RobBob Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 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. you people are more foolish than I thought. clearly the wealthholders in this debate are the enviro groups...not the wild fishermen and not the salmon farmers. The Chilean salmon producers spent their wad defending themselves against the antidumping charges brought by the wild salmon suppliers (who lost). Consequently, they were forced to suspend the advertising budget they used to spend, and the Norwegians have bought up much more of the Chilean production. The wild salmon suppliers rely in large part on the money from enviro groups in this debate. They don't realize that all this talk about PCBs justs makes ALL salmon consumption drop. The enviro groups have the money, and used it to attack the fish famring industry with bad science (less than a dozen fish in this case!) Look, I don't think you folks have any idea how many REAL toxins you ingest in the form of fumigants used in grain processes, naturally-forming toxins, etc. Those of you on the "luna"tic fringe want to accept your own action-group's pr campaign as fact without putting it into perspective. I'm not involved in either side of this debate, but have done business with both sides. I'm also a consumer who tries to apply his knowledge of the food biz to his family's diet...in a common-sense way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babnik Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 dude it is totally bullshit that you make a "natural" product soo ugly that you have to dye the actuall consumable part of the product just to make it look edible. it is also deceptive not to label this shit. it is obvious that these fish will have more toxins because they will be chillin in puget sound ALL their lives. they will also spend it nearer to population centers as it is more cost benefecial. lets not even get into the mass concentrated fecal matter that in concentrated in just one small area by these fish pens. i am a conservative and i still think that is bullshit. it is bad for cunsumers, it is bad for the environment and when enough people find out about this, it will be bad for the farmers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hell, since so many people die of cancer, LIFE must be carcinogenic! I think I'll avoid life. Seriously, RobBob's right in that we focus too much on ONE source of trace carcinogens which we get from other foods anyway. Like mushrooms, as his article pointed out. I, for one, will eat fake salmon without worry, but I will still prefer real salmon, for the taste. I suspect the same is true for just about everybody on this board, but you are all arguing for the same of arguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 You are entitled to your opinion. I will continue to buy all types of salmon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Fish is not a product. Its a fish. As for labeling, I can't speak to Washington but down here in Orygun they label farm salmon as such as well as note that the fish is dyed to resemble wild salmon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babnik Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 i have never seen that in washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I think Rob is right that there are two industries battling over this, and I'm sure some of the science on both sides is suspect, geared to prove the desired point. I also agree that a study of eleven individual fish is not conclusive. However, I think it is disingenous to imply that the farmers are a bunch of poor family fish farmers who are going hungry because they've spent their meager incomes defending their pure and innocent livelihood from rapacious big pocket environmentalists. There's plenty of dough in the multinational corporations on both sides of the issue. What really got my MountainGoat was presenting Elizabeth Whelan as the authority on the subject. Might as well quote Ken Lay on developing a responsible national energy policy. I have a friend who has made it her policy to ONLY eat farmed salmon, thinking it would be better for wild fish populations to not eat them. Personally, being a tightwad, I tend to eat what's on sale, so sometimes its farmed fish and sometimes its wild fish bought down on the dock. We do ingest toxins from all kinds of sources, you just have to pick which ones are going to be your issue. Around my house we've focused more on cottonseed oil than the source of salmon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I have a friend who has made it her policy to ONLY eat farmed salmon, thinking it would be better for wild fish populations to not eat them. That makes about as much sense as saying it was better for the wild buffalo to only eat ranched cow meat, not knowing they killed off the wild buffalo to make way for the cow pasture. Your friend has some weird ideas. The only environmentally sustainable fish farming is fully contained tanks, on land, with sewage treatment of the fish waste, and farmed fish that eat a vegetarian diet (not fish meal). Tilapia, catfish etc can be farmed this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babnik Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Tilapia, catfish etc can be farmed this way. in other words, the nasty fish that you wouldn't eat without a whole lotta cajun spices anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Not to beat this fish to death, but, as a scientist (yea I know, egghead to some) there is not a balance of science on both sides. Science figures out causes and effects, lays out the facts. What to do with that is the argument between the industry and the activists. So heres the facts: Farmed salmon are dyed Farmed salmon have caused problems with parasitic sea lice in wild runs (recently in BC) Farmed salmon waste causes problems with the sea floor as their waste products accumulate year after year. It takes about 3.5 lbs of ground up fish to make 1 lb of farmed salmon. A net loss of protien. Escaped salmon Atlantic salmon are escaping, even here in Puget Sound, and getting into spawning runs of wild fish, competing for the same resources. Higher PCB content in farmed salmon vs wild, from a number of studies in England, Norway, B.C., and the US. Heads up when the industry backers start screaming "bad science". What this usually means is results that they don't like. If you still like to eat farmed salmon, cool. But the facts are still the same. Opinions on what to do with these facts are for the policy makers. That's where it get grey (color of farmed salmon), the facts and science are clear. Gotta head out to Squamish now. So get out there and climb something this weekend!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 babnik said: Tilapia, catfish etc can be farmed this way. in other words, the nasty fish that you wouldn't eat without a whole lotta cajun spices anyways. tilapia is yummy i only had catfish once and it was yummy too. that mudsucker kinda tasted like sturgeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 catfish are farmed in the US. Tilapia are farmed in Asia and Latin America primarily. Both are good, tasty, mainly-herbivorous fish. Together with carp, they probably score the best environmentally all-around. Luna may be a scientist, but he/she spouts the enviro party line on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 they werre gonna farm sturgeon here but worries are it will create a market for poached endangered wild sturgeon, pretending to be farmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skykilo Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Fried catfish . They grow that shit in tanks in the SE, nothing wrong wit dat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 However, I think it is disingenous to imply that the farmers are a bunch of poor family fish farmers who are going hungry because they've spent their meager incomes defending their pure and innocent livelihood from rapacious big pocket environmentalists. O_W, what happened in the salmon industry over the past 6 year ought to be written up as a Harvard Bus School case. It is a great example of how attacking your competitor can sometimes backfire on you. When the salmon producers in the US filed suit on the Chilean salmon farming companies, the Chileans were forced to redirect their marketing money into legal defense in the antidumping suit. This couldn't have happened at a worse time...they had increased production and needed to be building consumption in the US, their number 1 market. The antidumping suit ended in the Chileans' favor. Meanwhile, additional production hit the marketplace without the benefit of that industry's marketbuilding ad program. Wham, salmon filet prices fell to $2.00 per lb wholesale, FOB US ports of entry. That's way below cost, and therefore, after a financial bloodbath, a greater share of that industry is now Euro-owned. Most of the salmon companies are fish-only companies, even the biggest international ones. The traditional mega-corporations that you might think of investing in this industry long ago got out, usually having lost money. In my experience, you gotta be nuts to be in any facet of the fish biz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 RobBob said: 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.' Whereas the salmon farmers have no "agenda" whatsoever right? Not even to make money, expand their business, etc? Buy Organic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babnik Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 yeah and pay 3x's as much. when i have a 6 figure income i will definitely do that. for now, i am sticking to kraft mac n' cheese with mank ass pink salmon tossed in for good measure.[insert barfing my faqin guts out incon here] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 my boss walked in this morning with a 40lb chinook in tow fresh from the fraser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Dru said: my boss walked in this morning with a 40lb chinook in tow fresh from the fraser dont they start degrading once they reenter fresh water? in alaska the river salmon are used for dog food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 they degrade depending on distance upstream. fraser river ones gotta swim like 2000km upstream. this one is still all chrome and yummy looking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Alpinfox, that ain't my quote...that's an article I pasted! You are missing the point that the EWG is the attacker here. The salmon farming industry would be expected to defend themselves, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 lummox said: Dru said: my boss walked in this morning with a 40lb chinook in tow fresh from the fraser dont they start degrading once they reenter fresh water? in alaska the river salmon are used for dog food. I don't think that is quite right. Alaskan natives used "chum" aka "dog" salmon as dog food because they didn't taste as good as Chinook, Sockeye, etc. But they all were caught in the rivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 RobBob said: Alpinfox, that ain't my quote...that's an article I pasted! You are missing the point that the EWG is the attacker here. The salmon farming industry would be expected to defend themselves, right? hmmm, it turns out you are selling a shitty product with the possibility of being a human health risk. do you "defend yourself" with tobacco science, or do you fess up and admit your product sucks and try to fix it? this sounds like Dilbert School of Management!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 RobBob said: Alpinfox, that ain't my quote...that's an article I pasted! You are missing the point that the EWG is the attacker here. The salmon farming industry would be expected to defend themselves, right? I realize that you were quoting the Monsanto lady. I was pointing out that she and the fish farmers have an "agenda" of their own. This is similar to the US government calling everyone they don't like a "terrorist" or "enemy of peace" or some ridiculous label like that rather than granting that they are real people who are pissed off about the way US policies and bombs fuck up their lives. Rather than calling EWG an "attacker" one might also call them a "consumer advocate" drawing attention to a POTENTIAL health threat. Investigation of the PCB content of farmed fish and the potential health effects of those PCBS by a more neutral party (I don't know who that would be) sounds like a great idea and I applaud the EWG for drawing attention to the issue. My first instinct in issues like this is to see where the money is. Fish farms are pretty big business and have a lot to lose by suppressing/downplaying this sort of thing. Maybe PCBs aren't dangerous, maybe they are, but I'm not going to take the fish-farmers word that they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.