While the FDA and other government agencies, as well as the Gulf Coast seafood industry are touting shrimp and other seafood from the Gulf Coast untainted by last year's BP oil spill, there is a lot of controversy regarding their tests.
Tests from multiple independent labs confirm there IS crude oil and harmful hydrocarbons in Gulf seafood. Some of it is in unusually high concentrations, and that includes seafood being sent to market as "safe to eat."
I don't think it should surprise anyone that the seafood industry is trying to protect their bottom line, or that the FDA is in collusion. I, for one, don't trust the FDA or the USDA, neither of which have the American public's interests foremost in their agendas.
I read an article quoting a chemist at ACT Labs in Mobile, Alabama (who conducted tests on Gulf seafood) as saying he would not eat shrimp, fish or crab caught in the Gulf, and alluding to health problems that people who do eat them will face.
I know I don't want to eat anything containing any amount of crude oil or hydrocarbons, Ren. Do you? Which lab results would you trust--those from an independent lab or those from the industry trying to keep from going under financially or federal agencies whose motive is to help the seafood industry, not protect the consumer?
My answer is: I don't believe Gulf shrimp, oysters, fish , crab or any other seafood from the locale of the BP spill is safe now, nor will it be safe for years--even decades.