Are You Bringing Toxic Fish to Your Dinner Table?
New data collected by Columbia River keeper show shocking levels of toxic pollution in local fishermen’s catch in Oregon and Washington. A Portland, Oregon, fish, for example, contains PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl) at levels 27,000 percent above what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers safe for unrestricted consumption.
River keeper detected these alarming levels in a fish caught by Daniel Pop, who fishes in the slough near Portland. He had planned to take the fish home for dinner, but agreed to let Columbia River keeper send it to a lab to test for toxic contaminants. A sturgeon near Astoria exceeded PCB levels by more than 7,000 percent. PCBs increase cancer risks and harm immune, reproductive and development systems in humans and aquatic life.
Is Your Fish Toxic? Catching and Testing Fish on the Columbia River
To show toxic pollution is not a hypothetical problem, Columbia River keeper in collaboration with River Network, met fishermen and tested fish bound for the dinner table, including a bass near Hood River, a sturgeon near Astoria and a sucker in Portland. The results showed Columbia River fish with arsenic, mercury and PCB levels exceeding what the U.S. EPA considers safe for consumption. Columbia River keeper also detected heavy metals, such as chromium, and toxic flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, which are known endocrine disruptors that can increase the risk of cancer and disrupt hormone function.
Fishing guide Bob Rees asked River keeper to accompany him and sample a sturgeon he caught. Rees fishes in the Columbia River estuary near Astoria and consumes Columbia River sturgeon a few times a month. Tissue from Rees’ sturgeon contained PCBs 7,000 percent above what the U.S. EPA considers safe for unlimited consumption.
The potential detriment of this pollution to his livelihood and to the communities along the Columbia discourages Rees. “The sport fishing industry in the Northwest is a $3.5 billion a year industry, and if we are unable to continue to have safe consumption of the food resources that we extract from the Columbia, whether its recreationally caught crab or salmon or sturgeon, it can have an impact on the businesses that rely on this important resource,” Rees states. “Industries along the Columbia River should be held accountable for the detriments that they place on others.”
The Problem: Toxics in the Columbia River
The Columbia River contains too much toxic pollution, including:
• heavy metals, such as mercury, from factories and coal burning.• PCBs that reach the Columbia through storm water runoff, municipal discharge and dirty industrial sites.• so-called “legacy pollutants,” such as DDT and TCE that are leaching from industrial sites.• emerging pollutants, such as flame retardants, pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting chemicals, which reach the river via city wastewater plants.
The EPA released a report in January 2009 which concluded that the Columbia River exceeds the safe level for PCBs, DDT, mercury and flame retardants. Studies on Columbia River fish consistently demonstrate that toxic pollution is impacting one of our region’s greatest food resources. This is a major problem for people who rely on local fish as a healthy food source. Fish advisories are not the answer. People have the right to eat fish from the Columbia without the fear of getting sick. In fact, the Clean Water Act was designed to protect this right. “We need to reduce the toxic chemicals dumped into our river every day,” explains Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia River keeper. “It’s a matter of public health.”
Fish advisories and signs are not the answerMany rivers in the Columbia Basin, including sections of the main stem Columbia River, have fish advisories that warn people not to consume certain types of fish. Daniel Pop notes that fish advisories are sometimes posted in the Columbia Slough, but people do not heed the signs. Pop grew up in Romania fishing for carp, catfish and perch. “That’s our fish tradition,” he says. “We like the fish that like the stinky water.” Pop is one of many people who eat fish from the Columbia Slough and other polluted waters. At times, he says the Slough is so busy that he has trouble finding a spot to set his line. While Pop won’t likely stop fishing in the Slough, he would like to see something done about the pollution. “Unfortunately, the people who own the factories are not the ones down here fishing, eating the fish,” he concludes.
Columbia River keeper believes we must reduce the amount of pollution in our rivers, not post more signs. “Instead of issuing warnings telling pregnant mothers and children to avoid eating fish, our states must actually reduce the amount of toxic pollution in our rivers,” VandenHeuvel states. “Many people rely on fish or don’t see the warnings. It’s unjust to sacrifice their health.”
“Catching and eating fish is a birthright in the Pacific Northwest,” stated VandenHeuvel. “It’s time to clean up our rivers for the health of our children.”
CONNECT













5 comments on "Are You Bringing Toxic Fish to Your Dinner Table?"
October 21, 2012 9:05pm
Fish is no longer safe to eat at all. From a recent article entitled You can't drink oil, you can't eat money: “People still heavily rely on subsistence lifestyles,” she said. “The moose have huge pustules that they are cutting off and then they aren’t sure if they should eat the meat. Ten percent of the fish pulled out of the Athabasca River have some time of tumor or cancer or double jaw.”
Fish getting skin cancer from UV radiation, scientists say Teams find cancerous lesions on the scales of about 15% of the coral trout in Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which is under an ozone hole.
August 02, 2012|By Jon Bardin, Los Angeles Times
October 21, 2012 3:19pm
My brother is a commercial fisherman (long line only, no trawling) with a charter business too. We live in an area where we can fish for tuna, salmon, and rockfish. He loves fish. One year he asked his doctor if he could eat fish everyday to see how long it would take for mercury to build up to a toxic level. He got tested every week, and at the end of week three, the doctor said stop, you're getting toxic. So there you go. Eating fish everyday for more three weeks, and you're going to die or have serious health complications.
Let me also say that when he fishes, he takes the smallest of the catch for himself, keeps the medium for sale, and releases the very largest, because the largest are the most sexually mature and also the most toxic. Smaller fish have the least amount of mercury and other toxins built up in their systems--fish don't purge mercury like humans do. The bigger the fish, the more toxic it is.
As a consumer, you don't have the luxury of picking the smallest, less toxic fish.
October 21, 2012 9:18pm
Wow. Thank you for your honesty. I posted info on the cancers reported in this article as sandcanyongal. The fish around the world are polluted. The companies fight against EPA and installing pollution devices. I live near the 2nd highest coal fired kiln plant for limestone and cement. The keep threatening to close their doors if they have to install devices to capture mercury. The kids over the years in our town have lower IQs, ADHD, autism and multiple sclerosis. I'm disgusted with our government legislators because they shut up because of the large donations and contributions for reelection. I believe they're murderers who should be indicted on murder changes and publicly hung if found guilty.
October 21, 2012 1:05pm
Ah, but the Kochs and the Romneys are making profits from many of the plants who dump the chemicals. You wouldn't want to hurt their bottom line by putting more regulations into effect, would you????? After all, they can get their fish from anywhere in the world they want to.
October 21, 2012 9:54am
The Great Lakes has a very similar problem with contaminated fish. Action was taken in the 1970's to stop the pollution of the waterways and lakes. It did some good but the heavy metal and organic toxins are still with us. They are literally drifting in from other states and even other countries, for example, China.
So if we are going to attempt to solve the problem in the Northwest fisheries, then we need to look not only in that area, but what is "up wind" from them. And yes, we do have to clean up our act before we have the right to complain about anyone else.
I do miss fishing and I miss eating Great Lakes area fish. But the health risks are still just too high. As for eating fish from the Northwest, I might if I were to fish there, but I refuse to eat commercial fish of any kind. The commercial fishing industry is barbaric and inhumane.