VeggieBoards banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Eh, like everything else this is so concerning. I was just reading another article discussing how farm raised salmon contain more toxins than wild salmon. <a href="http://www.breastcancer.org/research_farm_raised_salmon.html" target="_blank">http://www.breastcancer.org/research...ed_salmon.html</a><br><br><br><br>
that included no mention of the impending destruction of over fishing.<br><br><br><br>
"...Either way, as stocks of fish that were once commercially undesirable have plummeted, large fish, marine mammals, and even birds have been robbed of a big piece of their food chain. And that means we too are affected, as some of our most intimate ecosystems - those that protect and nourish our food and water supply - become, in collapsing, a toxic abyss. Fish species that live near coastlines, reducing the risk of red tide and providing detoxification to water supplies, are disappearing.<br><br>
..."<br><br><a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/36663/" target="_blank">http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/36663/</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,777 Posts
What I find gross about farmed salmon, in addition to the high PCB levels, is the fact that they feed the fish dye to turn their flesh pink.<br><br><br><br>
wild pacific salmon have very low levels of toxins, particularly mercury. Same with trout (again, wild trout). Generally, the smaller the fish, the safer it is. And wild pacific fish tend to be much lower in all toxins than atlantic fish.<br><br><br><br>
Get pole-caught or hand-net caught fish and trawling / ocean nets aren't really an environmental issue. You're pretty much just left with air/water pollution, which is probably comparable to pollution that is created to bring people lentils or rice.<br><br><br><br>
Of course, if you feel it's ethically wrong to kill fish, the above doesn't really matter. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=";)">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,546 Posts
I'm morally opposed to the production of seafood on the grounds that it's cruel to me having to be near it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>OregonAmy</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
What I find gross about farmed salmon, in addition to the high PCB levels, is the fact that they feed the fish dye to turn their flesh pink.</div>
</div>
<br>
hmm, well I don't know if I care about edible dyes but from what I understand, fish retailors lie and say they're wild caught. Well, dyes involve animal testing so I suppose I'm anti-dye for that reason.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">wild pacific salmon have very low levels of toxins, particularly mercury. Same with trout (again, wild trout). Generally, the smaller the fish, the safer it is. And wild pacific fish tend to be much lower in all toxins than atlantic fish.</div>
</div>
<br>
I don't know much about the differences between regions or size of fish. Most of the warnings i've heard were general statements. But the issue I'm addressing isn't so much consuming toxins as humans can handle specific levels but the environmental impact.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Get pole-caught or hand-net caught fish and trawling / ocean nets aren't really an environmental issue. You're pretty much just left with air/water pollution, which is probably comparable to pollution that is created to bring people lentils or rice.</div>
</div>
<br>
I'm confused by your comment re: ocean nets. I was under the impression that ocean nets...or at least large nets are problematic. I saw pictures of nets that spanned between ships. Of course pole-caught or hand-net isn't the issue. It's the commercial scale and from what i've read, new technologies.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Of course, if you feel it's ethically wrong to kill fish, the above doesn't really matter. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=";)"></div>
</div>
<br>
yea, of course.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
34 Posts
If you've had a chance to compare the two, it's very difficult to mistake the Atlantic, farm raised Salmon with the Line-caught, wild, Pacific fish. The color and texture of the fish is very different. The wild fish is much healthier looking in every way - and a little red dye can't cover that up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>OregonAmy</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
What I find gross about farmed salmon, in addition to the high PCB levels, is the fact that they feed the fish dye to turn their flesh pink.<br><br><br><br>
wild pacific salmon have very low levels of toxins, particularly mercury. Same with trout (again, wild trout). Generally, the smaller the fish, the safer it is. And wild pacific fish tend to be much lower in all toxins than atlantic fish.<br><br><br><br>
Get pole-caught or hand-net caught fish and trawling / ocean nets aren't really an environmental issue. You're pretty much just left with air/water pollution, which is probably comparable to pollution that is created to bring people lentils or rice.<br><br><br><br><b>Of course, if you feel it's ethically wrong to kill fish, the above doesn't really matter.</b> <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=";)"></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Yes, and it seems sometimes in these discussions that most people can't imagine humans surviving without meat so of course we have to get the meat from somewhere. "and fish is really healthy meat".<br><br><br><br>
It has been shown that fish are more intelligent than hamsters so when we get this kind of talk I imagine hamsters instead of fish. Do we put a whole bunch of hamsters in a big cage and raise them that way and then slaughter them? Do we set out cages to catch a bunch of wild ones and then drown them en masse? Do we allow people to trick them one at a time with bait on a hook so that people can have a lovely afternoon communing with nature?<br><br><br><br>
Any option stinks except to leave them alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>OregonAmy</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
oops gaya, I meant hand nets!! d'oh.</div>
</div>
<br>
oh ok, that makes sense. It seems that commercialization is an issue in so many arenas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
Overfishing is still overfishing, though... Maybe the pole-caught ones don't do as much direct damage to the surrounding animals as commercially caught ones, but the waters are still being depleted of the fish that people want to eat...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I think the overfishing argument is a no-brainer. Just as very few get their red meat from family owned farms, very few would probably get their fish from non-commerical sources. We're in trouble now. Perhaps enough trouble that would warrant some type of government regulation over comerical practices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
For what it's worth, I had some great veggie sushi for lunch today: oshinko (pickled radish), gourd, burdock root, avocado, and inari (rice-stuffed tofu skins).<br><br><br><br>
Fish: (from Eco-Eating at <a href="http://www.brook.com/veg" target="_blank">www.brook.com/veg</a>)<br><br><br><br>
“Seafood is simply a socially acceptable form of bush meat”, according to Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. “We condemn Africans for hunting monkeys and mammalian and bird species from the jungle, yet the developed world thinks nothing of hauling in magnificent wild creatures like swordfish, tuna, halibut, shark and salmon for our meals. The fact is that the global slaughter of marine wildlife is simply the largest massacre of wildlife on the planet.”<br><br><br><br>
Commercial fishing is causing the collapse of the world’s fisheries, having likely passed “peak fish”, destroying marine ecosystems, heavily polluting our oceans, and, along with climate change, contributing to “dead zones”. In effect, we are clear cutting our underwater rainforests, including the coral reefs and mangroves that support a rich array of biodiversity, as well as providing coastal protection, leading to the endangerment and extinction of many species. To catch wild fish, entire schools of fish are netted along with turtles, dolphins, whales, sharks, seals, birds, and others as “by-catch”, or “collateral damage”, leaving a destructive and deadly wake. In fact, over 1/5 (about 22%) of fish caught by U.S. commercial operations is “by-catch” (fish that is caught, but discarded), topping more than a million tons per year.<br><br><br><br>
Aquaculture, or the factory farming of fish, is also massively eco-destructive, often leading to over-fishing of wild fish for feed, de-oxygenation of the water, disease amongst fish and other marine animals, and the (over)use of antibiotics, hormones, chemicals, and genetically-engineered additives.<br><br><br><br>
Further, underwater “forests” of coral reefs and mangroves are being decimated by “rape-and-run” shrimp farming (exploiting and polluting coastal communities for 2 to 5 years before abandoning them), commercial overfishing and trawling, inefficient industrial shipping, and other fish-related mega-activities with no regard for the natural world, whether underwater or above.<br><br><br><br>
Fish often contain mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium as well as toxic POPs, including PCBs, DDT, and dioxin, which can’t be removed from the fish and which bio-accumulate in consumers. “A major health hazard from eating fish flesh comes from humans causing polluted aquatic environments. Fish are repositories for the industrial and municipal wastes and the agricultural chemicals flushed into the world’s waters”, says Richard Schwartz, Ph.D. “Mercury, especially high in tuna and swordfish, can cause brain damage, especially in growing children. PCBs, dioxin, and pesticides (such as DDT) have been linked to cancers, nervous system disorders, fetal damage, and many other health problems. Removing fish from your meals eliminates half of all mercury exposure and reduces one’s intake of other toxins.” According to Dr. Steve Patch, co-director of the Environmental Quality Institute, University of North Carolina-Asheville, “We saw a direct relationship between people’s mercury levels and the amount of… fish people consumed”.<br><br><br><br>
While fish often seem to contain high levels of protein and healthy fats and fatty acids (especially for the fish), this may not be the case and, in any event, there are easy alternatives for these nutrients, including olives, flax, and hemp seeds. Additionally, fish, as with other animals, contain saturated fat and cholesterol, which are unhealthy. Further, fish do not contain any fiber, vitamins, anti-oxidants, or phytonutrients, all of which are exclusive to plant foods. A scientific review of studies about fish has shown that it is not necessarily a healthy food for humans.<br><br><br><br>
It is understandable why some people go into denial, but it should be clear that fish—as with all other animals—feel pain, a phenomenon in animals needed for survival and success. Being caught on a hook is “like dentistry without novocaine, drilling into exposed nerves” (Dr. Tom Hopkins). Being pulled out of the water is like a person being held under water.<br><br><br><br>
Vegetarians protect fish, other marine animals, and the incredible oceans they live in.<br><br><br><br>
“Commercial fishing, aquaculture, and angling are environmentally catastrophic…. If you eat fish, you are supporting an industry that plunders our oceans with no regard for the horrible pain and suffering that fish and other marine animals endure or for the diverse ocean ecosystem that is imperative to the survival of all underwater life.”<br><br>
FishingHurts.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
As was already mentioned, fish are more intelligent than most people give them credit for (I've heard people argue that it's OK to eat fish because they're dumb):<br><br><br><br><span style="text-decoration:underline;">Fast-learning fish have memories that put their owners to shame</span><br><br><i>By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent<br><br>
Last Updated: 12:32am BST 03/10/2004<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
If you thought fish were cold, wet creatures who forget everything in three seconds flat, think again. Scientists have found they are fast learners, carry mental maps around in their heads - and can retain memories for months.<br><br><br><br>
Swimming gormlessly around in their bowls or tanks, fish have long been dismissed as dunces compared with "higher" animals such as rats, cats, dogs and primates. This view is now being challenged by findings that could re-ignite the debate over the cruelty of angling. Tests on fish in aquaria at Oxford University have shown that despite their tiny brains, they possess cognitive abilities outstripping those of some small mammals.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Research suggests that fish can store memories for months<br><br>
Dr Theresa Burt de Perera made the discovery using blind Mexican cave fish, which rely on subtle changes in pressure to detect the presence of objects around them.<br><br><br><br>
In experiments, Dr Burt de Perera found that the fish did more than merely avoid bumping into objects in their tank. They built a detailed map of their surroundings, memorising the obstacles in them within a few hours. Once stored in their brains, the fish used their "mental map" to spot changes in the obstacles around them - a feat that defeats hamsters.<br><br><br><br>
In one test, involving obstacles arranged in a specific order, the fish proved capable of memorising the order and quickly spotted when Dr Burt de Perera swapped obstacles around.<br><br><br><br>
According to Dr Burt de Perera, the findings - which appear in the current issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society - show that fish are under-estimated.<br><br><br><br>
"The public perception of them is that they are pea-brained numbskulls that can't remember things for more than a few seconds," she told the Telegraph. "We're now finding that they are very capable of learning and remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would surprise many people."<br><br><br><br>
Laboratory tests on other fish have found that they can store memories for many months, confounding the belief that they forget everything after a few seconds.<br><br><br><br>
Dr Culum Brown at the University of Edinburgh has found that Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago.<br><br><br><br>
Dr Burt de Perera's findings have been welcomed by fish-lovers as proof that their pets can do more than blow bubbles. "They are totally misunderstood," said Karen Youngs, the editor of Practical Fishkeeping. "We know from our readers that fish can recognise their owners, and some will go into a sulk if someone else tries to feed them."<br><br><br><br>
Mrs Youngs added that the research may mean that fish-owners have to make their aquaria a bit more interesting for their occupants: "We know that fish such as oscars do enjoy having a table-tennis ball to bash about."<br><br><br><br>
Mounting evidence for fish intelligence is likely to re-ignite the controversy over angling, which has focused mainly on whether fish can feel pain. "This research moves the debate along, by showing that fish aren't just swimming vegetables," said Dawn Carr, the director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "The more we find out about fish, the less likely people are to feel comfortable about impaling them on a hook for fun."<br><br><br><br>
Anglers dismissed such views. "Their intelligence just adds to the interest - it would be awful if people were only catching fish that were stupid," said Rodney Coldron, a spokesman for the National Federation of Anglers. "I think it might attract more people to fishing, by showing it's more of an even contest."</i><br><br><br><br>
On the other hand, I find it highly distressing that proof that fish are fairly intelligent was used by the Angler society as proof that it's "an even contest"<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/dizzy2.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":dizzy:">
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top