Saving Seafood

Trump budget plan would slam Bay

March 7, 2016 — The Chesapeake Bay Program and other federal initiatives that could impact the Bay have been targeted for steep cuts in preliminary Trump administration budget plans sent to federal agencies, prompting alarm from conservation groups and lawmakers alike.

According to a report in The Washington Post, a budget blueprint for the 2018 federal fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would cut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by nearly a quarter, from $8.2 billion to $6.1 billion, and slash its workforce from 15,000 to 12,000.

Included was a massive 93 percent cut — from $73 million to $5 million — to its Bay Program Office, which coordinates the state-federal partnership. The funding supports research, monitoring and modeling efforts, but the lion’s share — 72 percent — goes to states and local governments to support cleanup efforts.

“The proposed reduction in federal investment in Chesapeake Bay would reverse restoration successes,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Baker. “The EPA role in the cleanup of the Chesapeake is nothing less than fundamental. It’s not just important, it’s critical.”

He noted that a bipartisan group of 17 House members from the Bay watershed last month called on the Trump administration to preserve full funding for the EPA’s Bay efforts, and said he hoped the agency’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, would support the program.

The budget proposal was developed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, without input from agencies.

During his confirmation hearing, Pruitt said the Bay effort was something that should be a “model” for the nation, and that “EPA plays a leadership role in mediating cross-state air and water pollution.”

Besides the Chesapeake Bay, funding for the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico and Puget Sound were also slated for similarly massive cuts of 90 percent or more.

Read the full story at The Bay Journal

FDA, EPA Release Final Fish Consumption Advice

January 24, 2017 — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have issued final advice regarding fish consumption, with the aim of helping pregnant women and those of childbearing years, along with breastfeeding mothers and parents of young children, make better choices about healthy and safe-to-eat fish, including shellfish.

To simplify the selection process, the agencies have created a reference chart (pictured) that sorts 62 types of fish into three categories: “Best choices” (two to three weekly servings recommended), “Good choices” (one weekly serving), and “Fish to Avoid.” According to FDA and EPA, “Best Choices” fish make up almost 90 percent of fish consumed in the United States.

An FDA analysis of fish consumption data discovered that half of pregnant women surveyed ate fewer than 2 ounces a week, much less than the recommended amount. Because the nutritional advantages of fish consumption are key to healthy development during pregnancy and early childhood, the agencies are advising two to three weekly servings of lower-mercury fish for pregnant women and women who may become pregnant, or 8 to 12 ounces. However, since all fish contain at least traces of mercury, which can be harmful to the brain and nervous system after prolonged exposure, the maximum level of consumption recommended in the final advice is still the previously recommended weekly level of 12 ounces, consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

For adults, a usual serving is 4 ounces of fish, measured before cooking, while serving sizes for children should be smaller and adjusted by age and total calorie needs. The agencies recommend that children eat fish once or twice weekly, chosen from a variety of species.

Read the full story at the Progressive Grocer

New FDA seafood consumption guidelines criticized by NFI

January 19, 2017 — U.S. seafood leaders and suppliers are expressing concern about new governmental guidelines issued Wednesday, 18 January regarding seafood consumption among pregnant women, parents and other consumers.

The new final advice document from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency is meant to help women who are pregnant or may become pregnant – as well as breastfeeding mothers and parents of young children – decide which fish are healthy to eat. To that end, the agencies divided 62 types of seafood into three categories: “Best choices” (eat two to three servings a week), “Good choices” (eat one serving a week) and “Fish to avoid.”

Fish on the “Best choices” list account for more than 90 percent of the fish consumed in the U.S., according to the agencies. Best choices include salmon, pollock, anchovy, herring, Atlantic mackerel, lobster, scallop, shrimp, tilapia, catfish and canned light (skipjack) tuna. Good choices, which should be eaten once a week, include Chilean sea bass, halibut, carp, rockfish, snapper, Yellowfin tuna and albacore tuna.

Fish that should be avoided – because they contain the highest mercury levels – include King mackerel, orange roughy, marlin, shark, swordfish, bigeye tuna and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, according to the FDA and EPA.

However, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) issued a statement criticizing the guidelines, calling them “confusing.”

The new advice “runs the risk of confusing moms and nutrition professionals alike,” the NFI said. “With lists, categories and an unclear message that includes suggestions on how often to eat buffalofish, weakfish and sheepshead, the advice has nutrition professionals scratching their heads.”

“Clear, concise direction that encourages pregnant women to eat more fish for optimal baby brain and eye development is a science-based message that’s needed. I don’t see that message in this document,” said Rima Kleiner, registered dietitian with the NFI. “FDA numbers show that pregnant women eat less than two ounces of fish per week as it is. The FDA’s clinical goal, originally, was to increase that number. That message is lost in this advice.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Sen. Whitehouse Mentions RI Fishermen During Pruitt Hearings

January 19, 2017 — WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse quizzed President-elect Trump’s nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency about his support for Rhode Island fishermen.

During Senate hearins today, Whitehouse asked Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt if “he would support the fishing and aquaculture industries in the face of climate change, and whether he would protect Rhode Islanders from out-of-state polluters.”

“As we discussed when you and I met, the oceans off our Ocean State are warming due to fossil fuel-driven climate change,” said Whitehouse. “It is crashing our fisheries, like lobster and winter flounder, and making earning a living harder for our fishermen. I see nothing in your career to give those fishermen any confidence that you will care one bit for their well-being, and not just the well-being of the fossil fuel industry.”

Read the full story at Patch Narragansett

What Does A Trump Presidency Mean For Hawaii’s Environment?

November 22, 2016 — President-elect Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and “bullshit.”

On the campaign trail, he pledged to dismantle clean energy plans, pull out of an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and ease regulations on coal, oil and gas production as part of his plan to “Make America Great Again.”

What Trump will actually do after he takes the reins of government in January from President Barack Obama remains to be seen. But nonprofit groups, lawmakers, government officials and others say Hawaii needs to remain vigilant about protecting its environment over the next four years.

They say that means lawyering up to fight court battles, empowering citizens, reminding local decision-makers of their authority and investing more resources into state and county agencies that can backstop changes Trump and a GOP-controlled House and Senate may make at the federal level.

“The state has often felt like it can just leave it to the feds,” said David Henkin, a Hawaii-based attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization. “They’re not going to be able to pass the buck anymore. It’s time for them to step up.”

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

Long Island Sound is a fight worth the engagement

May 4, 2016 — U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has launched a dramatic — if quixotic — drive in Congress for an $860 million-a-year program to protect Long Island Sound.

May his effort be successful. But even in pushing the issue into the news, Murphy does a service in keeping awareness of the Sound’s fragility in the public conversation.

The Sound, as noted here often, is a multi-million dollar economic asset and a major component in the state’s quality of life. It is never to be underestimated as an economic driver.

A Hearst Connecticut Media investigation last year of federal Environmental Protection Agency documents uncovered unsettling data on the threat to marine life from pollutants that continue to flow into the Sound.

Read the full story at Greenwich Time

NEW YORK: Federal fish fight erupts over Hudson River PCB cleanup

March 31, 2016 — FORT EDWARD, NY — Federal agencies are fighting over how quickly the PCB dredging project of the Hudson River by General Electric Co. might someday make the fish once again safe to eat.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is disputing a finding by two other agencies — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — that EPA seriously overestimated by “several decades” how quickly recently-concluded GE river dredging will reduce PCBs in fish to levels fit for human consumption.

On Tuesday, EPA issued a 110-page rebuttal to the NOAA and Fish and Wildlife findings, which were first reported in 2015 and this week published in a peer-reviewed national scientific journal. Last fall, GE wrapped up a six-year dredging project between Fort Edward and Troy, although a coalition of environmental groups and river advocates said too much toxic pollution remains left behind.

EPA claimed less optimistic conclusions on future PCB levels in fish by other federal scientists “are not supported by the full range of available evidence,” according to an EPA statement accompanying its rebuttal.

Read the full story at the Albany Times-Union