The president of the Portuguese Institute of the Sea and Atmosphere (IPMA) said that it has not been demonstrated that the cases of poisoning are related to clams harvested in the legally exploitable area of the Tagus River.
This Tuesday, in Parliament, a hearing took place on news that had become public that 348 people in different European countries may have required hospital treatment following a poisoning from eating shellfish caught in the Tagus.
José Guerreiropresident of IPMA, was heard saying that he requested a report from the Directorate-General for Health on the alleged contaminations and that, between January 1, 2023 and July 2025, they were notified seven cases confirmed by Ecoli.
However, he clarified that “in none of the cases was the ingestion of bivalves explicitly confirmed, namely the Japanese clam from the Tagus estuary.
“Therefore, the news that came to light about Portugal is unfoundedhave no basis in the National Health Authority and the cause and effect relationship between something that needs to be explained very well remains to be proven,” he said, adding that one thing is the clams exploited in duly licensed areas, that is, in areas identified as exploitation, and another thing is illegal fishing.
He added that there are two areas in the Tagus estuary, one upstream of the Vasco da Gama Bridge, the other downstream and that the area that is directly exploitable is the latter and even this cannot be consumed directly but only after purification.
According to José Guerreiro, IPMA is the National Reference Laboratory for Marine Living Resources and is responsible for identifying areas that are for exploration and monitoring and also declaring whether or not they remain in a condition to be explored.
The president of IPMA highlighted that it is important to separate “what is legal and duly licensed fishing in the Tagus estuary, from what has allegedly been illegal and unlicensed fishing”.
José Guerreiro said that the IPMA carries out weekly analyzesfortnightly and monthly and that the system works, “that it has never been at risk” and that there is “no record of serious non-compliance in the monitoring system”.
In conclusion, the person responsible stated that there is no proof that “alleged poisonings abroad” are with clams from the legal Tagus zone: “These cases that allegedly occurred abroad, it is nowhere demonstrated that they came from what would be the legally exploitable zone. And therefore, this is a non-case, in terms of what the Bivalve Control and Monitoring System is.”
