Pill to Gill: Antianxiety Drugs Flushed into Water May Be Making Fishes Fearless

Levels of human drugs commonly found in the world's waterways may be altering the way fishes behave















Share on Tumblr

For an individual perch, a little less anxiety may be good if it leads to faster feeding. But such alacrity may also have unintended consequences, either by setting off a cascade of faster consumption of algae-eating zooplankton throughout the food web, thereby allowing more algal blooms in the ecosystem or simply by exposing individual perch to more predation. Fish without fear are fish that quickly get eaten by larger predators, such as pike.

It remains to be seen what the overall effect of the pharmaceutical contamination may be, although it has been going on for decades since benzodiazepines were first prescribed in the 1960s. But instead of flushing old drugs, the better bet is to return them to pharmacies for proper disposal as well as, potentially, develop new treatments for sewage facilities that can filter out the drugs coming into the water via human urine. "There are several ongoing research projects that try to develop more efficient removal techniques, such as using ozone," Fick told Scientific American in an e-mail. Otherwise, human antianxiety drugs may provoke yet more anxiety about the environment.



10 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. sandragon 12:02 PM 2/16/13

    I suppose this sort of behavior change could lead to increased spread of organisms into new territories. Not just naturally, but also by helping them move boldly into the new environment when moved by humans. Perhaps similar testing on other animals is called for.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. vapur 12:03 PM 2/16/13

    Why is untreated sewer water making it into rivers? I thought people were told by the FDA to dispose of their old and unused medications down the sink or toilet.

    quote, "When you dispose of these patches and certain other powerful medicines down the sink or toilet you help to keep others safe by ensuring that these medicines cannot be used again or accidentally ingested and cause harm."

    So, the most harmful things can be disposed of in such a manner to remove its immediate harm to humans or pets, but who cares about the environment!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. sandragon 12:21 PM 2/16/13

    vapur, the current recommendation for disposal is to take unused meds to a designated collection facility or back to the pharmacy. If this is impossible, tightly seal and wrap the drugs and put in the trash. I trust that someone will post the exact quote. I never thought about what you would do with used patches.
    Of course the big problem here is that the drug is present in human urine and current wastewater treatment doesn't remove it.

    To add to my previous post, I particularly wonder if this has had an effect on creatures like the "flying" carp in the midwest or even the mollusks and worms which have invaded our lakes. Perhaps similar studies could be done on zebra mussels?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. tomgarven in reply to vapur 02:14 PM 2/16/13

    Where I live in Arizona we have collection days for unused drugs. Thousands of pounds of old drugs are routinely collected and disposed of by various methods including incineration at high temperatures. I am also quite sure that thousands of pounds of drugs are still being flushed or dumped instead of being collected. But we diffidently discourage flushing or dumping down the toilet or sink since after sewer treatment that water is either re-injected into the aquifer or feed into a nearby lake. Neither would be a good place to put a cocktail of drugs, yuk.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. Bops in reply to vapur 01:23 AM 2/17/13

    I do...a lot of other people too.
    We have a fish tank, 30 years now, I know a little about different fish.
    We have to feeder gold fish that zoom around the tank and eat everything.
    We put up a barrier to let the other fish eat. I want t give them the boot... but our cat love them because they come to greet her and spit water. She like to watch them any way.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. Bops in reply to Bops 01:31 AM 2/17/13

    Sorry about the spelling. I should have my glasses on.
    I always keep the fish that are nice, the ones that aren't have a new home in my friends aggressive fish tank.
    These two gold fish are not like any of the other gold fish we have had. These are over active, very playful, they are so nuts they try to jump out when I clean the tank.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. Oldineluctable 05:19 PM 2/20/13

    This can be a serious issue. We need to find a way to make it easy to get rid of our drugs or return them without just tossing them in to the garbage. My father passed and I wanted to return an order. No dice, they didn't know what we did to the drugs, even though they were un opened. So, we have some logistic problems not to mention attack perch.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. ssm1959 07:53 PM 2/21/13

    I have to call BS on this one. Granted in this short review it is not possible to provide all the rationale behind the study. However please explain why 3x the highest recorded environmental concentrations ever found was used as the minimum in this study, and where did the 910ug/l come from? I am far more interested the effects at 0.58ug/l, a condition that actually exists in the real world. I suspect only the higher levels were reported because there was no demonstrable effect at the lower concentrations.

    My second issue is the phrase "the effect was obvious". Was that at the lowest concentrations, the highest, or both. The implication clearly suggests the latter but is that really what was seen.

    The authors are directing their investigation to support a straight line dose-response curve. Mountains of research clearly show this is not the case with any drug or other pollutant for that matter. There is a concentration of benzodiazepine below which there is no observable effect.

    Even if the authors are correct their research does not replicate the real world. Fish living every day in Valium water will develop a tolerance to the drug just as humans do. Taking non-exposed fish and providing a drug will most definitely produce an effect just as if I inject 5mg of this same drug into your vein. If I do that daily to you, very quickly the effect will become muted and ultimately you will need 10 mg or more to get an effect equivalent to the first dose. In other word the drug becomes part of the normal milieux.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. Steven 11:36 PM 2/21/13

    Probably the most important information would be tissue levels of the drugs, (benzo's) in the fish's tissues. If the low environmental levels resulted in accumulated drug residues in the brain, then they may be onto something by investigating the effect on the fish.
    Usually the most important environmental contaminants are hormonal mimics or estrogen blockers, which may have the potential to be carcinogens, and also alter embryonic and probably further development, possibly even leading to hormonally stimulated tumors such as breast, or prostate cancer, possibly even testicular cancer, so disposing of drugs without environmental contamination is important.
    It is pretty hard to dispose of drugs, even taking them back to pharmacies, although this is actually the way control drugs such as narcotics are to be disposed of, with documentation of destruction.
    It is interesting how feeding behavior is stimulated. Alcohol, which also is mediated through GABA receptors, may have a similar effect on relieving inhibitions and possibly could have a similar effect on fish.
    I don't think alcohol accumulates in the water like the drugs however, which apparently accumulate in the environment to some degree.
    Certainly alcohol has similar effects in other vertebrates, including humans, relieving inhibitions and getting people into risky situations.
    I don't know what levels would be necessary to stimulate feeding behavior in fish.
    Perhaps the GABA receptors stimulate feeding frenzies in sharks, which are apparently set off by blood in the water. If the benzodiazepines and their break down products are bioconcentrated, such as when bigger fish eat the smaller fish, the drug residues might accumulate in large predators, such as sharks.
    If feeding behavior and aggressiveness is stimulated in sharks by accumulated tissue residues, it might explain some shark attacks on humans.
    Checking the tissue levels of sharks and other large predators for accumulated drug residues might be important to understand the potential of environmental contamination through bioaccumulation through the food chain, similarly to that which occurs with mercury, which may accumulate in large predator fish such as tuna to some degree.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. rlh2012 11:55 PM 2/25/13

    Interesting

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Email this Article

Pill to Gill: Antianxiety Drugs Flushed into Water May Be Making Fishes Fearless

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X