20 AN 2004 Pete Offi Ps [ie we howl) Vere | Ne Ye fo | { HOUSE OF COMMONS | LONDON SW1A 0AA = Snathit 6 }t 04 InV, a Hey Ams Ak b cowh \ ) otal - Nive ‘ (immo, — Pw yres wm ak Apeth folly *) al . sys zal Cor uals € cen sibly I cud suatete —~\ os Nass cebak bn? \o ) are alevinedTimm mnt. EEE Pink and poisonous? Aglobal scare over salmon is just what the biue revolution needs WHAT are Gslsmade oft “Five percent pots, ‘95 pe cent poblis” goes the reply ofone former shee fil Inthe ate of farmed salmon jepems the ngredientlist should seoinclsde dosing, Pcie and several other organochlorine pollutants Andas tie wart ‘words raging overlat wees study conte {these too come laced with pales (epg). Nobody is seriously faulting he tuys smplesives or aw data Burdo the detected traces of contamination realy sity warning peopletoeatno mare tana portnsamont tsuch bearfiendly fea even lest ‘the farmed filets hal om Seotand othe Faroefsonds? The studys authors armed with naprteachtorfskassesement championed bythe US governments Environmental Protection Agency (EPA. are adamant the warning sjusiied Experts attheUS Foodand Drag Administration and tthe UKat the Food ‘Standards Agency lst itis scaremongering The wo camps arent even close ie EPA sets limits for PCBsand similar chemicals in fishat nto 48 parts pertain Whe average lovesintte farmed salmon were around 36 parsperbillon) Theotheragencesset ihresholsof upto 2000 pats er bilion. ache enthusiastically rubishes the oder’ methods as outdated Netherhas adequately ‘explained thescientiicassumptions or ‘seers underpinning their statements Dothcaraps ought tocome lean onthe fact that theres nofolproot way of assessing de heath risks of PCB chemicals Tocalgits ‘aitgivearangeofargish doses olabrats, ‘reels mculture, and leokforeancerand ttherabnormalises they then have t0 extrapolate the findings tbigerbodied humangespostd to muchsmuller doses Notonlyisthisan imprecise scence experts + -arebitterly dlvidedan the fundamentals. The BPA approach, favoured by greens, assumes that there salinear relationship ‘derween the dose ta chemical and any health effects, and that thetine canbe extrapslated ‘seamlessly backfrom the arge doses sed ‘animal teststotiny doresof tiekind seen {nfarmed salmon By this“lnear mode! ‘the cance causing powers ofa dioxin or PCB shoinkasthe dase alls butneverdeop to zero: thereieno completely safethreshold. Thecompeting view, backed by the WHO; holds chat theresa threshold below which PCBike chemicals loseall heireancercausing powers, and that thelinear model therefore exaggerates the dangers of thelowar doses. Its ‘complex argument bu the gists that PCB like chemucals~ unlike say ionising radiation — donot make cells cancerous directly, bby damaging theircore DNA. The chemicals ctmore subtly stimulating receptorsincelle ‘navarletyof waysthatean make teaser for Seale, disease, sgosmngen™ insecticides and formtumours. escapingfshall Tetecomessvous make salmon theory, at which the conteminantis simply farmingan too dilute to stimulate environmental staph eceptirto " + infuence cl pariah’ ‘Neitherapprosch cplaineall the facts boris reeofreumptions. The linesr model sssumes, for instance that mamumals have few or nowaysto eliminate or repalrcancerous cells, and that our bodies metabolise low doses ‘of chefmicalsin the same way a high doses ‘The theeshold model assumes that whenever toxicologists seca poltant’s biological eect Aisappear atlow doses, they are witnessing thc Safety taeshold kicking in rather than the Lis of theirexperiment s sensitivity. And of course, cancer is notthe only wotry:evidence ‘hat PCBs and dexins may disrupt he mmm and endocrine systems goes back yeas sof the toxicology is neler, ow should ‘werespond? Weean push fr regulations that tensureall farmed selmon labelled with its origins That would enable ustoseekout ish fom the “deanest” producers, whlleputting pressure onthelndustrytodean upthe | fiebmealituses Butbeaware that shunning salmonon the basi ofthe EPA's risk madel ‘means giving upnet only the benefits of ‘omega-3fish of but, possibly, otber ‘contaminated foods, inthe past. even butter | BiSbeenoudtocdryconpaabiepcB lve Nor willeiminating the chemicalsizom feed solve the biggest threats tofarming’s ‘dhe evolution. Despite theindustrys effort todlean up sealice disease, insecticides and escaping fish all contiaue to make salmon faroingan environmental pariah. the contamination isue isn't Uh rst imporar reason to worry sbout Farmed fish. Lets hope night just be theone tospursomesction. € ania 04 enoob COMARDS, EDINBURGH ‘THEargumentover whe ther {armed salmon (safe togat has bees.as fenaied as thefip sacaved the industry a Confused the public th lef scientists at odds ov “within World Health Or (Qi) salery init, sot audsome say ste areroquired aay theconfusion wore, th no clear way of seciding tobalance the health ri known benefits of eatin abouttiotimesthe qua pollutantsarecoscent {isos that ake up 2 jesayit is ome dioxins and food safety Ihaveben attacked ss"out of dite'by thechaleman of the UK Foes standards Agency (FSA), Joha Krebs, because they assim that there ism threshold below “which dexins are sate. Krebs says thecomect guidelines corae om, the WHO, which eke into account { temechanism by watch dioxins } eausesancer The WHO says that daly ince of up ra4piconzams perllogram ofbody weights tolerable’ This would allow the eatingof upto three normal | pando one reson the fh lou feteaon thay | Setchinomoges ayy | which are thoughtto help reduce vate tche pe 1 halcaescomewhen sig tata hes en ‘rommengalonsforthepuble ucyby Us estan ore Se eae ey {beat eed hc US Tovennrenl etter Apes (taveresimatgtincsbel the polluantscausingeancer. | portions of slmonaveek “Thistesultedin thesuggestion | — ButKiebs’ lines challenged thatpeopleshouldestnomore by other government researchers tan 5 gramsamonth-lessthan intheUk.Mel Holmes, Ancy Hart halfanormals3s4ram portion ~ and Martin Rose from the chemostcontarnizatedselmon Cental ScleneeLaboretoryin from Scotland andthe Faeroe ‘Glards,rthey wanted iokeep theiradaitional rickof contracting cancer below 100,000. This recommendation doe net York point out that some ofthe WHC and FSa'saesimptions may underestimate the sk There are “There no way of cecil Scmeprioteinamacand {2 blercethe heal reproductive systems toxiccontminarts { “IpthetPAvskestinates known fage variations in the potenti toxicity ofaifferent dioxins, theyargue andi these ate taken intoaccoune, most people eating asingleportionofsalmona week could exceed te WHO Tims la. paperat the Dioxin 2008, conferencein Boston, they say sensiive individuals maybe porticulanlyatriskand toxicity {ata should be reexamined. But ‘BeFSA dismisses theiranal Sea"worse-care calculation would have the effect of exaggerating the intake of ciowla “The disagroements ver sae Luts, however do cothing ‘nswer te key question ofhow ‘obalance the damaging impact ofthe pollutants against the beneficial effects ofeating ely Fish, Ths calculation was net done by the US study, andlisstillbeing investigated by oneof the F's expert commiztees, whichis ‘expected torepor:loterthisy Thequestion important beeausettdoesgatjustconcem salmon, Farmed seabassaremore contaminated with FCBsthan wild seabass say Portuguesescientists (Chemosphere, ol54,p3503) Andthesame is likely tobetue ot animals neluding sheep andother Uvestock chatarealsofed ish ‘llsto boost their levels of heath slvingomepa-stattyacis. &