Oil Dispersant Working Its Way Into The Food Chain

I just read an article describing the use of a chemical dispersant as a method to break up the oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The problem is obviously severe, as BP is willing to put a chemical to disperse the oil, rather than collect it for profit. It is understandable that the situation has gone further than anyone would ever have imagined, and now we're at a crux situation. Without intending to sound cynical, I'm not surprised that the petroleum industry responds with a chemical made from petroleum distillates: Corexit.

Even the name Corexit (corrects it) bothers me significantly; it implies that there is a "fix it" chemical, when in fact, the probability of the problem being compounded is far greater.

Corexit is a chemical made from six substances, five of which are listed as hazardous:

1. Distillates


2. petroleum,


3. hydrotreated light


4. Propylene Glycol


5. Organic sulfonic acid salt

Here is the Material Safety Sheet for your own investigation. It states that prolonged exposure to the skin is slightly caustic and that - though it is not normally a "likely route of exposure"- ingesting the chemical can "cause chemical pneumonia if aspirated into lungs following ingestion."

Except now we might be seeing a more "likely route of exposure" as the dispersant will break up oil into tiny particles that will be consumed by sea life, which, in turn, we eat. That is, of course, if the sea life lives long enough to find its way on to our plates.

Television Spin:

KTRK, Houston, ABC 13 aired a video with a person dressed like a scientist explaining what the dispersant does. He claimed that Corexit is safer than dish soap, later reiterated by the segment host:

"The dispersant has been used around the world at oil spills, and studies have actually shown that the toxicity levels in ice cream, shampoo and a chocolate candy bar, are higher. But one study that has not been performed is the impact of the dispersant at 5000 feet underwater, where BP has been using an extraordinary amount of the chemical. Still, most analysts agree, the dispersant is still the best and quickest temporary solution."

My first question was: "If this chemical is so safe, why is this guy wearing safety goggles and gloves?

And it's not that I don't necessarily believe the words he's saying are true; rather, I don't think he's telling the whole truth. He says the dispersant is safe, but the Material Safety Sheet says otherwise (It does say carries a low toxicity level in small amounts, but as we're seeing the use of it in enormous amounts, the low toxicity claim is somewhat nullified).

And now we're finding evidence of not only oil, but Corexit in the larvae of the blue crab.

The truth is, nobody knows what's going to happen - and which is worse? Leaving the oil on the top? Or encouraging it to break down? I don't have that answer. And neither does the EPA: On May 20, 2010, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, "this is unprecedented volumes of dispersants used so far" when talking about the chemical dispersant known as Corexit being used to break down oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

I do know, that while watching the "scientist" perform his test, one beaker full with oil & dispersant; the other with just oil,  the murky dispersant beaker seemed almost worse to me. At least with the oil floating on the top, there was still some clear water underneath. My immediate concern is that as the oil and dispersant work their way into the food system, how long will it take to clear out?

And I truly want to believe that the companies involved are doing everything they can to create the least amount of impact possible, but I'm truly concerned for the lack of testing of these chemicals in this quantity. It doesn't look good for sustainable food on the seafood front.

Photos taken from video via Youtube, KTRK, Houston, ABC 13