Catherine O’Neill over at the Center for Progressive Reform writes a careful and detailed takedown of the science being used to attack raising the fish consumption rate in Washington state. Here’s a taste:
In recent public comments, industry has taken the tack of gutting the FCR. They have argued that people’s intake of salmon ought to be excluded from the FCR, on the theory that salmon, which are anadromous (i.e., they spend a portion of their lifecycles in freshwater and saltwater environments), obtain their contaminant body burden outside of waters of regulatory concern. If salmon are getting their contaminants elsewhere, this argument goes, Washington ought not seek pollution prevention or cleanup from industries within its jurisdiction. Because salmon comprise a considerable portion of Washingtonians’ fish intake, to exclude salmon from the FCR would be to decrease significantly the protectiveness of the environmental standards.
…NCASI states that “the science clearly shows that >95% of the contaminant body burden found in adult salmon is accumulated in the open ocean.” The studies upon which NCASI relies, however, make no such finding. Rather, they find that contaminant body burdens on this order are accumulated by salmon “in marine waters” – including the waters of the Puget Sound.