Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Goal 2: Identify steps, agreements, and/or partnerships that could be established between exporting governments, the U.S. government, NGOs, certifi cation agencies, community groups, and academic scientists to implement cyanide testing. Funding Suffi cient funding continues to be a serious concern across the board. Addressing existing obstacles and implementing new plans must have fi nancial backing to move forward. One approach to enhance funding focuses on improved education and awareness about the issue and the factors limiting the ability of USFWS to effectively prevent imports of cyanide-caught fi sh. One recommended method involves the use of high-profi le celebrities as spokespeople, which is likely to raise public concern and ultimately push politicians to alter and enforce policies on the aquarium trade. With political power behind them, trade programs could receive targeted funding through congressional earmarks and increased support from large donors and NGOs. Harmonization The participants emphasized the need for harmonization of standards between importers and exporters to eliminate policy gaps and potentially tighten enforcement. Import countries should create clear requirements for shipments, make the policies available to exporting countries so they can comply, and make them understandable. Information on quarantine requirements, clear documentation requirements, and the creation of a unifi ed labeling and packaging system are all ways to reduce discrepancies. Government linkages: exporting countries and importing countries Exporting parties should improve coordination and communication with importing countries. Representatives from Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines indicated that data on exporters could be provided (including the numbers of legitimate exporters), which ones still use cyanide, where fi sh are caught, and so forth. Sharing such information could help identify legal and illegal shipments for importing countries. United States enforcement staff would benefi t from knowing which companies repeatedly test cyanide-free, as well as those companies that tend to use cyanide. Some degree of coordination must occur between export and import nations for a truly successful testing system. 36
Goal 3: Provide a recommendation with respect to the possibility and/or benefi ts of a mandatory, government-issued export and/or import certifi cation that states the fi sh were caught with legal practices. Export certifi cation Although participants from exporting countries suggested the possibility of either governmentissued or third-party certifi cates verifying fi sh as cyanide-free, the United States is unlikely to use these for enforcement or prosecution. A certifi cation document would not resolve or relieve any of the enforcement issues discussed, and did not seem reliable or establish any measure of relief that certifi ed fi sh would be cyanide-free. Third-party certifi cation also seemed improbable, as this process is most often used on the consumer side rather than the government side. Current U.S. procedure for import inspections examination All wildlife imported into the United States, with a few exceptions, must be declared to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and cleared prior to release by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Each shipment imported into the United States requires the importer and/ or broker to fi le a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Declaration (Form 3-177) to the USFWS at the time of import. Each shipment includes the fi ling of the USFWS declaration form, which provides all relevant information pertaining to the shipment, such as date of import, U.S. importer, foreign exporter, the common and scientifi c name for each species of wildlife, quantity and origin of species, carrier, number of cartons containing wildlife, etc., and other accompanying documentation. All shipments containing species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), or other federal wildlife laws must include the appropriate permits. As such, these types of shipments usually have a higher priority for physical inspection as opposed to shipments containing nonprotected wildlife. The physical inspection entails verifying the shipment’s contents with the information listed on the permits, invoices, and other documentation. Shipments containing non-protected species of wildlife are randomly inspected. Due to the high volume of wildlife shipments imported into the United States, the mission and priorities of the Offi ce of Law Enforcement, and limited staffi ng and resources at the present time, it is unlikely that all shipments containing live marine ornamental fi sh can be inspected and tested for the presence of cyanide unless new legislation is adopted and staffi ng is increased. Policy changes and trade restrictions The United States currently has no legislation banning the import of unsustainably caught aquarium fi shes. It was generally agreed during the working group session that existing U.S. laws under the Lacey Act could be suffi cient for prosecution, but the execution, funding, and support for those regulations needs consideration. Within the United States, the Lacey Act drives import inspection and enforcement. If exporting countries impose clear laws against exporting cyanide-caught fi sh, the United States could potentially prosecute violations under 37
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of the International Cy
Page 3 and 4: Proceedings of the Cyanide Detectio
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Proceedings of
Page 7: PREFACE The International Cyanide D
Page 11 and 12: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The International
Page 13 and 14: ATCA) in homogenized fi sh tissue m
Page 15 and 16: Validation of the ISE method applie
Page 17 and 18: Importing countries should also req
Page 19 and 20: INTRODUCTION Cyanide fi shing is a
Page 21 and 22: through the implementation of a net
Page 23 and 24: Working Group 2 The Export Working
Page 25 and 26: o o o o Can the U.S. require verifi
Page 27 and 28: Polymeric membrane based ion select
Page 29 and 30: Goal 2: Provide recommendations on
Page 31 and 32: hands-on training that develops a d
Page 33 and 34: Goal 3: Identify research needs to
Page 35 and 36: Working Group 1 Participants Bob KO
Page 37 and 38: estimated at roughly 3 to 5 days. H
Page 39 and 40: Goal 2 : Identify steps, agreements
Page 41 and 42: 3) certifi cate, but tests positive
Page 43 and 44: Report from Working Group 3 The Par
Page 45: No. of Shipments 6,000 5,000 4,000
Page 49: Working Group 3 Participants Eric P
Page 53 and 54: Introduction Since the early 1960
Page 55 and 56: ainbow trout exposed to 40 mg SCN -
Page 57 and 58: Blennies, which were net-caught and
Page 59 and 60: electrical potential (similar to an
Page 61 and 62: in the Philippines under contract w
Page 63 and 64: endorsing the IMA’s use of the IS
Page 65 and 66: The intended products from the rese
Page 67 and 68: WPCF 1992, 1998). Both of these stu
Page 69 and 70: ASTM (1997) Standard test methods f
Page 71 and 72: Kuegsen, M., Kloock, J.P., Knobbe,
Page 73 and 74: Philippines. In Proceedings from th
Page 75 and 76: 3) 4) 5) 6) the metabolism of cyani
Page 77 and 78: or new matrices. 5.2.3 Modifi catio
Page 79 and 80: Level Two: The method should be val
Page 81 and 82: of cyanide exposure and to identify
Page 83 and 84: Special considerations for the anal
Page 85 and 86: tissue samples indispensable. Altho
Page 87 and 88: y reduction and subsequent separati
Page 89 and 90: can also be used for analysis of cy
Page 91 and 92: thiocyanate in saliva and serum bas
Page 93 and 94: are many discrepancies in the liter
Page 95 and 96: Table 3. Analytical Methods to dete
Page 97 and 98:
Poisoning, In Textbook of military
Page 99 and 100:
(70) Odoul, M., Fouillet, B., Nouri
Page 101 and 102:
V. (1975) Stable reagents for the c
Page 103 and 104:
(159) Felscher, D. and Wulfmeyer, M
Page 105 and 106:
Purpose of this Document The purpos
Page 107 and 108:
day. One cyanide tablet (2 g) is mi
Page 109 and 110:
10-90% following exposure to cyanid
Page 111 and 112:
existing cyanide detection methods
Page 113 and 114:
- Plasma lactate — elevated plasm
Page 115 and 116:
Method Advantages Disadvantages Hig
Page 117 and 118:
Paper Method Matrix Detection Limit
Page 119 and 120:
Table 4 lists experts identifi ed t
Page 121 and 122:
X Jerry Thomas CDC Em Steve Borron
Page 123 and 124:
References Barber, C. and Pratt, V.
Page 125 and 126:
Rates of Recovery. Environmental Ma
Page 127:
COUNTRY REPORTS
Page 130 and 131:
The first three of these destructiv
Page 132 and 133:
enforcement is minimal. There is an
Page 134 and 135:
1. Management/guidance to the Minis
Page 136 and 137:
in Vietnam now and requires more ef
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 2: Administrative structure
Page 140 and 141:
References Baquero, J. (1999) Marin
Page 142 and 143:
Acronyms • CDT • Cyanide Detect
Page 144 and 145:
Law/Ordinance/Decree /Decision 52/2
Page 146 and 147:
of samples required for analysis. U
Page 148 and 149:
Field test kit. BFAR recognizes the
Page 150 and 151:
Political Will Having planted the s
Page 152 and 153:
gravely by fi shing communities. Th
Page 154 and 155:
ecome the partner and counterpart o
Page 157 and 158:
Ion-Selective Electrodes for Cyanid
Page 159 and 160:
References Alban, J., Manipula, B.E
Page 161 and 162:
levels with mV readings recorded as
Page 163 and 164:
Trends Determined by Cyanide Testin
Page 165 and 166:
Implementing agencies: • Quaranti
Page 167:
APPENDIX
Page 170 and 171:
1:30 Overview of and Potential Cyan
Page 172 and 173:
Kristine Johnson Director Kingfi sh
Page 174:
Assessment of U.S. Role in Trade: U
show all

Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?