Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on December 30, 2011, 08:37:03 AM
-
http://blogsw.solidwastemag.com/2011/12/seven_food_items_that_should_n.html (http://blogsw.solidwastemag.com/2011/12/seven_food_items_that_should_n.html)
Nature didn't intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. "You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer," says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. "It's that bad." Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.
-
WOW :o
-
Thank God I can catch and eat my own fresh fish. Always knew that farmed fish were bad for the environment but to see and hear how unhealthy they are to eat is scarey, very scarey.
-
It gets worse.....
http://www.puresalmon.org/pdfs/human_health.pdf (http://www.puresalmon.org/pdfs/human_health.pdf)
"In 1999, the World Health Organization raised food safety concerns over fish farming, including salmon,1 warning that this growing practice posed risks to public health. Artificial coloring, toxic by-products, and cancer causing contaminants have all been found in factory farmed salmon. The United States currently imports approximately 200,000 tons of farmed salmon annually,2 but very little of it is ever tested for diseases or chemical contaminants. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered testing farmed salmon for antibiotics, pesticides, or possible carcinogens—all of which are used by many overseas salmon farms—those plans are on hold.
ARTIFICIAL COLOR
Industrial salmon farms use artificial color to make farmed fish—whose flesh is typically greyish white—appear a more appetizing “salmon” pink. Market research found that consumers “buy with their eyes” and put a premium on color. Since 1982, the use of artificial coloring in farmed salmon has more than tripled. One of the most commonly used dyes, Canthaxanthin, has been linked to human eye defects and retinal damage. In 2003, the European Commission ordered salmon farmers to sharply reduce the use of Canthaxanthin, and most countries, including the U.S., require labels to identify farmed and dyed salmon as such. Yet, fish are occasionally sold without labels: Safeway, Kroger, and Alberstons were sued in 2003 for failing to identify artificially colored, factory raised salmon.
HARMFUL CHEMICALS
Industrial salmon operations use a number of other chemicals to raise marketable fish. All of these pose known and potential risks to human health. These substances include oxytetracycline, an antibiotic that may lead to antibiotic resistance. Similar to the controversial use of antibiotics by the poultry and livestock industries, factory salmon farms must prevent fish from infecting one another with diseases. Because of the high prevalence of drugs on salmon farms, unwary consumers may ingest untold amounts of antibiotics.
FARMED SALMON AND HUMAN HEALTH
“Malachite green,” a fungicide, was banned internationally in the 1990s, but still illegally used in some salmon hatcheries and for juvenile fish. Scientists have found that exposure to malachite green may raise the risk of cancer, cause genetic mutations, and harm the human reproductive system. Contaminants like dieldrin, dioxins, toxaphene, and PCBs are often found in food and nutritional supplements manufactured for aquaculture. Because of this, farmed salmon have higher concentrations
of toxics than wild salmon. Although the U.S. EPA recommends eating salmon no more than once or twice a week, a 2004 study by independent researchers found much higher levels of toxic contaminants in farmed salmon than previously thought. These scientists recommended as little as one serving of salmon per month.
LOWER NUTRITIONAL VALUE IN FARMED SALMON VS WILD
A close reading of supermarket labels shows that some wild salmon, high in “heart-healthy,” Omega-3 fatty acids, contain less than 1 percent fat. In contrast, factory farmed fish can be as high as 27 percent fat and contain 15 percent less protein. Despite efforts by governments and international agencies to limit antibiotics, harmful chemicals, and toxic substances in farmed salmon, the danger persists. Millions of fish—raised in close confinement, eating an unvaried artificial diet, and constantly exposed to their own wastes—mean inevitable exposure to harmful chemicals. These compounds accumulate in the tissues of salmon and are passed on to humans. People who regularly eat farmed salmon face a higher, though still poorly understood, risk of retinal damage, cancer, resistance to antibiotics, and harm to reproductive and other organs.
-
It gets worse.....
http://www.puresalmon.org/pdfs/human_health.pdf (http://www.puresalmon.org/pdfs/human_health.pdf)
"In 1999, the World Health Organization raised food safety concerns over fish farming, including salmon,1 warning that this growing practice posed risks to public health. Artificial coloring, toxic by-products, and cancer causing contaminants have all been found in factory farmed salmon. The United States currently imports approximately 200,000 tons of farmed salmon annually,2 but very little of it is ever tested for diseases or chemical contaminants. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered testing farmed salmon for antibiotics, pesticides, or possible carcinogens—all of which are used by many overseas salmon farms—those plans are on hold.
ARTIFICIAL COLOR
Industrial salmon farms use artificial color to make farmed fish—whose flesh is typically greyish white—appear a more appetizing “salmon” pink. Market research found that consumers “buy with their eyes” and put a premium on color. Since 1982, the use of artificial coloring in farmed salmon has more than tripled. One of the most commonly used dyes, Canthaxanthin, has been linked to human eye defects and retinal damage. In 2003, the European Commission ordered salmon farmers to sharply reduce the use of Canthaxanthin, and most countries, including the U.S., require labels to identify farmed and dyed salmon as such. Yet, fish are occasionally sold without labels: Safeway, Kroger, and Alberstons were sued in 2003 for failing to identify artificially colored, factory raised salmon.
HARMFUL CHEMICALS
Industrial salmon operations use a number of other chemicals to raise marketable fish. All of these pose known and potential risks to human health. These substances include oxytetracycline, an antibiotic that may lead to antibiotic resistance. Similar to the controversial use of antibiotics by the poultry and livestock industries, factory salmon farms must prevent fish from infecting one another with diseases. Because of the high prevalence of drugs on salmon farms, unwary consumers may ingest untold amounts of antibiotics.
FARMED SALMON AND HUMAN HEALTH
“Malachite green,” a fungicide, was banned internationally in the 1990s, but still illegally used in some salmon hatcheries and for juvenile fish. Scientists have found that exposure to malachite green may raise the risk of cancer, cause genetic mutations, and harm the human reproductive system. Contaminants like dieldrin, dioxins, toxaphene, and PCBs are often found in food and nutritional supplements manufactured for aquaculture. Because of this, farmed salmon have higher concentrations
of toxics than wild salmon. Although the U.S. EPA recommends eating salmon no more than once or twice a week, a 2004 study by independent researchers found much higher levels of toxic contaminants in farmed salmon than previously thought. These scientists recommended as little as one serving of salmon per month.
LOWER NUTRITIONAL VALUE IN FARMED SALMON VS WILD
A close reading of supermarket labels shows that some wild salmon, high in “heart-healthy,” Omega-3 fatty acids, contain less than 1 percent fat. In contrast, factory farmed fish can be as high as 27 percent fat and contain 15 percent less protein. Despite efforts by governments and international agencies to limit antibiotics, harmful chemicals, and toxic substances in farmed salmon, the danger persists. Millions of fish—raised in close confinement, eating an unvaried artificial diet, and constantly exposed to their own wastes—mean inevitable exposure to harmful chemicals. These compounds accumulate in the tissues of salmon and are passed on to humans. People who regularly eat farmed salmon face a higher, though still poorly understood, risk of retinal damage, cancer, resistance to antibiotics, and harm to reproductive and other organs.
Hmmmm.... I wonder http://www.streetdirectory.com/food_editorials/cooking/meat_recipes/harmful_chemicals_in_the_meat_you_eat.html (http://www.streetdirectory.com/food_editorials/cooking/meat_recipes/harmful_chemicals_in_the_meat_you_eat.html)
-
More on nitrates and nitrites.
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/seasoningflavoring/a/nitrates.htm
Key Point:
The reality is that companies that make nitrate-free hot dogs have to use something to substitute for the sodium nitrate. Celery juice is a popular choice. And guess what celery juice contains lots of? Sodium nitrate. And guess what that sodium nitrate turns into when you eat it? Sodium nitrite!
As we said earlier, celery is a natural source of sodium nitrate. (Notice that no one is currently claiming that celery causes cancer or that people should reduce their intake of celery.) But by adding celery juice to their hot dogs, manufacturers can make products loaded with sodium nitrate while legally being able to claim "no added nitrates." Because all the nitrates are in the celery juice. As a matter of fact, these supposedly "natural" or "organic" products sometimes contain twice as much sodium nitrate, even up to a whopping ten times as much sodium nitrate, as conventional products.
You can pretty much find something wrong with food production as a whole. Do this search on line "problems with farming _________" fill in the blanks with whatever food you like and you are going to find PROBLEMS. You cant even farm the wind without having problems. Chances are that the worry in your gut about all this is more toxic than most of the food available to us. And if your sippin on some alcohol tonight your going to want to take another look at that. Organic farming is plagued with problems. Luckily we have a new label for that. Sustainability. Totally abused term.
-
http://blogsw.solidwastemag.com/2011/12/seven_food_items_that_should_n.html
The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon.
AF you keep posting Alaska caught ranched salmon as a solution. Do you really support that?
-
Stinky Fish
-
AP - you're quoting something from within the Blog - not what AF has written.
And how did you get 'ranched' from 'wild-caught' ???
-
West coast salmon and trout hatcheries use antibiotics and fungicides as well but strangely we don't hear very much about that ;D
The very small Cultus Lake sockeye hatchery program (250 adults) uses more than 45 gallons of full-strength formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen, annually to control fungus - all of this finds it's way into Sweltzer Creek and downstream into the Vedder.
If a minuscule operation like this uses that much, one wonders at the amount larger salmon hatcheries on the Pacific coast, especially those in Washington and Alaska, use.
-
AP - you're quoting something from within the Blog - not what AF has written.
And how did you get 'ranched' from 'wild-caught'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py0ymFTvidU
Do you support it DaveD?
-
Don't really support it - However in a round about way, I like the concept of how Alaska is keeping the commercial fisheries thriving while our governments keep shuffling their feet.
Now if they would move the farms to land tanks as they do the hatcheries - that would definitely get my full support.
However - the video stated that "over 30% of the salmon came from hatcheries AND farms". Guess that means of over 60% are wild - which btw is what the blog suggested we switch to. And from what I read in other articles - the Alaskan return numbers keep climbing. Other than the one exceptional year - the Fraser numbers are in decline (due to a LOT of different reasons).
BTW - we are digressing from AF's original point - its clear that we must really look into where the food we eat comes from as it is becoming a reality that misleading 'labels' may become more of the norm as the probability of getting caught is getting lower:
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Mission+expose+false+labels+challenged+budget+cuts+tape/5807317/story.html
-
BTW - we are digressing from AF's original point - its clear that we must really look into where the food we eat comes from as it is becoming a reality that misleading 'labels' may become more of the norm as the probability of getting caught is getting lower:
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Mission+expose+false+labels+challenged+budget+cuts+tape/5807317/story.html
There are a lot of studies out there that show wild salmon are healthier for you than caged farm grown salmon. I have no problem with Alaska labeling their salmon as "wild caught" even though they are started in hatcheries. From a food health perspective I would be very confident eating Alaskan salmon, where I wouldn't touch a cage grown farmed salmon. I have heard that the fat content of a farmed salmon is at least 30% higher than a wild salmon.
Many assessments have found fewer omega-3s per ounce in farmed salmon compared with wild salmon, but we know the farmed stuff also comes with a hefty (not healthy) wallop of other fats including omega-6s. We then deal with the problem that the omega-6s and omega-3s compete for the same receptors in our bodies. Consequently, the “net” omega-3 gain will always be less than what you’ll get with a wild serving. Here’s a nifty chart that compares the fat content of some popular wild versus farmed fish varieties (including salmon) from this PDF. And because the farmed fish are fattier, you’ll get less protein per serving as well.
Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/salmon-factory-farm-vs-wild/#ixzz1iAXUmms7
The market for organically grown livestock and poultry is growing in spite of the higher cost because consumers are becoming more aware of the supplements, hormones and antibiotics that are used to produce much of the food we are being sold.
-
The risk of not eating farmed or wild salmon is far worse for you as the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) is far greater. The risk of getting cancer from eating farmed salmon is not even in the same ball park. Even the World Health Organization concurs when it rates cancers against CHD. David Suzuki does not even mention it anymore as he once did and for good reason. Funded by the Pew Chartiable Trust - say no more.
I copied this from another thread.
-
Please don't tell me that beer (in moderation) is no longer any good for me. ::)
-
The risk of not eating farmed or wild salmon is far worse for you as the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) is far greater. The risk of getting cancer from eating farmed salmon is not even in the same ball park. Even the World Health Organization concurs when it rates cancers against CHD. David Suzuki does not even mention it anymore as he once did and for good reason. Funded by the Pew Chartiable Trust - say no more.
I copied this from another thread.
I don't understand how you can put farmed and wild salmon in the same category.
The problem with caged farmed salmon is that they get no exercise and are fed pellets designed to grow them to market size in less than half the time a wild fish takes to get to the same size. As a result farmed fish have much more fat than wild salmon have. PCB's accumulate in the fat. That's why farmed fish have 10-16 times more PCB's than wild salmon.
http://www.healthcastle.com/farmed-salmon.shtml (http://www.healthcastle.com/farmed-salmon.shtml)
I've read articles that suggest that if you eat farmed salmon you should limit your intake to one serving a month and pregnant women and young children should avoid it all together.
"If farmed salmon with the average PCB level found in this study were caught in the wild, EPA advice would restrict consumption to no more than one meal a month. But because farmed salmon are bought, not caught, their consumption is not restricted in any way." ???
http://www.ewg.org/reports/farmedpcbs (http://www.ewg.org/reports/farmedpcbs)
-
http://pdf.gaalliance.org/pdf/GAA-Tom-May10.pdf (http://pdf.gaalliance.org/pdf/GAA-Tom-May10.pdf)
This is a nice write up on the differences and the similarity's. There is a section on PCPs in there but what is really interesting ins the table on nutritional break down.
-
http://pdf.gaalliance.org/pdf/GAA-Tom-May10.pdf (http://pdf.gaalliance.org/pdf/GAA-Tom-May10.pdf)
This is a nice write up on the differences and the similarity's. There is a section on PCPs in there but what is really interesting ins the table on nutritional break down.
Nice marketing piece from the Global Aquaculture Alliance.... ??? http://www.gaalliance.org/ (http://www.gaalliance.org/) I noticed that they forgot to compare the PCB levels in the table. When I went to the USDA website, I couldn't find the table there. Do you have a link to the USDA site that shows that chart?
I prefer relying on non biased sources for my information. ::)
-
I prefer relying on non biased sources for my information.
You may want to review many of your links then.
I noticed that they forgot to compare the PCB levels in the table. When I went to the USDA website, I couldn't find the table there. Do you have a link to the USDA site that shows that chart?
They left out the vitamins too that you love to note as well. No I can not find the table.
-
Nice marketing piece from the Global Aquaculture Alliance.... ??? http://www.gaalliance.org/ (http://www.gaalliance.org/) I noticed that they forgot to compare the PCB levels in the table. When I went to the USDA website, I couldn't find the table there. Do you have a link to the USDA site that shows that chart?
I prefer relying on non biased sources for my information. ::)
Depends on the fat conctent of the fish...farmed tend to be relatively high in fat, thus organic pesticides. But the bottom line is, that as a human health risk, there are much "bigger fish to fry".
FLESH RESIDUE CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES IN FARMED AND WILD SALMON FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA Kelly, BC; Ikonomou, MG; Higgs, DA; Oakes, J; Dubetz, C ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY Volume: 30 Issue: 11 Pages: 2456-2464 DOI: 10.1002/etc.662 Published: NOV 2011
Abstract: The present study reports measured levels of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in commercial salmon feed (n = 8) and farmed Atlantic, coho, and chinook salmon (n = 110), as well as wild coho, chinook, chum, sockeye, and pink salmon (n = 91). Flesh residue concentrations (ng/g wet weight) of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDTs), hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs), chlordanes, chlorobenzenes (CBz) and cyclodiene pesticides (e. g., dieldrin, mirex) were 2 to 11 times higher (p < 0.05) in farmed salmon compared with wild salmon. Concentrations were positively correlated with flesh lipid levels. Farmed Atlantic salmon (12-15% lipid) typically exhibited the greatest OCP burdens compared with other salmon species. However, when expressed on a lipid weight basis, concentrations of OCPs (ng/g lipid weight) in wild salmon, in many cases, exceeded those levels in farmed salmon. Observed interspecies and site-specific variations of OCP concentrations in farmed and wild salmon may be attributed to divergent life history, prey/feed characteristics and composition, bioenergetics, or ambient environmental concentrations. Calculated biomagnification factors (BMF = C(F)/C(D), lipid wt) of OCPs in farmed salmon typically ranged between two and five. Biomagnification of chemicals such as DDTs, chlordanes, and mirex was anticipated, because those compounds tend to exhibit high dietary uptake and slow depuration rates in fish because of relatively high octanol-water partition coefficients (K(OW)s > 10(5)). Surprisingly, less hydrophobic pesticides such as hexachlorocyclohexanes and endosulfans (K(OW)s < 10(5)) consistently exhibited a high degree of biomagnification in farmed salmon species (BMFs > 5). This is contrary to previous laboratory and field observations demonstrating fish BMFs less than 1 for low K(OW) chemicals, because of efficient respiratory elimination of those compounds via gills. The results suggest that ambient seawater concentrations and bioconcentration-driven accumulation may play a key role in the bioaccumulation of these relatively more water-soluble contaminants in farmed salmon. Finally, OCP exposure through consumption of British Columbian salmon is found to be low relative to United States national average per capita total exposure levels and provisional tolerable daily intakes.
-
Farmed Atlantic salmon (12-15% lipid) typically exhibited the greatest OCP burdens compared with other salmon species. However, when expressed on a lipid weight basis, concentrations of OCPs (ng/g lipid weight) in wild salmon, in many cases, exceeded those levels in farmed salmon.
Nice twisted interpretation of facts. ???
Farmed salmon are about 150% fatter (more lipid) than wild salmon so as a % they contain significantly higher levels of PCB's than wild salmon. The bottom line is when you eat a serving of farmed salmon you are eating 10 - 15 times the quantity of PCB's than if you ate the same size serving of wild salmon!
"Farmed salmon had greater levels of total lipid (average 16.6%) than wild salmon (average 6.4%). The n-3 to n-6 ratio was about 10 in wild salmon and 3−4 in farmed salmon. The supermarket samples were similar to the farmed salmon from the same region. Lipid-adjusted contaminant levels were significantly higher in farmed Atlantic salmon than those in wild Pacific salmon (F = 7.27, P = 0.0089 for toxaphene; F = 15.39, P = 0.0002 for dioxin; F ≥ 21.31, P < 0.0001 for dieldrin and PCBs, with df = (1,64) for all). Levels of total lipid were in the range of 30−40% in the fish oil/fish meal that is fed to farmed salmon. Salmon, especially farmed salmon, are a good source of healthy n-3 fatty acids, but they also contain high concentrations of organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, dioxins, and chlorinated pesticides. The presence of these contaminants may reduce the net health benefits derived from the consumption of farmed salmon, despite the presence of the high level of n-3 fatty acids in these fish." http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es050898y (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es050898y)
-
And the debate goes on. I would suggest readers locate a book "A Stain Upon the Sea," a 2004 publication that believe it or not is still current. It is written by local people (Stephen Hume,Alexandra Morton, Betty Keller,Rosella Leslie, Otto Langer, Don Saniford). After reading this book I have not eaten nor supported farmed salmon.
-
And the debate goes on. I would suggest readers locate a book "A Stain Upon the Sea," a 2004 publication that believe it or not is still current. It is written by local people (Stephen Hume,Alexandra Morton, Betty Keller,Rosella Leslie, Otto Langer, Don Saniford). After reading this book I have not eaten nor supported farmed salmon.
Look, the fear mongers bible..... ;D
-
Nice twisted interpretation of facts. ???
Farmed salmon are about 150% fatter (more lipid) than wild salmon so as a % they contain significantly higher levels of PCB's than wild salmon. The bottom line is when you eat a serving of farmed salmon you are eating 10 - 15 times the quantity of PCB's than if you ate the same size serving of wild salmon!
Not sure what your "twisted interpretation" comment is about AF...are you challenging the scientists findings? Another conspiracy? ::) ::)
You are right that farmed fish have higher fat content and higher pesticide contaminant levels than most wild fish (particularly Dieldrin, Chlordane and Toxaphene; PCBs are 3-8 times higher) but the point of this most recent paper for BC salmon is that it's not considered dangerous by Health Canada or the WHO even if you eat salmon twice a week. So your other comments about the risks of eating farmed salmon monthly aren't supported by the real data. You typically get a lot more pesticides from other food sources, as the paper illustrates with the US human dosage data.
The high levels of some pesticides in wild Chinook and sockeye are disturbing though (not dangerous though unless you are First Nations or a commecial fisher that might eat a lot of salmon). Not a good sign for the health of our oceans.
-
And the debate goes on. I would suggest readers locate a book "A Stain Upon the Sea," a 2004 publication that believe it or not is still current. It is written by local people (Stephen Hume,Alexandra Morton, Betty Keller,Rosella Leslie, Otto Langer, Don Saniford). After reading this book I have not eaten nor supported farmed salmon.
Ahhhh, 2004? Morton, Stanford. C'mon!
Whoops, I did the 3 pro aquaculture backslap thing again.
-
And the number 2 food that shouldn't cross your lips is Brussel Sprouts. ;D
-
I love brussel sprouts, cause they gimme gas and the wife leaves me alone... :D
-
A little history lesson on Macdonald's attempt at selling farmed salmon....
In the film “Super Size Me”, Morgan Spurlock stuffed his face on junk food from McDonalds. A sequel - ‘Super Sized Salmonbugs’ - should involve factory farmed salmon. On World Oceans Day in June, McDonald’s unveiled a new ‘sustainable’ whitefish sandwich with the world’s media falling hook line and sinker for this whopper of a fish story.
Less well known is the unsavoury story of McDonald’s failed attempts to promote farmed salmon. In 1997, McDonald's were sued when “four people, including two McDonald's employees, were hospitalized after eating tainted McLaks salmon burgers at a restaurant in Lorenskog, located in the outskirts of Oslo”. McDonald's Norway confirmed that the food poisoning materialized from a ‘corrupted’ consignment of salmon fillets. “At first the McLaks tasted very good, but after some minutes my mouth and throat became numb, and I experienced internal spasms,” said Geir Sundberg, one of the four filing suit against McDonald's. Advertising Age reported under ‘1997 Ad Follies’: “In Norway, McDonald's pulled the McLaks salmon burger off the market after four customers were treated for food poisoning. McLaks had been a hit with health-conscious Norwegians, and McDonald's had been considering expanding the product to Sweden and Denmark”.
Not learning their lesson, McDonald's teamed up with the world’s largest salmon farming company Marine Harvest a decade later in 2007 and launched a farmed salmon wrap with an ad campaign showing a 'Laksewrap' (Salmon wrap) leaping out of the water with a M shape and the Marine Harvest logo underneath.
Marine Harvest Canada blogged about it via 'Marine Harvest teams up with McDonalds' and even the Norwegian Embassy in the United States blogged "McSalmon, Please!" (Read more via ‘Eco-Washing McFarmed Fish’). Marine Harvest’s masterplan was to have a trial in Norway and then conquer the world supplying McDonald’s over 30,000 outlets. Suffice to say that McDonald’s quietly dropped the salmon wrap sometime in 2009 and appear not to be lovin’ the idea of a farmed salmon burger.
-
Holy toledo!! man this is just scary. :o
-
A little history lesson on Macdonald's attempt at selling farmed salmon....
In the film “Super Size Me”, Morgan Spurlock stuffed his face on junk food from McDonalds. A sequel - ‘Super Sized Salmonbugs’ - should involve factory farmed salmon. On World Oceans Day in June, McDonald’s unveiled a new ‘sustainable’ whitefish sandwich with the world’s media falling hook line and sinker for this whopper of a fish story.
Less well known is the unsavoury story of McDonald’s failed attempts to promote farmed salmon. In 1997, McDonald's were sued when “four people, including two McDonald's employees, were hospitalized after eating tainted McLaks salmon burgers at a restaurant in Lorenskog, located in the outskirts of Oslo”. McDonald's Norway confirmed that the food poisoning materialized from a ‘corrupted’ consignment of salmon fillets. “At first the McLaks tasted very good, but after some minutes my mouth and throat became numb, and I experienced internal spasms,” said Geir Sundberg, one of the four filing suit against McDonald's. Advertising Age reported under ‘1997 Ad Follies’: “In Norway, McDonald's pulled the McLaks salmon burger off the market after four customers were treated for food poisoning. McLaks had been a hit with health-conscious Norwegians, and McDonald's had been considering expanding the product to Sweden and Denmark”.
You should attribute material you cut and paste from other peoples work AF...that's a direct cut and paste from Don Staniford's unpublished Farmageddon article. I read both sides....
I'm not surprised that a company like McDonalds would back away from any food product that is even slightly controversial and there is an active anti-farm movement in Norway.
But I thought the McLaks food poisoning incident was a particularly weak argument against farmed salmon. That's a risk we take when we live in a society where someone else is responsible for harvesting, preserving, transporting, packaging, cooking and serving our food for us and contamination can happen at any step in the food chain. CFIA issues a high risk food warning for Canada every couple of days (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/newsroom/food-recalls-and-allergy-alerts/eng/1299076382077/1299076493846 (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/newsroom/food-recalls-and-allergy-alerts/eng/1299076382077/1299076493846)) and the vast majority of restaurant food poisonings go unreported. So it's hardly unique to farmed salmon products.
-
I wasn't making any argument, Stillaqua..... just providing a history lesson. :D
-
Anyone notice the lack of truth in this ad?
(http://consumerist.com/2011/01/14/salmon.jpg)
-
Anyone notice the lack of truth in this ad?
(http://consumerist.com/2011/01/14/salmon.jpg)
Yeah, those are clearly sockeye filets...... ;) ;)
-
"Farmed Raised" yet caught by wild people?
-
whoops
-
Yeah, those are clearly sockeye filets...... ;) ;)
;D Ya, I noticed that they seemed to be unusually red, but I just assumed that it was an Atlantic salmon had received an extra dose of canthaxanthin, Astaxanthin or Lutein before being caught.... ;D
Apparently the way you can tell the difference between farmed and wild salmon is by cooking it..... ;)
"Salmon is tricky. Randolph does have one tip, though. Farmed salmon gets its coloring from dyes added to food pellets the fish are fed, while wild salmon gets it from the plankton they eat. "When you cook it, the wild salmon retains its color, and in the aquaculture salmon, the color tends to leak out," she says" http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/8905/the-fraudulent-fish-of-america (http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/8905/the-fraudulent-fish-of-america)
-
"Farmed Raised" yet caught by wild people?
Those salmon farmers can be pretty wild..... ;D
-
They could have been farmed raised and wild caught, tens of thousands of Atlantics "leak" (unreported) from pens every year.
-
They could have been farmed raised and wild caught, tens of thousands of Atlantics "leak" (unreported) from pens every year.
;D LOL
Actually I've heard that the voluntary reporting system they use is highly reliable because salmon farmers are very honest. :D
-
As we all know a photo of a product has little to do with how the product looks usually.
The problem here is with the grocery store not a fish farm.
Honestly :-*
-
An interesting read on how the Scotish fish farm PR machine managed to convince the public that a scientific study on PCB's in farmed fish was suspect and should not be believed.... Probably the same thing is happening in North America.
On January 9 2004 Science, perhaps the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, published a study reporting that farmed salmon contained amounts of toxic chemicals known as Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) as well as other chemicals exceeding the recommended levels advised by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the EPA, ‘Studies in humans provide supportive evidence for potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of PCBs’.2
The following analysis is not simply about industry strategy or science communication. It is not just a study of media coverage of salmon. It is an account of how scientific research which does not fit the interests of industry can be neutralised. It is a story that involves scientists, corporations, front groups, PR firms, ministers, civil servants and journalists. It shows that the public get a dangerously distorted view of science from the media. But this is relatively trivial compared with the main conclusion which is that vested interests operating together in a corporate/state two step are able to manage science and silence critics - even where these emanate from the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. The interests of the industry prevailed in this case by means of misinformation, manipulation and subterfuge. The implication of this for theories of democracy and governance that emphasise popular consent is that consent is not always essential for the reproduction of power.
http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/45-food-industry/4925-spinning-farmed-salmon-part-1-of-3 (http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/45-food-industry/4925-spinning-farmed-salmon-part-1-of-3)
-
;D LOL
Actually I've heard that the voluntary reporting system they use is highly reliable because salmon farmers are very honest. :D
Apparently they are only required to report large escape events (like a storm destroys a pen and all the salmon escape). However, if net pen develops a hole and a few dozen fish escape before it is noticed, they do not need to report it.
-
Apparently they are only required to report large escape events (like a storm destroys a pen and all the salmon escape). However, if net pen develops a hole and a few dozen fish escape before it is noticed, they do not need to report it.
I guess for a salmon farmer that's the definition of honest... :D
-
a picture of sockeye fillets, advertising atlantic salmon which have been wild caught but farm raised...well, I guess the net pens are technically in the "wild", right? lol. Would love to send an email to the store manager hahah
-
Please don't tell me that beer (in moderation) is no longer any good for me. ::)
Do what I do, whenever you drink beer - only drink German beer. And I mean real German beer, imported from Germany. They have a Purity Law over there, whereby breweries are not allowed to put anything in the beer besides Water, Hops, and Barley. Also, they clearly state the ingredients on the can/bottle and have a clearly stamped expiry date. This is quality beer, and surprisingly it can be and usually is CHEAPER than domestic beer.
I just discovered all this a few months ago, after getting really annoyed with constantly getting headaches in 20 min after only 1 beer. A lot of domestic beers use all kinds of Preservatives and Additives and even sweeteners - which are the main cause of hangovers. These mass produced beers are made so cheaply that they can brew it with corn or rice as an adjunct to save costs. That is like cutting a substance with an inferior product.
With German beers, you'll notice that you won't feel bloated and tired after. The hops act as a natural preservative. That's why German beer have a shelf life of up to one year, where as domestic beers lose their quality after 3-6 months. A lot of beers just drain your energy, almost immediately. Corona beers are pure crap, and they're known to make people feel drowsy and tired, and cause headaches. They're a total downer of a beer. Usually the most marketed beers, are the crappiest. Budweiser, for example, is actually one of the worst beers out there.
-
Budweiser, for example, is actually one of the worst beers out there.
Sorry, Sam, but I hear Anheuser-Busch is going to launch a $150 000 defamation lawsuit against you.
-
lol.. look up Budweiser and see the rash of complaints and harsh criticism. Especially the American Budweiser (brewed by Anheuser-Busch) - which has got it's nickname "Headache in a can." Budweiser here is only slightly better and brewed by Labatt.
-
lol.. look up Budweiser and see the rash of complaints and harsh criticism. Especially the American Budweiser (brewed by Anheuser-Busch) - which has got it's nickname "Headache in a can." Budweiser here is only slightly better and brewed by Labatt.
Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm emoticon ;)
-
of course I know you were kidding, just thought I'd share more info. lol
-
Interesting website..... http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=133 (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=133)
"Our scientists research government reports, journal articles and white papers. They also contact fishery and fish farm experts. After a thorough review, we apply our sustainability criteria to develop an in-depth Seafood Watch Report. All of our reports are reviewed by a panel of experts from academia, government and the seafood industry and are available on our website. From our reports, we create our seafood recommendations.
Our website offers a complete list of Seafood Watch recommendations, with background information."
-
Very interesting. I think the biggest challenge would be correctly identifying the fish you're purchasing (there seems to be rampant mislabeling) and even if that information is correct, knowing specifically where it was from and how it was harvested could be very difficult to determine.
-
Even YOGA is now bad for you says yoga expert!
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/top-picks/dont-do-yoga/#clip599373 (http://watch.ctv.ca/news/top-picks/dont-do-yoga/#clip599373)
-
Even YOGA is now bad for you says yoga expert!
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/top-picks/dont-do-yoga/#clip599373 (http://watch.ctv.ca/news/top-picks/dont-do-yoga/#clip599373)
not sure how this got here...but is that what he said?
-
Apparently Canadian farmed salmon isn't
so as bad...... ???
The American Heart Association recommends eating fish, especially fatty fish such as salmon, at least twice a week to ensure you get plenty of heart-healthy omega 3 fatty acids. Fresh or farmed: Dr. Jampolis revisits her answer
To get a few more answers for you, I consulted Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that has examined this subject in detail. She told me the following:
"Nearly all salmon Americans eat are farm-raised -- grown in dense-packed pens near ocean shores, fed fish meal that can be polluted with toxic PCB chemicals, awash in excrement flushed out to sea and infused with antibiotics to combat unsanitary conditions. Some salmon are raised on farms that use more sustainable methods, but you can't tell from the packaging.
Eating farmed salmon occasionally is not a great health concern, but risks can add up if you eat salmon often. But the long-term environmental damage caused by the industry is substantial. We recommend wild salmon over farmed whenever possible."
A 2003 report by the EWG showed that farmed salmon in the U.S. has the highest levels of PCBs, toxic man-made chemicals, so Canadian salmon may be slightly better. I suggest that you limit farmed salmon consumption to once a week at most if you are unable to find fresh, wild salmon. In addition, trim the skin and fat as much as possible and use cooking methods such as grilling and boiling to reduce fat, as this is where the toxics are stored.
-
And the debate goes on. I would suggest readers locate a book "A Stain Upon the Sea," a 2004 publication that believe it or not is still current. It is written by local people (Stephen Hume,Alexandra Morton, Betty Keller,Rosella Leslie, Otto Langer, Don Saniford). After reading this book I have not eaten nor supported farmed salmon.
Thanks Terry, just picked up a copy in the library. After reading some already, it is verifying what I have believed the last while.
-
"Corona beers are pure crap, and they're known to make people feel drowsy and tired, and cause headaches. They're a total downer of a beer."
Probably why Mexico is so screwed up right now. :-\
But for me a German or a host of other European beers hit the spot. Budweiser is swill for eating them wretched dirty fish aka farmed salmon. Like most American beers.
-
http://www.intl-ecogen.com/newspaper.html
"In her initial study, Jacobs looked at 10 Scottish farmed salmon and two wild fish. She found harmful dioxin levels significantly higher in the former variety. So high, in fact, that eating just one 3.5-ounce portion would exceed the weekly maximum acceptable dose of dioxins in Britain.
In his soon-to-be-published study, Easton studied four farmed and four wild salmon. He found the levels of polychlorinated byphenals, pesticides like DDT and other toxic substances in farmed salmon were 10 times higher than the levels in the wild salmon.
The levels are still well within Canadian safety standards, he said in an interview, but come close to exceeding the World Health Organization's recommendation for tolerable daily intake. He noted that the WHO standards were upgraded in 1998 and argues that Health Canada's guidelines are too low. "
No wonder Staniford compares fish farm companies to cigarette manufacturing companies....
-
Because of what they feed it, farmed salmon has only about 25% of the Vitamin D that wild salmon has.
Type of Fish Vitamin D (IU)
Salmon, Farmed 240 ± 108
Salmon, Wild 988 ± 524
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698592/pdf/nihms20896.pdf (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698592/pdf/nihms20896.pdf)
-
Oceanwise is an agency that was set up by the Vancouver Aquarium and has a growing following of restaurants, suppliers and consumers. They have strict criteria for the seafood recommendations they make, based on whether the product is sustainable and ocean friendly.
Please note that they do not recommend feedlot Atlantic salmon.
Salmon
Status Variety Wild/Farmed Harvest method Region
Ocean Wise Chinook salmon, Wild Gillnet, Seine net, Troll Alaska, British Columbia
Ocean Wise Chum salmon Wild Gillnet, Seine net, Troll Alaska, British Columbia
Ocean Wise Coho salmon Wild Gillnet, Seine net, Troll Alaska, British Columbia
Ocean Wise Coho salmon, Sockeye salmon Farmed Closed system Canada, US
Ocean Wise Pink salmon Wild Gillnet, Seine net, Troll Alaska, British Columbia
Ocean Wise Sockeye salmon Wild Gillnet, Seine net, Troll Alaska, British Columbia
Under Review Sockeye salmon Wild Gillnet, Seine net, Troll Japan, Russia
Not Recommended Atlantic salmon Farmed Open net pen Worldwide
Not Recommended Salmon (various) Wild Gillnet, Seine net, Troll California, Oregon, Washington
http://www.oceanwise.ca/seafood/salmon (http://www.oceanwise.ca/seafood/salmon)
http://www.oceanwise.ca/partners/all (http://www.oceanwise.ca/partners/all)
-
Follow the funding trail on that one. Geesh. :-\
-
Follow the funding trail on that one. Geesh. :-\
Did you check out the number of restaurants that are supporting their certification standards. Multiply that by the number of people that eat at those restaurants.
They apparently have no problem with the funding trail........ :)
-
They apparently have no problem with the funding trail........
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Not to knock the average joe but the Ocean Wise program is designed to do the thinking for the public and given the funding source it is clear to me that they would demote farm fish and hold high alaskan salmon as hollyer than thou to our oceans. I think alot of restauranteurs sign up with the feeling that they have to just to look informed but the reality is many are just staying within the trends.(i know the trend is here to stay) They are pretty much forced into it.
Do not misunderstand me. The Ocean Wise program does seem to show merit in some categories. I just think that when it comes to salmon, ocean wise is out to lunch and "wild" salmon isn't so wild and free of harmful effects like they suggest.
-
You guys are hilarious.
Why don't you go onto the PETA website and tell people there it is ok to eat tainted beef?
-
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Not to knock the average joe but the Ocean Wise program is designed to do the thinking for the public and given the funding source it is clear to me that they would demote farm fish and hold high alaskan salmon as hollyer than thou to our oceans. I think alot of restauranteurs sign up with the feeling that they have to just to look informed but the reality is many are just staying within the trends.(i know the trend is here to stay) They are pretty much forced into it.
Do not misunderstand me. The Ocean Wise program does seem to show merit in some categories. I just think that when it comes to salmon, ocean wise is out to lunch and "wild" salmon isn't so wild and free of harmful effects like they suggest.
Ocean Wise has a tremendous amount of credibility in highlighting the difference between sustainable and unsustainable seafood. Read their criteria for sustainable aquaculture. http://www.oceanwise.ca/about/sustainable-seafood (http://www.oceanwise.ca/about/sustainable-seafood)
Aquaculture
One third of the world’s seafood production comes from aquaculture. If done in a sustainable manner, aquaculture can help to take pressure off of wild stocks and provide a source of protein in areas where other alternatives are scarce. However, aquaculture can also have a negative impact on the environment and may actually harm wild populations through habitat damage and degradation, pollution, and disease outbreaks. The destruction of critical habitats such as wetlands and mangroves to create ponds, localized disease or parasite epidemics, and the pollution of marine or aquatic habitats are all very real concerns with various systems of farming.
Shrimp and prawns (such as tiger prawns) are typically farmed in coastal ponds that are created through the destruction of mangroves and wetland habitats and should be avoided. Open net pen finfish farms such as those used for Atlantic salmon also create major environmental concerns and should be avoided.
Sustainably farmed options include shellfish such as scallops, mussels, clams and oysters, which are farmed on lines or trays suspended from rafts and are more sustainable than their wild counterparts. Inland, closed system farms are another good alternative and include species such as rainbow trout, tilapia, channel catfish, sturgeon, and Arctic char.
-
So I guess you support the MSC designation that BC Sockeye are sustainable??....gimme a break, anytime some one comes up with a negative for salmon farming you're the first on the boat, besides in a few years all our salmon will come with a nice hint of 10/30 weight to the pallette if Enbridge gets their way.
-
So I guess you support the MSC designation that BC Sockeye are sustainable??....gimme a break, anytime some one comes up with a negative for salmon farming you're the first on the boat, besides in a few years all our salmon will come with a nice hint of 10/30 weight to the pallette if Enbridge gets their way.
This is the criteria MSC uses to certify that BC Sockeye are sustainable:
“MSC certification of the BC sockeye fishery is confirmation that it is being well- managed for sustainability and includes specific conditions to improve the stock. Certification is not a conclusion that the stock is currently abundant or that fishing should or shouldn’t be taking place at any given time.
“Certification is not the end of the process; it is a management tool that for this fishery includes a set of 17 improvement actions for the Fraser River that in some cases must be completed in the first year. Mandatory annual surveillance audits will include stakeholder input, will be publicly available and will provide new data on the status of the sockeye salmon stock and the achievements of the management agency in meeting the conditions.”
If we get rid of the ocean salmon pens, evidence suggests that there is a good chance wild sockeye can remain "sustainable".
-
This is the criteria MSC uses to certify that BC Sockeye are sustainable:
“MSC certification of the BC sockeye fishery is confirmation that it is being well- managed for sustainability and includes specific conditions to improve the stock. Certification is not a conclusion that the stock is currently abundant or that fishing should or shouldn’t be taking place at any given time.
“Certification is not the end of the process; it is a management tool that for this fishery includes a set of 17 improvement actions for the Fraser River that in some cases must be completed in the first year. Mandatory annual surveillance audits will include stakeholder input, will be publicly available and will provide new data on the status of the sockeye salmon stock and the achievements of the management agency in meeting the conditions.”
If we get rid of the ocean salmon pens, evidence suggests that there is a good chance wild sockeye can remain "sustainable".
I disagree because this is not what the evidence is showing when you look at the technical reports, testimony and exhibits from the Cohen Inquiry. Although the final report is not complete yet it is important to consider all the evidence – not just evidence provided during the aquaculture hearings. I highly recommend you start looking here first:
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/TechnicalReports.php
I believe it is a very simplistic view to say at this point that if you remove fish farms that Sockeye can remain sustainable. There is still a large amount of uncertainty so anyone that promotes the concept that if we remove salmon farms it will result in sustainable Sockeye does not know what they are talking about. You need to look at the all the testimony – not what is filtered and edited for you by Morton and Staniford. For instance, we know very little about the early marine survival of Fraser River Sockeye smolts once they leave the Fraser. We also know very little about the impacts of diseases on the survival of wild salmon – especially Fraser Sockeye. This is just a small sample of the uncertainty that remains.
I take MSC certification with a grain of salt because when you have a multitude of Fraser River Sockeye CUs, populations and demes, most in either the yellow or red (conservation concerns), combined with a predominate mixed-stock commercial fishery on our coast in the lower river that can indiscriminately target weaker CUs amongst stronger ones then it may not be as sustainable as one might believe. However, if it makes you feel warm and cozy at night then that's great. Those that actually work with these fish know different.
-
I disagree because this is not what the evidence is showing when you look at the technical reports, testimony and exhibits from the Cohen Inquiry. Although the final report is not complete yet it is important to consider all the evidence – not just evidence provided during the aquaculture hearings. I highly recommend you start looking here first:
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/TechnicalReports.php
I believe it is a very simplistic view to say at this point that if you remove fish farms that Sockeye can remain sustainable. There is still a large amount of uncertainty so anyone that promotes the concept that if we remove salmon farms it will result in sustainable Sockeye does not know what they are talking about. You need to look at the all the testimony – not what is filtered and edited for you by Morton and Staniford. For instance, we know very little about the early marine survival of Fraser River Sockeye smolts once they leave the Fraser. We also know very little about the impacts of diseases on the survival of wild salmon – especially Fraser Sockeye. This is just a small sample of the uncertainty that remains.
I take MSC certification with a grain of salt because when you have a multitude of Fraser River Sockeye CUs, populations and demes, most in either the yellow or red (conservation concerns), combined with a predominate mixed-stock commercial fishery on our coast in the lower river that can indiscriminately target weaker CUs amongst stronger ones then it may not be as sustainable as one might believe. However, if it makes you feel warm and cozy at night then that's great. Those that actually work with these fish know different.
You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new)
The study discussed, both the proposed tagging study and the earlier study that was presented at the inquiry, suggest that something is indeed going on as the smolts leave the Fraser, but more importantly shortly after they leave the Johnstone Straits where a large concentration of salmon farms are located. The proposed study is an attempt to expand our knowledge of the impacts of the farms on the survival of wild Fraser Sockeye.
Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included). The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves. There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish). These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery. The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable. Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks. This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.
-
You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new)
The study discussed, both the proposed tagging study and the earlier study that was presented at the inquiry, suggest that something is indeed going on as the smolts leave the Fraser, but more importantly shortly after they leave the Johnstone Straits where a large concentration of salmon farms are located. The proposed study is an attempt to expand our knowledge of the impacts of the farms on the survival of wild Fraser Sockeye.
Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included). The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves. There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish). These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery. The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable. Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks. This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.
Great analysis!
-
Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included). The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves. There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish). These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery. The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable. Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks. This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.
Oh I see, It can be sustainable. But right now its not but on their website it says it is. Thanks for clearing that up. Now that I know exactly how Ocean wise works when it comes to salmon. I now have even more doubts about their method. Follow the funding folks.
Seems like a fairly fancy dance around the current state of the stock.
-
Oh I see, It can be sustainable. But right now its not but on their website it says it is. Thanks for clearing that up. Now that I know exactly how Ocean wise works when it comes to salmon. I now have even more doubts about their method. Follow the funding folks.
Seems like a fairly fancy dance around the current state of the stock.
The Fishery is sustainable, but the stocks are currently depressed. If you do not understand that it is not the commercial harvest that is causing the collapse of the runs, then you are truly a lost cause.
-
You can stoop to name calling but It is only my opinion that ocean wise should not be supporting the sale of these socks if they have low numbers regardless of why.
-
How do you find the alskas salmon ranching sustainable? Does it not effect our wild stocks?
Why is ocean wise supporting that?
-
You can stoop to name calling but It is only my opinion that ocean wise should not be supporting the sale of these socks if they have low numbers regardless of why.
Why are you ignoring the fact they say "Certification is not a conclusion that the stock is currently abundant or that fishing should or shouldn’t be taking place at any given time"?
How do you find the alskas salmon ranching sustainable? Does it not effect our wild stocks?
I have never supported Alaskan salmon ranching.
Why is ocean wise supporting that?
It is clear in their criteria that shows "how" they reach their designations. The sustainability of "wild" fisheries is based on:
- 1. Impacts on the stock for which you want a recommendation
Score = geometric mean (Factors 1.2, 1.3)
2. Impacts on other species
Score = Population Impacts Subscore (minimum of geometric mean (Factors 2.2, 2.3) across all
assessed other retained/bycatch species) * Discard Rate (Factor 2.4)
3. Effectiveness of management
Score = geometric mean (Factors 3.1, 3.2)
4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Score = geometric mean (Factors 4.1+4.2, 4.3)
What they do not do, is take the impacts of the hatchery raised stocks on the wild stocks, which is the major problem I have with some of their recommendations: "Note that if wild stocks are assessed only in combination with hatchery‐raised populations, the health of the wild stock cannot be considered better than ‘unknown’." The "Unknown" score is a median, with a risk of overfishing. Therefore, while they recommend the "wild caught" salmon, they are not able to properly assess the abundance of those stocks that are heavily augmented by hatcheries. It is the higher scores on harvesting methods and minimal environmental impacts of the fishery itself (the salmon nets do not drag the bottom of the ocean for example) that results in the overall sustainability score for the "wild caught" Alaskan Salmon.
-
:-X
-
Ocean Wise is not anti aquaculture. There are a number of aquaculture products that they have certified, if they are grown in closed systems. The exception is shellfish.
The suggestion that they are anti Atlantic farmed salmon because they are pro Alaska salmon, is silly.
-
Your the only one suggesting that. Why do you think they support Alaskan salmon ranching?
-
Your the only one suggesting that. Why do you think they support Alaskan salmon ranching?
Because according to their guidelines, it is sustainable.
-
You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new)
The study discussed, both the proposed tagging study and the earlier study that was presented at the inquiry, suggest that something is indeed going on as the smolts leave the Fraser, but more importantly shortly after they leave the Johnstone Straits where a large concentration of salmon farms are located. The proposed study is an attempt to expand our knowledge of the impacts of the farms on the survival of wild Fraser Sockeye.
Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included). The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves. There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish). These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery. The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable. Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks. This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.
I already commented on that particular study briefly in this forum (different thread) already so I did see it. Actually, I am aware of a few more studies about this you that are probably not aware of as it is part of my job. The fact remains that there is much more to know about Fraser Sockeye and hopefully studies such as this will shed more light on the matter. The thing is that proper management does not exist in its current form with the type of conventional fisheries that we have currently. The MSC certification makes quite a few assumptions, but in reality many Fraser Sockeye CUs (Conservation Units) are far from being sustainable – even if we adjust harvest levels. There is more to it than that. For one thing, we need to get back to more science based information on what the total run size is instead of having it hashed out by managers with stakeholders pressing them for more and more opportunity.
Secondly, you need to understand the entry of the various timing groups of Fraser River Sockeye into the Fraser, their overlap and the various weaker stocks that migrate amongst the stronger stocks. Commercial fisheries indiscriminately target weaker stocks. Managers try to avoid this by the types of fisheries conducted, types of gear, location and closures, but the bycatch of weaker stocks unfortunately still happens. For instance, Cultus is a late run Sockeye, but their migration through the Fraser is very protracted beginning in late July and goes on into November. They basically co-migrate with Early Summers, Summers and other Late Run Sockeye. These can consist of much stronger stocks such as Chilko which can be targeted by fisheries. The various run timing groups and their overlap over each other compounds of impact of these commercial fisheries even more.
What we need to do is encourage fisheries that are much more reduced, more valued added, more selective and more terminal (if at all possible). The PICFI fisheries conducted over the past couple of years in the BC Interior where fisheries are conducted near the terminal areas greatly reduce unnecessary bycatch. This is an example of sustainable fisheries. This is what should get the MSC certification. The other commercial fisheries are clearly not.
Like most critics you seem to talk about the negative impacts of fish farming, but ignore the wealth of evidence provided at the Cohen Inquiry that indicated that the industry in BC was responsible, sustainable and can co-exist with wild salmon. Expert testimony (such as from Dr. Micheal Kent) during the inquiry never suggested that fish farms could not be a source of disease and parasite transmission; however, it was emphasized that this needs to be equally weighed with how the industry in BC manages for this and how other places in the world are light years behind the regulatory environment that this industry in BC is under. You talk about negative impacts on wild salmon from the “potential of transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish transmission”, but you need to remember the glaring fact that major gaps exist in our knowledge about the impact of these diseases on the survival of wild salmon. Even Dr. Kristi Miller alluded to this during her original testimony in August and her latest testimony in December of last year. Yes, even the Scientist of the Year does not necessarily take the view of many fish farm opponents. Instead they selectively take what they want from hear from her and ignore whatever else she is saying. We need to stop relying on studies based on mathematical models and correlations and actually start looking at the fish themselves. We need to support objective science projects like what Dr. Welch proposes and remove ourselves from the conjecture that has dominated the stage for the past 10 years. Sandman, I don’t need to spend my evening refuting your claims or perceptions of the industry – the technical reports, the testimony and exhibits from the inquiry already do that. Read the link to the technical reports I provided in my previous post. The issues are more complex than just aquaculture.
You would be hard pressed to find many industries in and around water that do not have negative impacts. Those marines on the BC coast have negative impact. Mixed stock commercial fisheries clearly have a negative impact. The negative impacts of fish farms are made worse with poor regulations and poor operating practices. There may be other places in the world that are conducting some poor aquaculture practices, but I do not see anything in the testimony from the inquiry that leads me to believe that the industry in BC is poorly operated (especially in the last decade).
Lastly, you take a big leap by suggesting that the negatives of the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself. Clearly, the commercial fishery has some big negatives which are internal – relating to very nature of the indiscriminate, mixed stock fishery itself and where it is generally located. It is a big assumption to make that if habitat loss, climate change impacts and pollution were controlled to allow Sockeye to spawn and rear successfully then we can adjust harvest levels to sustain stocks. It sounds good in theory, but totally unrealistic for the most part. More on the spawning grounds is better than fewer, but is not all about abundance. Changing harvest levels do not necessarily ensure the abundance of Fraser Sockeye. What helps is if you help maintain the integrity and diversity of the individual CU so that if a certain population go extinct for some reason or another then a nearby population can help rebuild it by straying. When you target populations indiscriminately this can have an adverse influence on the ability of the CU to function in this regard. You have also left out much of Scott Hinch’s work over the past 12 years (much of it presented during the Cohen Inquiry) which indicate that environmental conditions will likely impact Fraser Sockeye more into the future. How do we control for climate change? Dr. Miller’s own research has other areas to cover which may definitely change how we view prespawn mortality. You have also left out much of what the Cohen Inquiry had on what government cutbacks are doing to current habitat monitoring by DFO. Compare the development along the shorelines of our large nursery lakes in the BC Interior from the 70s and 80s to what is there now. There is clearly not much control. There are multiple jurisdictions involved and tons of referrals overwhelming an already overworked habitat division. That is the major flaw in your argument - many of these things you mention are not constant or controlled. That is one of the things that makes managing Fraser Sockeye so difficult - the variability that cannot be easily controlled. Sockeye fisheries are adjusted inseason when environmental conditions are poor in the Fraser, but these conditions are likely going to curtail additional fisheries – not increase them.
-
Hey SS, ever considered writing a book ;) Great post that explains much about the complexity of managing today's salmon fisheries.
And don't worry about Rosie!
-
Steve, I do not refute what you say. I never claimed the commercial Sockeye fishery was not without its own problems, and if you look at the Ocean Wise's salmon reports, they also outline the points you mention. I was simply explaining their methodology, I was not saying I agreed with it, in fact I said I disagreed with it on key points. I also do not, "like most critics," ignore the evidence to the contrary with regards to the aquaculture in BC. I simply recognize that there is evidence that they are damaging to the environment and possibly to wild stocks, the true extent of which is still unknown (as you have just said), and I prefer to err on the side of caution. Many people, yourself included now, have used the argument that many industries have a negative impact, but you seem to forget that we, as a society, have fought HARD to get industries to clean up their act and the release of industrial waste unchecked into the environment is now recognized as unacceptable to all except salmon farms who continue to operate with the idea that the ocean is so big we cannot possible have a negative impact on it. I am glad they have cleaned up their act in the last 10 years. I just do not want to hear in 10 years that it was not enough and they were responsible for any kind of further harm to the wild fish on our coast. Our wild fish are in peril enough without another strike against them.
Lastly, you take a big leap by suggesting that the negatives of the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself. Clearly, the commercial fishery has some big negatives which are internal – relating to very nature of the indiscriminate, mixed stock fishery itself and where it is generally located. It is a big assumption to make that if habitat loss, climate change impacts and pollution were controlled to allow Sockeye to spawn and rear successfully then we can adjust harvest levels to sustain stocks. It sounds good in theory, but totally unrealistic for the most part. More on the spawning grounds is better than fewer, but is not all about abundance. Changing harvest levels do not necessarily ensure the abundance of Fraser Sockeye. What helps is if you help maintain the integrity and diversity of the individual CU so that if a certain population go extinct for some reason or another then a nearby population can help rebuild it by straying. When you target populations indiscriminately this can have an adverse influence on the ability of the CU to function in this regard. You have also left out much of Scott Hinch’s work over the past 12 years (much of it presented during the Cohen Inquiry) which indicate that environmental conditions will likely impact Fraser Sockeye more into the future. How do we control for climate change? Dr. Miller’s own research has other areas to cover which may definitely change how we view prespawn mortality. You have also left out much of what the Cohen Inquiry had on what government cutbacks are doing to current habitat monitoring by DFO. Compare the development along the shorelines of our large nursery lakes in the BC Interior from the 70s and 80s to what is there now. There is clearly not much control. There are multiple jurisdictions involved and tons of referrals overwhelming an already overworked habitat division. That is the major flaw in your argument - many of these things you mention are not constant or controlled. That is one of the things that makes managing Fraser Sockeye so difficult - the variability that cannot be easily controlled. Sockeye fisheries are adjusted inseason when environmental conditions are poor in the Fraser, but these conditions are likely going to curtail additional fisheries – not increase them.
How did I ignore ANY of these points? You even quoted my words. . . I started by saying that the current state of the stocks was the result of poor management, including the management of the harvest rates (the indiscriminate harvest of multiple CUs is an example, since they have no way of determining how many of an endangered run are being taken at any one opening). I was also making the point that the current state of the stocks are a result of external forces such as habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. I simply stated that none of these can be blamed on the commercial fishing fleet. The strike against the commercial sector is the way they indiscriminately harvest salmon from a variety of CUs, including those that may be weak or endangered, and THIS is where they need to improve. I too would prefer to see terminal fisheries where possible and harvest methods that would better eliminate bycatch.
-
To any future members that wish to convince me that open net pen salmon farming in BC is not the only problem facing wild salmon and that the issues facing the decline of wild fish like the Fraser river Sockeye is a "complex" issue. Please do not bother. I have never claimed that the open net pens are the only problem facing wild salmon. Stop trying to make it sound like I did. Stick to the program. You do not need to convince me that there are other problems facing wild salmon. You need to convince me that open net pen salmon farming have no negative impact on wild salmon, or the marine ecosystems in which they are located.
-
To any future members that wish to convince me that open net pen salmon farming in BC is not the only problem facing wild salmon and that the issues facing the decline of wild fish like the Fraser river Sockeye is a "complex" issue. Please do not bother. I have never claimed that the open net pens are the only problem facing wild salmon. Stop trying to make it sound like I did. Stick to the program. You do not need to convince me that there are other problems facing wild salmon. You need to convince me that open net pen salmon farming have no negative impact on wild salmon, or the marine ecosystems in which they are located.
I believe all of the folks on here that would like to see the feedlots moved out of the oceans, agree with what you've just posted.
The problem is the pro-feedlot folks use deflection to get you talking about the other problems facing wild salmon, so you'll stop talking about the problems the feedlots are causing. Deflection is a technique that works well with little kids, but not so well with thinking people.
-
You need to convince me that open net pen salmon farming have no negative impact on wild salmon, or the marine ecosystems in which they are located.
Actually, nobody needs to convince you of anything and I suspect few lose any sleep over the fact that you disagree with current policy.
If you want to see changes, you need to convince the people that regulate the industry that those changes you would like to see are justified and if you want those regulators to pay attention, you'll need to provide more evidence than your own personal evaluation of the risks you feel are associated with the farms. All the storm and fury presented here has no effect on any policy and shouldn't have; policy should be a product of rational analysis, not personal opinion.
Lets not kid ourselves. The most constructive thing these threads offer is some winter entertainment for weatherbound anglers.
-
All the storm and fury presented here has no effect on any policy and shouldn't have; policy should be a product of rational analysis, not personal opinion.
I could not agree more,
Questions are being raised about the sustainability of salmon (and other finfish) aquaculture (Ellis 1996; Fischer et al. 1997; Goldburg and Triplett 1997; Naylor et al. 2000). With the production of farmed salmon expected to double in the next decade and new marine finfish species being added to the global production of farmed fish, there is an urgent need to review and address the gaps in the state of our knowledge of the impacts of salmon aquaculture on the coastal environment. The information provided by such a review would both direct research efforts to areas where our understanding of salmon aquaculture impacts are weak and incomplete, and provide regulatory agencies with more up-to-date information on which to define and set ecologically meaningful environmental standards, guidelines and objectives.
Until such a review is undertaken, it would be appropriate for regulatory agencies to apply the precautionary principle to decision-making concerning expansion of finfish aquaculture in coastal waters and to mitigative measures on existing operations. This principle states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (Environment Canada 1996). Recognition of the gap in scientific information and data has led to the increased acceptance of the precautionary approach as a decision-making principle. The principle essentially favours erring on the side of human health and environmental protection rather than short-term economic growth and it is becoming an important element of international environmental law.
(Milewski, 2001)
...too bad our policy makers do not agree and instead proceed more often on the basis of the opinion of big business interests:
Milewski, I. 2001. "Impact of salmon aquaculture on the coastal environment: a review." Pages 166–197 in M. F. Tlusty et. al., editors. Marine aquaculture and the environment: a meeting for stakeholders in the Northeast. Cape Cod Press, Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA.
-
Your opinion assumes that the regulatory authorities aren't applying sufficient precautionary measures in their approach and you cite an 11 year old literature review of documents from 12 to 21 years old in support of it.
I suspect the regulators are more interested in the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in the specific waters the regulations apply to, but what do I know?
-
Your opinion assumes that the regulatory authorities aren't applying sufficient precautionary measures in their approach and you cite an 11 year old literature review of documents from 12 to 21 years old in support of it.
I suspect the regulators are more interested in the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in the specific waters the regulations apply to, but what do I know?
It was his cautionary words, not the research, that I was citing. Most scientific papers I read, even those that conclude the impacts on wild fish are "minimal" (Noakes, et. al., 2000), begin by stressing how difficult it is to assess the impact of disease on wild salmon because sampling would most certainly turn up only healthy individuals since those that are sick and exhibiting irregular behaviour would quickly be picked off by predators (McVicar, 1997). In light of the lack of scientific study of the impacts of Salmon farms in BC, I do not see how the regulators are able to assess the "current state of affairs in the specific waters the regulations apply to," so yes, I do think his words of caution apply to using the lack of scientific understanding as an argument to continue and even expand salmon farming in open net pens. He was pointing out then, that the precautionary principle states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. Since there has not been the appropriate studies done here in BC, the regulators should err on the side of caution. In a recent study of the impacts of salmon farming on wild fish, including those in BC, found "a significant increase in mortality of wild salmonids exposed to salmon farming across many regions" (Ford & Myers, 2008). The impacts in BC were found to be worse on Pink salmon (they also looked at coho and chum, but not sockeye), and while the impacts were less than that found one Atlantic salmon in Eastern Canada and Europe, the impacts were still "significant."
Ford JS, Myers RA (2008), "A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids." PLoS Biol 6(2): e33. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids
Gross, Mart R. 1998, "One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture," Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 131–144
McVicar, A. H. 1997. "Disease and parasite implications of the coexistence of wild and cultured Atlantic salmon populations." - ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54: 1093-1103.
Noakes, Donald J., et. al 2000, "On the decline of Pacific salmon and speculative links to salmon farming in British Columbia," Aquaculture 183: 363–386
-
I'll reply to your comments about Ford's article in the same way I replied to Chris when he posted an article about the results of the study several months back.
...it is based on a statistical evaluation of gross trends worldwide and doesn't take into account trends that existed prior to salmon farming or any other factors that would affect wild survival, and the study indicates specifically that "In British Columbia (Pacific Canada), only pink salmon showed significant declines correlated with salmon aquaculture". Those results for Pink Salmon are largely based on Kroksek's rather controversial work......
As a further caveat, the authors provide this statement:
We have estimated a significant increase in mortality of wild salmonids exposed to salmon farming across many regions. However, estimates for individual regions are dependent on assumptions detailed in the Materials and Methods section, and the estimates often have large confidence intervals.
Regardless of your concerns, the regulators, by the nature of their role, focus on the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in BC waters and under the relevant conditions applying to BC farming. Events and trends in other jurisdictions, while great fodder for anti-farm posts, are not by definition reflective of events and trends in BC just as absence of proof of the harm you claim is not by definition a reflection of lack of understanding by regulators of circumstances here in spite of attempts to represent it as such.
It may well have been Milewski's words you are citing, but they are very general and broad brush observations based on dated research and you are doing so in support of your opinion.
-
Regardless of your concerns, the regulators, by the nature of their role, focus on the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in BC waters and under the relevant conditions applying to BC farming. Events and trends in other jurisdictions, while great fodder for anti-farm posts, are not by definition reflective of events and trends in BC just as absence of proof of the harm you claim is not by definition a reflection of lack of understanding by regulators of circumstances here in spite of attempts to represent it as such.
My opinion has always been that the regulators should have demanded scientific evidence that the "practical outcomes" and that "state of affairs" in BC waters would be significantly different than the "events and trends in other jurisdictions" instead of treating our waters as a test subject to see if their opinion that it will be different, holds true. Now we wait until the proper "up to date" and "uncontroversial" scientific research is conducted in this "jurisdiction" to to see if the open pen farms in BC waters farms are having any negative effects on the wild salmon in BC, as they have in other jursdictions. Now we all need to hope that it will not be too late by the time that scientific research is done.