
Reporter Miriam Wang of the ProPublica blog points out that although seafood from the Gulf has been tested for oil content, testers at the Food and Drug Administration [6] (FDA) neglected to test whether the chemical dispersant applied to the oil in the Gulf could be found in the seafood. She writes, "[The] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the FDA and the Gulf states have been rigorously testing Gulf seafood for oil ... But they’re not chemically testing -- at least, not yet -- for the presence of oil dispersant. BP has thus far applied more than 1.7 million gallons of one chemical dispersant, Corexit [7], to the Gulf." The major problem: the FDA has not the slightest idea what effects the dispersant has on sea animals that become seafood. “There’s not a huge body of research that has been done,” Meghan Scott, an FDA spokeswoman, said in the article. “While we are finding that [dispersant] is harmful to the living fish itself, there’s a difference between what it does to a living fish and any harm that it might have for a human consuming a fish that was in or near water with dispersant in it.”
Links:
[1] http://dev.prwatch.org/users/35283/steve-horn
[2] http://dev.prwatch.org/topics/health/food-safety
[3] http://dev.prwatch.org/topics/environment
[4] http://dev.prwatch.org/topics/health
[5] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.prwatch.org%2Fspin%2F2010%2F07%2F9268%2Fgulf-seafood-chemically-tested-oil-not-dispersant&linkname=Gulf%20Seafood%20Chemically%20Tested%20for%20Oil%2C%20But%20Not%20Dispersant
[6] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Food_and_Drug_Administration
[7] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Corexit
[8] http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/gulf-seafood-gets-chemically-tested-for-oil-not-dispersant