Whole Living > by Dylana Accolla, LAc
Mercurial Matters

illustration by Jim Bliss

Last month’s issue documented some of the history of the salmon industry in the United States and explored how the use of chemicals and fishing methods have had devastating effects on sea and human life. If that were all, it would be bad enough. But there is much more to the story that you, as a fish consumer, should be aware of.
It seems like we first heard of mercury poisoning years ago, but it is widespread and should not be forgotten. Fish is a rich source of many nutrients vital to the developing infant, some of which enhance the development of the nervous system in babies and young children. But the US federal government has issued an “Advisory Warning” (January 12, 2001) on pregnant women’s consumption of fish to avoid exposing their unborn children to unsafe levels of methylmercury. An estimated 60,000 children in this country have brain injury from their moms eating fish contaminated with mercury.

Exposure to dangerous levels of mercury can result in permanent damage to the brain and kidney. Exposure is particularly risky for women of childbearing age, because a fetus is highly susceptible to adverse effects. A recent Centers for Disease Control report reveals that nearly one in 10 US women could have levels of mercury in their blood that are close to hazardous.

Combustion of mercury (contained in coal) in coal buarning power plants is the major source of environmental pollution. Forty tons of mercury are released into US air every year this way. Mercury pollution moves through the air, is deposited in water, and finds its way into fish, accumulating especially in fish that are higher up the food chain. Fish like tuna, sea bass, marlin, and halibut show some of the worst contamination, but dozens of species and thousands of water bodies have been seriously polluted.

As a result, women who eat a lot of fish during pregnancy, or even as little as a single serving of a highly contaminated fish, can expose their developing child to excessive levels of mercury. The toxic metal can cross the placenta to harm the rapidly developing nervous system, including the brain. This can cause learning deficits, delay mental development, and cause neurological problems.

There is a vocal group of medical and environmental activists advocating safeguards against mercury. Says Dr. Joseph Mercola, holistic physician from Chicago:

“The government must start monitoring such exposures, and any possible effects, much more energetically. This is a simple, common sense matter of public health. In the longer term, the solution is to halt mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants and other sources so the contamination of fish is avoided in the first place. Fuel switching—from coal to renewable energy sources—along with aggressive deployment of conservation measures, makes sense for any number of reasons.”

Based on a study assessing fetal exposure to mercury undertaken by the Environmental Working Group, Ken Cook, the group’s president, wrote a September, 2001 article advocating much tighter guidelines on eating fish than the Food and Drug Administration currently advises. Their recommendations are listed on the following pages.

Spliced salmon on rye or a Frankenfish nightmare?
Fish farmers dream of the perfect fish—disease resistant, fast growing, great tasting, and easy to raise in a pond. Genetic engineering, they argue, could make this dream come true.

Detractors include members of the salmon industry itself. Reeling from a drop in salmon prices, fishermen argue that once commercially available, genetically modified (GM) salmon could flood the market, driving down the price of farmed salmon even further. Falling prices could put some farmers out of business while forcing others to accept the new technology—willingly or unwillingly—for fear of losing out economically.

Ecologists are concerned that if GM-fish escape into the wild, they may wreak havoc on native salmon populations. Concerns about escape are well-founded. Farmed salmon are traditionally grown in ocean netpens, and these cages are not escape-proof. Storms and hungry animals can damage pens, releasing large numbers of fish. Once out, the animals are virtually impossible to recapture. The release of GM-fish into the wild could have many ramifications, from competition with wild species to ecological disruptions due to changes in prey, food, or other resources. Perhaps even the extinction of native salmon.
Anne Kapuscinski, a member of the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee (ABRAC), convened a working group of national experts to develop protocols for working safely with genetically modified fish and shellfish. A national interdisciplinary workshop to review the proposed safety standards has also been formed.

“We’re not talking about a Frankenstein fish,” she said. “Most genetically-modified fish will not cause problems; some will probably be beneficial. But a few could be harmful if they are released into the environment. The trick is to devise a system to figure out ahead of time which ones are going to be harmful.”

The public isn’t so sure it wants genetically-modified fish, however. Last April, in response to the problems that genetically-modified fish have created for wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest, the state of Maryland issued the first law prohibiting the raising of genetically-modified fish. No GM-fish will be allowed in the state unless they are in ponds or lakes that do not connect to other state waterways. Growers also must ensure that the fish cannot escape by any other means, such as by birds dropping them after plucking them from the water.

The FDA is currently considering whether to allow the sale of genetically-engineered fish, specifically gene-altered salmon that grow to market size in about half the time it takes normal salmon. If the FDA approves this engineered salmon, the transition from laboratories to sandwiches could be rapid, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science watchdog group based in Cambridge, MA.

The regulation of transgenic fish will be a thorny problem for the FDA. The FDA has not issued a formal policy statement on how it intends to regulate transgenic food animals, and there is conjecture that it will regulate them not as food, but as a drug. This reflects the FDA’s weakness when applied to animals, says the Union of Concerned Scientists. There are no laws requiring premarket reviews of the fish, for example, the group says. Treating GM-fish as drugs would provide the FDA with the authority to examine the risks entailed by products before they go to market. But while the laws need to be altered, legislation may happen too slowly for the speedy advances in genetic technologies and market pressures.

There is no official word yet on the timetable for the FDA’s work. It is expected to take a year or more to finish its review of the issue and decide what experiments it will require to assess the risks to human health and the environment.

Glimmers of Hope
If you’ve read this far, I don’t want to leave you sick with the thought that you’ll never eat fish again. There are glimmers of hope in these murky seas. In Salmon Nation, Seth Zuckerman and Jim Lichatowich cite increasing public concern over the disappearance of wild salmon and the advent of watershed restoration groups as important movements in restoring wild salmon domains in the Pacific Northwest.

In the fish-farming industry itself, officials from British Columbia have acknowledged mistakes made in the early days of salmon farming, and say they are making environmentally responsible changes. To wit:
Industry officials say that most farms are now situated in coastal areas with strong currents which help flush feces away. At Saltspring (Nutreco owned and operated), a farm in the Puget Sound, a mussel farm operates next door without any water-quality problems, according to the mussel-farm operator. In British Columbia, Aquametrix Research analyzed data from three provincial Canadian government studies reviewing the environmental impact of salmon-farming waste in British Columbia. Their conclusions:

The actual loss of wastes to the environment by today’s industry is approximately one-third of what it was in the late 1980s. This in spite of the fact that production levels at these sites have increased approximately three times.

Concerns that frequent use of antibiotics create new strains of drug-resistant bacteria that pose risks to the marine environment and human health have led to the development of effective new vaccines over the past 10 years that have prevented many disease outbreaks. This has enabled farms to substantially decrease the use of antibiotics. Fish farm officials now say that medicated feed is used less than five percent of the time, far less than antibiotic use in the beef and poultry industries.

New designs for netpens that are able to withstand attacks of marine mammals are also underway. New pens would drastically reduce the annual deaths of 500 to 600 seals and sea lions that are killed as they tear at the farm nets.

Perhaps the brightest star on the aquaculture horizon is the formation of groups and alliances within the industry itself. Groups such as the Global Aquaculture Alliance say they are working to “advance environmental and social responsibility throughout the process of raising, processing, and distributing aquaculture products.” The Alliance’s “Guiding Principles for Responsible Aquaculture” promote sustainable-farming practices in a number of ways. Their Web site lists fish and shrimp companies that certifiably follow the guidelines. One thing you can do to improve the quality of fish in local restaurants is to bring this article to your favorite fish restaurant and ask them to ask their purveyors to purchase fish from GAA-member companies.

Lastly, I would like to mention that Gadeleto’s Seafood Market and Restaurant owner, John Vargo, told me that he can get wild Pacific salmon for customers with about a week’s advance notice. It’s more expensive than the usual salmon they carry. He said they go to the fish market on Monday and Thursday mornings. Give him a call at 255-1717. If New Paltz is too far to travel for fish, ask your local fishmonger if he or she will carry wild Pacific salmon.