* First two paragraphs taken directly from FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) website.
Q: What impact did the dispersants used to combat the oil spill have on seafood safety?
A: Studies indicate that the dispersants being used to combat the oil spill do not accumulate in seafood and therefore there is no public health concern from them due to seafood consumption. Still the federal government and the states made testing for dispersant part of the reopening protocol. At the time closed harvest waters started being considered for reopening, no chemical test for dispersants in seafood existed, so the first test for dispersant was a sensory examination by a team of trained organoleptic experts. If the evaluation team identified a sample that smelled or tasted of dispersant the harvest waters from which it was collected would remain closed. All of the samples collected for reopening passed the sensory evaluation. Nonetheless, to ensure consumers have confidence in the safety of seafood being harvested from the Gulf, NOAA and FDA developed a chemical test for dispersant in seafood. We reanalyzed half of the original samples collected and all new samples with the new chemical test. 99% of samples contained no detectable dispersant residues. For the 1% of samples in which residue was detected, the levels were more than 1,000 times below the levels of concern.
Q: Can some people eat so much seafood that even a trace amount of oil or dispersant could be harmful to them?
A: Most of the seafood samples tested had no detectible oil or dispersant residue. For the few samples in which some residue was detected the levels were far lower than the amounts that would cause a health concern, even when eaten on a daily basis. When oil residue was found, the levels were 100 to 1,000 times lower than the levels of concern. In the 1% of samples in which dispersant was detected, the levels were more than 1,000 times lower than the levels of concern. To better understand what this means, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals calculated the amount of seafood the average person could eat, each day, for 5 years, based on the actual contamination levels, without there being a health concern from the oil. A person could eat, each day, the following:
· 63 lbs of peeled shrimp (1,575 jumbo shrimp); OR
· 5 lbs. of oyster meat (130 individual oysters); OR
· 9 lbs. of fish (18 8-ounce fish filets).
But what about the oil remnants still floating around? Is there any long-term effects of this incident that people should be aware of? Christopher M. Reddy, Ph.D., an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution answers, "yes."
“All oil spills are different, and comparisons from one to another should be done carefully. Just as a particular compound can be weathered differently, so can it have its own toxic effects, at its own schedule of toxicity. Recovery from oil spills in the environment can also vary temporarily, spatially, and at the individual-and community-wide level."
For example, Christopher studied two diesel fuel spills that occurred in 1969 and 1996 in Southern New England. Both spills resulted in devastating short-term impacts. For example, the 1996 spill led to the deaths of 10 million lobsters, two thousand birds, and 20 million surf clams and the closure of 200 miles of shell fishing beds for as long as five months. Today, however, there are no detectable remnants of oil in or near the oiled region from this 1996 spill. However, the effects of the 1969 spill persist, as crabs, grasses, and mussels are significantly impaired by trace amounts of weathered diesel at this site”(Christopher M. Reddy 2010).
Q. What things affect the severity of the damage?
A. Many things can better or worsen the condition: “a type and quantity of oil spilled, the season and weather, the type of shoreline, and the type of waves and tidal energy in the area of the spill.”(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2010).
Q. What type of oil was spilled in the Gulf and what is its affect?
A. The oil spilled in the Gulf is classified as light crude, and it is “moderately volatile and can leave a residue of up to one third of the amount of spilled after several days” (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2010). This residue than leaves a film that can contaminate the marine organisms for a long time (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2010).
Q. Specifically how does the residue affect the marine organisms?
A. It is impossible for these organisms to avoid the oil, largely because of the food chain. The oil floating on the surface contaminates plankton, algae, and fish eggs that are then consumed by fish feeding on these organisms (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2010).
A. “Fish can be impacted directly through uptake by the gills, ingestion of oil or oiled prey, effects on eggs and larval survival, or changes in the ecosystem that support the fish. Adult fish may experience reduced growth, enlarged livers, changes in heart and respiration rates, fin erosion, and reproductive impairment when exposed to oil. Oil has the potential to impact spawning success as eggs and larvae of many fish species are highly sensitive to oil toxins.” (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2010).
References
"Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Questions and Answers." FDA . FDA, 27 August 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Emergencies/ucm221563.htm (Date Accessed: Feb 13. 2014.)
“Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat.” FWS. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, June 2010.http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdf (Date Accessed: 13 Feb. 2014.)
“The BP Oil Spill: Human Exposure and Environmental Fate.” Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats. Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats, 10 June 2010. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100610/Reddy.Testimony.2010.06.10.pdf (Date Accessed: 14 Feb. 2014.)
