NJ DEP 2009 Updated Advisories on Consumption of locally-caught Seafood

[wb]

Credit: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center
 
New Jersey recently unveiled its 2009 health advisories on eating fish, crabs and lobsters. The state's guide is on this state Department of Environmental Protection Web page. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/2009FishAdvisoryBrochure.pdf
   
In a nutshell, you are still advised to limit or avoid eating dozens of freshwater and saltwater species in New Jersey, depending on where you catchem, because they're contaminated by toxic mercury, dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
   
The 2009 Fish Smart, Eat Smart: A Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New Jersey Waters also has some new and revised information.
 
For example, you should not eat more than one meal a week of summer flounder - one of the most popular local fish - from these waters: the Raritan Bay Complex, which includes Raritan Bay, the tidal Raritan River (to the Rt. 1 bridge) and tidal portions of all tributaries; Sandy Hook Bay and Lower Bay; and the Atlantic Ocean from Sandy Hook to Sea Bright.
 
Summer flounder in those areas had PCB and mercury levels high enough to trigger health advisories, said Gary Buchanan, chief of the Natural Resources Science bureau in the DEP's Division of Science, Research and Technology.
 
But the chemical concentrations are relatively low compared with those found in striped bass and bluefish, he said.
   
"I would still say if you're going to eat fish from these areas, summer flounder is probably one of the better species to eat and you can eat 52 meals a year," he said.
 
By the way, since 2006, the state has advised people to eat no more than one meal a month of winter flounder from Raritan Bay and Hudson River/Upper New York Bay waters because of PCBs, according to the DEP.
 
For more information on the state's advisories and testing for contaminants in fish, etc., visit this DEP Web site. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/njmainfish.htm

[CaptTB]

While I have not had an opportunity to look into these newest advisories for this year, I would be curious to know what testing was used this time.

So much has gone on with this topic over the years it's hard to keep track.

If people remember the original PCB "scare" in bluefish years ago it was, truly, a joke. I understand erring on the side of caution, but this was (and still is in many instances) just pure nonsense. When the initial scare took place (some 20+ years ago) the entire fish was taken, scales, bones, guts and all, and ground up into a "slurry." This "fish shake" was then tested for pcb levels.  United Boatmen hired a state certified lab to do a study on what 99.9% of the people actually do with the fish. Once you filleted the fish and tested the fillet, the levels were no longer at or above the threshold to trigger an advisory. Once you actually cooked the fillet, the levels were near non-existent.

Not too long ago when Brad Campbell was the head of DEP, bluefish (along with lots of other species) were again tested as they are every year (I believe)

Even testing the entire fish, blood, guts, bone, scales and all, bluefish were no longer on the advisory list. So what did our enviro buddy Brad do? He switched from the FDA standards to the EPA standards! That's right, he ignored the FOOD and Drug Admin. guidelines and moved to the EPA guidelines for exposure (as if you are going to breathe in the PCB's from the fish) just to keep the damn things on the list. (perhaps there were other reasons, that's my take on it)

By the way, the reason the DEP decided to test the entire fish (and then simply put a blanket advisory out) was because certain ethnic groups eat the whole fish or most of it. That's the way it was explained to us. So, instead of putting an advisory to not eat the whole thing and actually cook and clean the fish first (rendering them totally harmless to humans) it was easier to "just say no" to the fish.

In my spare time (yeah.....sure! ) I'll look into this further, but while erring on the side of caution we should often learn to read between the lines where appropriate. Common sense and good judgement are often all that is needed to stay healthy.

Thanks WB for posting that, it's good information to have.

[IrishAyes]

Yes, good information to have. Also good that it was explained how they came upon their conclusion. Not far from how 'they' get their 'best science' for their fluke regs.

Thank you both for your input on the subject.