MAINE AQUACULTURE REFORM DEBATE TURNS TO TOXICS IN FARM SALMON
PENOBSCOT BAY WATCH
For Immediate release Feb 13, 2002
Contact # (207) 594-5717
Legislators press fishpen industry for details on toxic residues in farmed salmon.
Maine Marine Resources Committee considers farm salmon toxics, rejects "living wage", agrees to an expanded state aquaculture advisory committee with no dedicated slot for commercial fishermen, and keeps Class D penalty for most aquaculture lawbreakers.
AUGUSTA. At yesterday's (Feb 12) hearing of the Maine Legislature's Marine Resources Committee, committee members tried with little success to get detailed information from fishpen operators on the amount and types of pesticides being used by the industry in Maine waters, and the amounts of toxic residues in farmed salmon grown in state waters.
The legislators also gave tentative approval to setting up a state Aquaculture Advisory Council that would not include a dedicated commercial fishing industry seat at the table, and rejected a proposal for a "living wage" requirement for aquaculture operators . Aquculturrists argued that only representatves of the aquaculture industry should be on the Advisory committee, along with representatives of the federal and state governments. The legislators added two public representatives to the proposed advisory committee, but did not add a slot for a commercial fishing industry representative. The move puzzled representatives of the fishing industry, which is finding fishpens and shellfish aquaculture operations increasingly showing up in their lobstering and fishing grounds.
PENALTIES The committee also voted to keep the exacting of Class D crime penalties for willful aquaculture violators, but added a section allowing civil penalties to be asessed for minor mistakes by operators that don't pose a significant harm and are done unintentioally. ,
The bill faces yet another work session next Tuesday.
LIVING WAGE Legislators dropped a "living wage" section from the bill, agreeing with the industry that such standards should be applied to all economic sectors in the state, not only the aquaculture industry.
TOXICS On the subject of pesticides contamination of salmon at fishfarms, legislators pressed fishpen industry for details on pesticides used by the industry, and on toxic residues in farmed salmon. But answers to neither were forthcoming. Legislators pressed aquaculture industry representatives repeatedly for facts on chemicals used by the industry and on residues found in farmed finfish in Maine waters. But the industry did not seem to have the information at its disposal
Below, read an exchange between a Maine salmon farm equipment supplier with 8 employees, who is also a microbiologist, and Representatives Nancy Sullivan (Biddeford and Kennebunkport), Paul Volenik (Brooklin, Deer Isle, Isle au Haut) and Deb McNeil (Rockland) .
The exchange, which follows part of the testimony of the aquaculture support industry representative, illuminates the difficulty Maine state legislators have in getting toxics information from the salmon farm industry. What information the industry has supplied the legislature is often at odds with information supplied by the Maine Department of Marine Resources. There are wide variances between the two on the types and amounts of chemicals used by the industry. Information on whether traces of them are showing up in the salmon being sold to consumers and the environment seems virtually non-existent.
START OF BILL KELLEHER TESTIMONY EXCERPT:
"I could name three or four operations down the line that don't use antibiotics Some in fact, used zero antibiotics last year. A trend that is continuing in the industry. Its expensive to administer antibiotics
In disease monitoring 100% of the broodstock we get eggs from are tested. 100% All the fish in the freshwater portion of their life given three inspections, the fish are monitored throughout their life in the marine environment
There's a lot more testing done on aquacultured fish than the wild fish and research fish at state or federal levels.
On an economic level. There are a lot of companies like ours. We're a small company with eight employees eight full time five part time. Of those eight, five graduated from the University of Maine. These are highly technical jobs that we need these people for. At a time when people talk about all the people that get degrees from the University moving out the state, we're one of the companies that's keeping them here.
Tourism is fine. Wwe need technical jobs and I think the industry and companies like ours provide those kinds of jobs. Thank you.
QUESTIONS
Rep Nancy Sullivan: How many antibiotics did you say you used?
A: Theres only one that's approved for aquaculture.
According to here, that we received from the Department during the work session the last time on this bill , one of the things that concerns me,there are compounds out there I can't even begin to say . There are approximately about 100 investigated new animal drugs for aquaculture that are currently under review, including something, called Slice. I was not able to determine the exact number of these proposed for use. Of these compounds, oxytetracycline , is fully approved.
We have a whole list of these. I distinctly remember asking at the work session it was shortly anthrax scare, I knwe that there was something concerning the postal workers, a particular band name, that might create a 'superstrain'. I asked if that might not happen here and you said "You don't think so". To me that was not good.
I also asked about the residue in these fish, with all the chemicals in it. Are people ingesting that?Jjust as you have mercury in fish, and I couldn't get straight answers.
A: I.... Well, I...
Sullivan: This is the problem, at least for me, I can't speak for the rest of this committee, but for me I know that you have to be very careful with what you take for drugs youself , you're not to mix up or have interactions of medications.
We didn't get information, and then we finally got it and it was "Well you can't really do this" and "We're not sure about that "we not sure exaclty how many we're going to use", and then you come in and say there's just "one".
Then you ask me to make a decision that could be very well affecting the health of people. So, your testimony is in exact opposition to what I have here. And now we have to weigh whose testimony is more important. I think that 's an unfair situation to put a citizens' legislature in."
A: If I could respond to that. There's actually one approved. The compounds you're talking about are under investigational use. When they use the majority of those compounds, Slice, and those things, they are used under "investigational minimal drug", which is administered through the FDA. There are very strict regulations that go along with the use of those drugs, It has to be done under veterinary oversight., There's a large amount of documentation that goes along. It must be submitted to either the FDA in the case of those drugs, and EPA .
And so, while my testimony is correct, there's one, there might be two, I can't remember, but one antibiotic that approved for aquaculture. The whole list you have there are drugs that can be used in aquaculture but they have to be used under very specific requirements and they have withdrawal periods that are far in excess of any of the withdrawal periods that are found with approved drugs. The manufacturers of the drugs have to make the case to FDA and EPA that this with period is appropriate for these certain drugs.
I don't want to give the impression that there is indiscriminate use. The regulatory framework is there to use investigational drugs for specific reasons within certain animals, whether in poultry, swine or fish., Those have to be followed very specifically and FDA has oversight over the use of those compounds;
Sullivan: There three different compounds here. We actually have a site number Five sites are using one, ten sites are using five sites are using another That ws the information from our Marine Department.
And I still have not gotten an answer about creating a superstrain. If it works in people I don't understand why. We have the same mediciines. I might go back to the prescription laws
Every body's been fighting the cost of prescriptions. we know wwe can get a prescitption for our pet, and we know it sthe same darn drug used for people, and it costs about two thirds less.
I don't care whose overseeing this: FDA, the EPA, the FBI, the CIA. It doesn't make any difference to me. I want to know about the residues that's lef tin it and I want to know about superstrain that's left in it when people ingest this fish. And I want to know about "Superstrain" and I have not gotten a solid answer from anybody, in work sessions or in public hearings.
I'm not trying to be tough, but we are public policy makers.
And I'm frustrated that we're getting different answers. It went from... well, one to two...
This is a serious business, no one here wants to put anybody out of business. We have a 200 million dollar deficit. Last thing I want to do is put anybody out of business. And I ve got a problem with serious antibiotics that e very carefull with. And I'm jus tnot getting anwers and that's very difficualt for me
A: to put it in perspective, keep in mind that tetracycline which is used in the fish farming industry is done under veterinary prescription It is used without veterinanry prescription, and any farmer can go and buy it in the lobster industry. I would be more concerned with, and I'm not here to point fingers at a different industry. I would be more concerned with the indiscriminate use not of your veterinary oversight in an industry such as an industry such as that, where they do use it prpohylatically in the absence of disease, a than an industry thtat uses it for very specific out breaks of certain diseases The items you have listed there they do have to and, being a microbiologis, my forte is not antibioitc resistance in bacteria. But FDA is moving, we've seen in it in Europe already, they're moving away from drugs that are in classes that overlap with human drugs, because they're concerned with antiobotic resistance happening in those compounds."
Sullivan: Only two things that I want to say. You don't have to answer them. First of all these compounds we be used to treat under FDA and that's true for three four or anything else Also told that some of these compounds are used to treat small children and they're very are hazardous to have
And we were told that as we try to develop a vaccine there is a vaccination process now as we try to control this ans we have been useing wholesale vaccination and trying to control the problems we have had.
So again, what I'm reading, what I'm hearing, doesn't mesh. That's the frustrating part for me. I was frustrated last week as I''m sure every body else was. I'm well aware of what this means. these things are very important. If I want to buy organic meat I can if I want to pay the price . In thise scase there are foreign substances being put into comsomething for ingestion or food and that concerns me I have not gotten a total answer to anything This has been going on for about a year. What you're saying doesn't jive with what we've heard before. So please try to understand. Thank you
* Senator Lemont: Will you respond to Representative Sullivan's three points she raised, after you answer another question?
* A: Fine.
* Representative Deborah Mcneil.(R-Rockland) I'm still not clear about the compounds Representative Sullivan referred to. You said thyey're under FDA scrutiny right now. Are they being used in the ocean off the state of Maine? Or are they being used trial runs somewhere else in other countries?
A: Take the instance of Slice. Slice is approved in numerous other countries, the EU, I think its in final approval in Canada That's a compound thats used for sea lice. Its used here. What the pharmaceutical manufacture had to do is go to the FDA say this is what we want to do, this is how we want to use it, therese are the protocols. They had to get study monitors, veterinarians who would oversee the use of this, how much was going where, keep track of exactly how much went to what fish and what it was going to be used under.
They can do that in order collect data for final approval at FDA. But before that even happens, before they can get into the INET process they have to provide a lot of data to FDA because obviously they don't want items going into the fish that are then going into the food chain. They are very cognizant of the fact their their agency is responsible for protecting the integrity of the food chain.
So they have very refined protocols to follow for gathering data on new compounds. As I said regarding the withdrawal for certain of these things, FDA establishes them on a compound by compound basis and says if you treat, this is how many days you have to keep these fish off of particular drugs before they can be slaughtered .
McNeil: So these fish are being treated in the coastal waters of Maine.
A: Yes.
McNeil: Generally, you're just using tetracycline?
A: Well I wouldn't go, There are approved drugs, and they can under the way. If its an approved drug, they go to a veterinerian, the veterinarian goes to the site. and diagnoses the disease and says, "Yes this is what's happening". They then write a prescription, They have the amount of the antibiotic they want to use make sure its sensitive, and they use to treat a very defined number of fish. In an "I net" its much more complicated. You're not reallyu using an approved druge a veterinanrialn can't just say I want to use this particular drug. It has to be done through a study set up under the auspices of the FDA where data is collected in a codified manner. When the trial is done, it is submitted to FDA for review. FDA does not like to give INETs for drugs that aren't gone though full approvals. So this data would be in suport of an approval of a particular compound. You spoke if it being used by the lobsterset industry. What do they use it for.
One of the diseases they use it for is gapkemia which is red tail in the lobster industry They;'ve historically used it. FDA gave them a structure to do that and basically they order the antibiotic without veterinary oversight,
Do they put it in dealer tanks?
A: You're getting out of my area. We don't do a lot in the salmon industry . I think its in their feed in a pellet and they feed the lobster. Because in the lobster pound they will get a certain number of mortalities because of stress and all that. Gapkemia is one of the big diseases they have to deal with. So they'll treat it with that given antibiotic. And they don't need any...We don't know how much. If there are any records on how much."
Representative Nancy Sullivan: I might be able to help with the answer for Representive McNeil
Slice is a parasitide - they use 594 grams of active ingredient and there are ten sites presently using that off the coast of Maine. In the last twelve months, at 26 possible different sites, the following compounds were applied.
One of them is the antibiotic, which only has 349 kilograms; five sites are using that.
Slice, as I told you was 594 grams of active ingredient at ten sites, and another EXCIS is used at 778 liters, I imagine that's a liquid form rather than dry substance, and that's at at five sites. So out of 26 possible sites, you have twenty sites already using, here in Maine On Maine in twelve months, less than a year we have twenty sites out of twenty six using those ingredients. That's what we got from the Department here.
Representative Volenik: I'm also concerned about the direct results of use of antibiotics, pesticides etc on humans eating the food But I'm even more concerned with the indirect results I'm thinkng in terms of on land if you have a cow and you give that cow antibiotics, you cannot use the milk from that cow for a certain number of days.
That's good . However the byproducts of that antibiotic use and other chemical use do enter the environment indirectly so we may not be drinking the milk but there may be antibiotics in the feces.
There may be pesticide use on farmland. There may be all sorts of chemical use that then thers other food chains indirectlry in ways that are not always measureable as point source pollution but end up as non point source pollution.
When that happens on land, there's a little bit of a filtering process going on .
The spreading of sludge tends to minimize and spread these, and directly mitigate the results of this. Growing vegetation tends to mitigates the result of this. I'm a little more concerned about something lieke a salmon farm where antibiotics use in the feed which is dropped inthe water some of which is caught by nets some material, fecal matter, food material may naturally be extruded through the net system and if parasitides are used and pesticides, fungicides any of these other chemicsl whether they are used externally or internally, those have a much higher likelihood of spreading in the ecology in the water system, where there's no filtering system of earth or plant material, it goes directly into the water
In the case of a parasitide that was being used on sea lice, there may have been short term studies that show ing what happens when that same product is out there and the lobsters that your reffered to see if it died. But I'm much more concerned about the long term effects of the accumulation of these chemicals parasitides especially becaus that targets arthropods. But any of these that get into the general ecology and build up and weaken that whole series of species whether its the lobsters, whether its the food that lobsters are eating, whether its ultimately the people that eat the lobster.
But could you explain to me: if we have any better filtering system onland and a less effective filering system on water, you can tell me there'll be no long term effects from using these chemicals? The antibiotics, pesticides, parasitides, fungicides?"
A: We're getting a little bit out of my area of expertise. Within the scope of ___ at FDA, manufacturres are required to do environmental impacts studies and where there compounds are in the environement. I can tell you about one instance that I know about about tetracycline which is the approved antibiobitic. Tetracycline, if it comes out as feed or feces, is chelated or bound up by saltwater and its rendered inactive almost immediately. There's a lot of factors that affect the longevity of pesticides and antibiotics in the environment. I'm not saying that all compounds are rendered inactive. I don't know about pesticides. I don't know what affect they would have. I'm not an expert on that.
Volenik: And the long term results of something like tetracycline that has been deactivated, still retains a chemcial presence a chemical compound. as that then communicates through the food chain as the chemical compound even though its inactivated in the sense of its active agency for being an antibiotic, it may have some further repercussions along the line. As simply a chemical.
A: Yeah that would be one way to look at it. I couldn't comment on that I just don't know aenough about that pearticualr aspect of the environmetnal part of it.
END OF EXCERPTED TESTIMONY .
Links to more information about the aquaculture issue along the Maine coast
* Eastern
Penobscot Bay Environmental Alliance
* Friends of Blue Hill Bay
* Maine Department of Marine Resources Aquaculture webpage
Penobscot Bay Watch: People who care about Penobscot Bay