Mississippi oysters safe to eat, experts say

[ensho]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/26/mississippi.safe.oysters/index.html?hpt=T2


-snip-

"Like all the seafood samples collected and tested from Mississippi territorial waters since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, our Mississippi oyster tissue samples have undergone rigorous testing, and have been proven to be well below levels of concern for hydrocarbons," said Dale Diaz, fisheries director for the state Department of Marine Resources.

The agency conducted the tests with the state Department of Environmental Quality, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The report was released Wednesday.
-snip-
-------------------------

gee, all 3 of them together in the same lab doing the testing. could that be?

'below levels of concern'. whose levels? whose concerns?

[shraby]

1. What about the dispersant used? Were they even tested

for that? Oysters are known for cleaning water. Are they absorbing it?

[Subdivisions]

2. '...below levels of concern for hydrocarbons...'

But still with levels of hydrocarbons present?

No thanks. I'll have the steak please.

[pitohui]

3. well is there any number of tests that would please you?

or would you just be happy to put us all out of business with insinuations not based on any facts or knowledge or tests of your own?

at some point, if NOAA says it, FDA says it, and miss. DEQ says it...who the hell else needs to say it?

if you think the fed gov't and the miss. state gov. are all friends and bestest buddies, i got news, is all i'm saying, one of these groups would break out and look for their 15 minutes if they found something controversial to get themselves in the news

also they got that state right next door, you may have heard of it, where there is LOTS of competing oystermen, you don't think those guys would be happy to jump on it and put their competitors out of business...

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. lol

Yeah, right! We know they would surely be looking out for our health! Credibility. Shot.

[golddigger]

5. Haha. Enjoy.

[Javaman]

6. My answer to them: You go first. nt

[Urban Prairie]

7. Rigorous?

The real public health issue here is obviously the oysters' contamination due to Corexit chemicals as well as the ACCUMULATED amount of hydrocarbons that will possibly continue to be absorbed and filtered by these shellfish in the future as well. Just not nearly enough time has passed for any reassurances by the FDA to gain my trust and raise my confidence level yet. There is no evidence of "equal" dispersement/settlement of the crude on the Gulf's seafloor as well. One area that is tested could be far less contaminated or saturated with hydrocarbons and Corexit chemical toxins than another that HASN'T BEEN TESTED!!

[emilyg]

8. I can live without oysters.

[GA_ArmyVet]

9. Let me see the experts eating them first...

then maybe I will try them...hell, I dont like oysters anyway....but same goes fro shrimp, crab, and lobsters, and any other fish there.

[LWolf]

10. I'll pass, thanks. nt

[Nihil]

11. "... proven to be well below levels of concern for hydrocarbons"

I see no reason to disbelieve them.

I see no reason why they would not be at the same level of health/pollution
as they were before April so if you were prepared to eat the oysters before,
(I can't stand them myself) then there is little reason not to eat them now.

Mind you, I notice that they don't mention the "levels of concern for nitrates"
and other pollutants considering the recent reports of the dead-zone caused
(as always) by agricultural runoff ... there again, food safety has never been
a particular concern of the FDA if there is any impact on their sponsoring
industries.
:shrug: