![]() |
Farmed salmon
"Tim Lysyk" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:7RILb.478$Eq.22@clgrps12... Svend Tang-Petersen wrote: What they were concerned about is a chemical called dioxin. However the latest I heard on the news last night was that the measured amounts were so small that it made any kinds of statictics too inaccurate to be something to be really concerned about. (I think the latter statement came from the FDA). I found the following article after I replied to your post. It appears there is some concern over the validity of the study. I may have to break down and actually read it. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/09/salmon040109 Tim Lysyk There is a history of farmed salmon defenses, and the repudiation of various studies of such by industry funded (SURPRISE SURPRISE!) scientists, goverment bodies, and the like. None are either reasonable or logical. The damage to local ecologies is quite easily apparent and provable, even to a complete layman, and the levels of various poisons in the fish is also relatively easily provable. Some of these studies in other ( non-farmed) fish, ( especially "fatty" fish like salmonids and eels), have also revealed high toxicological levels. There are many places now where the consumption of such fish is proscribed. This is mainly due to large scale pollution, but there are other reasons, especially with farmed fish. Practically the main argument in favour of this type of farming, or against controlling it more closely, is that this would result in lost jobs. What some idiotic bureacrat has to say about it is quite immaterial to me. Most seem blithely unaware of the studies extant, and stick to their guns no matter what happens. The extremely rapid decline of other wild fish, ( notably sea trout= anadromous browns) is also directly traceable to the massively increased incidence of parasitic organisms in the vicinity of such farms, ( which are often situated in river mouths, estuaries etc) and the fact that they thus contaminate whole river systems. Severe contamination and specification of the gene pool is also a direct result of such fish escaping. In more than a few rivers, there are virtually no "wild" salmon left, and the "farmed" variety are simply not hardy enough to survive the normal rigours of a salmons´s life, quite apart from various other severe shortcomings. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:
In gradschool we once did a calculation to see how much coffe you had to drink to die from instant coffein poisoning. I think it came down to about 20L (or ~6G) in 20min. Geez. I'd better cut down. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Farmed salmon
From: Svend Tang-Petersen
So do the northern european fish show higher level because they have been wrapped in plastics longer ? The article I read in the morning paper stated that the fish tested in the study they quoted were raised in North America. IIRC, the human body stores Dioxin, so levels can build up over a period of time. I don't see where all of this amounts to an attack on Scandinavian fish farming. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
Farmed salmon
Svend,
I haven't read the paper either. From news reports and interviews, the investigators apparently tested toxin levels in farmed fish from all fish farming nations with Norway the highest and Chile the lowest. A probable explanation for this result apparently is that the feed, pellets made from ground up "garbage" fish, is most highly contaminated in Europe because of centuries of pollution of the North Atlantic compared to decades of pollution in the south Pacific. Producing the pellets concentrates toxins. One of the significant things about the study is that this is apparently the first one with a large number of samples - much, much larger than the studies on which the US's FDA and the regulatory bodies of other nations based their laws. Many thousands of samples versus only hundreds. Shocking, but I guess I should not be surprised considering how few cattle are tested for BSE in the USA and Canada. The scientists for governments and the fish farming industry are not arguing against the validity of the test results; their arguments seem to be with risk assessment. From what I remember, Science is one of the reputable and trusted scientific journals around. I would expect that any paper published in it would have received a thorough peer review and approval from some kind of publishing committee or board. That would not guarantee that everything published in a journal is true; as I recall, papers proving Cold Fusion were published in learned journals. Evidently, the researchers who did the study were worried not only about the Dioxin that you mention, but with the total contaminant level including, but not limited to, Dioxin, PCB's, DDT, and others. If I recall the news stories and interviews correctly, the principle investigators are recommending a meal of farmed salmon no more frequently than once every two months. Here in North America, wild salmon means Pacific salmon, so the comparison in toxin levels would be for farmed Atlantic salmon versus wild Pacific salmon. As far as I know, very little if any Atlantic salmon is sold here, and rightly so; it is on the verge of becoming an endangered species. Best regards, Yuji Sakuma "Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message ... |
Farmed salmon
On 10 Jan 2004 04:01:45 GMT, ojunk (George Adams) wrote:
From: Svend Tang-Petersen So do the northern european fish show higher level because they have been wrapped in plastics longer ? The article I read in the morning paper stated that the fish tested in the study they quoted were raised in North America. IIRC, the human body stores Dioxin, so levels can build up over a period of time. I don't see where all of this amounts to an attack on Scandinavian fish farming. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller According to the report I read in Nature one of the main toxins was PCB. In a study here in the mid-west (USA) PCBs have been found to negatively affect the cognitive development of children who come from families that ate large quantities PCB contanimated fish, mostly salmon from the Great Lakes. (Of course the study should be taken with a grain of salt, as these were the children of fishermen and their cognitive development would be expected to vary from the norm.) The report also made recommendations on how the problem could be addressed. Unfortunately, none of the solutions proposed were that the salmon farms be abolished and that the watersheds of wild salmon be cleaned up enough to allow normal production of salmon. That would be my preferred fix, but what do I know? g.c. http://www.nature.com/nsu/040105/040105-10.html |
Farmed salmon
It wouldn't surprise me to see Mad Cow Disease show up in fish
next. Some idiot could grind up the diseased cows for fish food. Ernie |
Farmed salmon
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:03:26 GMT, "Ernie"
wrote: It wouldn't surprise me to see Mad Cow Disease show up in fish next. Some idiot could grind up the diseased cows for fish food. Ernie In the Nature report they did point out that animal by-products were part of the food that salmon are fed. g.c. |
Farmed salmon
"Ernie" schrieb im Newsbeitrag m... It wouldn't surprise me to see Mad Cow Disease show up in fish next. Some idiot could grind up the diseased cows for fish food. Ernie This is already happening. The sources of some meals and pellets are suspect. Part of the reason for the high concentrations of various poisons in farmed fish is due to contaminated feed.There are also various cases of disease extant, which have not hitherto occurred in wild fish. Quite apart from anything else, farmed fish are heavily dosed with various chemicals, medicines, and hormones. It is most unlikely that this results in healthy food. Quite apart from the effects on the fish themselves, and the environment in general. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
wrote...
snipped Unfortunately, none of the solutions proposed were that the salmon farms be abolished and that the watersheds of wild salmon be cleaned up enough to allow normal production of salmon. That would be my preferred fix, but what do I know? This is something that I feel very strongly about. Does anybody know of any lobbying organizations that oppose salmon farming and yet are not environmental/extreme liberal whackos? Not that there's anything wrong with being a liberal. -- Warren (sorry for the mention of "liberal," but I was thinking of groups like PETA and the "save the fish" types of idiots) (use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email) For Conclave Info: http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter