Sushi Otaku

Archive for the ‘Sushi and Health’ Category

Just eating fish is not enough, apparently. Studies show that the omega 3 benefit from different fish is not the same, and some fish high in omega 3 fatty acids aren’t as beneficial as other fish high in omega 3s. So if you are looking for your daily DHA boost, some fish offer higher quality bio availability omega 3 fatty acids than others. From the Omega 3 FAQ, here is a post that describes the source of omega 3 fatty acids.

I just wanted to pass along a little information I received recently. Apparently six people became ill with Vibrio parahaemolytics from raw oyster consumption in the source state, Washington. The raw oysters were distributed to 11 other states and five countries (Canada, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore and Thailand). No other illnesses have been reported. Guidance for safe consumer consumption of fully cooked oysters is included.

FDA Expands Warning on Eating Raw Oysters
Media Inquiries: Michael Herndon, 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Additional Growing Area Linked to Illness Outbreaks

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to eat raw oysters harvested from an additional part (growing area 5) of the southern tip of Hood Canal in Washington state due to a foodborne illness outbreak caused by Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacteria. This follows an earlier outbreak and August 10 warning about oysters harvested from growing area 6 of Hood Canal.

Symptoms of the illness, vibriosis, include watery diarrhea, often with abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, fever, and chills. Usually these symptoms occur within 24 hours of ingestion and last no more than three days. Severe disease is rare and occurs most commonly in people with weakened immune systems. Those who believe they have experienced these symptoms after consuming raw oysters should consult their health care provider and contact their local health department.

Raw oysters harvested from growing area 5 in Hood Canal from July 31 through August 20, 2007 have caused at least six people to become ill in Washington state. To date, records indicate that raw oysters from the area were distributed to Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington state, British Columbia (Canada), Bali (Indonesia), Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand.

The Washington State Department of Health has closed the growing area associated with the illness and has asked commercial oyster harvesters and dealers who obtained oysters from this area to recall them.

Consumers who have recently purchased oysters should check with the place of purchase and ask if they were harvested from the affected growing areas. The recall involves both shucked oysters and oyster in the shell (shell stock oysters).

Those with weakened immune systems, including people affected by HIV/AIDS, chronic alcohol abuse, liver, stomach, or blood disorders, cancer, diabetes, or kidney disease, should avoid eating raw oysters, regardless of where they are harvested.

FDA advises that consumers can continue to enjoy oysters in many cooked preparations by doing the following:

At Restaurants and other Foodservice Establishments:

· Order oysters fully cooked.

In the Shell:

· Purchase oysters with the shells closed

· Throw away any oysters with shells already opened.

· Never allow raw seafood to come into contact with cooked food.

· Boil or steam the oysters:

· Boil oysters until the shells open. Once shells open, boil for an additional three to five minutes.

· To steam—add oysters to water that is already steaming and cook live oysters until the shells open, once open steam for another four to nine minutes.

· Use smaller pots to boil or steam oysters. Using larger pots, or cooking too many oysters at one time,

· Discard any oysters that do not open during cooking.

Shucked Oysters:

· Never allow raw seafood to come into contact with cooked food.

· Cook the oysters in one of the following ways:

· Boil or simmer shucked oysters for at least three minutes or until the edges curl.

· Fry at 375° F for at least three minutes.

· Broil three inches from heat for three minutes.

· Bake at 450° F for 10 minutes.

For more information:
Hood canal oyster area closed — second closure due to illness outbreak – a news release from the Washington State Department of Health
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2007_news/07-143.htm

FDA’s discussion on V. parahaemolyticus is in the “Bad Bug Book.”

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap9.html

A description about V. parahaemolytics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/vibrioparahaemolyticus_g.htm

CDC/MMWR gives a list of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports at CDC relating to V. parahaemolyticus.. The date shown is the date the item was posted on the Web, not the date of the MMWR. The summary statement shown are the initial words of the overall document. The specific article of interest may be just one article or item within the overall report.

http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?action=search&direction=desc&queryText=vibrio+cholerae&sort=date&subset=mmwr

NIH/PubMed (a service of the US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health) provides a list of research abstracts contained in the National Library of Medicine’s MEDLINE database for V. parahaemolyticus..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&dispmax=50&term=O139%5BWORD%5D%20AND%20Food%20Microbiology%5BMeSH%5D

AGRICOLA will provide a list of research abstracts contained in the National Agricultural Library database on V. parahaemolyticus.

http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&CNT=25&Search_Arg=Vibrio+cholerae+non-o1&Search_Code=GKEY&STARTDB=AGRIDB

The Seafood HACCP Alliance Compendium and the FDA’s Hazards Guide provide information on how to develop HACCP plans to control for this biological hazard.

http://seafood.ucdavis.edu/haccp/compendium/chapt20.htm – HACCP Alliance Compendium

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/haccp4d.html – FDA’s Hazards Guide (note the FDA is expecting to release a new version possibly by the end of this year)

US FDA Food Code recommendations for cooking fish (includes molluscan shellfish as defined by the FDA seafood HACCP regulation 21 CFR 123 part 123.3(d) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/searule3.html ) is 145F/63C for 15 sec.; 155F/68C for 15 sec for comminuted fish; and 165F/74C or above for 15 sec for stuffed fish.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/fc05-3.pdf – see 3-401.11 Raw Animal Foods (starts on p. 72)

A list of resources on V. parahaemolyticus are listed at the bottom of this announcement.

Every once in a while I read something about the restaurant business that makes me so incredibly happy that I am a regular at a few sushi places and trust them implicitly. I walk in, they know I am a regular and I am treated as such. There is a reason that I am a regular too, I trust their practices and I love their food. And most especially, they are nothing like Sushi World.

I don’t think it takes a brain surgeon to realize that making sushi in a place used for pigeons and cats is not a good idea. Especially when your customers are starting to suffer from food poisoning. I can only wonder why it took the Australian authorities so long to shut them down. Places like this are certainly not limited to Australia, and I have heard my share of horror stories about places in North America, but I’ve always associated Australia with fresh seafood (perhaps a stereotype, but at least a good one). I’ll have to get myself over there to test the waters, so to speak. And maintain my status as a ‘regular’ at my local places, so when I’m in the kitchen talking to the chefs, I can be sure that there are no critters present, be they furry or flying.

All sushi in the US is flash frozen at some point in transit before it gets to your table, which I believe is a legal requirement. This is done to kill any dangerous parasites (such as Anisakis simplex) in the fish and protect consumers. I understand the policy, and won’t argue the safety point, but I will argue that it does something to the food that we consumers end up paying for. Well, not all of us, mind you, but there is an element out there that really savors the fish (like those audiophiles who claim to hear all sorts of things in music that the rest of us have no clue about) and there is no question in my mind that the quality is impaired by this process.

I can speak from experience. Years ago I was on a fishing boat with my cousin and, to make a long story short, he caught a large bluefin tuna. When we returned to shore that day the crew had already arranged for a group of Japanese men to meet us at the dock and offer a large sum of money to my cousin for the fish, which he took. What we also took was a large hunk of the fish that we ate then and there on the dock. This was not a chilled, previously frozen, perfectly cut and presented piece of neta, this was a hunk of maguro that was alive only a few hours ago. And it was great. The flesh was resilient and smooth, with slightly more texture than I was used to with standard maguro. I can’t say that it was night and day, because the differences were subtle, but to me, this was clearly not the maguro that was my usual fare. It made me wonder what else I should try right from the boat (although the only other fish I have tried raw and fresh was one I cannot remember the name, but I had the opportunity to catch on my sister’s research vessel in the Caribbean as she is a marine biologist).

Fresh sushi is something that anyone should try if they have the opportunity. I guess the risks of parasites are higher if you don’t treat the fish, but if you are willing to take that risk (and I sure am, and I eat oysters, clams and other critters raw all the time too) then do it. It’s like the Kobe beef vs. standard beef issue, if you can appreciate the difference then you deserve it, but if you are like my father, it’s probably just another piece of steak. I personally prefer the Kobe.

Happy New Year!
Warren
The Sushi guy.

матрациThe sushi calorie and nutrition page has just been updated to reflect the recent changes to the Weight Watchers points system. If now reflects the PointsPlus system now in use by Weight Watchers, so for all you sushi lovers who are interested in the points for all your favorite sushi items, it is all there.

Meshi agare!

I just updated the sushi calories and nutritional information page, making it much cleaner with a tab interface. I added another table with nigiri sushi items as well, so no more back of the envelope calculations for you all. I have also added all the nutritional information I could find about Whole Foods sushi items, which I acquired from their outsourcer, Genji Express. If you are interested in this information, including weight watchers points for all items listed, head on over to that section of the FAQ.

Meshi agare,
Warren
Sushi Otaku

I’ve had a surprisingly large amount of inquiries over the years to add the nutritional values for Ankimo (monkfish liver) to my Sushi Nutritional Information and Calories page and I’ve finally managed to find that information. I’ve added it to the Sushi Calories and Nutritional Information page and I can’t believe it took me as long as it did.

Meshi agare!
Warren
Sushi Otaku

The fish hit the fan the other day with the publication the New York Times article regarding the risk of mercury in tuna, which I covered in my entry Some More Mercury With Your Tuna? But was it junk science? Or was it something that needed to be said? Rebuttals came swiftly, and among them, two stand out particularly in the melee. The Center for Consumer Freedom and the National Fisheries Institute both released the hounds and took the author to task over the research methodology as well as the conclusions, countering that the story may not have been as accurate as the author would like us to believe. I am not so sure that I agree, but I reprint their comments for your perusal, and I encourage all my readers to scroll down to the conclusion of this entry for my perspective on the whole matter, which frankly, has become a beast that needs to be addressed.

The Center for Consumer Freedom took issue with the article and made the following points in asking for a full retraction of the story which they felt was factually erroneous:

• The Times neglected to inform readers that the Food and
  Drug Administration’s methylmercury “Action Level” (1.0 part per million)
  includes a generous ten-fold safety cushion. FDA has written that the Action
  Level “was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels
  10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.” In
  reality, the highest-mercury sample reported by the Times (1.4 ppm) contains
  less than one-seventh the amount of mercury that might be a cause for health
  concern.

• The Times mistakenly claimed that consumers eating a
  fixed number of pieces of sushi tuna will “reach what the Environmental
  Protection Agency calls its weekly reference dose.” In fact, EPA writes that
  “reference doses” are meant to identify levels that are “likely to be
  without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.” By
  definition, it’s not possible for anyone to exceed a reference dose with a
  single week’s worth of exposure.

• The Times also omitted information about safety margins
  built into the EPA’s mercury reference dose. Like the FDA’s Action Level,
  that reference dose incorporates a ten-fold safety factor. In the example of
  the highest-mercury sample identified by the Times, a consumer would
  actually have to eat 26 pieces per week—over an entire lifetime—before
  accumulating the lowest level of mercury in his or her body associated with
  adverse health effects in scientific studies.

• The Times wrote that “mercury enters the environment as
  an industrial pollutant.” In fact, virtually all the mercury in tuna (an
  ocean fish) enters the environment naturally through undersea volcanic
  activity.

• The Times wrote that “methylmercury [is] the form of
  mercury found in fish tied to health problems.” In reality, the medical
  literature contains no documented cases of mercury toxicity from eating fish in
  the United States; the only cases recorded anywhere occurred more than 40 years
  ago in Japan as the result of an industrial spill.

The National Fisheries Institute has also taken notice of the work and has requested a formal retraction as well, their concerns being:

• There is little if any acknowledgment or explanation of the widely
  accepted benefits associated with eating seafood. Well researched
  science-based articles that deal with the mercury issue deserve to include a
  discussion of the benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids. An article that presents
  a risk-only analysis ignores widely tested and reported health benefits that
  offset many of the concerns raised.
• The sourcing found throughout the report is almost completely one-sided.
  Aside from the Environmental Protection Agency and restaurants whose sushi
  was tested by the Times, the only sources consulted are experts with clear
  self-interests and or activist groups engaged in both lobbying and
  fundraising against coal fired power plants, a source of mercury. Examples
  include:
  • Despite the availability of well regarded, independent, objective
    laboratories Burros chose to have her Sushi samples tested by Dr.
    Michael Gochfeld. As part of his own work Gochfeld treats patients for
    issues related to mercury. Because Gochfeld’s research and practice
    stands to benefit from alarmist stories about mercury he should not be
    considered an objective clinician in this case.
  • Kate Mahaffey from the EPA tells readers that a rise in blood
    mercury levels in this country “appears” to be related to Americans
    eating fish that are higher in mercury. This is pure speculation and is
    in fact refuted by the latest consumption data that shows lower mercury
    seafood like shrimp, salmon and tilapia are some of the most popular.
  • Environmental Defense is a political activist group with scant
    expertise in the medical science of food consumption. Burros omits
    mention of their fundraising agenda, instead describing them
    disingenuously as “work[ing]…to improve human health.” Yet, the “advice”
    they offer is at odds with what every major medical, health and
    government agency has publicly recommended.
• Throughout the article there is a sensational mischaracterization of the
  RfD (reference dose). Burros suggests that people who eat a certain number
  of pieces of sushi are at risk of exceeding EPA’s reference dose level. It
  does not mention that those guidelines are based on consumption over one’s
  entire lifetime and not merely a certain number of days or weeks. Nor does
  it mention the built in ten-fold safety factor.
• In mentioning the levels of mercury found in the samples tested Burros
  fails to explain that the FDA’s “Action Level” is a calculated estimate that
  also includes a ten-fold safety factor.

I am a skeptical person by nature. I normally dig deeply into things that interest me (sushi obsession anyone?) and have a fairly analytical mind. I like to think that I won’t be swayed either way by articles and press releases of this nature, however it is sometimes easy to get caught up in things. A day before the NYT article came out I had made plans to dine with six of my co-workers next week, taking them to one of my favorite sushi restaurants (which was one of those on the list). When the Times article was published, I was still game, but morale was low so we made reservations at a different type of restaurant. Oh well.

But I have two goals with this missive, to encourage people to understand the context of these articles as well as raise awareness regarding what might be a safety issue in our favorite food. The New York Times has a vested interest in publishing articles that get everyone all fired up. Sensationalism sells papers (and subsequently advertising space), while keeping the reader engaged and discussing the fear du jour. On the other hand, the National Fisheries Institute and the Center for Consumer Freedom are both organizations with deep ties to the restaurant and seafood industry, and themselves have a vested interest in keeping people eating fish. It would seem, on the surface, that not much has really changed. We always knew that there was mercury in fish, and more in the larger predatory fish than the smaller fish down the food chain. Pregnant women and children have always been asked to avoid these fish, and others to consume them in moderation. So what is the real story?

A recently published blog/article in Newsweek refuted a number of these counter arguments, which I will paraphrase for you. I admit to a degree of bias myself, as I love sushi and would like to believe that my favorite food is entirely safe, however an objective perspective drives me to raise awareness over protecting my own interests. The points made countering the CCF were:

The claim is that the “action level” set by the FDA for methylmercury “was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.” The “action level” was set in the 1970’s and does not define any safe level of methylmercury consumption. The “action level” is merely a legal term which defines the contamination (greater than 1 part per million in this case) at which a food item can be said to be contaminated enough to be removed from the market. Apparently, the action level was originally intended to be 0.5 parts per million, however a lawsuit was filed by the U.S. fishing industry claiming that the economic impact of setting the level at 0.5 would be devastating for the fishing industry, and as it happened, it seems that profits have trumped safety as a Judge ruled in favor of the fishing industry and the level was raised. The FDA has not declared and safe dosage of methylmercury as, in fact, the consumption of any methylmercury is actually unsafe, however due to it’s prevalence in our environment, it cannot be entirely avoided. The Environmental Protection Agency does list a reference dose which measures an amount consumed (rather than contained in a food), which is 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. If one were to use this measure, a person who weighs 130 pounds (60 kilos) could consume 42 micrograms of mercury per week (0.1 ug/kg/day x 60 kg x 7 days) and stay within the EPA’s “presumed safe” limit. By consuming 4 oz of the tuna the NY Times had analyzed, one would exceed that ‘safe’ level and consume 48 ug of mercury in that week. And it’s not just tuna, 16 ounces of swordfish would contain 480 ug of mercury, which is greater than 11 times the EPA’s presumed safe level.

The CCF claims that “By definition, it’s not possible for anyone to exceed a reference dose with a single week’s worth of exposure.” Not true, as indicated above, and even a single can or tuna fish has approximately 65 ug of mercury, which is more than the weekly reference dose suggested by the EPA.

The DDF states “Like the FDA’s Action Level, that reference dose incorporates a ten-fold safety factor. In the example of the highest-mercury sample identified by the Times, a consumer would actually have to eat 26 pieces per week—over an entire lifetime.” Again, there really is no safe dose of methylmercury, and the levels also have to be put in perspective. While a few micrograms of mercury may not be as harmful to a fully grown adult, the risk to the fetus of a pregnant woman, for example, is much greater. Methylercury causes brain damage, and a developing fetus is particularly at risk from any environmental contamination.

From my perspective, I feel the same way about sushi (and tuna) that I did three days ago, and I am not going to be the veritable headless chicken and run for the hills based on an article. But what this article has done is bring more attention to the danger of mercury in our food supply, and that is very real. Seafood has been touted for its health benefits, and this is still the case. The Omega-3 fatty acids contained in seafood are considered the good fats, and are heart-friendly. One does not need to eat tuna, however to achieve these benefits, there are plenty of fish in the sea (sorry about that) and a paper by the ocean conservation group Oceana, “Hold The Mercury: How Consumers Can Avoid Mercury When Buying Fish“, outlines the diverse ways to reap the benefits of seafood varieties while avoiding fish with higher mercury content.

Interestingly, Japan has entirely refused to take any action because of the NYT article as “The newspaper is exaggerating the risk,” according to Teruo Tagaki, the chief of the Fisheries Agency’s products safety office. Japan has always had closer cultural ties to the sea, and seafood is a significant influence in the traditional Japanese diet. Personally, I don’t think I’d like to eat any amount of mercury, but then again, every time I go swimming in the ocean I drink it down, so what’s a piece of fish? I also avoid tuna as the species is in danger from serious over fishing. But, what I’m trying to say it to use your own judgment, if you feel you should avoid the risk entirely, by all means, do so. Sensationalism sells papers, even if it’s true. But for me, a great sushi meal is sensational, and I’ll still be going out for sushi as much as I can manage.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The sushi guy

You are what you eat. While I always questioned this in a literal sense as a child, it is pretty much the case. But I don’t want to be made of heavy metals, and my body agrees. It is no news to anyone that we are poisoning our oceans, and unfortunately that means our food supplies. There has been much talk over the years about the amount of mercury in seafood, and while the studies have thus far been inconclusive as to the extent of the contamination, certain individuals, especially children and pregnant women, have always been steered away from the deep, cold water predatory fish out of fear of mercury contamination. We know that there is mercury in fish, but unless certain species made a bulk of your diet, it was never an issue if you ate of them sparingly. That may be no longer the case. Media fear mongering being what it is, making a gross generalization about contamination is sushi is ridiculous, but it is prudent to be aware of the potential health issues with eating certain sushi items, and it seems that tuna may be worse for us than we realize.

Mercury is naturally present in seawater, but modern industry has increased those levels exponentially, and as it is absorbed by plankton and other creatures that encompass the base level of the food chain. Heavy metals also concentrate as they work their way up the chain to the larger fish. Now, according to a recent study, mercury concentrations have reached potentially unsafe levels in bluefin tuna. With some of the tuna tested, it was found that by eating six pieces per week (or even two or three pieces per week of some samples), which is not unheard of, a person would exceed the mercury levels determined by the FDA as being safe. That’s no fun. Contamination has become a very real problem, and I definitely think that children and pregnant women would do best to completely avoid bluefin tuna (and even ahi, yellowfin tuna, just to be safe) until we can be assured of the safety of the food supply. This is not something that can be fixed overnight, either, especially as no single nation seems to be willing to step up to the plate to reduce pollution in any form.

Frankly, there is another reason to not eat bluefin tuna, as I have pointed out in numerous entries in the past (Trouble for Tuna I, II III, and IV), the fish are in very real danger of being wiped out due to over fishing. Perhaps the silver lining of the mercury issue will be that people will eat less, and the fish may be offered some time to recover from their predicament. There are still many sushi items available for you to enjoy, even for those whose preference was maguro (tuna). The toro lovers may have more to be sad about, but with the variety of seafood available, hopefully even they might be placated by minimizing their intake of toro and expanding to other buttery selections such as buri toro and ‘white tuna,’ which is usually not any form of tuna anyway.

Tuna has been out of my rotation for some time, and with these new data it seems that we should all take a hard look at what is on our plate. Be moderate with the predatory fish such as tuna, tilefish, swordfish, shark, and even salmon, and treat yourself to some new sushi items that you may have been eyeballing, but haven’t tried because you were happy with your spicy tuna roll. There is a lot out there and now is your chance to expand your repertoire. It is too bad that we have ruined what is a staple for many sushi fans, but at least I still have my spicy scallop roll.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The Sushi Guy

I can’t think of why I didn’t post this last month, although I actually thought I did, but I was contacted by an exceptionally nice food editor at Health Magazine to help her out with an article she was writing on sushi and calories. This was months ago, and the article was finally published. Check out page 101 of the June issue if you can (which is why I am kicking myself for not mentioning this when it originally came out) to see Shaun’s article on how to avoid killing your diet and still eat sushi. I and my website get a little attribution and hopefully some non-web readers got a little help with their meal planning.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The sushi guy.