CANCER-CAUSING CHEMICALS IN FARMED SALMON

[Guest guest]

FoES PR - CANCER-CAUSING CHEMICALS IN FARMED SALMON

PRESS RELEASE

Call for labelling and more research as:

STUDY FINDS CANCER-CAUSING CHEMICALS IN FARMED SALMON

Friends of the Earth today (Wed 3 January) called for more Government research

and the compulsory labelling of all farmed fish following news of the discovery

of increased levels of cancer-causing PCB contamination in farmed salmon.

Of greatest concern is the discovery of contamination was up to " ten times

higher " in farmed fish than wild caught fish. [1]. In Scotland the salmon

farming industry is worth ?260 million - greater than that of the Highland beef

and lamb industries put together - and supports 6,500 jobs. Commenting, FoE's

Director Dunion said:

" While the presence of cancer-causing PCBs and dioxins in wild caught fish is

now well established the discovery that levels can be much higher in farmed

fish is very worrying. The Government must immediately step up its monitoring

for these chemicals in farmed fish and work with the industry to rapidly

eliminate them from all food stuffs. While we wait for these measures to be

implemented all farmed fish products should be labelled to allow consumers to

make an informed choice about whether they choose to buy 'wild' or 'farmed'

fish. "

[1] BBC News report about forthcoming BBC 2 documentary 'Warnings from the

Wild: The price of salmon' to be shown on 7 January 2001. According to the BBC

" Dr Miriam s of Surrey

University found the farmed fish contain up to 10 times higher levels of

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) than their wild cousins. " Find it at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1098000/1098564.stm

[2] Dioxins and PCBs are implicated in causing cancers, hormone disruption,

developmental and neurological problems. They accumulate in the fatty tissues

of animals and humans. Last year, according to Government scientists consumers

eating two or three portions of oily fish a week are likely to exceed dioxin

and PCB intakes considered safe by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

[3] More info on fish farming is available at:

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/fish.html.

BBC News Online, 3rd January

Farmed salmon 'contaminated' - salmon farmers are trying to reduce toxic

contamination

Scientists are calling for urgent research to be carried out into the safety of

farmed salmon after research showed that some fish contain worrying levels of

potentially dangerous chemicals. Dr Miriam s of Surrey University found

the farmed fish contain up to 10 times higher levels of Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCBs) than their wild cousins. The production of PCBs is banned in

most countries - but the chemicals accumulate in oceans after being released by

industrial waste. The chemicals are thought to affect human nervous, immune and

reproductive systems. Dr s traced the contamination back to feed that

includes salmon offal and off-cuts and fish, trawled from the world's oceans in

vast quantities by industrial fleets. Concentrating the nutritional value of

these fish into pellets to produce a high-protein diet for farmed salmon

multiplies the minute traces of toxins present in each individual fish into a

more significant dose. Once ingested, PCBs build up in body fat and take years

to break down.

Toxic pollutants

Greenpeace scientist Dr ston said: " Ultimately all these practices

lead to products that are consumed by human beings. We are maximising humane

exposure to these chemicals by promoting an artificial food chain. " PCBs are

among the most toxic and persistent pollutants in existence - attacking the

nervous system, causing learning difficulties in children and suppressing the

body's immune system. They are also thought to be responsible for so-called

gender bending effects because they mimic the female sex hormone oestrogen.

Studies indicate the chemicals can cause decreased sperm counts, deformed

genitals and sterility.

Recommended intake cut

The World Health Organisation is sufficiently concerned about the potential

consequences to have cut its guidelines on the recommended intake of salmon to

just one tenth of the previous figure. The European Union has also reduced its

limits by 90%. But flagship government watchdog the Food Standards Agency has

not followed its lead. The agency's website points out the potential health

benefits of eating oily fish - but makes no mention of the dangers. A spokesman

for the Fishmeal & Oil Manufacturers Association said it is aware of chemical

concentration in feed. Salmon farmers are looking at ways of reprocessing

fishmeal to reduce toxic contamination, he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1098000/1098564.stm

Organohalogen Compounds (Vol 47), 2000

Investigations of PCDDs, PCDFs and selected coplanar PCBs in ish

farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmon salar)

Miriam s (1), ph Ferrario (2), Christian Byrne (2)

(1) School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2

7XH, United Kingdom

(2) US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and

Toxic Substances, OPP/BEAD/ACB, Environmental Chemistry Laboratory, C.

Stennis Space Centre, MS 39529, USA

Introduction: Persistent organochlorine pollutants (POPs) have low water

solubilities in water and bioaccumulate in the food chain. POPs accumulate in

the lipid compartment of the animal and within the aquatic food chain fatty

fish may be contaminated with appreciable amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Existing data on the levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs),

dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and biphenyls (PCBs) consumed in the UK have been mainly

derived from total diet surveys and surveillance data for specific food types.

These data indicate organochlorine contamination of fish designated for human

consumption with mean concentrations of 25 pg/g lipid adjusted WHO-TEQ for

PCDD/Fs and PCBs in farmed ish salmon are in good agreement with recent

reports, suggesting further PCDD/F and PCB investigations of farmed salmon and

salmon feed, including feed fortified with fish oil and feed fortified with

selected vegetable oils, are warranted.

Materials and methods: Sites and sampling: Ten British salmon (Salmo salar)

that enter the European fish market were analysed for seventeen PCDD/Fs and

seven non-ortho and mono-ortho PCBs. The samples were of variable age, both

farm raised and wild, and were obtained from seven different ish sites,

including retail suppliers, producers and Stirling University in Scotland,

during January 1999. Random sampling was not possible, but unbiased

representation of the situation of interest was achieved, by obtaining fish

from the North-west ish Highlands, the Western ish Highlands, the

lowlands surrounding Stirling plus two wild fish from the ish border with

England, and a Norwegian sample for which no information is available. The

‘wild’ fish may not have been genuinely wild, but were probably farm

escapees....

Discussion: The results from this study are in good agreement and of a similar

order of magnitude to the values of salmon reported in the recent MAFF study

with surprisingly high detections of PCB congeners. Previous reports have

detected significant levels of PCDD/Fs and PCBs in fatty fish such as herring

and salmon. The potential contribution to the human diet of PCBs and PCDD/Fs

from farmed ish salmon will vary according to the age of the fish, whether

the individual fish had a predisposition to adiposity or not, the frequency of

consumption, portion size, cooking practices and the age of the consumer. The

possible contribution to dietary intakes of organochlorines from farmed salmon

could be significant for high consumers, but national extrapolations cannot be

made on the basis of this study due to the relatively small sample size.

[EPA dioxin report: Dose-response chapter online at Junkscience.com EPA is

preparing to classify dioxin as a " known human carcinogen " and concludes the

dioxin cancer potency factor should be increased by a factor of 100. Visit

Junkscience.com for the PDF file of the dose-response chapter:

http://www.junkscience.com]

International EcoGen Inc, 2000

Final report: A pilot study examining contaminant loads in farmed salmon, wild

salmon and commercial salmon feed

Easton (prepared for the Suzuki Foundation)

Conclusions:

Farmed Atlantic and Chinook salmon have significantly higher concentrations of

PCBs, organochlorine pesticides (mainly DDT and derivatives) and polybrominated

diphenyl ethers than does the wild salmon analyzed in our study.

Because of small sample sizes, the contaminant loadings of toxaphene, PAHs and

mercury are not able to be differentiated between wild and farmed fish.

The contaminant loads in the farmed salmon come largely from the commercial

salmon feed which they consume.

There is a significant variation in the contaminants present in the various

types of commercial salmon feed analyzed.

Even in the small sample size used in the present study, it is evident, from

the findings of recent research examining background contaminant levels, that

the higher contaminant loads in farmed salmon, as compared to wild Pacific

salmon, likely increases the risk of adverse health effects in children of

women who are frequent eaters of farmed fish.

www.intl-ecogen.com

Sunday Express, 3rd December

Euro alert on Britain’s dioxin diet

- public exposed to 10 times safe level of deadly chemical found in oily

fish

Fletcher (Consumer Reporter)

Hundreds of foods from may be removed from our supermarket shelves under strict

new safety laws imposed by Europe. Experts believe the British public is being

exposed to up to 10 times the safe level of a cancer-causing chemical found in

food. The EU is so worried about the threat to health that it is poised to

introduce tough new limits on the amount of dioxins that can be consumed. The

Government may be forced to ban the sale of foods containing high levels of

dioxins - including some meat and oily fish - and will be taken to the European

court if it does not reach targets for reducing the levels consumed. The news

is unlikely to be welcomed by the Government, which is happy to implement its

own food safety limits. But environmental groups and food safety campaigners

will be delighted that Europe is taking direct action to enforce higher

standards. At present, the average Briton eats about 2.6 units of dioxins a

day. According to the Government, a safe daily intake is up to seven units. But

a new report by the Scientific Committee on Food in Europe says the limit is

far too high. It suggests that a safe intake is seven units a week, or only one

a day. In an attempt to force all European countries to cut risks for

consumers, the committee wants tough new thresholds to be set for all member

states. Watchdogs have already identified high-dioxin foods. Half of our daily

intake of the chemical comes from fish, fatty meat and dairy products, which

each provide us with about 0.2 to 0.3 units of dioxins per day. The Scientific

Committee’s report suggests that high-dioxin foods could be removed from sale

in a bid to lower intake levels. The report says: " It should be decided case by

case whether a specific food should be withdrawn from the market. " It goes on

to say that changes to EU law need to be made.

Dioxins are known to cause a range of health problems when consumed in large

amounts. They have been linked to cancer, neurological problems and

reproductive disruption. As a by-product of industrial processes such as

burning rubbish, they enter the food chain through the air and water and can

only be reduced by tough environmental controls. It is thought the main way to

reduce the level in food is by banning animal feed made from dioxin-loaded fish

and fish oil. A spokesman for Byrne, the Food Safety Commissioner, said

yesterday that the European Commission was taking the issue very seriously and

hoped the new rules could be in place within six months, although many other

believe it could be much longer. " We identified this last year as a major issue

because of the health concern involved, " the spokesman said. " We are anxious to

get this done quickly. The Government will have to work with producers and

retailers to reduce the amount in food. It is mainly about cutting emissions

and stopping the use of animal feed which is high in dioxins and is passed into

meat products. But if something like baked beans were found to have levels

which were causing people to exceed their daily intake targets, then we would

have it withdrawn from the market. " The decision to create Europe-wide limits

on dioxins has surprised Britain’s watchdog, the Food Standards Agency. It

monitors the levels of dioxins in food and is currently reviewing its safety

advice. A spokesman said: " Our most recent survey shows the dietary exposure to

dioxins has been reduced enormously over the last 10 years. To be sure people

are protected we have asked an independent advisory committee to review safety

guidelines and continue to press for reductions in environmental releases of

these chemicals " . Greenpeace spokesman Mark Strutt said: " We would fully

endorse plans to reduce the levels of dioxins in food. But the Government must

limit the output that is made into the environment. This will mean reducing the

amount of waste disposal - something they are planning to increase. "

[For EU report see:

· · http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scan/out55_en.pdf

· · http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out78_en.pdf

Food Standards Agency/MAFF reports are on:

· · http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/food_surv.htm

· · http://www.maff.gov.uk/food/infsheet/1998/no145/145trout.htm

· · http://www.maff.gov.uk/food/infsheet/1997/no106/106dioxi.htm

· · http://www.maff.gov.uk/food/infsheet/1997/no105/105dioxi.htm]

Fish Farming International, September (1999)

Scare stories do us a disservice

- Fish Vet’s Diary by Prof J Hagerman Distinguished Professor,

University of Idaho; Technical Director Landcatch Ltd Scotland

Food scares seem to be all the rage nowadays, and the perversity of even the

so-called ‘quality’ press here in the UK in reporting them from the most

negative and unreasonable - as well as unjustified - position, is difficult to

understand. Where fish farming is involved, the press seems to be determined to

destroy this small, albeit economically important, rural industry, before it

even has a chance to address its developmental issues. Why fish farming is seen

as such an important target is difficult to understand, given its size and

minor influence on the environment compared to most other agricultural

enterprises. For example, Ivermectin, probably the most successful animal

anthelmintic of all time, is being cited as a terrible drug for use in fish.

This is despite its wide use in terrestrial agriculture for decades, with

little, if any, deleterious effect on the aquatic environment into which it

flows. A case in point was a recent article in the UK Sunday Times alleging

that stores sell contaminated fish and then homing in on some unpublished - and

therefore - non-peer-reviewed research, which claimed that dioxins had been

found by an English scientist from salmon from eight ish farms. Given the

ubiquity of dioxins in all foodstuffs, it would have been surprising if the

scientist had not found them. Dioxins are persistent man-made chemicals found

everywhere. They are present to some level in all foods, and now that accurate

analytical techniques are available for them at picogramme levels, they will be

found wherever they are sought. Dioxins are formed during a range of chemical

and industrial manufacturing processes, as well as when anything is burned.

Amounts in the atmosphere have therefore increased recently as a result of the

major forest fires in South East Asia. Unfortunately, dioxins present health

hazards for humans. They also have an affinity for fatty tissues and so are

particularly prevalent in nervous tissue and body fat. While these negative

aspects of dioxins - about which we should all be concerned - are emphasised in

the press, the fact that they are widely dispersed in the food chain and are

found therefore in virtually all foodstuffs is rarely mentioned.

UK Government figures for farmed trout show that dietary dioxin levels in trout

feed are largely responsible for the relatively low levels in the fish

themselves. These are well below the levels considered to represent a

‘tolerable dietary intake level’ (TDIL), the figure used internationally to

assess risks from food constituents and contaminants. Official figures are not

available for salmon dioxin levels, but it is unlikely that they will be very

different. Salmon eat similar diets and live in even less contaminated

environments than trout. We now live in a very complex world. Mankind is

interfacing with, and very often severely moderating, the natural world in all

of our industrial activities. Levels of dioxins, PCBs, DDT, or for that matter

the common refrigerant freon are present in our environment, even in Antarctic

penguins. They cannot, at this late stage, be removed. What we have to do is

ensure that we do not propogate a new generation of such persistent chemicals.

One aspect of control such problems is the international agreement to establish

lists of the TDILs of such compounds, which should be allowed to be present in

foodstuffs. These are always formulated on the basis of a very wide margin of

safety. Presence of some levels of ‘contamination’ with dioxins and the related

PCBs in foodstuffs is news to noone. It is part of the challenge of life in the

20th Century. What is clear, however, is that levels in salmon, trout and

marine fish are unlikely to be very different from those found in other meats

and are unlikely to be more than a fraction of the tolerable level. Scurrilous

scare-mongering in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, and without

explanation of the real significance, is obviously good for selling newspapers,

but it does a disservice to mankind.

NDS Report (295), August 1999

MAFF survey shows health threat from dioxins in fish

People who eat fish more than twice a week are likely to exceed dioxin and PCB

intakes considered safe by the World Health Organisation (WHO), a survey by the

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has found. Dioxins are

implicated in causing cancers, endocrine disruption and reproductive,

developmental and neurological problems. Human exposure via food probably

reached a peak in the 1970s, since when increasing controls have reduced dioxin

levels in the environment. The Department of Health (DoH) only conceded that

PCBs can have similar toxic effects to dioxins in 1997. It now accepts the

scientific consensus that their toxicity can be measured and compared as toxic

equivalents (TEQ) of the most toxic dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ENDS Report 268,

pp14-15). Ever since the DoH included PCBs in TEQ calculations for typical

diets it has been apparent that certain groups are likely to exceed the intake

levels considered safe. The situation worsened last year when the WHO reduced

the maximum intake considered safe from 10 to 1-4 picograms TEQ per kilogram of

body weight per day (ENDS Report 281, pp4-5). The recommendation has still not

been formally accepted by the Government. The MAFF survey looked at levels of

dioxins and PCBs in sea fish, farmed fish and fish fingers sold in the UK.

Levels ranged from 0.9-140 nanograms TEQ/kg of fat. Oily fish - including

mackerel, herring, salmon, tuna, pilchards and sardines - are likely to give

larger doses because of their high fat content. Plaice and herring contained

particularly high levels of contamination. MAFF suggests that this is because

of the habitat and life-cycle of these species. Plaice may be contaminated by

close contact with sediments, while herring are non-migratory and may reflect

local contamination hot-spots.

Combining the results with information on consumption patterns from a diet

study in 1992, MAFF found that average adult consumers would take in 2.6pg

TEQ/kg/day of PCBs and dioxins, of which 0.47pg would come from fish. These

levels are below the upper end of the WHO recommended limit. But " high level "

consumers exceeded the limit at 5.6pg TEQ/kg/day, with 3.4pg coming from fish.

MAFF also calculated that average children under four years are likely to

exceed the tolerable intake. The situation was worst for children aged 1.5-2.5

years, who were exposed to 6.3pg TEQ/kg/day. But high consumers in the same age

group were exposed to 9.9pg TEQ/kg/day. The estimates of dietary exposures made

in the study are upper bound figures, with compounds not detected in analyses

being assumed to be present at the limit of detection. This tends to overstate

exposures. Nevertheless, the results suggest that exposures to dioxins and PCBs

are still a cause for concern - particularly for infants and children. Previous

studies have highlighted the levels absorbed by babies through breast milk,

which exceed WHO limits by a factor of 8.5 (ENDS Report 268, pp14-15). MAFF’s

figures suggest that the average adult diet without fish contains 2.13pg

TEQ/kg/day and typical oily fish consumption adds 0.82pg. Given that typical

consumption of oily fish is less than once per week, two or three portions per

week would be sufficient to breach WHO limits. MAFF chose not to publicise the

study’s findings and the report simply appeared on its web site in early

August. Despite the findings, the DoH reiterated an earlier recommendation that

adults should increase fish consumption to one portion per week to protect

cardiovascular disease. However, the unspoken conclusion of the study is that

it would be unwise to eat oily fish any more frequently, and children should be

even more careful to limit their fish consumption.

http://www.maff.gov.uk/food/infsheet/index.htm

World Health Organization Technical Report Series 883, 1999

Report of a Joint FAO/NACA/WHO Study Group

Food safety issues associated with products from aquaculture

Abstract: The past decade has seen rapid expansion in aquaculture production.

In the fisheries sector, as in animal production, farming is replacing hunting

as the primary food production strategy. In future, farmed fish will be an even

more important source of protein foods than they are today, and the safety for

human consumption of products from aquaculture is of public health

significance. This is the report of a Study Group that considered food safety

issues associated with farmed finfish and crustaceans. The principal conclusion

was that an integrated approach -- involving close collaboration between the

aquaculture, agriculture, food safety, health and education sectors -- is

needed to identify and control hazards associated with products from

aquaculture. Food safety assurance should be included in fish farm management

and form an integral part of the farm-to-table food safety continuum. Where

appropriate, measures should be based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Point (HACCP) methods; however, difficulties in applying HACCP principles to

small-scale farming systems were recognized. Food safety hazards associated

with products from aquaculture differ according to region, habitat and

environmental conditions, as well as methods of production and management. Lack

of awareness of hazards can hinder risk assessment and the application of risk

management strategies to aquaculture production, and education is therefore

needed. Chemical and biological hazards that should to be taken into account in

public health policies concerning products from aquaculture are discussed in

this report, which should be of use to policy-makers and public health

officials.

......Feed ingredients, additives and contaminants: As in other forms of animal

husbandry, the quality of the feed, as well as its potential impact on human

health, depends on a series of steps that begin with the growing and harvest of

feed ingredients...Fish oil is a by-product of the fish-meal manufacturing

industry and comes from many different parts of the world. Highly chlorinated

compounds and chlorinated insecticides have low solubilities in water and

bioaccumulate in the food chain. As they accumulate in the lipid compartment of

the animal, oil extracted from fish caught in polluted waters may be

contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons. Furthermore, the consumption of

chlorinated hydrocarbons is a known risk factor. For these reasons the Study

Group judged there to be a hazard associated with fish oil and fish from

polluted areas. However, for lack of data, this hazard cannot be quantified.

The aquaculture sectors most dependent on the use of fish oil as a source of

dietary lipids are the salmon and marine finfish industries....

Organic pollutants: Aquaculture systems can be affected by acute and chronic

discharges or organic pollutants. Chronic contamination is more difficult to

control. The main mechanisms of chronic contamination in aquaculture systems

are use of polluted water supplies, leaching of agricultural or industrial

chemicals from treated or contaminated soils into surface waters, and

deposition from the atmosphere. A wide range of chlorinated compounds can be

present in the aquatic environment but three groups in particular are of

concern to environmentalists and public health officials: chlorinated

insecticides (e.g. DDT, dieldrin, lindane) and their degradation products,

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and

polychlorinated dibenzofurans. Although there is a large literature on the

presence and fate of chlorinated organic compounds in the aquatic environment

and biota, most data relate to the natural environment and very little has been

published on chlorinated compounds in aquaculture systems or products from

aquaculture. Available data show that products from aquaculture sometimes

contain chlorinated hydrocarbons, though reported values are below the maximum

limits permitted in foodstuffs. Sewage and wastewater often contain high levels

of industrial chemicals, but fish raised in systems using sewage and wastewater

show only low tissue levels of chlorinated insecticides in most reports.

However, one survey of chlorinated pesticides in foodstuffs found that the one

sample of farmed fish tested (origin not stated) had a much higher

concentration of chlorinated hydrocarbons than any other foods, which included

111 samples of " marine products " . The few reported measurements are not

sufficient to provide a general picture of chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants

in products from aquaculture...Data are available on the concentrations of

these chemicals in fish from wild stocks, but a literature search revealed no

data on their concentrations in products from aquaculture.

The report (55 pages) can be downloaded from the WHO site at:

http://www.who.int/fsf/new.htm