Farmed Salmon: Food for thought

[Fairweather]

If You Love Salmon, This Will Scare You

 

Packed with omega-3 fatty acids, salmon is one of the healthiest foods you can eat. Or is it? The Environmental Working Group has issued a scary report indicating that farm-raised salmon--but not the kind that is fished out of streams and rivers--is contaminated with high levels of cancer-causing chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls, more commonly known as PCBs, report Reuters and The New York Times.

 

EWG purchased and tested salmon filets from 10 different grocery stores in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon. Seven of the 10 filets contained high levels of PCBs. "These first-ever tests of farmed salmon from U.S. grocery stores show that farmed salmon are likely the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. food supply," the non-profit environmental investigative group said in a prepared statement.

 

We eat a lot of salmon. About one-quarter of all adult Americans--that would be 52 million people--eat salmon and about 23 million of those eat it more than once a month. "Based on these data we estimate that 800,000 people face an excess lifetime cancer risk...from eating farmed salmon."

 

EWG found that farmed salmon had 16 times the PCBs found in wild salmon, four times the levels in beef, and 3.4 times the levels found in other seafood. The New York Times notes that while the PCB levels in salmon are high, they do not exceed those set in 1984 by the FDA for commercially sold fish; however, they do exceed the guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1999 for recreationally caught fish. Although this study by EWG has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the findings are supported by other studies done in Canada, Ireland, and Britain--all of which has forced the hand of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which will now review the problem.

 

What are PCBs? They come from hydraulic fluids and oils, electrical capacitors, and transformers. They are carcinogenic because they are endocrine disrupters, which are chemicals that mimic hormones. PCBs can also cause infertility and other sexual changes. Because of this, PCBs have been banned in the United States since 1976 except when they are used in completely enclosed areas. Still, they persist in the environment and animal fat. Farmed salmon are raised in high-density fish pens in what may be a pristine environment, but they are fed fishmeal from around the world. And that fishmeal is contaminated with PCBs. While the omega-3 fatty acids in salmon are healthy for us, they also provide a place for the PCBs to build up.

 

What do the salmon farmers think of all this? An organization called Salmon of the Americas represents 80 salmon farmers in the United States, Canada, and Chile. Its spokesman says that until the farmers hear differently, they'll continue to follow the FDA regulations, rather than the more strict EPA regulations. "We assume they know what they are doing, and the regulations and levels they have promulgated mean that the food, including farmed salmon, is safe, wholesome, and nutritious. EPA and FDA should work their differences out," Alex Trent, acting director of Salmon of the Americas told the Times. "When and if the FDA changes its limits, we will be the first to comply. Someone is yelling fire in a theater to help make their point, and they haven't proven this point to the FDA yet. If they had, they would change their standards."

 

Based on the results of this study and EPA recommendations, the New York Times advises consumers to eat farmed salmon no more than once a month.

 

 

 

 

Note: Above article cut & pasted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[babnik]

again i will say "told ya so" this is my pet peve for sure!

[iain]

I love salmon. I could not live w/o cedar planked salmon in the summer. that sucks.

[ryland_moore]

Does the FDA also approve the orange dye they use to make farmed salmon flesh pink/orange since the fish are not eating the crustaceans that give wild salmon their flesh color? Farmed salmon would actually be grey without these dyes. Pretty gross huh?

[b-rock]

i love salmon but go out of my way to eat troll caught. so much more expensive tho...

[RobBob]

Fairweather, while the Enviro Working Group did what it intended, to scare people, it used bad science. I'm not a salmon farmer, but I know a little about the politics of wild fishing and fish farming, which I did a thread on recently. It'll take me a few minutes, but I'll try to dig up a good piece I saw in a seafood zine a week or so ago, putting a better perspective on the piece you cited. Farmed Atlantics from Chile, troll-caught Kings, and everything in-between...they're all good!!

 

Meanwhile, here's something interesting:

 

September 3, 2003 – The Oregonian newspaper has been running a series on farmed salmon. The final segment was a report on blindfold taste tests conducted in Portland, Oregon and Chicago. The results were surprising. Troll caught wild Pacific king salmon won out by only a small margin over farmed Atlantic salmon from Chile and the tasters in Chicago seemed better able to identify which was which than the Portland panel.

 

Only three of 11 tasters in Portland could tell which salmon was which. In Chicago, five people pegged the wild correctly.

 

Of the 22 panelists, five were professional chefs. The fish was prepared the same way, baked at 400 degrees in a convection oven and lightly basted with unsalted butter. Salt and pepper were added. All the fish was cooked until just opaque at the center.

 

[lummox]

RobBob said:

The final segment was a report on blindfold taste tests conducted in Portland, Oregon and Chicago. The results were surprising. Troll caught wild Pacific king salmon won out by only a small margin over farmed Atlantic salmon from Chile and the tasters in Chicago seemed better able to identify which was which than the Portland panel.

well if they dint offer ketchup alongside the fish to the portland group they mighta done better.

[RobBob]

Aha, found it. Please read this:

 

[NY Post] - August 29, 2003 -BY Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan- Chefs at some of New York's finest restaurants - including Blue Water Grill, Atlantic Grill and Blue Fin - are practicing the latest form of culinary political correctness: banning farmed salmons from their menus, to supposedly protect their patrons' health.

 

The cause? A flurry of media reports that an environmental advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), found unusually high levels of PCBs the long-banned industrial chemicals that news reports claimed 'caused cancer' in farmed salmon.

 

The Washington Post, for example, opined in a news piece that 'farmed salmon consumption may be posing a health threat to millions of Americans.' The New York Times informed readers that PCBs were 'probable human carcinogens.'

 

No wonder the chefs got reeled into a state of farmed-salmon phobia. But they and millions of other Americans terrified by the alarming news reports were never given two critical facts that would have allowed them to digest the fish scare with a few grains of salt:

 

* First, there is absolutely no credible evidence that environmental exposure to PCBs (including ingesting the trace levels in the fish) poses any risk of human cancer.

 

Even workers exposed in occupational settings to high levels of PCBs for decades manifest no elevated rates of cancer that could be related to PCB exposure.

 

The designation of PCBs as 'carcinogens' is based exclusively on observations of experiments wherein animals were given high doses of PCBs. And by now, everyone should know that natural foods contain a spectrum of chemicals that cause cancer in rodents (the hydrazines in mushrooms, for example) and no one is worrying about human cancer risk from trace levels of animal carcinogens in natural foods.

 

* Second, the source of these 'data' on farmed salmon was no mainstream scientific group. Indeed, the EWG is something of a phantom organization. A visit to their Web page leaves one wondering, 'Just who are these masked men?'

 

Two things we know for sure: There are no physicians or scientists associated with EWG yet they are advising us on how to avoid cancer.

 

Furthermore, EWG is funded by agenda-driven entities, including private foundations committed to restoring the 'natural world' and eliminating the use of agricultural chemicals. EWG repeatedly urges consumers to 'buy organic.'

 

Clearly, the technical sophistication of the farmed salmon industry is 'unnatural' and thus unacceptable in the eyes of EWG and their funders.

 

These basic facts spawn, if you will, two questions:

 

First, why were the media so gullible that they reported this story as if it had scientific legitimacy from a credible source? Why in this age of 'transparency' did the media not tell us that the 'data' were generated by a group that had no scientific or medical credentials or credibility and has an ideological commitment to only 'natural' food production?

 

Second, why were scientists from universities across America academics who knew this report was bogus not outraged, issuing press releases to correct the record? Why did scientists and physicians (with the exception of the group I direct, the American Council on Science and Health) remain silent as critical facts on cancer risk were distorted in the press?

 

Even more curious, why did the world's foremost experts on cancer causation the cancer epidemiologists at the National Cancer Institute not instantly respond to correct the record and declare that, contrary to media reports, there is no evidence at all that trace levels of chemicals that cause cancer in animals including the purported PCB traces in farmed salmon pose a human cancer risk?

 

What's a chef to do? If the media headlines proclaim 'cancer' and the scientific community remains mute, the 'silence-is- assent' rule prevails. It's time not only to grill farmed salmon, but also to grill scientists and the media for spreading junk science. Instead, they should have called 'tripe' when tripe is served.

 

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.

 

 

[Off_White]

At an Italian capacitor manufacturing plant, researchers studying 290 males and 1,020 females had statistically significant increased numbers of deaths from all types of cancer. In males, there was a statistically significant increase in deaths (roughly 3 times higher) from gastrointestinal tract cancers, otherwise described as higher deaths from cancers of the digestive system, the peritoneum, the lymphatic, and hematopoietic tissues. In females, all causes of death were significantly elevated, and there was a statistically significant excess risk of death from hematologic (blood-based, or leukemia) cancers compared with local, but not national rates. The study looked at workers employed at least 1 week and exposed to PCBs (specifically PCB Aroclor 1254 and 1242, both mixtures present in the Fox River). Reference: Bertazzi, Riboldi, Pesatori, Radice and Zocchett. 1987. "Cancer Mortality of Capacitor Manufacturing Workers," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, 11:165-76.

 

From http://www.foxriverwatch.com/cancer_pcb_pcbs_1.html#human

[Off_White]

And on Whelan:

 

The American Council on Science and Health (2) also has big

agro-chemical funding (eg Monsanto, Dow, Cyanamid) and controversy has

raged throughout ACSH's over twenty-year history over the linkage

between its extensive

corporate backing and Whelan's (2) tireless crusading against "health

scares" and the "toxic terrorists" who promote them.

 

web page

[Off_White]

And still more on Whelan and her group:

 

American Council on Science and Health

[RobBob]

O_W said: In shemales, all causes of death were significantly elevated...

 

 

PCBs are out there in both wild and farmed salmon populations. There are differing results from studies about which has more. My point is that the uninformed reader is being hammered with words whose real origin is a political war rather than a science-driven one.

 

 

[ChrisT]

I used to do pro-bono work for this organization which promotes"salmon safe" farming practices.

[Dru]

why should i buy a farmed salmon right now when i can walk 5 minutes down to the river and "catch" one with a dipnet in another 5 minutes. total time to salmon BBQ = 15 minutes.

[Luna]

RobBob said:

 

* First, there is absolutely no credible evidence that environmental exposure to PCBs (including ingesting the trace levels in the fish) poses any risk of human cancer.

 

Are you nuts? PCBs are no problem. The chemical queen who penned this is an industry shill. Farmed salmon generally have much higher toxic content in their fat because they spend the bulk of their lives in water that has a higher PCB content that where wild fish spend their time. Farmed fish are usually in low-energy sounds and bays, where, surprise, PCBs are more prevelant.

 

Wild fish in contrast are spawned in streams, not usually in industrial areas, and head out to sea, spending 1-2 years on the way out, depending on species.

 

The whole piece you quote looks like opinion, with no supporting evidence. And given the source, the Monsanto chick, I'll stick to wild fish thanks.

[Off_White]

Entertaining quote alteration RobBob, but a lame debate technique. Your point may be that PCB's are in both populations of salmon, and that may well be, but the Whelan article you posted did not discuss that issue, but rather asserted

* First, there is absolutely no credible evidence that environmental exposure to PCBs (including ingesting the trace levels in the fish) poses any risk of human cancer.

and that's a very different agenda.

[allthumbs]

Off White is a cross-dresser

hehehe

[RobBob]

and Luna is looney.

 

I'll bet I could get the point across to most of you free-thinkers, that there are two industries battling here, with enviromental pacs in on it also. A whole lot of the debate is bad science, I'll grant coming from both sides.

 

It's not a reason to stop enjoying wild OR farmed salmon.

[Luna]

Fish meal and fish oil are the most heavily contaminated feed materials"

--European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General (2000). Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition on the Dioxin Contamination of Feedingstuffs and their Contribution to the Contamination of Food of Animal Origin.

 

As a result, an analysis of British Columbian salmon found that farmed salmon was nearly ten times higher in PCBs than the wild variety.

"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)."

--Easton, M D L, Luszniak, D and Von der Geest, E (2002) Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere 46, 1053-1074, at p. 1053

 

"The health significance of human exposure to PCBs and dioxins has been subject of extensive discussions. The most recent assessment of the risks for human health from PCBs and dioxins has been performed in 1998 1 , when a WHO consultation group agreed on a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of PCDDs/PCDFs ("dioxins") and dioxin-like PCBs in the range of 1 - 4 pg Toxic Equivalents (TEQ)/kg body weight, stressing that the upper range of the TDI of 4 pg TEQ/kg should be considered as a maximum tolerable intake on a provisional basis and that the ultimate goal is to reduce human intake levels below 1 pg TEQ/kg bw/day."

--European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General (2000). Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition on the Dioxin Contamination of Feedingstuffs and their Contribution to the Contamination of Food of Animal Origin.

 

 

[Luna]

RobBob said:

and Luna is looney.

 

I'll bet I could get the point across to most of you free-thinkers, that there are two industries battling here, with enviromental pacs in on it also. A whole lot of the debate is bad science, I'll grant coming from both sides.

 

It's not a reason to stop enjoying wild OR farmed salmon.

 

Ah, back to your usual standards of not addressing the facts but going to name calling. Very mature and makes for a lame argument. And it's a good tactic to talk about "bad science" when you offer no science. You need to educate yourself on the issue before trying to argue them. You would not get so bashed that way.

[iain]

PCBs have only been predicted as carcinogens so far. However severe skin rashes, thyroid problems, severe liver damage, and behavioral changes (all linked to PCB ingestion by the Dept of Health) are reason enough to avoid them.

[allthumbs]

eat pussy - same smell as farmed fish

[iain]

Children are particularly vulnerable to PCB exposure, apparently.

[babnik]

RobBob said:

and Luna is looney.

 

I'll bet I could get the point across to most of you free-thinkers, that there are two industries battling here, with enviromental pacs in on it also. A whole lot of the debate is bad science, I'll grant coming from both sides.

 

It's not a reason to stop enjoying wild OR farmed salmon.

 

yeah, but where is more money at? who do you think is paying for the phoney science? prolly the farmers eh, since they are the only ones with somethin to profit.

[allthumbs]

"What's that smell?"

"Oh that's just farmed fish"