fish oils and nutrition

agentaqua

Well-Known Member
The previous discussion on Omega-3’s and comparisons between potential health benefits and costs between farmed and wild salmon from:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=16
brings-up some important points.

In order to discuss this – we need to understand what an Omega-3 is, and more importantly - what is fat?

Fats and oils are a generic name for lipids - which consist of chains of fatty acids. A visual representation of different fatty acids below is from Wikkipedia:
Rasyslami.jpg


A fatty acid has a carboxylic acid at one end and a methyl group at the other end. Don’t zone-out, yet – it’s not really that hard to follow – just continue reading for a few more seconds.

The carboxyl end is what allows these long fatty acid chains to bond, since carboxylic acids are polar, and form hydrogen bonds with each other. Think of it as the sticky end.

The other end - methyl group – doesn’t bond with water too well. It’s what causes the saying it mixes “like oil and water”. It’s the non-sticky end.

The Carbon atoms in a fatty acid are identified by Greek letters on the basis of their distance from the carboxylic acid group – or the sticky end. The carbon atom closest to the carboxylic acid is the alpha carbon, the next adjacent carbon is the beta carbon, etc. In a long-chain fatty acid the carbon atom in the methyl group is called the omega carbon because omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet.

You can see where this is leading – when we talk about Omega-3’s. It’s just an accurate way of describing the exact chemical structure of the molecule. The molecule is described by where the double bonds are.

These carbon atoms may be joined together by single or double bonds.

In a saturated fat molecule, every carbon atom bonds with two hydrogen atoms. Foods with large amounts of saturated fats tend to raise cholesterol levels in humans, while foods with unsaturated fat tend to lower cholesterol levels. Saturated fatty acids raise total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The low density cholewsterol is thought to be bad as it sticks to the arterial walls. Foods that contain a high proportion of saturated fat are butter, ghee, suet, tallow, lard, coconut oil, cottonseed oil, and palm kernel oil, dairy products (especially cream and cheese), meat, chocolate, and some prepared foods.

In a monounsaturated fat molecule, one pair of hydrogen atoms is missing.

In a polyunsaturated fat molecule (PUFA), more than one pair of hydrogen atoms is missing. Corn and canola oils are polyunsaturated fats. Almost all naturally occurring PUFAs have a curly structure that is predominately in what is called a “cis” formation. This is in contrast to oils and fats that have been hydrogenated through chemical manipulation. Here a lot of the fat has been turned into a “trans” formation - a completely different curled structure. This is important because chemical shape is very important to how the body responds to it. These trans-fatty acids are harmful to the body and are much worse than saturated fats for heart disease.

Many oils have percentages of unsaturated, monosaturated, and polyunsaturated components.

Compounds with less than 8 carbon atoms are considered to be fatty acids, whereas fatty acids derived from natural fats and oils may be assumed to have at least 8 carbon atoms, and often have many more – up to 24. Most of the natural fatty acids have an even number of carbon atoms, because their biosynthesis involves acetyl-CoA, a coenzyme carrying a two-carbon-atom group.

Omega-3 fatty acids have a double bond three carbons away from the methyl carbon, whereas omega-6 fatty acids have a double bond six carbons away from the methyl carbon. Omega-9 oils are commonly found in avocados, olive and canola oil.

Okay – now we can talk about the differences between the oils and what our bodies need.

The human body can produce all but two of the fatty acids it needs. These two, linoleic acid (LA) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), are widely distributed in plant oils. In addition, fish oils contain the longer-chain omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Other marine oils, such as from seal, also contain significant amounts of docosapentaenoic acid (DPA or 22:6-n3), which is also an omega-3 fatty acid. Although the body to some extent can convert LA and LNA into these longer-chain omega-3 fatty acids, the omega-3 fatty acids found in marine oils help fulfill the requirement of essential fatty acids (and have been shown to have wholesome properties of their own).

Since they cannot be made in the body from other substrates and must be supplied in food, they are called essential fatty acids. Mammals lack the ability to introduce double bonds in fatty acids beyond carbons 9 and 10. Hence linoleic acid (AA acid) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) are essential fatty acids for humans.

The ‘industrialized’ Western diet is very high in omega-6 PUFAs (Linoleic acid or 18:3n-6) and very low in omega-3 PUFAs. Cultures that have a high dietary fish intake (Japanese, Inuits) have very low rates of these ‘Industrialized’ associated diseases noted above because their diet is very high in LC omega-3 PUFAs. Fish and fish oil serves as the only meaningful source of LC omega-3 PUFAs. Flaxseed contains only short-chain omega-3 (ALA), which is not the biological equivalent of the long-chain omega-3 molecules found in fish (DHA and EPA).

The typical American diet has an arachidonic acid or AA/EPA (omega-6 to omega-3) ratio > 20:1. For anti-inflammatory purposes, the ideal or desired ratio is 2:1. This can only realistically be achieved through omega-3 fish oil supplementation. The LC omega-3 FA’s EPA and DHA are a much better source of omega-3 than the SC ALA, typically found in flax seed oil. Although ALA can be converted in the body to EPA & DHA, it’s a very poor and inefficient conversion, and there are many factors that further inhibit this conversion including excess alcohol, caffeine, smoking, aging, high cholesterol and saturated fats, high sugar diets and vitamin and mineral deficiency (such as zinc, chromium and B6).

Okay – finished the chemistry talk. Lets summarize:
1/ Polyunsaturated fats better than saturated ones,
2/ linoleic acid (ALA acid) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) are essential fatty acids for humans. The Canadian FDA recommends about 1.5 grams/day of omega-3.
3/ the (AA or Linoleic acid) omega-6 to omega-3 (EPA and DHA) should be something more like 2:1, rather than 20:1.
4/ High levels of omega-6 can actually block omega-3 usage, since omega-6 competes for the same elongase enzymes that the body uses in utilizing the omega-3 oil. Similarly, conversion of ALA is inhibited by n-6 and n-3 PUFAs

Enough already you say. Lets look at the oils and nutrition differences between farmed and wild salmon…

The fish highest in omega-3 fatty acids are salmon, sardines, herring, trout, mackerel and both albacore and blue fin tuna. Cold water fish get a lot of omega 3 fats from the fish they eat, which get it in turn ultimately from cold water plankton. It may also be that cold itself stimulates fish to make more omega-3's.

I put together a list to compare oils between fish species below:
2458094793_09fced3842_o.jpg


From this picture – it can be seen that while cod and salmon have the highest Omega-3 levels; tuna, flounder and rockfish have better (lower) Omega-6 to Omega-3 levels. However, all the fish (exception lemon sole) have low Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratios.

There are conflicting reports about whether wild or farmed salmon have more Omega-3s. I'd guess that each study had differently fed fish, and that needs to be explained before any meaningful comparisons can be made.

Also, returning wild salmon stop eating, and use-up oils as an energy source once the enter fresh water. So location and nutritional health of the fish examined are also keys to comparing.

For the most part - all fish and fish oils are ultimately good for you (you can do without the contaminants, though).

Having said all of this; farmed salmon is much higher in saturated fats than wild salmon. This can contribute to health problems. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farmed Atlantic salmon contain 70 percent more fat than wild Atlantic salmon and 200 percent more fat than wild Pacific salmon.

There are also changes in the fatty acid composition of farmed salmon; as salmon farmers are switching from fish-based oils in the feed, to other plant-based oils and from fishmeal-based filler to corn meal filler.

Then there are other contaminants in the feed, as well. I’ll save that conversation for later…
 
I must be reading with the non-sticky end:) I'll definitely have to go over those posts 3-4 times for it to sink in. Thanks for the information.
 
An explanation of reasons for large variations in the quality and quantities of Omega-3s and other lipids in farmed fish studies are due to the differences in the fish feed supplies.

For example: fishmeal and fish oil used in salmon feeds is approximately 35% and 25% respectively, but significant differences exist between the major producing countries, as follows:
Canada: mean fishmeal level 20-25%, mean fish oil level 15-20%;
Chile: mean fishmeal level 30-35%, mean fish oil level 25-30%;
Norway: mean fishmeal level 35-40%, mean fish oil level 27-32%; and
UK: mean fishmeal level 35-40%, mean fish oil level 25-30%.

The nutritional composition and consequent feed/economic value of fish meals and oils is highly variable depending upon species processed (i.e. species-mix composition), fishing season (some fish bulk-up during plankton blooms), fish age & sexuall maturity, material being processed (heads, guts, whole fish, freshness etc) and fishing & preserving method, and meal/oil processing method employed.

The area of supply for the fishmeal and fishoils will influence the nutritional and contaminent qualities of the imported feed. It is generally recognized that the forage fishes of the reduction fisheries of the Atlantic and European region are more contaminated than their Southern and Northern Pacific counterparts.

To a large extent these differences are due to the local market availability and cost of adequate fishmeal and fish oil replacers within the major salmon producing countries (i.e. such as the ready availability of rendered animal byproduct meals and plant oilseed meals and oils in Canada and Norway) and the intended market for the farmed salmon (i.e. the USA not currently having market restrictions to the importation of Canadian salmon fed rations containing plant pulse meals and/or terrestrial animal byproduct meals).

At the present time, Canada and Norway lead the way in terms of the current level of dietary marine protein and lipid substitution at 55-70% and 50%, followed by Chile at 60% and 20%, and the UK at 45% and 10%, respectively.

All of these terrestrial oil substitutions means less Omega-3's or less essential fatty acids in the flesh of the farmed salmon. In Canada; as terrestrial filler and oil substitutes - we use canola meal, pea meal, soybean meal, canola (called rapeseed, and is often genetically-modified) oil, poultry oil, maize gluten meal, feather meal, poultry byproduct meal, soybean protein concentrate, and crystalline amino acids.

Terrestrial animal by-products incorporated into farmed fish feeds includes:
Fats - industrial tallows, edible beef tallow, lard, yellow grease, feed grade fats;
Animal protein meals - meat and bone meal (MBM), meat meal, hydrolyzed feather meal, poultry by-product meal, blood meal, and
Other miscellaneous products, including specific organ meals, such as liver meal and lung meals, chick hatchery waste, bone meal, hide fleshing meals, and blood/rumen contents meals.

Other countries have some similar, and some different substitutes. So, lots of variability in what is fed to farmed salmon.

Another factor to be taken into consideration when comparing farmed and wild salmon oil content and quality - is:

What components of the salmon are compared?

Most farmed salmon supporters compare fillets (with skin removed) between wild and farmed supplies. On BC's coast - most people smoke wild salmon with the skin on, or can/mason jar whole chunks of wild salmon with skin (and backbone) intact.

The skin is a sponge for oils, as compared to the flesh. This is often not accounted for when a lab compares wild and farmed salmon.
 
Good review and well considered points.

I agree that there are variations between trace contaminant analytical labs with regard to the specific tissue analyzed. Most remove the skin so that only the portion of the salmon most commomly consumed is analyzed and it eliminates the issue of contamination from the skin (which can occur during transport and processing).

Smoked fish are another issue because (1) they accumulate PAHs and dioxins/furans during the smoking process and (2) they lose moisture which increases the contaminant concentration on a wet weight basis.

Canned fish however compare well to raw fillets.

In general, BC farmed salmon are nutritious and compare very closely to wild salmon in terms of EPA, DHA, ALA and trace contaminants. True, terrestrial based oil replacement can reduce FA content but BC farmed salmon are fed a "finishing diet" prior to harvest to boost FA content.

Interestingly mature Chinook (4-5 yr) contain the highest concentrations of trace contaminants in wild salmon which could be expected since they are pisciverous and long lived; moreso than the other Pacific species. As an aside: chinook are the primary diet of our Pacific Killer whales and sadly they are the most contaminated mammals on the planet with regard to PCBs.
 
yammy5, great points:
quote:Interestingly mature Chinook (4-5 yr) contain the highest concentrations of trace contaminants in wild salmon which could be expected since they are pisciverous and long lived; moreso than the other Pacific species. As an aside: chinook are the primary diet of our Pacific Killer whales and sadly they are the most contaminated mammals on the planet with regard to PCBs.
I just posted on PCBs and briefly on Peter Ross's orca PCB study on the fishfarming thread at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=18

What I found very interesting was his comment:"The very high PCB levels and moderate PBDE levels observed in these killer whales are with little doubt due to a combination of what might be described as “local” (via nonsalmonid prey) and “global” or “background” (via salmon as prey) sources. Salmon accumulate most of their POP burden at sea”.

He then goes onto state: "These results highlight the potentially skewed importance of locally residing prey items as a contaminant source to resident killer whales. The threefold higher levels of PCBs and fivefold higher PBDE levels in southern resident killer whales compared with their like-eating northern resident counterparts may, in fact, attest to such a local influence, where the southern residents must contend with the industrial coastal waters of southern British Columbia and northern Washington State. Studies of nonmigratory harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) (Ross et al. 2004) and their prey (Cullon et al. 2005) support the idea that Puget Sound represents a regional PCB “hotspot” and possible contaminant source to southern resident killer whales."

I think he's hit the nail on the head, here -especially when he is talking about chinooks...

Chinooks are broken into 2 groups, with respect to their juvenile rearing and life history patterns: "ocean-type", and "river-type".

River-type chinooks typically spend one full year in fresh water before migrating to the ocean; while ocean type chinook migrate to salt water in the first year of their life - often after a freshwater stay of less than 3 months (often called the 90 day wonders).

The ocean-type juveniles move around quite a bit (hundreds of km along the coasts), including going North. Most sub-adult "winter" chinook are ocean-type. These are the mostly likely prey for orcas, and these chinook would in turn prey on local herring stocks.

After 1 year in the freshwater, river-type chinook smolts then rocket into the Gulf of Alaska away from the coasts, unlike the ocean-type.

River-type chinook are found in interior rivers, and rivers north of the Skeena, while ocean-type are more coastal and southern. This is a very similar pattern Ross describes in relation to PCB loading in Orcas.
 
Good info on the variation in Chinook biology ~ never knew that!

Agent, I found a couple articles in response to the Hites paper that will interest you...

The Health Benefits of Eating Salmon

THE RECENT REPORT BY R. A. HITES ET AL. about toxic contaminants in salmon (“Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon,” 9 Jan., p. 226) may have unintended negative consequences on human health. Yes, the source of toxic contaminants in farmed fish should be investigated and reduced as much as reasonably possible, but the proven health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids should not be overlooked.

The GISSI prevention trial (1) showed that consumption of 700 mg daily of omega-3 fatty acids from fish reduced total mortality by 20% in Italians with coronary artery disease (CAD). This corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 49 (95% confidence interval 30 to 175), indicating that one person with CAD avoids death when 49 people eat 21 g of omega-3 fatty acids monthly for 3.5 years. A monthly diet of 21 g of omega-3 fatty acids is present in ~1190 g (42 ounces) of salmon.

On the basis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, Hites et al. suggest that consumption of 55 g monthly of the most contaminated salmon would increase theoretical cancer risk by 1 in 100,000. If cancer risk were linear, 1190g of salmon monthly would increase cancer risk by 22 cases per 100,000, corresponding to a number needed to harm (NNH) of 4500. This suggests that one person would develop cancer for every 4500 people who eat 1190 g of the most contaminated salmon (21 g of omega-3 fatty acids) monthly. Therefore, the ratio of the NNH for cancer to the NNT for total mortality in people with CAD is 4500/49 = 92. This suggests that 92 Italians with CAD who eat 1190 g of salmon monthly would avoid death for every Italian that develops cancer. This analysis suggests that eating even the most contaminated salmon has clear health benefits. Clearly, salmon with fewer contaminants or other clean sources of omega-3 fatty acids would be better, but avoidance of salmon to avoid these contaminants without replacing the omega- 3 fatty acids from other sources would have adverse health implications.

The quality of the evidence in favor of the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in people with CAD is high: The GISSI prevention trial was a randomized clinical trial. The GISSI trial estimates were only for 3.5 years of treatment. The benefit is likely greater for more prolonged treatment.

In contrast, the EPA guidelines are estimates based on nonhuman toxicity or observational studies: There is no clinical trial showing that these toxins, when given to humans, cause cancer. Overall, this analysis suggests that ingestion of salmon should not be limited, especially in people with CAD.\

CHRISTOPHER M. REMBOLD
University of Virginia, Box 801395, Charlottesville,
VA 22908, USA.
Reference
1. F.Valagussa et al., Lancet 354, 447 (1999).
 
Response #2 to the Hites paper:

Risk-Benefit Analysis of Eating Farmed Salmon

IN THEIR REPORT “GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF organic contaminants in farmed salmon, R. A. Hites and co-workers analyzed wild and farmed salmon samples from North and South America and Europe for organic pollutants (9 Jan., p. 226). The authors conclude that, because of chemical contaminants, farmed salmon should not be eaten more often than 0.25 to 1 times per month. However, the model used does not take into account any beneficial effects of eating fish.

We analyzed the risks and benefits of the recommendation to reduce the intake of farmed salmon to 1 meal (227 g) per month. The authors estimated cancer risk of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxaphene, and dieldrin using a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency model, which maximizes the estimated risk by assuming a linear correlation between cancer and exposure and by using upper confidence interval estimates (1). We included cardiovascular benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (2, 3), but no other positive effects associated with fish. We calculated the benefits as the best available estimates, being careful not to exaggerate benefits, if data were sparse.

We also performed a value-of-information (VOI) analysis (4, 5) for the decision. There is always uncertainty about the true values of variables affecting the decision. It often prevents the decision-maker from knowing the optimal alternative. VOI is defined as the expected benefit that occurs when an uncertainty is resolved, and the decision can be based on more solid evaluation.In our analysis, political questions (other than the decision under analysis) and scientific uncertainties were both treated in the same manner as uncertain variables.

The effects were estimated for the European Economic Area countries (population 387 million). Excess cancer mortality due to pollutants in farmed salmon was estimated at 210 cases per year [90% confidence interval (CI) 110 to 340], supporting restrictive recommendations. The number of cancer deaths that could be prevented by the restrictive recommendation on farmed salmon use was estimated at 40 deaths per year (90% CI 2 to 110). However, the recommendation would worsen the net health effect (cancer and cardiac deaths combined) by 5200 deaths per year (90% CI 34 to 19,000). It is therefore clear that if the main concern is the net health benefit, the decision-maker will not recommend restrictions. None of the scientific uncertainties considered, e.g., levels of pollutants in farmed versus wild salmon (4), changed this conclusion. The cost of not knowing (i.e., the VOI) whether pollutant effect or net health effect should be considered was estimated at 20 avoidable deaths per year. As shown above, scientific uncertainties have little relevance for the decision about recommending reduction in the intake of farmed salmon.However, the importance of scientific uncertainties depends on the decision under analysis. This is clearly seen when considering an alternative way to reduce the cancer risk due to pollutants in farmed salmon. We analyzed a decision to lower the amount of pollutants in fish feed. This lowering was estimated to save 360 deaths per year mainly because of possible increase in consumption of salmon.

In this case, several scientific and political uncertainties influenced which decision alternative appeared to be the optimal one (see figure). The variable with the largest VOI was how consumers would change their consumption of salmon after being informed that further regulations are needed for fish feed.

In conclusion, the question about restricting consumption of farmed salmon appears to be nonscientific, because the outcome of the analysis was totally driven by a political variable, whether to ignore the health benefits of fish. The question about fish feed regulation was partly scientific and would benefit from further research.

JOUNI T. TUOMISTO,1 JOUKO TUOMISTO,1,2
MARKO TAINIO,1 MARJO NIITTYNEN,1
PIA VERKASALO,1 TERTTU VARTIAINEN,1,3
HANNU KIVIRANTA,1 JUHA PEKKANEN1

1Centre of Excellence of Environmental Health Risk
Analysis, Department of Environmental Health,
National Public Health Institute, Post Office Box 95,
FIN-70701 Kuopio, Finland. 2Department of Public
Health and General Practice, University of Kuopio
70210, Finland. 3Department of Environmental
Sciences, University of Kuopio, Kuopio 70210, Finland.
References and Notes
1. U.S. EPA, Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisory, vol. 2, Risk
Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. (U.S. EPA,
 
I have to say, Yammy - Thank you very much for your effort in finding and posting this information above. I appreciate it. Hope everyone else does, too.
 
I may disagree with Hites on some issues but it is only fair that I post his response(s) to the articles written above (as I just discovered in the journal SCIENCE):

Hites' Response Article #1

REMBOLD RECOMMENDS THAT THE “INGESTION of salmon should not be limited, especially in people with [coronary artery disease].” As we acknowledge in our Report, there are health benefits associated with consumption of omega-3 fatty acids from fish, and calculation of the overall risk-benefit of contaminants in fish that are high in heart-healthy fats is challenging. To date, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the risk/benefit trade-offs associated with the consumption of such fish. In fact, the most recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association, although recommending fish as a heart-healthy food, states that “the fish recommendations must be balanced with concerns about environmental pollutants, in particular PCB and methyl mercury…”
(1). In addition, omega-3 fatty acids do not protect against cancer
(2).To complicate matters, the contaminants we report in salmon are also associated with a variety of noncancer effects. Of particular note are the anthropometric and eurobehavioral effects of PCBs in children exposed in utero and during early childhood
(3). A comprehensive risk/benefit analysis for contaminated, farmed Atlantic salmon must account for all health risks associated with exposure to contaminants in these fish.

Nevertheless, such an assessment, although helpful, is not essential to protect public health because there are many alternative sources of omega-3 fatty acids that have considerably lower contaminant concentrations, including wild Pacific salmon. These sources include other seafood that is not contaminated and nonfish foods, including flaxseed, walnut and canola oils, nuts, and legumes. One does not need to eat contaminated salmon to consume omega-3 fatty acids.

RONALD A. HITES,1* JEFFERY A. FORAN,2
DAVID O. CARPENTER,3 M. COREEN HAMILTON,4
BARBARA A. KNUTH,5 STEVEN J. SCHWAGER6
1School of Public and Environmental Affairs,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
2Midwest Center for Environmental Science and
Public Policy, Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA.
3Institute for Health and the Environment,
University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY 12144, USA.
4AXYS Analytical Services, Post Office Box 2219,
2045 Mills Road, Sidney, BC, Canada V8L 3S8.
5Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. 6Department
of Biological Statistics and Computational
Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853,
USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: HitesR@Indiana.edu
References
1. P. M. Kris-Etherton,W. S. Harris, L. J. Appel, Circulation
106, 2747 (2002).
2. P. D. Terry, T. E. Rohan, A.Wolk, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 77,
532 (2003).
3. S. I. Schantz, J. J.Widhom, D. C. Roce, Environ. Health
Perspect. 111, 357 (2003).



Article #2 Response

TUOMISTO ET AL. PROVIDE AN INTERESTING analysis of the risk/benefit trade-offs associated with consuming farmed salmon with elevated contaminant concentrations. We agree with their point that any decision regarding the consumption of a contaminated food must balance risks and benefits.

As we state in our Report, the presence of elevated levels of contaminants in farmed salmon complicates the risk/benefit equation.

Without contaminants, farmed salmon would indeed be an ideal source of protein, rich in heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

Cancer risk estimates allow comparison of the health risks associated with consumption of farmed Atlantic versus wild Pacific salmon and demonstrate the importance of considering alternative sources of salmon that provide the benefits of high omega-3 concentrations with considerably lower contaminant concentrations.
Regardless of the methodological issues, the risk/benefit equation is clearly tipped in the direction of net benefit for fish low in contaminants and high in hearthealthy fats such as wild Pacific salmon.
Other foods can also provide these same benefits, without commensurate contaminant- associated risk. Tuomisto et al. conclude that reducing contaminants in fish feed is the most effective way to reduce risk and preserve benefits of consuming farmed Atlantic salmon.

We agree with this conclusion, although further research is required to fully understand the role of feed in contributing to tissue concentrations of the chlorinated organic contaminants in farmed Atlantic salmon. We understand that some feed producers have been taking steps to reconstitute their feed, in part by looking to substitutes for fish meal and oil (1). We would expect a reduction in contaminants in feed as a result, although the process must be accompanied by a comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that the intended benefits are realized. Until then, consumers need to be aware of the risks, as well as benefits, of consuming contaminated salmon so they can make informed choices based on their own health concerns.


RONALD A. HITES,1* JEFFERY A. FORAN,2 DAVID O.
CARPENTER,3 M. COREEN HAMILTON,4 BARBARA A.
KNUTH,5 STEVEN J. SCHWAGER6
1School of Public and Environmental Affairs,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
2Midwest Center for Environmental Science and
Public Policy, Milwaukee,WI 53202, USA. 3Institute
for Health and the Environment, University at
Albany, Rensselaer, NY 12144, USA. 4AXYS
Analytical Services, Post Office Box 2219, 2045
Mills Road, Sidney, BC, Canada V8L 3S8.
5Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. 6Department of
Biological Statistics and Computational Biology,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: HitesR@Indiana.edu
Reference
1. D. Rideout, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance,
personal communication.
 
Back
Top