Industry Tries to Lure Buyers Back to Fish : Seafood: Inspection is haphazard, critics claim, and shoppers are wary. Industry officials say fears are exaggerated.
The seafood industry has launched a counterattack against those consumer groups that charge that fish and shellfish may pose unacceptable health risks to consumers.
The effort was particularly evident at Sea Fare International 1990, a trade show held last week at the Long Beach Convention Center.
The event’s sponsor, Seafood Leader magazine, devoted an entire seminar during the three-day conference to how wholesalers, retailers and restaurateurs can respond when the wholesomeness of fishery products comes under question.
Critics have claimed that because the federal inspection program for seafood is haphazard, contaminated product can reach consumer channels more readily than is the case with other protein foods such as meat or poultry.
“I want to emphasize how important this issue is,” said Peter Redmayne, editor of Seafood Leader. “The consumer needs to be better educated (on this controversy.)”
The lead group in addressing the seafood safety issue is the National Fisheries Institute, an Arlington, Va.,-based trade association. The institute has budgeted $1 million for a 24-month education program that targets the media, seafood marketers and the public. The plan is separate from the $6.5 million advertising campaign by the National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council that urges consumers to “Eat Fish and Seafood Twice a Week.”
“The criticism of seafood has effected sales in some areas of the United States,” said Clare Vanderbeek, National Fisheries vice president. “In some areas, there is a perception that seafood is not safe. We need to turn that around.”
In 1988, the industry experienced its first drop in per capita consumption in a decade. The decline, from 15.5 pounds per person to 15 pounds, can be attributed to several factors, Vanderbeek said. These include negative press accounts of seafood and a record number of U.S. exports fueled by greater oversees demand for segments of the domestic catch.
Vanderbeek told processors at the seminar that they first must guarantee that they are selling a good product and then need to educate the public on how to handle it properly in terms of storage, preparation and cooking.
A federal official also told the gathering that more is being done to ensure a safe seafood supply than is readily known by the public.
Dick Throm, a seafood specialist with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said that his agency annually inspects between 1,000 and 1,400 domestic processors. In addition to the inspections, the agency conducts 20,000 laboratory analyses of fish and shellfish for decomposition, bacteria, parasites and viruses each year.
“What are the hazards from seafood to the public? Well, a very small percentage of the food-borne disease cases in this country can be attributed to seafood,” Throm said. “Seafood products are safe to eat; there is no question about it.”
There seems to be different interpretations as to the actual risk posed to the public from contaminated seafood.
A consultant to the fisheries institute, Anne M. Fletcher, said that only 5% of all food poisoning cases, from 1973 through 1987, can be attributed to seafood.
“The impression is that a lot of people are getting sick from seafood. That is just not true,” Fletcher said.
Even so, Throm quoted federal statistics that indicated that the risk of illness from eating raw mollusks, such as clams or oysters, is one person out of every 250 consumers.
The risk posed by all seafood products, however, is much less than that for raw or undercooked mollusks. Yet these commodities have been responsible for much of the controversy that has swirled around the industry.
In fact, the convention was abuzz over last Friday’s broadcast on ABC-TV’s 20/20 news magazine show dealing with the health risk posed by eating raw oysters, particularly those caught in the Gulf of Mexico. As many as 40% of the Gulf oysters can be contaminated with Vibrio vulnificus, a potentially severe infection, during the warm weather months. The contamination can be acute if the oysters are mishandled, or improperly refrigerated, once leaving the water.
West Coast oyster growers, who rely on aquaculture or farming methods to produce their catch, were particularly concerned about the fall-out from the television report. They do not suffer from the same contamination problems as Gulf or East Coast oyster producers and are better equipped to monitor for problems when they do arise.
“The West Coast oyster interests have the most to lose in the shellfish safety debate because many of the problems (with the species) are regional,” said Tim Smith, executive director of the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Assn.
The problem, Smith said, is water quality and not necessarily the oysters.
“Mollusks are filter feeders and the oyster will eat whatever the water is serving that particular day. And, yes, that could include fecal matter, chemical contaminants and oil residues. But there are no bad oysters, just bad water,” he said.
Smith said that Washington state alone spends $1.25 million on its shellfish monitoring program. A staff of 18 tests water quality on a continuous basis and in the past year analyzed 15,000 samples. This effort is indicative of some of the differences between West Coast oysters and their Gulf Coast counterparts.
“Our responsibility in this business should be to provide a safe and quality product,” Smith said. “Consumer safety is more important to us than consumer confidence. That’s because people are fickle and they’ll believe the last thing they hear. But maintaining water quality is the determining issue that will effect consumer safety.”
