WATER  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 17

How Farm-Raised Salmon Are Turning Our Oceans Into Dangerous and Polluted Feedlots

"Farm-raised salmon" sounds nice and sustainable, but they've become harbingers of disease, contaminating the oceans with antibiotics and toxic chemicals.
September 2, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Water headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

The fish makes gourmets rejoice. Smoked-salmon quiche, grilled salmon with lime butter sauce, salmon sushi, poached salmon fillets with dill crème fraîche -- really the choices with salmon are endless and delicious.

The omega-3-fatty-acid-rich fish is also coveted for its health benefits. And, if you're looking for protein, eating salmon seems a great alternative to industrial-produced meat in the U.S. But somehow this dream fish has become a nightmare. As it turns out, farmed salmon comes with its own set of environmental and health issues -- threatening wild salmon populations, becoming harbingers of disease, and contaminating the oceans with antibiotics and toxic chemicals. And if you're eating salmon in the U.S., the chances are very good that it's farm raised.

Only about 10 percent of salmon on the market in the U.S. is actually wild these days Alex Trent, executive director of the industry group Salmon of the Americas, told the New York Times.

If this were a few years ago, your farm-raised salmon would have come from Chile, but since a disease outbreak has crashed the industry there, the U.S. has looked elsewhere for imports. If you're on the West Coast your farmed salmon is most likely from British Columbia, and if you're elsewhere in the U.S. it's probably from either Norway, Ireland or Scotland. And that's actually a bad thing -- for more than just food miles.

While salmon "farming" conjures an agrarian image, the industry is more akin to CAFOs -- the concentrated animal feeding operations -- used by the industrial meat industry that is responsible for most of the chicken, burgers and pork that Americans consume. They're also responsible for a lot of waste and pollution that comes with raising a whole bunch of creatures in a confined space.

The farmed-salmon industry, which raises the fish in floating "pens," has some striking similarities to CAFOs. The industry was jump-started a few decades ago, and it was initially seen as a great boon for wild salmon, which have been decimated by dams, pollution and invasive species.

If more people eat farmed salmon, the reasoning went, then that would help protect wild salmon populations. Unfortunately, that hasn't exactly panned out.

Raising salmon in farms has meant that you can buy salmon (although not wild) at a much cheaper price, and that has helped to keep the popular fish on the dinner table -- but at what cost to the environment and human health?

Incubators of Disease

We've all seen the pictures or heard the stories of how animals live on today's version of the "farm" -- the CAFO.

Squeezed into pens, the animals are fed the same diets, injected with antibiotics and other drugs to fend off the inevitable disease outbreaks, and their waste washes into waterways, causing widespread pollution.

The same is true for salmon farms, only the problem is largely invisible -- hidden beneath the surface of the sea.

"You can't look at a salmon farm and just see the problems on the surface," said Andrea Kavanagh, manager of the Salmon Aquaculture Reform Campaign for the Pew Environment Group. "They are usually in some gorgeous British Columbia or Chile and the only thing you see on the top are a few buoys and some nets, it really looks like a pretty low intensive operation."

But the reality is quite different. These farms can stretch as far as four football fields and contain over a million fish crammed together in floating pens.

In British Columbia, which sells most of its farmed salmon to the U.S., there are some 100 farms submerged in the cold water of coastal bays. The provincial government is hoping that the industry will double in the next decade, but that would be bad news for the the region's wild salmon.

Like CAFOs, fish farms are incubators of disease, and one particular parasite is common -- sea lice. While sea lice are naturally occurring in the ocean and pose no threat to healthy, full-grown fish, they are deadly for juveniles. And unfortunately, British Columbia's salmon farms, infested with millions of sea lice, are sited right where juvenile salmon (or smolts) must pass through as they migrate out of rivers and streams to the ocean.


Tara Lohan is a senior editor at AlterNet. You can follow her on Twitter @TaraLohan.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Water headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: salmon, salmon farming, wild salmon, aquaculture


Comments are closed-

Piss off!!!
Posted by: VeroniqueD on Sep 4, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this article and scrolled down to look at the comments. I find this crapola instead of a comment that pertains to the article.

So I have reported your insertion of your marketing link to Alternet. I have seen you and several like you before and have become so irritated by your abuse of comment threads that I had to tell you to just piss off!!

So! Piss off!! Now! Go do your business elsewhere you oxygen waster. Get off our comment threads. NOW!!!

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

» RE: Piss off!!! Posted by: annabee
» Actually..... Posted by: NWPragmatist

Comments are closed-

Please share this
Posted by: swansong on Sep 4, 2009 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with your fish-eating vegetarian friends. Not only is the artificial dye harmful to you, the pharm phish also kill local salmon. CAFO principles produce the same terrible consequences with non-native plants, insects, viruses... we seem to be really good at screwing ourselves into oblivion - maybe food was never supposed to be this cheap?

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


Comments are closed-

lice, anyone?
Posted by: grmartin on Sep 4, 2009 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The BC government seems to have decided to sacrifice its wild salmon runs in favour of parasite-infested, corporate farming. So when self-induced disease wipes out the farms, no more salmon at all! Who elects these people?

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


Comments are closed-

Who elects these people??
Posted by: henderson on Sep 4, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are all, to some degree, ignorant - not stupid. We've been kept in the dark for so long about salmon as well as other CAFO's, just for profit for a few.

Well, now all the "secrets" are coming out. We will be ignorant no longer, and we WILL make decisions with the full knowledge of the consequences.

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


Comments are closed-

upstartgreen
Posted by: upstartgreen on Sep 4, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Soylent Green! And we thought that movie was fiction. The script was probably written by Nostradamas using a pen name.

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


Comments are closed-

Real Farmer
Posted by: jrgjniew on Sep 4, 2009 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think there are some valid points here. However, by using references (like the very biased PEW commission, which intentionally left out research that they commissioned, but didn't then include as it didn't meet their preconcluded analysis on CAFOs) you discredit yourself. Land CAFO's spread the waste responsibly and scientifically as nutrients for further crop production(frankly just as you positively pointed out the Chinese fish/vegetable "cycle"----you can't have it both ways!!!!!ooops). They use antibiotics responsibly and safely. The only "pollution" is from the occaisional accidental discharge---unlike cities, which can legally discharge raw waste, in times of emergency(storms). So this article may have some credence as it refers to fish and the oceans, but your negative references to CAFOs are, as usual in this blog, misguided, misplaced, and generally incorrect, if not, in fact out-in-out intentional lies.

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

» RE: Real Pharmer Posted by: aichbe

Comments are closed-

fish can't feed the world
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 4, 2009 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to a national Vegetarian Resource Group Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly 15 percent of Americans say they never eat fish or seafood.

The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be "commercially extinct." Another species classified as "commercially extinct" is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

It makes sense to eat lower on the food chain. Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game and domesticated species raised by livestock ranchers. Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state because this animal is a predator of moose.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

Nor can fish provide any help in alleviating global hunger. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets," and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods--useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

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


Comments are closed-

fish can't feed the world (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 4, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), author Keith Akers observes:

"Much has been made over the virtues of chicken and fish in comparison to red meats such as beef and pork. It has been said that eating chicken and fish will aid in the prevention of heart disease, because these meats are relatively lower in fat and contain more unsaturated than saturated fat, thus helping to lower cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by the evidence. Studies in which human volunteers switched from diets including beef and eggs, to one including fish and chicken showed that serum cholesterol levels were not appreciably lowered by switching to chicken and fish.

"And an examination of the nutritional data suggests an explanation: while it is true that chicken and fish contain less fat than beef, it is also true that chicken and fish contain about twice as much cholesterol per calorie as does beef. Indeed, some seafoods (such as crab, shrimp, and lobster) are exceptionally high in cholesterol content.

"All of these diverse theories have roughly the same dietary implications. Meat is high in cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat. Plant foods, by contrast, are usually low in saturated fat and total fat, and contain zero cholesterol. Vegetarians have lower levels of serum cholesterol than do meat-eaters, with total vegetarians (vegans) having the lowest levels of all."

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population during the next generation would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

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


Comments are closed-

Friends don't let friends eat farmed fish
Posted by: kogwonton on Sep 4, 2009 12:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nt

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


Comments are closed-

Watch What You Eat, You're Voting With Your Choices
Posted by: gryphonisle on Sep 4, 2009 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Salmon today, pig farms yesterday, shed raised "free range" chicken tomorrow... ho hum or Lions And Tigers And Bears! Oh My!? These scatter shot reruns of previously released information convince some of impending doom (which is not at all an inaccurate scenario especially when it comes to wild salmon) or at least a persistent current of bad news.

It's a constant drumbeat, and many Americans take the opt out approach, sticking their head in the sand, unwilling to research the facts and just as unwilling to change their ways. But, that is what is and has been required of us for the past couple of decades at least, what with the emergence of factory foods and off shore production of consumer goods.

Where does it come from? How is it made? What's in it? How were the workers treated, how well are they paid, what rights do they have? How were the animals treated, how were they slaughtered, who is making sure it's as humane as possible? Where does it come from?

We can take each new level of revelation as something else to worry about, or we can realize that the warnings are consistent, indicating that the solutions are not yet in place, and that the "solutions" can just as easily be some way of protecting the interests of the corporation or the jurisdiction as the consumer. We have to be aware, and we have to ask, and if we don't get good answers or aren't sure about the veracity of the answers we're getting, then we need to tell ourselves no. No to that pork or beef or chicken. No to the salmon. No to the discount blouse or jeans or shoes. No to underpaid workers kept in slave like conditions; no to animals kept in misery and slaughtered with cruelty. No to added hormones and antibiotics, and any number of chemicals. If it isn't good for the worker or the animal (up to the slaughter at least) it isn't good for you, one way or the other.

But, we've got to ask, and keep asking. And while we're asking, whatever happened to the locally sourced menus at restaurants? Suddenly we've gone from chickens raised nearby to lamb flown in from New Zealand and beef from Japan. And that's in a major city that likes to think of itself as progressive!

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


Comments are closed-

why is ireland mentioned but not further explored?
Posted by: newdl on Sep 5, 2009 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe this has has something to do with it,
http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=87423
though i would think the proximity they are to England would have them meeting tougher regulations as to what they feed their fish. but if so, why didn't the article mention it?

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


Comments are closed-

asian environmental magazine report.
Posted by: dianabol on Sep 17, 2009 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is an equilibrium at work here, those in society that think farmed is a way to better greener planet need only look to the source of this report,
Government funded independent environmental impact studies need to be put in place on a global scale and fast!
reports from south east asian save the planet magazine suggest that there may be wide spread and un approved use of steroids used for super fast growth of various species and although it may be economically viable in the east and certanly far east to buy steroids
there has just been not enough research to give grounds on which to implement the use of buy steroids there is nothing to indicate it is moraly right or what the consequent could well be,
for now i will be sticking with ocean caught dory,

regards dale.

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


Comments are closed-

We can take each new level
Posted by: teon6 on Sep 20, 2009 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can take each new level of revelation as something else to worry about, or we can realize that the warnings are consistent, indicating that the solutions are not yet in place, and that the "solutions" can just as easily be some way of protecting the interests of the corporation or the jurisdiction as the consumer. We have to be aware, and we have to ask, and if we don't get good answers or aren't sure about the veracity of the answers we're getting, then we need to tell ourselves no. No to that pork or beef or chicken. No to the salmon. No to the discount blouse or jeans or shoes. No to underpaid workers kept in slave like conditions; no to animals kept in misery and slaughtered with cruelty. No to added hormones and antibiotics, and any number of chemicals. If it isn't good for the worker or the melrose place s01e03 grand melrose place s01e03 subtitles melrose place subs melrose place mobile manuals mobile phones seropol5 animal (up to the slaughter at least) it isn't good for you, one way or the other.

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

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Piss off!!!
Posted by: VeroniqueD on Sep 4, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this article and scrolled down to look at the comments. I find this crapola instead of a comment that pertains to the article.

So I have reported your insertion of your marketing link to Alternet. I have seen you and several like you before and have become so irritated by your abuse of comment threads that I had to tell you to just piss off!!

So! Piss off!! Now! Go do your business elsewhere you oxygen waster. Get off our comment threads. NOW!!!

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

» RE: Piss off!!! Posted by: annabee
» Actually..... Posted by: NWPragmatist

Comments are closed-

Please share this
Posted by: swansong on Sep 4, 2009 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with your fish-eating vegetarian friends. Not only is the artificial dye harmful to you, the pharm phish also kill local salmon. CAFO principles produce the same terrible consequences with non-native plants, insects, viruses... we seem to be really good at screwing ourselves into oblivion - maybe food was never supposed to be this cheap?

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


Comments are closed-

lice, anyone?
Posted by: grmartin on Sep 4, 2009 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The BC government seems to have decided to sacrifice its wild salmon runs in favour of parasite-infested, corporate farming. So when self-induced disease wipes out the farms, no more salmon at all! Who elects these people?

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


Comments are closed-

Who elects these people??
Posted by: henderson on Sep 4, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are all, to some degree, ignorant - not stupid. We've been kept in the dark for so long about salmon as well as other CAFO's, just for profit for a few.

Well, now all the "secrets" are coming out. We will be ignorant no longer, and we WILL make decisions with the full knowledge of the consequences.

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


Comments are closed-

upstartgreen
Posted by: upstartgreen on Sep 4, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Soylent Green! And we thought that movie was fiction. The script was probably written by Nostradamas using a pen name.

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


Comments are closed-

Real Farmer
Posted by: jrgjniew on Sep 4, 2009 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think there are some valid points here. However, by using references (like the very biased PEW commission, which intentionally left out research that they commissioned, but didn't then include as it didn't meet their preconcluded analysis on CAFOs) you discredit yourself. Land CAFO's spread the waste responsibly and scientifically as nutrients for further crop production(frankly just as you positively pointed out the Chinese fish/vegetable "cycle"----you can't have it both ways!!!!!ooops). They use antibiotics responsibly and safely. The only "pollution" is from the occaisional accidental discharge---unlike cities, which can legally discharge raw waste, in times of emergency(storms). So this article may have some credence as it refers to fish and the oceans, but your negative references to CAFOs are, as usual in this blog, misguided, misplaced, and generally incorrect, if not, in fact out-in-out intentional lies.

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

» RE: Real Pharmer Posted by: aichbe

Comments are closed-

fish can't feed the world
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 4, 2009 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to a national Vegetarian Resource Group Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly 15 percent of Americans say they never eat fish or seafood.

The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be "commercially extinct." Another species classified as "commercially extinct" is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

It makes sense to eat lower on the food chain. Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game and domesticated species raised by livestock ranchers. Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state because this animal is a predator of moose.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

Nor can fish provide any help in alleviating global hunger. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets," and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods--useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

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


Comments are closed-

fish can't feed the world (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 4, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), author Keith Akers observes:

"Much has been made over the virtues of chicken and fish in comparison to red meats such as beef and pork. It has been said that eating chicken and fish will aid in the prevention of heart disease, because these meats are relatively lower in fat and contain more unsaturated than saturated fat, thus helping to lower cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by the evidence. Studies in which human volunteers switched from diets including beef and eggs, to one including fish and chicken showed that serum cholesterol levels were not appreciably lowered by switching to chicken and fish.

"And an examination of the nutritional data suggests an explanation: while it is true that chicken and fish contain less fat than beef, it is also true that chicken and fish contain about twice as much cholesterol per calorie as does beef. Indeed, some seafoods (such as crab, shrimp, and lobster) are exceptionally high in cholesterol content.

"All of these diverse theories have roughly the same dietary implications. Meat is high in cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat. Plant foods, by contrast, are usually low in saturated fat and total fat, and contain zero cholesterol. Vegetarians have lower levels of serum cholesterol than do meat-eaters, with total vegetarians (vegans) having the lowest levels of all."

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population during the next generation would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

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


Comments are closed-

Friends don't let friends eat farmed fish
Posted by: kogwonton on Sep 4, 2009 12:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nt

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


Comments are closed-

Watch What You Eat, You're Voting With Your Choices
Posted by: gryphonisle on Sep 4, 2009 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Salmon today, pig farms yesterday, shed raised "free range" chicken tomorrow... ho hum or Lions And Tigers And Bears! Oh My!? These scatter shot reruns of previously released information convince some of impending doom (which is not at all an inaccurate scenario especially when it comes to wild salmon) or at least a persistent current of bad news.

It's a constant drumbeat, and many Americans take the opt out approach, sticking their head in the sand, unwilling to research the facts and just as unwilling to change their ways. But, that is what is and has been required of us for the past couple of decades at least, what with the emergence of factory foods and off shore production of consumer goods.

Where does it come from? How is it made? What's in it? How were the workers treated, how well are they paid, what rights do they have? How were the animals treated, how were they slaughtered, who is making sure it's as humane as possible? Where does it come from?

We can take each new level of revelation as something else to worry about, or we can realize that the warnings are consistent, indicating that the solutions are not yet in place, and that the "solutions" can just as easily be some way of protecting the interests of the corporation or the jurisdiction as the consumer. We have to be aware, and we have to ask, and if we don't get good answers or aren't sure about the veracity of the answers we're getting, then we need to tell ourselves no. No to that pork or beef or chicken. No to the salmon. No to the discount blouse or jeans or shoes. No to underpaid workers kept in slave like conditions; no to animals kept in misery and slaughtered with cruelty. No to added hormones and antibiotics, and any number of chemicals. If it isn't good for the worker or the animal (up to the slaughter at least) it isn't good for you, one way or the other.

But, we've got to ask, and keep asking. And while we're asking, whatever happened to the locally sourced menus at restaurants? Suddenly we've gone from chickens raised nearby to lamb flown in from New Zealand and beef from Japan. And that's in a major city that likes to think of itself as progressive!

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


Comments are closed-

why is ireland mentioned but not further explored?
Posted by: newdl on Sep 5, 2009 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe this has has something to do with it,
http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=87423
though i would think the proximity they are to England would have them meeting tougher regulations as to what they feed their fish. but if so, why didn't the article mention it?

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


Comments are closed-

asian environmental magazine report.
Posted by: dianabol on Sep 17, 2009 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is an equilibrium at work here, those in society that think farmed is a way to better greener planet need only look to the source of this report,
Government funded independent environmental impact studies need to be put in place on a global scale and fast!
reports from south east asian save the planet magazine suggest that there may be wide spread and un approved use of steroids used for super fast growth of various species and although it may be economically viable in the east and certanly far east to buy steroids
there has just been not enough research to give grounds on which to implement the use of buy steroids there is nothing to indicate it is moraly right or what the consequent could well be,
for now i will be sticking with ocean caught dory,

regards dale.

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


Comments are closed-

We can take each new level
Posted by: teon6 on Sep 20, 2009 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can take each new level of revelation as something else to worry about, or we can realize that the warnings are consistent, indicating that the solutions are not yet in place, and that the "solutions" can just as easily be some way of protecting the interests of the corporation or the jurisdiction as the consumer. We have to be aware, and we have to ask, and if we don't get good answers or aren't sure about the veracity of the answers we're getting, then we need to tell ourselves no. No to that pork or beef or chicken. No to the salmon. No to the discount blouse or jeans or shoes. No to underpaid workers kept in slave like conditions; no to animals kept in misery and slaughtered with cruelty. No to added hormones and antibiotics, and any number of chemicals. If it isn't good for the worker or the melrose place s01e03 grand melrose place s01e03 subtitles melrose place subs melrose place mobile manuals mobile phones seropol5 animal (up to the slaughter at least) it isn't good for you, one way or the other.

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

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS