Caroline M Taylor1, Pauline M Emmett1, Alan M Emond1, Jean Golding1. 1. Centre for Child and Adolescent Health,Population Health Sciences,Bristol Medical School,University of Bristol,Oakfield House,Oakfield Grove,Bristol BS8 2BN,UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Public health messages to reduce Hg exposure for pregnant women have focused exclusively on advice on fish consumption to limit Hg exposure, with little account being taken of the positive contribution of fish to nutritional quality. The aim of the present review was to compare and contrast the content and presentation of national guidelines on fish consumption in pregnancy, and comment on their evidence base and impact on consumption. DESIGN: We searched for national and international guidelines on fish consumption in pregnancy using Internet search strategies. The detailed content and style of presentation of the guidelines were compared. The evidence base for the guidelines, and evidence for the impact of the guidelines on fish consumption levels, were assessed. RESULTS: We identified nineteen national guidelines and three international guidelines. There was great variation in the content, complexity and presentation style. The guidelines were based largely on the Hg content of fish with far less consideration being given to the positive beneficial effects of nutrients provided by fish. The complexity of the guidelines may lead to pregnant women reducing their fish intake, or not eating fish at all. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines on fish consumption in pregnancy should take the beneficial effects of fish into account. Guidelines need to be clear and memorable, and appropriately disseminated, to achieve impact. Guidelines could include visual rather than narrative content. Use of technology, for example apps, could enable women to record their fish consumption in real time and log compliance with guidance over a week or other time period.
OBJECTIVE: Public health messages to reduce Hg exposure for pregnant women have focused exclusively on advice on fish consumption to limit Hg exposure, with little account being taken of the positive contribution of fish to nutritional quality. The aim of the present review was to compare and contrast the content and presentation of national guidelines on fish consumption in pregnancy, and comment on their evidence base and impact on consumption. DESIGN: We searched for national and international guidelines on fish consumption in pregnancy using Internet search strategies. The detailed content and style of presentation of the guidelines were compared. The evidence base for the guidelines, and evidence for the impact of the guidelines on fish consumption levels, were assessed. RESULTS: We identified nineteen national guidelines and three international guidelines. There was great variation in the content, complexity and presentation style. The guidelines were based largely on the Hg content of fish with far less consideration being given to the positive beneficial effects of nutrients provided by fish. The complexity of the guidelines may lead to pregnant women reducing their fish intake, or not eating fish at all. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines on fish consumption in pregnancy should take the beneficial effects of fish into account. Guidelines need to be clear and memorable, and appropriately disseminated, to achieve impact. Guidelines could include visual rather than narrative content. Use of technology, for example apps, could enable women to record their fish consumption in real time and log compliance with guidance over a week or other time period.
Authors: Edwin van Wijngaarden; Sally W Thurston; Gary J Myers; Donald Harrington; Deborah A Cory-Slechta; J J Strain; Gene E Watson; Grazyna Zareba; Tanzy Love; Juliette Henderson; Conrad F Shamlaye; Philip W Davidson Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: J J Strain; Alison J Yeates; Edwin van Wijngaarden; Sally W Thurston; Maria S Mulhern; Emeir M McSorley; Gene E Watson; Tanzy M Love; Tristram H Smith; Kelley Yost; Donald Harrington; Conrad F Shamlaye; Juliette Henderson; Gary J Myers; Philip W Davidson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: B Koletzko; C P Bauer; P Bung; M Cremer; M Flothkötter; C Hellmers; M Kersting; M Krawinkel; H Przyrembel; R Rasenack; T Schäfer; K Vetter; U Wahn; A Weissenborn; A Wöckel Journal: Ann Nutr Metab Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 3.374
Authors: Emily Oken; Ken P Kleinman; Wendy E Berland; Steven R Simon; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jean Golding; Steven Gregory; Alan Emond; Yasmin Iles-Caven; Joseph Hibbeln; Caroline M Taylor Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Jean Golding; Joseph R Hibbeln; Steven M Gregory; Yasmin Iles-Caven; Alan Emond; Caroline M Taylor Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Emily Oken; Lauren B Guthrie; Arienne Bloomingdale; Deborah N Platek; Sarah Price; Jess Haines; Matthew W Gillman; Sjurdur F Olsen; David C Bellinger; Robert O Wright Journal: Nutr J Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Paige L Williams; Irene Souter; Caitlin Sacha; Chitra J Amarasiriwardena; Jennifer B Ford; Russ Hauser; Jorge E Chavarro Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 7.401
Authors: Meg Simione; Stephanie G Harshman; Ines Castro; Rachel Linnemann; Brianna Roche; Nadim J Ajami; Joseph F Petrosino; Benedetta Raspini; Sandra Portale; Carlos A Camargo; Elsie M Taveras; Kohei Hasegawa; Lauren Fiechtner Journal: Curr Dev Nutr Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Kyle Dack; Matthew Fell; Caroline M Taylor; Alexandra Havdahl; Sarah J Lewis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Gaitree K Baldewsingh; Jeffrey K Wickliffe; Edward D van Eer; Arti Shankar; Ashna D Hindori-Mohangoo; Emily W Harville; Hannah H Covert; Lizheng Shi; Maureen Y Lichtveld; Wilco C W R Zijlmans Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kyle Dack; Matthew Fell; Caroline M Taylor; Alexandra Havdahl; Sarah J Lewis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.390