Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
From the Shores of Louisiana - Is gulf seafood safe?
Baton Rouge, Louisiana: It's rare for me to see 67-year-old Wilma Subra – chemist, MacArthur Grant 'genius,' grandmother of six – so worked up. But when I asked last week how things were going in the Gulf, where she's been measuring levels of toxicity in air, water and fish long before the BP gusher began she was adamant that things are still bad out there."My biggest concern is that the message is 'The oil is all gone.' We are planning on being out in the field monitoring the wetlands, estuaries and beach areas for the impacts of the oil over the next several years," she says, insisting that only then will we truly know about the impact on marine life, the environment and human health created by the BP mess.
But Subra's biggest immediate concern is that the seafood coming from the Gulf may not be safe and that the federal agencies, specifically the FDA and NOAA, have cooked the books by adjusting the amount of some of the chemicals allowed in the fish they are testing... as a way to get fishermen back onto the Gulf and to restore confidence in the seafood market.
She forwarded me the criteria NOAA is using for testing, which makes it clear that its first test is smell and second for chemicals. Subra's main concern is Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, of which the BP crude had large percentages.
In June, says Subra, while the spill was still unfolding "the FDA, in association with NOAA, raised the acceptable levels of PAH, without providing a rationale for why."
"Here's part of its statement in the Protocol for Interpretation and Use of Sensory Testing and Analytical Chemistry Results for re-opening oil-impacted areas closed to seafood harvesting by the FDA, published June 18, 2010: 'The new numbers were developed specifically for the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon Oil spill event and will not necessarily be applicable after all fisheries closed due to oil contamination are re-opened for safe harvest. Levels of concern and other factors for any subsequent oil spill event would be independently evaluated based on case-specific information."
In other words, according to Subra and other scientists, the acceptable levels of PAH in the Gulf's marine life were raised simply to address the impacts of the BP spill. It smacks less of concern for long-term human health, and more about getting the economy going again.
Subra's complaints go bigger: "There is no testing for dispersants. In addition the calculations of the meal size used to calculate the consumption quantity is based on things like four shrimp per meal." Who in Louisiana, or elsewhere, eats just four shrimp at a meal? Which begs another issue, which is that by allowing more chemicals to be in the seafood that is being taken from the Gulf it most-powerfully impacts those who eat it most often ... which are the residents of the Gulf.
The bottom line, says Subra, is that "the concentrations of PAHs in seafood, based on the FDA acceptable levels, are inadequate to protect the health of seafood consumers."
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, administrator of NOAA, has defended both her agency and the FDA's approach and that they are doing "comprehensive testing," which includes a two-part test: A team of sensory experts tastes and smells the seafood and if it" passes muster," is sent to a lab and tested for 12 types of hazardous compounds. "
Subra is not alone in not buying the agency's modus operandi.
Dr. William Sawyer, a Florida-based toxicologist hired by a New Orleans law firm to look at test results of water and seafood samples, said seafood safety could not be guaranteed using those tests. "Absolutely not, especially with respect to Louisiana shrimp."Senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Gina Solomon, concurs, and on September 21 urged federal officials to undertake "more rigorous" testing. She claims "NOAA only used data from 12 samples of shrimp, consisting of 73 individual shrimp for its evaluation. That's just too small, she said, for an area the size of Connecticut."Lubchenco, NOAA and the FDA continue to defend the testing and claim "the Gulf seafood taken from these waters is safe to eat" and the reopening of Gulf fishing waters "is another signal to tourists the northern Gulf is open for business."
[flickr photo via Ms. Gail M Tang]
In other words, according to Subra and other scientists, the acceptable levels of PAH in the Gulf's marine life were raised simply to address the impacts of the BP spill. It smacks less of concern for long-term human health, and more about getting the economy going again.
Subra's complaints go bigger: "There is no testing for dispersants. In addition the calculations of the meal size used to calculate the consumption quantity is based on things like four shrimp per meal." Who in Louisiana, or elsewhere, eats just four shrimp at a meal? Which begs another issue, which is that by allowing more chemicals to be in the seafood that is being taken from the Gulf it most-powerfully impacts those who eat it most often ... which are the residents of the Gulf.
The bottom line, says Subra, is that "the concentrations of PAHs in seafood, based on the FDA acceptable levels, are inadequate to protect the health of seafood consumers."
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, administrator of NOAA, has defended both her agency and the FDA's approach and that they are doing "comprehensive testing," which includes a two-part test: A team of sensory experts tastes and smells the seafood and if it" passes muster," is sent to a lab and tested for 12 types of hazardous compounds. "
Subra is not alone in not buying the agency's modus operandi.
Dr. William Sawyer, a Florida-based toxicologist hired by a New Orleans law firm to look at test results of water and seafood samples, said seafood safety could not be guaranteed using those tests. "Absolutely not, especially with respect to Louisiana shrimp."Senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Gina Solomon, concurs, and on September 21 urged federal officials to undertake "more rigorous" testing. She claims "NOAA only used data from 12 samples of shrimp, consisting of 73 individual shrimp for its evaluation. That's just too small, she said, for an area the size of Connecticut."Lubchenco, NOAA and the FDA continue to defend the testing and claim "the Gulf seafood taken from these waters is safe to eat" and the reopening of Gulf fishing waters "is another signal to tourists the northern Gulf is open for business."
[flickr photo via Ms. Gail M Tang]
Filed under: Food and Drink, North America, United States, Ecotourism, Consumer Activism
