Here's a way to publically blow the lid off re: cyanide

[Anonymous]

This is addressed to all those that have ever accused me of being status quo regarding the cyanide issue:

According to publicly available information regarding cyanide testing, the currently available CDT (that relies on the ion-selective electrode method) used by the IMA can routinely detect cyanide several weeks after exposure. After/during that time the residual cyanide may be converted into other compounds (such as thiocyanate) for which there are currently no accepted detection methodologies. Unless fish are held for several weeks before they are imported there is a CDT that could detect cyanide in the U.S.. The current IMA CDT would no doubt catch at least some of the "juiced" fish that were illegally caught and shipped to the U.S. I'm certain the current test would create havoc to those that import juiced fish - enough havoc to move the issue to a higher prominence both in the public and the regulatory eye.

All it would take to really turn the heat up on the issue of cyanide captured fish being imported into the U.S. would be to purchase target fish from some major U.S. importers and run the IMA CDT and publicly disclose the results. This would not require a random sample – a person would be looking for the most likely "dirty fish". This need not be expensive, it would certainly cost less than sending netting to the P.I. According to our industry experts here finding blatantly dirty fish shouldn’t be that difficult to do. Just be certain to contact local media to get the word out and create public outcry.

Some possible ramifications:
1) Government suspension of tropical imports. (A lot of establishment jobs might be lost. It might be fair – a lot of these people have been lying for a long time about the cyanide issue.)
2) Increased policing stateside of tropical imports.
3) Exporters might hold fish longer prior to shipping to assure that cyanide is either excreted or converted. (That would be fine, let the juiced fish die in the exporters hand and not the hobbyist hands – that would hurt their pocketbook)
4) Intensification of policing activities in the collection areas.
5) Increase in net capture of fish.

Forget the idea of a boycott, test and create gridlock for the status quo.

Anyone, at any time, could seriously upset the cart that has been supposedly pushed around for so long.

To intense for ya? Anybody want to send me a box of triggers and angelfish?
-Lee

 

[John_Brandt]

Some possible ramifications:
1) Government suspension of tropical imports. (A lot of establishment jobs might be lost. It might be fair – a lot of these people have been lying for a long time about the cyanide issue.)
2) Increased policing stateside of tropical imports.
3) Exporters might hold fish longer prior to shipping to assure that cyanide is either excreted or converted. (That would be fine, let the juiced fish die in the exporters hand and not the hobbyist hands – that would hurt their pocketbook)
4) Intensification of policing activities in the collection areas.
5) Increase in net capture of fish.

6) Thousands upon thousands of fish caught with cyanide are shipped to countries other than the USA.

Testing in the Philippines eliminates this back door.

 

[Anonymous]

Always easier to start house cleaning in your own house.

 

[Anonymous]

I can see it now...

News Headline:
Alexander Gould, voice of Nemo, publically weeps when he find's out that thousands of Nemo's friends are needlessly killed annually due to poison.

 

[John_Brandt]

Always easier to start house cleaning in your own house.

Agreed, and that is why the Philippines needs to get serious about cleaning its own house. MAC is doing things about it to help them over there right now.

 

[naesco]

This is addressed to all those that have ever accused me of being status quo regarding the cyanide issue:

According to publicly available information regarding cyanide testing, the currently available CDT (that relies on the ion-selective electrode method) used by the IMA can routinely detect cyanide several weeks after exposure. After/during that time the residual cyanide may be converted into other compounds (such as thiocyanate) for which there are currently no accepted detection methodologies. Unless fish are held for several weeks before they are imported there is a CDT that could detect cyanide in the U.S.. The current IMA CDT would no doubt catch at least some of the "juiced" fish that were illegally caught and shipped to the U.S. I'm certain the current test would create havoc to those that import juiced fish - enough havoc to move the issue to a higher prominence both in the public and the regulatory eye

All it would take to really turn the heat up on the issue of cyanide captured fish being imported into the U.S. would be to purchase target fish from some major U.S. importers and run the IMA CDT and publicly disclose the results. This would not require a random sample – a person would be looking for the most likely "dirty fish". This need not be expensive, it would certainly cost less than sending netting to the P.I. According to our industry experts here finding blatantly dirty fish shouldn’t be that difficult to do. Just be certain to contact local media to get the word out and create public outcry.

Some possible ramifications:
1) Government suspension of tropical imports. (A lot of establishment jobs might be lost. It might be fair – a lot of these people have been lying for a long time about the cyanide issue.)
2) Increased policing stateside of tropical imports.
3) Exporters might hold fish longer prior to shipping to assure that cyanide is either excreted or converted. (That would be fine, let the juiced fish die in the exporters hand and not the hobbyist hands – that would hurt their pocketbook)
4) Intensification of policing activities in the collection areas.
5) Increase in net capture of fish.

Forget the idea of a boycott, test and create gridlock for the status quo.

Anyone, at any time, could seriously upset the cart that has been supposedly pushed around for so long.

To intense for ya? Anybody want to send me a box of triggers and angelfish?
-Lee

You missed a few other possible ramifications.
1. Organizations like Greenpeace will do cyanide testing funded by themselves on fish purchased by them from US based importers.

2. Criminal investigations will take place and prosecutions will be commenced against the owners or CEOs of importers who knowingly deal in the cyanide trade.
Those prosecutions will take place under the Lacey Act.
Here is an excellent summary of the Lacey Act.
http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/lacey.html
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking a law. IMO, accused felons cannot say that they did not know that the fish were cyanide caught.
Accused felons must show that they performed due dilegence on their Phillippine suppliers to ensure the Phillipine supplier was not in violation of Philippine Cyanide Use laws.
Accused felons can show the prosecutors that they performed due diligence by proving they themselves performed random independent Cyanide Testing on species normally caught with cyanide like tangs, butterflys, triggers and angels.
Criminal trials such as a Lacey prosecution, tend to be long and expensive because numerous witnesses including those in the know in industy (no doubt some of you here as expert witnesses), Philippine lawmakers, scientists and investigators will be required.

 

[Anonymous]

There could be zillions of ramifications. Don't forget the lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. PETA would probably get involved as well trying to nail the coffin closed on marine imports.

 

[naesco]

There could be zillions of ramifications. Don't forget the lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. PETA would probably get involved as well trying to nail the coffin closed on marine imports.

There is certainly no doubt about that!

 

[MaryHM]

6) Thousands upon thousands of fish caught with cyanide are shipped to countries other than the USA.

Testing in the Philippines eliminates this back door.

Since the US imports approximately 80% or greater of animals collected for this trade, testing in the US would cure a lot of the ills. Fishermen aren't going to say "Ok, cyanide this batch because it's going to Europe. Get the next batch with nets."

 

[MaryHM]

I don't believe the current cyanide test will work after several weeks, otherwise people wouldn't be trying to research the thiocyanate ion test.

 

[Anonymous]

Are fish held more than a couple of weeks prior to sending them out?

Granted the sooner the test is run after exposure the more accurate the results will be. However all that would be needed to expose things publically would be for some tainted fish to be found.

 

[MaryHM]

No. I'd say 2-3 weeks tops. Generally less. But there was a post somewhere (either here or at RC) by horge that said after a few days the reliability of the current test diminishes greatly. I think it was information he obtained directly from BFAR, who is conducting the testing.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry I added a sentence to my above post after you replied.

Horge said that after holding for a period the cyanide value would be below the P.I. legal action level of 0.2 ppm. However, he further concluded that the lab tech could tell whether the fish had been juiced even though the value was below the legal action level.

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=30284&start=0

We would not be bound by the 0.2 ppm; anything above the method lower detection limit would be sufficient to establish cyanide presence.

It has been established that cyanide can be routinely detected even after several weeks using the ISE electrode method. No doubt the quantity deminishes over time but as long as there is a measurable quantity...

It appears that the current test could very well establish that cyanided fish were being imported into the U.S.

 

[MaryHM]

However, he further concluded that the lab tech could tell whether the fish had been juiced even though the value was below the legal action level.

I think that is more of a personal observation call than a solid scientific foundation of whether cyanide is present or not. There would have to be a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" limit set. Hopefully Peter will chime in on this.

 

[Anonymous]

I do not know whether the ISE method is well enough accepted to establish guilt or innocence in a U.S. court. It certainly would be good enough to bring the issue to light in the court of public opinion, however.

I think all positive results would have to be prefaced with "specimens were found to contain cyanide via the ISE method", for instance, when publicly talking about the results.

 

[MaryHM]

If that's all you're looking for, Peter already has that information in the IMA CDT database.

 

[Anonymous]

A thiocyanate test would extend the period in which cyanide byproducts could be detected.

I wonder how the laws are written. Is it illegal to capture a fish using cyanide or is it illegal to capture a fish using any chemical method? If the laws are specifically written for cyanide then establishing thiocyanate wouldn't do much good.

 

[MaryHM]

If thiocyanate is the natural end product of cyanide exposure, then why wouldn't it be any good?

 

[Anonymous]

Thiocyanate might be a typical end product of cyanide exposure. Is it the only one? Is there any other way thiocyanate could have gotten into the animal? Thiocyanate could conceivably also result from direct exposure to thiocyanate or another related compound. Are there any other compounds that could result in thiocyanate in the animal? Does thiocyanate always mean that the animal was exposed to cyanide?

I could conceive of a scenario wherein all cyanide was converted into thiocyanate. If the laws specify only that capture via cyanide is illegal then the person would have to be let go because the animal did not contain the compound.

Dr. Rubec?

 

[kylen]

I will volunteer fish from my facility if you would like. We can coordinate the test up here in Vancouver.