The Albacore tuna caught by the U.S. troll & pole fleet are migratory warm water fish. They journey widely across the Northern Pacific Ocean following patterns of warm water and feed. Ten years of tagging data show that these fish do not come anywhere close to the cold waters of Japan at this time of year and it is believed that these albacore tuna stocks are currently many hundreds if not thousands of miles away from Japan at this time.

The area where contaminated water was discharged into the sea is along the Japanese shoreline and that water has not transited far off-shore. The leak has been capped and most of the elements that escaped are low weight isotopes with very short half-lives that are not expected to linger in the environment.

This diminishing radioactivity will likely dilute to undetectable levels along the Japanese coast and the migratory off-shore albacore tuna are expected to be completely unaffected by this event.

The Orlando Sentinel has an article about species substitution today. No matter how you pretty it up its plain and simple fish fraud, a fact NFI members have known for years and have been working on through their membership in the Better Seafood Board.

While its not always quite clear if the supplier or the restaurant is the culprit in this bait and switch scam theres one way to know youre dealing with a reputable partner; askare you a member of the Better Seafood Board?

In the heart of catfish country the Editorial Board at Alabamas Aniston Star newspaper has weighed in on the catfish controversy. And quite frankly we agree with a lot of what theyve written.

They note that domestic catfish producers whove lobbied for a change in regulatory agencies have not gotten a safer product from their efforts. In fact theyve gotten a convoluted system that is a classic case of waste and duplication for which American taxpayers will get the bill.

We agree, Aniston Star.

Switching regulatory agencies wont change the fact that Americans arent getting sick from domestic catfish or its imported competition. It wont change the fact that the CDC calls catfish a low risk food. It wont change the fact that the Government Accountability Office has twice called out this special interest regulatory agency shopping as wasteful. And it wont help small business who will be saddled with even more regulatory burden not to mention the tab.

The Aniston Star hit the nail on the head when it writes that its, time to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Catfish and consequences: U.S. consumers need protection

by The Anniston Star Editorial Board Anniston Star

Mar 26, 2011

In an effort to protect the health of consumers and protect a domestic industry you can decide which was the primary motive U.S. catfish farmers recently lobbied for a law they thought would cut down on competition from foreign imports.

They got the law they wanted.

They also believed foreign importers were using antibiotics and other substances banned in this country.

But what catfish farmers really got was a convoluted system whereby catfish that traditionally was inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (it is catfish farming) would now be inspected by the Food and Drug Administration (it is food).

FDA inspections are more stringent; therefore, what it inspects would be safer, and its requirements are more costly, which would drive foreign catfish off the market.

Unless, of course, the foreign catfish really isnt catfish.

In 2002, U.S. farmers were successful in getting a law passed that prohibited Vietnamese exporters (the United States biggest competition) from labeling their catfish species pangasius as catfish.

Thats where the law of unintended consequences kicked in.

Now there are two agencies the USDA and the FDA inspecting seafood. The FDA inspects catfish. The USDA inspects the rest. So there is a duplication of services and, naturally, additional cost $30 million spent on what a recent government audit called a classic case of waste and duplication. Certain lawmakers in Washington want the program overturned.

Its everything thats wrong about the food-safety system, David Acheson, a food-safety consultant and former assistant commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, told The Associated Press. Its food politics. Its not public health.

If that werent bad enough, if the imported catfish is not catfish, as the law seems to suggest, then the only catfish being held to stricter standards will be domestic catfish, which, according to the law, really is catfish.

So, American catfish farmers will not get the protection they want. American consumers will not get the protection they want. And American taxpayers will get the bill.

It is time to go back to the drawing board on this one.

It’s been all over the web and twitter today but I just wanted to make sure anyone reporting on health and nutrition who’s checking in has seen the latest. A Harvard University Study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine adds to the overwhelming library of current, independent, peer reviewed science that says, mercury exposure from eating fish doesn’t raise your risk of heart disease.

Reporters need to keep up to date with the latest science so when the Sea Turtle Restoration Project folks at GotMercury? go on tirades of distortion theres this little nugget of independent Harvard research to refer to.

Oh and as a side note I noticed there is plenty of mentions of the study in mainstream media like the LA Times, Seattle Times, CNN, and WebMD. You can’t throw a stick and not hit this story but no mention from the Sea Turtle campaigners at GotMercury?

Hmmmm, thats odd: face sand. Insert head.

For you reporters who have been following the long-running catfish caper in Washington, where domestic catfish folks have for years tried to set up trade barriers to imported seafood with a mix of outright lies about their competition and aggressive special-interest lobbying to get regulators to do their bidding for them, the Associated Press is running a very interesting article today.

The article shows how this special interest attempt to deceive consumers, take away American choice and waste millions upon millions of tax dollars is really, a lesson on being careful what you ask for on Capitol Hill.

Its running on about 1,100 sites right now and can be found as part of coverage in The Washington Post, Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune, The Republic, ABC News, Daily Journal, Newsday, Yahoo, The Reading Eagle, Rockford Register Star and AzCentral to name a few.

Japan Questions and Answers March 17, 2011

What is FDA doing to assess the situation in Japan?

Based on current information, there is no risk to the U.S. food supply. FDA is closely monitoring the situation in Japan and is working with the Japanese government and other U.S. agencies to continue to ensure that imported food remains safe. FDA already has a very robust screening process for imports and has staff in place at the ports to monitor incoming products. We do not have concerns with the safety of imported food products that have already reached the U.S. and that are in distribution. As part of our investigation, we are collecting information on all FDA regulated food products exported to the U.S. from Japan, including where they are grown, harvested, or manufactured, so we can further evaluate whether, in the future, they may pose a risk to consumers in the U.S. As FDA assesses whether there is a potential health risk associated with FDA-regulated food products imported from Japan, we will develop a monitoring strategy that may include increased and targeted product sampling at the border.

What systems does FDA have in place to protect the US food supply?

The U.S. enjoys one of the worlds safest food supplies. FDA has systems in place to help assure that our food supply is wholesome, safe to eat, and produced under sanitary conditions. FDA has a team of more than 900 investigators and 450 analysts in the Foods program who conduct inspections and collect and analyze product samples. FDA oversees the importation of the full range of regulated products, including food and animal feed, among other responsibilities. Altogether, FDA electronically screens all import entries and performs multiple analyses on about 31,000 import product samples annually. During Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the Agency performed more than 175,000 food and feed field exams and conducted more than 350 foreign food and feed inspections. FDA works to inspect the right importsthose that may pose a significant public health threat by carrying out targeted risk-based analyses of imports at the points of entry. If unsafe products reach our ports, FDAs imports entry reviews, inspections, and sampling at the border help prevent these products from entering our food supply. Although FDA doesnt physically inspect every product, the Agency electronically screens 100 percent of imported foods products before they reach our borders. Based on Agency risk criteria, an automated system alerts FDA to any concerns. Then inspectors investigate further and, if warranted, do a physical examination of the product. FDA also works cooperatively with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies to help identify shipments that may pose a threat.

What products come to the US from Japan?

Imports from Japan include human and animal foods, medical devices and radiation emitting products, cosmetics, animal and human drugs and biologics, and dietary supplements. Foods imported from Japan make up less than 4 percent of foods imported from all sources. (Food products from Canada and Mexico each make up about 29 percent of all imported foods.) Almost 60 percent of all products imported from Japan are foods. The most common food products imported include seafood, snack foods and processed fruits and vegetables.

Are there dairy products that come from Japan?

Foods imported from Japan constitute less than 4 percent of foods imported from all sources. Dairy products make up only one-tenth of one percent of all FDA-regulated products imported from Japan. Most dairy products in the US market are produced domestically. FDA is consulting with USDAs Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to ensure the continued safety of dairy products.

Are there food harvesting (fields, fisheries) or processing facilities in the area of the Fukushima nuclear reactor?

While FDA does not track fields or fishery areas in foreign countries, its important to note that the damage caused by the earthquake and ensuing tsunami has reportedly halted production prior to the explosion at the reactor.

Is there any reason for concern about radiation from these products when they are imported into the US?

Right now, due to the damage to the infrastructure in Japan, FDA believes that export activity is severely limited. FDA is monitoring all import records for Japan to determine when importation will resume and will conduct surveillance to assure safety. FDA does not have any concerns for products that were already in transit when the explosion occurred at the reactor.

What are the current procedures for measuring radiation contamination in food? How will these change? How will FDA ensure consumers safety?

FDA has procedures and laboratory techniques for measuring radionuclide levels in food, and can also utilize the Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) (http://www.fernlab.org/). FERN integrates the nation’s food-testing laboratories at the local, state, and federal levels into a network that is able to respond to emergencies involving biological, chemical, or radiological contamination of food. FDA is working with Customs and Border Protection (CPB) to share resources and techniques for measuring contamination. FDA has the ability to measure contamination in products and issued guidance in 1998 regarding safe levels.

Will FDA issue an import bulletin? What sort of techniques will FDA use to measure radiation in food?

FDA will issue an import bulletin or an assignment to the field once an assessment is completed on products and appropriate testing that can be completed. Products travel by vessel, the typical transit time for products to reach the US is about 8 days. FDA and other domestic regulatory labs have validated analytical methods to detect radiological contamination in food.

Is FDA looking at products that might have traveled through Japan at the time of the explosion?

FDA will be examining both food products labeled as having originated in Japan or having passed through Japan in transit. The same is true for raw ingredients.

How will the radiation affect fish and seafood that have not yet been fished or harvested?

The great quantity of water in the Pacific Ocean rapidly and effectively dilutes radioactive material, so fish and seafood are likely to be unaffected. However, FDA is taking all steps to evaluate and measure any contamination in fish presented for import into the US.

What are the chances of radiation affecting growing areas in the US? What action will FDA take to ensure the safety of consumers of those products?

At this time, there is no public health threat in the US related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States. At this time, theoretical models do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the US coast or affect US fishing waters. Please see www.epa.gov for more information about monitoring efforts.

Hypothetically, if they were needed, what are the FDA-approved products for radiation exposure?

There are three FDA-approved potassium iodide (KI) products for use as an adjunct to other public health protective measures in the event that radioactive iodine is released into the environment. The three over-the-counter products are:

• Iosat Tablets (130 mg), Anbex, Inc., Williamsburg, Va., http://www.anbex.com
• ThyroSafe Tablets (65 mg), Recipharm AB, Jordbro, Sweden, http://www.thyrosafe.com
• ThyroShield Solution (65 mg/mL), Fleming & Company Pharmaceuticals, Fenton, Mo. http://www.thyroshield.com

When administered in the recommended dose, KI is effective in reducing the risk of thyroid cancer in individuals or populations at risk for inhalation or ingestion of radioactive iodine. KI floods the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine and prevents the uptake of the radioactive molecules, which are subsequently excreted in the urine. Potassium iodide works only to prevent the thyroid from uptaking radioactive iodine. It is not a general radioprotective agent.

Is potassium iodide the only medication available for radiation exposure?

Potassium iodide is the only FDA-approved medication available for exposure to radioactive iodine. There are FDA-approved products available that increase the rate of elimination of other radioactive elements. They include:

• Calcium-DTPA and Zinc DTPA, Hameln Pharmaceuticals
  • Approved to treat known or suspected internal contamination with plutonium, americium, or curium to increase the rates of elimination.
• Radiogardase (Prussian blue insoluble capsules), HEYL Chemisch-Pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH & Co. KG
  • o Approved to treat known or suspected internal contamination with radioactive cesium and/or radioactive or non-radioactive thallium to increase their rates of elimination.

We have heard that potassium iodide is in short supply? Is that correct?

FDA is aware of an increased demand for KI products. FDA is working with these companies to facilitate increased production. We cant provide an exact date on when that might happen, but it will occur as quickly as possible. Several components of the federal government maintain stockpiles of medical supplies for emergency situations. For instance, the CDC maintains the Strategic National Stockpile for civilian use, while the Department of Defense maintains their own supplies for support of military operations. The respective federal organizations should be contacted with any additional requests about the specific items and quantities in those stockpiles. Deployment of these stockpiles is governed by policies and procedures developed by the individual organizations based on available information and potential benefits and risks to public health.

Does FDA recommend that consumers purchase potassium iodide as a protective step?

No. There is no public health event requiring anyone in the US to take KI because of the ongoing situation in Japan. With exports from Japan disrupted, is there any possibility that some medical products could be in short supply? FDA has been contacted by a few companies who receive product from Japan and we are working with them on their supply issues.

If I see web sites advertising potassium iodide or alternative cures, should I buy the products?

Due to the public concern related the nuclear incident in Japan, there has been an increased demand for drugs, such as Potassium iodide (KI), used to prevent and treat the harmful effects of radiation. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, all the available information continues to indicate that the United States, including U.S. Territories, are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radiation from the event in Japan. The FDA is alerting consumers to be wary of internet sites and other retail outlets promoting products making false claims to prevent or treat effects of radiation or products that are not FDA-approved. These fraudulent products come in all varieties and could include dietary supplements, food items, or products purporting to be drugs, devices or vaccines.

Consumers should be wary of the following:

• claims that a product not approved by FDA can prevent or treat the harmful effects of radiation exposure;
• suggestions that a potassium iodide product will treat conditions other than those for which it is approved, i.e., KI floods the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine and prevents the uptake of the radioactive molecules, which are subsequently excreted in the urine;
• promotions using words such as scientific breakthrough, new products, miraculous cure, secret ingredient, and ancient remedy;
• testimonials by consumers or doctors claiming amazing results;
• limited availability and advance payment requirements;
• promises of no-risk, money-back guarantees; promises of an easy fix; and,
• claims that the product is natural or has fewer side effects than approved drugs.

Don’t be fooled by professional-looking Web sites. Avoid Web sites that fail to list the company’s name, physical address, phone number, or other contact information. For more tips for online buying, visit Buying Medicines and Medical Products Online. To determine if a particular drug is FDA approved, check The Orange Book (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/default.cfm) or Drugs@FDA (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm). Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse side effects or medication errors from the use of both approved and unapproved radiation exposure products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program at www.fda.gov/MedWatch or by calling 800-332-1088.

Recently Stuart Elliot wrote about the new Tuna The Wondefish campaign in the New York Times, Time to Eat Tuna? Wonder No More

This and other articles have raised a few questions about tuna. Here well answer some of the most common queries:

1. Canned tuna is a healthy, affordable and nutritious food packed with Omega-3 fatty acids that millions of Americans rely on as part of their diet.

2. There is no peer-reviewed science published in any medical journal that contains evidence that anyone has ever come down with mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafoodand that includes canned tuna. The only public health risk associated with eating fish is not eating enougha position that was buttressed by advice issued from the government in the latest version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. For more information, please see the Healthy Tuna Web site.

3. In 2004, the FDA issued guidance on seafood consumption for women who are pregnant, want to become pregnant, are nursing and young children. That guidance said that those groups can enjoy up to 6 ounces of albacore tuna or 12 ounces of chunk light tuna per week. Unfortunately, others have interpreted that advice to apply to the general population, when it clearly does not. From the USDAs new dietary guidelines it is clear that Americans aren’t eating enough seafood (twice per week) to enjoy the full health benefits, and willful misinterpretation of the FDA guidance may be one of the reasons why.

4. The tuna fishing community works with the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, a partnership with WWF, to help protect and manage tuna stocks worldwide.

5. Bluefin tuna, a tuna sold as sushi in exclusive restaurants and not as canned tuna, faces serious sustainability challenges. By in large, the stocks of tuna used in canned tuna are healthy. Just a few weeks ago, Prof. Ray Hilborn of t he University of Washington, a former member of the President’s Commission on Ocean Policy, explained in a speech in New Zealand that tuna species other than bluefin are thriving and that stocks are about as plentiful as they were 60 years ago.

With the USDAs publication of the proposed rule regarding catfish and its comically debated definition, some heavy hitters are weighing in on whether this wasteful, duplicative project is even a worthy endeavor at all.

Enter former FDA Food Safety Czar Dr. David Acheson who wonders if we can really afford to spend $30 million on a program for a low risk food noting that theres no plausible public health reason to move the regulation of catfish.

No one whos been watching this issue is under any illusion that this is about anything but erecting barriers to trade and Acheson hits the nail on the head when he hopes, wisdom and sound public health policy, not food politics, will prevail in this argument.

The radical activist group Greenpeace is celebrating the fact that Americans will now have fewer choices when shopping for seafood at Costco. The group says the store will stop selling some of the fish on Greenpeaces red list like Bluefin Tuna. Bluefin is the high end sushi tuna that can sell for $500 a pound. Not your typical Costco item. Whats more, annually Americans eat about the weight of a few papers clips worth of this fish per capita.

But Swordfish is on the Greenpeace red list as well, despite the fact that it has an impressive sustainability story. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists will tell you, the North Atlantic swordfish population is now fully rebuilt; biomass estimates are currently 5% above the target level. Not to mention it is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring.

Monkfish wont be available to Costco customers either, regardless of the fact that those same NOAA scientists say the resource is healthy and is harvested at sustainable levels. And they note stock assessments, are well above target levels.

Atlantic Cod wont be accessible to shoppers because Greenpeace completely ignores the fact that it is certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

Unfortunately Greenpeace has blackmailed Costco into removing healthy, well managed fish as a part of its latest fundraising campaign. Greenpeace is an organization that needs to raise about $700,000 per day just to keep the lights on. In this case that means less choice for American consumers and more money in the Greenpeace coffers.

When the U.S. Dietary Guidelines (DGA) came out yesterday there was a torrent of coverage; USA Today Catch of the week: 8 ounces of fish in your diet , Time Magazine New Dietary Guidelines: Cut Salt and Sugar, Eat More Fish, Washington Post New federal dietary guidelines released, WebMD For First Time, Help Avoiding Bad Foods Added to Help Eating Good Foods, Bloomberg Most U.S. Adults Need to Cut Sodium Intake, Exercise More, Government Says, NPR New Nutrition Guidelines: Read Between The Lines On Red Meat and the list goes on and on.

And guess what. The vast majority of the media got the story right, from the heavy hitters who buy ink by the barrel to the local TV News stations like Fox 23 in Albany who nailed the DGAs message. The basic take always were eat less salt and eat more fish.

Just like whole foods, whole stories are better for you. Yes, in one narrative salt was a big loser but in the whole narrative seafood was a big winner. Uniformed handwringing over exaggerated scare stories about mercury have for some journalists been the norm when writing about seafood. With that issue in mind heres hoping the clear science and clear advice delivered by the DGAs and the subsequent responsible reporting on them will usher in a new era of coverage on seafood that starts with page 5 of the Guidelines that states unequivocally, “the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks, even for pregnant women.”