HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2005.067215v1 95/8/1304-a    most recent Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Arnold, S. M. Articles by Middaugh, J. P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Arnold, S. M. Articles by Middaugh, J. P.

Scott M. Arnold, PhD, Tracey V. Lynn, DVM, MS, Lori A. Verbrugge, PhD and John P. Middaugh, MD

At the time of writing, all authors were with the Section of Epidemiology, Alaska Division of Public Health, Anchorage.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Scott M. Arnold, PhD, Alaska Division of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology, 3601 C St, Suite 540, PO Box 240249, Anchorage, AK 99524–0249 (e-mail: scott_arnold@health.state.ak.us).

	Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

Knobeloch and Anderson assert that the current approach to fish consumption advisories is effective and empowers women to make improved choices. Yet they acknowledge that the public is confused. While the intent of national advisories is laudable, the public health consequences seem unsatisfactory, because there is recent evidence that generic fish advisories may have decreased fish consumption nationwide.¹ Therefore, we do not agree that women are being empowered or that the current approach is consistent with the principle of beneficence.

We do not recommend telling worried people not to worry. Alaska’s fish advisory² was developed through collaboration with many entities . . . [Full Text]