From a B.C. board.

In refrence to recent studies that find a risk in eating farmed salmon a Purdue researcher had theses comments.

The studies, Charles Santerre of Purdue University found, exaggerated the PCB content of farm salmon by using parts per trillion (ppt) as a base. The salmon therefore contained 50,000 ppt of PCBs. Sounds big, even alarming, especially when the FDA puts the safe level at 2,000 parts per billion. Note the difference: parts per trillion versus parts per billion. In fact, the PCB count found in the salmon equals 50 parts per billion, or a fraction of the safe level.


The new study, Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon, found PCB contaminants averaging 36 parts per billion in farm salmon, or a fraction of the FDA and Health Canada suggested limits. In other words, the farm salmon is safe.

The risk element was heightened by a researcher who said "Canadian consumers could be exposing themselves to up to 10 times greater levels of contaminants from the farmed fish than from the wild fish."

The 36 ppb of PCBs in farm salmon ay indeed be 10 times the three ppb of PCBs in wild fish. But as Mr. Santerre put it in an interview yesterday, the level in wild fish is essentially nothing, and "10 times nothing is still nothing."

And then there's the health risk. If all Canadians ate 225 grams of salmon containing 2,000 ppb of PCBs every week, over 70 years, we would have one additional cancer for every 100,000 people. Since everyone will pretty well be dead over a 70-year period, the risks are minuscule to non-existent.

But Mr. Santerre sees a greater risk from not eating salmon. In U.S. terms, 250,000 Americans die of cardiac arrest every year. It is estimated that as many as 40% of those deaths could be avoided if people ate more salmon, which contains beneficial forms of fat. Eating salmon could, hypothetically, save 100,000 lives a year, or 400 lives saved for every 100,000 people per year. That compares with the one case of cancer for each 100,000 people over 70 years.

Farm salmon could save lives. It's media science that kills.

Even more important is the report was not intended to adress what people consume on a daily basis just pen raised vs wild fish. If people did a little research on what they eat in packaged foods vs whole foods they would find the same thing if not worse. Look at what goes into a package of Doritos for cripes sake. Even the whole foods that are not organic are ladden with residual chemicals. It's not in the people that fund the university studies best interest to point out the flaws of the companies that write their grant checks.

Look at the reccomendations from the stae health dept on eating fish from the Columbia river if you want a shocker.

Dave,

For what it's worth, please forward your post to the P.I.'s letters to the editor.

It will be interesting to see if they print it (I doubt it)

This data makes it clear that the "studies" were biased to reach a desired conclusion.

The Great and All Powerful Slab is correct Dave...I see this whole thing as suspiciously timed. First the news slammed the Bush admin for supporting a plan for offshore fish farming and then this follow up scaring people. So many people quote these studies. Remember all the "experts" who testified in the OJ case? They helped get him off.

Just goes to show you that the commercials will stop at nothing to continue the rape of a resource that they have no investment in. The level with wich these slime will go to never amazes me, and the media is the ever ready fool willing to $hore itself out just to sell a few papers or ads. Big money, inbred into out festering system has tainted our resouce for years, and will until the stewards gain the upper hand, like the Buffalo, though, that may not be until almost the very last one, Tis a pity that i love fishing so much, makes me sad, Fishy.........

I agree the study probably draws the wrong conclusion as to the safety of farmed salmon -- and by the way, the study also found levels of PCBs above EPA safety levels in free-swimming salmon -- but before you find a conspiracy under every rock, it might be worth noting that Santerre now works for the salmon farming industry. Also, the Journal of Science is the most respected academic journal in America and typically does not publish BS. Furthermore, I never saw any concentrations reported in parts per trillion, and I read the report in Science.

The main problem with acedemic research is that it is driven by funding. If your research doesn't find anything interesting, guess what happens to your next grant...it doesn't get funded...and you're out of a job. Scientists have a way of making mountians out of mole hills if they think it'll help them get funding and get their manuscripts published.

Dave

I hase often wondered if the oils that are in a farm raised fish are as good for you as the oils in a wild fish. I have read that the pellets they use to feed farm raised fish have lots of vegitable oil in them. I would lik eto hear some insites from the experts.

Mikvin: While I am a looong ways from an expert, I do read a good bit on this and believe that the Omega 3 or 'good' fat in farm rose fish is roughly comparable to that in wild fish. I remember reading at least one comment that the beneficial effect on heart health far outweighs any highly theoretical adverse effect from the farmed fish. I also read that most of the pollutants are in the flesh and that the pollutants levels are well below federal standards.

Perhaps a more important question is why are allowing so much pollution in our waters. (As I understand it the pollutants in farm raised fish are from wild fish caught and ground into food.) We might want to ask why these forage fish carry such high levels of pollutants? I know there are health warnings about tuna, almost all fish in the Snake River reservoirs, and fish in Commencement Bay etc. etc. etc. Those who mock all the "tree huggers' who are trying to slow the flow of pollutants into our waters might want to consider how bad things are already.

What fascinating comments on a little read much quoted study? This is an
excellent example of how a well designed study sponsored by a radical
environmental group can be publicly submitted and published so as to be
completely misrepresented in the popular press and further misquoted by
others to justify their agendas.

The maximum amount of PCB's here is 3/100th of the FDA's allowable limit.

Here are the conclusions taken directly from the actual paper.
The paragraphs have been broken into individual sentences.
The emphasis (in bold and italicized text) are mine.
___________________________________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Link: "Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon"
___________________________________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The human health effects of exposure to PCBs, toxaphene, and dieldrin in
salmon tissues are a function of contaminant toxicity, concentration in
fish tissues, and fish consumption rates.

We used the approach of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
assess the comparative health risks of consuming farmed and wild salmon.

Individual contaminant concentrations in farmed and wild salmon do not
exceed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action or tolerance levels
for PCBs and dieldrin.

However, FDA action and tolerance levels are not strictly health-based,
do not address the health risks of concurrent exposure to more than
one contaminant, and do not provide guidance for acceptable levels of
toxaphene and dioxins in fish tissue.

The U.S. EPA approach is designed to manage health risks by providing
risk-based consumption advice regarding contaminated fish (for example,
one should limit consumption of a particular species to a specified number
of meals per month or week).


The combined concentrations of PCBs, toxaphene, and dieldrin trigger
stringent consumption advice for farmed salmon purchased from wholesalers
and for store-bought farmed fillets.

This advice is much more restrictive than consumption advice triggered
by contaminants in the tissues of wild salmon.

The most restrictive advice (less than one-half meal of salmon per month),
which reflects the highest health risks, was generated for farmed salmon
fillets purchased from stores in Frankfurt, Germany, and for farmed salmon
from Scotland and the Faroe Islands.

The concentrations of PCBs, toxaphene, and dieldrin trigger EPA
consumption advice of no more than 1 meal per month for all samples of
farmed salmon and for all but two samples of store-bought salmon, for
which the advice is no more than 2 meals per month.


The methods used to develop this consumption advice for PCBs, toxaphene,
and dieldrin are based on estimates of potential cancer risks and
on an assumption of risk additivity.

A variety of noncancer health effects have also been associated with
exposure to PCBs, toxaphene, dieldrin, and other contaminants found in
salmon.

Some of these noncancer endpoints, such as adverse neurobehavioral and
immune effects and endocrine disruption, occur at lower concentrations
than those implicated in cancer.

However, these hazards were not considered in the present analysis because
quantitative risk or threshold levels are not available regarding these
effects.


Our data indicate that farmed salmon have significantly higher contaminant
burdens than wild salmon and that farmed salmon from Europe are
significantly more contaminated than farmed salmon from South and North
America.

Fish that is not contaminated is a healthy food, high in nutrients, such
as omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, that are known to have a variety
of beneficial human health effects.

However, this study suggests that consumption of farmed salmon may result
in exposure to a variety of persistent bioaccumulative contaminants with
the potential for an elevation in attendant health risks.

Although the risk/benefit computation is complicated, consumption of
farmed Atlantic salmon may pose risks that detract from the beneficial
effects of fish consumption.

This study also demonstrates the importance of labeling salmon as farmed
and identifying the country of origin.

Further studies of contaminant sources, particularly in feeds used for
farmed carnivorous species such as salmon, are needed.
___________________________________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Here are some of the conclusions of the study:

1) Contaminant concentrations in farmed and wild salmon do not exceed
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action or tolerance levels.
(( It is Safe to Eat ))

2) FDA action and tolerance levels are not strictly health-based.
(( I disagree ))

3) The studies (consumptive) advice is much more restrictive than
consumption advice triggered by contaminants in the tissues of wild
salmon.
(( Stricter than EPA standards ))
(( see meals per month chart below ))
___________________________________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It is also obvious that the study compared apples to oranges.
Farm raised Atlantic Salmon were Compared to Wild Pacific Salmon.
Any "wild Atlantic salmon" would be included with the European market
salmon that were just as highly contaminated as the farmed group.

This nullifies the farmed to wild comparison leaving the conclusions
concerning feed sources and geographical location as the only significant
findings.


Meals per Month: (Red is farmed) (green is wild)

The advice is much more restrictive than what is suggested by contaminants
in the tissues of wild salmon and EPA standards.

Plunker: Thanks for some definitive information. One of the many interesting fact I see from the chart is that Washington farm raised salmon is almost exactly as safe as SE Alaska Chinook. If we want to be super safe we should eat only Alaska Chum

The main thing to remember is that all the fish is VERY safe to eat and almost certainly the benefits far outweigh any theoretical risks.

I agree that salmon and other fish are an exceptionally good food. At least for those of us who like their taste.

It is interesting how the study translates 1/100th of the FDA allowable amount of a contaminant to a limitation of 1 meal per month for Washington farm raised salmon.

While there seems to be many reasons to restrict the aquaculturists the PCB levels hardly seems to be one of them.

I think most of us know that the levels of persistent toxins in the environment are alarming and that everything we can do to reduce the continuing addition to this problem is important.

If we can find ways to reduce the environmental levels of these contaminants then that seems even better.

It hardly seems helpful to reduce credibility with chicken little alarmist sensationalism. The reality of the situation is motivation for change in itself.

But then again...
How often does a roof get repaired before the sky starts falling through.

Dave

Thanks for the input. By the way I own a couple of your books and both were excellant and very informative.

SciGuy, Somethingsmellsfishy, and Grandpa2, your cynical posts are well founded. Of course the farmed fish are not a health issue! Of course "scientists" delivered what's "paid for" Recall what was reported by scientists paid by the tabaco industry. Recall the scare put into the public by rotten info about Washington state apples. It's ugly!

And of course the commercial netters put dollars where it can help their causes, done both eithically and unethically (and perhaps illegally). They have certainly felt the financial sting of farmed salmon in the market place! BTW, they also pay a lot for lobbyists and contribute to electing politicians who will side with the continued unnecessary killing of wild fish in the Columbia system.

I hope many of you will go to the upcoming meetings in Olympia about the springer quota proposals. If there isn't a good showing, the commercials will get the bigger slice of the wild fish pie (Fed ESA impact %). Skip a couple TV shows that night and be there.

Be cynical if you want, but the bottom line as I see it is that both farmed fish and free-swimming salmon contain measureable levels of this crap, and so even if the funding of the study can be questioned, the study is still worrisome for those of us who eat salmon two or more times a week. Note that southeast Alaska chinook had levels triggering the EPA advisory, although not the less stringent FDA action level. I'm not going to quit eating free-swimming salmon, but I never have and never will eat farmed salmon. Dave and Plunker are right, we need to fight for more stringent laws that restrict the release of toxins into the environment. On that note I might add that other studies show levels of PCBs, furans, dioxin, etc. have gone down markedly in the last 20 years, so we're on the right track. Also, from everything I've read these pollutants concentrate in the skin and most fatty tissues of the fish. That latter would the brown tissue between the skin and flesh, concentrated mostly along the lateral line.

I am CRITICAL of all science. That is the way scientific experiments are supposed to be performed and that is the way the results of those experiments are supposed to be interpreted. I am CYNICAL of science that is driven by motive. Period. Science can not be done in a responsible manner if the scientists involved in a particular study are biased. To make matters worse the media industry and top level for-profit journals such as Science and Nature are, at times, guilty of publishing what is exciting rather than what is solid, emperically derived science. Like any other industry, science and medicine have their share of unethical people who are blinded by money.......I’m sure none of this is new to many of you.

Right on. That goes a long ways toward explaining why nutrition scientists keep reversing their stands on what is and isn't healthy.