Don't Eat Fish Caught West Of Harbour Bridge

[Dreamtime]

1. Why has commercial fishing been banned in Sydney Harbour?

A total ban has been placed on commercial fishing as a precautionary measure after test results revealed elevated levels of dioxin in a number of species of fish and crustaceans in Sydney Harbour.

2. What are dioxins and what effects do they have on humans?

Dioxins are a group of chlorinated compounds produced unintentionally by industrial processes, as well as through some natural processes, such as bushfires. Dioxins are found in low levels in the normal Australian diet and at these low levels present no known health risk. A recent national study concluded that the exposure to dioxins in Australia is generally lower than in other countries. Australian Health authorities have established a "safe" intake level of dioxin. This level has been set to protect individuals from health concerns including cancer.

3. Why are there high levels of dioxins in Sydney Harbour?

Residues of dioxins in seafood caught in the Harbour/Parramatta River are likely to have their sources in contaminated sediments in or near Homebush Bay. Current levels are likely due to many years of industrial activities along those waterways. Millions of dollars are being spent on cleaning up contaminated sediments in the affected areas.

4. What is the Government doing about protecting human health in the Harbour?

The Government has announced a $5.8 million package that includes a voluntary buy out of commercial fishing businesses, further testing for dioxins in the fish, and a public information campaign to advise recreational fishers and the community about the risks of eating seafood caught in the Harbour. Millions of additional dollars are being spent on cleaning up the contamination, particularly near Homebush Bay.

All commercial fishing has been banned in the Harbour, including prawn trawling. Further sampling of fish and prawns from Port Jackson has been undertaken. Warning signs have been erected around the Harbour and a multilingual brochure is being distributed to warn recreational fishers of the dangers of consuming fish and crustaceans taken from the Harbour. Information is being sent to all one year and three year fishing fee receipt holders, fishing clubs, and charter boat operators who are known to reside in the Sydney region and progressively to those fishers located elsewhere. Information is also being disseminated through FishCare volunteers, Waterways Officers, Water Police, through the print media and through the Department of Primary Industries, NSW Health, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation and NSW Food Authority websites. This information is updated as new testing results emerge.

5. Is recreational fishing banned in the Harbour?

Recreational fishing in the Harbour has not been banned, but fishers are urged to follow dietary advice on the consumption of seafood from the Sydney Harbour, Parramatta River and other connected tidal waterways. Fishers can also continue to practise catch and release.

Based on advice from an expert panel, the Government is recommending that:

• No fish or crustaceans caught west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge should be eaten. You should release your catch.

• For fish caught east of the Sydney Harbour Bridge generally no more than 150 grams per month should be consumed.

• Testing of popular species has allowed for more accurate dietary advice. The table below provides advice on the maximum consumption of single species.

Recommended maximum intake based on eating a single species caught east of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Species Number of 150 gram serves Amounts per month

Prawns* ......................4 per month 600 g

Crab ......................5 per month 750 g

Bream ......................1 per month 150 g

Flounder ....................12 per month 1800 g

Kingfish ....................12 per month 1800 g

Luderick ....................12 per month 1800 g

Sand Whiting .....8 per month 1200 g

Sea Mullet ....................1 every 3 months 50 g

Silver Biddie .....1 per month 150 g

Silver Trevally .....5 per month 750 g

Tailor .....................1 per month 150 g

Trumpeter Whiting ....12 per month 1800 g

Yellowtail Scad .....8 per month 1200 g

Squid ....................4 per month 600 g

Dusky flathead 12 per month 1800 g

Fanbellied leatherjacket 24 per month 3600 g

Important Note: This advice is provided if one single species is being eaten. For example eating 150 grams of Bream and 600 grams of prawns in one month would exceed the recommended intake. Eating 300 g prawns, 300g sand whiting and 300g yellowtail scad in one month would equal the recommended maximum intake.

6. Will the Government be providing financial assistance to commercial fishers who are no longer able to take fish and prawns from the Harbour?

Yes, $5 million was allocated to buy out Port Jackson estuary prawn trawl fishing businesses and estuary general businesses with a history of operating in Port Jackson. The program was designed to enable commercial fishers to exit the industry with a fair ex-grata payment (note estuary fishers can operate in one of seven regions along the coast).

7. Do the recent test results mean that the commercial fishing ban will be lifted?

No, the commercial fishing ban will remain as the results from commercial species such as squid, bream and prawns still show elevated dioxin levels. However, some initial arrangements have been made to give commercial fishers who accepted the voluntary buyout offer the first option to re-enter the relevant fishery subject to appropriate conditions, if the harbour is found to be safe for commercial harvest in the future.

8. Will the Government be testing fish for dioxins in other estuaries?

The Department of Primary Industries acts on advice from NSW Health and the NSW Food Authority on fish contamination issues. The Department of Primary Industries also acts on advice from the Department of Environment and Conservation on ecosystem contamination issues. When advised by these agencies, the Department of Primary Industries takes action by implementing fishing closures where appropriate, communicating health warnings where appropriate, and assisting these agencies with sampling of fish.

The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that the type of manufacturing facility that was historically located in Homebush Bay producing particularly toxic chemicals (dioxins were unintentionally produced through this production) is the reason for the elevated levels of dioxins in the Harbour. These types of facilities were not located elsewhere in NSW.

9. Will the Government be completely banning all fishing in the Harbour?

At this time, the advice from NSW Health is that it is safe to consume the recommended levels of fish and crustaceans east of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. However no seafood caught west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge should be eaten. A total ban on commercial fishing has been implemented to ensure the safety of consumers and the integrity of the seafood industry.

10. Is it safe to undertake other recreational activities in the Harbour such as boating and swimming?

At this stage it is considered to be safe to undertake boating activities and swim in the Harbour. Water quality in the Harbour is the cleanest it has been in decades. The issue is with sediments on the harbour floor, which have been exposed to industrial pollution dating back over the past 100 years, and the migratory patterns of fish from polluted areas like Homebush Bay into the cleaner waters of the Harbour.

11. Will the ban on commercial fishing impact on the availability of fresh local seafood?

The ban on commercial fishing in the Harbour will not have a major impact on the supply of fish to local seafood shops and markets, as the commercial catch from the Harbour is quite small compared to the overall availability of seafood.

Commercial finfish catch in Sydney Harbour prior to the ban:

• Total annual commercial catch is less than 2% of the finfish sold in NSW.

• Volume of commercial catch per annum = 56 tonnes.

Commercial prawns caught in Sydney Harbour prior to the ban:

• Total annual commercial catch makes up less than 1% of the traditional supply of prawns to local seafood markets.

• Volume of commercial catch last year = 5.5 tonnes.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Mariner 31

[brickman]

mmmmmmm that should make a few people think if not about them self then there kids

i've said before that it was all good untill the river cats

there was 18 inches off sedement on top off all the crap then the cats started chunning it up

not saying that i would have eaten anything be fore the cats but all that sedement has to wash in and out with the tide

hopfully it wont contaminate the rest off the harbor

i've worked at silverwater on and off for 29 years and saw the mangroves come back slowly after the late 70's you watch them slowly start to thin out

gary

[arpie]

Top info there Mariner - where did you find it??

Roberta

[slinkymalinky]

I eat fish from the harbour all the time and I'm f f f f f f f fine. ARGGGHH THE PENGUINS ARE ATTACKING... look at all the pretty birdies... yes mummy, I've done all my homework... RABBITS... yibbita yibbita

S S S S S Slinky

PS... thanks for that info Mariner... I don't feel so nervous about eating kingies now and then

[Hodgey]

I eat fish from the harbour all the time and I'm f f f f f f f fine. ARGGGHH THE PENGUINS ARE ATTACKING... look at all the pretty birdies... yes mummy, I've done all my homework... RABBITS... yibbita yibbita

S S S S S Slinky

PS... thanks for that info Mariner... I don't feel so nervous about eating kingies now and then

That explains a lot, Slinky!

Hodgey

[maniak]

Hi Guys

What about Lake Illawarra-Port Kembla?

Plenty of fish and especially prawns are caught and sold out of this lake every day. The NSW Food Authority has already banned the taking of cockles beacause of high levels of heavy metals present and oyster farming is banned because the lake is so heavily polluted.

Shouldn't the public be made aware of the health risk they are being subjected to.

Why shouldn't the same levels apply to Lake Illawarra as Sydney Harbour?

Maniak

Edited August 18, 2008 by maniak

[Dreamtime]

Top info there Mariner - where did you find it??

Roberta

Hi Roberta,

I was flicking through the DPI site and stumbled over it. The ban has been in force since 2006, and I assumed that most people would be aware of the info. Thought I would put it up as a reminder as there are many posts here about fish caught in the harbour. Don't wish to see too many raiders with 3 heads or the like - do we?

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/spotli..._sydney_harbour

[daleyboy]

Heres an interesting fact on Dioxins from when they did all the testing on fish.

Tailor and mullet caught in balmoral had much higher levels (about 3 times if i recall) of dioxins compared to Flathead (which had borderline safe levels) caught in homebush bay!

[Dreamtime]

Heres an interesting fact on Dioxins from when they did all the testing on fish.

Tailor and mullet caught in balmoral had much higher levels (about 3 times if i recall) of dioxins compared to Flathead (which had borderline safe levels) caught in homebush bay!

Check the eating chart, 1 seving of mullet every 3 months only is recommended and the tailor is 1 serving only per month.

These fish are definately off my diet now!!!

[Ray R]

I eat fish from the harbour all the time and I'm f f f f f f f fine. ARGGGHH THE PENGUINS ARE ATTACKING... look at all the pretty birdies... yes mummy, I've done all my homework... RABBITS... yibbita yibbita

S S S S S Slinky

PS... thanks for that info Mariner... I don't feel so nervous about eating kingies now and then

That cracked me up Slimky.. Cheers..

[Andy Loops]

Thanks for the detailed information.

Nevertheless, bear in mind the poor and homeless eat discarded food out of rubbish bins, the same bins ppl chuck their greeny filled tissues into... I'll bet my balls noone will suffer any sickness or disease as a result of eating fish from ANY waterway. If its that bad the fish wouldnt be swimming!

No one thinks anything of a salmonella filled kebab after a night on the piss, but a few fish per month from the harbour whoaaaa!!! its a life or death situation.

C'mon ppl... weapons of mass destruction... dont believe everything we are told.

Politcal correction and cautions have gone mad.

Thats my OPINION.

But it was an interesting piece of information and did get me thinking.

Thanks Carl.

Musty.

Agreed Musty - but if you are a parent with kids you have an obligation to at least read further and think about these fear factor stories.

If its got the Government spending money then something must be wrong....

Slink you are a crack up mate

Andy

[SAfisho]

It all comes down to common sense and whether the angler's an idiot or not.

Species such as kings travel in and out of the harbour all the time, they only spend a relatively short amount of time in the harbour itself and the small amount of dioxins are of no concern. They also eat baitfish only.

Species such as bream, whiting and mullet feed in the contaminated silt and some of them may spend their whole lives there! (e.g. bream). I wouldn't eat a bream out of the harbour, and you'd be a fool to eat something even west of Cremorne.

You won't get sick from one fish, but I've heard my doctor (who is a keen fisho) say he thinks people who have consistently eaten species such as bream and whiting from polluted areas have damaged their kidneys. Their kidneys couldn't take all the shit in the fish.

IMO, only kings and other pelagics are truly safe to eat out of the harbour proper.

[bart]

HAVE BEEN EATING A LOT OF HARBOUR FISH LATELY.

THOUGHT I WAS ENTERING A DEMENTIA STATE OF MIND.

AH!! MAYBE IT IS OLD AGE.

ANYWAYS THE BLACKFISH TASTE YUMMY.

CHEERS BART.

[Mondo Rock]

IMO, only kings and other pelagics are truly safe to eat out of the harbour proper.

Except for tailor apparently. I'm really surprised to hear that tailor are as bad as bream.

[brickman]

hey guys i have looked in to this regarding parra river about 2 years ago

it goes like this the worms and prawns and tinny things in the mud and sediment are the carryers the bream and whiteing eat them and the dioxins and heavey metals are passed on they do'nt shit it out it builds up

when they get eaten it goes up the food chain

so if you would'nt eat the bream in the river or the mullet why would you eat a jew or king that feeds on the dioxin and heavey metal filled little buggers

once you cross the line[west off the bridge] and start eating jew and kings because they travel and are only there for a short time you are only fooling yourself

i've heard off guys cutting them self and rubbing on the fish and if it stings they throw the fish back sorry that's out there as far as i'm concerned

so if you eat fish west off the bridge make shore you buy it at pymont

or like me do'nt fish there cherrs gary

[Dreamtime]

Boston, MA - A review of the literature on the health effects of dietary fish or fish-oil intake has a reassuring message for seafood lovers, anyone eating fish for health reasons, and perhaps most everyone else [1]. Levels of mercury and other contaminants in commercially bought fish are low, and their potential risks are overwhelmed by likely reductions in cardiovascular mortality, according to a report in the October 18, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"The main message is really that everybody should be eating one or two servings of fish or seafood per week for their health," Dr Dariush Mozaffarian (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA) told heartwire.

In his analysis, coauthored with Dr Eric B Rimm (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA), regular "modest" intake of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the two long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) abundant in finfish and shellfish (collectively referred to as "fish" in the article), is associated with a 36% drop in coronary disease mortality (p<0.001) and a 17% fall in total mortality (p=0.046). The n-3 PUFAs, they also conclude, appear to be important to early brain development.

"Potential risks of fish intake must be considered in the context of potential benefits," according to Mozaffarian and Rimm. "Avoidance of modest fish consumption due to confusion regarding risks and benefits could result in thousands of excess CHD deaths annually and suboptimal neurodevelopment in children."

Those potential benefits are immense compared with the highly publicized but apparently low health risks associated with methylmercury, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that have been found in some fish species, they write. The evidence suggests a potential for neurodevelopmental deficits from early exposure to methylmercury, but the risk is likely diminished by limiting intake of fish with high methylmercury concentrations.

You're talking about a 300:1, 500:1, 1000:1 benefit-to-risk ratio. And the cancer risk from consuming PCBs or dioxins in fish appears to be negligible, especially when stacked up against the likely CV protection, according to Mozaffarian. "In statistical terms, it's background noise relative to the benefit. . . . You're talking about a 300:1, 500:1, 1000:1 benefit-to-risk ratio." Moreover, he said, the evidence for CV benefit is far stronger than that for a cancer risk. "For benefits, we're talking about randomized trials and prospective studies in humans. For the risks, they're really theoretical risks based mostly on animal studies and a few limited studies in humans at much higher doses."

"I think they've put things into perspective. This is an area that gets a tremendous amount of controversy and mixed messages going out to the public," Dr Alice H Lichtenstein (Tufts University, Boston, MA), director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at her institution's Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, told heartwire. The conclusions of Mozaffarian and Rimm, she said, are "well founded" and "consistent with what a lot of people have concluded—that the benefits [of fish and fish-oil consumption] outweigh the risks."

The report's recommendation that almost everyone can benefit from a couple of servings of fish per week was directed not only to the general population and those with CV risk factors but also to women who could become pregnant or are nursing, who are urged to avoid a few species of fish that generally have higher contaminant levels.

I think it's important that women of childbearing age and nursing mothers not worry so much about mercury, which is present at high levels really in only four fishes that they're not supposed to eat. "I think it's important that women of childbearing age and nursing mothers not worry so much about mercury, which is present at high levels really in only four fishes that they're not supposed to eat," Mozaffarian said. "They shouldn't worry so much that they reduce their fish intake overall."

The report specifies that such women should avoid shark, swordfish, golden bass, and king mackerel and restrict intake of albacore tuna to six ounces per week to limit exposure to methylmercury. "However, emphasis must also be placed on adequate consumption—12 oz/week—of other fish and shellfish to provide reasonable amounts of DHA and avoid further decreases in already-low seafood intake among women."

For persons with CHD, the report says, the currently recommended target of 1000 mg/day EPA and DHA may be higher than necessary. "Our analysis suggests that lower doses may be sufficient, but given this population's higher risk and that most data are from primary-prevention studies, a target intake of 500 to 1000 mg/day—consistent with the largest secondary-prevention trial to date—appears reasonable. This could be approximated by one 6-oz serving per week of fish richest in n-3 PUFAs (eg, farmed salmon, anchovies, herring), more frequent consumption of other fish, or supplements."

For the general population, write Mozaffarian and Rimm, a weekly target of 1500 mg to 2000 mg EPA and DHA is "reasonable" and could be met by one 6-oz serving per week of "wild salmon or similar oily fish, or more frequent intake of smaller or less-n-3-PUFA-rich servings."

Anybody who eats fish at one or more servings per day, just to be on the safe side, should make sure they're eating a variety of different fish. To arrive at these numbers, they analyzed published studies that estimated the risk of CV disease, neurologic events, or cancer associated with fish or n-3 PUFA intake, and the effects of methylmercury, PCBs, and dioxins, "focusing on the evidence, when available, from randomized clinical trials and large prospective studies," pooling data or conducting meta-analyses when possible.

Collectively, the literature suggests that CHD mortality decreases by 14.6% for every 100-mg/day intake of EPA and DHA, reaching a plateau of 36% at about 250 mg/day, according to the authors. The observed 17% total-mortality reduction associated with n-3 PUFA intake in the analysis was driven largely by the reduction in CHD deaths. Statins, they observe, were associated with a 15% drop in total mortality in a recent meta-analysis.

One major caution in the report is for people who eat fish that isn't purchased from commercial sources. "Some of the inland lakes in the US are more highly contaminated with PCBs and dioxins," Mozaffarian said, "so someone who sport fishes and eats their catch frequently should consult regional advisories about what levels of PCBs and dioxins are in the different fish."

Another caveat: "Anybody who eats fish at one or more servings per day, just to be on the safe side, should make sure they're eating a variety of different fish, making sure that at least some are lower in mercury levels," he said.

The report notes that the n-3 PUFA alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) is rich in some terrestrial plant sources such as flaxseed, soy, and walnuts. Two to three grams of ALA per day, it says, "may reduce cardiovascular risk or affect neurodevelopment, but benefits are less established compared with those for EPA and DHA."

[brickman]

that article reminded me off the radio test abreveated names numbers<% ratios

it's all to much for my brain

please explain in less than 10 words what it all means carl

i think i got we should all eat more fish and a wide range and not eat fish from the parra

cherrs gary

[Dreamtime]

that article reminded me off the radio test abreveated names numbers<% ratios

it's all to much for my brain

please explain in less than 10 words what it all means carl

i think i got we should all eat more fish and a wide range and not eat fish from the parra

cherrs gary

I think they are basically saying - to hell with the heavy metals and contaminants, the benefit of eating fish outway the risk of poisoning.

[brickman]

thanks carl

so i guess it's up to you all to make up your own minds

i will not be eating any think west off the bridge never have and never will

gary

[SAfisho]

For those unaware some of the more common substances found in Sydney Harbour, but more predominant in the Parramatta River are Mercury, Lead, Iron and various other carcinogenic compounds.

[alvillanova]

good read however which fish are mainly affected, are jews a risk and if so why.........

[SAfisho]

good read however which fish are mainly affected, are jews a risk and if so why.........

Yes they are. They spend a lot of their time in the dirty water ways and eat toxic fish like mullet, whiting and yakkas. I'm not sure of their migratory patterns but I know jews have been found with pretty high levels of dioxins found in them. I now know one person who was a jew nut and ate jew all the time from the Georges River... he told me he ended up getting very sick after a few years.

Your body is not used to expelling metals, so after a while the toxins just build up.

Edited September 20, 2008 by SAfisho

[brickman]

it's very simple all the nasty crap is in the sediment where the worms,prawns crustations live and feed

it builds up in there system and is passed on up the food chain they do'nt shit out the heavey metals and dioxins

so no mater were your fish comes from if it eats from the parr and has time to digest the food what ever contaminate it had in its system is now tranfered to the larger fish

drawing the line at the bridge is by no means failsafe but the eating information the gov has posted should be taken very seriously

gary

[Streaker 4.58]

Hey all,

In my (humble fishraider forum virgin) opinion the problem with eating big fish can be summed up in one word...

'BIOMAGNIFICATION'

A simple explanation of what this means is...

Each time a species which is contaminated with say heavy metals or dioxins etc is eaten by a species higher up the food chain you basically multiply the concentration (measured in Parts Per Million or PPM) of contaminants ten fold (x10) ! ! !

This is because big fish eat lots of little fish and all the small amounts of toxins in the little fish add up in the big fishes body. Same thing happens to us as we're too part of the food chain, so if you eat lots of big fish this may POTENTIALLY make you much sicker much quicker!

Having said that let me say this ... Obviously pelagic species such as kings are feeding heaps in open waters on non contaminated fish and only part of their diet is in closed waters. Which I guess may explain their relatively low toxicity levels.

I suppose species such as mulloway are feeding far more within closed waters and much further upstream where concentrations of pollutants are generally higher resulting in higher concentrations of toxins in these fish.

Small fish such as bream may feed entirely within closed waters much further upstream resulting in very high concentrations of toxins.

So my guess is the recommended dietary intake advice is sound and based on extensive research except I can't see anyone actually weighing fish before eating and keeping a consumption diary so for me the key is m-o-d-e-r-a-t-i-o-n and I guess if in doubt pelagics are generally a safer bet.

PS. I am such a nerd, I was sure my first post was going to be a report about catching a bunch of huge kings or yellowfin or something... oh well stay tuned I'll do my best to make that my second post ! ! !

Cheers

Streaker 4.58

[andrew399]

I am very intereseted in this topic. I would like to see the amount of consumption they recomend for squid because they must be full of dioxins because they eat prawns and small fish etc... but in saying that they have a very small lifespan and reproduct alot...

I was amazed to see that luderick are cleaner then alot of species, esp tailor. I would have thought their feeding habits ie the weed that grows out of the sediment would mean they were a big no no...