Perceived versus real toxicological safety of pangasius catfish: a review modifying market perspectives

Abstract

Mass media reports suggest that pangasius (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) is ‘full of poison’ because it is able to survive in the ‘heavily polluted Mekong River’ and contains pesticides and veterinary treatment chemicals. However, most of these claims are not substantiated with scientific evidence. To assess the safety of pangasius consumption, a full toxicological risk assessment was performed. The results obtained were compared to toxicity claims made in a selection of media reports. Information on contaminant levels encountered in pangasius was collected from the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) database. The toxicological risk assessments do not support any of the toxicological risks suggested in the media. Next, the maximum pangasius consumption that would be considered safe was estimated on the basis of the highest levels of the toxic contaminants reported in Vietnamese pangasius by RASFF and the safety thresholds for the contaminants. The maximum amount of the recalled fillet that could have been consumed without any adverse effects amounted to between 3.4 and 166.7 kg day−1 (lifelong for a 70 kg adult) in the case of pesticide contamination and between 0.613 and 303 kg fillet day−1 in the case of preservatives and antibiotics. It is concluded that consumption of pangasius available on the European market does not pose any concern for the health of the consumer. The analysis presented in this study illustrates that publicly available independent information could help consumers to develop their own well‐informed opinion about food safety issues.

Drawing the line between sustainable and unsustainable fish: Product differentiation that supports sustainable development through trade measures

“…In reality, cause and effect are probably of different origin, as Swiss products simply do not need an ecolabel for market access. In contrast to the mentioned pangasius, which suffers under a bad reputation mostly due to false claims (Murk et al 2018), Swiss sh are appreciated regardless of their sustainability performance.…”

First application in Turkey of the European Non‐native Species in Aquaculture Risk Analysis Scheme to evaluate the farmed non‐native fish, striped catfish Pangasianodon hypophthalmus

“…A more concerning disease issue associated with P. hypophthalmus is that many of these diseases and parasitic infections are There have been recent reports of elevated mercury levels in native P. hypophthalmus populations and in imported fish for consumption, which could make aquaculture of this species in Turkey preferable (Ferrantelli et al, 2012;Rodríguez et al, 2018). That said, a recent, full toxicological risk assessment concluded that consumption of P. hypophthalmus available on the European market does not pose any concern for the health of the consumer (Murk, Rietjens, & Bush, 2018). Recent economic evaluations have suggested that importation of P. hypophthalmus as fillets to Turkey is more profitable than rearing the species (E. Ercan, pers.…”

Sustainable intensification of aquaculture value chains between Asia and Europe: A framework for understanding impacts and challenges

“…For example rice-fish culture, where both are produced in the same system at the same time, and for which chemical control of rice pests is required is a good example of this. An important issue ignored by many media polemics is the assessment of comparative risk (Murk et al, 2016). Many studies have indicated that the relative risk from infectious agents, or chemical contamination is many times higher in wild unmanaged stocks than farmed seafood in Asia and this is borne out through the regular monitoring (RASFF) by the EU on imported seafood .…”