COFI to call for Guidelines for Eco-labeling

 

Feb 26, 2003 Rome- During the plenary session of the 26th meeting of the International Committee on Fisheries (COFI) of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a growing number of countries have called upon the FAO to develop voluntary, transparent and science based technical guidelines for eco-labeling schemes.

 

As proposed by the European Community and the USA, further FAO work is expected to take the form of both an expert consultation prior to the next meeting of the FAO subcommittee on fish trade.  The next step in the process will be a technical consultation.  Nations supporting the measure and encouraging further work on this initiative included the European Union, USA, Canada, India, Brazil, Japan, Poland, Iceland, Namibia, and Latvia.

 

Further work by the FAO on eco-labeling was and continues to be a high priority for the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA) and the USA based National Fisheries Institute (NFI). The final recommendations of the COFI will not be completed until February 28, 2003.

 

The need to examine the eco-labeling issue and consider FAO oversight on eco-labeling was an early strategy of the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR).  The Foundation working behind the scenes proposed the FAO oversight two years earlier and found ready allies in NFI and ICFA.  

 

The long list of nations supporting this initiative at the COFI is " both gratifying and encouraging "according to IFCNR President Stephen Boynton. 

 

(IFCNR wishes to thank NFI’s Justin LeBlanc for his assistance at COFI with preparation of this story.)

 

 

 

IFCNR’s Mission to COFI:

Taking the Next Step To an FAO Seafood Eco-label

 

 

The 25th Session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) of the Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations will see the next step in the development, adoption and implementation of an international certification of sustainable fisheries as the chief goal of the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR) when that body convenes February 24-28 in Rome.

 

The creation of an internationally recognized eco-label for seafood, both farmed and wild caught, has been an on-going project of IFCNR for the past few years.  Last year at the FAO-COFI Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, the IFCNR proposal on eco-labeling was endorsed by the attendees in what is seen as a vital first step.  Last month the U.S. National Fisheries Institute (NFI) sent letters to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of State seeking their support for the IFCNR initiative. 

 

It has long been held by IFCNR that third party certification either in the form of a self-imposed eco-label produced by the seafood industry or in the many forms of stamps of eco-assurance issued by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or Earth Island Institute etc. is a concept fraught with difficulties.  At a recent press conference on seafood/fishery/aquaculture issues held February 19th in Washington DC, Michael Batterberry, founder and editor of FOOD & WINE and FOOD ARTS magazines decried the proliferation of “Eco-label clutter” confusing consumers. 

 

Industry-conceived eco-labels are self-defeating in that they work against consumer confidence and are vulnerable to persuasive attacks by NGO activists.  On the other hand, NGO-sponsored labels are equally suspect in terms of the eco-politics at play, the unsavory perception of industry paying its critics in order to be deemed socially and environmentally acceptable, and, from industry’s point of view, the intolerable condition of placing avowed critics and foes of sustainable seafood placed in a position of having to pay its adversaries to control production and procurement of the life’s blood of the industry.  Under either option objectivity and credibility are lost.

 

IFCNR has worked behind the scenes to promote an FAO eco-label precisely to eliminate the politics and intimidation of the NGO/industry dynamic.  FAO is the international agency whose mission is to oversee the global efforts to alleviate hunger and provide a safe, health-promoting world food supply.  Seeing that people are fed within the context of environmental and social equilibrium is FAO’s mission.  FAO is an agency that promotes confidence and fair play. 

 

The next step in the process of creating an FAO seafood eco-label that is truly objective and truly global is arranging for a technical consultancy.  IFCNR staff has been in constant contact with key FAO/COFI personnel on this topic over the past year.  Working out the necessary arrangements will be the fulltime agenda of IFCNR’s representative at the COFI meetings in Italy.

 

###

 

 

 

The Fishy Smell in San Francisco is the Mercury Study Behind the Prop 65 Law Suits,

Not the Swordfish.

 

 

The media hue and cry accompanying the announcement that the California State Attorney General is suing five grocery chains for failure to warn customers of mercury in fresh seafood put a lone study on mercury levels in wealthy patients of San Francisco Physician Jane M. Hightower under the public policy spotlight.  Press reporters rushed to the judgment that the study was the missing “smoking gun” necessary to link consumption of fresh seafood including swordfish and tuna with harmful health consequences of methyl mercury (Me Hg) for American consumers.

 

A close look at the Hightower study shows that if any fishy smells are emanating from San Francisco, they are not the tuna or the swordfish sold in groceries or served in restaurants.  Rather the malodorous quality permeating the landscape originates with the manipulative reporting and interpretation of the study by the media and in particular, by activist groups pushing their own negative agenda against commercial fishing and the seafood industry.  

 

Press accounts of the Hightower study suggest an ominous relationship between the methyl mercury content in fresh seafood and consumer health so much so that the State’s Attorney General took the issue to the courts.   

 

Under California’s Proposition 65 statute officially known as the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,” any consumer product containing a chemical identified as cancer or birth defect causing under the measure must provide consumers with adequate warnings.  California keeps a list of more than 800 chemicals declared “toxic” under Proposition 65.  Methyl mercury is among them.  Penalties can be substantial.  Fines can run as high as $2500 per violation for a period that can extend back in time to 1988.  That’s not $2500 per day as reported in some stories.  It’s $2500 per violation.  In theory, at least, that means one portion of swordfish sold to a single customer could bring the maximum. 

 

Methyl mercury should not be confused with elemental mercury although it is a derivative of it.  Mercury and methyl mercury are common throughout our environment.  Methyl mercury, the form deemed most dangerous to humans because it can be inhaled as a gas and ingested, is “organic mercury” created by microorganisms converting mercury expelled naturally in gas form from beneath the earth’s crust.  Mercury is also released in to the environment via a variety of human activities and industries. 

 

The importance and curious timing of the Hightower study is understood when juxtaposed with the activities of an environmental group at war with commercial fishermen and a non-profit created to punish corporate America via Proposition 65 litigation.

 

Proposition 65 is a lucrative resource for environmental whistle blowers.  Proposition 65 is known as the bounty hunter law because lawyers and activist groups can receive court fines levied against offenders they single out for Proposition 65 legal action.  The effort to position fresh seafood – swordfish, tuna, shark, king mackerel, tile fish, etc. – as a health and environmental hazard has been a high agenda priority of environmental groups for years.  Attaching that agenda item to California’s Proposition 65 not only provides high media visibility and involves a high income and socially influential populace but also promises a potentially fantastic payoff particularly with the next step: bringing seafood restaurants including Red Lobster into the Proposition 65 legal net.  Targeting seafood is part of the NGO war against “non-organic” food production in the United States and elsewhere.

 

While environmental and animal rights groups claim their actions are motivated from concern for the planet’s “voiceless” animals and natural resources, cash is a major if not the most major motivator.  Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched his sector assault on hog farming by dangling visions of billions in legal awards for environmental litigation before the legal community.

 

San Francisco-based non-profit activist groups, Turtle Island Restoration Network and the As You Sow Foundation claim credit as catalysts for the legal action pending against the five grocers: Safeway, Albertson’s, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Kroger. 

 

Turtle Island and the Foundation had specimens of fresh seafood analyzed for mercury content.  They claim their research efforts showed “dangerously high levels of methyl mercury” in tuna and swordfish.  On November 14, 2002, both groups filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the five grocery chains named by the Attorney General including grocers Costco and Andronicos as well as Red Lobster restaurants under Proposition 65. 

 

The Hightower study was released on October 22, 2002, a few weeks earlier than the NGO action.  Without the Hightower study, the threat of a law suit would have rung hollow.  Until that study no scholarship linked seafood consumption with human health problems.  Certainly grotesque and tragic incidents of humans stricken ill and killed by mercury toxicity exist.  But they are not representative of anything even approaching normal seafood consumption. 

 

Turtle Island Restoration Network is an off-shoot of the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute (EII).  EII is the group that brought the controversy over so-called dolphin safe tuna, an enterprise that has positioned EII as an industry watchdog whose monitoring efforts worldwide are funded by “donations” from what some would call a cooperative, and other see as a tribute-paying, hostage international tuna industry.  Through its Sea Turtle Restoration Project has long targeted the very successful Red Lobster restaurant chain to become an example to the industry.  Their message: either comply with NGO demands or pay the penalty.  Sanctions under Proposition 65 are part of the penalty. 

 

In the midst of the furor (and elation by the environmentalist NGO community) over the Proposition 65 action being undertaken by the Attorney General, reporting on the controversy and the Hightower study has been mostly superficial and confusing to the consumer at best.  A close look at the study doesn’t clarify issues, rather, it makes them even more confusing.

 

A number of numbers are tossed around in the various news accounts of the Hightower study.  The first is the number of patients involved in Dr. Hightower’s year long study.  The one that sticks out is 720.  Reporters point out that from that number 123 were selected for testing.  Those patients were particularly appealing to the media.  They were described as upscale professionals: physicians, scientists, bankers, entrepreneurs, internet executives, investment brokers, lawyers and corporate executives.  Seven were children.  Some were retirees or homemakers.  Most were newly rich and able to afford the benefits of the good life including newly acquired taste for high dollar seafood including plenty of raw sushi/sashimi.  Of the sushi/sashimi aficionados a preference for ahi, raw tuna, was prevalent.  One ate swordfish an average of 14 meals per month or nearly every other day.  According to one press account, some of Hightower’s patients “ate nine fish meals a week, and one ate up to 20 cans of tuna a month.” (SF Chronicle, Nov. 5, 2002)

 

What reporters failed to note was that 34 were dropped from the testing for a variety of reasons including their taking fish oil supplements that “may contain mercury.”  None of the children were included in the statistical analysis performed by Dr. Hightower.  That left 55 patients including the seven children. 

 

One of the more curious aspects of Dr. Hightower’s study was her exclusion of patients who ate fish from non-commercial sources.  Such consistency is understandable to keep the universe of research patients as similar as possible.  Yet, in view of the political use of the study by NGOs, it also might be argued that the focus on commercial sources as an attempt to skew the study towards commercial seafood outlets to bolster the potential of a Proposition 65 action.

 

Throughout the media coverage another interesting phenomenon occurs.  The unit of measurement used throughout the Hightower study and universally through other studies of methyl mercury and consumption is ug/L or micrograms per liter.  A microgram (ug) is a measure of weight equivalent to 1/1000 of a milligram (mg).  A milligram is equivalent to 1/1000 of a gram (g).  A gram is approximately 1/28 of an ounce.  Written another way a microgram is 0.000001 of a gram.  For some unexplainable reason, the press covering the story chose to use the term “parts per billion” rather than the correct scientific terminology.  More to the point, the media collectively miss a very important problem with the Hightower test.

 

As acknowledged by Dr. Hightower, both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) put the recommended whole blood mercury level at less than 5.0 ug/L and a recommended safe dosage (called the reference dose – RfD at 0.1 ug/Kg of body weight per day. 

 

Environmental writer, Jane Kay of the San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 5, 2002) wrote that 89 patients had mercury levels exceeding five parts per billion, the level they say is the okay point for EPA and NAS.  They said 63 had levels twice that; 19 had levels four times the approved amount; and four patients had levels ten times higher than government approved levels.  The reporter could have been confused and mixed up terms because the part of the study that has a progression of 89, 63, 19 and 4 actually reads “103 (89%) were 5.0 ug/L, 63 (54%) were 10 ug/L, 19 (16%) were 20 ug/L and 4 were in excess of 50 ug/L.”  (The preceding percentages were copied exactly as reported by Hightower.  She offers no explanation.)

 

Where 89 percent might have become 89 patients is the fact that the very next section of the report talks of “Statistical analyses of baseline levels of Mercury in 89 adults.” 

 

The Associate Press fared no better.  In a jump on other writers, AP reporter Sharon Crenson discussed the Hightower study two weeks before its official release.  In her story she twice referred to mercury levels “considered safe by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”  Her reference to one patient’s mercury level of “76 parts per billion” as being 15 times the approved CDC level suggests her confusing CDC with the EPA and NAS <5 ug/L standard. 

 

To her credit, Dr. Hightower does reference CDC but not as a source for an approved standard.  Rather, the Hightower study states that “The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated the United States mean total blood mercury level to be 0.3 ug/L for children ages 1-5 and 1.3 ug/L for women ages 16-49 (Center for Disease Control 1999).”  A mean level estimated for women and children in the United States covers a wide array of diverse eating habits including people who eat no fish and people who eat a lot of fish.  Further, it is a finding of a study, not a recommended blood mercury level.  EPA and NAS provide the accepted norm with the 5 ug/L cut-off. 

 

Dr. Hightower herself contributes to the “fish fog” of confusion evidenced in the press coverage and legal use of her study.  Throughout it she uses the EPA/NAS standard.  However, at one point she compares the “mean” mercury level for women and children in her study to the CDC mean level.  That’s not a valid comparison because Dr. Hightower’s study was not of a cross section of the San Francisco public or even of her medical practice’s patient list.  She used a very selected universe of patients known to consume fish far more frequently than the average citizen anywhere save in an Inuit village.  Naturally members of the press seized upon the 10 and 40 times figures simply because they are enormous.  Had she used the EPA and NAS figures for that comparison as she had throughout the study the variance would only be about twice the recommended norm.

 

For all the potentially suspect language and patient selection made by Dr. Hightower, she was quite honest in the paragraphs preceding her conclusion.  She admits that hers is no real “cause and effect” study.  She failed to compare the patients’ medical records studied against those of the prior year.  She acknowledged that the symptoms manifest by her patients “may be caused by other conditions.”  She admitted that she only tested for the presence of mercury to the exclusion of other contaminants that my cause the same symptoms.  She admits that she has no way of determining if mercury caused or “exacerbated” symptoms in patients with autoimmune phenomena (HIV/AIDS, diabetes, etc.), chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, depression, sinusitis, coronary artery disease and menopause “to name but a few.”

 

So what does she conclude?  As any good physician, Dr. Hightower recommends including dietary histories encompassing fish consumption to become part of “a comprehensive health screen to identify those at risk for mercury accumulation.” 

 

Again, in a move that seems to mirror the NGO campaigns against federal government standards and practices, she echoes the demand made by NGOs to continue testing commercial fish for mercury.  Her final recommendation is that “results and advisories should be readily available where fish are sold to reduce the risk of mercury excess and accumulation during a lifetime of fish consumption,” one that chillingly suggests an intentional relationship between her work and its use as a catalyst for the subsequent Proposition 65 legal actions.

 

 

 

 

 

SUPU CHAIRMAN POMBO ELECTED TO CONGRESS’ TOP ENVIRONMENTAL POST

 

 

Historically, the deference shown legislators who are greeted with the phrase “Good morning, Mr. Chairman” is reserved for those senior in age and time in office.  Chairmanship of a full House or Senate Committee can be likened to being the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation due to the extensive responsibilities that come with such a position. 

 

On Wednesday, January 8th, the title “Mr. Chairman” passed to man whose decade in office is thought by some to be barely beyond apprentice stage and whose youthful looks appear more appropriate for a bright staffer than the individual charged with the duties and responsibilities of the nation’s top environmental legislator in the U.S. House of Representatives.  That man is Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA).

 

Congressman Pombo, chairman of the Sustainable Use Parliamentarians Union (SUPU), was elected to Congress’ most important environmental position, the chairmanship of the House Resources Committee.  It was a fitting birthday present for the 42-year-old legislator.  As chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep. Pombo assumes the role of the House of Representatives’ most influential legislator on matters of energy and mineral resources, fish, wildlife, forests, parks, public lands, the oceans, water and power.  It also makes him the primary target of the most radical elements of animal rights and environmental NGOs, an unenviable position guaranteed to test the nerves and strength of the toughest of humankind.

 

Pombo is particularly suited for the post both in terms of his legislative and professional experience and interest.  Professionally Pombo knows first hand of the land, its bounty, and the daunting challenges presented by Nature and government regulations.  He is a cattle rancher and dairy farmer.  His political career was launched over a fierce defense of the rights of property owners.  That spirit of advocacy led to his zeal to understand the complexities of the relationship of humans with their environment personally and in relation to his legislative mission. 

 

During his decade in Congress, Pombo has served as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee on livestock and horticulture.  He was also Chairman of the Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.  Considered a long shot to win the position in terms of seniority and political clout, Pombo demonstrated a staunch dedication to absorbing as much knowledge as possible on environmental matters. 

 

As Chairman of the Western Caucus and a rancher, Pombo was intimately aware of the difficulties facing Western land owners from government regulations and the unpredictable nature of working the land.  That dedication led him to crisscross the nation to gain equal familiarity to land use issues throughout the nation.  His responsibilities did not end with the geographic borders of the United States.  Pombo literally searched the globe seeking personal knowledge of the workings of and individuals involved with such international forums as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and others rarely frequented by federal legislators.  

 

Congressman Pombo’s experience and work among such international venues as CITES prompted his involvement in the SUPU, a project of the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR).  The global nature of feeding the world via agriculture, aquaculture, or fisheries demands global solutions that are both environmentally and economically sustainable.  Communication and cooperation among nations embracing the principles of environmentally sustainable use of natural resources spurred Rep. Pombo to involve himself in the creation of SUPU, an evolving project that brings together elected officials from throughout the world’s nations espousing sustainable resource use.

 

While much of the characterizations of the players and issues affecting the environment by the major media tend to be portrayed in absolutes of either being for or against “saving animals and the earth,” Rep. Pombo subscribes to the school of thought that reality comes in many shades of grey.  That means his deliberative process includes gathering data and opinions from a diversity of sources and treating each with fairness. 

 

The downside of his devotion to the principles and implementation of sustainable resource use is that from the moment of his ascension to the House Resources Committee Chairmanship, Rep. Pombo has become the key target of extreme animal rights and environmental groups (NGOs).  The degree of criticism aimed at Chairman Pombo from environmental and animal rights groups promises to be withering in its intensity.  His every word and action will be under close scrutiny for the miss-step or action that can be used to undermine his credibility with voters, smear him in the press, and alienate fellow legislators.  To term the predicted onslaught of criticism he will face during his tenure as Resource Committee chair blatant character assassination would not be an exaggeration.

 

Rep. Pombo embodies all of the radical NGO community’s worst fears and bias.  He is both a dairy farmer, rancher and farmer, professions currently drawing fire from groups such as PETA, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Friends of the Earth.  His familiarity with the plight of domestic and international fisheries will see him maligned by the most litigious of NGOs. 

 

His greatest sin in the eyes of the non-use NGO community is his knowledge of the workings of CITES and federal environmental laws and agencies dealing with environmental issues.  No longer will these be extensions of NGO fiefdoms.  Pombo’s knowledge means he will take a personal interest in personnel sent to world forums to represent U.S. policy.  It is precisely this knowledge that will prove the most dicey in terms of the intensity and tactics used by his critics to neutralize or unseat him.

 

If the animal rights and environmental NGO community succeeds in neutralizing his dynamic legislative interest and activism on behalf of environmental equilibrium, the environmental and animal rights groups will have scored a significant victory.

 

That Rep. Pombo’s election as Resource Committee Chairman is regarded as a threat to the radical NGO community is no where more in evidence than in the initial response issued by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI).  AWI commented that Rep. Pombo’s becoming Chairman Pombo is “bad news for wildlife and wildlife legislation.”  Quite to the contrary, the election of Rep. Pombo as House Resource Committee Chairman promises honesty and integrity in how Congress approaches environmental issues and a new day for those who believe that humans are part of Nature, not apart from Nature.