Réaction à la campagne de blanchiment du saumon d’élevage
Suite à la publication d'une étude interne, le Comité scientifique pour la sécurité alimentaire norvégien (VKM) a décidé de lever toutes ses recommandations de restriction de consommation de saumon qui concernaient les femmes en âge d'avoir des enfants et les femmes enceintes.
Cette annonce a été immédiatement communiquée aux grands médias français (Libération, L'express, Ouest-France, Charente Libre, 20minutes, TF1, BFMTV, France-Soir...). Cette campagne de communication de très grande ampleur, à quelques jours des fêtes de fin d'année, et surtout quelques jours après que le prix du saumon norvégien a atteint son plus bas en dix ans, est orchestrée par l'institut norvégien des produits de la mer, Norges sjømatråd, une organisation gouvernementale norvégienne bénéficiant d'un budget communication de 40 millions d'euros alloués par le ministère des affaires étrangères.
Cet organisme, de même que l'agence de sûreté alimentaire (VKM) qui a publié les recommandations, ne sont pas des organismes indépendants puisque tous les membres de leur conseil d'administration sont nommés par les ministères de la santé (pour VKM) ou agriculture et pêche (pour Norges sjømatråd et Fiskeriedirektoret, NIFES). Lorsque l'on sait que la sœur de la première ministre norvégiennne, Marit Solberg, est à la fois vice-présidente de Marine Harvest (la plus grande industrie de saumon d'élevage) et à la tête du Norges sjømatråd, on se rend compte de l'ampleur du conflit d'intérêt.
Sur le fond, nous déplorons ces conseils qui, de l'avis de scientifiques indépendants, sont erronés et formulés de façon à induire les consommateurs en erreur.
Seulement trois produits chimiques testés
L'étude sur laquelle se fondent les recommandations, montre que trois classes de produits toxiques (dioxines, PCB de type dioxine --dioxine-like en anglais-- et mercure) ont diminué dans le saumon. Puisque les dioxines et les PCB-DL diminuent dans l'environnement il est normal qu'ils diminuent également en fin de chaîne alimentaire d'un poisson carnivore comme le saumon. En fait, en commandant une étude concernant uniquement ces produits dont on savait que leur concentration diminuait, le VKM ne prenait pas beaucoup de risques. Cependant nous sommes heureux de voir que le nettoyage des aliments donnés aux poissons que nous demandions porte ses fruits.
Malheureusement plusieurs études ont montré que le saumon d'élevage contient de nombreux autres produits dangereux¹ pour la santé qui ne sont pas analysés dans l'étude sur laquelle se fondent les recommandations. Notons également que les PCB-DL ne sont pas les seuls types de PCB dangereux pour la santé², or les autres types de PCB n'ont pas diminué comme le montre la très récente étude de Nøstbakken et al. (2015), pourtant citée dans le rapport.
De plus, les autres produits n'ont été recherchés que dans les aliments des saumons d'élevage et non dans les saumons eux-mêmes. Or plusieurs études récentes prouvent que la chair de saumon d'élevage cause le diabète et des dérèglements du métabolisme³.
Mauvaise façon d'établir des recommandations
Par ailleurs, les consommateurs doivent savoir que les nouvelles recommandations norvégiennes se fondent sur les limites de PCB-DL et de dioxines pour la vente au sein de l'UE depuis 2013 qui sont 20 fois plus élevées que celles autorisées pour la viande d'animaux terrestres, alors même qu'il a été démontré par des chercheurs norvégiens que la graisse de saumon accumule jusqu'à 10 fois plus de produits organiques persistants (POP) tels que les PCB, que la graisse de bœuf, de volaille ou de porc⁴. La différence de limite entre saumon et viande est le fruit d'un long lobbying de la Norvège auprès des institutions européennes.
Il faut par ailleurs savoir que les taux de PCB autorisés sont l'objet de nombreuses critiques, en Europe comme aux États-Unis, car ils sont estimés comme trop élevés par des pédiatres comme le Dr. Anne-Lise Bjørke Monsen⁵. Les taux mesurés actuellement dans la chair de saumon d'élevage ne peuvent pas être considérés comme sûrs pour tous les consommateurs. De façon générale, si ces limites autorisées sont en accord avec les législations européennes, elles reposent sur des méthodes d'évaluation de la toxicité traditionnelle où "la quantité fait le poison". Or de nombreuses études montrent que certains produits, tels que les perturbateurs endocriniens, affectent la santé à très faible dose⁶.
Diminution des effets bénéfiques
Le rapport de la NKV montre aussi que la teneur en Omega-3 a diminué d'une quantité allant de 30 à 50% depuis 2006 dans le saumon d'élevage, ce qui signifie que ses bienfaits supposés pour la santé doivent être largement remis en doute. En fait, cela devrait être l'objet de vives inquiétudes pour les autorités sanitaires qui devraient mettre en avant ce fait plutôt que de déclarer que le saumon est meilleur que jamais.
Les flubenzurons sont-ils tabous?
Les flubenzurons sont employés en très grande quantité dans les fermes de saumons pour lutter contre les poux de mer qui attaquent les saumons. De fait, depuis que certains poux développent une résistance à ces produits, les quantités employées sont devenues hors de contrôle. Ceci est extrêmement préoccupant car les flubenzurons, mais aussi leurs produits métabolites, sont suspectés d'être dangereux pour la santé, la fertilité et le développement des enfants. Pourtant, l'étude commandée par le VKM considère que «ce problème est hors-sujet de l'étude considéré.» Nous trouvons terriblement grave que des autorités sanitaires puissent se comporter de façon si irresponsable en refusant d'aborder les vrais problèmes.
Nos recommandations
En conclusion, EELV Europe du Nord met en garde les consommateurs contre ces recommandations données pour le moins légèrement et invite les consommateurs à se passer de saumon d'élevage y compris durant les fêtes de fin d'année.
Nous demandons également aux autorités françaises et européennes d'établir des contrôles stricts sur tous les produits toxiques connus pour être présents dans le saumon y compris le DDT et les pesticides toxaphènes et de ne pas considérer seulement trois classes de produits pour établir des régulations de sûreté alimentaire.
Cette affaire doit également nous rappeler l'urgence de réguler les perturbateurs endocriniens à l'échelle européenne et nous soutenons de tout cœur la Suède qui menace d'attaquer en justice la commission Européenne si celle-ci ne met pas rapidement en place une législation tel qu'elle s'y était engagée.⁷
Enfin, nous rappelons nos demandes aux autorités norvégiennes de mettre toutes les fermes de saumon d'élevage dans des piscines étanches sur terre ferme. C'est en effet le seul moyen de contrôler les déchets, d'élever des saumons non infestés de poux et de protéger l'environnement qui est terriblement affecté par les fermes flottantes.
English version
Following the publication of an internal study, the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) has decided to lift all restrictions on salmon consumption including recommendations for women of child bearing age and pregnant women.
This announcement was immediately communicated to the major French media (Libération, L'express, Ouest-France, Charente Libre, 20minutes, TF1, BFMTV, France-Soir...). This very large scale communication campaign, a few days before winter celebrations and especially a few days after the price of Norwegian salmon hit its lowest in a decade, is orchestrated by the Norwegian Institute of seafood, Norges sjømatråd, a Norwegian governmental organization benefiting from a communication budget of EUR 40 million allocated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This body, as well as the food safety committee (VKM) who published the recommendations, are not independent bodies. Indeed all members of their board of directors are appointed by the ministries of health (for VKM) or agriculture and fisheries (Norges sjømatråd and Fiskeriedirektoret, NIFES). When we know that the sister of the Prime Minister of Norway, Marit Solberg, is both Marine Harvest's Vice President (one of the largest farmed salmon industries) and the head of Norges sjømatråd, we realize the extent of the conflict of interest.
Concerning the content of the communication, we deplore these recommendations which, in the opinion of independent scientists, are erroneous and formulated to misinform consumers.
Only three chemicals tested
The study on which the recommendations are based, show that three toxic chemical classes (dioxins, dioxin-like (DL) PCBs and mercury) have decreased in farmed salmon recently. Because dioxins and DL-PCBs in the environment are decreasing, it is normal that they also do at the end of the food chain feed products for carnivorous fish like salmon. In fact, by asking to study only these classes of chemicals that were expected to decrease, the VKM was not taking much risk. Howerver, we are pleased to see that the cleaning of feed given to farmed fish as we have been asking for this for a long time, is having an effect.
Unfortunately, several studies have shown that farmed salmon contains many other dangerous¹ chemicals that are not analyzed in the study on which the recommendations are based. Note also that DL-PCBs are not the only types of hazardous PCBs², and these other types of PCBs have not decreased as shown in very recent study by Nøstbakkenet al. (2015) from which the recommendations are made.
In addition, many other chemicals have been looked for in the feed but not in salmon themselves. Notably, several recent studies show that consuming farmed salmon causes diabetes and disorders of metabolism³.
Wrong way of deriving recommendations
In addition, consumers should know that the new Norwegian recommendations are based on regulatory limitations of DL-PCBs and dioxins established for selling the product in the European Union that are recommended in 2013 to be 20-times higher than those allowed for terrestrial meat products, even though it has been established by Norwegian researchers that the farmed salmon fat accumulates up to 10-times more persistent organic pollutants such as PCBs than beef, poultry, or pig⁴ fat. The stark discrepancy between the maximum allowable limits for farmed salmon and meat is the result of a long history of lobbying of Norway in the European institutions that regulate food safety.
One should also know that the authorized levels of PCBs are widely criticized in Europe and the United States because they are considered to be too high by pediatricians like Dr. Anne-Lise Bjørke Monsen in Norway and other health experts in North America⁵. The levels currently measured in the farmed salmon flesh cannot be considered as safe for all consumers. In general, if the allowed limits are in line with European legislation, these rely on evaluation methods of traditional toxicity where "quantity makes the poison." Yet numerous studies have shown that some products, such as endocrine disruptors, affect the health at very low doses⁶.
Decrease of the health benefits
The report also shows that the Omega-3 content decreased by an amount between 30 to 50% since 2006 in farmed salmon, which means that the purpored health benefits of farmed salmon consumption in relation to the known risks from contaminants are fastly decreasing. In fact this should be a major concern for health authorities who should stress this point instead of claiming that salmon is better than ever.
Are flubenzurons taboo?
Flubenzurons are used in huge amounts in fish farms to get rid of the sea lices attacking the salmons. Because some lices are becoming resistant the amounts of flubenzurons used by the industry is getting completely out of control. This is extremely concerning since flubenzurons but also their decay metabolites are suspected of being harmful for human health, fertiliy and chil development. However the study on which the VKM bases its recommendations considered that "this issue is beyond the scope of this opinion to comment on." We find it extremelly alarming that health organisation can behave so irresponsively by just simply looking elsewhere.
Our recommendations
In conclusion, EELV in Northern Europe, warns consumers against these recommendations which were given inconsiderately, to say the least, and recommends consumers to avoid farmed salmon, including during the holidays.
We also ask the French and European authorities to establish strict controls on toxins such as DDT and toxaphene pesticides that are known to be present in salmon and not only consider three groups of chemicals to establish food safety.
This case should remind us the emergency of regulating on endocrine disruptors at the European level. We fully support Sweden who threatened to sue the European Commission if it were to be postponing regulation in spite of having commited to do so.⁷
We suggest serving size recommendations are made rather than total weekly consumption so that consumers can easily understand and compare fish to meat products for contaminant levels.
We recall our previous demands to the Norwegian authorities, to put all salmon farms in on-land in closed-containment pools. This is indeed the only way to monitor waste, raise salmon without sea lice infestation that bring other disease, and to protect the environment that is terribly affected by the conventional methods used in floating farms.
2 commentaire(s)
Here is the answer we got from VKM
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your interest in the work of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety.
Referring to the article on our latest report your website, we would like to draw your attention to some of the points that you mention. There seems to be some misunderstandings in your article. http://horsdefrance.eelv.fr/2014/12/16/reaction-a-la-campagne-de-blanchiment-du-saumon/#en
About the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety
The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) is an independent committee under the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. VKM has its own secretariat and budget. Neither the Ministry of Health and Care Services, other ministries, Norwegian Food Safety Authority, the Norwegian Environment Agency or others may interfere in the scientific work of the committee.
VKM consists of a Scientific Steering Committee and nine Scientific Panels comprising about 100 experts. The experts are appointed by the Ministry of Health and Care Services on the basis of their scientific qualifications, and do not represent their employers or other stakeholders. All experts fill out declaration of interests.
The establishment of VKM was based on the principles for risk analysis as defined in Codex Alimentarius and in the European Union Food Law.
The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) carries out independent risk assessments for the Norwegian Food Safety Authority across the Authority’s field of responsibility as well as environmental risk assessments of genetically modified organisms for the Norwegian Environment Agency.
The risk assessments are used when giving advice to the relevant ministries, when choosing measures to take and as a part of the background for developing new laws and regulations.
In Norway, consumer advice on fish consumption is given by the Norwegian Health Directorate and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. The reports by VKM are used as a foundation when advising the consumer. VKM does not give advice or recommendations to the consumer.
Risk assessment in VKM
A risk assessment in VKM is a review, summary and assessment of the scientific documentation available. Scientific findings and date come from peer reviewed articles and published documents, including risk assessments from national and international institutions and from national and international surveillance and monitoring. VKM does not undertake research.
All our reports are transparent. That gives anyone the opportunity to critically go through every step of our work.
Risk assessments in VKM follow current international standards and methodology in the respective fields of responsibility for VKMs panels. All risk assessments are published electronically on our web pages as statements from the relevant panels or the Scientific Steering Committee.
Benefit- and risk assessment of fish in the Norwegian diet – an update of the report from 2006 based on new knowledge
The current report is a benefit- and risk assessment of fish in the Norwegian diet. VKM Norway, the main pollutants in fish are PCB, dioxins and mercury. In 2006 VKM concluded that the contaminants that could pose a potential risk to public health through fish consumption mainly were methylmercury, dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs (dl-PCBs).
In this update VKM was requested to consider the benefits of eating fish with regard to the intake of nutrients and the risks associated with the intake of mercury, dioxins and dl-PCBs and comment on whether this change the conclusions from the report in 2006. Additionally, on the basis of updated knowledge, VKM was asked to comment whether other substances, like pesticide and residues of veterinary medicinal products, could affect the conclusions with regard to the impact on public health.
The available concentration data of contaminants in wild fish is not suitable for time-trend analyses. A rough comparison of contaminant concentrations between 2006 and 2014 indicates minor or no changes in concentrations of mercury, dioxins and dl-PCBs in wild fish species. However, for dioxins and dl-PCBs, a decreasing environmental time-trend is expected to be reflected also in wild fish species.
Due to replacement of fish oil and fish protein with plant proteins and vegetable oils in farmed fish feed, the concentrations of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, and mercury have changed in farmed Atlantic salmon. VKM concludes that the current concentrations of dioxins and dl-PCBs, and mercury in farmed Atlantic salmon are reduced to about 30 and 50%, respectively, of the corresponding levels in 2006.
VKM concludes that with the present mean concentration of mercury in fish on the Norwegian market and the present fish consumption in Norway, the methylmercury exposure from fish is below the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1.3 µg/kg bw/week for more than 95% of the population of 2-year-olds, adults and pregnant women. This exposure represents a negligible risk and is of no concern.
VKM has also discussed other undesirable substances
VKM is of the opinion that the present exposure to residues of veterinary medicinal products including residues of antibiotics in farmed fish in the Norwegian diet is of no concern since the levels are very low and often not detectable even with sensitive analytical methods.
For new contaminants in fish feed like the pesticide endosulfan, polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) and mycotoxins, VKM is of the opinion that the concentrations in farmed fish in the Norwegian diet are likely not a food safety issue since the concentrations are very low and often not detectable even with sensitive analytical methods.
Regarding the environmental contaminants brominated flame retardants, VKM refers to the conclusions in a risk assessment from EFSA in 2011 that the health risk associated with the current exposure to these compounds is low. The amount of fluorinated compounds such as PFOS and PFOA in the Norwegian diet is much lower than what is tolerable according to an EFSA assessment in 2008.
Following a comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature on the positive health effects of fish consumption and the contribution from fish to intake of beneficial compounds as well as exposure to hazardous contaminants in Norway, VKM concludes that the benefits clearly outweighs the negligible risk presented by current levels of contaminants and other known undesirable substances in fish. Furthermore, adults including pregnant women with fish consumption less than one serving per week may miss the beneficial effects on cardiovascular diseases and optimal neurodevelopment in the foetuses and infants. In contrast to the conclusion in 2006, VKM concludes that there is no reason for specific dietary limitations on fatty fish consumption for pregnant women.
The full report is available in English on our website http://www.english.vkm.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=278&trg=Content_6390&Content_6390=6393:2104475::0:6744:1:::0:0
Please let us know if you require any further information about this report or about our work in general. If you want we are happy to invite you to Oslo for a meeting about our work and how we best can serve your needs regarding
Best regards
Astrid Bjerkås
Head of Communications
Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM)
And our answer:
Dear Mrs Bjerkås,
thank you for your email. We are pleased to see that VKM cares to answer our critics.
Unfortunately your email is a mere summary of the report, which we had already read and does not bring us new information.
We find it interresting that you consider that having experts appointed by a government that has family interest in the salmon industry is a proof of independance. This may be legal but we are sorry to tell you that this is not what citizens consider as independence.
When we read page 226 of your report « VKM concludes in this report that there is no reason for specific dietary limitations on fatty fish consumption for pregnant women. » It is hard to consider that VKM does not gives consumption advices to the population, especially when the report is so widely publicised in the European media.
We find it extremely fascinating that you explicitely refuse to answer our questions concerning flubenzurons and non-dioxinlike PCBs.
Also, you do not comment on our concerns about TWI, we understand that you consider that being within legal bounds is enough but as policy makers it is also our duty to ask if these legal bounds are protecting the society.
As a summary, we are sorry to say that your email does not appease our concerns and we will hence keep our article online and publicise it as much as we can for the sake of consumers health.
Faithfully yours,
Diane Berbain and Timur Delahaye
Laisser un commentaire