The End of the Line: A Paradox Within

After posting my accolades of the film screening, I had to take some time to reflect upon the panel discussion that followed. Index cards were circulated for the audience to write questions for the panelists. My question was: "Of the remaining fish (in the oceans), most are contaminated with PCB's, PAH's, dioxins and mercury. Why were toxics not mentioned in the film?"

The moderator, affiliated with the Seattle Chefs Collaborative, the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and Marine Stewardship Council, read the question but omitted reading "PAH's".

(Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, known for carcinogenic and mutagenic actions, significant in benthic fishes (i.e. sole and flounder) as well as transient salmon species in the Puget Sound.) This is supported by much scientific data and is deemed an ecological risk.

Once the "edited" version of my question was read, it was obviously a "hot potato" that no one was eager to address. One panelist, a fisherman, influential in the Food and Beverage industry to improve seafood quality and spearheaded the marketing of Copper River and Yukon River salmon, stated "recent testing had been conducted on Yukon River salmon and there was no contamination of mercury found". That was the entirety of his response.

Another panelist, representative of the Living Oceans Society in B.C. with a specialty in open net-cage aquaculture in promotion of sustainable seafood replied, "to avoid mercury, eat lower on the food chain...PCB's are found mostly in farmed fish due to a higher fat content". The two other panelists did not respond. One was a writer for Edible Seattle, chef and founder of Seasonal Cornucopia, and the other, an author, sustainable sushi guide, restaurateur and seafood advocate affiliated with Greenpeace.

That was it, end of discussion on toxics in seafood! My reaction was of disbelief that this question could be so readily be dismissed. While infuriated, I put my Antioch cap on to reflect on why there was a lack of response to an issue that is so grossly connected to seafood sustainability.

In conclusion, I believe my question was beyond the scope of the panelists knowledge base. And, if it was not, it undermined the industry that they served. It was a paradox for them, as an acknowledgement of toxics in the sustainable seafood they promote and serve is to reveal a contradiction in their livelihood. Bottomline: Everyone has an agenda in which too much information can become inconvenient.