Nutrition

September 11, 2013 — In recent weeks, there has been a significant uptick in news from Fukushima, Japan. Officials from the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, admitted that radioactive water is still leaking from the nuclear plant crippled by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The new revelations about the amount of water leaking from the plant have caused a stir in the international community and led to additional scrutiny of Pacific Ocean seafood. Last week, South Korea announced it had banned all imports of Japanese seafood from a large area around Fukushima. And Al Jazeera reported that the cost to the region’s fishing industry over the past two years exceeds $3.5 billion.

Now, fears are mounting that the radiation could lead to dangerous contamination levels in seafood from more of the Pacific Basin. Numerous blog posts and articles expressed concern about the potential for higher concentrations of radioactive particles, particularly in highly migratory species such as tuna that may have encountered Fukushima’s isotopes—including highly dangerous and toxic materials such as cesium-137, strontium-90, and iodine-131—on their transoceanic travels.

Amid alarmist outcry and opposing assurances that the radiation levels in fish are no more harmful than what’s found in the average banana, I decided to dig a little deeper, and a few weeks ago, I posted a brief analysis on Climate Progress. After reading the comments on that piece, it became clear I needed to do a bit more homework.

Read the full story at the Center for American Progress

September 8, 2013 — Around the world, the status of fish and fisheries is grim indeed. Approximately 85 percent of global fish stocks are either over-exploited, fully-exploited, depleted or recovering from depletion. But rigorous management efforts have resulted in some American fisheries making a comeback.

The new report by the National Research Council assessed 55 fisheries and found 10 that have been rebuilt and five that showed good progress toward rebuilding; only nine continue to experience overfishing. What about the rest? Eleven have not shown strong progress in rebuilding but are expected to rebuild if fishing levels remain reduced and a whopping 20 were not actually over-fished despite having been initially classified as such.

The report comes with a neat interactive online graphic to track the fate of fish populations in different regions over the years. By selecting particular species or geographic areas, users can watch, as for example, yelloweye rockfish becomes steadily overfished, as chinook salmon numbers – especially susceptible to changing environmental conditions – swing wildly back and forth, and the likes of lingcod, George’s Bank haddock, king mackerel and Bering Sea snow crab stage their marches toward recovery.

The report is fairly technical, so for a summary – and an explanation of what it means in practical terms for U.S. fish consumers – Discovery News turned to Chris Dorsett, Director of Ecosystem Conservation Programs for the Ocean Conservancy.

“If you look at a map of the United States and where overfishing is still occurring, it’s almost exclusively an east coast problem,” he points out. “And when I say east coast, I mean Gulf of Mexico as well. Where we have not seen success in terms of species recovering based on management actions, that could be due to climatic factors, which aren’t particularly good for productivity. It could be due to management regimes that aren’t particularly effective. But what exacerbates the issue is that, when you drive a population to an extremely low abundance level, environmental variability plays an even more meaningful role in the recovery of that population, so recovery is a little less predictable.”

Read the full story at Discovery News

MAYWOOD, Il. — September 8, 2013 — A Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine study suggests that omega-3 fish oil might help protect against alcohol-related dementia.

Previous studies have shown that long-term alcohol abuse increases the risk of dementia. The Loyola study found that in the brain cells of rats exposed to high levels of alcohol, a fish oil compound protected against inflammation and cell death.

The study by Michael A. Collins, PhD, and colleagues was reported Sept. 8 at the 14th Congress of the European Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism in Warsaw.

Read the full story from Science Codex

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Seafoodnews.com]– September 5, 2013 — An Oxford University study has shown that a representative sample of UK schoolchildren aged seven to nine years had low levels of key Omega-3 fatty acids in their blood. Furthermore, the study found that children’s blood levels of the long-chain Omega-3 DHA (the form found in most abundance in the brain) ‘significantly predicted’ how well they were able to concentrate and learn.

Oxford University researchers explained the findings, recently published in the journal PLOS One, at a conference in London on 4 September.

The study was presented at the conference by co-authors Dr Alex Richardson and Professor Paul Montgomery from Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention in the Department of Social Policy and Intervention. It is one of the first to evaluate blood Omega-3 levels in UK schoolchildren. The long-chain Omega-3 fats (EPA and DHA) found in fish, seafood and some algae, are essential for the brain’s structure and function as well as for maintaining a healthy heart and immune system. Parents also reported on their child’s diet, revealing to the researchers that almost nine out of ten children in the sample ate fish less than twice a week, and nearly one in ten never ate fish at all. The government’s guidelines for a healthy diet recommend at least two portions of fish a week. This is because like vitamins, omega-3 fats have to come from our diets – and although humans can in theory make some EPA and DHA from shorter-chain omega-3 (found in some vegetable oils), research has shown this conversion is not reliable, particularly for DHA, say the researchers.

Blood samples were taken from 493 schoolchildren, aged between seven and nine years, from 74 mainstream schools in Oxfordshire.  All of the children were thought to have below-average reading skills, based on national assessments at the age of seven or their teachers’ current judgements. Analyses of their blood samples showed that, on average, just under two per cent of the children’s total blood fatty acids were Omega-3 DHA (Docosahexaenoic acid) and 0.5 per cent were Omega-3 EPA (Eicosapentaenoic acid), with a total of 2.45 per cent for these long-chain Omega-3 combined. This is below the minimum of 4 per cent recommended by leading scientists to maintain cardiovascular health in adults, with 8-12 per cent regarded as optimal for a healthy heart, the researchers reported.

Co-author Professor Paul Montgomery said: ‘From a sample of nearly 500 schoolchildren, we found that levels of Omega-3 fatty acids in the blood significantly predicted a child’s behaviour and ability to learn. Higher levels of Omega-3 in the blood, and DHA in particular, were associated with better reading and memory, as well as with fewer behaviour problems as rated by parents and teachers. These results are particularly noteworthy given that we had a restricted range of scores, especially with respect to blood DHA but also for reading ability, as around two-thirds of these children were still reading below their age-level when we assessed them. Although further research is needed, we think it is likely that these findings could be applied generally to schoolchildren throughout the UK.’

Many, if not most UK children, probably aren’t getting enough of the long-chain Omega-3 we all need for a healthy brain, heart and immune system. That gives serious cause for concern because we found that lower blood DHA was linked with poorer behaviour and learning in these children.

Co-author Dr Alex Richardson added: ‘The longer term health implications of such low blood Omega-3 levels in children obviously can’t be known. But this study suggests that many, if not most UK children, probably aren’t getting enough of the long-chain Omega-3 we all need for a healthy brain, heart and immune system. That gives serious cause for concern because we found that lower blood DHA was linked with poorer behaviour and learning in these children.

‘Most of the children we studied had blood levels of long-chain Omega-3 that in adults would indicate a high risk of heart disease. This was consistent with their parents’ reports that most of them failed to meet current dietary guidelines for fish and seafood intake. Similarly, few took supplements or foods fortified with these Omega-3.’

The current findings build on earlier work by the same researchers, showing that dietary supplementation with Omega-3 DHA improved both reading progress and behaviour in children from the general school population who were behind on their reading. Their previous research has already shown benefits of supplementation with long-chain omega-3 (EPA+DHA) for children with ADHD, Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, and related conditions. The DHA Oxford Learning and Behaviour (DOLAB) Studies have now extended these findings to children from the general school population.

‘Technical advances in recent years have enabled the measurement of individual Omega-3 and other fatty acids from fingerstick blood samples. ‘These new techniques have been revolutionary – because in the past, blood samples from a vein were needed for assessing fatty acids, and that has seriously restricted research into the blood Omega-3 status of healthy UK children until now,’ said Dr Richardson.

The authors believe these findings may be relevant to the general UK population, as the spread of scores in this sample was within the normal population range for both reading and behaviour. However, they caution that these findings may not apply to more ethnically diverse populations as some genetic differences can affect how Omega-3 fatty acids are metabolised. Most of the children participating in this study were white British.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

 

September 3, 2013 — A report published earlier this year by Oceana brought much needed attention to the issue of mislabeled fish in our nation's restaurants and markets. Public health concerns, economic deception, and a possibility of fishery mismanagement were all discussed as ramifications of the level of mislabeling reported in this study. At the heart of the problem lies one central question — what to call our fish.

It turns out, the names we use for fish are quite complicated, and depending on who we are and where we are, the names we use can be quite different. Fish on a menu are usually described by their English common names. Tuna, swordfish, and sea bass are menu items we are all used to seeing. The problem is, what is tuna? Are there more than one kind of swordfish? Is sea bass a family?

As you'll see in our latest video below, for fish on the coral reef, common names most often are in two parts, a modifier and a reference to the fish's family. The modifier sometimes denotes physical appearance: e.g. the teardrop butterflyfish is a type of butterflyfish that has a distinct marking on its side that resembles a teardrop shape. In other instances the modifier is taken from a behavior commonly observed: e.g. the rockmover wrasse is a wrasse species that is often seen picking up and tossing rocks about in its search for prey. The problem with common names is that there is no standardization in their use. One book or snorkeler fish ID card may denote a fish as a rockmover wrasse, while another book from a different author or in a different part of the world may call that same species a dragon wrasse (still an apt name as the juvenile of this species has a markedly different appearance from the adult form and resembles a dragon as it floats about hiding like a piece of algae).

Scientists long ago recognized the problem inherent in the common name system and established an internationally-standardized naming system to alleviate this confusion.

Watch the video and read the full story at the Huffington Post

September 5, 2013 — Chef Paul Fehribach can recall the kitchen clamor when Flavr Savr first hit the market in the mid-1990s. The much-talked-about tomato, the first genetically modified (GM) fruit or vegetable the federal government licensed for commercial sale and human consumption, had chefs like him asking — and fielding — lots of questions.

Working at the Laughing Planet Café in Bloomington, Ind., Fehribach learned the ruby red tomatoes had been engineered to grow tougher, thicker skins that would slow the ripening process, preserve shelf life and prevent rotting along the supply chain. They were, as the popular narrative often goes, the future of food.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined the GM tomatoes were “as safe as tomatoes bred by conventional means” and therefore did not necessitate specific GM labeling, high production costs and handling issues ultimately proved crippling for Calgene.

Read the full story at Seafoodsource

August 30, 2013 — Two federal agencies are continuing to test seafood caught in U.S. harvesting areas, as needed, to assure the safety of the harvest for consumption, say officials with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"Although it will be unlikely to find fish that have traveled to the U.S. from Japan with radionuclide levels significantly elevated to cause concern, FDA will continue to work with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to test seafood caught in U.S. harvesting areas, as needed," the FDA said in a statement released Aug. 27.

"FDA will continue to closely monitor the radiation situation, as we have since the Fukushima incident, and stand ready to take further action as necessary to ensure safe seafood.

Read the full story at The Cordova Times 

August 28, 2013 — Go right ahead and enjoy that albacore tuna. That’s the message an Oregon State University researcher has for those concerned about recent reports that the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan is leaking millions of tons of radioactive water into the ocean every day.

“Most of the articles about Fukushima have blown the situation out of proportion,” said Delvan Neville, a radioecologist and doctoral candidate at the university in Corvallis. “They do have some amount of radioactivity moving from the tanks. But the numbers that they’re publishing is from (material) right at the source.”

The estimated rate of the leak is .3 terabecqueral (Bq) per month — compared to the rate of 5,000 to 15,000 Bq released March 11, 2011 when the earthquake and subsequent tsunami devastated the plant and forced its closure.

Officials in Japan have since been dumping tons of water in the reactor to cool its cores, and are running out of tanks in which to place the contaminated water. Some of it has been leaking, and attempts to keep it out of the groundwater and subsequently, the ocean, are proving unsuccessful.

“This situation doesn’t feel like it’s in any way been resolved,” said Leesa Cobb of the Port Orford Ocean Research Team and the wife of a fisherman. “It’s persistent. We’re getting more questions about this when we sell our fish at the farmer’s market and at the food bank. We’re looking for good information about how to respond.”

Read the full story from Del Norte Triplicate

August 23, 2013 — As global ocean warming hits home, marine biologists, local commercial fisherman, seafood lovers and most importantly, the chefs who serve them throughout New England, are adapting to an influx of warmer water seafood species beginning to flourish up north as traditional cold-water fish stocks thin out.

Enter Eating with the EcoSystem, an educational effort to design and promote a place-based approach to sustainable seafood for New England. By combining science, commerce and culinary arts, the project takes a deeper look at understanding and implementing sustainable seafood practices.

Eating with the Ecosystem’s traveling dinner series partners with restaurants in Rhode Island and the Boston area to celebrate and steward the region’s unique marine ecosystems, one at a time: Southern New England waters, Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. Participants learn about how the special habitats and food web relationships in these ecosystems conspire to produce the region’s seafood, and what must be done to take care of these food-producing ecosystems for the future.

Read the full story at Edge 

 

August 20, 2013 — The menu says red snapper, but it’s actually tilapia. The white tuna, meanwhile, is really escolar, while the seabass is Antarctic toothfish.

Welcome to the wild world of modern seafood, where not everything is as it seems.

New research is revealing that merchants and fish dealers often mislabel their product as an entirely different species to fetch a better price at market. A study realeased last week by UK researchers found that a number of species in the skate family are sold as “sting ray wings,” while a separate study produced in February by the group Oceana found that, of 1215 seafood samples from 674 restaurants and grocery stores in 21 U.S. states, a full third were mislabeled. In Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, every single sushi bar that was tested was found to sell at least one mislabeled fish species.

How did the researchers figure all this out? Through the innovative use of DNA barcoding, in which a specific segment of genetic material (analogous to a product’s barcode) in a piece of fish is used to determine exactly which species it truly belongs to. For years, we had no real way of determining  the true species of a piece of seafood—a filet of fish, after all, often looks like any other filet—but this new application of an existing scientific technique is rapidly becoming a crucial tool in combating seafood fraud.

Testing a piece of fish to determine its species is fairly straightforward—scientists perfected DNA barcoding years ago, albeit typically as part of other sorts of projects, like cataloging the complete assortment of species in a given ecosystem. Analyzing the DNA in a piece of fish is a relatively similar process.

To start, researchers acquire a piece of fish and freeze it, as fresher and better-preserved tissue samples generally yield more accurate results. Then, in the lab, they slice off a tiny piece of the sample for testing.

To extract and isolate the DNA from the tissue, scientists break open the cells—either physically, by grinding them or shaking them in a test tube filled with tiny beads, or chemically, by exposing them to enzymes that chew through the cell membrane. Next, they remove other components of the cell with various chemicals: proteases digest proteins, while RNAase digests RNA, an alternate form of genetic material that could cause errors in DNA testing if left in place.

Once these and other substances are removed, the remaining sample is put in a centrifuge, which spins it at high speed so that the densest component—in this case, DNA—is isolated at the bottom of the tube in a pellet. A variety of different approaches are currently used to sequence the DNA, but all of them achieve the same end—determining the sequence of base pairs (the building blocks of DNA that are unique to each organism), at one specific location in the fish’s genome. All fish of the same species share the same sequence at that location.

Read the full story at Smithsonian Magazine