There are countless reasons to avoid consuming sea animals, ranging from ethical concerns about their slaughter to health risks posed by mercury toxicity and microplastics. Now, we must consider another critical concern: the toxicity of chemical warfare agents and conventional explosives.
For decades, the world's oceans have been utilized as dumping grounds. From nuclear waste to toxic chemicals, there appear to be few limits on what is discarded into marine ecosystems. Historically, these practices have often been justified as the most practical disposal solutions, overlooking long-term ecological and health consequences.
While a global ban on nuclear waste dumping has been in effect since 1993, assuming the practice has ceased entirely is optimistic. The substantial financial costs associated with properly storing and disposing of nuclear waste have led to illegal practices. There is evidence suggesting that illicit networks, and, potentially, certain state entities, continue to sink toxic and nuclear waste in violation of international agreements.
Beyond the clandestine disposal of toxic materials, there are also well-documented instances of open disposal, such as the release of treated wastewater from Fukushima. However, a less frequently discussed but equally pressing issue is the historical dumping of chemical warfare agents (CWA), conventional explosives, and their related compounds into marine environments. This specific contamination will be the focus of this article.
It is estimated that approximately one million tons of CWA have been dumped into the world's oceans. To conceptualize this immense volume, it is equivalent to the capacity of roughly 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools filled with toxic agents.
Another way to understand the scale of this disposal is to consider a standard industrial dump truck, which carries about 16 tons of material. If such a truck were filled with these toxic agents and emptied its load every three minutes, it would take 130 days of continuous dumping to deposit one million tons into the marine ecosystem.
Recent environmental studies have detected the bioaccumulation of phenylarsenic chemical warfare agents, as well as their methylated analogues, in 90% of the marine samples analyzed in the North Sea. Concerningly, the full ecological and human health implications of this bioaccumulation are not yet fully understood. Furthermore, newer research analyzing the toxicity of these chemicals found that while CWA demonstrated relatively low acute toxicity to marine animals, human colon, and human liver cells, it revealed a much more troubling finding: conventional munitions are significantly more toxic.
The heightened toxicity of conventional munitions is particularly alarming because their disposal is vastly more prevalent. Estimates suggest that approximately one billion tons of conventional explosives were dumped into the oceans during the 20th century. This volume is a thousand times greater than that of CWA, equating to 400,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools, or a standard dump truck unloading continuously for roughly 356 years.
To comprehend the magnitude of this problem, it is essential to examine the specific toxicity of conventional explosives. This analysis will focus on tetryl and 1,3-Dinitrobenzene (1,3-DNB), two of the most problematic compounds identified. For clarity, toxicity will be illustrated using EC10 and EC50 values, which represent the chemical concentrations required to cause a 10% and 50% reduction in cell viability, respectively.
Starting with fish, research indicates that a tetryl concentration of 0.19 mg/L results in 10% cell death (EC10), whereas 0.58 mg/L causes 50% cell death (EC50). The compound 1,3-DNB demonstrated comparable acute toxicity, with an EC10 value of 0.18 mg/L. In human intestinal cells, 1,3-DNB reached an EC10 at 2.04 mg/L, and TNT reached an EC50 at 9.08 mg/L. Furthermore, in human liver cells, TNT exhibited an EC10 value of 8.01 mg/L.
Because abstract concentrations can be difficult to conceptualize, we can again apply the analogy of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The EC10 value for fish exposed to tetryl or 1,3-DNB is equivalent to pouring less than one standard 355 ml can of soda into the entire pool. For human intestinal cells exposed to 1,3-DNB, the equivalent is approximately 9.1 cans, and for human liver cells exposed to TNT, it is roughly 34.1 cans diluted within the same immense volume of water.
Critically, these concentrations for acute toxicity in fish match levels already detected at disposal sites along the east coast of North America. Furthermore, these studies primarily examine acute exposure, measuring cell viability over a 24- to 48-hour period, whereas marine animals and the human animals who consume them face chronic, long-term exposure. As with most toxins, cumulative exposure drastically increases the risk of severe health outcomes. If the equivalent of a single soda can in a swimming pool causes 10 percent cell death within 24 hours, the compounding physiological damage over a lifetime of exposure is a profound concern.
While the ethical implications of slaughtering marine life are profound, the physical mechanics of the commercial fishing industry present an additional, undeniable toxicological threat. Current data from the OSPAR Commission reveals approximately 900 encounters with dumped marine munitions annually, with over 50 percent involving commercial fishing vessels hauling these weapons up in their nets. With hundreds of documented cases of severe chemical burns and toxic exposure among fishing crews across the Mediterranean, Baltic, and North Seas, this data reveals a disturbing reality for the consumer: the commercial fishing industry is routinely dragging nets through active, leaking underwater minefields to retrieve the sea animals destined for human consumption.
While much remains to be researched, it is virtually certain that the ingestion of chemical warfare agents and conventional explosives is entirely antithetical to a healthy diet. Moreover, this contamination is just one facet of a much larger issue. The commercial fishing industry is rife with other severe problems, including the exploitation of human animal workers and the rampant accumulation of mercury and microplastics in marine ecosystems. Even if one were to set aside compassion for human and non-human animals, the sheer magnitude of these health hazards provides overwhelming reason to protect oneself. We strongly advise prioritizing your own well-being by choosing to refrain from the slaughter of marine life and completely avoiding the consumption of sea animals.
A change of lifestyle offers individuals a powerful means to combat a range of issues, including personal health problems, climate change, loss of biodiversity, global acidification, eutrophication, freshwater shortages, pandemic prevention, antibiotic resistance, save countless lives and much more. We know of no other efficient way for individuals to address these critical challenges simultaneously without waiting for government, corporate, or technological interventions. By changing lifestyle, people can take immediate and impactful action. We encourage you to embrace this lifestyle change today. Contact us for support and to connect with local communities in your area.
This article was contributed by our member Vegan Society of Canada. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of Vegan World Alliance.