Gulf seafood gets intense safety testing

Aug 16, 2010 By LAURAN NEERGAARD , AP Medical Writer
Research chemist Daryle Boyd holds seafood samples from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill region as tests are conducted on seafood at the NOAA facility in Seattle, on Thursday, Aug. 12, 2010. Seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is being put under the microscope like no other kind on the market, with fish, shrimp and other catches ground up to hunt for minute traces of oil, far more reassuring than that sniff test that made all the headlines. (AP Photo/Kevin P. Casey)

(AP) -- Fish, shrimp and other catches from the Gulf of Mexico are being ground up to hunt for minute traces of oil in what's considered unprecedented safety testing - sort of a "CSI" for seafood that's far more reassuring than the sniff test that made all the headlines.

And while the dispersant that was dumped into the massive oil spill has consumers nervous, health regulators contend there's no evidence it builds up in seafood - although they're working to create a test for it, just in case.

"We're taking extraordinary steps to assure a high level of confidence in the seafood," Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the , said Monday.

Don't expect the monitoring to end soon: "We're not going anywhere," Lubchenco said, renewing a pledge to keep testing even in waters declared oil-free to detect any lingering seafood concern.

More Gulf waters are reopening to commercial hauls as tests show little hazard from oil. Louisiana's fall shrimp season kicked off Monday. Yet it's too soon to know what safety testing will satisfy a public so skeptical of government reassurances that even local fishermen voice concern.

Basic biology is key: Some species clear from their bodies far more rapidly than others. Fish are the fastest, oysters and crabs the slowest, and shrimp somewhere in between.

"I probably would put oysters at the top of the concern list and I don't think there's a close second," said marine scientist George Crozier, who directs the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama.

The oil contaminants of most health concern - potential cancer-causing substances called polycyclic , or PAHs - show up in other everyday foods, too, such as grilled meat. Low levels also are in seafood sold from other waters.

Where Gulf seafood harvesting has been reopened, "the levels that we see are pretty typical of what we see in other areas, Puget Sound or Alaska," said Walton Dickhoff, who oversees testing at NOAA's Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle.

Here are some questions and answers about Gulf seafood safety:

Q: What are PAHs?

A: They're common pollutants from oil, vehicle exhaust, wood-burning fires and tobacco smoke. They can be in food grown in polluted soil and form in meat cooked at high temperatures. NOAA research found that Alaskan villagers' smoked salmon, a staple food, contained far more PAHs than shellfish tainted by the Exxon Valdez spill.

Q: How does the government decide it's safe to reopen fishing waters?

A: Seafood testing begins when there's no longer visible oil in a particular area. First, inspectors smell samples for the slightest whiff of oil. Step 2 is chemical testing at the Food and Drug Administration, NOAA, or state laboratories.

To reopen seafood harvesting, the samples must test below FDA-set "levels of concern" for 12 PAHs, based on how much someone would have to eat for a potential health risk, and how much of each food fairly heavy seafood consumers tend to eat in a month. Well over 1,200 samples have been tested with many more on the way, each sample containing multiple individual fish, shrimp, crab or oysters.

Q: What if fishermen illegally fish in closed waters?

A: The government is patrolling those waters, doing dockside sampling and stepping up inspections at seafood processors.

Q: With so much oil in the Gulf, how could fish emerge untainted?

A: Commonly consumed fin fish - like grouper, snapper and tuna - rapidly metabolize those PAHs. That's been known for years and tracked during other oil spills, and the reason that fishing is being allowed first in reopened waters.

For example, the limit in fish of the PAH named benzo(a)pyrene is 35 parts per billion. In recently reopened waters off the Florida panhandle, levels were below 1 ppb. Similarly, last weekend FDA labeled amounts of that chemical below the limit of detection in shrimp from Louisiana's reopened Barataria Bay.

Q: Why haven't crabs and oysters been cleared?

A: They're the slowest metabolizers, plus crabs require an extra testing step that FDA hasn't finished.

Oysters are probably the best absorbers of oil, as they take in droplets and dissolved oil, said Carys Mitchelmore, an aquatic toxicologist at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

Most oyster testing is just beginning, so stay tuned, although the FDA recently cleared some from Alabama that contained less than a quarter of the total PAH limit of 66 parts per million.

Q: But what about that controversial dispersant - are the feds testing for it?

A: Not yet; they're still developing a good test.

Q: So why do they say dispersant isn't a seafood threat?

A: Some dispersant chemicals are FDA-regulated ingredients in skin creams and even foods. FDA contends the stronger cleansing ingredients under question degrade too quickly in water to accumulate in fish flesh. In experiments under way in Texas and Alabama, federal scientists are dumping dispersant into tanks full of shrimp, oysters and crabs to try to detect even minute levels.

Still, some critics say a test is needed.

"Make this as comprehensive as possible," says Susan Shaw of the Marine Environmental Research Institute in Maine. "It's trying to make sure the needle in the haystack is not there."

But the dispersant broke oil into smaller, easier-to-absorb droplets, meaning oil tests would detect seafood exposed to lots of dispersant, Dickhoff said.

"We believe the science is very compelling that there is not a human health concern for fish consumption with respect to dispersants," added Donald Kraemer, who oversees FDA's Gulf seafood testing.

The PAH testing reassures Maryland's Mitchelmore: "At the end of the day, the is the toxic entity."

Q: Wouldn't the cautious approach be to eat seafood caught elsewhere for now?

A: Seafood caught elsewhere can have different pollution issues. Most U.S. is imported and the FDA inspects only a fraction of it.

Explore further: Oil thieves cause pipeline leak, pollute Mexico river

5 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NOAA: Gulf seafood tested so far is safe to eat

Jul 10, 2010

(AP) -- Shrimp, grouper, tuna and other seafood snatched from the fringes of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico are safe to eat, according to a federal agency inspecting the catch.

Fishing ban imposed in oil-affected Gulf of Mexico

May 02, 2010

Louisiana's 2.4-billion-dollar a year commercial and recreational fishing industry is dealt its first major blow from the oil spill as the US government bans activities for 10 days due to health concerns.

US urges focus on clean-up, sea damage after BP spill

Aug 08, 2010

US officials on Sunday urged further study of the damage done to the environment by BP's broken well, and said clean-up efforts must continue despite claims that much of the oil had vanished from the Gulf ...

FDA issued advisory to Gulf seafood firms

Feb 05, 2008

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an advisory to seafood processors concerning recent illnesses linked to fish carrying the ciguatera toxin.

La. fishermen wrinkle their noses at 'smell tests'

Aug 03, 2010

(AP) -- Even the people who make their living off the seafood-rich waters of Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish have a hard time swallowing the government's assurances that fish harvested in the shallow, muddy ...

Recommended for you

Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks

2 hours ago

Deep in the hilly grasslands of remote Inner Mongolia, twin smoke stacks rise more than 200 feet into the sky, their steam and sulfur billowing over herds of sheep and cattle. Both day and night, the rumble ...

Water crisis threatens thirsty Sao Paulo

10 hours ago

Sao Paulo is thirsty. A severe drought is hitting Brazil's largest city and thriving economic capital with no end in sight, threatening the municipal water supply to millions of people.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2010
I expect this to be another instance of search and research until the desired conclusion is reached, like "cellphone radiation", deleterious health effects of caffeine and the benefits of homeopathy.

Nuclear power is secure power.
3432682
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
The greenies are incensed that there is no demonstrated food hazard from "all that oil".
Watch for complicity of the "news media" as they help spread fear, doubt and confusion. Gulf residents need to recognize what the real threats to their economy are - overreaction and politics.