Speaker 1: Hello everyone, Thank you for joining us again, and the
seafood matters today. We're looking at something that's been making
headlines in the US. The Trump administration has repealed an
EPA rule that previously classified carbon dioxide and several other
greenhouse gases as a threat to public health. That sparked debate.
But rather than get pulled into politics, I want to
focus on what it could mean for seafood. We're hearing
that changes to greenhouse gas regulations might have a knock
on effect for mercury levels in fish, and that's something
this industry has lived with for a long time. So
the question is simple, is this a real, measurable concern
for seafood supply or is it more of a long
term environmental discussion to help us and park that I'm
joined with Kevin McKay, chief operating officer of Safe Cutch. Kevin,
thank you for joining us again. Can you start explaining
what's actually changed and why it matters?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, ultimately, you know, the US for a
while was you know, not necessarily setting the pace, but
it was heavily influencing the pace of controlling greenhouse gases.
You know, the US is one of the top three
the emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, along with
India and China.
Speaker 3: And when we were you.
Speaker 2: Know, at the time setting the standard for reducing our
reliance on uh, you know, the forms of mostly energy
that that produced those those greenhouse gases, other those other
two other of the top three nations, China and India
were also following suit and reducing their mainly the reliance
on coal burning power.
Speaker 3: And it was you know, having a.
Speaker 2: Huge global impact. Now that the US is saying, you know,
we're not going to focus necessarily on these greenhouse gases.
Speaker 3: We're going to allow businesses.
Speaker 2: To mh you know, not be regulated and do what
they want, whatever they can do to to make things cheaper.
That also gives you know, China and India the opportunity
to to you know, to follow suit.
Speaker 3: And so what what.
Speaker 2: We do, you know, ultimately is having a global impact.
And because these are the three most you know, greenhouse
gas polluting countries on Earth, they you know, it has
a very direct impact on our global oceans. So this
is you know, this is a very big concern. We
already are seeing ocean temperatures warming because of you know,
greenhouse gases. Global warming, and this is gonna you know,
because these top three are gonna have less focus on
regulating these greenhouse gases, that the temperature is going to
continue to increase, and that's going to have a direct
impact not only on on the species, causing them forcing
them further and further north into colder waters, changing their
their you know, patterns, it's going to also have a
direct impact on mercury levels as well. So you know,
ultimately the biggest direct impact is coal burning power plants.
So if they're given free rein too to release as much.
Speaker 3: You know, of the.
Speaker 2: Pollution, and a big part of that is it's releasing
mercury into the atmosphere that is then coming down in
the oceans and through biomagnification, getting to the top of
the food chain, and it's directly causing higher levels of
mercury in the seafood. And you know, you can follow
the trends in the mercury levels in the fish directly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Rety pretty interested in stuff for listeners
who aren't policy experts. Can you explain exactly what the
EPA rule has been repealed on what practical effect that
has on emissions in the US.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not necessarily a policy expert myself, but
primarily what it was was there was you know, five
main pollutants gas emissions that that were regulated during the
Obama administration, and the e p A essentially said that
we don't need to monitor those anymore and gives US
businesses free rein to pollute, to expel as much of
these gases as possible. Primarily, the main three greenhouse gases
that are causing the ocean temperature rise are carbon dioxide, methane,
and your nitrogen oxides. Those are the three major pollutants there,
with CO two being the biggest one obviously carbon dioxide.
But the practical effect is that businesses who are focused
on their bottom line, if they don't have to worry
about if they're they're put you know, the gases they're emitting,
if they're essentially giving permission to expel as you know,
as many gases as possible without pre reign.
Speaker 3: If it's cheaper, they're going to take advantage of it.
Speaker 2: And so it is a practical effect as it's given
US businesses permission to pollute at higher levels than than
they have in fifteen years.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and obviously this is trumped in this, and
you mentioned the Obama regime previously. Do the obviously that's
the Democrats and the Republicans, But are they politically involved
that it would the governments whose evident power would change
that thing.
Speaker 2: I think so, because again I think that you know,
this current administration, the Trump administration, has you know, tried
to form itself as a champion of business, and so
they're going to say, you know, we're going to deregulate,
We're going to allow these businesses to run their businesses cheaper,
but at a real cost to the rest of us,
a real cost to the world, to the seafood industry,
to my children. So that you know, there's while there's
a short term view and that's what this administration has
of making these businesses, you know, cheaper to run their businesses,
at the costs to the rest of our society is exponential.
And I think that, you know, the difference between the
Democrats and replicant is how they look at that.
Speaker 3: You know, the Republicans in my view, have a very short,
you know, short term viewpoint.
Speaker 2: They want to make their money now, or the Democrats
realize that this has a much more expensive effect on
all of us, and they take a look at the
long term effects, and so I think that's the easiest
way to sum it up, to sum it up really.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Of course, as always, whatever it is in the world,
the worst thing you can do, the worst thing we
can do is tick politics into it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 2: But again, it does have a real impact on you know,
this is a show about seafood, and it does have
a very direct impact on our seafood, on the industry,
and on the health of seafood.
Speaker 1: So does repealing the rule immediately increase renose gas emissions
or does it simply remove regulatory constraint.
Speaker 2: I would say yes, it immediately increases them because you know,
these companies, again, they're going to do what is best
for their bottom line, and what's best for their bottom
line is to not worry about to not spend the
extra money to put scrubbers on on coal plant coal
power plants. They're not gonna spend the extra care to
research how much their pollutants they're they're emitting. So they're
essentially given the green light to cut all those costs,
and that's going to lead to more pollution, and you
know they're not unfortunately they're not going to do what's right,
They're going to do what's best for their bottom line,
and so it is immediately going to cause an increase
in greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaker 3: And yeah, those companies are going to take advantage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what does the tame land here? Are we talking
short term changes or long term cummunative?
Speaker 3: I say both.
Speaker 1: Culm imparts of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say both your short term you're gonna
emit more.
Speaker 3: You know, specifically.
Speaker 2: The coal coal burning power plants are gonna emit more
toxic metals mercury into the environment because they can and
that's going to vary quickly, bio accumulate up the food
food food chain. You're also going to have those long
term cumulative effects or impacts because over time, those the
oceans are gonna warm and as they get warmer, it
causes the It actually deoxygenates the water. Water is less
able to hold oxygen as it gets warmer, so there's
less oxygen in the waters. Fish need to consume more
nutrients to a abalyze and grow, so they're going to
be they're they're going to be smaller, but they're also
going to have to eat more and in turn, by
eating more. It's just going to cause it by accumulation
of that mercury that's now more of that in the
environment is going to accelerate and you're going to have
higher mercury levels in seafood.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he helped me understand the mechanism. How does this
increase your two or greenhouse gasses the regulations translate into
higher mercury levels and seafood.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, yeah, I think that there again is a
very direct translation. Direct translation being that the the coal
burning power plants that are emitting these greenhouse gases are
also in emitting at the same time mercury into the environment,
which is then being converted the methyl mercury and bio
accumulated biomagnified through the food chain. But then non directly,
it is that that that change to the environment that
is going to cause just like kind of you know,
the global climate change is causing more extremes in the weather,
it's also going to cause changes in more extremes in
the mercury levels of fish. And that again it has
to do with the the fish need to consume consume
more nutrients to metabolize because they have less oxygen to
as a catalyst in that metabolism due to the warming waters,
so they have to eat more and that that and
there are some that are going to not be able
to eat as much, and so you're going to get
the ones that went out survival of the fittest. Those
are the ones that are going to have very high
mercury levels because they're eating more fish. And then you're
going to have the ones that are just barely getting
along and they're going to have lower mercury levels because
they're not eating as much fish or or prey, and
you're going to end up with more extremes. You're gonna
have higher highs in your mercury levels. So there's a
very direct impact. And then there's the that again that
kind of long term cumulative effect that's going to cause
just bigger extremes in those mercury levels.
Speaker 1: Uh huh. Is there to be an issue called combustion
and a atmospheric deposition of mercury into oceans?
Speaker 2: I yes, definitely those the you know, I think six
you're seventy percent of mercury pollution is caused by coal
burning power plants. That coal combustion is is taking the
the mercury element that's contained in that coal and directly
spewing that into the atmosphere, and then that rains down
into the oceans and is by you is is converted
to metal mercury, which is a much more toxic form
of mercury, and.
Speaker 3: Then that is again being bioaccumulated.
Speaker 2: So it's it is the main issue by far.
Speaker 1: Okay, is there solid peer reviewed evidence showing that claimate
deregulation leads to measurable increases in mercury by your accumulation
in fish?
Speaker 3: There are there have been some studies and.
Speaker 2: In uh, mainly Pacific ocean predatory species, highly migratory species.
I don't know those offhand, but I know that there
are pure reviewed studies.
Speaker 3: In addition to that, there are.
Speaker 2: You know, Safe Catch has has conducted over eight million
mercury tests on Pacific Ocean seafood in the last ten years,
and so you know, having that much data shows us
that you know, allows us to directly, you know, accumulate
that evidence that shows that deregulation directly leads to a
measurable increase we're seeing and as I said, it's not
an increase across the board, but it's an increase in
the variability. So You're going to have much more variability
within those those highly migratory predatory species like tuna.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, which species are the most vulnerable tuna,
swords or shark or are we talking a broader ecosystem shift?
Speaker 3: Those are going to be your most vulnerable You're hot,
you're you know, larger predatory species, the highly migratory species.
Speaker 2: There. But again, we're going to have broader, you know,
ecosystem shifts.
Speaker 3: Too as as those.
Speaker 2: The climate, as the oceans are getting warmer, those those
species that traditionally you know, thrive in cooler waters are
going to get pushed further north or further south towards
the poles, and it's going to have an impact on
maybe the prey they're eating, their you know, ability to
to populate. You know, it's going to have very significant impacts.
And if they're changeing their you know patterns due to
the ecosystem changes, it you know, that effect could throw
off another species that you know was dependent on that species,
and it's going to cause what used to be in
in you know, perfect homeostasis two you know, essentially look
towards towards more chaotic tendencies, and it's going to change shifts.
Speaker 3: That are going to have significant impacts.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, I mean I'm sure you'll know this, Kevin.
Commercial fishermen not already dealing with STRK shift, fuel course,
quota pressure, and market volatility. Is mercury genuine, genuinely rising
in wildcats or is this a projected future risk?
Speaker 2: I would say across the board, there is a slight
increase in in your average mercury levels, but ultimately the
the greater thread is in the variability and the volatility
of those mercury levels.
Speaker 3: You're gonna have more extremes and so that you know,
and I think.
Speaker 2: It's going to be harder for companies that don't test
necessarily to be able to make those broad claims because
there's so much variability. It's going to be highly dependent
on those companies that are doing the testing, like safe
Catch to be able to.
Speaker 3: You know, kind of drive.
Speaker 2: Awareness within the industry as opposed to being able to
to to fall back on kind of general you know,
generalizations that they have that the industry has been using
in the past.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Are you seen changes in mercury concentration and yourn
testing data over the last decade?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we we have certainly seen it. The averages are
getting higher as a result of just more and more mercury,
which you know, as an element doesn't More and more
of it is getting released from the essentially from the
earth where it was stored before, getting released every day,
and it doesn't go away. It stays in the environment
because it's a heavy metal, and so it's it's you know,
your body will eventually and you know, kind of removing
from the system over amount of time, but it's not
going to lead the environment.
Speaker 3: So and we are seeing in those eight million tests
that we've done over the.
Speaker 2: Last ten years, we are seeing those mercury concentrations in
our data rising.
Speaker 3: Over the course of time.
Speaker 1: It's it's not something that's just appeared recently, because I
was dealing with the feed oilands becus far back as
the seventies and eighties, and they were the stage where
the pilot wheels the fish foot and they had it
a ruling. I think it was a government rule, the
law that elderly elderly people have children. Well, maybe it
was just an advisory shouldn't eat anything like the whale
meat dark.
Speaker 2: Like those higher at the top of the food chain,
the you know, highly predatory species. Yeah, especially if they're
relying on that as a main form of nutrients of food.
You know, if they're eating whale every day, they're certainly
going to have or you know, certain types of seafood
like that every day, they're going to certainly have elevated levels,
and it's going to be levels that are going to
affect especially those sensitive populations.
Speaker 1: Uh huh. The next question you've probably it's probably you've
maybe explain explained that it's not as simple. Could d
I was going to ask you could deregulation in one
country materially effect materially effect global seafood mercury levels, given
that fish migration across international waters. But I think maybe
from what you said, the size of you know, the
size of countries like yourself in the chaina well, you
couldn't see one country and then put the UK as
another because it's completely different in population and size.
Speaker 3: It is, but it all, it all contributes.
Speaker 2: You know, the the ocean is is a big body
of water, but there's you know, currents that are that
are moving that body of water, those those fish, those
that those predatory species throughout those waters. And then again yeah,
those any of those species that are most affected by
by mercury levels because they're at the top of the
pooch in are also highly migratory, so you are going
to have an accumulative effect from all of those countries.
You know, it's just not one bad actor, it's the
cumulo effect of everybody. Unfortunately, uh huh O.
Speaker 1: Is farmed seafood affected differently than wildcoat It is.
Speaker 3: It does.
Speaker 2: You're you're able to control your inputs a lot easier
with farmed seafood. Obviously, you know, you run into other
potential issues, but as it pertains to mercury, yeah, you
are able to control those inputs even more so in
like a closed farm environment. If you're in an open
water pen farming environment, you're gonna have a little less
control over your inputs and over the mercury, especially if
you don't have a clean you know, flow of water
through those through those open water pens. But ultimately it
is affected differently because you can control the inputs easier,
but it's still if you're not consistently monitoring it, you
could be Unknowingly.
Speaker 3: You know, a lot of.
Speaker 2: Farm fish is fed with other fish. If you're feeding
them fish that have mercury in them. Then you're just
contributing to the same problem.
Speaker 3: You know, more and more.
Speaker 2: Farms are using less and less fish in their feed,
but it is still a potential problem. So you just
you just need to be more because you can control
the inputs more. You just need to be more diligent
and in those inputs.
Speaker 1: If where could it concern and seafood, Well, it's not
new in your review, Kevin. Does the policy shift a
step change risk or incremental one?
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. It's a hard one to answer.
Speaker 2: I would say more of a stuff change, but you know,
it could move more towards an incremental risk if there
aren't enough good actors out there too. Maybe two maybe, uh,
you know, cause cause change in the in the right direction.
You know, ultimately there are companies that are concerned about
this and trying to do the right thing. And if consumers,
you know, show their appreciation for these companies that are
doing the right thing by using their wallets, essentially voting
with their wallets, then they can keep this from becoming
an incremental one that you know ultimately can't be reversed. So,
just just like global climate change, there still is time,
There's still is you know, a chance for an opportunity
to keep it from accelerating. But you have to have
enough for the right people doing the right thing.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, it's good that people like yourself for
only is because obviously, I mean, I don't want people
to be scared off. How do we avoid scaring people
away from seafood, which is nutritionally one of the healthiest
protein sources available.
Speaker 2: Well, I think, just like with many other things, it's
all about education and awareness because I one hundred percent agree.
You know, seafood is, like you just said, one of
the healthiest protein protein sources available. It's also you know,
in terms of it's global footprint, is also has a
much lower global global footprint than or a carbon footprint
than than other protein sources. So it's better for for people,
better for the planet. But they're a big part of
you know, not necessarily that it's even bad for you
is it's the confusion, and that's what keeps people away
from seafood as much as the.
Speaker 3: Actual mercury levels in seafood.
Speaker 2: So you know, a lot of people, you know, we
we we spend a lot of time talking to you know,
the pregnant women, people talking thinking about getting pregnant, and
a lot of them are saying, if my doctor is
telling me, you know, while I'm pregnant to lower my
integ seafood, and I listen to them while I'm pregnant,
then why should I change my habits again now that
I have a baby. And you know, like so, they're
going to consistently stay away from this protein source, which
they should be moving towards because it's because of the
benefits to the planet and to themselves. But if we
told them, you know, these these are the species that
you usually be eating, variability in what you're eating across
you know, seafood is important as well or simply testing it.
If you provide the education and the awareness for these people,
then they're less likely to even just be influenced by
the confusion around it, and.
Speaker 3: They'll move towards this protein source.
Speaker 2: So ultimately, education an awareness is one of our best tools.
Speaker 1: That's a good That's that makes a lot of sense
for education. Education very much because see if couch sorry,
I'll start again safe cutch tastes seafood for mercury, does
increased regulatory uncertainties increased demand for your service?
Speaker 3: I think so. But again that kind of it runs
in parallel.
Speaker 2: With you know, the education around an awareness throughout the problem,
throughout the entire industry.
Speaker 3: I think when.
Speaker 2: People learn more, they are more likely to spend a
little bit more to you know, do well aid to
protect themselves, but also to to show that this is
something that's important to them. And so so yes, it
is you know, increasing demand for our services, but also
on the flip side gives us more of an opportunity
to have the power to make a difference on on
the on the industry side, and and on environmental change,
showing that companies that are doing the right thing are being.
Speaker 3: Are being rewarded for doing the right thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, how do you ensure that this isn't seen as
benefiting commercially from environmental regulation.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that it continuing to be transparent
about the reasons we're doing it, and you know, showing
people that you know, we're not just focused on mercury too.
As a company, We're also focused on we're plastic neutral.
You know, we pay for every ounce of plastic that
we use in our supply chain, we pay to have
that same amount of plastic taken out or removed from
the oceans. And so it goes beyond just you know, focusing.
Speaker 3: On one thing.
Speaker 2: We're trying to increase awareness. Bring more protein, you know,
that healthy protein to more people, make it more available,
two more groups. And if we're you know, transparent and honest,
I think people will see that and see that it's
not just a money grab, it's we're genuinely trying to
help consumers.
Speaker 1: Oh well, no, Kevin, we're taking a whole new dimension.
We're talking about politicians. I know you're talking a bit honest.
They don't.
Speaker 2: This is true, not not often mentioned in the same sentence.
Speaker 1: I think that it's quite the strange who one, you know,
one party of government can make such a being from
another or on something that's not directly political.
Speaker 2: True, and oftentimes done in you know, a form of
of not necessarily saying it's political.
Speaker 1: Coming here.
Speaker 2: Ye, sorry about that, Jim start again.
Speaker 3: Uh sorry, what was the question I was answering there?
I think we were just commenting.
Speaker 1: Uh uh yeah, just on the I just asked you
would I thought it was strange that one partner in
government after the other and they would and they would
change something like this which is directly involved in politics.
Speaker 2: And they don't directly say that it's a political reason either.
You know, they're they're saying it's because we want to
help business, we want to help the industry. But at
the same time they're saying this, they're directly impacting it
in a negative way, in an even worse way. So
I agree with you.
Speaker 3: It's it's really kind of ridiculous.
Speaker 1: If the missions rise, how long would it realistically take
before we detect higher marketing labels and fish.
Speaker 3: I mean, realistically we're seeing.
Speaker 2: Those increases today, So there isn't a large lag in
these increase in emissions. You know, the bioaccumulation can or
biomagnification can happen relatively quickly.
Speaker 3: And you know, again.
Speaker 2: It's this isn't you know having mercury, isn't it an
element that you know is also deteriorating at the same
time it's being generated and put into the earth. It's
just being generated, it's not deteriorating. So it's going to accumulate.
It's going to accumulate a little bit faster. And so
we are seeing it right now.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, And what should fishermen, processors, and retailers actually
be doing diffinitely right now, if anything.
Speaker 2: You know, just again really trying to educate, being transparent,
and you know, taking the time to which the seafood
industry has always been good about, I would say of
you know, showing an interest in the long term future.
You know, they recognize if you take all the fish
out of the ocean, you're not going to have a
business in ten years, you know. So they've done a
pretty good job of banding together and and and managing stocks. Well,
you know that wasn't always the case obviously, but they've
done a much better job recently. And so just taking
that a step further and instead of focusing just on
the health of the stocks, but also the health of
their consumers, I think that they'll really be able to
see the benefits in the long term, just like we
did see the benefits of focusing on you know, management
of those stocks.
Speaker 1: Kevin could ask, good back to what I mentioned with
the Pharoe islands when adult was dealing with them, and
they took that and for elderly and children were advised
not to eat some of the that fish with the
mercury content. But they always they felt that with a
bit they were the victims because they thought can it
would be interesting if they were right, they felt for
this such a small island, small country, it was they reckoned.
It was coming from all the pollution that everybody else
was putting into the sea and they were they were
suffering from it. Yeah, would you agree with that?
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, yeah, you know, it's uh, yeah, I mean that's
that's how you know, the the these these the impacts
of something like you know, thousand miles away in the
US can have an impact on this small island and
in the north, you know, northern seas, but like you know,
because there's there's so much interconnectiveness, especially when it comes
to the ocean. So unfortunately, yeah, they are, because of
what we're doing over here in the US, directly impacted.
As a small island nation, they are directly impacted. And
it's not fair, but you know, that's that's they can hopefully,
you know, join the fight and and you know of
increasing awareness and you know, just trying to ensure that
that that enough awareness of the problem gets out there
so that enough people can you know, push for change.
Speaker 3: With their wallets.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, Indeed, if you would advise in policy makers,
what would be the one evidence based auction you would
prioritize optional.
Speaker 3: And I focus, Yeah, I would, I would focus on
the industry. I would focus on the you know, we
could obviously provide the evidence of.
Speaker 2: The mercury levels increasing, but also you just look at
the industry and how seafood you know, stocks, although like
I mentioned previously, they are well managed from a biology standpoint,
you can't you know, we're seeing like the sardine industry
off of Western Africa is high depleted right now. We
can't get we sell sardines as a company. We can't
get sardines right now that are big enough to do
bonus in this because the industry is collapsing. And so
I think just real evidence on how these things are
affecting the industry on a large scale economically is the
way to get their attention.
Speaker 3: Ultimately.
Speaker 1: Uh huh. Yeah, it's just repeal likely to have a
measurable impact on the seafood on our plates within the
next ten years.
Speaker 3: Yes, it will. And you know, unless I don't.
Speaker 2: You know, certainly this administration is not going to make
any changes, but there is still an opportunity for consumers
to affect you know, how this is gonna gonna play out.
Speaker 3: So while there is going to be a measurable impact.
Speaker 2: We as consumers can by using our wallets to to
reward the companies that are doing what's right, can slow
slow the process and and and again make a measurable
impact in the in a positive direction.
Speaker 1: So, without putting you on the sport, would you eat Judah?
Just know?
Speaker 3: How do you say it? Cat Tina tested? Right?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: And I'm an adult.
Speaker 2: You know if you asked me what I feed it
to my kids, it might be a different answer. I mean,
I obviously would feed them tested seafood. But when you know,
I'm fortunate enough to be able to take my kids
to Hawaii once a year, and my kids every time.
Speaker 3: We go to a restaurant.
Speaker 2: My youngest kid wants to order the girl fish and
I ask them. You know, unfortunately a lot of the
time it's swordfish or marlin or you know, these these species,
these species that I know are high mercury, and I
have to be like, well, let's unfortunately, let's let's go
for the chicken today. As much as I would like
him to have see, it doesn't affect me as much.
But but knowing that he's a smaller body, he's a
developing mind. I got to be a little bit more
careful about what I'm allowing him to put in his body.
Speaker 1: So that's a very reasoning sod ask you because somebody
who's so up to up to date and on on it,
and you know so much about it, what's what's your
own views on it? So really it's it's something we
need to be thinking about, no, rather than think it'll
it'll be okay until another exactly yes, yes percent agree, Yeah, yeah.
Have you a social media presence, Kevin Listeners follow you
on Lane?
Speaker 3: I mean, as my company, Safe Catch has a big presence.
Speaker 2: I don't personally, but yeah, on Instagram, Facebook, We're we're
getting a little bit more active on YouTube and and TikTok,
but yeah, safe Catch, safe catch dot com. Will you know,
take you to any one of those social media channels,
but on all those social media channels just mostly at
safe Catch, Well we'll take you to the right place
where you can get information on what we're doing to really,
you know, fight the good fight.
Speaker 3: Ultimately.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we mentioned but just come into my mind,
shellfish come into sad. Do you find they're affected?
Speaker 2: They are, It's on a smaller scale, but but shellfish
do get affected, and again that they they are a
little bit more heavily impacted directly via the environment they're
in because I mean they are lower on the food chain,
so they have less of an opportunity to to buio magnify, but.
Speaker 3: They are affected.
Speaker 2: And we have seen certain areas unfortunately you know, I
shellfish that are in areas that have had industrial pollution
directly affecting those waters.
Speaker 3: We do see higher mercery levels and so.
Speaker 2: Again it's it's on a smaller scale, but but it
can it can be impacted a little bit more directly
because it's not lower on that on the food chain.
It's you know, it's just going to be more directly impacted.
Speaker 1: So short answer, yes, do you ever try anything. I've
done a recent podcast with a guy in China and
they had heavily polluted waters after the war. There were
something like a paper mold or that what they used
to cleaned all the bacteria and the torkins, and that
was oysters.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean there's a lot of cases of you know,
nature does a good job of helping itself out and
when it when allowed to do it, and not when
not completely overwhelmed. I have heard of that you know,
oysters are a great filter, you know.
Speaker 3: Uh, so, you.
Speaker 2: Know there's a project in our backyard where they're doing
in the San Francisco Bay where they're you know, they're
trying to repopulate the oyster populations because of their filtering
and their positive environmental impact.
Speaker 1: Uh huh yeah, Oh that's hopeful as yet. Yes, well,
I'll just say thank you and let you get on
your day. Thank you very much, Kevin, Thank you, Jim