Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

WPCF 1992, 1998). Both of these studies
have included at least 5 separate laboratories
and 6 operators but were performed only on
aqueous samples, not masticated fi sh tissue.
The concerns about QA/QC, precision, and
bias were addressed. The IMA also conducted
round-robin comparisons between the six
laboratories it ran under contract to BFAR
(IMA-Philippines 1999, Rubec et al. 2003). If
round-robin testing needs to be conducted, it
should be done to validate a U.S.-based test
for either thiocyanate or the ATCA method.
It is unlikely that the ASTM ISE method will
be applied in the USA. It looks like it will be
used in both the Philippines and in Indonesia.
An accreditation system tied to CDT analyses
from export facilities may give the U.S.A. the
means to prove intent. If fi sh arrive at an
import facility along with an Accreditation
Certifi cate, the importers would have to admit
that they knew the fi sh were accredited as
being cyanide-free. If a test such as the ATCA
proves otherwise, there may be grounds
for prosecution of the importer under the
Lacey Act. Congressional legislation similar
to that proposed by Congressman Ed Case
of Hawaii (House Resolution 4928 for 108 th
Congress in 2004) may be necessary to allow
law enforcement offi cials (from USFWS
and/or NOAA) to prosecute importers who
knowingly import fi sh that are proven to
contain cyanide. The test that would need to
hold up in court would not be the ASTM ISE
method. It would be either the thiocyanate
test or the ATCA test conducted in the U.S.A.
U.S. offi cials need to investigate the legal
ramifi cations to see whether this is feasible.
Funding
The IMA conducted CDT in six laboratories
in the Philippines under contract to BFAR for
about $100,000 per year. The same testing in
the U.S.A. would be at least fi ve times more
57
expensive based on the disparity of salaries
between the two countries.
The Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam
need long-term funding to establish and
maintain CDT networks in each country.
Unlike the U.S.A., the CDT laboratories in he
exporting countries should be used primarily
as a deterrent to cyanide fi shing. Cyanide
testing should be conducted regionally using
the cyanide screening method, so that local
governments or municipalities can better
manage their fi sheries. When samples are
found positive using the screening method,
frozen specimens would be shipped to CDT
laboratories established near international
airports. The CDT laboratories using the ISE
method need to be tied to a licensing system
for fi shers and MAF collectors, middlemen,
and exporters. If fi sh coming from collectors
or fi shers situated in municipalities, or from
exporters situated near points of export, are
found to have cyanide present more than
3 or 4 times, their licenses can be revoked.
Prosecution, being expensive, should only
be used as a last resort. Prosecutions should
probably only be conducted when either the
fi shermen/collectors, the middlemen, or the
exporters are apprehended with cyanide in
their possession and the fi sh test positive for
the presence of cyanide.
It should be noted that it becomes more
diffi cult to prove that fi shes have been
collected with cyanide by the time the fi sh
enter the U.S.A. U.S. agencies such as the
U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) or other agencies, such as the
World Bank or the Asian Development Bank,
should fund the creation of cyanide detection
networks in countries where cyanide use is
prevalent. It will be cheaper to conduct most
of the CDT in the exporting countries.