Salmon Tales: Bad Science and Misinformation
1.) So when did all of this start?
The whole scare surrounding PCBs started in Japan in 1968. “It involved people eating
rice oil that had been contaminated with heat-degraded PCB-containing fluid from leaky
food-processing equipment. Many who had consumed the rice oil became ill, as did
some of the children later born to women who had consumed the contaminated oil during
their pregnancies (Rogan et al., 1988 and Yu et al., 1991). (Kucewicz, pg. 10, 2005).” It is now
widely accepted that PCBs played no part in getting the people ill, but it was in fact
another chemical, furans, that was responsible for the symptoms.
[REFERENCES]
|
2.) Bad Science!
Most of what we hear today in the news about the ill effects of PCBs in salmon source
one of two very misleading and unscientific studies: the Easton (et al.) study of 2001
[published in Chemosphere] and the Environmental Watch Group (EWG) study of 2003
[press release]. These two studies are a mockery of the scientific method. How they ever
made it through peer-review and into the public eye is baffling. The following sections
outline the major shortcomings of both studies. All information here is taken ~verbatim
from FarmFreshSalmon.org; follow the link for the unabridged version!
The Easton (et al.) Study - 2001
|
The following criticisms are taken from a letter to the editor of Chemosphere by
food and nutrition expert, Dr. Charles Santerre, an Associate Professor in the Department
of Foods and Nutrition at Purdue University.
|
|
|
Research Bias
The study was funded by the David Suzuki Foundation, an organization heavily involved in the anti-fish farming movement.
Unrepresentative Sample Size
The sample size of only 8 fish (4 wild, 4 farmed) and 5 feeds was so small as to be entirely unrepresentative of the number of farmed or wild
salmon harvested each year, and statistically invalid.
Making the Number Appear Bigger
The authors of the study used parts
per trillion (ppt) rather than the typically agreed standard of parts per million (ppm). This
allowed the authors to claim that PCB concentrations in farmed salmon were 50,000 ppt –
a number that appears much larger than it is. Consider that the USFDA has deemed
anything below 2,000,000 ppt, or 2.00 ppm, acceptable for human consumption (this is
40x higher than the 0.05ppm found in farmed salmon!).
Flawed Assumptions
Dr. Santerre disputes the flawed assumption that farm-raised fish are more contaminated
than wild caught fish, “Our laboratory has demonstrated that farm-
raised fish generally are much lower in contaminants because they are fed commercial feed …”
Inflated Measurement of TEQ and TDI Values
Dr. Santerre’s review found that neither the tolerable daily intake (TDI) nor the toxic
equivalent (TEQ) measurements were presented in a conventional manner. They were
based on lipid (fat) concentration, not fresh weight. Lipid content is approximately
10% of fish weight; therefore his TDI and TEQ were inflated 10 fold.
|
Environmental Working Group Study - 2003
|
The EWG has a reputation for it's over-alarming, unscientifically founded scare tactics. One
writer for the Seattle Times ("Farm Fresh Salmon," Editorial, Seattle Times, July 31, 2003) says
"...the EWG has obsessed over fresh apples, pears, peaches ... canned tuna. Now, fresh salmon.
Think twice before taking dietary advice from these folks." Their misinformation is outlined
in a similar manner as the Easton (et al.) study.
|
|
|
|
Unrepresentative Sample Size
The EWG sampled 10 fish from local grocery stores. Such a small sample size is statistically insignificant and
in no way representative of the millions of farmed salmon purchased annually by consumers.
Misleading Results
The EWG's findings of an average PCB level of 27ppb is 98.5% below the tolerance level of 2,000ppb set by the USFDA. Also
note that the USFDA has since issued a statement confirming these safety levels after specifically examing this issue.
Conclusions Counter to Leading Scientific Findings
The EWG conclusion that farmed fish raises "cancer-risk concerns" runs completely counter to a host of prestigious scientific
evidence on this issue, including the statements of the National Cancer Institute, the National Academy of Science, and others.
"EWG's approach is more alarmist politics and it lacks sound scientific health or risk assessment information." Jones, AZ. DA
Lack of Comparative Data
Presenting data in a vacuum, w/out points of comparison, is a typical scare tactic. It's been shown on many occasions that
PCB levels in wild salmon are actually much higher (but still safe by government standards) than those found in farmed salmon.
No Scientists on Staff!!!
With no scientists on staff, no form of peer-review, and without having published their "study" in a scientific journal, the EWG can
hardly claim to conduct scientific research.
|
|
|
I want to learn more about...
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
PCB findings in Wild and Farm-Raised Salmon
What the experts are saying (Expert Criticism)
Organic-Farmed Salmon
Conclusions
Salmon Tales Home
These are some available online resources:
Salmon Nutritional Information
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org
Title: Farmed salmon, PCBs, Activists, and the Media
Title: Who Says PCBs Cause Cancer?
The complete, unabridged, definitive source for all PCB information.
|
963 Aquidneck Avenue, Middletown, R.I. 02842
© 2011 WAMM, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
