7 SIMPLE RULES FOR EATING SAFE SEAFOOD

The Safe Food Handbook has a chapter dedicated for Fish and Shellfish. Why? Because I believe seafood, and especially farmed seafood, is becoming increasingly dangerous to eat.

Mind you, any list like this tends to be a bit of an oversimplification, but here it is:

1. Raw is risky
2. Wild is usually safer than farmed
3. Small is usually safer than large
4. Domestic is usually safer than imported
5. Fish fat and fatty fish are best avoided
6. Dark parts of shellfish are more dangerous than light parts
7. Diversification is a good idea.

TSF

MORE ON RADIATION IN FISH AND SHELLFISH

I blogged on March 27 about the likely risk of radiation contamination of fish and shellfish near the Fukushima power plant. That was over a week ago. It was also before we heard about the tons of radiation-contaminated water flowing into the sea near the Fukushima power plant. In fact, the latest numbers say about 7 tons of radiated water an hour is flowing into the sea from that crack in the pit at the damaged Reactor No. 2 (where ongoing efforts are now resorting to newspaper and sawdust to plug it). It was also before concerns about radiation in fish affected fresh fish sales in Tokyo, and before the media began to discuss it all over the world, including in the U.S.

And, it was before there were any reported findings of radiation in seafood near the Fukushima plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency has now reported that at the port of Choshi, in Chiba prefecture south of Fukushima, about 20% of the fish caught have been found to have elevated levels of caesium-137 (not high enough to be considered unsafe - yet).

Caesium-137? Isn't everyone talking about iodine-131? Well, yes. But most radioisotopes, including Iodine-131, have pretty short half lives (the time it takes for half the amount that initially enters the water to decay), measured in days or weeks. Testing may show elevated levels in surface seawater now (and I bet it's in lakes and rivers too) but it will get diluted, and soon just decay. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency said iodine-131 in seawater would “soon be of no concern.”

But other radioisotopes such as caseium-137 and stronium-90 can stick around for a long time - years, and even decades. I gather from the research on Chernobyl, that if it's in water bodies it's likely to sink down into the sediment and bioaccumulate (that is, build up) in the fish and shellfish in the area.

I wonder when we'll hear about the levels of caesium-137 found in seafood in rivers and lakes near Fukushima? I would guess, pretty soon.

By the way, I notice that my local store has stopped selling scallops imported from Japan.

TSF

RADIATION IN FISH?

Radiation in food is becoming a big issue. People everywhere are becoming nervous - not just in Japan. Even in America. Radiation fears are slowing sales of fish from Japan, and sushi restaurants are finding their customers disappearing. But is the situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant really likely to result in radiation-contamination of fish as well as of vegetables and milk?

The experience of Chernobyl, as well as of smaller incidents at power plants (including in the U.S.) would argue that it is. And it is not just a question of contaminated marine fish. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 showed that radiation can also enter rivers and lakes and show up in the fish living there. Fish is very important in the Japanese diet. Fish is also a major export commodity. It comes from a variety of sources: wild-caught ocean fish, marine aquaculture, inland fishing and inland water aquaculture.

After plowing through a number of research studies and scientific papers, I concluded that the levels of radionuclides entering a particular water body will not be the only factor in determining which fish are most likely to become contaminated. A number of other factors are also likely to be involved. One is whether the water is flowing rapidly or not. Another is the type of fish: whether it is predatory, and whether it is a bottom feeder or a surface feeder. The experience of Chernobyl suggests that fish in lakes and ponds will have higher build-up of radionuclides than the same type of fish from fast-moving rivers and streams. Predatory fish will have higher levels than fish which were not predatory. Benthic fish (those that like to lie on the bottom, such as carp - Japan's most popular fish) are more likely to pick up contamination than those fish which tend to live near the surface.

As far as I know, no contamination of seafood from Japan has been reported so far. But the chances are, that it will be soon. If so, don't panic. As I keep saying, in most countries, any radiation-contaminated fish is likely to be caught before it reaches the market. Even if it does get there, a few meals are unlikely to harm you. But if you are pregnant, and for young children, it is still better to stick to the safer fish.

TSF

A STUDENT REVIEW of THE SAFE FOOD HANDBOOK

I had a student review of my book forwarded to me today. If I remember correctly, the book was given to the senior seminar class in this Los Angeles school to read over the Christmas vacation, along with Food, Inc. and In Defense of Food. I am cut-and-pasting it as sent to me, with no editing. A refreshing change from the more formal reviews in Library Journal and other publications.

"I found this book to be the most important that we have read so far. It wasn’t geared towards our food system so much as the risks hiding behind the health claims and cartoon mascots. There are so many dangers involved with our eating that we are completely unaware of, for good reason. I think this book did a great job giving the information in a very straight forward manner. The things I found most off putting about the previous books was their tendency to feel a bit repetitive and one sided. They focused mainly on how the food industry fails to do what is necessary to keep our food healthy and safe but without all the specifics mentioned in this book. It is important to know the exact ways in which people are failing to keep up the standards we need in order to have safe food. But it is even more important to know what the risks are in the first place because they are conveniently kept from us to make sure profits remain high and complaints remain scarce. Even though I completely believe the previous books have it right, I would rather read books that do not feel biased when it comes to food safety. There is enough confusion when it comes to food safety as it is. This book in every way just tells the honest truth about the serious food safety issues that the public has every right to be knowledgable about. It really enlightened me, especially about the dangers involved with seafood. I wish there were more books out there that gave such an unvarnished and unbiased viewpoint on these food problems."

Nice.. thank you, whoever you are. I especially like the fact that the review is actually based on reading the book. Some on Amazon are not! How can you intelligently and fairly review a book you have not even flipped through?

TSF