FFOS misreads the fish kills test results

The article stated, “In response the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) and the Institute of Marine Affairs indicated that the fish were dumped by fishermen… However, the group FFOS voiced their concerns that exposure to toxic chemicals, namely Corexit… Eventually the Government made an attempt to intervene by sending samples of fish caught in different areas in Trinidad to the US Food and Drug Administration for testing.

“While the results of these tests have not be made available, the FFOS indicated that they commissioned their own test carried out by the University of Trinidad and Tobago which showed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in several species of fish in La Brea, at up to 26,000 ppm (parts per million), with the safe exposure being 0 ppm.

To date the issue has not been satisfactorily resolved.” The IMA wishes to clarify the following statements: (1) The Ministry of Planning and Development published in the Newsday and on the ministry’s website a synthesis of the results received for the fish samples which were sent to the US for testing on January 26.

These results can also be acquired under the Freedom of Information Act.

(2) The IMA previously clarified its position in relation to elevated concentrations of PAHs (level of 26,000 ppm) to the FFOS. A discussion on this matter was held between the IMA, EMA and FFOS at the EMA’s office in St Clair in September 2016, and follow-up correspondence was sent to the FFOS on the interpretation of the test results.

The FFOS unfortunately made a fundamental error by misinterpreting the test results to be PAHs when it was in fact a non-specific test for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).

Therefore, a wrong comparison was made regarding the type of test result and standard for safe levels in fish.

This gave an erroneous “perception” that the fish was contaminated.

(3) The IMA is aware that the test results quoted by the FFOS in the article were not provided by the UTT .

A check should be made to confirm the laboratory that performed the tests, the type of tests conducted and the interpretation of the results.

The IMA wishes to strongly recommend that matters involving public health should always be scrutinised for “scientific correctness” since it could only lead to wrong perceptions and cause unnecessary public misgiving and distrust, which have a negative impact on livelihoods.

Lorraine Barrow Institute of Marine Affairs