THE UK鈥橲 Food Standards Agency (FSA) is investigating dioxin levels in fish and shellfish. Specifically, it is checking levels in wild and farmed Atlantic salmon and farmed rainbow trout. The results, promises the FSA, will be available later this year. Well they鈥檇 better be, as fish farming is currently in a desperate state due to the recent emotive publicity about a supposed link between 鈥渇armed fish on the table鈥� and cancer. This magazine鈥檚 coverage (17 January, p 3 and p 8) stirred me to ask John Krebs, the FSA鈥檚 chairman, what I should tell any concerned constituents.
Krebs replied that much of the media coverage was based on a study by US researchers (Science, vol 303, p 226). Their results were well in line with previous data and limits set by the European Commission. However, they compared wild salmon from the Pacific Ocean with farmed salmon from the Atlantic, and the FSA does not regard this as an appropriate comparison. Krebs went on to say that the FSA鈥檚 survey shows that dioxin levels in trout are on average only about 40 to 50 per cent that in salmon.
Krebs said he particularly approved of the view taken in this magazine鈥檚 editorial, which set out in a measured way some of the uncertainties inherent in risk assessment. Crucially for salmon farmers, the FSA鈥檚 view is that the benefit of eating one portion of oily fish a week outweighs any possible risks from dioxins. He went on to say that the UK鈥檚 Committee on Carcinogenicity considers that the methodology for estimating cancer risk used in the original Science article is not appropriate.
Advertisement
My message, then, will be: don鈥檛 change your fish-eating habits.
AN ANNOUNCEMENT is expected soon on the future of the nuclear waste company Nirex. Ministers intend to make it independent of the nuclear industry and bring it under closer government control, so that it can contribute to the work of the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Tom Watson MP, who is renowned for his serious interest in nuclear matters, claimed in a recent parliamentary statement that there are workable models for making Nirex independent, but they don鈥檛 include placing Nirex within the government鈥檚 proposed Nuclear Decommissioning Agency. He believed that with persistence it might be possible to make Nirex independent sooner rather than later.
Environment secretary Margaret Beckett responded that she agreed with Watson鈥檚 assessment and believes Nirex can continue to play a valuable role. The government is examining all options 鈥� which is why the process is taking rather longer than normal. Beckett went on to assure Watson that the best option would be sought 鈥渇or the public good鈥�.
There is, of course, the slight problem that there are radically opposing views as to what constitutes the public good.
