The disturbing scenes of thousands of crabs and lobsters washed up on the beaches on the Yorkshire and Teeside beaches have caused widespread alarm and major media interest. The finger of blame has been pointed, at various times and from various quarters, with different levels of credibility, at seismic surveys, a disease that also affects dogs, pyridine from spoil dredged from the Tees and a toxic algal bloom.
The shellfish industry is, understandably, desperate to get to the bottom of the issue before the main fishing seasons begin later in the year. There is also the question of consumer confidence to consider as the media coverage spirals out of control.
Despite the range of viewpoints on the causal factor behind the deaths, all parties have an interest in getting closer to a definitive answer. The official report by Cefas for Defra does not offer that irrefutable explanation but suggests that the weight of evidence tends to support the algal bloom theory. Algal blooms are naturally occurring events that can temporarily reduce the oxygen levels in the water column – potentially causing deaths in crustacea on the seabed.
Some parts of the industry are convinced that the evidence – in particular, the location and spread of the deaths and tidal patterns – points firmly towards dredged spoil from the Tees as the causal factor. So far, the testing that has been undertaken has not identified a smoking gun – a toxic chemical in sufficient quantities to cause the harm witnessed.
The Cefas/Defra report must not be the end of the matter. It is imperative that all the authorities – Defra, Cefas, Environment Agency, IFCA – cooperate to collate, pool, and analyse the necessary evidence to arrive at a definitive conclusion.
If this is a natural event, then there is a job of work to be done in providing assurance that crab and lobster are now safe to eat. Even natural events like algal blooms can have their origins in human activities. If this was an algal bloom, then there is a job of work to be done to provide the definitive proof of it and to understand what has caused it in this place and at this time. If the evidence points to pyridine or some other contaminant, there is a strong case for the application of the precautionary approach – to prohibit further dumping and any further die-offs.
It is legitimate and important that independent voices and research be considered too. This is no time for creating artificial boundaries to knowledge – but the work must adhere to the most rigorous scientific standards. Cherry-picking facts to support one explanation or another is not science.
The central point is that this must be an evidence-led process. Going down the wrong path has the potential to cause as much harm to fishing interests on the coast as the original event.