Food for though - How much Rockfish is safe to eat?

[EMSer]

This is an interesting article discussing safe consumption levels of our denizen of the Bay.

I was a bit concerned when they were recommending eating fish 15" and under, when the legal limit being 20"...

http://www.bayjournal.com/blog/post/..._on_eating_roc

[fishinggod]

2-3 servings a month???!!! Wow know i probably had 20 servings a month of rock ceviche!!! haha. guess it may take a few years off, but the ones i'm above ground will be quite tasty!!

[buzz]

The advisories don’t apply to commercially caught rockfish that are sold in markets and restaurants. Rather, the cautions are intended for anglers who fish for themselves or their family and friends, because of the possibility that the anglers fish just a few spots over many years where PCB contamination may be elevated.

That doesn't seem very scientific.

[22Tango]

It's very sad that our environment continues to be so damaged that we can't eat from the bay. The PCBs are still around since the 1970's it seems per the article. Or are companies still using it and getting away with it 40 years later?

[silasvirus82]

It's very sad that our environment continues to be so damaged that we can't eat from the bay. The PCBs are still around since the 1970's it seems per the article. Or are companies still using it and getting away with it 40 years later?

I dunno, but people are still trying to sue them over it anyway.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/city-o...rways/85906401

[DonV]

The article is a little short on any actual numbers. It's hard to make any kind of conclusion as to any danger by what is in it. I sure like to be informed of any dangers but if they are very small and you add in politics, hype, money to be had with lawsuits and lawyers, it's hard to make any kind of determination as to danger. I'd imagine the risk of just being out on the water in your kayak is many orders of magnitude greater than eating even more than moderate levels of fish. Coming from someone that smoked for years, has worked with many not so nice substances and chemicals over the years, still climbs ladders way to much and takes my little kayak out where big ole motorboats are flying around I'm not going to worry much about it. It is also funny to how when there is money involved and taxes to be had, the commercial stuff gets a pass and makes me discount the danger even more.

The cancer risk seems very tenuous.

How likely are PCBs to cause cancer?

Few studies of workers indicate that PCBs were associated with certain kinds of cancer in humans, such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract. Rats that ate food containing high levels of PCBs for two years developed liver cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has concluded that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens (substances that cause cancer). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are probably carcinogenic to humans.

The dangers with pregnancy do seem to have some more research and show some links to ill effects and you may want to be cautious on that side. That being said taking a typical car ride to the grocery store is once again is going to be orders of magnitude more dangerous.

[Oldbayrunner]

It depends on the area, the DNR puts out a report each year with listings of various species for safe eating guidelines.

[tight lines]

I've heard of overeating rockfish, but the concern was always with the amount of mercury involved, not pcb's.

[DonV]

I've heard of overeating rockfish, but the concern was always with the amount of mercury involved, not pcb's.

Very good point. Mercury would be a much greater concern than PCBs but even then it's hard to determine what is hype and what is fact as to any danger. PCBs are the hot story right now and it seems the mercury scare doesn't make the headlines.

Good example is all the worry in the linked article about PCBs in fish. See the below chart and and study from The Journal of the American Medical Association http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=203640
You will see that:

The highest dietary sources of PCBs and dioxins are not fish, but beef, chicken and pork (34%), dairy products (30%) and vegetables (22%). Fish constitute only 9% of our dietary intake of these chemicals.

jcr60006t2.jpg
Why the targeting of fish when just about every other food contains similar levels. If I leaned to the conspiracy side; the commercial guys getting a pass, the worry for anglers health and the ignoring of the fact that most PCB intake is from other sources all could both be used as a means to discourage, shut down or limit recreational angling.

Here is some research that points out the health benefits gained by eating fish far far outweigh any possible harm by PCBs

What about dioxins and PCBs?
PCBs are synthetic organochlorine compounds previously used in industrial and commercial processes. Dioxins are organochlorine by-products of waste incineration, paper bleaching, pesticide production, and production of certain plastics. Yummy!

While it makes perfect sense to try to avoid these toxins to the greatest extent possible, abstaining from fish isn’t a particularly good strategy.

The highest dietary sources of PCBs and dioxins are not fish, but beef, chicken and pork (34%), dairy products (30%) and vegetables (22%). Fish constitute only 9% of our dietary intake of these chemicals.

The primary concern with PCBs and dioxins is cancer. Animal studies and some evidence in humans suggest that both are carcinogenic.

However, an analysis has shown that, per 100,000 individuals, consumption of farmed vs. wild salmon would result in 24 vs. 8 excess cancer deaths, respectively, while consumption of either farmed or wild salmon would result in 7,125 fewer coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths.

Another analysis of the same data suggested that, for all ages evaluated (25-35 to 85 years), CHD benefits outweighed cancer risks by 100- to 370-fold for farmed salmon and by 300- to more than 1000-fold for wild salmon.

It’s important to note that the benefits of fish consumption are based on prospective studies and randomized trials in humans, whereas estimated cancer risks include a 10-fold safety factor and are based on experimental data in animals and limited studies in humans at extremely high doses.

Cancer estimates also assumed lifetime salmon consumption of 1,000 mg/d of EPA & DHA (four 6-oz servings of wild salmon every week for 70 years). Of course virtually nobody in the U.S. currently eats this much salmon.

On the other hand, CHD mortality reduction may be achieved with lower intake (i.e. 250 mg/d – one 6-oz. wild salmon serving per week). At this intake, CHD benefits would be the same (7,125 fewer deaths) while lifetime cancer risk would decrease by 75% (6 and 2 estimated deaths per 100,000 for farmed and wild salmon respectively). The CHD benefits would outweigh cancer risks by more than 3500-fold in the case of wild salmon.

From http://chriskresser.com/is-eating-fi...t-eating-fish/

[fishinggod]

im leaning towards the conspiracy too!!! how can they say no restrictions on commercial take and yet restrict personal catch. so are they saying folks that buy from a grocery store only buy 3 servings a month at most??? how do they regulate that. i know if i were to go to a grocery store and buy striper I'm going to buy a whole fish. so thats 8 servings that will go bad in 5 days. so ya i had too much. it seams someones pockets are getting filled to put out these reports. just my 2 cents

[fishinggod]

let me add that when the season starts, i will be catching and keeping and eating 2 fish a day every day that keepers bite and I'm gonna have some amazing ceviche and be happy as can be!!!

[DonV]

im leaning towards the conspiracy too!!! how can they say no restrictions on commercial take and yet restrict personal catch. so are they saying folks that buy from a grocery store only buy 3 servings a month at most??? how do they regulate that. i know if i were to go to a grocery store and buy striper I'm going to buy a whole fish. so thats 8 servings that will go bad in 5 days. so ya i had too much. it seams someones pockets are getting filled to put out these reports. just my 2 cents

Yes and you can buy the pack of chicken sitting next to the fish with the same levels or higher of PCBs and not a peep of any warning or danger from any regulatory agency.

[Oldbayrunner]

im leaning towards the conspiracy too!!! how can they say no restrictions on commercial take and yet restrict personal catch. so are they saying folks that buy from a grocery store only buy 3 servings a month at most??? how do they regulate that. i know if i were to go to a grocery store and buy striper I'm going to buy a whole fish. so thats 8 servings that will go bad in 5 days. so ya i had too much. it seams someones pockets are getting filled to put out these reports. just my 2 cents

As I mentioned the rating is by varied parts of the bay and/or size of the catch. One area can be recommended 3 servings another area, such as Baltimore Harbor area, will be 1 or restricted. Usually commercial fishing is done in deeper less polluted parts of the bay.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/...luecatedit.pdf

[DonV]

As I mentioned the rating is by varied parts of the bay and/or size of the catch. One area can be recommended 3 servings another area, such as Baltimore Harbor area, will be 1 or restricted. Usually commercial fishing is done in deeper less polluted parts of the bay.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/...luecatedit.pdf

I'll grant that fish from different areas can have different levels but they still are migratory and can up caught in commercial operations and any particular pack you buy or fish you catch may have high levels. The real kicker though is that your PCBs intake is most likely much higher from other food sources that you don't get any advisories or warnings about.

Strange that the advisories and articles about PCBs fail to mention that the beef, chicken, pork, fish and other products that you purchase commercially may have as high or higher levels than the fish you catch. The worry and caution seem a little misplaced when every trip to the grocery store to stock up for a cookout is going to most likely expose you to more PCBs overall than any fish you catch and eat.

It does make me wonder if there is some other agenda or motivation other than protecting people's health when these type of scare headlines and advisories pop up. Would it have been to much for the author to note that your PCB intake from store bought food is going to far outweigh your intake from fish you catch and eat. People's diets very greatly and if you are trying to limit PCB intake it would be nice to know that maybe your pancake mix, chicken breast or popcorn is what you need to cut back on versus the couple fish you may eat a year.

One of these charts could have been easily placed in the article to make it much easier to determine if eating fish is going to be your main source of PCB intake. Withholding facts as to where the major sources of PCB intake seems a little disingenuous and makes articles like this seem a little to much like propaganda versus information.

chart 1.jpgchart 2.jpg