Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Making farmed fish good for you

Posted by Matthew Wheeland at 2:31 PM on April 14, 2006.


... no matter what the cost.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

Way back when, in 2003, the journal Science reported that fish raised in captivity - farmed fish - were dramatically higher in toxic pollutants like dioxin, PCBs and pesticides than wild fish. Contaminated enough that the EPA said eating more than one serving a month of farmed fish posed a serious health risk.

Obviously, that's bad news for everyone involved. Fish farmers and the fish industry get hosed because they regularly tout their product as healthier than other animal-based foods. Health-conscious eaters, who think they're doing a body good by eating fish, are actually stockpiling PCBs and dioxins at a much higher rate than they would be if they stuck to hot dogs and chorizo. And obviously, the fish suffer because they're crammed into floating pens to maximize profits.

An interesting wrinkle in the aquaculture phenomenon developed this week as Canadian scientists announced that vegetarian salmon can be much healthier than traditionally carnivorous salmon.

It's a complex problem: Carnivorous fish are hit doubly hard by our human pollution. Since they exist downstream from our waste flows, they are literally swimming in our pollution. And by feeding on other fish that live in similar situations, salmon further increase their pollution intake.

For farmed fish, living in such tight quarters, being fed processed fish meal and fish oil, means the health problems are all the more increased. As the David Suzuki Foundation shows, antibiotics and pesticides are regular additions to farmed fishtanks and fish feed to keep the fish alive and free from sea lice infestations.

The Suzuki foundation has a solid examination of the many problems caused by aquaculture, including:

  • Sewage from farms pollutes surrounding waters.
  • Drugs, including antibiotics, are required to keep farmed fish healthy.
  • Escapes of farmed fish (alien species) threaten native wild fish.
  • Net loss: Farmed fish are fed pellets made from other fish - depleting other fish species on a global scale.

So the obvious solution to this is perhaps to stop farming fish, right? Try to rein in water pollution (which in the case of the Gulf of Mexico is due in large part to just a few farm counties) and let the fish thrive naturally? Nope. The obvious solution, from the aquaculture industry's perspective, would be to change salmon biology so the fish could tolerate plant-based foods instead of meat. Not only would fundamentally altering fish biology theoretically decrease the amount of toxins in fish-meat, but plant food is substantially cheaper than fishmeal.

It's hard to beat the profit motive, I suppose. Of course, perhaps some influential aquaculturalists read instead this news report from the University of Chicago that found vegan diets are best for people and the planet, and just took the idea to its extreme.

Digg!

Matthew Wheeland is AlterNet's managing editor.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
As usual
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 14, 2006 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... domestication leads to a... shall we say... less than ideal situation with our food supply. And the solutions is what? The same solution to ALL of our problems... you know.. those problems that have not been solved in the slightest; TECHNOLOGY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Logic' is a misleading term at best
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Apr 15, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least, when people try to apply it. There's an old saw about the 'scientific method' that illustrates it well:

In an experiment (why this one or what they were looking for I don't know), scientists taught a frog to jump when told to. So far so good. Then they removed one leg, and said, "Jump!" It did; lopsided, but it did. They removed another leg and said, "Jump!" Being biologists and not physicists, both legs were on the same side, so the frog flipped itself over, but they counted it anyway. They removed a third leg and said, "Jump!" The frog spun in pitiful little circles, but still, it tried. They removed the remaining leg (perhaps anticipating lunch) and said, "Jump!"

The frog just sat there. Repeated commands of "Jump!" had no effect.

Conclusion: A frog with no legs is deaf.

In order to understand the logic of another, you have to understand the perspective from which it is applied. These people are too close to the fish to see the sushi. Or maybe they're just anticipating the loss of environmental integrity.

Still, the spirit of Rube Goldberg lives on. Also plain dippy-ness: if these folks were a fire department, they'd race to a fire, pull the battery out of the alarm, and think "Job well done...".

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And by "fish" you mean salmon
Posted by: Redvine on Apr 16, 2006 11:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the articles you cite are talking about salmon. What about other kinds of fish. Are any of them edible? I have seen many sites that claim certain fish are sustainably edible (see, for example, the Monterey Bay Aquarium and http://www.oceansalive.org/). I didn't get that sense at all from this article. Can I still eat fish?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what would you do instead? Fish out everything?
Posted by: Jesse on Apr 17, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole reason we farm fish at all is because taking them from the ocean is even MORE devastating to the environment as a whole.

Fisheries are poorly understood at best. That's why there are so many problems now. If you ask an icthyologist how long it takes a bluefin tuna to mature, the answer is "Well, in captivity they seem to do it in X time, but we really have no idea." If you ask them where they migrate all year, the same answer. This is because the ocean is bloody big and it's very difficult to get accurate information on fish populations. The result: we know when a fish is endangered becuase there aren't too many more of them when the boats go out to get them.

Farmed fish were (and still can be) one good way to mitigate this impact. The issue of toxins comes up because of the location of the fish farms, the fish living in close quarters, and the limitations of the technologies involved. Stopping the PCB pollution would solve a lot of the problem -- after all, the fish farmers don't say "Let's put a lot of PCBs in the fish and poison our customers!" After all, dead people don't buy food.

In fact, if fish are to be part of a human diet at all, farmed fish may be what we have to deal with. And before the Vegan crowd freaks out on me, there are dozens of reasons why a vegan diet isn't going to work for everybody on earth. Try growing a vegetable in Norway in the fall and you get the idea. There's a reason people eat the way they do, and it isn't because we're a bunch of flesh-eating devils.

So the first thing to do is quit putting junk in the rivers and oceans. That solves a lot of the toxin problem. The second thing might be to figure out what farmed fish can substitute for species we use now in less-than-crucial applications. That is, Salmon is nice but you may not need to can it by the ton for cats. The third is to figure out how to farm fish in a way that makes some sense and keeps us from taking wild fish and scraping clean the oceans.

That offers a method, I think, of looking at this without runnign into the twin problems of allowing people to eat fish at all and delaing with the underlying problem, which is not fish farming per se but water pollution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]