What lies beneath

Serious questions are yet to be answered relating to whether old contaminants persist in the sea as well as the origins of recent spills and apparent fish kills.

All sorts of theories have been advanced and, unfortunately, no single authority has resolved the matter.

When the shoals of fish washing up along the coast first came to the attention of authorities a few weeks ago, fishermen pointed to natural causes. It is a leap year, they said.

They knocked civil society groups for blaming toxic chemicals. They decried poor sales as a result of the statements by the Fishermen and Friends of the Sea.

But we should not have to rely on the word of tradesmen. As we often say, fisherman never say he fish rotten.

Disappointingly, while the Environmental Management Authority (EMA), the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) and divisions of the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture have jumped on the case, they have all failed to put the matter to bed.

The EMA pointed to the likelihood of dumping, citing, among other things, what it deemed net marks on the dead fish. No Corexit was found, they said, but other tests were pending.

The EMA chairman, Nadra Nathai- Gyan, pledged to keep the public informed. But her agency, while paying lip service to accountability, has not released its test results in full, vaguely citing legal reasons. Nor has it updated us on subsequent findings, if any.

The scope of its examinations is also unclear. At the same time, civil society groups are reporting extremely high levels of petroleum byproducts in samples. And further oil spills have been spotted.

Dead fish continue to wash ashore.

Where does this leave the consumer? Either eat fish and risk consuming dangerous chemicals or cut off this vital source of protein.

Or, alternatively, buy produce from abroad.

Yet, the recent poultry scare that came about after a Parliament committee raised the alarm over imported chicken shows even the latter option is potentially fraught with risk. Existing State laboratories that are supposed to be testing food quality are not working.

Not only are the labs in abeyance, but there are question marks over agencies involved in the current impasse.

If all this is not bad enough, according to one recent report there is currently no IMA board. The lines of accountability are very hazy. Assuming contamination is proved, the EMA has no power to regulate the market.

While fishermen have cried foul, it is far too early to talk about compensation. The more pressing issue is establishing the facts. The State has to rule out whether there is a clear and present danger to public health. Failing this, we must assume the worst.

Even the aquaculture sector, which presents an alternative means of producing seafood, is currently unregulated.

Sadly, the Seafood Industry Development Company Ltd (Sidco) has played a limited role in all of this. Sidco’s mandate is to partner with all stakeholders to ensure the seafood industry of Trinidad and Tobago attains viability on a sustainable basis. Since food safety is a key part of this process, it is manifest that this taxpayer-funded agency is failing.

The State’s haphazard approach is jeopardising the viability of the fishing industry at a time when it is needed more than ever. The floundering must end.