Benefit-risk assessment on farmed salmon: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Definition: imagemap added to the causal diagram)
mNo edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Fish]]
[[Category:Benefit-risk assessment]]
[[Category:Persistent organic pollutants]]
[[Category:Cancer]]
[[Category:Cardiovascular disease]]
{{assessment|moderator=Jouni}}
[[op_fi:Hyöty-riskiarviointi viljellystä lohesta]]
{{summary box|question =
Is the recommendation about not to eat farmed salmon because of its persistent pollutants justifiable based on public health considerations?
|answer =
* Pollutant risk is much smaller than the net health benefit of farmed salmon
* Scientific uncertainties related to recommendations are unimportant
* Some scientific and political uncertainties related to feed limits are important
}}
[[image:Farmed salmon assessment.PNG|thumb|center|400px|Causal diagram of the farmed salmon assessment.]]
==Scope==
==Scope==


===Purpose===
===Purpose===


'''The purpose''' of the assessment is to evaluate the recommendation given by Hites et al <ref>R. A. Hites et al. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 9 Jan. 2004, p. 226</ref> that people should not eat farmed salmon too often because of the pollutant concentrations.  
'''The purpose''' of the assessment is to evaluate the recommendation given by Hites et al <ref name=hites>R. A. Hites et al. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 9 Jan. 2004, p. 226</ref> that people should not eat farmed salmon too often because of the pollutant concentrations. An article by Hites et al.<ref>R. A. Hites et al. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 9 Jan. 2004, p. 226</ref> estimated the amount of farmed salmon that would exceed the pollutant risk limit (1 in 100 000 lifetime cancer risk) set by the U.S. EPA <ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Recommendations for recreational fishing 199X</ref>. Based on this criteria, Hites concluded that farmed salmon should not be eaten more than one meal (8 oz or 227 g) per month.
 
Is the recommendation about not to eat farmed salmon because of its persistent pollutants justifiable based on public health considerations?


===Boundaries===
===Boundaries===
Line 69: Line 89:
The main results and conclusions have been published by Tuomisto et al.<ref>Tuomisto JT, Tuomisto J, Tainio M, Niittynen M, Verkasalo P, Vartiainen T, Kiviranta H, Pekkanen J. Risk-benefit analysis of eating farmed salmon. Science. 2004 Jul 23;305(5683):476-7 [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5683/476 Read the article]</ref>
The main results and conclusions have been published by Tuomisto et al.<ref>Tuomisto JT, Tuomisto J, Tainio M, Niittynen M, Verkasalo P, Vartiainen T, Kiviranta H, Pekkanen J. Risk-benefit analysis of eating farmed salmon. Science. 2004 Jul 23;305(5683):476-7 [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5683/476 Read the article]</ref>


Figure. Benefits and risks (number of avoided deaths per year) of eating farmed salmon in Western Europe.


[[Image:Benefit-risk diagram for farmed salmon.PNG]]
[[Image:Benefit-risk diagram for farmed salmon.PNG]]


Table: Net health impacts of eating farmed salmon. The results include the health impacts of the total health impact of omega-3 intake from salmon.
Table: Net health impacts (avoided deaths per year) of eating farmed salmon in Western Europe. The results include the health impacts of the total health impact of omega-3 intake from salmon.


{| {{prettytable}}
{| {{prettytable}}
Line 149: Line 170:
|}
|}


Table: Net health impacts of eating farmed salmon compared with the business-as-usual scenario.
Table: Net health impacts (avoided deaths per year) of eating farmed salmon in Western Europe, compared with the business-as-usual scenario. The results include the health impacts of the total health impact of omega-3 intake from salmon.
 


{| {{prettytable}}
{| {{prettytable}}
Line 226: Line 246:
|----
|----
|}
|}
Figure. Value of information (VOI) calculated as avoided deaths per year in Western Europe. The first two bars are for the decision about recommending restrictions to salmon consumption. No single variable was important enough to gain any VOI; therefore, only the uncertain variable emphasized by Hites<ref name=hites>R. A. Hites et al. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 9 Jan. 2004, p. 226</ref> is shown. The other bars are for the decision about setting stricter limits for fish feed.


[[Image:VOI analysis for farmed salmon.PNG]]
[[Image:VOI analysis for farmed salmon.PNG]]
Line 234: Line 256:
* Scientific uncertainties related to recommendations are unimportant
* Scientific uncertainties related to recommendations are unimportant
* Some scientific and political uncertainties related to feed limits are important
* Some scientific and political uncertainties related to feed limits are important
==See also==
Fish-related assessments:
* [[Benefit-risk assessment of fish consumption for Beneris]]
* [[Benefit-risk assessment of methyl mercury and omega-3 fatty acids in fish]]
* [[Benefit-risk assessment on farmed salmon]]
* [http://fairquestions.typepad.com/fishfarmfuss/2010/02/letter-to-the-aaas.html?utm_source=Aquafeed+English+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f0479b3a1a-Aquafeed_Newsletter_03-11-10&utm_medium=email On open letter by Vivian Krause]: "It does not appear to me that [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14716013 Hites et al. (2004)] and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18079401 Krkosek et al. (2007)] were published in SCIENCE on the basis of scientific merit."


==References==
==References==


<references/>
<references/>
[[Category:Dioxins]]

Latest revision as of 11:32, 13 March 2015


Main message:
Question:

Is the recommendation about not to eat farmed salmon because of its persistent pollutants justifiable based on public health considerations?

Answer:

  • Pollutant risk is much smaller than the net health benefit of farmed salmon
  • Scientific uncertainties related to recommendations are unimportant
  • Some scientific and political uncertainties related to feed limits are important


Causal diagram of the farmed salmon assessment.

Scope

Purpose

The purpose of the assessment is to evaluate the recommendation given by Hites et al [1] that people should not eat farmed salmon too often because of the pollutant concentrations. An article by Hites et al.[2] estimated the amount of farmed salmon that would exceed the pollutant risk limit (1 in 100 000 lifetime cancer risk) set by the U.S. EPA [3]. Based on this criteria, Hites concluded that farmed salmon should not be eaten more than one meal (8 oz or 227 g) per month.

Is the recommendation about not to eat farmed salmon because of its persistent pollutants justifiable based on public health considerations?

Boundaries

  • Pollutants: Toxaphene, dieldrin, PCB
  • Nutrients: Omega-3 fatty acids
  • Health impacts:
    • Total cancer caused by pollutants
    • Cardiovascular deaths and the impact of omega-3 fatty acids
  • Population: the population of Western Europe (European Economic Area as of beginning of 2004)
  • Current situation (year 2004)

Scenarios

  • Recommendation for not to eat farmed salmon too often (yes/no)
  • Setting up new stricter regulations about pollutants in fish feed (yes/no)

Intended users

  • The primary users are public health authorities and decision-makers involved in giving food recommendations.
  • The secondary user group is the general public. Quantitative estimates are offered to increase understanding of the magnitudes of the related issues.

Participants

The assessment is restricted to a group of environmental health researchers. See participant list in Farmed salmon (project).

Definition

Variable:Recommendation for consumption of farmed salmonVariable:Pollutant concentration limits for fish feedVariable:Persistent pollutant concentrations in fish feedVariable:Persistent pollutant concentrations in salmonVariable:Salmon intake in the population of the Western EuropeVariable:Omega-3 content in salmonVariable:Exposure to persistent pollutants due to salmon in the population of the Western EuropeVariable:Omega-3 intake due to salmon in the population of the Western EuropeVariable:Dose-response function of persistent pollutantsVariable:Pollutant health risk due to the consumption of salmonVariable:Cardiovascular effects of omega-3 in salmon in the Western EuropeVariable:Dose-response function of cardiovascular effects of omega-3 fatty acidsVariable:Total mortality in the Western EuropeVariable:Net health effects due to the consumption of salmonVariable:Cardiovascular mortality in the Western Europe
Benefit-risk assessment on farmed salmon: To the assessment page | To the Analytica model
Decision variables:

Variable:Recommendation for consumption of farmed salmon | Variable:Pollutant concentration limits for fish feed

Indicators:

Variable:Pollutant health risk due to the consumption of salmon | Variable:Net health effects due to the consumption of salmon

Other variables:

Variable:Persistent pollutant concentrations in fish feed | Variable:Persistent pollutant concentrations in salmon | Variable:Salmon intake in the population of the Western Europe | Variable:Exposure to persistent pollutants due to salmon in the population of the Western Europe | Variable:Dose-response function of persistent pollutants | Variable:Omega-3 content in salmon | Variable:Omega-3 intake due to salmon in the population of the Western Europe | Variable:Dose-response function of cardiovascular effects of omega-3 fatty acids | Variable:Total mortality in the Western Europe | Variable:Cardiovascular mortality in the Western Europe | Variable:Cardiovascular effects of omega-3 in salmon in the Western Europe

Analyses

  • Value of information analyses
    • Outcome: Net health effect; Decision: Recommend restricted farmed salmon consumption?; Variables tested: all
    • Outcome: Net health effect; Decision: Lower limits for pollutants in fish feed?; Variables tested: all
  • Importance analyses
    • Outcome: Mortality by recommendation; Variables tested: all
    • Outcome: Mortality by feed regulation; Variables tested: all

Result

Results

The main results and conclusions have been published by Tuomisto et al.[4]

Figure. Benefits and risks (number of avoided deaths per year) of eating farmed salmon in Western Europe.

Table: Net health impacts (avoided deaths per year) of eating farmed salmon in Western Europe. The results include the health impacts of the total health impact of omega-3 intake from salmon.

Statistics or fractile Business as usual Recommend restrictions Stricker rules for feed Both
Mean 31062 22929 31428 23296
SD 22650 17105 22842 17317
0.01 576 404 653 460
0.025 1782 1286 1847 1356
0.05 3632 2697 3766 2803
0.25 14547 10590 14780 10793
0.5 (Median) 25187 18504 25479 18829
0.75 43064 31526 43628 32091
0.95 76141 56697 77010 57393
0.975 88267 66397 89040 67249
0.99 101832 79328 102202 80143

Table: Net health impacts (avoided deaths per year) of eating farmed salmon in Western Europe, compared with the business-as-usual scenario. The results include the health impacts of the total health impact of omega-3 intake from salmon.

Statistics or fractile Business as usual Recommend restrictions Stricter rules for feed Both
Mean 0 -8133 366 -7766
SD 0 9703 982 9637
0.01 0 -45895 -2335 -45557
0.025 0 -35624 -1662 -35171
0.05 0 -27745 -1155 -27041
0.25 0 -10929 -60 -10553
0.5 (Median) 0 -4876 264 -4560
0.75 0 -1567 820 -1307
0.95 0 -112 2117 147
0.975 0 -10 2635 459
0.99 0 14 3180 995

Figure. Value of information (VOI) calculated as avoided deaths per year in Western Europe. The first two bars are for the decision about recommending restrictions to salmon consumption. No single variable was important enough to gain any VOI; therefore, only the uncertain variable emphasized by Hites[1] is shown. The other bars are for the decision about setting stricter limits for fish feed.

Conclusions

  • Pollutant risk is much smaller than the net health benefit of farmed salmon
  • Scientific uncertainties related to recommendations are unimportant
  • Some scientific and political uncertainties related to feed limits are important

See also

Fish-related assessments:

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 R. A. Hites et al. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 9 Jan. 2004, p. 226
  2. ↑ R. A. Hites et al. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 9 Jan. 2004, p. 226
  3. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Recommendations for recreational fishing 199X
  4. ↑ Tuomisto JT, Tuomisto J, Tainio M, Niittynen M, Verkasalo P, Vartiainen T, Kiviranta H, Pekkanen J. Risk-benefit analysis of eating farmed salmon. Science. 2004 Jul 23;305(5683):476-7 Read the article
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Benefit-risk_assessment_on_farmed_salmon&oldid=34732"