It is still hard for me to believe that some on this board still support fish farms. And this is way down on my reasons to dislike them.

Here is the link: http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4309047.html


Farm-raised salmon higher in contaminants than wild salmon, study finds
Eric Pianin, Washington Post

Published January 9, 2004

Farm-raised salmon, a growing staple of U.S. diets, contains significantly higher concentrations of PCBs, dioxin and other cancer-causing contaminants than salmon caught in the wild and should be eaten infrequently, according to a study of commercial fish sold in North America, South America and Europe.

The study, using Environmental Protection Agency health guidelines, concluded that while consumers could safely eat four to eight meals of wild salmon a month, consumption of more than one 8-ounce portion of farmed salmon a month in most cases poses an "unacceptable cancer risk." People in Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle should not eat farmed salmon more than once or twice a month, the study advises.

The two-year study was paid for by the Pew Charitable Trust and published Thursday in the journal Science.

Officials of the Food and Drug Administration and the fishing industry took issue with the findings. They said the contaminant levels in salmon have declined by 90 percent since the 1970s and the remaining "trace levels" do not warrant consumers denying themselves the high protein and cardiovascular benefits of eating salmon.

"We've looked at the levels found . . . and they do not represent a health concern," said Terry Troxell, director of the FDA's Office of Plant and Dairy Food and Beverages. "In the end our advice is not to alter consumption of farmed or wild salmon."

The salmon farming industry points out that all the pollutant levels are well within the FDA's legal limits and says other foods eaten more often, such as beef, are bigger sources of exposure.

On average, farmed salmon has concentrations of health-threatening contaminants 10 times greater than those found in wild salmon, according to the study.

Farmed fish contain higher concentrations of contaminants than wild fish largely because they are fed a meal that consists of ground-up fish tainted with the contaminants, while wild salmon feed on smaller fish and tiny aquatic organisms.

Removing the skin and grilling salmon removes a significant amount of stored PCBs, dioxins and other pollutants, the FDA noted.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The problem is the news stations spin on it made it sound like we should be eating wild salmon instead.... thats not too good either.

Wild salmon are one of natures finest foods.

Wild springers and sockeye are even better eating
than wild steelhead. YUM!

if you're gonna eat salmon you should eat wild salmon.

i'm sure there'll be some disagreement, but here's a start for non-fishermen in finding quality fish to eat.

http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp

chris

cool link topwater. I was implying that I would think a public outcry for more commercial fishing targeting wild fish would be a bad thing..... what are you doing for the off season?

Officials of the Food and Drug Administration and the fishing industry took issue with the findings. They said the contaminant levels in salmon have declined by 90 percent since the 1970s and the remaining "trace levels" do not warrant consumers denying themselves the high protein and cardiovascular benefits of eating salmon.

I wonder who funded such a study????

It couldn't have been the "commercial boys"… now could it!

Golden Rule: the one who pays for the studies always controls what the outcome of the study is

Cowlitzfisherman

The term "Wild" in the above article includes hatchery fish.

Probably a no brainer to most, but I had to double check that.

I agree with CFM and Grandpa (Not sure if that has ever happened before?)

Someone, gee I wonder who, has been pulling out all the stops to dowhatever thay can to kill fish farms or at least to slow their growth.

Our government says farmed fish is safe to eat. If you beleive that cows are safe why would you not beleive them on fish?

Something stinks here and it not just the dead fish!

I just spotted the article in the Seattle PI. It covers almost the whole front page and two full pages inside the paper. Looks like half their reporters jumped on the bandwagon. I will read more to get the full drift but initially it bothers me as I fear it will place more pressure on native and hatchery stocks. I tend to agree with CFM, Grandpa and Dave, this smells.

Do not underestimate the power of the well established commercial fishing political lobby machine.

They do all they can to make sure that every little issue negative to farmed fish is reported like it was the start to World War III.

Maybe someday the RFA will have similar power and we will get to see a little balance.

Eating farmed salmon is still WAY healthier than most of the meat the average American consumes.

Another reason to not believe what you read. Funny how the Seattle papers spin things toward commercial interests. Looking at the "science" in the study, you see that the results were based on uncooked fish. Other than some sushi eating part time friends of mine, this should cause no problems as most of the contaminants ( PCB's , dioxin, etc ) are removed when cooked. There is no getting around the fact that these contaminants are part of the food chain, and when fish are measured against other things we eat, they fall well below levels that warrant concern.

The reason the fish farms have higher carcinogens is because of the feed given to the farmed salmon. It is largely made of trash fish, that is boiled down and concentrated. This is basically the "fatty" part of the fish that has a higher concentration of the carcinogens...from the oceans. The study also noted that it varies depending on where the fish were farmed. The ones from the UK, had much higher levels of dioxins, etc, than BC. What I was wondering is whether the samples of the fish were taken consistently from the belly or from the meat of the fish? I think the fish farms could go a long way to helping their cause by using better feed....

The last farmed fish "issue" was "artificial" coloring of the flesh. The hysterical spin made it sound as if the fish were sprayed with red dye #2 after they were filleted.

Turns out the color was from ground up shrimp shells added to the feed - which occurs naturally as well. We all know how much the color of wild fish flesh varies within a specie due to diet.

Over the past 10 years, there are more and more "new releases" about the negative side of "salmon fish farming". Many of those articles are done from "faulty reseach" done by "pro-commerical" fishing interests. As the price of salmon continues to drop, fish farming will be targeted as the main cause of of problems in the commerical fishing industry, not the greed of the industry itself to continue to fish when the market is "jammed full" and the price is so low.

Very interesting to note, also, that of the farm raised fish, it is alway salmon that is talked/written about. Costco has not only farm raised salmon, but catfish and other white fish.

Just makes ya wonder?????????

"Worse day "sport" fishing, still better than the best day working"

CFM,

The study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, an organization that has no axe to grind, but tends toward the conservative, not as in political conservative, but more conservative as in their scientists are likely to be more conservative than the FDA regarding "safe" levels of PCBs and Dioxin in food. My oldest daughter worked for Pew until last year, researching global climate change, as in global warming.

Grandpa,

I don't trust the FDA to decide what safe levels of toxins are in my diet. FDA standards are very much influenced by politics, particularly by well-financed purveyors of contaminated food. Take for example the recent case of Mad Cow Disease. A couple weeks ago our government was doing all it could to assure us our beef supply was safe to eat. It's factually impossible for the government to know whether our beef supply is or is not contaminated. Your Republican Reagan reduced the number of USDA beef inspectors from about 15,000 to 7,500. Only 1 in 7,000 beef carcasses is inspected in the U.S., and a far lower percentage is even tested. After the E. coli illnesses and deaths of the last few years, the meat-packing industry pulled out all stops to influence the Republican Congress to limit USDA inspection and testing of meat. When the USDA pulls inspectors out of meat-packing plants producing contaminated meat, the packers sue USDA to force them back in under Republican-passed laws that favor profit-driven rights to market contaminated meat over consumer safety. When it comes to the nation's meat supply, Republicans have a lot to be proud of: a large, economical supply of meat of predominately unknown quality and safety. Funny thing is, Jack-in-the-Box, the fast food chain that nearly went out of business because they were associated with the first E. coli death, now requires both inspection and testing of its ground beef supply, probably offering one of the safest sources of ground beef in the nation. Conversely, the USDA, under what I presume to be your favored Republican-passed laws, purchases uninspected and untested ground beef for distribution to public school food service programs and the U.S. armed forces. Way to show appreciation to our men and women at arms, eh? Feed 'em beef with the highest likelihood of contamination. Oh, and records do show that USDA purchased tons and tons of beef from packers who sold contaminated beef for these destinations. There were some convictions, resulting in nice, Republican slaps on the wrist, for knowingly selling poisoned food. It's an ironic twist that liberals are portrayed as "weak on crime", but conservatives are just as weak when it comes to doling out consequences to their friends in business, whether it's the nation's meat supply, or contaminants in animal feed, or the pollution that also contributes to contaminated feed. Guess you can get run over standing on either side of the street, politically speaking. Hence my distrust of the FDA to tell me how much PCBs or Dioxin is OK for me to eat.
(References and citations available if really needed.)


It looks to me like where farmed salmon are raised, and where the farmed salmon diet comes from are important indicators of contamination levels. Also important to note is that "hatchery" origin salmon are the equivalent of "wild" salmon in the food marketplace, since they both grow on wild food sources found in the ocean. What bothers me about this is the fact that toxic heavy metals are so widely distributed in the ocean food chain, and there is no avoiding it if I choose to eat fish. Compared to "factory" reared beef, pork, and poultry, however, I think ocean-reared salmon continues to be one of the safer foods to eat.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo....I am disappointed again. I looked forward to your take on this sensationalistic story until I read your post. I'm sorry but I call major poo poo on your Reagan/Republican rantings.....come on! And where did I say I trusted the FDA or even gave a sheet what they think about anything? I simply pulled out a very small contrarian view from a very one sided story. The PI today treated this story like the attacks on 9/11. I was quite taken by the huge front page splash given to this new revelation that there is unwanted crap in our food chain.....DUH!!! Hellllloooooo. Oh and they did say that the worst of it is in Europe both in the contamination of the fish and the feed. Even though our standards are lower than some would like they are strict by comparison the the rest of the world.

And your Pew group is a "green" group that has a definite agenda. Somehow you and they are looking at the big bad wolf in this which is BIG GREEDY BUSINESSES...arrrrghhh..those slime bags making us eat poisen so they can make the almighty dollar.... Killing our children for a buck...Come on all you whiners.....get off of it already. The FDA I think is politically biased in the sense that it tries to balance all the studies so as not to put every one out of business with regulations trying to make everything pristine. Even if you go live in the deep woods of Alaska on nothing but natural food you will die of something....might even be cancer.

Wasn't there a study once that said Coke had poisens in it and that you would die of cancer from drinking it?...the study turned out to be on mice and the sick mice had to drink what would be like an oil super tanker full of Coke to a human before getting cancer?

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the BIG BUSINESS of commercial fishing is behind the incredible negative attention fish farming has gotten...Then of course Seattle's answer to Pravda, the PI, jumps all over it because the Bush administration was earlier bashed for looking at expanding fish farming...So if fish farming is bad then ...Bush BAD.....good logic huh?

By the way...Pew DOES have an axe to grind...I beg your pardon.

Also the fish farming industry who does not get equal time you notice says that they know how to make the feed lower in contaminates and that the government watch dogs need to give them a number and that they will hit that number. Most of the contamination is being blamed on the feed so I'll bet if they clean up the feed it will something else...always is with the environmentalists. Nothing will ever be pristine enough.

I'm going outside to sand bag my house becuase Pew says that the polar ice packs are melting and I don;t want my basement to flood. Must be true the had a study saying so..right?

Here is a quote from today's Oregonian:

Two meals of Oregon wild chinook salmon a month would prompt the advisories, designed for people such as recreational fishermen who regularly eat salmon.

If that tells you anything....

Here is the link:
Oregonian

and Grandpa...you aint got no basement, uhmm, all right then...

While I don't agree with fish farms and their introduction of foreign species and the ghost towns that are below them on the sea floor, I don't agree with taking them out either.

Society consumes "X" amount of salmon. You do away with the farmed salmon and where is society going to get their "X" amount of salmon from?