The Food and Drug Administration wants to urge women and children to eat more fish. The Environmental Protection Agency thinks that could be dangerous. What’s the best advice to follow when two federal titans clash?

In a draft report sent to the White House earlier this month, the FDA recommended that the government reverse its current policy, which warns that women of childbearing years, pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants and children should limit their consumption of fish to no more than 12 ounces a week because of the potential hazards of mercury. The report contends that nutrients in fish, including omega-3 fats and selenium, are so crucial for childhood neurological development that the benefits outweigh risks. Fish consumption by pregnant women is associated with a 3 point increase in a child’s IQ, according to the FDA draft report.

The greatest benefit, the agency argues, accrues when people young and old consume more than 12 ounces of fish weekly.

Not surprisingly, a spokesman for the National Fisheries Institute, quoted in the Washington Post, applauds the FDA’s new tack. “This is a science-based approach,” said Gavin Gibbons. “And you start to see a picture emerge that shows the clear benefits of eating seafood outweigh the risks of a trace amount of mercury in fish.”

Don’t believe it, critics say. “This is an astonishing, irresponsible document,” Richard Wiles, executive director of the Environmental Working Group, told the Washington Post. His organization fired off a letter to the EPA protesting the FDA’s new position.

The clash of the two titanic federal agencies is particularly surprising because, in the past, they worked together to review advisories related to the environment and health. EPA sources say the FDA developed the new draft proposal on its own, without consulting the environmental group until the document was almost complete.

The clash is symptomatic of a deeper and more deeply troubling problem: the compromised state of many of the nation’s regulatory agencies, including those that oversee health. “It’s a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency,” Wiles told the Washington Post. Once a watchdog for health and safety, the FDA has become, in his words, “a patsy for polluters.”

Indeed, over the past few years, the FDA has been accused frequently of ruling in the interests of industry rather than the health of the nation–including accusations that it failed to act on evidence that a substance in many plastic food containers, called bisphenol-A, poses a real and present danger.

When it comes to fish, only an unbiased review of the evidence, from independent environmental and health experts, will win consumers’ trust. Evidence shows that mercury can damage the brains and nervous systems of fetuses and infants. The heavy metal can also increase risk of heart disease in adults. But the very real health benefits from eating fish regularly are also clear. What we need to know is where the benefits end and risk begins. While they’re at it, the experts should also explore alternatives to fish that may give women, infants, and children some of the same benefits, including other sources of omega-3s and selenium.

For now, the best advice for people in the at-risk group, including pregnant and nursing mothers as well as infants and children, is to avoid fish most likely to carry high levels of mercury, including swordfish, shark, tilefish, and king mackerel. And stay tuned.

Tags: brain development, fish, infants, IQ, mercury, omega-3 fatty acids, pregnant women