![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Ilene on December 6, 2003, at 8:44:11
Does anyone know if the oil content in farmed fish (e.g. salmon) is the same as in wild-caught fish? Since the fish don't make the oils, but get them from what they eat, it seems there might be a difference.
Ilene
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 6, 2003, at 8:55:31
In reply to Oils in farmed fish, posted by Ilene on December 6, 2003, at 8:44:11
> Does anyone know if the oil content in farmed fish (e.g. salmon) is the same as in wild-caught fish? Since the fish don't make the oils, but get them from what they eat, it seems there might be a difference.
>
> IleneThere is a difference. Farmed salmon, according to the USDA database, has higher quantities of omega-3 fatty acids than does wild-caught salmon. However, I've heard that European farmed salmon is fed a more grain-based diet, and has less omega-3. I don't have data to back that up, just the word of a renowned scientist in the field of PUFA metabolism.
Lar
Posted by joebob on December 8, 2003, at 12:05:40
In reply to Re: Oils in farmed fish » Ilene, posted by Larry Hoover on December 6, 2003, at 8:55:31
is that the real problem with farmed fish is in the feed they are given.....
here in california if you have a toxic byproduct of industrial/chemical production you can:
1] burn it
2] bury it
both expensive
or 3] sell it into the agricultural 'downstream' where it suddenly becomes a problem no moreit is my understanding from something that i think i read in the la times that these 'byproducts' are often added to fish feed pellets for the farming industry
sorry, but back then i didn't have the foresight, savvy, or technology to find and save the article
we won't feed it to our kid and only eat it out in restaurants when we have no choice
it may be that i saw the same item mentioned in a report from ucla about the most commonly toxic foods, which of course included commercial bananas and strawberries
look around and if you find info on this stuff, please post it
best to all
Posted by Kacy on December 10, 2003, at 23:16:20
In reply to farmed fish...what i have read but cannot verify.., posted by joebob on December 8, 2003, at 12:05:40
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?
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
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 9:35:34
In reply to farmed fish...what i have read but cannot verify.., posted by joebob on December 8, 2003, at 12:05:40
> is that the real problem with farmed fish is in the feed they are given.....
That's the problem with any fish....what they eat. Feeding farmed fish fish meal instead of whole fish is a heck of a lot more appropriate than e.g. feeding herbivorous cattle chicken feathers and bone meal. But I digress....
There have been attempts made to feed e.g. salmon a "vegetarian" type diet, but that is not even close to being a common practise....it happens, but fish meal/oils are the main feedstock.
See:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5738E/x5738e0d.htmOr read the whole book:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5738E/x5738e00.htm#Contents> here in california if you have a toxic byproduct of industrial/chemical production you can:
>
> 1] burn it
> 2] bury it
> both expensive
> or 3] sell it into the agricultural 'downstream' where it suddenly becomes a problem no moreI'm sorry, but I have trouble believing that the third option is a common practise. I can't find anything when I did a google on it.
> it is my understanding from something that i think i read in the la times that these 'byproducts' are often added to fish feed pellets for the farming industry
I see no evidence for that, honestly.
> sorry, but back then i didn't have the foresight, savvy, or technology to find and save the article
>
> we won't feed it to our kid and only eat it out in restaurants when we have no choiceI think the benefits outweigh the risks.
> it may be that i saw the same item mentioned in a report from ucla about the most commonly toxic foods, which of course included commercial bananas and strawberries.How so? You peel the banana, and the pesticides are on the peel. Strawberries are not sprayed at all, as far as I know....the risk is from sewage contaminated irrigation water.
> look around and if you find info on this stuff, please post it
>
> best to allWell, I'll keep looking, but I am not finding....
Lar
Posted by Ilene on December 12, 2003, at 11:59:16
In reply to Re: farmed fish » Kacy, posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 9:20:08
> > 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
>I discovered ACSH about 3 years ago. I thought the information it presented *seemed* to be supported by good science, but somehow ACSH's positions always (AFAIK) supported the most conservative, status quo positions. I wondered which entities provided the bulk of its funding.
I just found these pages:
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/ACSH-Koop.htm#list
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/acsh.html
No surprises here.The problem is that *much* of what ACSH says is true, but not all of it. I would never use at a sole source of information on a controversial topic.
I wouldn't rely on Marian Burros as a source of scientific information either, as she is a *food* writer, not a science writer.
I'm even more disturbed by the US govt's recent advisory on tuna. It's a good thing my kids don't like canned fish. "What's a mother to do?"
Ilene
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 13:13:29
In reply to Re: farmed fish, posted by Ilene on December 12, 2003, at 11:59:16
> I discovered ACSH about 3 years ago. I thought the information it presented *seemed* to be supported by good science, but somehow ACSH's positions always (AFAIK) supported the most conservative, status quo positions. I wondered which entities provided the bulk of its funding.
>
> I just found these pages:
> http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/ACSH-Koop.htm#list
> http://www.prwatch.org/improp/acsh.html
> No surprises here.That's a valid consideration....supporting and funding agencies are likely to be in a conflict of interest position....however, I would have made quite similar arguments myself (referring to the quoted segments)....so, I'm not too concerned where I found the info.
> The problem is that *much* of what ACSH says is true, but not all of it. I would never use at a sole source of information on a controversial topic.In this case, I see no reason to discount the arguments raised....the link was to a discussion, after all, not a policy statement. And, the public perception of the risk from PCBs is astoundingly exaggerated....they really are not the toxins people perceive them to be....they're not benign, but they're not so bad either.
> I wouldn't rely on Marian Burros as a source of scientific information either, as she is a *food* writer, not a science writer.Where did this person come into it? Was she the NYT correspondent?
> I'm even more disturbed by the US govt's recent advisory on tuna. It's a good thing my kids don't like canned fish. "What's a mother to do?"
>
> IleneHere's the draft FDA advisory:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/mehgadvisory1208.htmlWhat's important isn't the total mercury content, but concentration of certain forms of mercury (called species by chemists), and the relative concentration of selenium....it's not clear cut.
I remain convinced that fish is good for you...even though all fish is contaminated by mercury, everywhere in the world. We are such prolific polluters, there is no fish that is free of mercury contamination. That said, there are different species of tuna that are worse than others....bluefin, the kind that goes into sashami and sushi....that's the worst....light tuna, like from yellowfin, is much less of a risk....
I eat canned tuna. I'm not alarmed by these findings of mercury in tuna. I just don't eat five pounds of it a week.
Lar
Posted by Ilene on December 12, 2003, at 14:05:28
In reply to Re: farmed fish » Ilene, posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 13:13:29
> > I wouldn't rely on Marian Burros as a source of scientific information either, as she is a *food* writer, not a science writer.
>
> Where did this person come into it? Was she the NYT correspondent?
>
She's a food columnist for the Times. The NYTimes science writers are usually very good. Food writers vary. She's mentioned on the ACSH page that was linked to.Ilene
Posted by Kacy on December 13, 2003, at 14:17:33
In reply to Re: farmed fish » Kacy, posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 9:20:08
Posted by tealady on December 14, 2003, at 2:54:17
In reply to Re: farmed fish » Ilene, posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 13:13:29
> Here's the draft FDA advisory:
> http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/mehgadvisory1208.html
>
> What's important isn't the total mercury content, but concentration of certain forms of mercury (called species by chemists), and the relative concentration of selenium....it's not clear cut.
Species of mercury, huh?
(and I didn't even think it was alive)I've been reading for a while now that the form of mercury in fish may not be as bad as previously thought.
Some suggestion about sulphur perhaps making it not as biologically available.I thought I saw a study on it, but I can't find it now.
here's a link ..not a study though(hoope it stays up)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s940899.htmJan
Posted by joebob on December 14, 2003, at 10:13:48
In reply to Re: farmed fish...what i have read but cannot verify.. » joebob, posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 9:35:34
Posted by joebob on December 14, 2003, at 11:20:03
In reply to Re: farmed fish...what i have read but cannot verify.. » joebob, posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 9:35:34
it will take me time to find the info i want and my family would like some attention now, more later
joebob
New scientific studies raise concern over toxicity of farmed fish feed
Press Release David Suzuki Foundation 3jan00
VANCOUVER, CANADA - Startling new scientific evidence from Canada and Britain suggests that potentially dangerous levels of toxic chemicals are contained in the feed given to farmed salmon in Canada and Scotland, the David Suzuki Foundation announced today.The research shows that the contaminants, known as persistent organic pollutants, are especially dangerous for children, nursing mothers and pregnant women or women considering pregnancy. The studies were conducted in Canada by Dr. Michael Easton for the David Suzuki Foundation and in Britain by Dr. Miriam Jacobs in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"We are calling on the Canadian government to immediately heed these findings and to fund the next stage of research needed to determine the safety of farmed salmon and salmon feed for people who consume this fish regularly," said Jim Fulton, executive director of the David Suzuki Foundation.
"Our research, conducted by Dr. Easton, is a pilot study that examined a small sample size. But the results demonstrate reason for concern and the need for further study. We believe it is now the responsibility of the federal government to fund research that can shed more light on these findings," he added.
The research by Drs. Easton and Jacobs shows the farmed fish sampled contained much higher levels of pollutants, including 10 times more Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), than wild fish. Their studies were conducted independently of each other.
"The results were very, very clear," Dr. Easton, a Vancouver-based geneticist and expert in ecotoxicology, told the British Broadcasting Corporation in a television documentary to be aired this Sunday (Jan. 7) in Britain.
"Farmed fish and the feed that they were fed appeared to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs, organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did wild fish. In fact, it was extremely noticeable," he said.
"It is a function of how the feed is made, of their concentrating of these different materials to produce high-protein diets for the fish and ultimately the contaminants apparently get concentrated as well," Dr. Easton said, adding that these pollutants affect the nervous system, the immune system and can cause cancer.
"They're a neural toxin, which causes learning disabilities (especially in children) but they are also an immuno toxic," he told the BBC. "They cause depression of the immune system that enables you to catch colds and flus and infections much more easily than normal, and they also aid the production of cancer."
Dr. Jacobs, a toxicologist in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Surrey (U.K.), told the BBC: "I am concerned about the dietary intake of small children and infants. Their dietary intake will be far greater than for an adult based on body weight. An ongoing study in Holland has been monitoring for background levels of PCBs in very young children and up to school age, and it has been found that there is a greater risk of infection and a greater risk of impairment of cognitive development in those children that have higher intakes of PCBs."
While the contaminant levels discovered by Drs. Easton and Jacobs were below government-approved safety levels, both scientists said they are concerned for people who regularly eat farmed salmon, and also about how governments establish risk-assessment values for human consumption of chemicals and pollutants.
The BBC program Warning from the wild: The price of salmon especially raises questions about British Standards, which are far weaker than those of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other European countries which are following the newly established WHO standards. A spokesman for Britain's Food Standards Agency says they only recommend a person eat one portion of farmed salmon a week.
"Once again, we have so many questions raised by scientists about this industry," Mr. Fulton said. "What we want from the Canadian government is that they fund additional scientific investigation. We are a small research agency and we cannot afford to conduct the next stage of research which is estimated at approximately $800,000."
Those funds could be found in the office of Canada's Aquaculture Commissioner whose office has an annual budget of over $2 million, Mr. Fulton added.
"I presume that some of the work his office should be doing is this type of scientific research so I look forward to speaking to the Minister of Fisheries (Hon. Herb Dhaliwal) about the possibility of continuing Dr. Easton's work," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For more information and to arrange interviews, please call Jean Kavanagh of the David Suzuki Foundation at 604-732-4228, ext. 229 or 604-251-5729.
Jean Kavanagh Writer/Media Liaison David Suzuki Foundation 2211 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 219 Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6K 4S2 604-732-4228; 732-0752 fax jkavanagh@davidsuzuki.org Please visit our website at www.davidsuzuki.org
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org
Posted by joebob on December 14, 2003, at 11:55:10
In reply to Re: farmed fish...what i have read but cannot verify.. » joebob, posted by Larry Hoover on December 12, 2003, at 9:35:34
http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/fertilizer99.pdf
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 15, 2003, at 8:34:05
In reply to farmed fish info, not complete but informative, posted by joebob on December 14, 2003, at 11:20:03
> it will take me time to find the info i want and my family would like some attention now, more later
>
> joebobI'm happy to take part in this discussion....I used to work for the World Wildlife Fund Environmental Toxicology Program, so I feel pretty qualified to assess the available information. Some text on the net is a little inflammatory.
> New scientific studies raise concern over toxicity of farmed fish feed
> Press Release David Suzuki Foundation 3jan00
> VANCOUVER, CANADA - Startling new scientific evidence....It's not startling, and it's not new.
> The research shows that the contaminants, known as persistent organic pollutants, are especially dangerous for children, nursing mothers and pregnant women or women considering pregnancy.Right there is a total mis-statement. The research presents exposure data, but not a thing about risk. A sensational statement, without basis.
> The studies were conducted in Canada by Dr. Michael Easton for the David Suzuki Foundation
Easton studied four farmed fish. Small sample.
> and in Britain by Dr. Miriam Jacobs in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Jacobs studied ten farmed fish. Small sample. You just can't generalize from that.
> "We are calling on the Canadian government to immediately heed these findings and to fund the next stage of research needed to determine the safety of farmed salmon and salmon feed for people who consume this fish regularly," said Jim Fulton, executive director of the David Suzuki Foundation.
The Canadian government is now, and has been, monitoring both farmed salmon and feedstocks (fish meal and crude (unrefined) fish oil) destined for terrestrial animal or farmed fish feeds, for those contaminants (and others).
See:
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/dioxe.shtml
> "Our research, conducted by Dr. Easton, is a pilot study that examined a small sample size.
Four farmed fish. One wild fish had greater PAH contamination than did the farmed fish. Wild fish had higher toxaphene concentrations than did the farmed fish. Where is that information in the press release?
Chemosphere. 2002 Feb;46(7):1053-74.
Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed.
Easton MD, Luszniak D, Von der GE.
International EcoGen Inc, North Vancouver, BC, Canada. michael_easton@intl-ecogen.com
This pilot study examined five commercial salmon feeds, four farmed salmon (one Atlantic, three chinooks) and four wild salmon (one chinook, one chum, two sockeyes) from the Pacific Coast for PCBs (112 congeners), polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs - 41 congeners), 25 organochlorine pesticides (OPs), 20 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and methyl and inorganic mercury. The farmed salmon showed consistently higher levels of PCBs, PBDEs, OPs (except toxaphene) than the wild salmon. The mean concentrations in pg/g were 51,216 vs 5302 for total PCBs; 2668 vs 178 for total PBDEs; 41,796 vs 12,164 for total OPs (except toxaphene). The farmed salmon levels are likely a consequence of the elevated level of contamination found in the commercial salmon feed (mean concentrations in pg/g were 65,535 for total PCBs; 1889 for total BPDEs; 48,124 for total OPs except toxaphene). Except for a single high wild chinook value, PAHs were highest in the feed samples followed by the farmed fish and the three other wild fish. The Bio-Oregon-1996 feed of hatchery origin showed a level of PAHs ten times higher than any other feed. The genotoxic implications of such a high PAH level are considered for juvenile chinook salmon. Toxaphene and methyl mercury concentrations were not notably different between the wild and farmed salmon. There was no clear low contaminant brand of salmon feed. The human health implications of eating farmed salmon are considered from the perspective of the current WHO and Health Canada (2000) tolerable daily intake (TDI) values for PCBs. Based on a TDI of 1 pg TEQ/kg bw/day, this analysis indicated a safety concern for individuals who on a regular weekly basis consume farmed salmon produced from contaminated feed.
> But the results demonstrate reason for concern and the need for further study. We believe it is now the responsibility of the federal government to fund research that can shed more light on these findings," he added.Valid. But they already study the situation.
> The research by Drs. Easton and Jacobs shows the farmed fish sampled contained much higher levels of pollutants, including 10 times more Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), than wild fish. Their studies were conducted independently of each other.
To put these findings into historical context, PCB contamination of fish (and of all foods) has been falling for 20 years. It is not a new problem. It is an old problem, getting better.
See:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/surveillance/fsis-2000/4diox
> "The results were very, very clear," Dr. Easton, a Vancouver-based geneticist and expert in ecotoxicology, told the British Broadcasting Corporation in a television documentary to be aired this Sunday (Jan. 7) in Britain.All results are clear. Interpreting is the hard part.
> "Farmed fish and the feed that they were fed appeared to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs, organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did wild fish. In fact, it was extremely noticeable," he said.Selectively noticed, IMHO, vis a vis toxaphene and PAH contamination of wild-caught salmon. PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are potent carcinogens arising from incomplete combustion.
> "It is a function of how the feed is made, of their concentrating of these different materials to produce high-protein diets for the fish and ultimately the contaminants apparently get concentrated as well," Dr. Easton said, adding that these pollutants affect the nervous system, the immune system and can cause cancer.But not at the concentrations found in these studies.
> "They're a neural toxin, which causes learning disabilities (especially in children) but they are also an immuno toxic," he told the BBC. "They cause depression of the immune system that enables you to catch colds and flus and infections much more easily than normal, and they also aid the production of cancer."
There is substantial debate in the scientific community about how to determine the "safe" intake level of a known toxin. The most recent scientific "attitude" has been to set those limits much much lower than the evidence would suggest is the toxic threshold. Generally, that is 1/100, or 1%, of the known toxic threshold, as seen in the most sensitive individuals. In some cases, it is set at 1/1000.
In historical terms, any presently published studies showing health benefits from fish consumption, particularly those showing long-term benefits from lifetime fish eating, present data involving fish far more contaminated with PCBs and dioxins, and dibenzofurans, and organochlorine pesticides (e.g. DDT) than are found today. The whole population of fish-eating people has already been the "guinea pigs" for the pollution experiment.
> Dr. Jacobs, a toxicologist in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Surrey (U.K.), told the BBC: "I am concerned about the dietary intake of small children and infants. Their dietary intake will be far greater than for an adult based on body weight. An ongoing study in Holland has been monitoring for background levels of PCBs in very young children and up to school age, and it has been found that there is a greater risk of infection and a greater risk of impairment of cognitive development in those children that have higher intakes of PCBs."I don't mean to trivialize these findings, but the problem is getting better, not worse. I'm totally glad we're paying attention, but I don't like the sensationalizing of the issue.
> While the contaminant levels discovered by Drs. Easton and Jacobs were below government-approved safety levels, both scientists said they are concerned for people who regularly eat farmed salmon, and also about how governments establish risk-assessment values for human consumption of chemicals and pollutants.There is substantial debate over this, but even still, these supposedly contaminated fish (all food is contaminated....please believe that) fall below government-approve safetly guidelines. The food is safe to eat. It is simply being scrutinized.
> The BBC program Warning from the wild: The price of salmon especially raises questions about British Standards, which are far weaker than those of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other European countries which are following the newly established WHO standards. A spokesman for Britain's Food Standards Agency says they only recommend a person eat one portion of farmed salmon a week.Few people would eat more than one meal of farmed salmon a week, in any case. British dairy products, eggs, meat.....they're full of PCBs too, and dioxins.... Everywhere you look....
Fish is good for you. Unless you know it was caught from an especially contaminated body of water.
> "Once again, we have so many questions raised by scientists about this industry," Mr. Fulton said. "What we want from the Canadian government is that they fund additional scientific investigation. We are a small research agency and we cannot afford to conduct the next stage of research which is estimated at approximately $800,000."The monitoring programs already exist.
> Those funds could be found in the office of Canada's Aquaculture Commissioner whose office has an annual budget of over $2 million, Mr. Fulton added.
>
> "I presume that some of the work his office should be doing is this type of scientific research so I look forward to speaking to the Minister of Fisheries (Hon. Herb Dhaliwal) about the possibility of continuing Dr. Easton's work," he said.I have no problem with independent researchers getting involved, but I can assure you there is substantial interest in the academic community already. Funding through NSERC alone is in the tens of millions of dollars already.
Just my (perhaps too) informed opinions,
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 15, 2003, at 8:40:55
In reply to toxic fertilizers in california.....see, posted by joebob on December 14, 2003, at 11:55:10
> http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/fertilizer99.pdf
Good reference. Thanks.
This practise, and one that they made up a newspeak Orwellian word for, "land-farming", the spreading of industrial waste directly on farm fields or pasture lands or woodlands, make me sick.
In economic terms, this is called externalization. The true cost of the practise is no longer borne by the producer of the toxic waste. It is distributed amongst all people, or perhaps certain people, and the profits remain in a few pockets. I presume legislators get a good chunk of the profit, but private individuals keep the big bucks.
People need to get offended. They need to be informed. To speak out. I'm amazed e.g. the Sierra Club hasn't been all over this one in the courts.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 15, 2003, at 18:55:10
In reply to farmed fish info, not complete but informative, posted by joebob on December 14, 2003, at 11:20:03
This link wasn't working this morning...
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/fsis38_2003.pdfIf you go down to the tables near the bottom of the report, you will see that current daily intakes of PCBs from fish are less than the daily intakes in 1982 from meat, grain, dairy....many other foods had high PCB content just twenty years ago.
If you look at the concentration tables, you will also see dramatic declines across the board, in both dioxin and PCB content, over those twenty years. In 1982, eggs had about three times the total PCBs and dioxins in them as do fish today....
Not only is there less of this stuff in food, but governments are actively taking steps to reduce those levels even further.
I honestly don't believe that farmed fish deserve the scrutiny they are presently receiving, with respect to persistent organic pollutants. I think pesticides on the pretty and perfect fresh fruits and vegetables in your local supermarket are much more of a threat to health....
Regards,
Lar
Posted by joebob on December 16, 2003, at 7:58:37
In reply to Re: about fish, other foods, and PCBs » joebob, posted by Larry Hoover on December 15, 2003, at 18:55:10
and now it seems to me that bananas were listed as toxic because of the environmental impact of their cultivation
as for strawberries i think it is the fungicides that cause concern, but don't have time to find the references
thanks
joebob
Posted by joebob on December 16, 2003, at 8:07:20
In reply to Re: toxic fertilizers in california.....see » joebob, posted by Larry Hoover on December 15, 2003, at 8:40:55
"if you are not outraged, you are not paying attention" ?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.