.

Jose Kusugak, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the organization representing Canadian Inuit, said he can buy "lame lettuce" and "really old oranges" and "dried up apples" in Nunavut, or he can eat fresh and nutritious beluga, walrus, fish and caribou. "There is really no alternative," he said.

In some respects, the marine diet has made the Inuit among the world's healthiest people. Beluga whale meat has 10 times the iron of beef, twice the protein and five times the Vitamin A. Omega 3 fatty acids in the seafood protect the Inuit from heart disease and diabetes. Seventy-year-old Inuit men have coronary arteries as elastic as those of 20-year-old Danes, said Dr. Gert Mulvad of the Primary Health Care Clinic in Nuuk. Although heart disease has increased with the introduction of processed foods, especially among Greenlandic young people, it remains "more or less unknown," Mulvad said. (Italics added)
Public health officials are torn over whether to encourage the Inuit to continue eating their traditional diet or reduce their consumption. "The first goal of medicine is to do no harm, so I'm not absolutely convinced we should restrict beluga fat. It has a huge, huge beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease," said Dewailly, who heads public health research at Laval University Medical Research Center.

Government officials and doctors fear that Inuit will switch to imported processed foods loaded with carbohydrates and sugar, risking malnourishment, vitamin deficiencies, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. "The level of contamination is very high in Greenland, but there's a lot of Western food that is worse than the poisons," Mulvad said.

Greenland's home-rule government and doctors have issued no advisories. Many Greenlanders are aware of the contamination, although they know few details. In Canada, however, there has been extensive outreach to indigenous people, including trips by Dewailly and other scientists to explain their findings in detail. But public health officials there still struggle, after 16 years, with what dietary advice to give.

Last year, Nunavik leaders initiated an experiment in three communities that gives women free Arctic char, a fish high in fatty acids but low in PCBs, to encourage them to eat less beluga blubber, the main source of contaminants there.

But most Inuit have not altered their diet in response to the contamination, according to dietary surveys in Canada. In Arctic cultures, people rely on the traditional knowledge of hunters and elders, and with no visible signs of pollution or people dying, many are skeptical that the chemicals exist. Some even suspect the talk about chemicals is a ploy to strip them of their traditions.

Moreover, health officials point out that the risks of contaminants are outweighed by other societal problems, including smoking, suicide, domestic violence and binge drinking, which have a severe and immediate impact on life and death in the Arctic. For example, more than half of pregnant women in Greenland smoke cigarettes.

Those who are aware of the dangers of the toxic chemicals say their meats are too nutritious and important to give up. "People say whale and seal are polluted, but they are still healthy foods to us," said Ujuunnguaq Heinrich, a minke whale and seal hunter in Nuuk.

Anthropologists warn that efforts to alter Inuit diets can unwittingly cause irreversible cultural changes. If hunting is discouraged, people quickly would lose their traditional knowledge about the environment and their hunting skills, as well as material items such as tools and clothing, said Robert Wheelersburg, an anthropologist at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania who specializes in Arctic cultures.

Their art, their spirituality, their celebrations, their storytelling, even their language would suffer. Inuit dialects are steeped in the nuances of nature that their national languages - English, Danish and French - ignore.

Wheelersburg said the most important damage would be to Inuit "values and attitudes." In the Arctic's subsistence economy, people share prey among neighbors and relatives, even strangers. The best hunters are leaders in the village, and they are generous with their wealth. If the Inuit switch to a cash society, that communal generosity would disappear, Wheelersburg said.

"It's more than the food you are changing," Wheelersburg said. "It's the actual catching and hunting of it that really generates the cultural characteristics." Even skipping one generation would impair hunting skills, he said, and "once they are lost, I don't see how you can regenerate them."

Like everyone else in Qaanaaq, the Kristiansens remain mostly oblivious to the scientists and political leaders fretting about how many parts per billion of toxic chemicals are in their bodies. They simply don't have the luxury to worry about dangers so imperceptible, so intangible. Instead, hunters worry about things they can hear and see: thinning ice conditions, the whereabouts of whales, where their next meat will come from. Anxiety about chemicals is left to those who live in distant lands, those who generated the compounds, those whose bodies contain far less.

About 850 miles from the North Pole, Qaanaaq, an isolated village of about 600, is the closest on Earth to the archetype of traditional polar life. Inuit there hunt seal, beluga, walrus and narwhal in the icy waters of a fjord.

Every spring, when the midnight sun returns, the Arctic's treasures, long locked in the ice, are within reach again. On a freezing-cold June afternoon, narwhal season has begun. Gedion and Mamarut head out on their sledges, their dogs racing 35 miles across the glacier, toward the Kristiansens' ancestral hunting grounds, a narrow strip of sapphire blue in the distance.

The Kristiansen brothers learned to hunt narwhal from their father, who, in turn, learned from his own relatives. It won't be long before Gedion's son, Rasmus, now 6, will be paddling a kayak beside his father.

Gedion jokes that he lassos narwhals from his kayak like the American cowboys he has seen on television. A little over a century ago, the people of Qaanaaq had little contact with the Western world. Today, they can buy salami and dental floss and Danish porn magazines in their small local market, and watch "A Nightmare on Elm Street" in their living rooms on the one TV station that beams into Qaanaaq.

The Kristiansens also know that other elements travel to their homeland, riding upon winter winds. They've learned a little about the contaminants - the akuutissat minguttitsisut - from listening to the radio. But they have not changed their diet, and no one has advised them to. Virtually every day, they eat seal meat and muktuk. With every bite, traces of mercury, PCBs and other chemicals amass in their bodies, to be passed on to their children. "We can't avoid them," Gedion said in Greenlandic. "It's our food."

Since 2000 BC, the Inuit legacy has been passed on to generations of boys by generations of men. Their ancestors' memories, as vivid as a dream, mingle with their own, inseparable.

"Qaatuppunga piniartarlunga," Mamarut said. "As far back as I can remember, I hunted."
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Mar-22-04, 16:50
VALEWIS's Avatar
VALEWIS VALEWIS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,440
 
Plan: low cal, low carb
Stats: 196/145/140 Female 5'6.5
BF:23%
Progress: 91%
Location: Coolum Beach, Australia
Default

I wonder if the mercury problem is world wide, or mainly in N Hemisphere?

Val
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Mar-22-04, 17:59
nobimbo's Avatar
nobimbo nobimbo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 443
 
Plan: low carb
Stats: 00/00/130 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 0%
Default

Yes, it's a worldwide problem. Here is a blurb about it:

Mercury contamination is a worldwide problem that comes from many sources. It occurs naturally in rocks, soils, water and air. Volcanoes may also be a source of mercury in the environment. Industrial pollution is also a source of mercury in the environment. Burning fossil fuels like coal and burning industrial or household wastes releases mercury into the air. This settles onto oceans, lakes and rivers where fish absorb it.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/publicat/2001_News/01-28.html

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Mar-22-04, 19:51
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25,854
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/145/145 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Yikes - I'm glad I'm not a big fish eater. Mostly canned tuna and salmon here and there.

Woodpecker, that article on the Northern people is very disturbing and sad. *sigh*
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Mar-22-04, 22:06
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,894
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I was watching a news show this morning before work and they were interviewing some FDA person about this. The interesting part of the interview was that there was one FDA official who adamantly felt the mecury levels were too high for pregnant women and children to eat. However his dissenting voice was overridden. I believe he was quoted as saying that it was pressure from industry and politicos that kept a much more strict recommendation from coming through.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Mar-23-04, 06:35
woodpecker woodpecker is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 265
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 185/180/165 Male 68 inches
BF:25
Progress: 25%
Location: Nova Scotia
Default

Yes Kristine it is sad isn't it. I guess we are slowly poisoning ourselves, or in the case of the Inuit, more quickly. I haven't been a big conservationist in the past, but I think this problem is significantly more serious than global warming. The FDA official who objected and, I think, resigned his post, deserves credit. We will probably here more from him in the future as this problem is not going away. I would think the Japanese and Norwegians must be looking seriously at this situation. It appears that canned albacore (white tuna - my favourite) is very high in mercury, while canned "wild" salmon is low for the present. I am not sure why that would be. They are both about the same size fish and both primarily in the Pacific, although the salmon probably swim deeper. Apparently the farmed salmon are being fed products that are high in mercury and pcb's, so they are not safe to eat. But aren't the chickens and cows being fed some of that too?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Soft Science of Dietary Fat Karen LC Research/Media 10 Fri, Feb-04-05 19:23
Study shows total cholesterol doesn't matter and won't protect from heart disease Voyajer LC Research/Media 15 Sat, Dec-04-04 23:15
Energy bars may not help low-carb dieters tamarian LC Research/Media 2 Fri, Apr-04-03 18:40
Gary Taubes -- Cardiovascular Disease Voyajer LC Research/Media 4 Fri, Aug-02-02 15:51
Current and Potential Drugs for Treatment of Obesity-Endocrine Reviews Voyajer LC Research/Media 0 Mon, Jul-15-02 18:57


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:54.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.