>Even though the media in general has been quiet of late regarding the Devastation in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, I have kept my ear to the ground listening for facts, figures and data. I never believed those ‘all is well’ and life can ‘go on as normal’ type comments, and I refuse to believe that food, caught in those polluted waters is safe to eat.
Misguided comments telling us that the oil has all mysteriously disappeared, told by well intentioned political leaders and bureaucrats was an out and out lie, designed to fool the public into believing life could return to normal, and business’ were OK to resume normal routines.
There are scientists not in the pay of BP who are doing all they can to give us facts and real data, one can only hope and pray the US Government is paying attention. The oil, on the deep ocean floor is thick and putrid, suffocating life on the bottom, and poisoning the food chain.
And now I find whilst reading my mail today, the FDA is requesting those in the fishing industry to guarantee that the ‘catch’ they bring in is safe and non toxic.
This waiver is simple in its wording, however complex and confusing in its meaning
It begs the question – Is Gulf seafood safe?
I read the document several times, I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, but it bothered me greatly. The copy I posted above may be hard to read, so let me go through it, and tell you my thoughts. It is the first two sentences that bother me
This letter serves as our guarantee that the shrimp supplied has not been harvested from an area closed to commercial fishing by foreign, federal, state, or local authorities.
No oil or oil smell is present at time of delivery to the processing plant.
Let’s start with the second sentence. This essentially puts the onus of testing the catch on the fisherman. It also has the potential of placing liability for any subsequent problems, for example someone becoming ill, on the fisherman. While it might be reasonable and even common sense to tell the fishermen that if the shrimp smells of crude oil don’t catch it. How can a fisherman know if the fish contains oil? Are they being expected to invest in expensive testing equipment?
The first sentence also bothers me, while it appears a logical request, when taken in conjunction it creates an interesting situation. What if the fisherman passes sentence number one, he fishes legally, but fails the second requirement? Then who is at fault? Then where does the liability lay?
Simon Barrett who wrote the article above which caught my attention says:
I am not a legal expert; however I do know a few. I decided to talk this over with my good friend Mannie Barling. As a retired attorney and also part of our panel on last Saturday’s program he seemed like the natural choice.
Not only was he in broad agreement with my thoughts he was happy to go on record:
This letter is an attempt to relieve the government and BP of potential liability by placing responsibility on the backs of Gulf fisherman
He went on to add:
In essence BP is trying to avoid paying Gulf fisherman for their loss of income
I have to admit that the more I peer into what is happening in the Gulf, the more concerned I become. The mainstream media has moved on to the next big story, but in reality, this disaster is only just beginning.
I don’t know about you – or if your interest is still as strong in matters pertaining to the Gulf of Mexico Disaster, but I do not feel at all comfortable knowing that the FDA is making the local fishermen / industry responsible for the safety of the catch (signing a waiver) – particularly when the Government promised to oversee the safety of the food supply following the poisoning of the waters with the oil and other toxins, dispersants etc.
I think I remember the President guaranteeing that all food caught in the waters – open to fishing, to be totally safe!