Have West Virginia Officials Lost Their Minds When It Comes to Water Safety Standards?

By Catherine O'Neill, Center for Progressive Reform. Posted June 3, 2009.

Here's some slippery regulatory logic: West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection says it is justified in setting less stringent levels for mercury in the state's waters than recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Why? Because, according to the WVDEP, a recent study shows that people in West Virginia eat less fish than the "average American" assumed by EPA. And if people consume less fish, they will be exposed to lower quantities of the toxic pollutants in those fish -- including methylmercury. But why might people in West Virginia eat less fish? One reason is likely the statewide fish consumption advisory warning people to limit their consumption of fish caught in all West Virginia waters, due to mercury contamination. But isn't the amount of mercury contamination permitted in the state's waters limited by the WVDEP? Well, yes. But any limitations on sources' releases of mercury are keyed to the WVDEP's water quality standard for mercury -- the one that is relatively lenient -- so sources in this case can release relatively more mercury. Which leads West Virginia to issue more restrictive fish consumption advisories. Which leads people to eat less fish. Which registers as a lower fish consumption rate in studies. Which supports WVDEP in promulgating even more lenient water quality standards for mercury. Which allows sources to release more mercury. Which leads West Virginia to issue more restrictive fish consumption advisories ...

West Virginia’s logic neglects an important consideration, however: fish are good for you. Nutritionists continue to extol the health benefits of eating fish. Fish are an excellent source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and a host of other nutrients essential to human health. And, if one can drop a line or dip a net into nearby waters, fish can be a relatively inexpensive source of these nutrients as well. In fact, the American Heart Association recommends that adults eat two 6-ounce fish meals per week, in order to ensure cardiovascular health. The EPA and the Food and Drug Administration similarly recommend that pregnant and nursing women eat two 6-once fish meals per week, in order to ensure the healthy development of their babies.

Yet if a woman in West Virginia were to consume this amount of fish, she could be exposed to methylmercury at levels nearly four times the level determined to be safe for any babies she carried. Methylmercury (the form of mercury that bioaccumulates in fish) is a potent neurotoxin. Exposure to even very small amounts of methylmercury in utero or during childhood can lead to irreversible neurological damage. For this reason, EPA has determined a threshold for exposure at 0.1 μg/kilogram bodyweight per day. Given that WVDEP’s water quality standards allow 0.5 micrograms of mercury per gram of fish tissue, and assuming a bodyweight of 65 kilograms (i.e., 142 pounds -- the average bodyweight for women assumed by EPA), a woman eating fish at the level recommended by the American Heart Association would be exposed to 0.38 μg/kilogram bodyweight per day. This amount, obviously, is more than enough to put the neurological health of her babies at risk.

Should women in West Virginia eat fish and risk the harms of methylmercury? Or should they avoid fish and risk missing its health benefits?

See more stories tagged with: water, mercury, water pollution, water safety

Catherine O'Neill is a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Regulation and an associate professor of law at Seattle University School of Law.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »