Op-Ed - Feds, State Considering Non-Native Oysters For Chesapeake Cleanup And For Human Consumption

[hatrack]

What could possibly go wrong?!?

As federal and state officials move toward a decision next year on whether to introduce non-native oysters into the Chesapeake Bay, I have some advice: Don't do it.

Action is clearly needed to restore the bay's oyster population, which is estimated to have fallen to less than 1 percent of its size during the 1800s. But recently published research I conducted while studying at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health strongly suggests that the introduction of non-native oysters into the bay may present greater public health consequences for consumers than native oysters.

The Army Corps of Engineers and officials in Maryland and Virginia, who are starting work on a final environmental impact statement that will be published this spring, need to consider those consequences as they weigh various strategies for oyster restoration in the bay. There are risks associated with eating oysters - especially oysters that have been exposed to fecally contaminated water. Oysters are filter-feeding bivalves that accumulate and retain pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria and protozoa, for long periods. Studies have shown that non-native Crassostrea ariakensis oysters can help to filter or clean the bay's waters. However, it has been proposed that these oysters be harvested for human consumption. If so, the ecological benefits provided by the oyster's filtration efficiency may have harmful repercussions for the health of consumers.

The large bay region receives fecal pollution, capable of contaminating oyster-harvesting waters, from various sources - including leaky septic systems, sewage overflows and numerous nearby chicken and cattle farms. Our study aimed to assess these questions: If the oyster-harvesting waters became contaminated, would non-native oysters accumulate viruses? And if so, would the oysters retain the viruses for long periods? We looked at viruses, such as the norovirus and the hepatitis A virus, because they contribute to more than 80 percent of oyster-associated intestinal illnesses.

EDIT

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.viewpoint15jan15,0,7647383.story

[yellowcanine]

1. If non-native oysters thrive they may drive out the native oysters.

It is not clear at all that we can't bring back the native oyster population so this would be extremely shortsighted.

[kristopher]

6. Native oysters are susceptable to a disease that has virtually wiped them out.

They've been trying for decades to restore the population with absolutely no success. They've been importing sterile versions of the Japanese oysters for quite a while, but there is a significant effort and expense involved with little benefit to the health of the bay.

I just skimmed the article and it sounds to me like the news article doesn't match the results the author reported in the journal. The journal article makes clear that the risk to public health from both species of oysters is actually very similar when they are contaminated. There are differences in the specific risk profiles, but that is much more nuanced than the news article indicates.

The real focus of the problem of contamination is to get control of the sources of the pollutants. Using that as an argument against introduction of a viable, disease resistant strain seems to me to be a strained argument. I grew up with the Chesapeake as a significant part of my place identity, and with the information I've come across, I tend to favor reinvigorating the bivalve population of the Bay.

The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), native to the
Chesapeake Bay, has been a major shellfish species in the Bay
for the past 3 centuries; however, its population has been devas-
tated over time, beyond the point of restoration, predominantly
due to overharvesting and oyster diseases such as multinucleated
sphere X (MSX) disease (Haplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo
disease (Perkinsus marinus) (2, 4, 23).

...Although the popularity of seafood is high, concerns have
been voiced worldwide related to health risks from shellfish
contaminated with human waterborne pathogens (32). Con-
sumption of oysters, which are usually eaten raw, can cause
outbreaks of human diseases, especially if the oysters are har-
vested from polluted waters (1, 32).
(P. 3390)

Recovery, Bioaccumulation, and Inactivation of Human Waterborne
Pathogens by the Chesapeake Bay Nonnative Oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis

Thaddeus K. Graczyk,1,2* Autumn S. Girouard,2 Leena Tamang,1 Sharon P. Nappier,1
and Kellogg J. Schwab1

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, May 2006, p. 3390–3395 Vol. 72, No. 5
0099-2240/06/$08.00

[yellowcanine]

8. There actually has been some success at restoring oysters in some parts of the Bay.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wypr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1457549§ionID=1


We don't really know what would be possible if we were to ban or more strictly regulate commercial dredging for oysters in the Bay - which destroys habitat as well as taking too many oysters. Also, do a much better job of controlling sediment flowing into the Bay. The diseases are a problem, yes, but it is possible that by doing everything we could to enhance habitat the diseases would become much less of a problem. Stressed organisms are more susceptible to diseases.

[kristopher]

9. So you dispute the assertion from the peer reviewed journal article?

Journal the article is published in:
APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, May 2006, p. 3390–3395 Vol. 72, No. 5

The article is by:
Thaddeus K. Graczyk,1,2*
Autumn S. Girouard,2
Leena Tamang,1
Sharon P. Nappier,1
and Kellogg J. Schwab1

Their affiliations:
Department of Environmental Health Sciences,
Division of Environmental Health Engineering,
Bloomberg School of Public Health,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21205,1 and

The W. Harry Feinstone Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology,
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 212052

Their statement:

The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), native to the Chesapeake Bay, has been a major shellfish species in the Bay for the past 3 centuries; however, its population has been devastated over time, beyond the point of restoration, predominantly due to overharvesting and oyster diseases such as multinucleated sphere X (MSX) disease (Haplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo disease (Perkinsus marinus) (2, 4, 23).

That isn't my opinion, that is the scientific consensus.

[yellowcanine]

10. Saying "beyond the point of restoration" is an opinion. Yes I dispute that.

And there is no scientific consensus to that effect either. An assertion in one journal article does not constitute a scientific consensus. The term "restoration" itself is an opinion - it has little scientific meaning. Back to 1850 levels? (before dredging) Ok you might have a point. Back to 1960 levels? (before wide scale disease die offs) Not as clear, imo. If it were the scientific consensus that the Eastern oyster has been depleted beyond the point of restoration there would be far less resistance from the scientific community to introducing an exotic oyster. But at the moment, the scientific community is for the most part highly skeptical of the wisdom of such a move. It is mostly nonscientists (politicians and others) who are pushing such a move.

[kristopher]

11. I'd be interested in seeing some references to support that.

I acknowledge there is resistance based on (what is in my opinion) kneejerk invasive species reactions, but I haven't seen ANYONE (and I do see a fair amount of the discussion) who thinks the native population has a chance of recovering. Even your own article places such a possibility as very low and in the distant future.

[yellowcanine]

12. One man's "kneejerk" is another man's "action based on principle."

And I can't help but be reminded of the intense arguments a while back that there was no hope of the rockfish population recovering. Arguments about what the chances of recovery are when we don't understand the underlying ecology are useless, imo.

[kristopher]

13. I don't recall any such claims re rockfish by reputable scientists

There were concerns regarding continued overfishing and depletion of the rock's food supply (menhaden?) but there was no one said the fish had no hope of rebounding if take were to be regulated.

I'll take it from your reply that you have no support for your assertion besides your religious beliefs, not actual evidence of the condition of the bay.

[jpak]

2. This is a really fucking stupid idea

holy cow

[DCKit]

3. This would be a non-issue if current laws were enforced.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration is appointing/hiring actual scientists to oversee the proper agencies. Pretty sure the incoming folks are having a cow over this and will make it Job 1 to undue this moronic proposal.

Has there EVER been an instance where the introduction of a non-native species has had *any* positive benefit? Geez, why don't they bring in some zebra mussels from the great lakes? They're going to get here eventually anyway.

Clean up the fucking Bay assholes!

[AlecBGreen]

5. yes

The earthworm is not native to the "New World." Its had a positive impact as far as I can tell.

[DCKit]

7. Our forests didn't evolve with earthworms.

They break down the litter too quickly. Not sure if it's impacting the health of the forests or the rate of growth, but they don't belong there.

Many, many species could well have gone extinct because of this introduction and change to the ecosystem, but we'll probably never know.

[XemaSab]

4. What could possibly go wrong?

:shrug:

:popcorn: