We know nothing about the mothers and children involved: Were wealthier mothers able to eat the 'better' types of fish without harming themselves? Or maybe the women who could gain access to fish lived in 'smarter' places like cities (which can truck in their fish) versus rural zones?

It sounds like much to do about nothing; if you're eating fish, you're probably eating healthier in general.

That would limit the mercury.

As a pregnant woman I find this confusing. I take a pregnancy vitamin with the omega supplement in it. Were all fo these women taking pregnancy vitamins? Would one get this effect from the omega supplement?

Is salmon considered a "predator" fish? I've seen and heard pregnancy warnings not to eat salmon due to mercury.

Sometimes I think they just want to make us an anxious as possible so they can sell us something else.

You can find out about the various mercury levels in different fishes on the internet. Salmon is supposed to be quite low and the canned, wild variety is a great sub for tuna. Farmed salmon is not as good for you as wild and often has PCBs and other toxics from the close quarters the fish are raised in and poor farming practices. Much comes from Chile(I think) and is a direct result of Walmart's demands on their fising practices. Alaskan salmon is wild be definition just like buffalo meat is hormone free by definition because if Native American type rules/agreements. Tuna is pretty full of mercury and swordfish is totally out for women who might like to have kids.

I also have to stop eating the bass we catch in the river because they are full of mercury and some perch/panfish we catch are full of lead according to the MO Dept of Wildlife. The toxics depend on where the fish came from and the mercury depends on what the fish eats. If it eats other fish, there is bioaccumulation and that's the problem. It's complex, but it sounds like the study may show that it's worth wading through all the literature and choosing the fish that's right for you. Trout anyone? or maybe just some flax seeds....

This is great news, though the women in the study have 8-year-olds, meaning they ate fish 9 years ago. Maybe things are worse with respect to mercury now?

In any case, we need to be able to eat fish free of worry about toxins like mercury, which are not naturally occurring in fish, rather the result of seriously polluted rivers and streams and oceans. We need to stop accepting that the responsibility lies with fish-eaters rather we need to make it the responsibilty of the polluters and regulators to clean up.

I think IQ is a crap shoot, my mother rarely if ever ate fish and I have a fairly high IQ. I was always in the gifted and talented programs, accelerated through a few lower grades, school was always very easy for me. My two brothers on the other hand have average IQ's, everything I learned took them twice as long to learn it.

So I see nothing wrong with eating fish from a fine sushi establishment or a high end grocery chain and also supplementing your diet with omega 3's in pill form if you want to try to up your fetus IQ, but I'm not fully convinced. I mean if fish were really the reason for high IQ's, wouldn't Japan be filled with geniuses? Or any other island where people get most of their protein from fish? Can it be shown that people like DaVinci, Newton, Einstein, Edison and other fantastically brilliant people, that their mothers ate a lot of fish?

sounds like another study is needed..

I'd bet money that *if* the correlation between fish-eating and higher-IQs for babies is real (all other variables controlled), the likely substance responsible is the essential fatty acid in fish. You could get the same effect by taking 3-6 fish-oil capsules a day, 1-2 caps three times a day, with meals, usually, and fish oil that has been distilled to eliminate heavy metals is easy enough to find at any good vitamin shop, or on-line.

A lot of research has been done into the effects of essential fatty acids, specifically, into their beneficial effects on our bodies..before the processed-food industry created hydrogenated and partially-hydrogenated fats, EFAs were the only kinds of fats we ate, for the most part.

Hydrogenated-or trans--fats are highly toxic, and there is a school of thought that suggests many of the chronic illnesses we suffer from, that have become more common in the last 75 years, are partly the result of living longer, but also the result of consuming too many of these man-made fats. Not the natural saturated fats...the ones invented by the processed food industry that allow foods to sit on shelves longer...and things like margerine..something no sane human should eat.

Too much saturated fat is a bad idea...but ANY transfat is a bad idea.

Wild salmon -- by definition, not farmed -- is about as clean as anything you can find, and also loaded with the Omega-3 fatty acids. The longer the fish swim, like to Alaska's Copper River or all the way up the Yukon River, the more oily, generally.

Don't buy farmed. "Real Fish Don't Eat Pellets," according to one bumper sticker.

for wisely avoiding jumps to conclusions, respecting the ambiguity in this result, and noting that the study raises more questions than it answers. Like: How many IQ points? and, Is the (possible) effect due to intake of fish, or to reduced intake of other foods avoided by mothers who eat more fish?

Significant in the WP report is the additional finding related to “more behavioral and social problems” in the youngsters whose mothers ate less fish. We know that intellectual development, behavior, and social functioning are all related to quality of early attachment. Do mothers who tend to eat more fish (and maybe less fast food or highly processed food) also tend to be more responsive and nurturing caretakers?

Eat healthy, but don’t allow the debate to distract from what is most important in child development – quality of early attachment.