113 



The Honorable Thomas Manton 

 Page 3 



we now have. It creates unnecessary additional federal 

 override and adds another layer of bureaucracy. It 

 makes it extremely easy for the federal government to 

 step into a state and take over state authority. This 

 always results in loss of more small businesses and 

 jobs. Single companies could be targeted on a monthly 

 basis. The paper work that would have to be generated 

 by a state on a monthly basis would be enormous. The 

 current NSSP has been very effective. It is essentially 

 mandatory and it does not require legislation for 

 additional federal power. 



(Q-2) Are the rates of public health risks per pound of 

 seafood consumed higher in the shellfish industry than 

 say beef or poultry industries? 



(A-2) There is no scientifically rational way to extrapolate 

 risks per pound of seafood per consumer/year versus 

 risks per pound of beef and poultry per consumer/year. 

 Actual numbers of cases of seafood-related illnesses are 

 very few compared with all food-borne illness, and as 

 stated previously, 75% (about 2,000) of these cases 

 reported in the last ten years were mild virus 

 gastroenteritis from imported clams in 1982 and 1983 

 outbreaks. FDA, CDC, and the National Academy of 

 Sciences has this information. See enclosure concerning 

 CDC extrapolation of poultry study. 



(Q-3) Who is behind what you perceive is a negative media 

 campaign that started in 1987? What is their motive? 



(A-3) The lobbying group. Public Voice, has gained tremendous 

 national prestige and, no doubt, tremendous funding and 

 power through continuous misrepresented attacks on 

 domestic seafoods. Their Executive Director has now 

 been appointed to a high level federal position with the 

 USDA. The FDA has received an additional $40 million 

 and a new Division of Seafood. They increased their 

 power and funding at the expense of our industry. It 

 would certainly be "a cruel irony" if there were no 

 seafood businesses remaining for all of the new FDA 

 Seafood Inspectors to inspect. 



(Q-4) How should the public be protected from contaminated 

 seafood, especially shellfish? 



(A-4) Shellfish has the only valid inspection program now. 

 This question carries negative load by adding 

 "especially shellfish". The phrase "contaminated 

 seafood" sounds frightening, but ridiculously 

 non-specific. What specific contaminants are referred 

 to here? Why use the term "especially shellfish"? The 

 answer to the questions above clearly state that the 

 main numbers of seafood illnesses were mild virus 

 illnesses from imported clams. A more rigorous and 

 equal program for imported raw shellfish would go a long 

 way to protect the public and also the domestic 

 industry. 



(Q-5) How much of the 40% decline in the shellfish sales is 

 due to reduced productivity vs. reduced demand? 



(A-5) All 40% decline is due to reduced demand from negative 

 press. Example, in 1988 shellfish were taken from menus 

 of Red Lobster restaurants. My company was the supplier 

 since 1968, with no illnesses. 



