Dear Robert,
The benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) (3,4 Benz(a)pyrene to be pedantic as Peter Howgate
says) is one of a group of chemical compounds called polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) known to be carcinogens, produced during the incomplete
combustion of organic materials, in the case of smoked fish, from wood and
charcoal.
The potential effects on humans depend on the exposure (dose and time of
exposition) going according to the literature from red blood cells damage
-leading to anaemia-, suppressed immune system to developmental and
reproductive effects and cancer.
The European Union has already set limits for this group of products. The
current regulation is: COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 208/2005 of 4 February
2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 as regards polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons; you can find it in:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_034/l_03420050208en0003
0005.pdf
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_034/l_03420050208en000
30005.pdf>
I am afraid that your smoked fish can not exceed the maximum level of 5 ėg/kg
wet weight , if you intend to export to the European Union.
Well, now see the problem from a different angle. If the PAHs are bad for
Europeans (or Americans) are bad for you too, and for all the people that
consume and produce smoked fish all around the world.
From where are coming all the PAHs around us? "PAHs are found in exhaust from
motor vehicles and other gasoline and diesel engines, emission from coal-,
oil-, and wood-burning stoves and furnaces, cigarette smoke; general soot and
smoke of industrial, municipal, and domestic origin, and cooked foods,
especially charcoal-broiled; in incinerators, coke ovens, and asphalt
processing and use." (taken from the US EPA site). In addition I would like
to say that large fires all around the world are incorporating enormous
amount of PAHs, and this may have some local impact. Some cultured shrimp
grown near large fires in an Asiatic country tested positive for PAHs, the
shrimp never was smoked but the PAHs produced during the fires passed into
the water and from there to shrimp.
In short, smoked fish is not the only "bad of the film". Smoked fish is just
one of the sources, but of course there is the need to reduce PAHs all around
the world. To reduce emission from some sources will be very difficult, but
it is necessary to do so and start from some place. Our field is fish
smoking, what to do?
First of all we have to study our smoking kiln. Direct fire smoking kilns are
not good to reduce PAHs, the best is to have smoking production detached from
the smoking kiln. The reasons are the following:
(i) Direct flames on the fish produces PAHs (fish is organic material!). It
is no sense to barbecue anything in contact with the flames, but people do
that even in developed countries.
(ii) Oil dripping from the fish into the flames produces PAHs that return to
the fish
(iii) There is no way to attempt a control of the PAHs formed during the
combustion of the firewood.
If smoking production is detached from the smoking kiln the it is possible to
reduce PAHs in the smoke. I have seen some alternatives (e.g. to make the
smoke pass trough a water rain) but I think that a valid alternative in
artisanal and semi-artisanal conditions is to send the smoke through an
inclined duct (with an angle of 195-200°, seen from the smoke producer); a
distance of 75-100 cm of duct, before to twist and enter the smoking chamber
could be enough. Part of the smoke substances will condensate and stick on
the duct wall, particularly in the upper part of the duct, and will absorb a
large part of the PAHs. Like 35-40 years ago there was some experimental work
in this sense in (then West) Germany, but I do not have the references at the
hand.
It is strongly recommended to operate the kiln in a rational way too. For
instance, a large part of the process to produce smoked fish (smoked-dried
tropical products) is geared to dry the fish, during that period smoke is not
necessary. In many tropical countries (with exclusion of rainy seasons if
that is the case) it is possible to dry the fish first in solar dryers (e.g.
solar tents) and then smoke just to give the necessary colour and flavour.
This will reduce the total production of PAHs and will reduce the need for
firewood too.
Probably you will have to conduct some applied research in order to see if
the trick works (it should), but to invest in a few analysis to modify your
process and your way of producing smoked fish is much better than to have to
play roulette and test for any single batch exported. Your smoked fish will
be safer for your family and customers at your home country too.
Hector M. Lupin
FAO Consultant
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert Stone
Sent: 20 June 2007 21:26
To: Seafood List
Subject: Smoked fish testing EU
List
I received this comment from Devfish. I have not seen anything on
this site about this. Any help?
Robert Stone
The Gourmet Food Company
Fiji
You may be aware that the EU have been getting rather excited about
carcinogens in smoked fish. They have banned imports from some countries, and
now require mandatory testing for benzo(a)pyrene, which should not be present
at levels of more than 5 microgrammes per kg in the fish muscle. Cold smoked
products normally seem to be below this level, as do fish that are hot smoked
whole and skinned before eating, but hot smoked fillets can be a problem.
Testing is also fairly costly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2007 - 05:30:06 PDT