HOW SAFE IS OUR SEAFOOD

Residues of DDT, the cancer-causing pesticide banned two decades ago, still appear inGreat Lakes whitefish being sold in Southern California, according to laboratory tests conducted for The Times.

The analyses, performed by a laboratory used by the U.S. Food and Drug Admnistration, also revealed illegal mercury levels in swordfish and cooked shrimp with extraordinarily high filth counts.

The laboratory results underscore how easy it is for consumers to buy contaminated products. Popular varieties of seafood were purchased at grocery chain stores and fish markets and then tested for pesticides and harmful bacteria by Michelson Laboratories in the City of Commerce.

Seafood industry representatives say the problems are limited to only a few species and in no way pose a widespread health hazard.

When informed of the test results, federal and state officials expressed little surprise because government seafood tests demonstrate similar results. Recent data released by the federal government showed elevated levels of harmful chemicals and microbiological contamination in both domestic and imported seafood.

Fish and shellfish remain the only major source of protein that does not receive comprehensive government inspections for potential contaminants. Currently this $9 billion industry is overseen by a patchwork system headed by FDA, whose inspectors visit processing plants an average of once every four years. The National Academy of Sciences, in a study to be released tomorrow called current efforts, “insufficient” and “too limited in frequency and direction to ensure enhanced safety of seafoods.”

The “Seafood Safety” study, obtained by The Times, indicates that the DDT finding is serious because consistent exposure to this chemical may pose a long-term health risk. The chemical can cause cancer and birth defects.

The tests of all four samples of Great Lakes whitefish fillets analyzed for The Times also showed evidence of two DDT byproducts DDE and DDD, which are also banned chemicals. The highest combined levels of the DDT compounds found were 0.81 parts per million, below the allowable levels of five parts per million.

Other banned chemicals present in the whitefish at similar trace levels included the cancer agents lindane, dieldrin and heptachlor.

State and federal officials in the Midwest regularly issue warnings advising against the consumption of certain Great Lakes fish species because of potentially harmful levels of carcinogens or reproductive toxins, and four public health agencies in the Great Lakes region have recommended that women of childbearing age avoid Great Lakes fish altogether because of the presence of these compounds.

One Great Lakes fish that continues to be commercially available, however, is whitefish, of which five million pounds are sold each year, much of it in Southern California.

In addition to the DDT finding, The Times’ tests also discovered that four of seven swordfish samples bought locally contained illegal levels of methyl mercury, a chemical known to cause birth defects. The legal level of mercury is one part per million; Canada permits only 0.5 parts per million of methyl mercury in fish.

The FDA’s Los Angeles regional office, which conducts tests on only a small percentage of imported seafood, reports that as much as 75% of the swordfish it monitors contains more than the one part per million level. Those shipments with elevated mercury levels are denied entry into the United States.

Despite the findings that three out of four swordfish imports were denied entry due to illegal mercury levels, the National Academy of Sciences says in its 450-page report that FDA laboratory results provide a “gross underestimate of actual contaminant concentrations in seafood.”

Another way of viewing The Times results would be that an individual eating swordfish containing 1.78 parts per million of methyl mercury, as one sample did, would exceed by more than six times the recommended daily intake of mercury.

The National Academy of Sciences recommended that couples “who intend to have children in the near future” avoid exposure to methyl mercury.

Methyl mercury has also been detected by the federal government in tuna and mahi mahi, but has not caused as much concern as in swordfish because the amounts are smaller.

The Times also tested cooked ready-to-eat shrimp from five different locations. Results indicated that two samples had at least five times the allowable level of bacteria, which should not exceed a total plate count of 500,000 microorganisms.

In one sample of large cooked shrimp from a major Southland supermarket chain, the laboratory found a standard plate count of 92 million microorganisms.

John Fukuoka, a microbiologist for Michelsons Labs, said the figure was “excessively high. I haven’t seen many ready-to-eat foods (in this condition). It’s not very common,” he said.

Fukuoka speculated that the product may have been improperly thawed by the retailer.

Another sample, select cooked bay shrimp, was found to have a total plate count of 8.7 million microorganisms. This sample also showed signs of decomposition, or aging. Michael Speck, who conducts decomposition tests for Michelson, said this sample was “very bad, very bad stuff.”

The FDA’s Los Angeles regional office said that in 1990 as much as 47% of all imported raw shrimp sampled from ports in its jurisdiction tested positive for Salmonella, the leading cause of food-borne illness in this country. Despite a contamination rate of almost 50% in imported raw shrimp in the Los Angeles region, an FDA fisheries expert in Washington said that the problem with Salmonella in imported raw shrimp is “declining.”

“In the 1980s we did have problems with Salmonella and there is a zero tolerance for Salmonella in shrimp,” said FDA’s George Hoskin in Washington. “We started putting imports on automatic detention. The result was that countries began figuring out their problems and solving them.”

But a problem still exists. Harmful bacteria such as Salmonella and Listeria are opportunistic and quick to take advantage of poor manufacturing practices. The pathogens are currently being found on both raw and cooked seafood products in federal tests.

Seafood that arrives at stores and restaurants in pristine condition can still become contaminated by poor sanitary practices. This problem is acute for ready-to-eat products such as cooked shrimp, cooked crab and smoked fish. Supermarkets have been repeatedly instructed by health officials and trade groups to maintain cooked seafood separate from the raw varieties. Microorganisms present on the uncooked foods can easily travel to the ready-to-eat foods, a process known as cross contamination.

Yet, in all five locations where shrimp was purchased for The Times, raw seafood was mingled with, or adjacent to, cooked products. The same problem was cited in the National Academy of Sciences report.

Industry representatives, including the National Fisheries Institute, state that the number of illnesses associated with seafood--isolated to a handful of species--indicates that no major health problem exists. However, the National Academy of Sciences report states that federal data collected by the Centers for Disease Control on seafood-related illnesses “does not provide an adequate picture of the extent and causes of such disease,”

Seafood industry representatives contend CDC figures and the “Seafood Safety” study vindicate their products.

“The study reaffirms our belief that fish and seafood are inherently safe and wholesome foods and that the American public need not worry unnecessarily about the safety of the fish and seafood supply,” said Lee Weddig, executive vice president of the National Fisheries Institute in Alexandria, Va.

Citing the CDC data, Weddig said that although seafood consumption has increased 30% between 1978 and 1987 there has been no corresponding increase in the number of seafood-related illnesses. Weddig also quotes the “Seafood Safety” report as stating “Fish and shellfish are nutritious foods that constitute desirable components of a healthy diet.”

However, even the fisheries institute concedes that there are some “important seafood safety issues” facing the industry, government and consumers.

“The consumer is at unnecessary risk of facing both acute and long-term illnesses from seafood that could be remedied by a comprehensive inspection program,” said Ellen Haas, executive director of Public Voice for Food & Health Policy and a leading inspection advocate. “Until that time, the public will be denied the healthful promise that seafood offers.”

Last October Congress supported sweeping revisions in seafood inspection but could not resolve whether FDA or USDA should administer the program, so the initiative died. As a stopgap measure, FDA has budgeted 122 additional employees to supplement an estimated 300 agency employees to work on seafood inspections in the coming year. Yet, the domestic seafood industry’s size dwarfs such a modest expansion.

In the meantime, most of the 16 pounds of seafood consumed annually by each American is sold without even cursory government inspection or any other direct regulatory scrutiny.

By comparison, the mandatory meat and poultry inspection of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has 9,900 employees and an annual budget of $500 million.

The seafood industry is, of course, much smaller than the meat industry, yet USDA officials believe that at least $100 million a year is needed to run an effective fish and shellfish inspection program. In the current fiscal year, FDA will spend $32 million.

At present, confidence in the current federal efforts to ensure seafood safety is declining not only among the public but among state officials as well.

For instance, shellfish safety has deteriorated to the point that California took the extraordinary step of ordering warning signs detailing the dangers of eating raw or undercooked Gulf of Mexico oysters at all retail outlets in which they are sold. Most of the oysters sold in the United States are Gulf Coast oysters.

There are other problems beyond government inadequacies. Science has not developed the necessary laboratory tests to reveal some of the most troubling contaminants--whether naturally occurring or as the result of pollutants--plaguing the nation’s catch.

“One of the biggest weaknesses of present seafood monitoring programs is that only a certain group of chemicals, suspected to be unsafe, is monitored,” according to the National Academy of Sciences study. “However, the number of chemicals so classified is extremely small compared with the number of chemicals being added to the environment.”

The seafood industry, whose trade group favors a strong federal inspection program funded by the taxpayer, has other problems as well. Some of the most troublesome hazards for the industry involve contaminants produced by nature. Two leading causes of seafood-borne illness--scombroid and ciguatera--are regularly present in warm water or tropical fish, which are coming into the country in ever-increasing numbers.

And even aquaculture--fish farming--is coming under fire. Proponents of aquaculture state that the closely monitored nature of the process allows for better quality control. However, the “Seafood Safety” report identified aquaculture as another area of concern.

“The data base for evaluating the safety of certain chemicals that find their way into seafood via aquaculture and processing is too weak to support a conclusion that these products are being effectively controlled,” the National Academy report stated, recommending that further research be conducted into the specific chemical contamination risks associated with both domestic and imported aquaculture.

Right now, analyzing seafood is costly--and takes days to complete. The fastest that The Times received results was 48 hours. That was for Salmonella. Other analyses took longer. Unless required to do so by law, few processors are willing to keep fish in cold storage long enough to await the results. No such requirement presently exists for domestically caught products. And the existing federal laboratory work came under fire from the National Academy of Sciences, which said the FDA “lags badly in the development of innovative methodology for assessing risks.”

Unfortunately, most of the problems inherent in fish and shellfish cannot be detected by sight, smell or taste. This means that laboratory testing must be central to a new inspection program.

But even if Congressional legislators and the Bush Administration agreed on a mandatory fish inspection plan tomorrow, according to the various proposals being considered, it would be at least three years before any such program was fully operational.