DO HEALTH ADVISORIES UNDERSERVE SEAFOOD CONSUMERS?

 

This morning, I learned that the Washington, D.C. Department of Energy and Environment issued a seafood health advisory, warning that

“people who eat fish caught in the District of Columbia’s Potomac and Anacostia Rivers need to consider eating less of those fish.”

The notice goes on to inform readers that

“[A] study analyzed the tissue of various species of fish for a variety of chemicals, including for the first time, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS.  The study also analyzed the samples for the chemicals tested in earlier studies such as PCBs, PAHs, metals, and organochlorine pesticides.  The study results showed that the majority of species tested contained PFAS.  PFAS are at times referred to as “forever chemicals” as they do not break down and tend to accumulate in the environment.  Long term exposure to PFAS can put individuals at risk for serious health problems such as cancer, liver problems, thyroid issues, birth defects, kidney disease, decreased immunity, and other health problems.  Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are also still a chemical of concern in fish tissue.”

The advisory notes that there are currently no federal standards for PFAS issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (and, perhaps understandably, fails to note that the EPA probably won’t issue any suchstandards so long as Lee Zeldin is in charge, and seeking to create an environment safe for big business, particularly if the current administration carries through with its plans to fire between 50% and 75% of the scientists employed by that agency’s Office of Research and Development), that fish consumption advice will be conformed to such standards should they ever be developed, and that in the meantime,

“Comparison of the study results with screening values for PFAS developed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection showed that fewer servings of some species should be eaten.”

More particularly, the advisory recommended that no striped bass, carp, or largemouth bass caught in the named rivers should be eaten, but that people might safely consume three servings per month of blue catfish, or one serving per month of brown bullhead, channel catfish, gizzard shad, smallmouth bass, snakehead, sunfish, white perch, or yellow perch.

But then the advisory includes the somewhat anomalous disclaimer that

“This notice does not pertain to fish purchased from restaurants, fish vendors, or supermarkets,”

which immediately leads to the question:  “Why?”

Following up, I learned that Washington does not permit any commercial fishing to take place within its borders, so assuming that restaurants, markets, and such all purchase their fish from bona fide, law-abiding commercial fishermen, the advisory woudn’t apply to anything sold there.

But that led to a bigger question:  What about everywhere else?

As an angler fishing in New York waters, I received a copy of the New York State Freshwater Fishing 2025 Regulations Guide when I bought my fishing license last spring.  Despite the Guide’s freshwater orientation, it contains a section titled “2025 Health Advice for Eating Sportfish,” which notes that fish taken from various saltwater venues, including Jamaica Bay, Long Island Sound, the East River, the lower Hudson River (down to the southern tip of Manhattan), the Harlem River, New York Bay, Upper and Lower New York Bay, Newark Bay, Raritan Bay, and the Atlantic Ocean are all subject to cautionary health advisories.

The Guide then instructs me to follow a link to the New York State Health Department’s website to learn more details.  It turns out that, even in what we might assume are the state’s cleanest waters—places like the Peconic Bays, Gardiner’s Bay, Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean—there are contaminants in seafood that might be harmful to one’s health.  For example, women of childbearing age and children less than 15 years of age are advised not to eat weakfish more than 25 inches long, and to limit consumption of smaller weakfish, striped bass, bluefish, and eels from such waters to just one meal per month; everyone else can eat one meal per month of big weakfish, and four meals per month of the other listed fish.

But while that’s fine for anglers who happen to read the entire Guide, and then take the trouble to look up the Health Department’s website, where does it leave the consumer, who might buy the same fish, caught in the same waters, from a market or local restaurant.

After all, we all can recall going into a restaurant and seeing a warning on the menu, telling us that certain dishes might contain raw eggs, or uncooked or semi-cooked seafood or beef, and so might pose a threat to our health.  But have we ever gone into a restaurant and seen a similar warning about the possible risks of ordering the striped bass or the bluefish?

And markets offer no warnings at all.

Perhaps they should, because if eating a fish poses a threat to an angler and to that angler’s family, don’t they pose the same threat to consumers as well?

Some of the fish that we see in a market, or are served in a restaurant, often comes from out of state, where other health advisories may apply.  For example, the New York State Health Department advises that blue crabs from the Hudson River shouldn’t be eaten at all by women of childbearing age or children under the age of 15, while everyone else can safely consume four meals per month.  The Health Department further advises

“Don’t eat the soft ‘green stuff’ (mustard, tomalley, liver, or hepatopancreas) found in the body section of crabs and lobsters from any waters because cadmium, PCBs, and other contaminants concentrate there.  As contaminants are transferred to cooking liquid, you should also discard crab or lobster cooking liquid.”

But during the 2006 season, blue crabs were so large and abundant in the Hudson River that they were being shipped down to Maryland, the spiritual home of the blue crab gourmet, who undoubtedly consumed them believing them to be local, Chesapeake Bay fare. 

Did those crabs carry an appropriate warning? 

And how many might have contributed some of their cooking liquid to a Maryland blue crab bisque?

A Health Department warning doesn’t do too much good if the people eating the seafood that it mentions never had a chance to read it.

It’s not that the states don’t try to protect the consumer.  Here in New York, commercial striped bass fishing is not allowed in waters west of East Rockaway Inlet, or west of Wading River in Long Island Sound, where Hudson River fish, believed to carry larger loads of PCBs, are deemed to be the most common.  But those closures were based on research last performed in 2007, so New York is now engaged in a comprehensive new study, addressing striped bass caught throughout the state.  The Department of Environmental Conservation advises that

“Analytical and quality control work will be conducted by DEC’s Hale Creek Field Station laboratory and commercial analytical laboratories.  In addition to PCBs, contaminant analysis will include testing for mercury and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from all survey areas, as well as dioxins and furans in fish collected from the New York-New Jersey Harbor.  Samples from each fish will also provide data on size, age, sex, disease prevalence, population genetics, and diet.”

Since the New York study will involve bass caught all along the state’s coast, fish which may have been spawned in the Chesapeake Bay or the Delaware River, as well as in the Hudson, it will be interesting to see what it finds.  The bass studied might have multiple origins so, should contamination be found, there will be no way to cordon off a section of the state’s coast to harvest, and feel even moderately confident that bass caught elsewhere will be contaminant-free.  The problem could well originate out-of-state, and be carried to New York on the spring striped bass migration.

Thus, if contaminants are found—and particularly if those contaminants include PFAS, which seem to be ubiquitous—it will be interesting if the Health Department requires that an appropriate warning be displayed on menus and in seafood shops, or whether it will continue to provide advisories to anglers, while letting consumers bumble along in their current bubble of toxic ignorance.

We can hope that won’t be the case, for it would seem that a substance known to increase the chances of “cancer, liver problems, thyroid issues, birth defects, kidney disease, decreased immunity, and other health problems” is worth at least as much warning as a freshly-shucked oyster or a glass of egg nogg.