The scientists themselves say it - the further up the food chain, the greater the risk of organic pollutants to the consumer of fish. As great big wacking eaters of fish it looks like people have reason to be concerned.

Environment | Pollution risks to people slip through net in tests on fish:

A new class of organic pollutants in the environment which could pose risks to people’s health has been identified by scientists. The chemicals, used in a wide range of pesticides and cosmetics, have been unwittingly ignored by regulators, who have assumed them to be safe. Organic chemicals such as dioxins, PCBs and the pesticide DDT are dangerous because once they get into the environment they stay there. Even small amounts in food can build up over time and contribute to health problems in later life such as cancer.

As a result, more than 140 countries have endorsed a treaty to try to remove a dozen of the most dangerous chemicals from the environment. But Canadian scientists have found that there is a flaw in the models used to predict which substances are dangerous. Regulators normally do this by watching the chemicals that accumulate in fish. But Frank Gobas, at the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, said fish flushed out chemical pollutants from their bodies in a different way from air-breathing animals and birds. Professor Gobas has identified a new class of chemicals which fish seem to be able to get rid of but which could accumulate and cause problems in people. “These … chemicals, representing a third of organic chemicals in commercial use, constitute an unidentified class of potentially bioaccumulative substances that require regulatory assessment to prevent possible ecosystem and human-health consequences,” he writes today in Science.

Organic pollutants are made up of complex molecules which do not break down easily, building up in the food chain through bioaccumulation. This means that the level of the chemicals in an animal’s tissues rises the higher up the food chain it is - larvae might eat some contaminated algae, a fish eats the larvae, and bigger fish eat smaller fish. Those at the top of the food chain, such as swordfish and polar bears, have been found to contain the highest doses of pollutants. ”

Sausages? Meat? Cancer? Surely not ?

Sausage additive linked to cancer

An additive used in some sausages and burgers could cause cancer, food safety experts have warned.

The European Food Safety Authority has expressed concern about the use of the colouring E128, also known as Red 2G.

Its expert panel on food additives has recommended that the dye should no longer be considered safe for human consumption.

The Food Standards Agency is currently investigating whether products containing E128 are on sale in the UK.

It is not possible to determine a level of intake for aniline which may be regarded as safe for humans European Food Safety Authority

A spokeswoman for the Food and Drink Federation, which represents UK manufacturers, said the use of Red 2G here was “likely to be minimal”.

Under current EU food laws, limited amounts of Red 2G are permitted for use in sausages with a minimum cereal content of 6% and in burger meat with a minimum vegetable and/or cereal content of 4%.

The story below from the BBC highlights to the mass media something that animal rights people have been saying for some time…as non-western cultures adopt western eating practices they also start adopting our increased cancer risks.

Asian women who eat a Western-style diet high in meat, white bread, milk and puddings may be at higher risk of breast cancer, research has suggested.

A study of 1,500 Chinese women showed those who ate a “meat-sweet” diet were twice as likely to develop the disease as those on a vegetable-based diet.

Asian breast cancer rates are lower than those in the West but are rising.

The study in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention suggested increasing obesity rates may be key.

The two-fold increase in risk for women on a Western-style diet was found to exist only among post-menopausal overweight women.

Those with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of over 25 were found to be most at risk.

“For post-menopausal women, low consumption of a western dietary pattern plus successful weight control may protect against breast cancer in a traditionally low risk Asian population that is poised to more broadly adopt food characteristics of western societies,” researchers from the Fox Chase Cancer Center wrote.

Milk and sugar

The “meat-sweet” diet researchers identified included various meats and fish as well as sweets, puddings, white bread and milk.

A “vegetable-soy” diet more traditionally followed in China comprised a variety of vegetables, soy-based products and freshwater fish.

Overall it is hard to determine the effects of diet on breast cancer risk Sarah Cant Breakthrough Breast Cancer

According to the Chinese Anti-Cancer Association (CACA) the incidence and death rates of breast cancer in China’s major cities rose respectively by 37% and 38.9% during the 1990s.

Better diagnosis is believed to partly explain the rise, but environmental factors - including dietary changes - are also thought to be key.

In the West, scientists have estimated that obesity causes around 10% of breast cancer cases.

Over a hundred studies show that post-menopausal women who are overweight or obese have a raised risk of breast cancer.

But Breakthrough Breast Cancer said it was still very difficult to tease out the various factors, and that the study did not appear to take into account issues such as having children at a later age, not exercising or taking the pill.

“Overall it is hard to determine the effects of diet on breast cancer risk,” said Dr Sarah Cant, Senior Policy Officer at the charity.

“We still aren’t sure which specific dietary factors influence the chance of developing the disease.”

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/6284830.stm

The headlines say it all…

BBC NEWS | Health | Row over advertising ban on milk:

A supermarket is challenging a ban on advertising its whole-fat milk during children’s television shows.

Asda’s whole milk narrowly failed to meet new Food Standards Agency (FSA) guidelines which allow only healthy foods to be advertised to children.

Whole-fat milk should be nutritious enough to pass tests based on official figures, but Asda’s failed.

The supermarket chain has written to media watchdog Ofcom demanding changes to the testing formula.

Ofcom brought in the new guidelines to help tackle rising obesity levels among children.

It asked the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to determine what constitutes healthy and unhealthy food.

The new rules, introduced in April, mean adverts for food and drinks high in fat, salt or sugar cannot be broadcast around shows aimed at four to nine-year-olds.

‘Inaccurate’ information

An Ofcom spokeswoman said the FSA would review its nutrient profiling model after a year of use.

“Ofcom, as the regulator, doesn’t have specific expertise in this area and so relies on the FSA and the experts that they brought in to develop this scheme,” she said.

The FSA said whole milk could be advertised to children, based on official UK food tables regarding its nutrient content.

The suggestion that our milk is different from anyone else’s is ridiculous. We source our milk from the same dairies as the other UK supermarkets Asda spokesman

“It appears that on the basis of the calculations that Asda have provided, their whole milk differs from the figures in the official UK food tables,” an FSA spokeswoman said.

“It is up to Asda to determine why their milk differs and of course they are welcome to talk to us about it.”

But a spokesman for Asda denied the claim, saying: “The suggestion that our milk is different from anyone else’s is ridiculous. We source our milk from the same dairies as the other UK supermarkets.

“The issue here is it appears the FSA’s nutritional information for milk is not accurate.

“We have run the FSA’s profiling model on all other supermarket milk and none of it would, by the FSA’s definition, have been able to be advertised to kids.”

Dr Judith Bryans, director of the Dairy Council which represents milk producers and processors but not retailers, said there was confusion over how the FSA’s formula should be applied.

Dr Bryans said: “The guidance needs to be very, very clear and I don’t think it is just at the moment. I think it is detrimental to everybody, this confusion.”

The communications regulator uses the FSA’s nutrient profiling model to decide which products high in fat, salt or sugar should be subject to the restrictions.

In a letter to Ofcom chief executive Ed Richards and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, Asda describes the rules as a “serious cause for concern”.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/6732805.stm

All this time passed and Mad Cow Disease is still making the news.

USDA doesn’t want all cows tested

The Bush administration says it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. But Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too. The Bush administration sided with the large meatpackers, but a federal judge ruled in March that the government did not have the authority to prevent Creekstone from testing its cattle.

The ruling was to take effect today, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday that it would appeal - effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge plays out.

There have been three cases of mad cow disease in the U.S. The first, in December 2003 in Washington state, was in a cow that had been imported from Canada. The second, in 2005, was in a Texas-born cow. The third was confirmed last year in an Alabama cow.

Fishing is not something nice that fathers do with sons or lads do with their mates, it’s torture and animal abuse in the name of entertainment. It has to stop in this day and age.
 

Angling

Imagine reaching for an apple on a tree and having your hand suddenly impaled by a metal hook that drags you—the whole weight of your body pulling on that one hand—out of the air and into an atmosphere in which you cannot breathe. This is what fish experience when they are hooked for “sport.”

Many people grow up fishing without ever considering the terror and suffering that fish endure when they’re impaled by a hook and pulled out of the water. Recreational anglers rarely stop to contemplate that fish are complex and intelligent individuals. In fact, if anglers treated cats, dogs, cows, or pigs the way they treat fish, they would be thrown in prison on charges of cruelty to animals. Even when anglers put fish back in the water after torturing them, many of the fish die from their stress and injuries. A 2006 study conducted during and after a Wisconsin fishing tournament found that hundreds of fish who were caught and released had died within a few days.

Why not let fish enjoy the beautiful day, too, by leaving your fishing gear at home? Click here for more ways to help fish.
¹ Associated Press, “Hundreds of Wis. Bass Found Dead After Meet,” 24 Jul. 2006.

Health Concerns

Deadly Poisons From the Deep

Fish flesh today is badly contaminated with toxic chemicals that are known to cause cancer and brain degeneration and is also the most likely of all foods to make you sick from bacterial contamination.

Think Fish Is a Health Food? Think Again.

Fish live in water that is so polluted, you would never dream of drinking it. But you’re ingesting this toxic brew—bacteria, contaminants, heavy metals and all—every time you eat fish.

	Researchers at the University of Illinois found that fish-eaters with high levels of PCBs in their blood have difficulty recalling information they have learned just 30 minutes earlier.6

Fish’s bodies absorb toxic chemicals in the water around them, and the chemicals become more concentrated as they move up the food chain. Big fish eat little fish, with the bigger fish (such as tuna and salmon) absorbing chemicals from all the other fish they eat. Fish flesh stores contaminants, such as PCBs, which cause liver damage, nervous system disorders, and fetal damage; dioxins, also linked to cancer; radioactive substances like strontium 90; and other dangerous contaminants like cadmium, mercury, lead, chromium, and arsenic, which can cause health problems ranging from kidney damage and impaired mental development to cancer.^{1,2 3,4} These toxins are stored in the body fat of humans who eat fish and remain in their bodies for decades.⁵

	Seafood is the number one cause of food poisoning in the United States.8 Seafood poisoning can result in extreme discomfort, kidney damage, nervous system damage, and even death.9

Seafood is also the number one cause of food poisoning in the United States. Many of our waterways are polluted with human and animal feces, and this waste carries dangerous bacteria like E. coli. So when we eat fish, we are exposing ourselves to the unnecessary risk of contracting a nasty bacterial illness that can lead to mild to extreme discomfort, nervous system damage, and even death.⁷

According to a report by the General Accounting Office, the seafood industry is dangerously underregulated. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t even bother to test most fish flesh for many well-known chemical and bacterial health hazards.¹⁰

Read about the toxic mercury levels in fish »

¹The Delta Institute, “Health Impacts: PCBs”.
²Jeff Kart, “EPA Testing Saginaw River, Bay for Dioxin Levels in Sediment,” The Bay City Times, 25 Oct. 2004.
³Savannah River Site, “Eating Fish From the Savannah River,” 1 Oct. 2001.
⁴The Delta Institute.
⁵Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Healthy Eating for Life for Children (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2002) 54.
⁶Susan Schantz et al., “Impairments of Memory and Learning in Older Adults Exposed to Polychlorinated Biphenyls via Consumption of Great Lakes Fish,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Jun. 2001.
⁷Reuters, “CSPI: Seafood, Eggs Biggest Causes of Food Poisoning in U.S,” CNN, 7 Aug. 2000.
⁸Reuters.
⁹eMedicine, “Food Poisoning Symptoms,”.
¹⁰Center for Science in the Public Interest, news release, “GAO Gives Failing Grade to FDA Seafood HACCP Program,” 13 Feb. 2001.