And the pile- on continues inspite of CK's refusal to face the truth!

[agentaqua]

Your middle jpg of the Easton table is particularly interesting, CK.

It's not just interesting in that of the 14 contaminents tested in this study - the one that you circled in red - the methyl mercury (and uncircled total as well) is higher (nearly double)....BUT in almost every one of the other 10 or so contaminent levels tested...

Farmed salmon were generally 10 TIMES higher in PCBs, pesticides, and BDPFs.

Didn't see any red circles on those 160 or so data points.

Also, it seems to me that the PCB levels (and dioxins and pesticides as well) in the farmed feed is very high: 40,000 to 107,000 ppt (ppts NOT ppms).

How is that? How do the oils get into the feed, and from where? How do the PCBs get into the oils used for the feed?

 

[agentaqua]

http://chemweb.ucc.ie/courses/DSV/CM3104/Carson-EnvSciTech-2005.pdf

Abstract: Concentrations of 160 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners or congener groups were determined in approximately 600 farmed Atlantic salmon from around the world and wild (ocean-caught) Pacific salmon from the Northeast Pacific. Concentrations and PCB congener profiles were analyzed to provide insight into the sources and uptake of PCBs in salmon as well as regional differences. Although total PCB concentrations in wild salmon appeared to be correlated to total lipid content, the increased proportion of total lipids in the farmed salmon could not account for the much greater PCB concentrations.

We investigated the PCB congener patterns of hundreds of salmon samples using principal component analysis to further illuminate regional and species differences. Three major PCB patterns were observed, in most wild fish (except British Columbia and Oregon chinook), in farmed fish from the Atlantic, and in most farmed fish from the Pacific. The PCB congener profiles of farmed salmon often closely corresponded to a sample of commercial feed purchased in the same region, indicating that the feed is likely to be the major source of PCBs for farmed salmon. In such cases where PCB profiles in fish and feed were similar, a comparison of congener concentrations in fish and the feed showed that the majority of congeners, with some notable exceptions, were bioaccumulative to the same extent, irrespective of physical properties.

I thought it was interesting that the PCB levels for the farmed salmon were not affected by the amount of lipids - like the wild salmon. Not sure what that means. Different source of PCBs? Different storage of PCBs in farm salmon?

 

[agentaqua]

here's another: http://www.meriresearch.org/Portals/0/Documents/Shaw et al 2005, Org Cmpds, PCBs in salmon.pdf

Recent studies have shown that concentrations of PCBs, dioxins, and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) can be significantly higher in farm-raised salmon than in wild salmon, and concentrations in farmed salmon from Europe are generally higher than those in farmed salmon from North America. In the US, the possible contribution of toxic POPs to human body burdens resulting from the trend of increasing farmed salmon consumption could clearly be of concern for heavy consumers.

 

[agentaqua]

and another: http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/SubmittedScienceHites.pdf

Summary. Analysis of more than two metric tons of salmon from around the globe reveals that concentrations of organochlorine contaminants, including polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, toxaphene, and dieldrin, are significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild, significantly higher in European farmed salmon as compared to those from North and South America, and occur at levels that may present a human health risk if farmed salmon are consumed more than once or twice per month.

The human health effects of exposure to PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene, and dieldrin in salmon tissues are a function of contaminant toxicity, concentration in fish tissues, and fish consumption rates. We used the approaches of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to assess 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 action or tolerance levels for PCBs, toxaphene, and dieldrin.

However, FDA action/tolerance levels are not strictly health based, do not address health risks of concurrent exposure to more than one contaminant, and do not provide guidance for dioxins in fish tissue. The U.S. EPA approach is designed to manage health risks by providing risk-based consumption advice for contaminated fish (for example, one should limit consumption of a particular species to a specified number of meals per month or week). The WHO uses an exposure-based approach for dioxins by issuing thresholds for contaminant intake rather than fish consumption advice; for consistency, we converted WHO intake levels for dioxins to fish consumption rates.

It should be noted that the non peer-reviewed opinion/fluff piece generated by the pro-industry association calling themselves "Positive Aquaculture Awareness" that CK links to - used the FDA levels in a failed attempt to discredit the peer-reviewed Hites report. Apparently Health Canada/CFIA parrots big brother US FDAs safe levels. They used their PR firm of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd headed by Patrick Moore to generate this response, along with the the guidance and support of Laurie Jensen

 

[Englishman]

Your middle jpg of the Easton graph is particularly interesting, CK.

It's not just interesting in that of the 14 contaminents tested in this study - the one that you circled in red - the methyl mercury (and uncircled total as well) is higher (nearly double)....BUT in almost every one of the other 10 or so contaminent levels tested...

Farmed salmon were generally 10 TIMES higher in PCBs, pesticides, and BDPFs.

Didn't see any red circles on those 160 or so data points.

Also, it seems to me that the PCB levels (and dioxins and pesticides as well) in the farmed feed is very high: 40,000 to 107,000 ppt (ppts NOT ppms).

How is that? How do the oils get into the feed, and from where? How do the PCBs get into the oils used for the feed?

I noticed that too Agent.

• DDT 6 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• Toxaphene more than 50% higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• Dieldrin (a nasty pesticide) 5 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• PCB’s 10 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• Dioxin like (congeners means similar types of compounds) 10 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• BDPE’s 20 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild!!

The important point here is that since many of these compounds are bio-accumulative, you are far worse off eating feed lot salmon than wild. Notwithstanding some of these absolute levels are in ppt, you are going to accumulate toxins in many cases 10 times faster for the same amount of fish consumed if you eat feed lot salmon.
I suspect the high concentrations of these contaminants in the feed comes about through the processing. Large amounts of raw fish and other ingredients are concentrated into the dry pellets. This will have the effect of accumulating those contaminants.

P.S. Although the above evidence and those papers you have published above will again be ignored , dismissed and downplayed by CK, as a former chemist I do have to agree with CK on one thing he has claimed

IF the synthetic Astaxanthin is EXACTLY the same molecular structure and sterochemistry (spatial arrangement of active groups) then it makes absolutely no difference to human health eating synthetic as opposed to natural Astaxanthin, whatever the precursors are that it is derived from. (BUT it must be exact for this to hold true)

(However, the real issue is the artificial food contaminated as discussed above, produces the grey product that requires colouring for marketing reasons in the first place.)

 

[ClayoquotKid]

I noticed that too Agent.

• DDT 6 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• Toxaphene more than 50% higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• Dieldrin (a nasty pesticide) 5 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• PCB’s 10 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• Dioxin like (congeners means similar types of compounds) 10 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild.
• BDPE’s 20 times higher in feed lot salmon than wild!!

The important point here is that since many of these compounds are bio-accumulative, you are far worse off eating feed lot salmon than wild. Notwithstanding some of these absolute levels are in ppt, you are going to accumulate toxins in many cases 10 times faster for the same amount of fish consumed if you eat feed lot salmon.
I suspect the high concentrations of these contaminants in the feed comes about through the processing. Large amounts of raw fish and other ingredients are concentrated into the dry pellets. This will have the effect of accumulating those contaminants.

P.S. Although the above evidence and those papers you have published above will again be ignored , dismissed and downplayed by CK, as a former chemist I do have to agree with CK on one thing he has claimed

IF the synthetic Astaxanthin is EXACTLY the same molecular structure and sterochemistry (spatial arrangement of active groups) then it makes absolutely no difference to human health eating synthetic as opposed to natural Astaxanthin, whatever the precursors are that it is derived from. (BUT it must be exact for this to hold true)

(However, the real issue is the artificial food contaminated as discussed above, produces the grey product that requires colouring for marketing reasons in the first place.)

Actually, that was Parts per TRILLION - Not Thousand.

"2. Making the numbers look bigger than they are
The authors used a measurement of parts per trillion (ppt) rather than the typically agreed standard of parts per million (ppm). Using the ppt measurement rather than ppm, allowed the authors to claim PCB concentrations in farmed salmon of 50,000 ppt – a number that appears alarmingly large to the layman reader or the less than resourceful journalist. Dr. Santerre points out that 50,000 ppt amounts to 0.05 ppm, noting that “most regulatory bodies do not even consider concentrations of PCB less than 0.05 ppm because they are inconsequential from a health perspective.”
http://darc.cms.udel.edu/Bioissues/PAAsalmon.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

ck: thought you were running away for the weekend? You already did your "good day to you, sir - I'm not talking to you anymore" response. Well thanks for taking the time to add more to this debate, even though it may have detracted from slaughtering fish or polishing Walling's photo.

STRANGE as it may sound - I am in agreement with not just Englishman's post, but CKs as well. IF the "artificially-produced" Astaxanthin is exactly the same molecule as the "naturally-produced" Astaxanthin - it should function exactly the same - regardless of the source. That is - as long as it is the same "handness" of the original. There are people who claim that there are differences in the "auras" of naturally-produced molecules - but I think that's a bit of a stretched concept. There are also other contaminents to worry about.

There could be differences in how that Astaxanthin and other "contaminents" within fish flesh interact and affect health dependent upon concentrations and types of "contaminents" and whether or not the contaminents are lipid or water soluable - but that would be a very complex and difficult thing to assess, as it would also depend on digestion and cooking effects as well.

It's pretty sh*tty and inexcusable that we have become so used to various industries polluting, that we have to try and figure-out how often it is safe to eat our foods w/o really knowing what the safe levels are over a lifetime of chronic consumption. Different authorities therefore allow have different safe level guidelines. Many of these persistent chemicals bioaccumulate, esp. lipid-soluable ones.

Thank you also CK for providing more detail as to the abbreviation PPT - which I assumed was parts per thousand. It was not explained as notes on the bottom of the table you posted, unless you missed it when you did the screen capture. The difference between PPT (trillions) and PPT (thousands) is 6 zeros, or 6 decimal points. It makes a difference.

 

[Whole in the Water]

I know I said I was signing off for the weekend, but the cigarette comparison (again) needs to be put to rest.

Lets look at a comparison of ingredients...

Farmed salmon:

View attachment 8702 View attachment 8703

Cigarettes:

View attachment 8704

I would think that any rational human being would be able to see the difference between these two things, and not be tempted to compare the historical actions of the tobacco lobby to the current efforts of the aquaculture industry in countering misinformation and outright fabrication by opponents.

This seems appropriate...
[ueZ6tvqhk8U] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U

You missed my whole point of my previous post CK which was to say the salmon feedlot industry is like other industries that cause harm (e.g. tobacco, big oil, nuclear power, industrial agriculture, etc, etc.) that twist, manipulate, obscure, and hide the truth and outright lie at times to say that their industry has minimal negative impact on humans, wildlife, the environment, etc. Many of us have heard all these spin doctoring tricks before by previous unsustainable and/or harmful industries and will continue call bullsh|t on any and all industry hacks that support their industries while conveniently and selectively ignoring growing scientific data (like Englishman cites, et al,) just like the tobacco industry did for years, all for the sake of big corporate interests and foreign profits. This was the comparison I was trying to make, not the negative health impacts of tobacco vs. feedot salmon. C'mon we both know both are unhealthy choices!