Is Eating Fish as Healthy as It Used to Be?

Photo/2.bp.blogspot.com

By Virginia DiBianca

When being advised to follow a healthy diet, the one food that is indisputably on the top of the list is fish. Its Omega 3 fatty acids, vitamins and minerals keep our heart pumping and our blood pressure low. It is an easy food to cook, requiring little preparation and, in most cases, done in less than 30 minutes. It is almost impossible to make a bad dish with fish unless, of course, the fish itself has been contaminated.

With the recent environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which was formally known to produce quality fish, particularly shellfish, fish lovers now question the safety of the fish coming from the Gulf. Do we believe the government agencies that maintain the fish from the Gulf is safe or do we stop buying, adding to the sorry economic state of the Gulf fishermen’s woes, who are just recovering from Hurricane Katrina?

Testing by Federal Agencies
One month after the spill occurred, consumers began expressing reasonable concern as to whether the fish coming from the Gulf was contaminate free. To address public concern, in July 2010, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began testing the fish to determine its safety to consumers as well as to the fishermen. As a precautionary measure, NOAA closed fishing and shellfish harvesting in areas in the Gulf that were exposed to the spilled oil. The fish outside the closed areas was tested for petroleum compounds. While oil is composed of many chemicals, it is polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are carcinogenic if consumed in sufficient amounts over long periods of time. Another indicator of tainted seafood is the smell. If a petroleum odor is detected, the fish would be considered unacceptable for consumption.

NOAA has the authority to close and open the waters in the Gulf and actively uses that power to meet their obligation to the public. A sampling conducted between August and September 19 indicated the sample fish (shrimp, finfish and composites) showed no sign of oil or dispersant odors or flavors. As results continued to prove the fish were safe, fishing areas were re-opened. At its peak, 37% (88,522 square miles) of the Gulf fisheries were closed. As of October 1, 2010, 89% of those closed fishing areas were once again operational.

While all tests produced results indicating no signs of contamination, consumer confidence continued to mistrust the fish coming from the Gulf. In November 2010, NOAA and the FDA announced it would conduct a second chemical test on the Gulf seafood for dispersant. Taking 1,735 tissue samples, the FDA reported that trace amounts of dispersant residue (in 13 of the 1,735 samples) were found below the safety threshold for shrimp, crabs and oysters and that there was no scientific evidence that dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DSS), a major part of the dispersant, had accumulated in the fish tissues.

“The rigorous testing we have done from the very beginning gives us confidence in the safety of seafood being brought to market from the Gulf,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary for commerce and NOAA administrator. “This test adds another layer of information, reinforcing our findings to date that seafood from the Gulf remains safe.” As of February 2011, 1,041 square miles of an area immediately surrounding the wellhead is the only section still closed by NOAA.

Photo/4.bp.blogspot.com

The Unfortunate Oysters
Of all the seafood in the Gulf, the oyster population has been the one specie that has been the one most deeply effected from the spill. Oysters are creatures highly sensitive to the quality of their environment. They feed by filtering nutrients out of seawater. Because they are immobile, they accumulate the chemicals and pollutants making them vulnerable to the spills effects. The spilled oil penetrated the water column and formed a thick oil slick that reached the shores of the Gulf Coast contaminating everything in its way including the world’s last, largely intact network of oyster reefs.

An attempt to reverse the damage actually caused more destruction to the oyster beds. In a coordinated effort by the Coast Guard, BP and the Army Corp of Engineers, water diversion gates were opened to flood fresh water from the Mississippi River hoping to push the oil out of the Louisiana coastal marshes. This action might have saved other species, however the oyster population that thrives on coastal living has been severely damaged.

The timing of the spill was also against the oysters. The BP spill occurred during the peak spawning period for oysters. Oysters reproduce by releasing egg and sperm into the water that attach to the hard-surface bottom that becomes their home. With toxins in the water, oysters protect themselves by keeping their shells closed, which eventually suffocates them.

In January 2011, a weekend was dedicated to the first of a program to rebuild 100 miles of new oyster reefs along the shorelines of Alabama. The effort was partially funded by NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As a spokesman for The Natural Conservancy stated, 85% of the world’s natural oyster reefs have already been lost due to development, pollution and now, the BP oil spill. Oyster reefs are important not only for consumption but in marine life. They promote new growth, help protect delicate salt marshes and sea grasses, and act like coral in the tropics to provide habitat for numerous marine species across Mobile Bay.

In addition to the public perception of tainted seafood, a supply shortage has further complicated the issue. With oyster beds damaged, only 1% of the men who usually harvest oysters are actually doing so. One main reason is that they have been hired as part of the cleanup crew, work that for now, is more profitable with some crews paying as much as $2,000 a day. As a result, restaurants in New Orleans that have featured local seafood began last summer to re-evaluate their menus and consider less expensive ways of serving the popular local fare.

Defined by their Cuisine
Fish, particularly shellfish, is deeply ingrained in the states along the Gulf Coast as a way of life. New Orleans’s cuisine made popular by celebrity chefs such as Emeril Lagasse and his predecessor, Paul Prudhomme of the famous Commander’s Palace Restaurant, boast some of the best seafood recipes anywhere, using local catches. Traditional meals include Jambalaya and Gumbo using shrimp, po’boy sandwiches made with oysters and crawfish dinners called etouffee. These chefs emphasize how it is in their best interest to serve the fish from the Gulf with confidence. No restaurateur would take the chance of being known as the establishment that served their patrons tainted fish.

Seafood is how many along the Gulf make their living. Recently, at a symposium on the aftermath of the BP oil spill held at Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mr. Thomas Costanza of Catholic Charities of New Orleans addressed how the loss of work has affected the Gulf fishermen. While Hurricane Katrina destroyed the property of those in the Gulf, it did not come close to the devastation of what it means to lose one’s livelihood as when the spilled oil contaminated their fisheries. Oyster beds, which take three years before they are re-established, have been ruined. Last summer’s harvest of brown shrimp from the gulf was one of the smallest seen in years. Juvenile crabs are in very small numbers.

Michael Voisin, president of Motivatit Seafoods, an oyster processing company in Houma, La., reports his business is down 60% after the spill, with recovery at a slow pace. The state’s fisheries are projected to lose $74 million this year from the lingering impact of the oil spill.

Fishermen are suffering from depression that is leading to an increase in alcoholism. Claims from the fishing industry to BP go unpaid. The fishermen are asking for help to be re-trained in their profession, and to reconstruct their oyster beds and fisheries. BP has denied the claims from oystermen asserting that the pumping of freshwater into the beds was a maneuver unapproved by the Unified Command who oversee the oil spill response. It was the water, not the oil, BP claims, that caused the ruination of the oyster beds. In the meantime, claims go unsatisfied, under a pile of papers.

So Is the Fish Safe?
The decision to eat the fish from the Gulf of Mexico comes down to each person’s individual belief. Government sponsored tests have all indicated there are no traces of contamination in the Gulf seafood. After extensive examination of how fish react to polluted waters after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, a report issued by the National Marine Fisheries Services determined that fish metabolize and excrete foreign materials such as oil. It can be said that the fish from the Gulf has undergone the most comprehensive testing ever to ensure the public’s health and safety. There are restaurants and fish markets that are carrying the seafood from the Gulf without reported problems.

On the other side, it is unclear how consumers can know whether tainted shrimp or oysters, for example, might still be harvested from closed or unexamined areas and sold, despite these precautions. The national perception is of caution as the long-term effects are yet to be known. Even though the oil has dissipated, there is uncertainty as to how much remains below the surface. Scientific evidence states that bacteria, plankton and other tiny creatures have consumed the oil. These creatures, eaten by small fish, crabs and shrimp that can be eaten by bigger fish jeopardize the safety of sea life for human consumption. As most all studies on the Gulf contamination admit, the future effects are yet to be determined.

Consequently, many seafood lovers have become more inquisitive about the food they are buying. When recently dining at a local well-established restaurant, a nearby diner asked the waiter where the fish was from before placing their dinner order. Markets selling fresh seafood are also questioned as to the origin of the fish, particularly the shrimp. At a respected fish market, when asked, the fishmonger informed his customer that the shrimp came from Louisiana. The customer then turned and bought the Chilean Sea Bass. It is their choice, after all.

For more information:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/gulf-oil-spill-restoratio_n_812945.html

http://www.eli.org/pdf/NA_40-11/40.11097.pdf

About the Author

Virginia DiBianca is a third year student at Ramapo College majoring in Communication Arts. Taking a strong interest in how the environment has affected her, she is turning down fish from the Gulf Coast at seafood markets and restaurants for now.

Experiential Journal: The Symposium on the BP Oil Spill

By Virginia DiBianca

On April 20, 2010, BP’s Horizon Deepwater oil well exploded pouring 2.5 million gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico. The massive oil eruption continued for six months, sparked a fire that took the lives of 11 workers, created the worst environmental disaster in the United States and destroyed the working life of many of the residents along the Gulf of Mexico. One year later, Ramapo College in conjunction with its School of Social Science and Human Services, Sustainability Studies Program and Dean’s Council presented a symposium on the aftermath of the spill entitled Spill Effects.

The symposium included panels of experts who represented various aspects of the spills impact, which were many and far reaching. As pointed out by Thomas Lueck, Ramapo faculty member, the Gulf oil spill dominated major news coverage more consistently than any other tragedy in recent years. Unlike similar disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti, which was newsworthy for about one month, the spill’s coverage was long term and included news on environmental, social, and economic impacts with a dose of government and corporate screw ups that, not unlike the sinking of the Titanic, continues to maintain a readership.

The first day was devoted mostly to the ecological damage. Dr. John H. Paul, a biological oceanographer from the University of South Florida, discussed his two toxicity tests in the Gulf region taken on separate occasions. Those performed in July of 2010 indicated a high concentration of oil had affected the plankton (drifting organisms that are the base of the food web in marine and fresh water). Follow up testing was performed in February 2011, which still showed sampling stations containing evidence of mutagenicity even though the appearance of the water on the surface showed no signs of this contamination.

Dr. Harry Allen, representing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Response Team emphasized that changes need to be made to the Oil Pollution Act to better define the jurisdiction between the two factors that govern an aquatic spill, the Coast Guard and the EPA., Additionally, a fast, efficient system of gathering and sharing information in the event of a catastrophe such as this one needs to be structured.

On the social impact, Mr. Thomas Costanza of Catholic Charities of New Orleans spoke on the loss of work on the Gulf fishermen. Hurricane Katrina, while it destroyed the homes and boats of those in the Gulf, did not come close to the devastation felt by those who lost their livelihood when the spilled oil contaminated their fisheries. Oyster beds have been ruined which take three years before they are re-established. Last summer’s harvest of brown shrimp from the gulf was one of the smallest seen in years. Juvenile crabs are in very small numbers. The national perception, whether true or not, is that the fish coming from the Gulf is tainted and not healthy to consume. Fishermen are suffering from depression that is leading to an increase in alcoholism. Claims from the fishing industry to BP go unpaid. The fishermen are asking for help to be re-trained in their profession, to reconstruct their oyster beds and fisheries. Their claims are within a pile of claims waiting to be satisfied.

On the second day, the symposium included a panel on the media’s perspective of the oil spill. Charles Schmidt, a freelance journalist, described the use of dispersants as complex and how their overall affect is unknown. He drew criticism from one or two members of the audience challenging his viewpoint of how the dispersants might have minimized the oil reaching the shores of Louisiana and that dispersants might be considered toxic to some species but maybe less so to another. Schmidt argued that his position was to report his findings accurately and not to satisfy any one group’s agenda.

Finally, David Barstow, who extensively covered the oil spill for The New York Times, talked about the state of investigative reporting. At the scene of the spill, he was participating in several meetings where the press was invited. In these sessions, reporters were outnumbered 100 to one by lawyers and public relations people who represented BP, Halliburton and other corporations attempting to spin the public’s perception in their favor. Barstow emphasized how independent journalism is weakening as a growing population of public relation professionals attempt to control the public’s image of events. The Internet, he added, is overwhelmed with bloggers who provide opinionated views that are unsupported and may or may not be factual. Investigative reporting he emphasized, approaches the topics with truisms and asks the questions of why things happen, how they happened and what can be done about it. They are the true heroes of the American people and need to be supported.

Putting a Bounty Out For BP: The Importance of Environmental Regulations

Letter to the editor:

Is April 20, 2010 already ancient history? I certainly hope not. In case you have forgotten, this date marked the beginning of the infamous BP oil spill. Of course, the massive leak wasn’t capped for more than two months after it sprung. The spill was one of the worst environmental disasters brought on by human hands in our entire history. It is estimated that more than 60,000 barrels (2.5 million gallons) of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico each day. The damage was vast and devastating, affecting many species of wildlife and wearing out various ecosystems. This does not include the people who rely on the Gulf as their only source of income.

The U.S. Department of the Interior supervises the Minerals Management Service, in charge of reviewing the environmental impact of such drilling operations. Unfortunately, the government did not do its part in properly assessing the dangers of drilling in deep water. Those responsible for preventing a disaster like the spill from happening were too busy enjoying the perks given to them by corporate executives with BP. As a result, a catastrophic spill that could have been avoided instead did immeasurable damage to our environment.

It angers me deeply that we allow money to cloud our moral judgment so badly nothing else seems to matter. Money has the power to influence otherwise good people to look the other way while blatant criminal acts are committed. Money carries enough weight to determine the way our government governs. We allow corporations to have free reign under deregulation to do as they please. We act as though they have our best interest at heart when in fact we know that the only interest of any corporation is profit. It never seems to matter who gets hurt as long as the money keeps pouring in and investors are happy.

Not even 6 months after the oil stopped pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, BP managed to turn a profit. Early November of 2010, BP reported a net profit of $1.79 billion. During the clean up, BP was said to have been losing $16 million a day. However, they were bringing in $66 million in profit per day. In 2009, BP made $14 billion. So even if the clean up cost them that same amount, they would only have to go a year before making a profit again. Clearly, it took much less than that. Despite the long-term damage caused to the environment, BP will continue on with barely a scratch.

For the sake of our very existence, we must change our priorities as human beings. The planet can’t survive forever under such frequent abuse. How much more evidence do we need before we realize the importance of regulating corporations? In theory it should all make perfect sense. We elect our government officials to carry out our wishes. We don’t elect our corporate executives. So why are we so opposed to letting the government regulate corporations like BP so they can’t get away with such atrocities? If the bottom line for a corporation is profit, why do we believe for a second that they care about our best interest? These are just a few of the many questions I ask in frustration and with the utmost concern for my planet. Will we learn before it's too late?

Dan Savino