Posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 9:20:08
In reply to Re: farmed fish, posted by Kacy on December 10, 2003, at 23:16:20
> I've been eating farmed salmon. Finding out who the grocery store's suppliers are is not easy. I want to call the supplier and ask what they feed the fish.
>
> Reading on the net, I read some of the farms use grain and some use fish. If they feed them fish, then the content is good. I couldn't find any estimates of how much omega-3 is the grain-fed fish. I did find a nice editorial saying it is time for labeling standards. I think so, too.
>
> A month or two ago, I read a positively scary New York Times story on their website. I think it was linked from a post here, but I really don't remember for sure. The report said not to eat the farm-fed salmon, and if you do–don't eat it more than once a month because of the poisons in it. I was eating it three times a week at the time and am pretty conflicted about starting it again.
>
> Anyone know anything else?Here's the scary version:
http://www.curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=237&i=266
And here's the well-reasoned one:
http://www.acsh.org/forum/phantom/salmon.html
It is my opinion that an assessment of the risks and benefits from eating farm-raised fish, particularly salmon, can only result in a conclusion of highly beneficial outcomes from consuming this food.
Rather than drafting a detailed response (which I had begun to do), after finding this quotation in the latter article, I decided to simply paste it in.....
"Salmon, whether farmed or wild, and farmed rainbow trout are excellent sources of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids that are important for brain development in the fetus and nursing infant. The amount of healthy fats one obtains from a serving of farmed salmon is slightly higher than for wild salmon, but the difference is minor. These species are also low in harmful contaminants, like mercury and PCBs, which are common in recreationally caught fish and some commercial fish. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) report, which has not been reviewed by independent scientists, incorrectly uses a more conservative or lower allowable limit for PCBs in fish. The main risk from PCBs in the diets of pregnant or nursing women and young children is not due to the fact that they may increase the risk of cancer but rather that, at higher levels, they may result in developmental delays in the young. While a person consuming farmed salmon weekly over a seventy-year lifespan may slightly increase his risk of cancer, the heart-healthy benefits of maintaining a diet rich in long chain omega-3 fatty acids far outweigh the risks. The EWG report, which only tested ten fish, analyzed one fish from Scotland that had PCBs that were twice as high as the fish from Canada and the U.S. and six times higher than the fish from Chile. However, the report fails to mention that the U.S. receives 56% of its farmed salmon from Chile, 31% from Canada, 6% from domestic production, and less than 7% from Europe (including only a small amount from Scotland).The EWG report also suggests that the consumption of farmed salmon is comparable to the consumption of beef, pork, and poultry in the U.S. Per capita consumption of salmon is two pounds, while consumption of beef, pork, and poultry is 191 pounds combined. Therefore, a person will receive more of their PCB from foods other than farmed salmon. However, this is not to suggest that beef, pork, and poultry are unhealthy, as each of these can be an important part of a healthy diet."
Regards,
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:287116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20031204/msgs/289061.html