Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae:
A National Plan

PREFACE



Marine biotoxins and harmful algae represent a significant and expanding threat to human health and fisheries resources throughout the United States. This problem takes many forms, ranging from massive "red tides" or blooms of cells that discolor the water, to dilute, inconspicuous concentrations of cells that are noticed only because of the harm caused by the highly potent toxins these cells contain. The impacts of these phenomena include mass mortalities of wild and farmed fish and shellfish, human intoxications or even death from contaminated shellfish or fish, alterations of marine trophic structure through adverse effects on larvae and other life history stages of commercial fisheries species, and death of marine mammals, seabirds, and other animals.
The nature of the problem has changed considerably over the last two decades in the United States. Where formerly a few regions were affected in scattered locations, now virtually every coastal state is threatened, in many cases over large geographic areas and by more than one harmful or toxic algal species. There is a growing consensus in the scientific community that the number of harmful events and the economic costs associated with them have increased dramatically over the last several decades in the United States and around the world. The reasons for this expansion are the subject of considerable debate. Possible explanations include the eutrophication of coastal waters by human activities, leading to a selection for, and proliferation of, harmful algae; increased aquaculture operations which, in other parts of the world at least, have been shown to enrich surrounding waters and stimulate algal growth, as well as to introduce fisheries resources which simply reveal the presence of previously undetected harmful algae; climatic changes; and increased scientific and regulatory scrutiny of coastal waters and fisheries products leading to the rapid discovery of toxic events.

The United States research, monitoring, and regulatory infrastructure is not adequately prepared to meet this expanding threat. The present approach is to manage threatened fisheries resources using state-run monitoring programs and harvesting restrictions. When unexpected outbreaks occur, the response has often been confused, uncoordinated, and slow. This approach has, nevertheless, provided a reasonable level of protection to the seafood consumer, but illnesses and deaths from marine biotoxins have still occurred, and public confidence in seafood safety continues to erode. In addition to these public health concerns, other impacts of harmful algae can be significant, including the loss of marketable resources because of fish and shellfish mortalities, loss of income for fishermen during outbreaks, or unseen and potentially significant effects on marine trophic structure. No single federal agency has assumed a leadership role in coordinating and supporting the studies needed to optimize management and mitigation strategies. Research funding has always been sporadic and limited.

In an effort to surmount these problems, a workshop, supported by Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, was convened at the NMFS Charleston Laboratory to formulate a National Plan for the prediction, control, and mitigation of the effects of harmful algal blooms on marine biota of the United States and to promote the safe consumption of seafoods. Participants were selected to represent all critical scientific disciplines and all geographic regions of continental North America. These individuals were selected from the ranks of academia, the Food and Drug Administration, state public health services, the fishing industry, NOAA/NMFS and the National Sea Grant Program. Attendance was limited to promote close working relationships during the workshop.

Prior to the workshop, 12 topics of importance were identified:


Workshop participants were assigned topics to review according to their areas of expertise. A group leader was selected for each topic and requested to prepare a position paper with the assistance of others in each group. The position papers, addressing background, current state of knowledge, impediments limiting progress, and prioritized research topics, were distributed to all participants prior to the workshop.

At the beginning of the workshop three working groups were formed. The Toxins working group was assigned the first two topics identified above, the Bloom Biology and Ecology working group the next six topics, and the Fisheries and Food Webs working group the last four topics. During individual working group deliberations, modified lists of impediments and recommendations were prepared. These lists were presented to all participants in two plenary sessions for further discussion and modification.

Given this procedure and the related nature of the issues discussed by the different working groups, it is not surprising that some issues appear several times in the lists of impediments and recommendations that follow. Rather than arbitrarily removing these common issues from subsequent sections after their first mention, the lists were left unchanged so as to emphasize the cross-disciplinary importance of certain issues.

There was considerable discussion on the need to prioritize the recommendations. Attempts to do this in some of the working groups were not successful, as most participants felt that the list of recommendations had already been distilled from a much larger list generated in the position papers, and thus reflected priority issues. Another concern was that it was difficult to establish absolute priorities between very different topics (e.g. toxin chemistry issues versus bloom dynamics), since such decisions would vary dramatically among individuals or agencies with different responsibilities or interests. Accordingly, the recommendations in this National Plan are not prioritized. They are grouped by topic, so that agencies developing research or monitoring programs can work from the lists that most closely match their purview. All are deemed of high (and equal) priority, though it should be recognized that several recommendations appear in each of the three topic areas and thus have general applicability across all disciplines.