SCA Calls for a Rethink of Seafood Advice During Pregnancy
Seafood Consumers Association says Australian health policy must consider the risks of not eating seafood—not only the risks associated with eating it.
Seafood Consumers Association Ltd (SCA) has lodged a submission with the Senate Select Committee on Women’s Health, calling for maternal nutrition, seafood consumption and the critical first 1,000 days of life to receive greater attention in Australian health policy.
At the centre of SCA’s submission is a simple proposition:
What is the risk of eating this food—and what is the risk of not eating it, and what is likely to replace it?
For decades, much of the discussion around seafood and pregnancy has concentrated on potential contaminants, particularly methylmercury. These risks need appropriate scientific assessment, but SCA argues that public-health policy must also consider the nutritional benefits of seafood and the consequences when precautionary messages discourage its consumption.
Seafood can provide long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, high-quality protein, iodine, selenium, vitamin B12, vitamin D and other nutrients important to maternal and infant health.
South Australia may already have part of the answer
SCA highlights South Australia’s Omega-3 Test-and-Treat Program, which incorporates omega-3 status testing into antenatal screening and provides targeted supplementation advice where low omega-3 status is identified.
Rather than assuming every woman needs supplementation, the approach is based on a simple principle: test first and intervene where indicated.
SCA believes the programme deserves rigorous national assessment, including clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and equitable access, with a view to staged national implementation if the evidence supports it.
What happens when women eat less seafood?
The submission also raises an issue that receives much less attention.
If health advice causes a pregnant woman to avoid seafood, what does she eat instead?
Avoidance does not occur in a nutritional vacuum.
At a time of growing concern about dietary patterns high in ultra-processed foods, SCA argues that risk assessment should consider food substitution and overall dietary quality—not simply the presence or absence of an individual contaminant.
This does not mean ignoring genuine food-safety risks. It means assessing risk and benefit together.
Do women actually know what fish they are eating?
SCA also identifies a striking inconsistency in Australian policy.
Health authorities provide advice that distinguishes between different fish species and groups. Yet the Australian Fish Names Standard, AS 5300, remains largely voluntary in the domestic seafood marketplace.
This issue is sometimes confused with two other labelling systems, but they perform quite different jobs:
Country of Origin Labelling: Where did it come from?
Plain English Allergen Labelling: Does it contain an allergen?
Australian Fish Names Standard: What fish is it?
Knowing that seafood is Australian or imported does not necessarily identify the fish. Nor does an allergen declaration simply state “fish”.
If government gives women species-specific health advice, SCA argues that women should have a reasonable expectation of being told reliably what species they are buying and eating.
The first 1,000 days
The submission extends beyond pregnancy to the first 1,000 days—from conception to a child's second birthday.
Drawing on international work demonstrating the nutritional potential of aquatic foods, including the work of World Food Prize Laureate Professor Shakuntala Thilsted, SCA argues that Australia should investigate how affordable and culturally appropriate aquatic foods can contribute to maternal and early-childhood nutrition.
SCA has previously highlighted the Matsya Paripusti initiative in Assam, India, where small indigenous fish are being used in nutrition programmes, and has proposed further Australian research into underutilised aquatic resources.
The objective is not simply to tell women what they should eat. Healthy choices also have to be affordable, available, identifiable and practical.
A different way of thinking about risk
SCA is calling for a transparent, multidisciplinary review of Australian pregnancy seafood advice using contemporary FAO/WHO evidence, Australian consumption and exposure data, current seafood supply—including the increasing contribution of aquaculture—and research into how consumers actually respond to health warnings.
SCA CEO Roy Palmer said the objective should be to give women confidence rather than create unnecessary anxiety around nutritious foods.
“Women’s health policy should consider the nutritional consequences of not eating seafood as well as the risks associated with eating it.
“The question should not simply be, ‘What risk might be present in this food?’ We also need to ask, ‘What happens if women stop eating it—and what replaces it?’
“Women deserve contemporary science, clear information and confidence about the seafood they choose for themselves and their families.”
The submission is now before the Senate Select Committee on Women’s Health. In accordance with Parliamentary procedures, submissions are published after authorisation by the Committee. SCA will provide a link to the submission when it becomes publicly available.
SCA has offered to provide further evidence to the Senate Committee as its inquiry progresses.
Seafood Consumers Association Ltd is an independent Australian registered charity advocating for seafood consumers, transparency, informed choice, food security and access to nutritious, sustainable and affordable seafood.
Comments
No comments yet.