TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/062992/0629130.000

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 9.0 KB | 183 lines

                                                                                HEALTH, Page 70

Is Your Fish Really Foul?


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."