Farmed salmon

Tim Lysyk wrote:

Here is a scary sort of article about farmed salmon. Something to worry
about with them, I suppose.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/08/salmon_040108

Tim Lysyk

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).

Sounds more like a ploy to keep people from buying Scandinavian farm grown
salmon and instead by
wild fish caught here.

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).

Sounds more like a ploy to keep people from buying Scandinavian farm grown
salmon and instead by
wild fish caught here.


I don't know, the link that Mike Connor posted suggested the problem is
quite real, and severe. I don;t think it is a ploy at all.

Tim Lysyk

I don't know, the link that Mike Connor posted suggested the problem is
quite real, and severe. I don;t think it is a ploy at all.

Tim Lysyk

The 'ploy' thing taken aside I still see a few diverging opinions. E.g. the FDA
says the levels are
"not dangerous" and "the figures may be misleading" where as the group doing
the investigation
claims "unlimited consumption is unwise" and "thresholds set too low".

The latter must be a misquote for this to make sense at all, i.e. it should
have been "too high".
And what does "unlimited consumption" mean ?

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.
"unlimited consumption"
of almost anything we eat is bad for you.

Naturally the levels should be reduced if at all possible, and Im assuming that
the farmers will do what
they can at least to avoid the bad publicity. But Im not convinced that the
levels are so high that you should
panic.

I tried to find the article to look at the numbers, but need to sign up for the
Science mag online. All I could
find were two bad charts doing an overlaid comparision of PCB and Dioxin
content and the quality was
such that I find it inconclusive. And I have to admit that I was always a bit
sceptical of research published
in certain mags. Some of them, like Nature, seem to check the validity of
research better than others before
it gets published.

Another possible source for the contaminents could be in the packaging since
most of it seems to
be concentrated in the skin of the fish. E.g. its well know that you should not
pack/store food items in garbage bags since they give off similar chemicals. So
do the northern european fish show higher level
because they have been wrapped in plastics longer ? (Were they shipped to the
lab from overseas ?).

If they only compared locally caught wild salmon to the farmed onces then the
wild salmon might not even have been wrapped in plastic and thus have lower
levels for that particular reason.

There's a lot of variables in an investigation like this, and unless they have
taken steps to eliminate
other sources and done a controlled experiment the results could in worst case
be worthless and the
conclusions misleading.

The only way to make sure you can 'blame the fish' is to do the measurements
locally on fresh fish
as they are taken from the water. Then compare local fresh farmed vs local wild
fish to determine
wether or not the farmed fish have significantly elevated levels of pollutants.
If so then you have a 'case',
if not the problem lies elsewhere i.e. the handling. And naturally you will
have regional variations
as well.

Without reading the published article we dont know how they did the
investigation, and it may not
even be mentioned. And was the quality of the investigation chekked/verified by
other independent researchers before the results were announced ?

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.

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

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

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

Warren wrote:
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.


Even though the words sounds the same, there are VERY few conservative
politicians or conservative groups that are conservationists. (Which I'm
guessing is what you're looking for) Unfortunately most conservative
groups and individuals are interested in conserving capital, not the
environment. Business and the production of income is far more important
to the majority of conservative politicians and groups than
environmental issues. Protecting the environment costs money either for
the tax payer or some industry. Exploiting the environment generates money.

I think that candidates who are fiscally conservative but more socially
and environmentally liberal would be appealing to alot of people.
However, with our present political climate, finding such people is
HIGHLY unlikely. IMO, this is because of the adversarial polarization
that results from our two party system and is one of the weaknesses of a
two party system.

I'm making some assumptions here about your politics, but I'm guessing
that if you want to support some environmental groups that share your
concern about the salmon farms, you are going to be supporting some
things that you consider "whacko".

Willi

This has been here before, it may be of interest.
http://www.chambers-associates.org/R...y_of_Fish.html


"Warren" wrote in message
...
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

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