TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 062992 / 0629130.000 next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 10KB | 189 lines

<text id=92TT1424> <title> June 29, 1992: Is Your Fish Really Foul? </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 June 29, 1992 The Other Side of Ross Perot </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> HEALTH, Page 70 Is Your Fish Really Foul? </hdr><body> Reports about toxic contaminants, bacteria and inadequate federal inspection have consumers reeling about the safety of eating seafood By LEON JAROFF -- Reported by Janice M. Horowitz/New York What is high in protein, low in calories, fat and cholesterol, and the dish of choice in many countries with low rates of heart disease? The answer, as doctors and nutritionists have long maintained is fish. Indeed, experts point out, what little fat there is in some species can actually benefit the consumer; it contains high levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which can lower cholesterol levels in humans. The unremitting praise of virtually everything piscan has had its effect. Over the past 30 years, as American beef consumption has sunk, T-bone and porterhouse have given way to steaks of salmon, swordfish and tuna. Overall U.S. fish consumption is up 50% since 1960 and nearly 25% in the past 10 years alone. But now, just in time for barbecue season, consumers are befuddled by a series of reports casting doubt on the safety of this highly touted health food. They were especially dismayed when the Consumers Union published the results of a six-month investigation showing widespread fish spoilage, bacterial contamination and the presence of mercury and industrial pollutants in fish sold in Chicago and New York City markets. Similar concerns spurred members of Congress to introduce legislation that would beef up the government's efforts to inspect seafood. That would please the nation's professional chefs, 300 of whom have become so alarmed by what they see in U.S. fish markets that they have banded together to form CHEFS: Chefs Helping to Enhance Food Safety. The need for a stronger inspection system has been underscored by a number of incidents. Last week three former inspectors for the Food and Drug Administration pleaded guilty to accepting bribes in return for approving mercury-tainted swordfish and decomposing lobster. And last month the FDA revealed that a shipment of contaminated tuna from Ecuador led to an outbreak of food poisoning involving 79 people in eight states. But the sharpest warnings have been issued about fish caught by recreational fishermen, which account for about 20% of the fish eaten in the U.S. Their catches in the Great Lakes can be so heavily contaminated with PCBs and other chemicals that the Medical Society of Genesee County, Mich., has taken the extraordinary step of warning that the stuff should not be eaten by "children or by men or women who ever plan to have children." All in all, says Jeffery Foran, an environmental- health expert at George Washington University, "if you're pregnant or nursing, you should probably avoid most kinds of fish." Such advice may be extreme, considering the health benefits of eating most seafood. The FDA maintains that concerns have been overstated. "The perception that seafood is unsafe is untrue," declared FDA Commissioner David Kessler last month in a speech to a fish-industry group. In the past two years, the agency has toughened its fish-inspection procedures, adding staff and dollars to the effort. "The vast preponderance of seafood that reaches the consumer is safe, clean and free of contaminants and chemicals," Kessler maintains. Researchers at the National Academy of Science came to essentially the same conclusion last year in a report on seafood safety. "There are some areas of concern," says Farid Ahmed, the toxicologist who oversaw the report, but "basically the fish supply is safe." Still, the creatures of the sea are uniquely vulnerable to contamination. "Fish are like sponges," explains consumer advocate Ellen Haas of Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. "They are highly susceptible to absorbing contaminants in water." Fish is the only major food group that lives and feeds in the wild. And compared with beef cattle and chickens, which eat mainly grasses and grain, many fish are high up in the food chain. In a process called biomagnification, tiny fish pick up contaminants from the plankton they feed on in polluted waters, concentrating heavy metals like methylmercury in their organs. The little fish in turn are eaten by larger fish, further concentrating the toxins. In big, finned predators like swordfish and tuna, the contaminants can reach levels that may be harmful to the next link in the food chain: humans. Though its samples were limited to two cities -- a point seized upon by critics, who also questioned testing procedures -- the Consumers Union study found that 40% of its swordfish samples had levels of mercury exceeding safety guidelines set by the FDA. Fatty fish like salmon, bluefish and herring are vulnerable to another kind of contaminant: chlorinated compounds such as PCBs, dioxins and DDT, which once consumed linger in the body for years. The Consumers Union found detectable levels of PCBs, which have been linked to cancer and developmental disorders, in 43% of its salmon samples and 25% of examined swordfish. The PCBs were generally within the federal tolerance limit, but consumer groups have questioned whether that standard is adequate. Chlorinated compounds are lipophilic, or fat-loving; absorbed through the skin and gills, they concentrate in a fish's fatty tissue. "Very minute quantities in the water will produce very high concentrations in fish," says George Washington University's Foran. "You can drink the polluted Great Lakes waters over a lifetime and not get as much chemical contamination as you'd get from eating one fish meal." Shellfish are also highly susceptible to bacterial and viral contamination, since they live close to the shore, where pollution tends to be worst. Cooking generally destroys the microbes that infect shellfish, but eating raw clams, oysters and other shellfish is linked to nearly 1,000 cases of hepatitis each year. Other dangers begin once the fish is out of water. Because bacteria that live on fish are adapted to withstand the cool and cold waters of lakes and oceans, they can thrive in temperatures cold enough to preserve other foods. Such microbes will quickly spoil the catch of the day, unless it is confined without delay to temperatures close to freezing. Even under the best conditions, most fresh fish lasts only seven to 12 days. But it frequently takes as long as seven days for fish to make the journey from the fisherman's net to the supermarket, where it may sit for several more days. According to the Consumers Union, shoppers are lucky if they get the catch of the week. Despite the potential risks, federal regulation of fish is somewhat scattershot. The FDA investigates only about a third of the 3,000 U.S. fish-processing plants once a year, skipping some for as long as two years. Plants can volunteer to pay for an inspection by the Commerce Department, but only about 5% of all plants, representing one-fifth of total consumption, do so. And while the Agriculture Department analyzes more than 150,000 meat and poultry samples each year for chemical residues, the FDA does this for only several thousand fish samples. Next week hearings will begin on the Consumer Seafood Safety bill, which calls for comprehensive monitoring of both domestic and imported fish, accounting for more than half of American consumption. The proposal requires rigorous unannounced inspections of processing plants and distribution centers. Not every fish will be examined: with 90,000 fishing vessels and 3,000 processing plants (as opposed to the 116 slaughterhouses that handle most U.S. beef), that would be impossible. And yet, says Haas, "the bill sets very strong inspection standards." Equally significant, the legislation would require that maximum tolerance levels be established for a host of chemical and biological contaminants. FDA chief Kessler opposes the measure, arguing that the current system is working well and continues to improve. Even without tougher inspection standards, smart consumers can protect themselves against tainted fish with a few precautions. Seafood should look and smell fresh: skin should be vivid, eyes bright, no fishy odor. Ideally, stores should display it on ice. If not, fish is best selected from the bottom of the refrigerator case, where it is coldest. Once home, fresh fish should be kept very cold and eaten within a day or two. Cooking thoroughly is the safest policy, but no amount of it will destroy chemical contaminants. It is best to scrape off the fatty skin before cooking. Pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children should limit consumption of fish that might have high levels of mercury and PCBs. Still, despite the recent hubbub about fish, the dangers of seafood must be weighed against its proven benefits. Edward Groth, who led the Consumers Union fish study, urges moderation. "We think people should be smarter consumers of fish, rather than eat less of it." </body></article> </text>