Relating Harmful Phytoplankton to Shellfish

Poisoning and Human Health

Workshop 15th & 16th October 2007

at Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory,

Oban,

Scotland

Scottish Association for Marine Science

Fisheries Research Services

Proceedings edited by Keith Davidson (SAMS) and Eileen Bresnan (FRS)

1

Contents:

Page

Aims K. Davidson and E. Bresnan 4

Background K. Davidson 5

Biological Control of Harmful Algal Blooms

T. Smayda

9

Harmful phytoplankton in Scottish & UK waters: Current

and future organisms of concern

E. Bresnan, K. Davidson, R. Gowen, W. Higman, L. Lawton, J. Lewis, L. Percy, A. McKinney, S.

Milligan, T. Shammon and S. Swan

11

Algal toxicity

L. Fleming

16

Shellfish toxins in UK waters

E. Turrell, J. Mckie, C. Higgins, T. Shammon, and K. Holland

18

Status of UK medical response to Algal Toxins

J. Cavanagh

23

What do the regulators want from science?

J. McElhiney and K. Kennington

24

What does the industry want from Science?

D. McLeod

25

Operation & effectiveness of monitoring programmes

D. McKenzie

27

Modelling Harmful Algal Blooms (with a case study of the 2006

Karenia bloom in Scottish Waters)

P. Gillibrand, K. Davidson and P. Miller

29

Emerging techniques and early warning systems?

E. Turrell, C. Bavington and H. Kleivdal

35

The Irish Experience

J. Silke

37

Oceans and human health

M. Depledge

41

What are the current and

emerging health issues & how are they best addressed?

Plenary session 43

2

Harmful Blooms

Discussion group 1 46

Toxicity

Discussion group 2 50

Impacts

Discussion group 3 52

New Challenges

Discussion group 4 54

Integration

Discussion group 5 55

Outstanding questions

Discussion group 6 56

New technologies

Discussion group 7 58

Summary

59

Recommendations

61

Delegate list

62

Acknowledgements

65

3

Aims Keith Davidson1 and Eileen Bresnan2

1 Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Argyll, PA37 1QA, U.K 2 Fisheries Research Services, Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK The report details the proceedings of a workshop held at the Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, during October 2007. The workshop sought to bring together scientific experts, regulators and representatives of the shellfish aquaculture industry to establish the current level of understanding of shellfish poisoning in the UK in terms of the causative organisms, their toxicity and the effects of the consumption of the toxins by humans. In particular, the participants sought to generate: 1) An improved understanding of the factors that govern harmful algal blooms (HABs), shellfish poisoning and human heath in UK waters. 2) Better integration of research effort across the sector, with the aim to guide future activity. 3) Provision of improved advice to regulatory bodies such as the Food Safety authorities/agencies to allow for better protection of human health. The workshop was funded by the joint research council Environment & Human Health Programme, with additional support from the EU Interreg IIIB programme “FINAL”, and attracted 47 participants from a range of disciplines. The workshop was primarily concerned with the potential for shellfish poisoning in UK waters, as was reflected in the composition of the participant list. However, in addition to delegates from Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, participants from the Republic of Ireland, USA and New Zealand also attended. The format of the event included an initial suite of directed presentations relating to the various disciplines associated with the dynamics of harmful algal blooms, of shellfish poisoning, the industry perspective and the requirements of regulators. Impacts of cyantoxins on human health were also discussed. These presentations were followed by a plenary session in which the current understanding of shellfish poisoning in the UK was summarised and ways forward highlighted. The results of these discussions precipitated of a number of subsequent themed discussion sessions that sought to develop recommendations based on the urrent state of knowledge of shellfish toxins in UK waters. c

Short summaries of the content of the workshop presentations are included below. Subsequently summaries of the various discussion groups are presented in full. This may lead the reader, on occasion, to sense a degree of repetition. However, as the composition of these groups differed (workshops 1- 4 were conducted on discipline lines and workshops 5-7 by theme), we have chosen this approach to illustrate the general consensus that was one of the heartening aspects of the meeting. We believe that this is the first workshop of its kind in the UK to bring together environmental scientists, medical scientists, monitoring organisations, regulators, industry bodies and practitioners in a single forum for meaningful discussions. We thank all participants for the open and progressive approach that characterised the proceedings.

4

Background Keith Davidson Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Argyll, PA37 1QA, U.K Harmful phytoplankton which can pose a risk to human health are routinely detected in UK waters. The main organisms for concern are those which produce shellfish toxins which can contaminate shellfish and pose a risk to human health if consumed. Cyanotoxins produced by cyanobacteria can also pose a risk to human health through contamination of freshwater lakes and reservoirs. Worldwide, fish and shellfish consumption continues to expand; it has now surpassed other animal protein sources such as beef and fowl (Anderson & Wolff 2005). Within the marine food sector, aquaculture is rapidly growing in importance now contributing approximately 25% of fish/shellfish consumption. With the global decline in wild fish stocks, it is inevitable that this increase in aquaculture production will continue. On a worldwide scale the contribution of shellfish to this marine food sector consumption is variable. Shellfish consumption dominates in parts of Asia. European per capita consumption is considerably lower and is itself quite regional in pattern. In the UK, aquaculture production of shellfish is relatively modest in comparison to the quantities produced in other parts of the world. However, Scotland has an extensive coastline suitable for shellfish production; this coupled with the high quality of the coastal zone in many areas of Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, indicates that an ideal environment exists for expansion of shellfish aquaculture. All aquaculture industries share in common the goal of environmental sustainability, with shellfish cultivation in particular, being a very low environmental impact activity. Shellfish gain their nutrition by filter feeding on phytoplankton that occur naturally in marine waters. Hence, for shellfish farmers, environmental sustainability is absolutely critical; their livelihoods depend upon clean water in which the phytoplankton thrive and hence maintenance or improvement of the delicate balance of the marine environment is paramount. As with all forms of food production, it is critical that steps are taken to ensure the safety of the public consuming the product. Contamination of shellfish, such that they may become unsafe to eat may occur in two major forms: 1) Bacterial/viral contamination. This is most likely to occur through anthropogenic contamination from human habitation, sewage outlets etc. Such problems are controlled by careful sighting of shellfish farms, depuration systems, monitoring programmes to verify that non contamination is present, and hopefully by continued reduction of contamination of the coastal environment. 2) Algal toxin contamination. These toxins result from the growth of a relatively few species of naturally occurring phytoplankton. Shellfish that filter feed on these cells are capable of retaining the toxin within their flesh. The concentrating mechanism of this process can lead to sufficiently high toxin concentrations to cause illness in humans that subsequently consume the shellfish. The commonly used term for toxin producing phytoplankton is “Harmful Algal Blooms” (HABs). However, this is somewhat misleading as some toxin-producing species can be harmful at very low densities. Moreover, as these algal toxins are naturally occurring,

5

mitigation strategies are not available to prevent their appearance. Human health is therefore safeguarded by monitoring programmes for potentially harmful phytoplankton and shellfish toxins. These programmes have the regulatory power to close harvesting areas should toxins in shellfish exceed regulatory limits. End product testing by industry and specific preparation methods (e.g. shucking of scallops) further minimise risk. It is with this second form of contamination, that by algal toxins, that this workshop and report was directly concerned. Harmful phytoplankton HABs present a problem which is of increasing concern worldwide through their negative effects on human health, the environment and the economy in the form of shellfish poisoning events or preventative fishery closures. In the UK, HABs have already had a severe economic impact on the shellfish industry with extensive closures of offshore scallop fishing grounds in Scotland as well as other inshore toxicity events related to mussels and oysters. Causative organisms Fortunately, in UK waters the number of toxin producing phytoplankton of concern is relatively limited. The genera Alexandrium (Figure 1), Pseudo-nitzschia (Figure 2) and Dinophysis (Figure 3) being most important through the production of the toxins that result in paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), Amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) and Diarrheic shellfish poisoning (DSP), respectively. Other lipophilic shellfish toxins, yessotoxins (YTX), pectenotoxins (PTX) and azaspiracids (AZA) have also been detected in low levels in shellfish from UK waters. The organisms thought to produce these toxin groups are also routinely monitored. Despite extensive monitoring effort throughout the UK there is little robust understanding of where and when “blooms” will occur, their magnitude and their toxicity.

Figure 1: Alexandrium sp. Figure 2: Pseudo-nitzschia sp. Figure 3: Dinophysis sp.

6

Shellfish as toxin vectors and health consequences Shellfish poisoning in humans is possible following the ingestion of bivalve molluscs that have accumulated algal toxins. In the UK, cultivated mussels and oysters along with commercially collected scallops are the most common vectors. Of the three major shellfish poisoning conditions PSP and ASP are neurological conditions that have resulted in fatalities, but not in the UK. However, 78 people were hospitalised in the UK in 1968 due to PSP. DSP is apparently a more mild gastrointestinal disorder. However, the chronic effects of the causative chemical okadaic acid (a carcinogen) remain a subject of debate. Prevention As phytoplankton-derived shellfish toxins are generally unaffected by cooking or other methods of food storage or preparation, human health can only be safeguarded by preventing the ingestion of contaminated shellfish. To this end, Shellfish Hygiene Directives EC/2074/2005 and EC/853/2004 require EU states to monitor toxin concentrations in shellfish flesh and both the presence and geographic distribution of marine biotoxin-producing phytoplankton. If shellfish toxins are detected above set concentrations in a particular region, shellfish harvesting is prohibited until the toxin levels have reduced below safe thresholds. While this practice is thought to be successful in safeguarding health, such closures have can a severe economic impact on the industry in an already fragile rural economy. Prediction Shellfishery closures are reactive, based on monitoring results of toxic events that have already happened. No systems are in place to identify high risk areas or to estimate or predict the risk of toxic events. To make such risk assessments it is necessary to understand the complex relationship between environment and shellfish poisoning. Considerable inter-annual variation has been observed both in the frequency and duration of closures of shellfish harvesting areas, and the occurrence and abundance of the causative phytoplankton species. The appearance of harmful phytoplankton is related to a range of factors that are governed by interacting physical, chemical and biological drivers. These include: water temperature and salinity, the concentration of nutrients, water circulation and stratification and the action of grazing zooplankton and heterotrophic bacteria. Furthermore, the presence of particular phytoplankton does not guarantee a shellfish poisoning event as toxicity may be influenced by the species present, the environmental conditions and the hydrography. Size of the problem: medical/economic considerations Through the action of environmental monitoring programmes, reported UK cases of shellfish poisoning are rare. However, we remain unprepared for each outbreak. Furthermore, particularly as shellfish are rapidly transported to all parts of the UK and abroad, it is not clear how many cases go unreported with records undoubtedly underestimating the true incidence. Statistical data on the occurrence and medical severity of shellfish poisoning events are also lacking. Scientific effort In comparison to other parts of Europe and the world relatively little scientific effort has been expended on the problem in the UK. The recent Scottish Executive funded report, Smayda (2006) noted that “there is a conspicuous lack of harmful algal research effort” in the region with “little sign of collaborative research or scientific workshops” making the country “ill prepared” to deal with future shellfish poisoning events.

7

This workshop This workshop sought to begin to address these problems through the exchange of knowledge and ideas, the building of relationships between science, regulators and industry development and the development of a multidisciplinary network with interests in the problem of HABs, shellfish poisoning, toxicology and public health. References

Anderson HA & Wolff MS (2005) Introductory commentary, Special fish contaminants issue Environmental Research 97: 125-126.

Smayda T. (2006) Harmful Algal Bloom Communities in Scottish Coastal Waters: Relationship to Fish Farming and Regional Comparisons - A Review, Scottish Executive Environment Group Paper 2006/3, 219pp (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/92174/0022031.pdf).

8

Harmful algal blooms: global spreading or global synchrony?

Ted Smayda Graduate School of Oceanography,University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881 USA The issue considered was how do physical, chemical and biological features interact to govern the initiation, maintenance and transport of blooms of harmful algal species? This was addressed from the perspective of the role of anthropogenic disturbances on harmful algal blooms (HABs). And, specifically whether there are links between the apparent increase in the duration, distribution and impacts of HABs and environmental factors associated with human activities, including urban and agricultural runoff, climate change and aquaculture. It was pointed out that the search for explanations of this phenomenon is compromised by five major and uncontrolled natural experiments that are currently in progress: climate change, eutrophication, increased harvesting of fish and shellfish, ballast water redistribution and dispersal of HAB and red tide species, and altered freshwater runoff. This habitat assault is rendering it difficult to distinguish among and quantify natural variance in HABs, red tides and their environmental stimulation from those occurring in response to anthropogenic disturbances. The lack of adequate long-term time series data is a further impediment because suitable controls are unavailable to assess the roles of natural versus induced habitat disturbance as factors in the global HAB phenomenon. Following discussion of these issues, the evidence was presented that a harmful algal bloom (HAB) epidemic in global coastal waters and inland seas is, indeed, in progress characterized by remarkable and unusual parallel events relative to the historical record. Collectively, the patterns and impacts of this phenomenon suggest that a major change in phytoplankton bloom dynamics, in particular flagellate species, and associated food web processes is occurring that may be symptomatic of an emergent and widespread disequilibrium in phytoplankton dynamics in the sea. Characteristics of the HAB syndrome include: increased regional harmful algal bloom (HAB) outbreaks of indigenous species, and of previously unknown species; novel HAB events in regions previously free from such events, with the bloom-species sometimes becoming persistent; geographical range expansions of toxic species; toxic outbreaks of species previously considered to be benign, and even nutritionally advantageous; new types of human disease accompanying consumption of phycotoxic shellfish; and novel die-offs of foodweb components, such as whales and manatees. These HAB patterns and impacts have attracted major attention because of their adverse affects on public health, seafood safety, aquaculture, and fish-farming. Enormous financial losses have been incurred by the latter ventures, commercial fisheries and associated industries, sometimes exceeding $100 million per bloom outbreak. At the ecological level, the global HAB epidemic is provocative since it suggests that major habitat changes are occurring in coastal environments, in phytoplankton dynamics and in trophodynamics. Four primary causation theories have been proposed to explain the HAB epidemic, three of which deal with anthropogenic habitat modification - the ‘changing environment’ theories. The fourth mechanism proposed - the ‘emigration’ theory - attributes an increase in HABs to the geographic dispersal of HAB species vectored in ballast water and shellfish transplantation. The notion of anthropogenic nutrient stimulation – the eutrophication-HAB hypothesis - posits that long-term trends in the increased frequency and dynamics of red tide and HAB

9

outbreaks of both indigenous and novel species are being stimulated globally by cultural nutrient enrichment of coastal waters and inland seas, including changes in nutrient ratios which influence species selection. HAB outbreaks and red tides at aquacultural and fish-farming sites, often resulting in severe financial loss, also have been explained as nutrient stimulated events in response to waste nutrient excretions. The various relationships found between nutrient levels and HABs were discussed. The evidence does not support the general application of the eutrophication-HAB hypothesis as an explanation of the global HAB and red tide phenomenon; there are numerous exceptions to this hypothesis, including huge blooms in oligotrophic habitats. Field and experimental data were considered in evaluation of the popular hypothesis that changes in nutrient ratios underlie the global expansion and spreading of HABs. It was concluded that nutrient ratios are community structuring elements, not the cause of blooms; that the concentrations of nutrients, not their proportions determine a species’ abundance; and the primary influence of nutrient ratios is on functional group selection, not bloom stimulation of individual species within that group. Long-term climatological changes leading to physical habitat modifications that favor HAB and red tide outbreaks also have been invoked. The relationships between cellular growth and temperature shown experimentally for many HAB and red tide species were considered, and the results extrapolated to natural conditions. It was concluded that the impact of regional and global warming leading to HAB species selection and altered bloom periods and locations is not a serious factor contributing to the global HAB phenomenon. The role of natural expatriation versus ballast water redistribution and aquacultural stock transplantation – the emigration hypothesis – in contributing to the HAB and red tide phenomenon was considered from biogeographical, colonization, niche and genetic perspectives. It was emphasized that ballast water redistribution is a conveyance mechanism – a propagule delivery system – not a “changing environment” process. Hybridization between metapopulations of the same species may be the significant consequence of ballast water vectoring rather than the introduction of non-indigenous species that then bloom. It was concluded that successful colonization through ballast and shellfish stock vectoring alone is insufficient – a habitat disturbance must occur at some point to stimulate the blooms of such species. The comparative analyses indicate that a uniform explanation for the HAB syndrome is not evident, i.e., there is neither a single, nor a common anthropogenic cause. The analyses also suggest that a global synchrony in HABs is occurring, which is independent of, but enhanced by local and regionally variable anthropogenic factors, including nutrient enrichment; warming, altered winds and physics; metapopulation hybridization of vectored species and food web modification. It is hypothesized that anthropogenic enhancements of HABs may be secondary stimuli embedded within the drivers leading to the apparent global synchrony in the expansion and spreading of HABs.

10

Harmful phytoplankton in UK waters: current and future organisms for concern Eileen Bresnan1, Keith Davidson2, Richard Gowen3, Wendy Higman4, Linda Lawton5, Jane Lewis6, Linda Percy6, April McKinney3, Steve Milligan7, Theresa Shammon8 and Sarah Swan2

1Fisheries Research Services, Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK 2 Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Argyll, PA37 1QA, U.K 3Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast, BT9 5PX, UK 4Centre for Fisheries, Environment and Aquatic Science Weymouth Laboratory, The Nothe, Barrack Road, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB 5School of Life Sciences, Robert Gordon’s University, St. Andrew Street, Aberdeen, AB25 1HG 6School of Biosciences, 115 Cavendish Street, London, WIW 6UW 7Centre for Fisheries and Aquatic Science Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 OHT 8Government Laboratory, Department of Local Government and the Environment, Ballakermeen Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4BR, British Isles Introduction A range of harmful phytoplankton species with the potential to impact on human health are currently detected in UK waters. The main species for concern in marine waters are those responsible for the generation of a range of biotoxins. Shellfish which filter feed on toxin producing phytoplankton can accumulate the toxins in their flesh. These shellfish can pose a risk to human health if consumed. Comprehensive monitoring programmes throughout the UK monitor shellfish flesh for the presence of algal toxins as well as growing areas for the presence of the causative phytoplankton. Within the UK three major toxin groups have been detected;

• Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins associated with the dinoflagellate Alexandrium

• Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) toxins associated with the dinoflagellate genera Dinophysis as well as Prorocentrum lima

• Amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) toxins associated with the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia

Other algal toxins (spirolides (SPX), yessotoxins (YTX) and azaspiracids (AZA)) have also been detected in UK. In freshwater ecosystems, the main problems concern cyanotoxins produced by cyanobacteria. These can impact on human health by causing respiratory or skin irritations through contact and also through the production of hepatotoxins which can render water unfit for human consumption. Some cyanobacteria have also been identified as PSP toxin producers in other parts of the world. The implementation of the EU shellfish hygiene directive in the 1990s (91/492/EEC superseded by EC/854/2004) and other monitoring initiatives, such as those funded by the Scottish and Isle of Man governments has meant that an extensive dataset has been collected on the distribution of toxin producing algae in UK waters. Monitoring shellfish toxins began in the late 1960s in response to a PSP event in the North East of England. During the 1990s with the implementation of the EU shellfish hygiene directive, monitoring expanded to include the phytoplankton responsible for the production of algal toxins. Currently there are 139 monitoring sites for toxic phytoplankton around the UK coast, 40 in Scotland, 59 in

11

England/Wales, 35 in Northern Ireland and 5 in the Isle of Man. This dataset identifies the main groups of organisms present in UK waters as well as their regional distribution. Potential shellfish toxin producing phytoplankton Alexandrium Alexandrium cells are identified to genus level as part of the EU shellfish hygiene directive. The Lugol’s iodine fixative used does not allow the examination of the thecal plates required to identify the cells to species level. While Alexandrium cells have been identified in samples from around the UK coast, there is a regional association with PSP intoxication of shellfish. Particular hotspots include the Orkney and Shetland Islands in Scotland, the Scottish east coast and the Firth of Forth. In these regions relatively low cell densities of Alexandrium (up to 2,000 cells per litre) have been associated with closures of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) harvesting areas due to concentrations of PSP toxins above the regulatory closure limit of 80µg STX.100g-1. In contrast, very dense blooms of Alexandrium spp. (exceeding millions of cells per litre) observed along the south coast of England have been associated with little or no PSP toxicity. Alexandrium and PSP have not been responsible for extended closures of shellfish beds in Northern Ireland where PSP toxins have not been detected since 2001. To date PSP intoxication of Manx shellfish has been negligible. Previous studies into the diversity of Alexandrium species around the UK coast have shown the potent PSP toxin producer Alexandrium tamarense North American strain (renamed A. tamarense Group I by Lilly et al. 2007) to be found in Scottish waters (Higman et al. 2001, John et al. 2003), while A. tamarense Western European strain (A. tamarense Group III, Lilly et al. 2007) has been identified in English waters. Recent investigations into the diversity of Alexandrium around the UK coast has shown the non-PSP toxin producing A. tamarense Western European strain (Group III) to also be present in Scottish waters (Collins et al. submitted), while A. ostenfeldii, A. minutum and A. tamutum have also been identified (Neale et al. 2007, Brown and Bresnan 2008). Dinophysis Members of the dinoflagellate genus, Dinophysis, the causative organism of DSP, have been detected in water samples from around the UK coast. D. acuminata, D. acuta, D. fortii, D. norvegica, D. dens, D. hastata as well as morphologically ambiguous Dinophysis species have been observed. Considerable interannual variation can be observed in the species which dominates the Dinophysis population. In 2001, high cell densities of D. acuta were observed in Scottish waters which have declined over the last six years. D. acuta and D. norvegica were observed at high cell densities off the North East Coast of England in the late 1990s (J. Lewis pers. comm.). High densities of D. acuminata are currently observed in Scottish waters and in the North East of England. Overall there are fewer closures of shellfish harvesting areas for DSP in England/Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man compared to Scotland. The epiphytic dinoflagellate Prorocentrum lima, also associated with the production of DSP, has been detected at selected sites around the UK coast (Bresnan et al. 2003, Stubbs et al. 2007b). Pseudo-nitzschia Members of the diatom genus Pseudo-nitzschia, the organism responsible for the production of ASP, have been detected around the UK coast. These cells are identified to genus level in Lugol’s fixed samples and separated into two different size categories . P. delicatissima ‘type’ cells (< 3µm diameter) and P. seriata ‘type’ cells (> 3µm diameter). This genus was responsible for extensive closures of Scottish scallop fishing areas during the late 1990s

12

(Gallacher et al. 2001) and accumulation of ASP in king scallops (Pecten maximus) from the Isle of Man have also been observed. Studies on the relationship between the occurrence of Pseudo-nitzschia and the accumulation of ASP in P. maximus and M. edulis show that domoic acid (the ASP toxin) is taken up and depurated by M. edulis quickly, while the toxin is retained for longer periods in the gonads of P. maximus (Bresnan 2005). A distinct seasonality in the occurrence of Pseudo-nitzschia species has been observed with the spring community dominated by Pseudo-nitzschia delicatissima ‘type’ cells (diameter < 3µm) while Pseudo-nitzschia seriata ‘type’ cells (diameter > 3µm) dominate the late summer/autumn diatom population (Fehling et al. 2006). Studies of the diversity of Pseudo-nitzschia has shown thirteen species to be present in Scottish waters (P. americana, P. australis, P. caciantha, P. cuspidata, P. decepiens, P. delicatissima, P. fraudulenta, P. multiseries, P. pseudodelicatissima, P. pungens, P. multiseries, P. cf. subpacifica as well as an unidentified Pseudo-nitzschia species (Fehling et al. 2006, Bresnan et al. 2003). Six species of Pseudo-nitzschia have been detected to date in English waters (P. australis, P. delicatissima, P. fraudulenta, P. pungens, P. pseudo-delicatissima and P. multiseries (Stubbs et al. 2007a & b). Currently P. australis and P. seriata have been confirmed as domoic acid producers in Scottish waters (Fehling et al. 2004) while P. multiseries from English waters has been confirmed as a domoic acid producer. Prorocentrum minimum Prorocentrum minimum can form high density blooms, in some instances exceeding cell densities of several million cells per litre, along the east coast of Scotland and Shetland Islands. This has also been observed in Northern Ireland in 1999 and also in shallow ponds off the south coast of England (Jane Lewis pers. obs.). The toxicity of this species in UK waters is uncertain. Initial reports attributing this species as the causative organism for venerupin poisoning have been disputed (Heil et al. 2005). In European waters, the toxicity of this species is uncertain with only one strain, isolated from the French Mediterranean, confirmed as a neurotoxin producer (Heil et al. 2005). To date there has been no study performed into the toxicity of P. minimum in UK waters. Lingulodinium polyedrum, Protoceratium reticulatum and Gonyaulax grindleyii The YTX producers Lingulodinium polyedrum and Protoceratium reticulatum are currently not observed in high cell densities in UK waters. While YTX have been detected in UK shellfish, this has not been detected above regulatory limits. Gonyaulax spinifera has been infrequently observed. Protoperidinium crassipes A variety of Protoperidinium species are routinely detected in phytoplankton samples around the UK coast. However there is some cause for concern over attributing this species as the causative organism for Azaspiracid owing to the hetertrophic mode of nutrition of this genus. This is currently under investigation by the wider international scientific community. Cyanobacteria Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) can be problematic in UK freshwater and brackish systems. A number of toxin producing cyanobacteria species can be found in UK waters which can produce neuro and hepatotoxins. These include Microcystis, Anabaena, Nostoc and Nodularia. The main form of human impact can be through recreational activities such as swimming or canoeing in waterbodies where there are blooms of cyanobacteria which have resulted in respiratory and other irriatatory illness in humans. Reports from other areas in the world highlight cyanotoxins as a risk factor through contaminants of drinking water.

13

Documents detailing the risks to public health have been provided regionally e.g. Scottish Executive Health Dept. (2002). Future issues Monitoring and research performed over the last decade in UK waters has provided considerable information about the identity and distribution of phytoplankton species with the potential to impact human health. There remains an onus to monitor for species as yet undetected in UK waters. Some PSP producers such as Gymnodinium catenatum, which cause problems along the Spanish Galician and Mediterranean coasts, as well as more tropical species, such as Pyrodinium bahamense, are currently not detected in UK waters. To date there have been no recorded incidence of neuroshellfish toxins (NSP) or aerosol toxins produced by species such as Karenia brevis or Ostereopsis ovata in UK waters. Given the warming trend of sea surface temperatures in North East Atlantic region as well as the potential for the introduction of new species via ship’s ballast, monitoring agencies should familiarise themselves with the identification of these species to ensure that they are adequately prepared to recognise these species should their distribution spread. A comprehensive list of toxin producing species (including those with the potential to impact on human health) produced by the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) can be found at http://www.bi.ku.dk/ioc/. References Bresnan E., Fraser S., and Moffat C. (2003) Monitoring programme for toxin producing phytoplankton in Scottish coastal waters 1 April 2002 – 31 March 2003, Fisheries Research Services Contract Report 14/03 36pp. Bresnan E. (2005) Correlation between algal presence in water and toxin presence in shellfish. Fisheries Research Services Contract Report 04/05. 58pp. Collins C, Graham J., Brown L., Bresnan E., Lacaze J-P and Turrell E. (submitted ) Identity and toxicity of Alexandrium tamarense (Dinophyceae) in Scottish waters. Fehling J., Green D. H., Davidson K., Bolch C. J., Bates S. S. (2004). Domoic acid production by Pseudo-nitzschia seriata (Bacillariophyceae) in Scottish waters. Journal of Phycology 40 (4), 622-630. Fehling J., Davidson K., Bolch C. J., Tett P. (2006) Seasonality of Pseudo-nitzschia spp. (Bacillariophyceae) in western Scottish waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series 323, 91-105. Gallacher, S., Howard F. G., Hess P., Macdonald E. M., Kelly M. C., Bates L.A., Brown N., MacKenzie M., Gillibrand P. A., and Turrell W. R. (2001).. The occurrence of Amnesic Shellfish Poisons in shellfish from Scottish waters, p. 30-33. In: G.M. Hallegraeff, S.I. Blackburn, C.J. Bolch, and R.J. Lewis [eds.] Harmful Algal Blooms 2000. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Paris. Heil C. A., Glibert P. M. and Fan C. (2005) Prorocentrum minimum (Pavillard) Schiller A review of a harmful algal bloom species of growing worldwide importance. Harmful Algae, 4, 449 – 470.

14

Higman, W.A., Stone, D.M. & Lewis, J.M. (2001) Sequence comparisons of toxic and non-toxic Alexandrium tamarense (Dinophyceae) isolates from UK waters. Phycologia 40: 256-262. John, U., Fensome, R.A. & Medlin, L.K. (2003). The application of a molecular clock based on molecular sequences and the fossil record to explain biogeographic distributions within the Alexandrium tamarense “species complex” (Dinophyceae). Mol. Biol. Evil. 20:1015-1027. Lilly, E.L., Hellenic, K.M. & Anderson, D.M. (2007) Species boundaries and global biogeography of the Alexandrium tamarense complex (Dinophyceae). J. Phycol. 43:1329-1338. Kneale K., Percy L. and Lewis J. (2007) Using sediment to help map Alexandrium distribution in UK coastal waters, Shellfish News, 24: 20 – 23. Scottish Executive Health Department (2002) Algae (Cyanobacteria) in Inland Waters: Assessment and Control of Risks to Public Health. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46922/0024256.pdf). Stubbs, B., Milligan, S., Morris, S., Higman, W. and Algoet, M. (2007) Biotoxin Monitoring Programme for England and Wales 1st April 2005 to 31st May 2006. Shellfish News 23, pp. 48-51. Stubbs, B., Milligan, S., Morris, S., Higman, W. and Algoet, M. (2007) Biotoxin Monitoring Programme for England and Wales 1st June 2006 to 31st March 2007. Shellfish News 24, pp. 48-51.

15

Algal toxicity: Impacts on human health Lora Fleming

Depts of Epidemiology & Public Health and Marine Biology & Fisheries, Miller School of Medicine and Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Clinical Research Building, 10th Floor (R669), 1120 NW 14th Street, Miami, FL 33136, USA

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) create potent natural toxins which can cause acute and possibly chronic human health effects. Humans are exposed to these toxins through the ingestion of contaminated seafood or drinking water, skin contact with contaminated water, and the inhalation of contaminated aerosols. In general, these toxins are highly stable and not removed by normal cooking or other methods, nor can they be easily detected. The majority of the known toxins are neurotoxins, although some toxins can cause liver damage and cancer. Although the majority of the known human diseases associated with exposure to the HAB toxins are apparently only acute phenomena, some of these illnesses (e.g. ciguatera fish poisoning) have been established to cause prolonged sub/chronic disease. With regards to the epidemiology, and medical and public health management of the known HAB diseases in humans, there is relatively little known. In general, information is only available for the acute manifestations of these illnesses, and if actually diagnosed, established treatment is only supportive. Confirmatory diagnostic testing only exists for the contaminated transvector (which in general is not readily available for most healthcare providers), and not for human fluids (i.e. biomarker). Although reportable diseases in many countries, these diseases are highly under-reported (due to lack of healthcare provider knowledge and other factors), and as such disease surveillance is limited and based on inadequate baseline information. Presently, due to extensive monitoring programs (at least in developed nations), there is believed to be substantial primary prevention of many of these illnesses, at least with regards to their acute presentation due to high dose exposure. However, almost nothing is known about possible chronic health effects after high dose acute exposure, nor after long term low level exposure; the latter is of concern given the carcinogenicity of some of these compounds (e.g. microcystin in drinking water). In addition, little is known about the acute or chronic effects of these toxins in potentially susceptible subpopulations (e.g. children, the elderly, and persons with chronic neurologic diseases). In general, outreach and education about the HAB diseases in humans targeted at healthcare providers, public health officials and resource managers are almost non existent. With new emerging human illnesses associated with exposure to HAB toxins (e.g. aerosolized Florida red tide, brevetoxin fish poisoning, and azapiracid shellfish poisoning), as well as the apparent increase of the HABs worldwide, the development of appropriate diagnostic tools in humans and other animals for all the HAB human illnesses is essential. These can be used to establish surveillance baselines through appropriate diagnosis and reporting, and to explore issues of appropriate treatment and chronic health effects. In addition, HAB outreach and education targeted at healthcare providers, public health officials and resource managers, as well as at vulnerable populations (e.g. tourists), would assist in the primary (e.g. completely preventing exposure through monitoring), secondary (e.g. early diagnosis), and tertiary (e.g. appropriate treatment) prevention of these illnesses.

16

References Backer L, Fleming LE, Rowan A, Baden D. Epidemiology and Public Health of Human Illnesses Associated with Harmful Marine Phytoplankton. In: UNESCO Manual on Harmful Marine Algae. Hallegraeff GM, Anderson DM, Cembella AD, eds. Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO/WHO, 2003, pgs 725-750. Backer LC, Schurz Rogers H, Fleming LE, Kirkpatrick B, Benson J. Phycotoxins in Marine Seafood. In: Chemical and Functional Properties of Food Components: Toxins in Food. Dabrowski W, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2005, pgs. 155-190. Backer LC, Fleming LE. Epidemiologic Tools to Investigate Oceans and Public Health. In: Walsh PJ, Smith SL, Fleming LE, Solo-Gabriele H, Gerwick WH (eds.). Oceans and Human Health: Risks and Remedies from the Sea, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, in press. Baden D, Fleming LE, Bean JA. Marine Toxins. In: Handbook of Clinical Neurology: Intoxications of the Nervous System Part II. Natural Toxins and Drugs. FA deWolff (Ed). Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, 1995;21(65):141-175. Fleming LE, Bean JA, Baden DG. Epidemiology of Toxic Marine Phytoplankton. In: UNESCO-IOC Manual on Harmful Marine Phytoplankton #33. Hallegraeff GM, Anderson DAN, Cembella AD. Paris: UNESCO, 1995, pgs. 475-488. Fleming LE, Bean JA, Katz D, Hammond R. The Epidemiology of Seafood Poisoning. Hui, Kits, Stanfield. Seafood and Environmental Toxins. Marcel Dekker, 2001, pg. 287-310. Fleming LE, Backer L, Rowan A. The Epidemiology of Human Illnesses Associated with Harmful Algal Blooms. In: Neurotoxicology Handbook, Volume 1. Baden D, Adams D (eds). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc, 2002, pgs 363-381. Okamoto K, Fleming LE. Algae. In: Encyclopedia of Toxicology (2nd edition). Wexler P, editor. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2005, Volume 1, pgs 68-76.

17

Algal toxins in shellfish from Scottish, Northern Irish and Isle of Man waters

Elizabeth Turrell1, Jim Mckie1, Cowan Higgins2, Theresa Shammon3, Kim Holland3

1Fisheries Research Services, Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK 2Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Veterinary Sciences Division, Stoney Road, Belfast BT4 3SD, UK 3Government Laboratory, Department of Local Government and the Environment, Ballakermeen Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4BR, British Isles Monitoring for algal toxins Algal toxins can accumulate in bivalve molluscan shellfish when they ingest toxic phytoplankton via filter-feeding. These toxins can accumulate in the body of the shellfish without causing serious adverse affect to the shellfish, but they can cause serious health problems if eaten by humans. Four main types of marine algal toxins occur in waters associated with the UK: 1) Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins 2) Amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) toxins 3) Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) toxins 4) Lipophilic shellfish toxins (LSTs) 1) Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins PSP toxins are produced by dinoflagellates from the genus Alexandrium. Monitoring for the neurotoxins associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) in shellfish commenced in response to an outbreak of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) in the North east of England in 1968 when 78 people were hospitalised. Initially the programme to monitor PSP toxins was confined to monitoring shellfish from the Humber (north England) to the Firth of Forth (central Scotland). In 1990, this programme was considerably expanded to cover a wide geographic area encompassing the Scottish coastline (including the Islands). Bivalve molluscs were sampled throughout the year, from inshore aquaculture sites and harvesting areas as well as offshore scallop fishing grounds, and analysed for PSP toxicity using the AOAC International mouse bioassay (MBA) (AOAC, 1990). Recently (since 2006), a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (AOAC 2005.06) has been used as a qualitative screen with the MBA used to provide a quantitative result from HPLC positive samples. Currently, The Government Laboratory in the Isle of Man does not have the capability to apply the MBA to shellfish samples and samples are analysed in the UK. It is hoped with the acquisition of UPLC-MS/MS in 2007, will allow the Isle of Man laboratory to assay shellfish for PSP toxins in the future. 2) Amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) toxins ASP toxins are produced by particular diatoms (Pseudo-nitszchia sp.). In Scotland, monitoring for ASP toxins in shellfish, using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with UV diode-array detection (UVDAD), commenced in 1998, following the introduction of legislation from the EC. The ASP causing toxins include domoic acid (DA) and associated compounds (e.g., epi-domoic acid) with the combined concentration of DA and epi-DA used to implement harvest closures in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, ASP toxins are currently monitored using a combination of screening using an optical biosensor and HPLC-UVDAD. Since 2003, the Isle of Man Government Laboratory has routinely assessed Manx shellfish for ASP toxins by HPLC-UVDAD. It is anticipated that validation and accreditation for a UPLC MS/MS method will be in place during 2008. An advantage of the UPLC MS/MS system will be faster analysis times compared to HPLC.

18

3) Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) toxins DSP toxins are produced by dinoflagellates, from the genus Dinophysis and Prorocentrum. Monitoring for the classic lipophilic DSP toxins; okadaic acid (OA) and dinophysistoxins (DTXs) commenced in Scotland in 1992 following the introduction of EC legislation. DSP toxins are detected using a MBA based on the protocol of Yasumoto et al. (1978) with subsequent modifications. 4) Lipophilic shellfish toxins (LSTs) With the discovery of a range of ‘novel’ lipophilic shellfish toxins (LSTs); pectenotoxins (PTXs) and yessotoxins (YTX) which give rise to positive results in the DSP MBA, azaspiracids (AZAs) associated with outbreaks of food poisoning and the awareness that OA, and the DTXs (DTX-1 and DTX-2) can be acylated with a range of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, EC legislation was revised to encompass these toxins and provide regulatory limits for their content in shellfish. Although the DSP MBA remains in use for the regulatory monitoring of LSTs, the DSP MBA is neither selective nor quantitative for these toxins. This prompted Stobo and colleagues (Stobo et al., 2005) to develop and validate LC-MS methodology for the detection of both traditional DSP toxins (OA, DTX-1, DTX-2, DTX-3 and OA diol ester) and other LSTs (YTX, homoYTX, 45-OH-YTX, 45-OH-homoYTX, PTX-1, PTX-2, AZA-1, AZA-2 and AZA-3) described in the legislation. A UPLC MS/MS system is currently in the process of being installed at the Isle of Man Government Laboratory and a method for the detection of LSTs should be validated and accredited by 2008. The dinoflagelaltes, Lingulodinium polyedrum and Protoceratium reticulatum are linked to the production of YTX, Dinophysis spp. to the production of PTX and Protoperidinium crassipes has been implicated in AZA poisoning although the phytoplankton that produces AZA has not yet been confirmed. Others In addition to the above toxin groups, spirolides (produced by Alexandrium ostenfeldii) have been detected (using LC-MS) in low concentrations in shellfish collected from Scottish coastal waters. Legislation Since the introduction of shellfish monitoring for algal toxins, in the UK, following the introduction of Directive 91/492/EEC there have been changes in legislation, due to the discovery of additonal algal toxins and the requiremnt for the use of alternative methods. Currently Commission Regulation EC/2074/2005 and Regulation EC/853/2004 divides the algal toxins detected in shellfish into distinct groups, states the maximum allowable concentration of each algal toxin group and outlines the methods of analysis, which should be harmonised and implemented by member states to protect human health. A recent addition, EC regulation 1664/2006 permits the use of a validated HPLC method (Lawrence et al., 2004) for the detection of PSP toxins. Regulation EC/854/2004 details the requirement for sampling plans to check for the presence of toxin-producing plankton and for algal toxins in live bivalve molluscs. EC legislation covering the monitoring of shellfish for human consumption requires the appointment of National Reference Laboratories (NRL’s) by the Competent Authority (CA). In the UK, the CA is the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Fisheries Research Services (FRS) was awarded the contract for NRL activities on marine biotoxins. The primary purpose

19

of the UK-NRL is to provide advice to the FSA and to others and ensure that UK laboratories work to harmonised and audited protocols. It does this by promulgating the instructions of the EC Community Reference Laboratory (CRL), participating in the collaborative trials work of the CRL, and reporting UK results to enable the CRL to develop alternative positions. The UK-NRL meets with shellfish toxin testing laboratories (the UK-NRL network) twice a year and can form sub-groups to tackle particular issues (e.g., working groups on alternative and additional methods for the detection of algal toxins in shellfish). Isle of Man The Isle of Man is a small island at the centre of the Irish Sea and jurisdictionally distinct from both the UK and the EU. Its territorial waters extend 12 miles out from the Island’s coastline. Although not part of the UK or a member of the EU most of the shellfish catch, Pecten maximus and Aquipecten opercularis, is exported to both the UK and Europe. Therefore the Isle of Man needs to comply with EC legislation. Manx shellfish are routinely and regularly screened for algal toxins. Official shellfish samples are dredged from fishing grounds by the Fisheries Patrol Vessel, FPV Barrule. Samples are also taken directly from fishing vessels and processed samples are taken at fish processors. Prevalence of PSP toxins Scotland The importance of PSP toxins as the most potentially lethal shellfish toxin to consumers of seafood can not be understated. On a near annual basis shellfish harvesting areas are closed, as levels of PSP toxins which exceed the EC regulatory limit (80 µg STX equivalents (eq) 100 g-1 of shellfish flesh) are recorded using the MBA. A considerable reduction was observed in the PSP concentrations detected in shellfish in Scottish waters between 2000 to 2005, compared to concentrations detected during the 1990s. However, data from the 2006 Food Standards Agency, Scotland monitoring programme suggests high levels of Alexandrium species and PSP concentrations have once more been detected in Scottish waters. The influence of environmental variables on the inter-annual variability of Alexandrium spp. in Scottish waters is currently being assessed using data from the on-going FRS coastal ecosystem monitoring programme. Northern Ireland PSP toxins have not been detected in shellfish from any sites in Northern Ireland waters since 2001. Levels below the regulatory limit were detected in mussel samples from sites in Belfast Lough during the years 1997, 1998 and 2001. To date, this remains the only harvesting area in which PSP has been detected in shellfish tissue. With the implementation of more sensitive HPLC methodology it was anticipated that low levels of PSP toxins might be detected during periods when PSP-producing phytoplankton were present in the water column but to date this has not been the case. Isle of Man To date PSP intoxication of Manx shellfish has been negligible. In 2002, PSP toxins were detected but at very low concentrations in just one sample. This has been the only observed occurrence of PSP.

20

Prevalence of ASP toxins Scotland In 1999, it became clear that ASP toxins were particularly problematic in offshore king scallops and sampling intensity of this species increased in Scottish waters. Subsequently, detection of ASP toxins in shellfish at concentrations above the regulatory limit (20 μg ASP toxins g-1 shellfish flesh) has occurred annually. Northern Ireland To date, ASP toxins above the regulatory limit have not been detected in mussels, oysters or cockles from classified beds in Northern Ireland waters. Levels above the regulatory limit were recorded in scallops in 2003 with concentrations greater than 250 μg ASP toxins g-1 shellfish flesh recorded. ASP has been problematic in wild scallops taken from offshore sites in the Irish Sea. Isle of Man The first recorded ASP toxin event in Manx king scallops occurred towards the end of 2002, domoic acid levels of up to 120 μg ASP toxins g-1 were recorded. Aequipecten opercularis, ‘queenies’, were not affected but ASP toxins above the regulatory limit in P. maximus, persisted until late 2004. Prevalence of DSP toxins and LSTs Scotland Since the introduction of DSP toxin monitoring, MBA positive results have been recorded on an annual basis mandating closure of shellfish grounds. Recently, LC-MS methodology for the detection of multiple LSTs was employed to survey shellfish to assess the occurrence of LSTs in shellfish harvested from Scottish waters. Toxins from the ‘traditional’ DSP toxin group (OA/DTXs) and all other LST groups (PTXs, YTXs and AZAs) detailed in Decision 2002/225/EC were detected. The rank order (highest to lowest) of individual toxin occurrence was: OA > OA/DTX esters > PTX-2sa > PTX-2 > YTX/DTX-2 > DTX-1 > PTX-2sa > 45-OH-YTX > PTX-1/AZA-1 > AZA-2. Northern Ireland DSP has been detected in all water bodies monitored in Northern Ireland except Lough Foyle. Significant numbers of positive results were seen in 2001 and 2002 (19 % and 14 %, respectively of all samples tested for DSP). The number of positive DSP results recorded in recent years has decreased from approximately 5 % of samples in 2003 to approximately 1 % of samples tested in both 2005 and 2006. Isle of Man Whilst the occurrence of Dinophysis spp. associated with the production of DSP intoxication events are an annual summer occurrence in Manx territorial waters, DSP toxin contamination of shellfish, whilst not unusual, are not annual events. To date, DSP toxin events have occurred during the summer and have been short lived. In the main, affected organisms are king and queen scallops.

21

In conclusion Algal toxins represent a major global hazard to public health. Ensuring seafood contains safe concentrations of these toxins, many of which can induce toxic effects such as neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity, is one of the major challenges to the shellfish/aquaculture industries as well as to regulatory authorities. It is proposed that toxin detection methods should assist in protecting public health, managing commercial shellfish harvesting and help the industry pursue a successful future. References Lawrence, J.F., Niedzwiadek, B., Menard, C., 2004. Quantitative determination of paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins in shellfish using prechromatographic oxidation and liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection: Interlaboratory study. J. AOAC Int. 87, 83-100 Stobo, L., Scott, A., Lacaze, J-P., Gallacher, S., Smith, E., Quilliam, M., 2005. Liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry - Detection of lipophilic shellfish toxins. J. AOAC INT. 88, 1371-1382. Yasumoto T., Oshima, Y., Yamaguchi, M., 1978. Occurrence of a new type of shellfish poisoning in the Tohoku district. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 44, 1249-1255.

22

Status of UK medical response to algal toxins Julie Cavanagh

Consultant in Public Health Medicine, National Health Service (NHS), Tayside

Are algal toxins a public health problem? The health risks of cyanobacteria in inland and inshore waters have been recognised. While short term health effects are well documented, evidence of longer term health problems are less clear and are still emerging. The same level of risk is not generally recognised by medical practitioners for toxins produced by marine phytoplankton. However, there are some specific precautions in place for paralytic shellfish toxins. What is the public health response? Currently there is formal national guidance to NHS and local authorities on cyanobacteria in inland and inshore waters. The main risks for these toxins are exposure risk from skin contact, or ingestion of algal toxins. This could be on an individual scale or systematic through public or private water supply. In these instances symptoms usually mild, but could be severe. For cyanobacteria inland /inshore waters: Each region has an annually updated action plan involving NHS, SEPA, local authorities that identifies the relevant inland/ inshore waters and publicises an agreed routine sampling strategy. It also outlines an emergency action plan, covering testing, thresholds that trigger action, notification, publicity, and re-testing. The emergency action plan has been activated in most summer seasons. The duration of this appears to have extended in recent years. This plan includes emergency action plans for testing, thresholds that trigger action, notification, publicity, and retesting. The action to be taken depends on location of algae, its abundance and the use of watercourse. The aim of the plan is to reduce skin contact and avoid ingestion. Signs are posted advising public to avoid swimming, sailing, or eating fish caught in areas with abundant growth. Public water supply has a threshold for maximum permitted concentration of toxin in drinking water and there is also consideration of special cases such as renal dialysis, at home and in hospitals. What information would therefore improve the public health response to marine algal toxins? There is still some information required to support the response of the public health section to marine toxins. This includes a quantification of the significance of the risk of human exposure through both ingestion and skin contact? If exposure occurs, are the health issues important? If exposure is to be reduced, what needs to happen? Are effects specific to certain toxins? So, what are the health issues for this meeting? Literature being reviewed currently, will hopefully provide information from the global experience of significant health effects as well as detail exposure risks – from occupational, or recreational activities. Climate change, other environmental influences? Better testing to link exposure to manifest clinical symptoms.

23

What the Regulators Want From Science-Food Standards Agency (FSA) & Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Perspective

Jacqui McElhiney1 & Kevin Kennington2

1Scientific Advisor, Food Standards Agency Scotland, St Magnus House. 25 Guild Street, Aberdeen, AB11 6NJ 2Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Clearwater House, Heriot Watt Research Park, Avenue North, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP As the UK central competent authority, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is required, under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 to monitor shellfish harvesting areas around the UK for the presence of marine biotoxins in shellfish and toxin producing phytoplankton. Three main groups of toxins are currently monitored routinely in the UK: diarrhetic shellfish poison (DSP), amnesic shellfish poison (ASP) and paralytic shellfish poison (PSP), although novel toxins are occasionally identified. Shellfish harvesting areas across the UK experience annual closures due to the detection of ASP, DSP and PSP toxins at levels that exceed the EU regulatory limits. Whilst the statutory monitoring programme plays an important role in minimising the impact of biotoxin events, the safety of shellfish placed on the market is ultimately the responsibility of food business operators (FBOs). FBOs are required, under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, to ensure that the levels of biotoxins in the end product do not xceed regulatory limits. e

As regulators, the FSA’s ultimate role is to protect consumers from the risks of marine biotoxins in shellfish. The FSA relies on science to underpin this role and to improve the knowledge of marine biotoxins in UK waters. Research in this area will be essential in allowing the development of improved monitoring and testing regimes for these compounds. Science must be objective, be driven by policy needs and requirements and must be reliable. Of the areas where science is needed to inform policy, the design of sampling programmes plays a key role in the effectiveness of biotoxin monitoring. The legislation prescribes periodic monitoring of toxic phytoplankton and biotoxins in shellfish. It also expects that the frequency of shellfish monitoring is determined by risk. The development of risk based monitoring programmes requires knowledge of the seasonal and geographic prevalence of biotoxin events in UK waters, and a good understanding of the uptake and depuration of toxins by different species of shellfish. Further research on the environmental conditions that lead to bloom development and toxin production by phytoplankton would also enhance our ability to predict biotoxin events. Early warning of biotoxin contamination of shellfish also requires understanding of the relationships between phytoplankton in the water column and the distribution of toxins in shellfish within the harvesting area. Another area of research that is critical in relation to biotoxin monitoring is the availability of reliable testing methods for all of the regulated toxins. Currently, the regulations require ASP toxins to be monitored using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). The reference methods for monitoring of lipophillic (DSP) and PSP toxins are based on mouse bioassay (MBA) procedures. However, the Agency is committed to seeking alternative methods for statutory monitoring that will protect public health and reduce reliance on animal testing. The development of simple, rapid testing methods based on functional and immunoassay techniques is also needed to allow Industry to fulfil its own obligations in ensuring shellfish placed on the market does not present a risk to human health. However, to date, the development of alternative biotoxin testing methods has been complicated by the lack of standard reference materials for the wide range of toxin analogues that are covered by the regulations. It is important that further support is given to the development of these materials in order to allow development and validation of a range of analytical and functional assays that are suitable for both statutory monitoring and end product testing.

24

What does industry want from science? Doug McLeod Chair, Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers The first issue is to reverse the question, and consider ‘What does industry NOT want from science?’ And the answers are fairly simple and straightforward, at least to a non-scientist :

Uncertainty : “more research is needed”

Confusion : 6 scientists = 6 explanations

De minimus : lowering levels of detection

Disagreement : 50 years and still only 1 accredited toxin analytical method (MBA) Regulation (standards, analytical methods, sampling) of the shellfish sector is a necessary condition, due to molluscan filtering and concentration of bacteria, viruses and biotoxins from the environment; however the vision of regulation is for protection of human health while maintaining a sustainable industry, effectively ‘protecting’ producers. There is apparently an effective global structure in place - CODEX, DG SANCO/FVO, FDA, national FSA’s, which is science-based in principle and proportionate in approach, and pragmatic and realistic in implementation. However, this vision, which the industry perceived of as a ‘White Knight’ to safeguard responsible producers against ‘cowboy’ operators, has morphed into a ‘Don Quixote’, flailing at ‘windmills and failing to achieve the original objectives of the mission statements.

The problem is that much of the research agenda appears to focus on: - potential concerns, novel worries and so-called emerging threats (Don Quixote “windmills”) - increasingly precise analytical methods – why? We have sufficient precision!!

Such “advances” do little for public health protection, distract regulators and only create additional constraints on producers, while failing to connect with the regulatory vision. Indeed, it can be argued that these “advances” are increasingly only a justification for ‘more research’! And certainly do little either for protection of public health or sustaining the ability of industry to supply quality products to the consumer.

Moving on to ‘What industry wants from science’, there is a fairly straightforward menu : • More research to be focused on problems associated with the regulatory biotoxin

management regime : - Simple, quick, reliable quantitative test methods - Less medieval testing methods for toxins – let’s agree a science based yardstick and move on from MBA to chemical methods • Need to focus on risk assessment (then risk management) • Investigation of the cause of phytoplankton creating toxins (environmental

parameters) • Improved prediction of bloom events and toxin levels in particular areas

25

Industry would like improved forecasting of rising toxin levels – but there is disagreement over the utility of phytoplankton monitoring – a view from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency:

“Our (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) position has always been as follows:

- While several Canadian dinoflagellate and diatom species are known to be toxin producers, the presence of those species in the phytoplankton population does not always correlate with the presence of toxins in shellfish. - Experience gained in past phytoplankton monitoring programs indicated that, for regulatory purposes, the identification of blooms did not always translate to any predictable increase in the toxin levels in the shellfish in that area.”

So is phytoplankton monitoring a waste of resources, which could be better deployed monitoring toxin levels? Other ‘wants’ :

Methods of removal of toxins and other contaminants – removal of ASP from scallop meats by washing is not high science, but it is effective – are there equivalents for other toxins?

Recognition that many toxins have negligible impact on human health and should not be regulated – please stop building careers on the corpse of an industry!

In conclusion, industry recognises that regulation to protect consumer health is an essential service, but we insist that regulatory policy should be science assisted - not science driven. While regulatory requirements should define research priorities, research prioritisation should reflect industry issues as well as regulator’s needs. There is no doubt that communication & engagement with industry should be priorities not afterthoughts, for both regulators and the scientific community, and the symbiotic relationship between science and regulators should be expanded to include industry – collaboration is always preferable to ivory-tower-itis, whether in the lab or the bureau! Risk assessment and risk management rather than mechanistic or formulaic approaches should be highlighted as the regulatory philosophy, with plenty of opportunity for science/research to contribute to fulfilling the regulatory vision. There can never be too much good science - but there must be no allowance for poor or inadequately directed research!

26

Operation & effectiveness of monitoring programmes Dougie McKenzie

Integrin Advanced Biosystems, Marine Resource Centre, Barcaldine, Oban, Argyll, PA37 1SE Shellfish Toxins: EU Legislation Currently in the UK classified production areas are monitored for the presence of toxin producing phytoplankton genera. In addition, at least weekly flesh testing occurs unless risk assessment suggests lower sampling frequency is safe. Industry also employs end product testing (EPT), and full traceability of product exists. Why monitor? Direct government control of food safety through monitoring is very unusual as standard food safety practice is that industry bears the burden for ensuring food safety based around Hazard Action Critical Control Points (HACCP). Government intervention is usually concerned with primary research and surveys to inform legislation and good practise. Comprehensive monitoring is expensive and cannot measure everything. However, for shellfish toxins monitoring is necessary to comply with health standards in order to meet our Community obligations under EU 2004/854 as Central Competent Authority’ (with regard to live bivalves) If there was no direct requirement on government to monitor would they do so? Probably not: monitoring is disproportionate (for approx 5K tonnes of shellfish monitoring costs £1M per annum for toxins alone). It is also arguably disproportionate in terms of health risk. In addition the industry in Scotland (and elsewhere) is poorly placed to shoulder costs. However, as detailed below, a number of compelling reasons for monitoring exist. It must be remembered that algal biotoxins are different from other biotoxins. Shellfish are usually eaten whole with limited processing, with cooking having poorly predicted outcomes on toxin content. Toxin contamination is usually acute, sporadic and difficult to predict, making implementation of HACCP problematic. King scallops are an exception, and monitoring of these has now ceased. Biotoxin monitoring: A new approach A recent risk assessment of the biotoxin monitoring in Scotland at that time indicated that: Data were too sparse for definitive risk assessment: required combining of different sites. Monitoring regimes produced a high probability of missing events. If < 1% risk of missing toxic event was the target level, then the need to move to weekly testing was identified. The PSP risk was not adequately handled by statistical approach.

27

Hence the conclusions of the risk assessment were:

No alternative to weekly testing (at least for PSP)

Practical and cost issues preclude monitoring every site

Need to do fewer sites better hence the use of sentinel sites, called Representative monitoring points (RMP’s)

Use these RMP’s to warn other producers in the area of times of toxin hazard

Environmental health officers should check end product testing results at times of

heightened risk and all sites close if sentinel site exceeds limits (unless alternative test results available)

A move to a new monitoring system was therefore undertaken. About 40% of total sites were designated as RMPs. The decision was made to monitor single sites so as not to disadvantage these areas despite disproportionate costs. RMPs were selected on the basis of geographical relevance to area, previous history of toxins, mussel production preferred, phytoplankton monitoring site, good and willing compliance with earlier programmes, ease of access for harvester and official control officer. Species Issues A number of special issues where identified. Scallops are not appropriate as sentinel organisms because of elevated domoic acid levels. Evidence from risk assessment and elsewhere suggested that oysters are more resistant to uptake of toxins than mussels. Cockles and razors are not farmed therefore there is a need to decide on a separate monitoring strategy for these species. There is little known about other species therefore mussels were selected as the monitoring organism of choice. The new monitoring programme based on RMPs has now been in place for approximately one year. The future of monitoring? Industry is likely to be required to shoulder an increasing fraction of the financial burden. The replacement of the mouse bioassay will make this possible as it will drive savings in overall cost. However, toxin complexity will keep analytical test cost high. Molecular methods will supplement microscopy to make plankton monitoring more effective. Risk assessments will be based on species not just area: changing environmental conditions will require constant updating of risk assessments.

28

Modelling a bloom of the dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi in Scottish coastal waters during 2006 Modelling a bloom of the dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi in Scottish coastal waters during 2006 Philip A. Gillibrand1*, Keith Davidson1 and Peter I. Miller2Philip A. Gillibrand1*, Keith Davidson1 and Peter I. Miller2

1 Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Argyll, PA37 1QA, U.K. 1 Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Argyll, PA37 1QA, U.K. 2. NEODAAS-Plymouth, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, U.K. 2. NEODAAS-Plymouth, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, U.K.

* Corresponding Author. Present address: National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box

8602, Christchurch, New Zealand. p.gillibrand@niwa.co.nz

* Corresponding Author. Present address: National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box

8602, Christchurch, New Zealand. p.gillibrand@niwa.co.nz

Abstract

Figure 1. 7-day composite of chlorophyll-a data from the MODIS Aqua sensor (week ending 22nd June 2006). Elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations are evident to the west of Scotland (indicated by red/orange colouration).

The progression and development of a bloom of the marine dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi in Scottish coastal waters during 2006 is simulated using a lagrangian plankton transport model coupled to a three-dimensional baroclinic hydrodynamic coastal ocean model. The goal of the study was to predict both the speed of progression of the bloom around the Scottish coastline, and the timing of landfall events. Two studies were performed: a shelf-wide investigation of the transport of the bloom, and a smaller-scale, higher-resolution, study of the bloom in Scottish west coast waters. In the first case, the plankton transport model was forced by archived daily-mean flow and temperature fields from operational simulations of the hydrodynamic model. For the second study, the transport model was coupled directly to total flow and temperature fields from a regional application of the hydrodynamic model. The model study demonstrated the feasibility of simulating the transport and growth of K.mikimotoi blooms using a coupled model platform, but also demonstrated that cells cannot be treated simply as passive particles and that the model must include more sophisticated representation of cell biology, including equations for growth, mortality and phototaxis. The model was capable of simulating direction and speed of travel of the bloom, but failed to accurately simulate measured cell densities. High densities were also predicted in September 2006 that were not recorded by microscopy. Introduction

During the summer of 2006, a large bloom of

the marine dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi appeared in the continental shelf waters to the west of Scotland. The bloom was detected both by harmful algae coastal monitoring programmes and in satellite imagery (Fig. 1), both sources of data indicating that the bloom progressed northward along the western Scottish coast, past the Orkney and Shetland Isles and into the North Sea (Davidson et al., 2007). In Orkney, measured concentrations exceeded 3 million cells per litre in August; elsewhere concentrations were lower but reached 1 million cells per litre around the islands of Skye and Lewis (Fig. 2). Davidson et al. (2007) suggested that the northward progression of the

29

bloom was consistent with the cells being transported by the Scottish coastal current (Simpson and Hill, 1986; Hill and Simpson, 1988; Hill et al., 1997; Inall et al., 2008).

Figure 2. Time series of K. mikimotoi development at selected coastal monitoring sites.

Following the 2006 event, a study of the progression and development of the bloom using predictive numerical models was undertaken, with particular focus placed on hindcasting the rate of transport around the coast, the observed density at coastal monitoring locations, and the timing of landfall events. Two studies were performed: the first was a continental shelf-wide simulation of the progression and development of the bloom; the second study focussed on Scottish west coast waters and utilised a higher-resolution regional version of the hydrodynamic model. In this short paper, we briefly describe the coupled hydrodynamic-lagrangian model system, present some results of the simulations from the first study only, and highlight areas for further model development.

Model Description

The numerical approach consisted of a coupled hydrodynamic-lagrangian random walk

model, whereby the algal cells are represented by numerical ‘particles’ which are subjected to coastal physical processes of advection and diffusion, and which also are ascribed biological characteristics such as growth, mortality and behaviour. By releasing and then tracking the movement and properties of many tens of thousands of particles, the development and transport of the bloom was simulated. Individual particles are transported by three-dimensional flow fields derived from a hydrodynamic model of the region.

For the shelf-wide study, we used archived daily-mean flow and temperature fields from operational simulations of the Medium Resolution Continental Shelf (MRCS) hydrodynamic model (Holt and James, 2001; Holt et al., 2001) performed by the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO; Siddorn et al., 2007). The model has a horizontal spatial resolution of ca 6 km and is forced by modelled wind stresses from the UKMO Unified Model. Archived velocity fields, which are available from water surface to seabed at 5 m depth intervals throughout the model domain, are daily-mean values and do not include tidal currents. Daily three-dimensional flow and temperature fields for the UK continental shelf were obtained for the period June – December 2006.

The velocity fields were linked to a particle tracking model, which uses virtual “particles” to represent fixed numbers of K. mikimotoi cells. The particles are then advected by the velocity field and mixed by horizontal and vertical eddy diffusion to simulate transport of the cells. Particle-tracking techniques have wide applications in oceanography for understanding transport pathways and dispersal processes of biotic and abiotic pelagic mater (e.g. Visser, 1997; Ross and Sharples, 2004; Proehl et al., 2005; Gillibrand and Willis, 2007). The method is particularly advantageous when the subject matter exhibits biological (or chemical) behaviour, such as growth, mortality and vertical migration for marine plankton.

In the present model, particles can optionally be given migrating behaviour (Gentien, 1988), and algal growth and mortality are simulated by the stochastic generation and removal of particles respectively. Algal growth is treated as a function of temperature (Gentien et al.,

30

2007) and mortality is a function of local cell density and vertical velocity shear (Gentien et al., 2007). Numerous model runs were performed, with varying parameter settings in order to investigate the influence of each process on the predicted transport and development of the bloom. The model ran from 1st July to 30th September 2006. Initial cell densities throughout the model domain were derived from a composite Modis Aqua image of surface chlorophyll-a concentration for the week 25 June – 01 July by assuming a constant cell chlorophyll density of 1.5x10-5 μg chl-a per cell (Jones et al., 1982, Dahl et al., 1987).

Results and Discussion

Early model simulations were performed without including algal growth and mortality, and assessing whether simple wind-driven and tidal advection could account for the progression of the bloom. It quickly became apparent that it could not. Without growth, the algal biomass in the model steadily reduced (due to losses through open boundaries) and the high densities observed at coastal monitoring sites did not materialise. The early simulations also demonstrated the importance of positive phototaxis (Gentien, 1988) that allowed high surface densities to develop by aggregation during daylight hours. Without this behaviour pattern, cells were dispersed throughout the water column in much lower densities.

Figure 3. Model-predicted surface concentrations of chlorophyll a, derived from predicted K. mikimotoi cell density, at weekly intervals from a model run that includes algal growth, mortality and vertical migration. The distributions on 1 July are the specified initial concentrations.

When growth and mortality processes were included in the simulations, the modelled

development of the bloom represented observed events more closely. Fig. 3 shows the simulated surface concentrations of chlorophyll a at weekly intervals from the start of the simulation (1 July 2006). The model predicts that, given a background seed population of K. mikimotoi cells, the population will grow as water temperatures rise; where an initial seed population was not present, e.g. in the central North Sea, predicted K mikimotoi densities were

31

zero until mid-August when cells arrived due to advection. This highlights the crucial importance of establishing accurate initial distributions of cell densities for the model simulation, a task that is handicapped by the difficulty in discriminating the species origin of remotely-sensed chlorophyll.

zero until mid-August when cells arrived due to advection. This highlights the crucial importance of establishing accurate initial distributions of cell densities for the model simulation, a task that is handicapped by the difficulty in discriminating the species origin of remotely-sensed chlorophyll.

A simulation with the source population confined to the south-western corner of the model domain, where water sample monitoring indicated that the bloom began, illustrated the influence of the initial distributions on subsequent development of the population distribution (Fig. 4). With the initial distributions of K. mikimotoi confined to the SW shelf, the transport and extent of the bloom was markedly reduced. In particular, cells were entirely absent from Orkney, Shetland and the North Sea, clearly contrary to observations. Complementary simulations (not presented here) suggested that feeding K. mikimotoi cells onto the shelf at multiple locations along the shelf edge, as if the seed population was being transported northwards by the Hebridean slope current, (Sousa et al. 2002), could explain the appearance of K. mikimotoi at these northerly locations. The introduction of the seed population onto the shelf at several discrete locations also results in more variable cell abundances at coastal sites, where cell densities rose rapidly from background levels and also fell back rapidly (Figure 2). The model results shown in Fig. 3, produced much less variability in coastal cell concentrations due to the high initial background concentrations specified on 1 July.

A simulation with the source population confined to the south-western corner of the model domain, where water sample monitoring indicated that the bloom began, illustrated the influence of the initial distributions on subsequent development of the population distribution (Fig. 4). With the initial distributions of K. mikimotoi confined to the SW shelf, the transport and extent of the bloom was markedly reduced. In particular, cells were entirely absent from Orkney, Shetland and the North Sea, clearly contrary to observations. Complementary simulations (not presented here) suggested that feeding K. mikimotoi cells onto the shelf at multiple locations along the shelf edge, as if the seed population was being transported northwards by the Hebridean slope current, (Sousa et al. 2002), could explain the appearance of K. mikimotoi at these northerly locations. The introduction of the seed population onto the shelf at several discrete locations also results in more variable cell abundances at coastal sites, where cell densities rose rapidly from background levels and also fell back rapidly (Figure 2). The model results shown in Fig. 3, produced much less variability in coastal cell concentrations due to the high initial background concentrations specified on 1 July.

Figure 4. Model-predicted surface concentrations of chlorophyll a, derived from predicted K. mikimotoi cell density, at weekly intervals with the initial bloom on 1st July confined to the south-western part of the Scottish shelf and concentrations elsewhere initially set to zero.

In summary then, this early work has shown some potential to simulate the progression and development of the K. mikimotoi bloom observed during 2006, and the model results strongly indicate that the high observed abundances of K. mikimotoi were due to a combination of cell growth, positive phototaxis, and local-scale features (convergences) of ocean circulation. To improve the modelling, better initial concentration fields are required, which needs improved methods of discriminating the species from remotely-sensed

32

chlorophyll a images, and more information on cell ecology (growth and mortality functions and behavioural characteristics) is necessary. In addition, the underlying hydrodynamic models must be capable of resolving local circulation features that influence cell dispersal.

References Dahl E., Danielssen DS, Semb A, Tangen K (1987) Precipitation and run off as a fretilizer to a Gyrodinium aureolum Hulbert bloom. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 187:66-73 Davidson, K., E. Bresnan, K. Kennington, S. Swan, S. Fraser and P. Miller (2007). A prolonged Karenia mikimotoi bloom in Scottish waters in 2006. Harmful Algae News, 33, 4 pp, http://ioc.unesco.org/hab/news.htm Gentien P. (1998). Bloom dynamics and ecophysiology of the Gymnodinium mikimotoi species complex. In: Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms (Eds: Anderson DM, Cembella AD and Hallegraeff GM) NATO ASI series vol G41 pp 155-173, Springer-Verlag. Gentien, P., M. Lunven, P. Lazure, A. Youenou, M.P. Crassous (2007). Motility and autotoxicty in Karenia mikimotoi (Dinophyceae). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2079. Gillibrand, P.A. and K.J. Willis (2007). Dispersal of Sea Lice Larvae from Salmon Farms: A Model Study of the Influence of Environmental Conditions and Larval Behaviour. Aquatic Biology, 1, 73-75. Hill, A.E., K.J. Horsburgh, R.W. Garvine, P.A. Gillibrand, G. Slesser, W.R. Turrell, and R.D. Adams (1997), Observations of a density-driven recirculation of the Scottish coastal current in the Minch, Est. Coast. Shelf Sci., 45 (4), 473-484. Hill, A.E., and J.H. Simpson (1988), Low-Frequency Variability of the Scottish Coastal Current Induced by Along-Shore Pressure-Gradients, Est. Coast. Shelf Sci., 27 (2), 163-180. Holt, J.T. and I.D. James (2001). An s coordinate density evolving model of the northwest European continental shelf 1, Model description and density structure., J. Geophys. Res., 106 (C7): 14,015-14,034. Holt, J.T., I.D. James and J.E. Jones (2001). An s coordinate density evolving model of the northwest European continental shelf 2, Seasonal currents and tides., J. Geophys. Res., 106 (C7): 14,035-14,053. Inall, M.E., P.A. Gillibrand, C.R. Griffiths, N. MacDougal and K. Blackwell (in press). Temperature, salinity and flow variability on the northwest European shelf. J. Mar. Syst. Jones KJ, Ayres P, Mullock AM, Roberts RJ (1982) A red tide of Gyrodinium aureolum in sea lochs of the firth of clued and associated mortality of pond-reared salmon. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK 62:771-782 Proehl, J.A., D.R. Lynch, D.J. McGillicuddy Jr. and J.R. Ledwell (2005). Modeling turbulent dispersion on the north flank of Georges Bank using lagrangian particle models. Cont. Shelf Res., 25, 875-900.

33

Ross O.N. and J. Sharples (2004). Recipe for 1-D Lagrangian particle tracking models in space-varying diffusivity. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2:289-302. Siddorn, J.R., J.I. Allen, J.C. Blackford, F.J. Gilbert, J.T. Holt, M.W. Holt, J.P. Osborne, R. Proctor and D.K. Mills (2007). Modelling the hydrodynamics and ecosystem of the North-West European continental shelf for operational oceanography. J. Mar. Syst., 65, 417-429. Simpson, J.H., and A.E. Hill (1986), The Scottish coastal current., in The Role of Freshwater Outflow in Coastal Marine Ecosystems, edited by S. Skreslet, pp. 295-308, NATO Advanced Study Institute. Souza, A.J., J.H. Simpson, M. Harikrishnan, and J. Malarkey (2001), Flow structure and seasonality in the Hebridean slope current, Oceanologica Acta, 24, S63-S76. Visser A.W. (1997) Using random walk models to simulate the vertical distribution of particles in a turbulent water column. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 158:275-281.

34

Emerging techniques and early warning systems? Elizabeth Turrell1, Charles Bavington2 and Hans Kleivdal3

1FRS Marine Laboratory. 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB 2European Centre for Marine Biotechnology, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Dunbeg, Oban Argyll, Scotland, PA37 1QA 3Biosense Laboratories AS, HIB-Thormøhlensgt 55, N-5008 Bergen, Norway Evaluation and method development of solid phase adsorbents for phycotoxins in the marine environment Solid-phase adsorption toxin tracking (SPATT) was recently developed to facilitate monitoring of lipophilic shellfish toxins (LSTs) in shellfish harvesting areas (Mackenzie et al., 2004). SPATT for LSTs was founded on the observation that when low levels of toxin-producing algae were present in the water column significant amounts of toxins were released in seawater. A lag between detection of released toxins adsorbed onto porous synthetic resin, phytoplankton peak cell densities and highest toxin concentrations in shellfish was demonstrated, suggesting that SPATT technology could be a useful predictive tool for the onset of a toxic event. In this study, we sought to further evaluate adsorbents that could be applied to SPATT for LSTs and additionally to hydrophilic phycotoxins including paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins and domoic acid (DA), associated with amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP). Previously, a synthetic adsorbent resin DIAION® HP20, in the form of spherical beads was used for the adsorption of LSTs from seawater (Mackenzie et al., 2004). In this study, a further resin, SEPABEADS® SP700, produced by the Mitsubishi Chemical Cooperation was also tested for its capacity to adsorb LSTs from seawater. The adsorption and recovery of a range of LSTs (incl. okadaic acid, dinophysistoxins, yessotoxins, azaspiracids, pectenotoxins and spirolides) from seawater using HP20 and SP700 was investigated. Results demonstrate that the SP700 resin was superior to HP20. For example, after 4 hours incubation ca. 60 % of available okadaic acid was adsorbed onto the SP700 resin compared to 30 % for the HP20 resin with recovery of the toxins using methanol. Optimised SPATT bags, containing SP700 resin beads as the adsorbent, were deployed weekly (from 2005) in conjunction with sampling of phytoplankton at Loch Ewe in Scotland. SPATT extracts were analysed by LC-MS using a multi-toxin analysis for LSTs. During the monitoring period OA and PTX-2 were detected in the SPATT sachets in the absence of known causative phytoplankton, Dinophysis spp., in the water column. Demonstrating that toxins can be present in the water column for weeks when cells are not detected. However, concentrations of OA and PTX-2 increased prior to detection of Dinophysis acuminata suggesting that SPATT does have potential as an early warning system. Crucial questions will be to determine if the toxins are actively liberated by healthy cells or are associated with the demise of the cells. The causative organism of AZAs was previously recorded as the dinoflagellate, Protoperidinium crassipes (James et al., 2003). This was ascertained by picking a large

35

number of cells of P. crassipes from a sample of phytoplankton taken while shellfish were contaminated with AZAs, and analysing the cells for AZAs using LC-MS. In this study, AZA-1 was not detected in SPATT sachets before or immediately after highest peak cell densities of Protoperidinium spp. were observed. Highlighting that SPATT may provide a better indicator of possible shellfish contamination than phytoplankton monitoring using Protoperidinium spp. as an indicator species for toxicity. Indeed doubts exist within the scientific community on whether this dinoflagellate species is the main producer of this group of toxins. Using laboratory-scale experiments, we investigated the removal of two PSP toxins (neosaxitoxin, NEO and saxitoxin STX) from seawater using computationally designed polymers (CDPs). An ethylene glycol methacrylate phosphate (EGMP) based polymer was able to adsorb both PSP toxins completely. To optimize toxin recoveries, a variety of extraction procedures were examined and a protocol developed enabling the recovery of 97 % of NEO and 92 % of STX from the CDP. An additional CDP and a variety of adsorbents (activated glass beads, resins and zeolites) were assessed for the adsorption and recovery of DA from seawater. The best adsorbent was found to be Amberlite®XAD761 which demonstrated nearly 100 % binding of available DA. Extensive field trials in European waters will now be progressed to determine if SPATT (for LST, PSP and ASP toxins) has potential as an early warning system for shellfish contamination through EC Collective Research SPIES-DETOX (Contract No. 030270-2). References MacKenzie, L., Beuzenberg, V., Holland, P., McNabb, P., Selwood, A., 2004. Solid phase adsorption toxin tracking (SPATT): a new monitoring tool that simulates the biotoxin contamination of filter feeding bivalves. Toxicon 44: 901-918 James, K.J., Moroney, C., Roden, C., Satake, M., Yasumoto, T., Lehane M., Furey, A., 2003. Ubiquitous 'benign' alga emerges as the cause of shellfish contamination responsible for the human toxic syndrome, azaspiracid poisoning. Toxicon 41, 145-151.

36

Shellfish Toxin Management: The Irish Experience Joe Silke Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, County Galway, Ireland Monitoring Tools The provision of robust management advice on the presence of toxins in shellfish is essential towards the protection of consumer health. The incorporation of the highest quality information in making these decisions also benefits industry in minimizing closures and ensuring high quality product entering the retail chain. Monitoring of biotoxins in the Irish shellfish safety programme is based on the effective implementation of phytoplankton, bioassay and biotoxin chemistry monitoring programmes. Each of these elements has their own strengths and weaknesses, but in combination they provide a very strong programme to protect human health, while supporting the quality Irish shellfish brand. a) Phytoplankton often may provide an early warning of potential biotoxin contamination, often with results available before the shellfish tests. It can therefore act as a preemptory tool to trigger an action plan to delay harvest, or in some cases to close an area and thereby protect human health. However the patchiness of phytoplankton in the water makes it very difficult to obtain representative samples. b) Bioassays provide a good indication of overall toxin load in shellfish, and some indication as to the safety of the shellfish when the toxicology of the toxin is unknown. In certain cases the bioassay can be calibrated to give a semi quantitative approximation of toxin equivalents in the shellfish and the test does not require sophisticated equipment. There is however some indications that bioassays may be oversensitive to certain toxins and the reliance on bioassays alone should be questioned. c) Biotoxin chemistry offers extremely sensitive methods for the quantification of the presence of shellfish toxins. In many cases these methods are the only means of determining the identification of the particular toxin responsible for the outbreak. In addition, with these methods we can detect levels below the threshold of closure, sometimes offering forecast information on the onset of the problem. The success of the Irish programme can be judged in terms of how consumer safety has been ensured. Since the restructuring of the programme in 2000/2001 there have been no reports of human illnesses or product recalls associated with biotoxins in Irish molluscan shellfish on national or international markets. The programme will continue to be improved and adopt state of the art methodologies and management concepts into the future. Risk Based Management This toolkit of monitoring information is framed in a robust management structure and supported by strong food safety policies and enforcement. In the area of food safety, the public often supports such strong policies, hoping to reduce or eliminate risks to human health. But some of these policies are not always directed at the most significant sources of risk. The effect of such policies may be to misallocate resources that could improve public health if these were directed toward the more significant risks. During the early 1990s the allocation of resources to shellfish safety was totally inadequate. With the appearance of Azaspiracid in the mid 90’s and the extended closures in 2000-2001, pressure was placed by

37

the industry on government to re-allocate resources and promote more informed decision-making about shellfish safety through greater use of tools such as risk assessment and decision analysis.

Under the guidance of a committee of Regulators and Industry representatives (The Molluscan Shellfish Safety Committee or MSSC), a re-vamped programme was implemented in 2001 to provide sensible consumer food safety but also protecting the industry from unnecessary closures. A management concept taking a holistic view of risk was initiated in 2003. Shellfish production closure and opening could now be based on all information available from bioassay, chemistry, phytoplankton, recent history and results from adjacent areas. A management cell made up of representatives from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Irish Shellfish Association and the Marine Institute was established to discuss compiled information, and in the case of unusual or un-seasonal results take a measured decision. A range of improvements to the process came with the adoption of risk based management techniques. While the EU directives ultimately governed the amount of flexibility that can be introduced into the system, a more pragmatic approach to toxicity control was introduced with the combined interest of consumer food safety and industry interests taken into account. At the same time all legislative controls were adhered to, and improved food safety controls were achieved. These improvements included the achievement of ISO17025 laboratory quality accreditation for all bioassay, toxin chemistry and phytoplankton analyses carried out by the Marine Institute. A progressive initiative involved setting up of Management Cell procedures for taking a risk based decision on non-routine results. This is a joint decision taken between the regulatory and industry stakeholders taking the species of bivalve molluscs, details of the bioassay, chemistry trends, phytoplankton trends, time of year / risk profile, adjacent areas status, and relevant historical data into account when necessary to assign status to a production area. Other improvements in the area of communications included the establishment of an open annual shellfish safety science conference, bi monthly MSSC meetings and use of online databases, web reports and SMS messaging to issue production area status reports updated daily. A code of practice was also drafted to document the methodology for sampling analysis and decisions. This is available online at www.fsai.ie . In assigning status, the use of bioassay is the principal tool used. Before harvesting from any production area two samples, taken a minimum of 48 hours apart, must have biotoxins below the regulatory limit. With the first of these two clear samples the area is assigned a Closed Pending status and with the second the area is assigned an Open status. If a result is positive for biotoxins then the area is assigned a Closed status and the area will need two clear results a minimum of 48 hours apart to return to an Open status again. The frequency of testing is laid down for each species and this may have seasonal variation. If the frequency is not adhered to then the area looses its Open status. Where chemistry indicates that Azaspiracid is the principal toxin present then the bioassay is not used to assign production area status as we have seen there are significant discrepancies in the bioassay when this method is used. In this case we rely on the chemistry, and in the near future as alternative validated chemistry tests become standard, the reliance on the qualitative mouse bioassay will be decreased. HABs Research The measurement of toxins, phytoplankton and environmental factors are critical to the development of forecast systems. These are developed by hind-casting historical data to run scenarios and thereby develop models of the dynamics of toxin flux in the environment. Fortunately, there is a good time series of phytoplankton and shellfish toxicity taken since the

38

late 1980s as part of the Irish national phytoplankton monitoring programme. Knowledge of the pathway of intoxication that result in these toxic events is an essential pre-requisite to attempt to try and understand the forecasting of the onset and duration of toxic periods. A project BOHAB (Biological Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, 2003-2005) was designed to gather diverse physical and biological information in the realms of toxic phytoplankton biology and oceanography to understand the coupling between the physical environment and HAB species. Extensive studies of existing datasets were carried out to hind-cast recent events such as toxic phytoplankton presence and toxicity. A synthesis of these studies described the pathway from dormant winter periods of HABs and toxicity through to the onset and establishment of elevated presence of HABs and resultant shellfish toxicity. This project was ambitious in its research objective of documenting the pathway of toxicity from origin to consumer. Starting with a synoptic picture of the phytoplankton in a geographical area, it followed through to shellfish toxicity and the risk of HAB events. Other markers were used, including the increase in toxic species, increase in sub threshold toxin levels, shift from diatom to dinoflagellate dominance and changes in population diversity. Coupling this information with oceanographic, meteorological and other measurements formed the conceptual basis of an operational forecasting model. Ultimately, the goal of modeling the onset of toxicity and the length of time that the toxicity is likely to persist in the area is essential, because while the onset of a toxic event is critical in planning harvesting, the length of time it may be retained by the shellfish may have a greater impact on the commercial activities. In Irish waters, shellfish may have a short period of toxicity lasting a few weeks or in other cases the toxicity may persist for longer than 10 months. Compounding this may be a succession of toxicities from various phytoplankton that are ingested by the shellfish and result in prolonged closures of an area subjected to several concurrent or sequential toxic events. Formulating this conceptual model is an effective means to synthesise such complex processes. It is a useful tool to gain a better understanding of the major variables that result in shellfish toxicity, and in addition identify a framework for associating relationships between diverse research areas. The objective of producing the conceptual models is therefore not to provide a completed onset and duration forecasting ability, but rather provide a setting for the pathway continuity and formulate the paradigm. It is a methodological tool for integrating hypotheses and theories by providing a map of the area and drawing attention to gaps. The BOHAB project aligned several research activities into such a biological pathway and attempted to fill these gaps for a number of harmful species. The description of the complete findings of project is beyond the scope of this short paper but some of the research for Dinophysis included studies in the areas of recruitment, vegetative development, bloom formation and toxin uptake in two shellfish growing areas in Ireland (Killary and Bantry). The processes by which populations of Dinophysis are transported into these areas were described, the conditions which favoured the vegetative growth and subsequent concentration in thin layers were studied and the uptake of toxin and gut content analysis of suspended mussel cultures carried out. These studies revealed a continuity from appearance in the plankton in early summer, through to toxicity in the shellfish, but also showed the occurrence of Dinophysis occurrence was dependant on different hydrographic mechanisms to deliver initial populations into an area, and these were dependant on the geographical nature of the production area. The uptake of toxin was very variable also and was related to the patchy nature of phytoplankton within production areas both horizontally and vertically at very small scales.

39

Such research programmes are vital in securing the knowledge necessary to understand the environmental-ecological interaction that results in shellfish toxicity. In conjunction with ongoing monitoring activities there is a wealth of data collection underway within Ireland and in other countries. Both of these activities are important to understand the variability and principal elements that result in toxic shellfish that may in time provide a forecasting tool for the protection of human health.

40

Oceans and Human Health Michael Depledge Peninsula Medical School, (Universities of Exeter and Plymouth)

A variety of threats to global human health exist from the ocean environment. These include algal toxins in seafood and algal toxins in seaspray. Health impacts from sewage, thermal pollution e.g. from nuclear power, coastal zone destruction, pesticides, trace metal pollution (Ariake Sea), Dioxins (Vietnam), PCBs (Greenland). There are important interconnections between ocean and human health particularly in developing countries. At least 2 billion people currently rely on seafood as a source of protein. The world population will increase from ca. 5 billion to ca. 8.2 billion by 2025 (90% of this increase will be in developing countries). Most of the populations of developing countries live within 50 km of estuaries or sea coasts This raises a number of causes for concern. A smaller proportion of coastal populations are supplied with sewage treatment now than in 1975. The total value of global trade in pesticides has more than doubled in 25 years. Over the last 40 years fertilizer use has increased by an order of magnitude in developing countries. Global populations of predatory fish are at 10% of pre-industrial levels. Oceanic fishing is worth US$ 82 billion annually During 1990s, annual catch levelled off at 90 million tons. Black Sea, North Atlantic and Caribbean fisheries are collapsing. (Source: Wilson, 2002). Future increases to be met by aquaculture which will involve destruction of coastal wetlands (another 90 million tons. 50% of total). A number of examples of indirect health threats related to climate change and ocean degradation have been identified. These include malnutrition associated with collapse of fisheries, psychiatric disorders (depression after flooding), respiratory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, associated with toxic algal blooms, cholera and algal blooms, eye infections, gastrointestinal infections associated with exposure to sewage in the sea as well as chemical contaminants in seafood (metals, persistent organic pollutants, radioisotopes). To allow policy development we need to know what is happening in the oceans on temporal and spatial scales as well as how changes will impact human health and well-being. In addition key changes in demographics, business practice and technology are likely (horizon scanning). Particular issues related to algal toxins and human health

• Working in silos (decoupling of marine science, marine industry and health care professionals)

• Prevention (rapid testing, costs ?) • Early warning (measuring the extent of the threat, incidence, risk?) • Routes of exposure (exports/imports) • Biomarkers (provide early warning and avoid threat) • Interactions (pollutants, ocean acidification, climate change) • Scotland, UK, Europe, Global

41

• Socio-economic aspects • Vulnerable subgroups (chronically sick, the elderly, children, etc.) • Health service procedures (how can we determine the incidence of exposure to algal

toxins ?, subclinical versus clinical events) • The future (horizon scanning) selfish consumption will almost certainly continue to

increase markedly on global scales!

42

Plenary discussion: How are HABs, shellfish toxins and related health risks perceived? Chair: Lora Fleming

Public Perception

• Monitoring programmes in developed countries, including the UK, with established shellfish industries are very successful in ensuring that contaminated shellfish do not reach the consumer and hence in preventing acute impacts of shellfish poisoning intoxication in humans.

• A higher incidence of shellfish toxin impact is recorded from developing countries than those in the developed world. There is therefore, on the basis of few reported negative health effects, some merit in promoting shellfish from UK waters as a safe product as the point of sale.

• Notwithstanding the above conclusion, it is clear that consumption of shellfish in the UK is low on a per capita basis. Much of UK harvested shellfish is exported to continental Europe, with a relatively small proportion of the UK population consuming shellfish in comparison to other marine products, and even fewer purchase shellfish to cook or serve in their own homes.

• The consumption of shellfish in the UK seems to be substantially hindered by the public perception that eating shellfish has a high probability of resulting in short term illness. It is probable that this perceived risk is much greater than the actual dangers and hence rigorous scientific study and quantification of the risk associated with shellfish consumption is expected to benefit the industry on the level of public perception. Health risks

• The health risks of the major shellfish toxins are well known and irrefutable. However, the magnitude of the risk to humans of the various other algal “toxins” is less clear. With, for example, there being no data on the effect on humans of yesotoxins or pectinotoxins and the risk to humans being extrapolated from animal data.

• While the precautionary principle requires careful scientific study of the potential

effects of bio-toxins, it is incumbent on scientists and regulators not to sensationalise the effects of any “new” toxins. However, industry must also recognise that regulators have a primary responsibility to safeguard human health and must act in accordance with this when doubt exists. The situation is further complicated by the large number of derivatives that exist of many algal toxins.

• As with other agricultural industries it is unlikely that any government will allow the

expansion of the shellfish industry without a parallel development of the research culture that surrounds it. Only through dialogue between all stakeholders can this science be made most effective for the promotion as well as the regulation of the industry.

• The strict control preventing the sale of intoxicated product means that epidemiological information on exposure to shellfish toxins is difficult to collect.

43

• There is a requirement for an improved detection capacity for algal toxins within the

medical services as well as a need to implement a system for the detection of shellfish and related diseases.

• Currently the majority of funds are placed into the prevention of consumption of shellfish toxins but little into detection or treatment. Chronic effects

• The lack of information on long term low level exposure to shellfish toxins limits the assessment of impact of shellfish toxins on human health.

• Regulators who enforce the EU shellfish hygiene direct have no information of the impact of long term exposure of low concentrations of shellfish toxins on human health. Historical examples, such as the study of DDT in the food web (e.g. presence of DDT in Inuit mothers’ milk), highlight the need to study the presence of toxins throughout the food web.

• Currently the only evidence of chronic negative impacts from algal toxins in the food chain comes from China where an increased incidence of liver cancer has been associated with high levels of microcystin in the drinking water supplies.

• There is therefore no a prioi reason to assume that algal toxins will have chronic effects on health. However, it is a reasonable and important area of study. The hoped for negative results would further strengthen the healthy image of product. Economic effects

• That HABs can have a negative economic impact on the aquaculture industry is without doubt.

• To reduce the economic impact of HABs there is need for growers and harvesters to have ‘hands on’ tools to allow the decision to harvest to be made at the farm. The may be in the form of decision tree risk assessments, (perhaps based on meteorology), predictive mathematical models, or new emerging technologies that can provide a mechanism for this such as the Biosense ASP ELISA or other similar chemically based tests.

• The high cost of getting AOAC validation for chemical tests, or the manpower required for the development of mathematical models and risk assessments can be a considerable barrier to getting these methods established. A proactive collaboration between science and industry is required to grow the industry to make the above methodologies more affordable.

• Funding from the Scottish Executive/Scottish Government, the Food Standards Agency and the EU has supported research into algal toxins in the UK. However, as noted by Smayda (2006) in comparison to other countries relatively little effort has been

44

expended on the study of harmful algae and shellfish toxicity in the UK. A number of reasons may exist for this. On a UK scale, aquaculture is a relatively small industry conducted in regions quite remote from seats of government and hence may have previously received relatively low priority for research funding. However, the recent NERC “Environment & Human Health programme”, which funded this meeting, and the further funds that are being directed to the research area of “Environment, pollution and Human Health”, indicate that more opportunities than ever before may now exist to gain funding at a UK level. Dialogue between scientists and industry is required to nsure that such scientific effort is best targeted. e

• The pre-occupation with the perceived effects of fish farm derived nutrients being the

major factor in stimulating harmful blooms in Scottish waters has had a negative impact on other important lines of research in the region. The reports for SEPA and the Scottish government of Tett and Edwards (1992) http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/aquaculture/projects/habs/habs_report.pdf

Rydberg et al. (2003) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46930/0014748.pdf and Smayda (2004) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/92174/0022031.pdf all find no evidence for this link.

• Countries such as Ireland and Norway have invested heavily in aquaculture and

aquaculture research, are reaping the benefit of an expanding industry. • Particularly in Scotland, the climate afforded by devolved government may offer the

opportunities to develop the forms of scientific and medical research into algal toxins and shellfish poisoning, which through collaboration, can act to the benefit of the industry.

• While it is recognised that the shellfish industry does not have large amounts of

available funds to support research, it is likely that potential funders of research will wish to see financial or “in kind” contributions from industry. Recent initiatives such as the research funds made available by Seafish and SARF, and the requirement for scientific/industry collaboration to access them, are therefore particularly welcome. The future

• Change in shellfish toxicity is not inevitable. Should change occur there is no a priori reason to assume that toxicity or frequency of toxic events will necessarily increase. However, it is necessary to be prepared for change through a good understanding of the physics, chemistry and biology of coastal waters.

• Environmental drivers such as climate change could contribute to a change in the

toxin producing phytoplankton in UK waters. Regulators, medical practitioners and industry must be prepared to consider the resulting socio-economic and heath impacts.

• Increases water temperature generally favour dinoflagellates the phytoplankton group

containing most harmful species.

• It is important to remain aware of the potential for the invasion of harmful species currently prevalent in the warmers waters to the south (either through advection or ballast transfer). Climate change may also change the structure of the food web resulting in either less or more biological control (e.g. zooplankton grazing) of harmful phytoplankton.

45

Discussion group 1: Harmful Blooms • Harmful phytoplankton are routinely detected in UK waters.

• Some phytoplankton may be harmful to society or the environment in general through

a variety of routes (eutrophication, production of greenhouse gases, production of foam on beaches, impact on farmed fish etc). However, for the shellfish industry the production of natural biotoxins that may be accumulated by shellfish is of primary concern.

• Multiple above threshold counts of all three major toxin producing genera Alexandrium, Dinophysis and Pseudo-nitzschia are detected in any one year. However, as the presence of the organism does not necessarily confirm the presence of toxicity, and because regulatory limits are chosen on a precautionary basis, many of these events will not result in dangerous levels of shellfish toxicity.

• Funding for regulatory phytoplankton monitoring is sufficient to allow the monitoring of ~ 35 sites in Scotland, 59 in England/Wales, 35 in Northern Ireland and 5 in Isle of Man.

• In Scotland, these monitoring sites are only a fraction of the number of shellfish

harvesting locations, and the benefit of monitoring is therefore optimised by concentrating effort on a number of Representative Monitoring Points (RMPs) that are thought to be characteristic of a particular region. These phytoplankton RMPs are a subset of a larger number of RMPs used for shellfish flesh testing.

• The use of RMPs is a recent development in the methodology of harmful phytoplankton monitoring. Knowledge of the presence and density and trend (increase/decrease) of harmful phytoplankton through monitoring at these RMPs has clearly indicated the usefulness of phytoplankton data as an early warning of future shellfish toxicity events (and of the decline of a HAB event prior to the site being suitable for re-opening). Only the good (weekly) temporal frequency of this data collection has allowed these correlations to be drawn.

• Unfortunately, while general patterns exist, such as spring blooms of (generally non toxic) diatoms and summer and autumn blooms of dinoflagellates (including potentially toxic species), harmful blooms are extremely spatially and temporally variable in UK waters, making any prediction beyond the local scale problematic. Hence, based on current knowledge of the drivers of harmful species and toxicity occurrence, management strategies remain extremely difficult to implement successfully at present.

• Based on this spatial and temporal variability of HABs and shellfish toxicity in UK waters a requirement exists for improved technology and risk assessments to allow more effective monitoring of HABs and to provide an early warning of their presence to relevant industries.

• Direct microscopy of collected water samples remains the best method to detect and enumerate potentially harmful phytoplankton. Moreover, it is required by law through EU regulation.

46

• Such monitoring could perhaps be supplemented through shellfish growers performing their own phytoplankton monitoring, as does occurs at a relatively few sites presently. There has been considerable success using volunteer networks in the USA. The identification of some harmful species is much more difficult than of others. However, for the most recognisable species, this approach could provide the high frequency data required to examine site specificity and accurately monitoring fast growing blooms. While there would still need for regulatory procedures to be in place, it could provide further information to feed into models and risk assessments.

• Improved technology to allow more effective monitoring of HABs and to provide an early warning of their presence to relevant industries would be of benefit to the industry. Ideally methods should be rapid, inexpensive and accurate, allowing a large number of samples to be analysed in a short period of time. Perhaps the most appropriate use of resources would be the development of methods that allow a pre-screen of phytoplankton from a larger number of locations, with only those failing this screening process being counted by microscopy to definitively determine the concentration of potentially harmful species.

Can we hope to determine how physical/chemical/biological drivers govern initiation, maintenance and transport of harmful species?

• As noted above we do not yet have a good enough understanding of the factors that

govern harmful phytoplankton in UK waters to provide robust models or risk assessments of harmful blooms and subsequent shellfish toxicity.

• Are such models or risk assessments required and a feasible goal? The consensus was yes. However, regional differences in the prevalence of toxic phytoplankton species and shellfish toxins in the UK were highlighted as problems to overcome, as well as the role of coastal transport systems.

• Two main methods exist to predict the appearance of HABs: predictive numerical models or risk assessments.

• Numerical models, attempt to specifically simulate the appearance of progression of harmful phytoplankton through application of knowledge of factors such as their nutrient uptake rate, growth rate etc and how they respond to physical conditions such as stratification and mixing of the water column.

• Risk assessments seek to relate harmful phytoplankton to sets of environmental conditions such as winds, tides or threshold water temperature that may act in combination. While this approach still requires a good understanding of the behaviour or the organisms, it may at a less demanding level than the numerical models above, and may provide results on a shorter timescale.

• In both cases we require an improved knowledge of the factors that may result in harmful algal booms. However, current and past monitoring and research laboratories separately hold a lot of information about HABs. Integrated study of these data may allow us to establish a better understanding of trends that currently exist.

47

• Initiation of new, and maintenance of existing, long time series monitoring locations is encouraged, as decadal inform about the spatial and temporal variability of various species is invaluable.

• Interpretation of patterns in HAB distribution will rely on a better understanding of how the organisms respond to their environment. Even though our existing time series data sets have shortcomings, they are generally more complete than the environmental information that exists to compliment them. Monitoring programmes with complementary measurements of phytoplankton, shellfish toxins and physical/chemical environmental parameters are required.

Numerical models

• Mathematical models of harmful blooms may vary markedly in their degree of complexity. They may seek to simulate the phytoplankton at a single point in space, or may include three dimensional transport of particular species. However, in all cases the quality of the output is directly related to the quality of the information used to construct and parameterise the model.

• Should one only be interested in the appearance of a bloom at a particular location then less computationally demanding models are required as the spatial transport of cells are not required to be simulated.

• Mathematical models are a potentially powerful tool for early prediction of harmful blooms. However during their construction, there is a requirement to recognise the distinctiveness of each toxic phytoplankton species. The individual physiology of the organisms need to be included, thus we must to improve our knowledge of the biology of the organisms in addition to the physics of the systems at the relevant scales for the areas studied. Different types of blooms need to be identified and it is essential to be able to differentiate between blooms that are advected from offshore and those driven internally as separate processes.

• Mathematical models are therefore only a position to predict the occurrence of HABs of some particularly some well studied genera in specific areas e.g. Alexandrium in the Gulf of Maine. Similarly the presentation by Gillibrand et al., reported above, discussed the development of a mathematical model of Karenia mikimotoi, a dinoflagellate that can be harmful to finfish aquaculture in the UK.

• Both of the above examples are related to the modelling of relatively high abundance species that dominate the phytoplankton community during their bloom period. In UK waters these methods are therefore likely to be more suitable for those organisms that form a relatively high component of the biomass. For shellfish toxin producing species this may include Pseudo-nitzschia sp., but the application to low biomass organisms such as Alexandrium tamarense may be particularly problematic.

48

Risk Assessments

• The relative lack of understanding of the physiology of causative species of UK HABs may make robust 3D mathematical models of these organisms a relatively long term aim. In contrast, risk assessments based on environmental drivers may be more achievable in the short to medium term.

• The spatial and temporal variability of harmful blooms indicates that risk assessments are likely to be appropriate on a local rather than regional or country wide scale.

• Examples of successful risk assessment include the Penze estuary in Britany, France

and Cork Harbour in Ireland both of which regularly experience Alexandrium minutum blooms (PSP). Similar work has been conducted in Bantry Bay in Ireland which experiences blooms of Dinophysis (DSP). These studies suggest that, with good understanding of factors such as local hydrography, tides, wind driven advection, and phytoplankton temperature response it is possible, with a relatively high degree of probability, to predict the appearance of a harmful bloom of a particular organism.

• The variability of weather conditions in UK waters suggests that risk assessments are likely to be short term in nature. However, they do provide a potential for greater early warning than currently exists.

• Research activity in this sector, possibly targeted at pilot sites is encouraged, including the collection of good temporal and spatial phytoplankton/environmental data sets with which to derive the risk assessments.

49

Discussion group 2: Toxicity How do environmental stresses influence phytoplankton toxicity: what more do we need

to know? • A body of work has already been performed to study HAB toxicity. Therefore

substantial data exists with the potential to examine the correlation between phytoplankton and different toxin groups. As noted by Smayda (2006) research in UK waters is less advanced that elsewhere, although, in a Scottish context, recent progress has been made at FRS developing and validating methods for toxicity detection and phytoplankton identification and at SAMS on the ecology and toxicity of Pseudo-nitszchia and in the development of risk assessments and models of HAB organisms. In England ongoing programmes of research are being conducted at CEFAS and the University of Westminster.

• While we have a (relatively) good monitoring data of the appearance of the different genera of potentially toxic phytoplankton, the particular species involved and the conditions that generate toxicity of individual species remains less clear.

• For the major shellfish toxin producing species in the UK, various factors remain unknown:

Alexandrium spp. (PSP) • As monitoring programmes commonly only record the organism to genera level, the

extent of the geographical spread of different species is not well understood. It is hypothesised that PSP production is associated with Alexandrium minutum in the south and Alexandrium tamarense North American strain in the North. In addition a number of non toxic Alexandrium species have been identified in UK waters as well as the spirolide producer A. ostenfeldii.

• Alexandrium species spend part of their life cycle as resting cysts in the sediments,

returning to active growth in the upper water column only when conditions are suitable. A greater understanding of the excistment process and its relation to bloom development is required.

• Factors governing the levels of toxicity of different Alexandrium species are also poorly understood in UK waters.

Dinophysis spp. (DSP) • A number of species of Dinophysis including D. acuta and D. acuminata are prevalent

in UK waters. Factors governing the toxicity of this genera are particularly poorly understood as until very recently the methodology to maintain it in laboratory culture had not been established, preventing detailed study of how different environmental factors may influence it. Pseudo-nitzschia spp. (ASP)

• Although thirteen species of Pseudo-nitzschia have been identified in UK waters only three have been confirmed as domoic acid producers. Domoic acid (DA) produced by Pseudo-nitzschia is generally though to be restricted to the nutrient limited phase of growth. In UK coastal waters limitation by a lack of silicate may be most likely to result in elevated toxin concentrations. As DA is an amino acid and hence contains nitrogen

50

(N), limitation of algal growth by this nutrient will not generate toxicity. While some study of toxin production by UK strains in relation to nutrient and light availability has been conducted (Fehling et al. 2004, 2005) this was for one species (P. seriata) only, more extensive study of the factors governing toxicity of clones of a larger range of potentially toxic species of the genera is required.

• Outside the “big three” toxin producers, there are still some fundamental gaps in knowledge of HAB species in the UK e.g. is Protoperidinum involved in AZA production or could it act as a vector ? High density blooms of Prorocentrum minimum have been observed along the east coast of Scotland and in Northern Ireland. To date there have been no investigations into the toxicity of these species in UK waters.

• Benthic and epiphytic species have been poorly studied to date and little is known

about their toxin profiles. Although toxic species have been identified, specific toxin profiles have not been obtained for all species although this has been improving over the last number of years.

• To date most toxicity studies have looked at accumulation in shellfish but little work has been performed to examine the impacts of toxins in the water column. In order to examine this further there is a requirement for more isolates and their deposition in phytoplankton culture collections, collection of natural field samples for analysis is required.

• A working group forum could be established to examine the linkage between phytoplankton, nutrients and toxicity levels, this could be performed in situ as well as in laboratory studies.

• A number of issues require further study:

• Tools developed can be used to see what is triggering toxicity and look at the differences around the UK e.g. at the proposed North and South gradient.

• What are the means of depuration of toxins from shellfish? Can this be achieved by feeding with non toxic phytoplankton, does UV have an effect? Does processing in species other then scallops have an effect on toxin levels? There was a useful review of depuration of toxins at the recent ICMSS meeting in Nelson New Zealand.

• With regard to scallops it is very difficult to get scallops to depurate toxins. Conflict of information reflects the complexity of the information.

51

Discussion group 3: Impacts How to better assess and mitigate the impacts on public health?

The current phytoplankton and shellfish monitoring programmes are thought successful in protecting humans from eating intoxicated shellfish. However it was considered that there is a general lack of understanding of the true impacts of shellfish poisoning on human health, this is exacerbated by the lack of any meaningful statistics with which to gage the extent of shellfish poisoning. The effects of the three major shellfish toxin syndromes it the UK are briefly reviewed below:

• Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Causative organisms: include Alexandrium spp (dinoflagellate) Toxins produced: Saxitoxins and derivatives Symptoms include tingling, numbness, and burning of the perioral region, giddiness, drowsiness, fever, rash, and staggering. The most severe cases result in respiratory arrest within 24 hours, although this is not known in the UK.

• Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) Causative organisms: Dinophysis sp. (dinoflagellate) Toxin produced: Okadaic acid DSP produces gastrointestinal symptoms, usually beginning within 30 min to a few hours after consumption of toxic shellfish. The illness is not fatal, it is characterized by incapacitating diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, and chills. Recovery occurs within three days, with or without medical treatment.

• Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP) Causative organisms: Pseudo-nitzschia sp. (diatom) Toxin produced: Domoic acid First discovered relatively recently in 1987, toxic mussels from Prince Edward Island, Canada. Characterized by both gastrointestinal and neurological disorders and has proved fatal, but not in the UK.

52

• In the UK, the most common form of shellfish poisoning is likely to be DSP. The relatively short time scale of this illness makes it unlikely that its occurrence will be reported to public health authorities or presented to a GP.

• Should a patient present symptoms not directly attributed by themselves to shellfish poisoning, it is relatively unlikely that these would be correctly diagnosed as no routine tests exist.

• The meeting found no evidence that the problem of shellfish poisoning is any greater than it is currently perceived to be. However, in the UK shellfish consumption per head of the population is relatively low compared to many other countries. A causative factor being the, perhaps unfounded, expectation of shellfish poisoning.

• For growers and regulators it is important to improve primary prevention (e.g. introducing rapid and cheap tests that can be used in the field) to prevent contaminated material being consumed. Optimising batch testing procedures may improve the economics of the testing system and allow more time efficient testing of samples.

• For the public health and medical profession there is a need for increased awareness of HAB impacts in certain groups such as public health officials. There is a requirement to produce a strategy document for monitoring human health and to educate people involved with incident management such as health professionals, GPs, harvesters, processors and restaurateurs. This would ensure that if an incident occurred, samples would be taken and stored appropriately which would allow a complete investigation of the incident to be performed. Any preventative actions highlighted from this incidence could then be implemented.

• Sharing of data and information on health impacts of HABs between different groups (growers, regulators, scientists, public health officials and the medical community) would benefit everyone working in this field and analysing data. A good communication strategy is required to ensure correct storage and testing of samples.

• The lack of biomarkers of shellfish toxins in humans was highlighted as considerable impediment to accurately assessing the impacts of HABs on human health. The potential to use other mammals such as seals as indicators of influence of toxins on mammalian system could be considered.

• To date the health effects of toxins have been studied in isolation. The synergistic effects of different toxins should also be considered as this can occur in nature.

• There is relatively little effort expended to promote the health benefits of shellfish in the diet or to promote shellfish as a healthy foodstuff.

53

Discussion group 4: New Challenges Emerging problems - new species, new regulation

• Change is recognised as a force that exists on a number of different levels. Consumers

and their requirements are changing. Climate change will effect our environment; increased temperatures may increase/alter the number of phytoplankton species and toxins that are prevalent in UK waters. Regulators will have to be equipped with the relevant tools to monitor these changes. Molecular screening tools and model based risk assessments may be useful to achieve this, and also to provide an early warning of developing HAB issues.

• The UK need to consider HAB issues in a wider European context. Global warming and the introduction of non native species may mean there will be a future requirement to test for toxins that are not specific for this region. Regulatory bodies need to be prepared to consider how well equipped they are to achieve this.

• Improved communication should also be considered. For example in the USA more information is given to the public about the risk from toxins, which allows them to make informed choices.

• There is also a requirement for early warning systems e.g. real time buoys measuring toxic phytoplankton may provide early warning systems to the industry. These are currently being developed out with the regulatory framework, but their ability to monitor low biomass organisms such as Alexandrium remains unclear.

• More rapid testing technologies are under development however many require more funding and testing before they can be readily implemented into monitoring programmes. Currently most money is directed towards regulation; however there is also a need to develop such techniques to supplement this. There is a need to make an economic assessment to determine the cost and benefits of developing and implementing these new technologies.

• There is a constant need for a national toxin bank, certified standards and reference materials to allow for research in this field to progress.

• There is a requirement for greater communication with government, and also the need to better link the requirements of the industry and regulators.

• The cost of monitoring to protect human health is acknowledged. End product testing can be used to support this. A challenge is to stimulate industry growth whilst maintaining a high quality product for market.

54

Discussion group 5: Integration: How can industry, scientists and regulators work better together?

• Improved communication between industry and the regulatory body, the FSA, would

make more efficient, effective and economic use of data collected. • There is potential to create an expert group to define the current state of knowledge of

shellfish toxins on human health and to investigate anecdotal information scientifically.

• Control efforts are focussed on impacts that have the most effect on human health. Guidance is requested from industry on how best to achieve this. Monitoring data can be used to predict areas/periods of toxicity. However in areas such as Scotland, these events can be sporadic so it can be difficult to make this work based on observation alone. Hence, (unlike some other areas of the world) risk assessment will have to be derived on a local scale.

• Best practise guidance plans come from HACCP (Hazard Action Critical Control Points). Currently there is a partial code but there is a communication problem transferring this to industry. To encourage “buy in” there needs to be clear information available to industry showing the advantages of implementing controls e.g. showing the benefits of good practise to prevent contaminated product from reaching the point of sale.

• Case studies relating HABs and shellfish toxins to human health are encouraged with the results requiring wide dissemination. In order to reach the wider aquaculture industry, avenues such as trade magazines could be used.

• The need for improved communication in cross border areas was acknowledged (such as shared waters between the North and Republic of Ireland). The use of a stakeholder group (as in the Republic of Ireland context) was seen as a useful forum to meet, prioritise questions for the funding and to address where this funding could be obtained.

• The use of volunteers within monitoring can be very useful in providing information e.g. the use of volunteers in USA is an established method of monitoring Pseudo-nitzschia. Volunteers could be recruited to examine water samples and established laboratories could set up a network to provide training and guidance to allow them to count and monitor water samples. Shellfish farmers could also perform this analysis themselves. However, the rapid temporal changes in phytoplankton density in UK waters mean that any such programme would have to ensure sampling frequency was maintained. The approach may also only be suitable for the most easily identified species. There are currently a number of web based initiative such as the UK HAB webpage which could supply background taxonomic information of useful to such a programme.

55

Discussion group 6: What questions should science be addressing, who should be funding it?

Differences in the perception of the problems of shellfish poisoning between scientists and members of the industry were discussed. A number of specific questions concerning industry processes, health and regulation requirements were discussed. These included:

• It takes up to 8 days for samples for biotoxin analysis to be processed, during routine monitoring, can this be speeded up?

The length of time required to process the shellfish material, run the toxin tests and interpret results were discussed. Currently there is limited scope for this process to be speeded up for regulatory monitoring, but areas such as better coordination of analyses in the laboratory and improved communications were highlighted.

• Risk assessment … is there a scientific justification?

The scientific justification for risk assessments were discussed. These related to the need to assess the impact of shellfish toxins on human health in light of awareness of the seasonal cycles of toxin phytoplankton species and accumulation of toxins in shellfish. Areas of risk assessment that require further work were highlighted. These were:

i. A requirement to predict HAB events ii. Improved understanding of the relevant toxins

iii. Improved knowledge of exposure analysis and toxicology iv. Understanding the relevance of IP mouse experiments? v. Assessment of the risk of toxic product reaching the supermarket

shelves or restaurant table required

• How many human illnesses have been recorded?

The success of the UK shellfish monitoring programme in preventing human illness was acknowledged, however product also comes from countries where testing programmes may not be sufficient may pose particular risk. Of particular concern is the lack of robust medical diagnostic test to detect the presence of shellfish toxicity in patients who present themselves at their GP/hospital. Currently there are no records of how many people who eat shellfish regularly, become ill, or how many people presenting gastroenteritis symptoms have consumed shellfish. These questions could form part of a proposed study on the impacts of HABs on human health.

56

• What impact would reduced monitoring have?

Importance of regular testing in ensuring the success of the monitoring programme was acknowledged and biotoxin and phytoplankton programmes are generally sufficient and appropriate as they currently stand, for what is a small industry.

Industry would like: o A quick reliable test for use in end-product testing to determine levels of PSP, ASP

and DSP toxins to be developed o A semi quantitative kit that covers all toxic compounds o The sensitivity of these kits should be appropriate in terms of toxin threshold levels

• Is there room for improved phytoplankton discrimination / toxicity modelling?

o Remote sensing/inset monitoring may be appropriate into the future for high biomass species.

o Recommend: Joining up discrete research activities into risk management strategies.

o Modelling should account for different scales / approaches and differentiates between advected blooms, local blooms and fast acting blooms.

• How can we integrate research activities better?

o At present there appears to be discrepancies between the occurrence of algal toxins and the presence of toxic phytoplankton in the water column. Can this be resolved?

A database to synthesise these type of finding data was identified as being a useful first step. o Integration of shellfish industry as research platforms and locations for environmental

sensors. o Data is seen sometimes as being difficult to obtain. More transparency between

agencies and their data holdings is desirable.

• Further unresolved questions: o What toxins are harmful and at what levels? o What are the best methods of measuring toxins? o How can be prevented from reaching humans? o Are current monitoring protocols too precautionary? Can relative risk be defined?

57

Discussion group 7: New Technologies

• A number of new technologies and their relevance to monitoring programmes were

discussed. New technologies were seen to fall into two main groups ‘Rapid and cheap’ and ‘accurate and expensive’.

• For emerging technologies in the chemical detection of toxins the lack of chemical standards was seen as an impediment to development in this field, and the need for a national toxin bank and a constant supply of toxin standards was acknowledged. However, it must be recognised that for new toxins there will be no immediate standards, potentially hampering research into these events. In such instances there will be a requirement to quantify the medical impacts of new toxins.

• Technologies providing early warning systems were regarded as incredibly valuable in this field as these were expected to improve the management of HABs at the level of the primary growers, as well as assisting with the protection of human health.

• There is a need to define risk of toxicity and communicate this to the public and industry. On site tools such as rapid testing monitoring tools can be used on site to reduce this.

• Molecular methods were seen as important in the rapid and large scale enumeration of

phytoplankton.

• Technologies which improved the traceability of product were seen as essential.

• The implementation of new technologies will increase the need for improved communications was also highlighted. Between the regulators, growers, harvesters and medical profession as well as increased knowledge flow between all of these individuals.

58

Summary General

o The products of seafood aquaculture are increasingly important as a foodstuff on a global basis. The weight of current scientific evidence is that, with proper monitoring and end product testing, UK shellfish can continue to be regarded as a safe and healthy premium product.

o However, while monitoring provides an effective safeguard to human health in the UK

people still perceive seafood as “risky”.

o The results of basic research on harmful phytoplankton and shellfish has the capacity to demonstrate the safety of seafood as well as the dangers, but greater collaboration and openness between science and industry is required to deliver these benefits.

o Basic research is also necessary to underpin the more applied research to develop

rapid toxin tests, risk assessments and models that may be of greatest direct benefit to the industry.

o The concern of industry that science often highlights perceived, rather than proven,

risks was recognised. For example, this may occur through the “discovery” of new toxins which may or may not be harmful to humans. Protocols to rapidly assess the real risk of such toxins are required.

o Currently the volume of science conducted on shellfish toxins and their causative

organisms in the UK is relatively small, and as a result a consensus view is not always available. However, opportunities for relevant research may be greater now than ever before. In the UK, the shellfish industry the scientific and regulatory community surrounding it are perhaps of a optimum size for real and useful dialogue to occur between the different groups.

Study of harmful algae and shellfish toxicity has been relatively underdeveloped in the UK compared to other countries. Hence, fundamental gaps in scientific knowledge remain, these include: Environmental

• A full understanding of the physiology of the important phytoplankton genera

• The environmental conditions likely to promote shellfish toxicity

• UK waters may be impacted by climate change, with the potential for new species

• There is a pressing need for toxin standards

• Models/risk assessments driven by environmental parameters of value at a local scale

59

Medical

• Chronic as well as acute health issues highlighted as being poorly understood.

• The actual effect on humans of some “toxins” is uncertain.

• We have limited knowledge of other routes of exposure of harmful algal toxins in the UK apart from via shellfish, for example by aerosol.

• Reporting and quantifying incidences of algal toxicity in humans is particularly

problematic. Many illnesses may not reach the medical profession, and those that do will present to different GPs with no recording mechanism in existence.

• There is a general lack of awareness of the effects of harmful algal toxins from the

medical profession, who regarded this as low priority: are we victims of our own success in monitoring?

• There is a lack of biomarkers for effects of harmful algal toxins

60

Recommendations

• Move away from the mouse bioassay where appropriate.

• Development of rapid texts for toxins is required.

• Detoxification protocols for toxins to be developed.

• Further development of early warning technologies for shellfish toxicity that can be applied at the point of need is required.

• Development of risk assessments for harmful blooms & for toxicity of shellfish should

be encouraged. This may require the collection of relevant environmental data in parallel to phytoplankton data to aid understanding of temporal and spatial trends.

• Further development of molecular tools for harmful phytoplankton screening and

identification are required to supplement microscope based taxonomy.

• Better systems for determining incidence of toxins in humans necessary.

• Follow up of the medical consequences of toxin events necessary, perhaps through local targeted studies.

• Improved communication between stakeholders (industry, regulators, science) is

required.

• Improved communication to governments and public required from all of the above stakeholders.

• Social scientists (and perhaps advertising professionals) should be approached in

terms of better understanding the public perception to shellfish.

• The shellfish community as a whole needs to lobby government and funders in a concerted way to influence policy and research funding in a way that allows for promotion and development of the industry.

• Combined medical and environmental studies thought useful but their structure

funding is uncertain. To facilitate these recommendations we propose the formation of an expert group to:

1) More fully develop and champion the above recommendations. 2) Review evidence into human intoxication and methods for collection

of relevant data. 3) Evaluate the UK public perception of shellfish consumption and

related health risks. 4) Formulate the methodology for an integrated study of shellfish

toxicity and related health risks in a targeted coastal community.

61

Delegate list

Name Affiliation Expertise Aitken, Matthew West Coast Sea Products Industry

Askew, Clive Shellfish Association Industry body Bavington, Charlie Glycomar Ltd Science/Industry

Boyd, Susanne Food Standards Agency (FSA) Northern Ireland

Regulatory

Bresnan, Eileen Fisheries Research Services Marine

Laboratory (FRS) Aberdeen

Phytoplankton

Cavanagh, Julie National Health Service (NHS), Dundee

Health

Cooper, Lee Seafish Industry Daniel, Tim Scottish Crop Research

Institute (SCRI), Dundee Molecular

Davidson, Keith Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS),

Oban

Modelling/phytoplankton

Depledge, Michael University of Plymouth Health Downes-Tettmar,

Naomi University of Liverpool Outreach/phytoplankton

Fleming, Lora University of Miami, USA Health Gillibrand, Phil Scottish Association for

Marine Science (SAMS), Oban

Coastal oceanography/modelling

Gowen, Richard Agri-Food and Biosicences Institute (AFBI), Belfast

Phytoplankton

Hargin, Kevin Food Standards Agency (FSA), UK

Regulatory

Harper, Lisa Food Standards Agency (FSA), Scotland

Regulatory

Hart, Mark Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS),

Oban

Molecular

Higgins, Cowen Agri-Food and Biosicences Institute (AFBI), Belfast

Shellfish/toxins

Higman, Wendy Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture

Science (CEFAS), Weymouth

Phytoplankton/shellfish

Holland, Kim Government Laboratory, Isle of Man

Regulatory/shellfish toxins

Holtrop, Greitje Biomathematics and Statistics (BIOSS),

Aberdeen

Statistics

Jacklin, Marcus Seafish Industry

62

Jones, Ken Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS),

Oban

Phytoplankton

Kelly, Maeve Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS),

Oban

Shellfish

Kennington, Kev Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA),

Edinburgh

Phytoplankton/regulation

Kleivdal, Hans Biosense, Bergen, Norway Technology Lawton, Linda Robert Gordon University,

Aberdeen Cyanobacteria

Lewis, Jane University of Westminster, London

Phytoplankton

MacKenzie, Dougie Integrin Advanced Biosystems, Oban

Monitoring/industry

Martin, Claudia Food Standards Agency (FSA), UK

Regulatory

McElhiney, Jacqui Food Standards Agency (FSA), Scotland

Regulatory/Science

McKee, Jim Fisheries Research Services Marine

Laboratory (FRS) Aberdeen / National

Reference Laboratory

Shellfish/toxins

McKinney, April Agri-Food and Biosicences Institute (AFBI), Belfast

Phytoplankton

McLeod, Douglas Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers

Industry body

Milligan, Steve Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture

Science (CEFAS), Lowestoft

Phytoplankton/monitoring

Percy, Linda University of Westminster Phytoplankton Pete, Romain Scottish Association for

Marine Science (SAMS), Oban

Modelling/coastal oceanography

Pyke, Martin Seafish Industry Ripley, Steve Integrin Advanced

Biosystems, Oban Industry

Seamer, Catherine Food Standards Agency (New Zealand)

Regulatory

Shammon Theresa Government Laboraoty, Isle of Man

phytoplankton/shellfish toxins

Silke, Joe Marine Institute, Galway, Ireland

Phytoplankton/monitoring

Smayda, Ted University of Rhode Island, USA

Phytoplankton

63

Swan, Sarah Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS),

Oban

Monitoring/phytoplankton

Turrell, Liz Fisheries Research Services Marine

Laboratory (FRS) Aberdeen

Toxins/shellfish

Wilson, Douglas Inverlussa Shellfish, Argyll and Bute

Industry

Wishart, Jane Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI), Dundee

Molecular

64

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the support of SAMS for hosting the workshop, and in particular Ms Sharon McNeil for logistical support. The workshop was funded by the Joint Environment and Human Health Programme, co-funded by NERC, Defra, the Environment Agency, the MOD and the MRC. Funding from the EU Interreg IIIB programme FINAL also helped to facilitate the workshop.

65