Gulf Seafood: Safety Proclamations Are Still a Bit, Well, Fishy

(MoneyWatch)  [This is a guest post by Susan Moran.]
As federal officials prepare to hold "dockside chats" to promote information and strategies about the safety of seafood from the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil disaster, the distinction between risk perception and reality is still muddied. It could use some clearing. Government, academic and other studies on seafood safety have been scant and in some cases conflicting. More transparency is needed.

BP has provided much of the funding for research but in return for booty it often demands that scientists sign three-year confidentiality agreements. Government-funded researchers are also being kept quiet, making it difficult for the public, journalists and Congress to draw conclusions from sufficient objective data. Linda Hooper-Bui, a professor of entomology at Louisiana State University, is one of the many scientists researching the environmental effects of the oil spill in the Gulf. In a stinging NYT op-ed, Hooper-Bui said that independent researchers like herself (though her team recently received some funding from the National Science Foundation as well) have a difficult time securing funding for studies.

In these murky waters, what's clear is that Gulf-based fisheries and restaurants have taken a financial hit. Conversely, some seafood purveyors in other regions of the country made more money as the Gulf supply squeeze jacked up prices of oysters and some other seafood from the Northwest and Northeast.

The FDA announced earlier this week that fish and shellfish harvested from the areas unaffected by the closures are considered safe to eat. The agency said: "Although crude oil has the potential to taint seafood with flavors and odors caused by exposure to hydrocarbon chemicals, the public should not be concerned about the safety of seafood in stores at this time."

Roughly 22 percent of the Gulf of Mexico waters, or 52,395 square miles, are still closed to all fishing.

The FDA's most recent assessment contrasts with a less sanguine one from a study published on August 16 in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association. Co-author Gina Solomon, a physician and public health expert in the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, said that in the short term the researchers mostly concerned about oysters, shrimp, crabs and other invertebrates that have difficult emptying their systems of dangerous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens.

In the longer term, big fin fish, such as tuna, mackerel and swordfish also are cause for concern, according to Solomon. That's because mercury concentrations from the crude oil could gradually increase over time as fish down low in the food chain are eaten by larger fish and then settle in their tissue. High exposures of methylmercury, the main form of organic mercury that accumulates in both fish and human tissue, can cause central nervous system and neurological impairment, and even death. Federal agencies closed much of the Gulf waters to fishing right after the spill began in April, thus preventing seafood illnesses.

Even so, more funding for independent research and more transparency about all Gulf-related research would help make seafood safety proclamations smell, well, less fishy.

Image by Flckr user mrjoro
Related:

• All Things BNET on BP's Gulf of Mexico Spill
• Gulf Oil Spill: Meddling Scientists Keep Ruining It For BP
• BP's Oil Spill: Why Americans Will Be Eating More Farmed Shrimp From Asia
• Gulf Oil Spill: How BP's Dispersants May Contaminate Seafood for Years
• Gulf Oil Spill: Local Seafood Industry is at Risk, But Has No Contingency Plan for Port Closures