A
Anonymous
Guest
My unstanding of the test int that Thiocyanate can come from natural sources as well, thats why it isn't being used stateside. But, I'm no expert, so Peter?
Response concerning questions about the cyanide ion testing (ISE method) and thiocyanate ion (SCN) testing.
I have already responded to Horge's posting stating that the level of cyanide ion (CN-) declines over time. Horge does not have information (and neither does BFAR) concerning how long it takes for the cyanide ion concentration in marine aquarium fishes to decline in concentration to attain a level below 0.2 mg/kg (ppm). The experience of IMA based on use of the ISE method to test over 48,000 fish specimens (at six CDT laboratories situated throughout the Philippines) was that the CN ion was detectable 2-3 weeks after they were captured using sodium cyanide in squirt bottles.
It often takes several weeks before the fish arrive at Manila-based export facilities. The majority of fish sampled from Manila-based exporters were found to have cyanide ion levels below 0.2 ppm. Consequently, no exporters were prosecuted. The test was reliable and BFAR has the database that could be used to prosecute exporters, if the Philippine government chose to do so. There is nothing in Philippine law that states the level must be 0.2 ppm or higher to support prosecutions. The new Fisheries code (Republic Act 8550) specifically bans sodium cyanide and other noxious compounds for use in destructive fishing. Prosecutions can be against those using cyanide (fishemen/collectors) or against those buying and selling fish caught be illegal/destructive means (including cyanide).
Thyiocyanate is formed by an enzyme called rhodanese by the conversion over time of CN ion to SCN ion. Published studies on rainbow trout indicate a conversion time of about 3 weeks. Similarly, the SCN ion levels were noted to decline over time (after they increased) due to excretion. So, SCN ion should be at higher levels 3 weeks after cyanide exposure than CN ion. We believe that the excretion rates of SCN ion are much slower in marine fish than that documented with freshwater fish (because of differences in how they osmoregulate). Experiments are being conducted at Ohio State University (OSU) to study uptake and clearance rates of CN ion and SCN ion in marine aquarium fish. They are evaluating an existing method to detect SCN ion using high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). I am a co-PI on this research with the scientists at OSU. The research is presently being conducted at OSU, but faces a shortage of matching funding.
While there are certain terrestrial plants that contain SCN ion (like casava), I do not know of any natural sources of SCN ion in the marine environment, that could account for the uptake of SCN ion in marine fish (e.g., through the food chain). Hence, a test indicating the presence of SCN ion in marine fish should be sufficient to prove that the fish were caught with cyanide.
The intent of the OSU research funded by the Columbus Zoo and OSU is to refine the existing method for detection of SCN for possible application in law enforcement in the United States and in other countries. Another proposal recently submitted to NOAA under their Coral Reef Conservation grants program would involve the IMA and BFAR implementing the SCN ion test in the Philippines.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
I have already responded to Horge's posting stating that the level of cyanide ion (CN-) declines over time. Horge does not have information (and neither does BFAR) concerning how long it takes for the cyanide ion concentration in marine aquarium fishes to decline in concentration to attain a level below 0.2 mg/kg (ppm). The experience of IMA based on use of the ISE method to test over 48,000 fish specimens (at six CDT laboratories situated throughout the Philippines) was that the CN ion was detectable 2-3 weeks after they were captured using sodium cyanide in squirt bottles.
It often takes several weeks before the fish arrive at Manila-based export facilities. The majority of fish sampled from Manila-based exporters were found to have cyanide ion levels below 0.2 ppm. Consequently, no exporters were prosecuted. The test was reliable and BFAR has the database that could be used to prosecute exporters, if the Philippine government chose to do so. There is nothing in Philippine law that states the level must be 0.2 ppm or higher to support prosecutions. The new Fisheries code (Republic Act 8550) specifically bans sodium cyanide and other noxious compounds for use in destructive fishing. Prosecutions can be against those using cyanide (fishemen/collectors) or against those buying and selling fish caught be illegal/destructive means (including cyanide).
Thyiocyanate is formed by an enzyme called rhodanese by the conversion over time of CN ion to SCN ion. Published studies on rainbow trout indicate a conversion time of about 3 weeks. Similarly, the SCN ion levels were noted to decline over time (after they increased) due to excretion. So, SCN ion should be at higher levels 3 weeks after cyanide exposure than CN ion. We believe that the excretion rates of SCN ion are much slower in marine fish than that documented with freshwater fish (because of differences in how they osmoregulate). Experiments are being conducted at Ohio State University (OSU) to study uptake and clearance rates of CN ion and SCN ion in marine aquarium fish. They are evaluating an existing method to detect SCN ion using high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). I am a co-PI on this research with the scientists at OSU. The research is presently being conducted at OSU, but faces a shortage of matching funding.
While there are certain terrestrial plants that contain SCN ion (like casava), I do not know of any natural sources of SCN ion in the marine environment, that could account for the uptake of SCN ion in marine fish (e.g., through the food chain). Hence, a test indicating the presence of SCN ion in marine fish should be sufficient to prove that the fish were caught with cyanide.
The intent of the OSU research funded by the Columbus Zoo and OSU is to refine the existing method for detection of SCN for possible application in law enforcement in the United States and in other countries. Another proposal recently submitted to NOAA under their Coral Reef Conservation grants program would involve the IMA and BFAR implementing the SCN ion test in the Philippines.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
PeterIMA wrote:
Peter
any idea how the fish are held during this 'waiting period'?
are they fed at all?how are they held?
not to detract from the cyanide at all, but shouldn't these issue also be addressed and enforced?
seems to me that any facility holding fish under substandard general husbandry should be shut down-if for nothing else, than for the 'obvious' practice of cruelty to animals
not that cyanide isn't cruel :wink:
mebbe it's less obvious to the naked eye, though :wink:
methinks that if the fish were kept under better conditions, at least they'd also have a better chance of recovering from cyanide damage, before getting shipped out-this should also be part of the 'attack' tack on the whole 'export' scenario-it should also be a prong in the fork that reformers want to stab with :wink:
Peter
any idea how the fish are held during this 'waiting period'?
are they fed at all?how are they held?
not to detract from the cyanide at all, but shouldn't these issue also be addressed and enforced?
seems to me that any facility holding fish under substandard general husbandry should be shut down-if for nothing else, than for the 'obvious' practice of cruelty to animals
not that cyanide isn't cruel :wink:
mebbe it's less obvious to the naked eye, though :wink:
methinks that if the fish were kept under better conditions, at least they'd also have a better chance of recovering from cyanide damage, before getting shipped out-this should also be part of the 'attack' tack on the whole 'export' scenario-it should also be a prong in the fork that reformers want to stab with :wink:
Peter,
Do you think that there are fish that make into the U.S. that contain cyanide at levels above the method lower detection limit for the ISE test method? Even a few fish that concretely test positive would be enough to establish the problem in many people's minds.
-Lee
Do you think that there are fish that make into the U.S. that contain cyanide at levels above the method lower detection limit for the ISE test method? Even a few fish that concretely test positive would be enough to establish the problem in many people's minds.
-Lee
Peter,
Do you think that there are fish that make into the U.S. that contain cyanide at levels above the method lower detection limit for the ISE test method? Even a few fish that concretely test positive would be enough to establish the problem in many people's minds.
-Lee
Do you think that there are fish that make into the U.S. that contain cyanide at levels above the method lower detection limit for the ISE test method? Even a few fish that concretely test positive would be enough to establish the problem in many people's minds.
-Lee
Response to SciGuy,
I would assume that some fish entering the US will still have cyanide ion present in the their tissue at leveles above the lower level of detection (0.03 mg/kg). Hence, it probably is possible to detect this using the APHA CN ion test proceedure (e.g., ISE method) in at least some of the fish being imported. The Swiss government and one Swiss university is presently planning to implent the ISE methodology using the SOP manuals provided by IMA. The US government or some other group could do the same.
The SCN ion detection method would be better at the importation end. It is not yet available. Hopefully, the research will be completed and the SOP for the SCN ion method made available soon.
I agree with Mary that if the question is simply whether there is proof that marine fishes contain cyanide, there is ample evidence already existing in the IMA/BFAR CDT database.
Implimentation of a cyanide testing laboratory in the USA depends on US government agencies (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service) and the availability of funding (which presently do not exist).
Peter Rubec
I would assume that some fish entering the US will still have cyanide ion present in the their tissue at leveles above the lower level of detection (0.03 mg/kg). Hence, it probably is possible to detect this using the APHA CN ion test proceedure (e.g., ISE method) in at least some of the fish being imported. The Swiss government and one Swiss university is presently planning to implent the ISE methodology using the SOP manuals provided by IMA. The US government or some other group could do the same.
The SCN ion detection method would be better at the importation end. It is not yet available. Hopefully, the research will be completed and the SOP for the SCN ion method made available soon.
I agree with Mary that if the question is simply whether there is proof that marine fishes contain cyanide, there is ample evidence already existing in the IMA/BFAR CDT database.
Implimentation of a cyanide testing laboratory in the USA depends on US government agencies (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service) and the availability of funding (which presently do not exist).
Peter Rubec
Vitz, I think your comments about feeding fish in export facilities should be directed to the MAC. Is the MAC going to refine their Handling, Husbandry, and Transport (HHT) standards to specify what exporters must do or what water quality standards must be met to obtain or retain MAC Certification? At present, the MAC HHT Core Standards (July 1, 2001 document) are too general and too vague to be followed or enforced.
Peter Rubec
Peter Rubec
PeterIMA":34pucqsq said:
Hi Peter, excellent post!
Have you or anyone you know applied for funding to set up a stateside CDT on a trial basis.
It seems to me that the Government, industry and certainly hobbyists would like to know exactly what poisoned fish are entering the country, which felons are involved in the cyanide trade at the country of origin and who are their state-side partners.
Obviously the trial stateside CDT programme would have to be undercover.
Please PM me as I have some ideas if you are interested.
MaryHM":2ezziywl said:
I've seen some of the data. These were not fish in the U.S. .
Testing over here would establish that some of the dirty fish are being imported in North America. This would rebuff the bigbox importers claim that their fish are net caught and cyanide free. I understand Mary and Peter's asertions that juiced fish are making it to the States. However, this would prove it and put major pressure on the bigbox importers to address the problem. No doubt the bigbox importers agree that there is some cyanide use in the Philippines, they just say they aren't getting the dirty fish. Prove they import dirty fish and they can't plead ignorance to the problem anymore.
Prove that the bigbox importers have dirty fish and they have a P.R. problem that they have to address.
SciGuy2":3770hgrt said:
I agree with you 100% but the evidence once established goes farther than that.
It forms the foundation for the laying of felony charges under the Lacey Act for those corporations and their owners or CEOs for having in their possession illegally caught Philippine cyanide caught fish
vitz":3bwqbymz said:
It [/b]is going to happen once it is established by a stateside cyanide detection test who the felons are.
A positive test result is the evidence necessary to prosecute the felon.
The government must act on a complaint by a complainant just as they must investigate any complaint made in other felony cases.
If the investigation shows that the evidence is there (a positive test), felony charges must be laid against the accused felon.
It will help 'seal the complaint' that the felon was responsible for the death and destruction of thousands of fish coral and the reef itself.
After a positive CDT all that will be needed is a whistle blower (complainant).
Any takers? (sorry for the bold but I do not know how to fix it)
Vitz,
Why not just deal with the facts at hand, rather than mudslinging? Wayne suggested that the MAC CDT will occur sooner than you think. Just tell us when you think it will happen and we will then wait to see if Wayne was right.
Right now BFAR and Merck are asking for delays, not MAC.
Why not just deal with the facts at hand, rather than mudslinging? Wayne suggested that the MAC CDT will occur sooner than you think. Just tell us when you think it will happen and we will then wait to see if Wayne was right.
Right now BFAR and Merck are asking for delays, not MAC.
er- i thought it was already supposed to happen-according to the 'facts' that were at hand :roll:
i don't think a reliable,mutually acceptable to the industry and scientific community, and properly enforced/ carried out test will happen as long as the ptfea is in existence
i hope i'm proven wrong
john- this is not about mudslinging, and i should know, given my alias
it's about me being sick and tired of naesco touting the 'cyanide testing has been solved already-let's move on to something else 'chant when it'll prolly take at least a few years for the test to even be worked with and enforced properly, if it's ever even implemented to action
i'm just getting real tired of narrowminded naive views of what goes on in this industry, while refusing to open ones eyes
i've been in retail, wholesale, and distribution in this industry in two countries- i know exactly how cutthroat just the retail end of it is, to say nothing of the other side
do you honestly think that mac can REALLY deal with the 'evildoers', and best them at their own game?
(mac isn't that experienced w/making death threats, carrying them out, or playing hardball pacific politics w/corrupt mafia govt's)
they've been playing it much longer, and with far more intelligence, than mac :wink:
as long as a political(read gov'tal intervention by the us to put pressure on the phillipine govt)pressure isn't applied, there will always be a cyanide problem
as long as characters like ty are around, there will always be a cyanide problem
and as long as folks like naesco believe everything they want to hear, there will always be a cyanide problem
that better?
give it a rest, k?-if anything-you're the pot calling the kettle black abit too often, lately :wink:
<sound of feces being flushed down the toilet> :roll:
i don't think a reliable,mutually acceptable to the industry and scientific community, and properly enforced/ carried out test will happen as long as the ptfea is in existence
i hope i'm proven wrong
john- this is not about mudslinging, and i should know, given my alias
it's about me being sick and tired of naesco touting the 'cyanide testing has been solved already-let's move on to something else 'chant when it'll prolly take at least a few years for the test to even be worked with and enforced properly, if it's ever even implemented to action
i'm just getting real tired of narrowminded naive views of what goes on in this industry, while refusing to open ones eyes
i've been in retail, wholesale, and distribution in this industry in two countries- i know exactly how cutthroat just the retail end of it is, to say nothing of the other side
do you honestly think that mac can REALLY deal with the 'evildoers', and best them at their own game?
(mac isn't that experienced w/making death threats, carrying them out, or playing hardball pacific politics w/corrupt mafia govt's)
they've been playing it much longer, and with far more intelligence, than mac :wink:
as long as a political(read gov'tal intervention by the us to put pressure on the phillipine govt)pressure isn't applied, there will always be a cyanide problem
as long as characters like ty are around, there will always be a cyanide problem
and as long as folks like naesco believe everything they want to hear, there will always be a cyanide problem
that better?
give it a rest, k?-if anything-you're the pot calling the kettle black abit too often, lately :wink:
<sound of feces being flushed down the toilet> :roll:
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
