Academic Journal
Main Category: Nutrition / Diet
Also Included In: Aid / Disasters; Water - Air Quality / Agriculture
Article Date: 13 Oct 2011 - 17:00 PDT
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions 
A study accuses the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of allowing seafoods with unsafe levels of contaminants to enter the food chain after the BP oil disaster. A study carried out by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Health Perspective reports that the FDA underestimated the risk of cancer from accumulated contaminants in the seafood - especially the risk for pregnant mothers and children who live in the area.
In some cases, the FDA let through foods with 10,000 times too much contamination. The federal Agency is also accused of not identifying the risks for children and pregnant mothers. It appears the FDA used faulty assumptions and obsolete risk assessment methods.
The NRDC has today filed a petition urging the FDA to set limits on PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) that can be present in seafood. It is vital that the country's pregnant mothers, children, and individuals with high seafood consumption be protected, the NRDC added.
BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico - (NASA's Terra satellite on May 24, 2010)
PAHs are of concern to human health because some of their compounds have been linked to cancer risk - there is also talk of their mutagenic (can cause genes to mutate) and teratogenic (can cause birth defects) harms. PAHs may be present in cooked foods - cooking meat at very high temperature, such as barbecuing or grilling can raise their PAH levels. Smoking fish may also have a similar effect. PAHs can also cause liver damage.
One of the researchers, Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, said:"Our findings add to a long list of evidence that FDA is overlooking the risks from chemical contaminants in food. We must not wait for people to get sick or cancer rates to rise, we need FDA to act now to protect the food supply."
The authors of the study concluded:
"FDA risk assessment methods should be updated to better reflect current risk assessment practices and to protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children."
In her blog, Rotkin-Ellman wrote that the FDA had calculated that 123,000 micrograms of naphthalene per kg of shrimp was a safe level for human consumption. According to the calculations of her team, the limit should have been 5.91 micrograms if pregnant women and children who eat a lot of seafood are to be protected. Even for non-pregnant adults, they worked out that the safe limit should only be 46.99 micrograms of naphthalene per kg of shellfish.
According to the scientists calculations, if 1,000 pregnant women and their children consumed Gulf seafood with contamination limits set by the FDA, 20 of the children born to those women would be at considerable risk of cancer caused by the contamination.
Rotkin-Ellman wrote:
"This is not public health protection. Major reforms are needed at FDA to better safeguard our food supply."
When Rotkin-Ellman and team gathered data on testing of PAH levels of shellfish after the BP oil spill, they found that up to 53% of the tested shrimps had PAH levels above their own revised safety limits for pregnant mothers and children (who eat a lot of shellfish).
Rotkin-Ellman added:
"Instead of saying it was safe for everyone to eat, pregnant women and children should have been warned and advised to reduce their Gulf shellfish consumption."
The scientific team say they have been concerned about this issue for some time. They could not understand how the FDA had deviated so much from the guidelines of other agencies and even its own prior practice after previous oil spills.
To find out why, they asked the FDA for documents under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). After a year of non-stop wrangling to get the appropriate documents, through the FOIA request, they discovered that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had proposed stricter health protections from contamination - these proposals were ignored. Even some FDA staff, apparently, said the protections should be stronger.
In an email, the EPA told the FDA that it underestimated the risks for many seafood consumers, particularly those living on the Gulf Coast.
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
9 Dec. 2011.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
posted by Average Joe on 13 Oct 2011 at 5:53 pm
The FDA is a puppet of the commercial interests. It's a sad but true part of the decline of this great country. Since there is no real oversight, then Americans are poisoned regularly.
Why can BPA be used in cans and bottles? Why are strawberries in California being treated by European pesticides that are so toxic that they are illegal to use in Europe? Why does farmed salmon have such high PCB-levels? Why is the red dye in children's candy made out of coal tar/petroleum/insects whereas that same brand of candy in Europe makes its red dye out of carrots and beets?
Because the FDA sold us out. Either we will have effective leadership protecting our citizens or we will become a third-world county.
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by John Hennessy on 13 Oct 2011 at 6:28 pm
Just goes to show (one more time) that the F.D.A. needs to be dimantled and carefully reborn big buisness controls what they say and do
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by Jacob Moore on 13 Oct 2011 at 6:33 pm
Our great institutions are being attacked by enemies of America. I do not believe a word of this study. We should stand by our institutions, instead of following like lemmings!!
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by 2k on 13 Oct 2011 at 6:47 pm
Title says it all. They were saying the food was safe, it was okay to eat. Come eat and stay! Well, now after it's all consumed, they show this report? The government is supposed to PROTECT the public. Politics are worse today
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by Barbara on 13 Oct 2011 at 9:16 pm
Your last name must be Hayward! (as in BP CEO) I think you're just being facetious. Yep, stand by FEMA when your city is drowned by the superior workmanship and planning demonstrated by the Army Corps of Engineers on NOLA's levees, stand by the SSA when they have already spent the money they were supposed to save for your retirement that they've been taking out of your check since forever. And how about the excellent care the VA is lavishing our veterans with, need I go on?
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by Frank on 14 Oct 2011 at 10:57 am
Barbara the answer to the puzzle isn't in the last name,it's in the first name. Start paying closer attention to who runs these corrupt government agencies. Examine their names. Start with the FDA.
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by Vauquelin on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:59 pm
Numbers can be made to say anything. How many tons of this fish would you need to eat to have any affect. Water is toxic if taken alone in large quantities. Be real
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by WTH on 14 Oct 2011 at 6:41 pm
I would be more surprised if the FDA had NOT allowed the tainted seafood into the market.
They are a corrupt organization. They have allowed Monsanto to grow GMO crops, they have allowed fluoride into the water, they have allowed a drug for everything that may ail you to be consumed regardless of the side effects, including death, they have allowed beverages that contain aspartame onto the market... of which is known to cause cancer and it goes on and on. It almost seems like they have an agenda of some sort.
| post followup | alert a moderator |
posted by lordkoos on 15 Oct 2011 at 5:24 pm
The Bush administration gutted gencies that served the public interest. Cronies and corporate insiders were appointed to run these agencies (FEMA, FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc etc) not in the interest of American citizens, but for the benefit of corporate donors and friends. As a result, many experienced and knowledgeable agency employees quit in disgust and frustration. It's extremely disappointing (to say the least) that the Obama administration has done nothing to roll back these changes.
| post followup | alert a moderator |
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
