The U.S. Food and Drug Administration drew another round of criticism from scientists and safety experts commenting on a draft report that weighs the benefits of omega fatty acids against the risks of mercury in fish. Critics, including Consumers Union, argue that the approach the agency is considering represents yet another attempt to weaken the critical guidance consumers need to avoid the health risks of mercury in fish. 

The conclusions of the draft report, issued for public comment in the final days of the Bush Administration, suggest that the benefits of omega fatty acids in fish outweigh the risks from mercury that often is present at high levels in such popular species as swordfish, shark and tuna. This position is misleading and not supported by science, argues Consumers Union and other public interest groups. 

As we've reported many times before,  while fish are an important part of a healthy diet, the benefits of omega 3's can be offset, and in some cases eliminated altogether, in people who eat a frequent diet of high-mercury fish. Consumers can instead choose such low-mercury species as sardines, salmon, herring and pollock to both minimize mercury risks and maximize the benefits of omega fatty acids.

For more guidance on low mercury fish choices, read "Low-mercury seafood: How much is safe?" For more information on mercury in fish, read this Q&A from Consumer Reports Health.org.