fish farming has negative consequences for America
Ronda Roaring
> A Farm-Raised Fish Tale
> by Joshua Reichert
> December 5, 2005
>
> Op-eds (Pew staff)
> San Jose Mercury News
>
> The ongoing debate between scientists and public
> health experts over the health impacts of eating farm
> raised salmon is not only confusing to consumers, but
> has regrettably overshadowed some of the other
> significant problems associated with farming fish in
> the sea. This is particularly worrisome now that the
> Bush Administration has proposed opening up America's
> exclusive economic zone, the area that extends from 3
> to 200 nautical miles from land, to aquaculture.
>
> Marine aquaculture, which is primarily confined to
> state waters, or that area within 3 miles from the
> shoreline, involves the production of mollusks such as
> oysters, clams and mussels, as well as fish. Fresh
> water fish such as carp have been farmed in ponds for
> thousands of years with little environmental damage.
> However, the raising of fish in the ocean is a
> relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to the early
> 1960's. Most of the problems associated with marine
> aquaculture are linked to the farming of fish such as
> salmon which, because they are carnivores, are fed a
> diet comprised principally of ground up fish and fish
> oil.
>
> There are numerous problems associated with raising
> carnivorous fish in densely packed net pens in the
> ocean. They include pollution and degraded water
> quality resulting from uneaten food and the large
> amounts of fecal material they produce, along with the
> pesticides, antibiotics, and other chemicals used to
> promote their growth, combat disease and control
> algae. When caged fish escape, as they do in large
> numbers each year as a result of storms or faulty
> infrastructure, they threaten wild fish populations by
> competing for available food and habitat, changing the
> genetic makeup of wild stocks through interbreeding,
> and spreading pathogens and parasites.
>
> Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is that, on
> average, between two and three pounds of wild fish are
> needed to produce one pound of farmed fish such as
> salmon. Hence, while many people assume that farming
> marine fish serves to reduce pressure on wild fish
> populations, the opposite is actually the case. The
> farming of marine fish, the way it is practiced today,
> further exacerbates pressure on wild forage fish such
> as anchovies, herring and menhaden that are commonly
> used in fishmeal. In turn, this places additional
> stress on other parts of the marine food web that
> depend on these wild fish for food.
>
> Government officials claim that raising fish and
> shellfish in the sea is similar to raising livestock
> on land. It is not. Beef and dairy cattle, sheep, and
> poultry are primarily herbivores. They eat little or
> no animal protein. A more apt land analogy to raising
> carnivorous fish would be rounding up wild deer and
> ducks to feed to farm-raised wolves or tigers.
> Obviously, we don't do this as it would make no
> economic sense. It would cost far more to raise one of
> these meat eating animals than one could ever hope to
> gain from its sale as a food source.
>
> The government also claims that a proposed $5 billion
> aquaculture industry, five times greater than that
> which currently exists, could generate 500,000 direct
> jobs. However, extrapolating from the marine
> aquaculture industry worldwide, the number of actual
> jobs likely to be created by an industry of this size
> is far lower, closer to 50,000.
>
> Finally, the government argues that increasing the
> domestic marine aquaculture industry will help to
> offset the $8 billion annual trade deficit in seafood.
> One wonders, however, why taxpayers should subsidize a
> part of the seafood industry that has potentially
> damaging consequences to the U.S. marine environment,
> and also lowers prices that U.S. fishermen get for
> their catch, when the economic benefits are likely to
> be marginal at best.
>
> While fish farming in the ocean may hold potential to
> produce seafood without damaging the marine
> environment, it does not now. Before further opening
> up the nation's oceans to this type of activity, the
> aquaculture industry needs to fix some of the major
> environmental problems associated with raising
> carnivorous fish in the sea, and Congress should
> require that it do so. For unless steps are taken to
> ensure that farming marine fish is done with adequate
> environmental safeguards, the costs to the nation's
> marine environment, and ultimately to all Americans,
> may far outweigh its benefits.
>
> Joshua Reichert directs the Environment Program at The
> Pew Charitable Trusts. This op-ed column was also
> published by the Charleston Post and Courier, Houston
> Chronicle and Maine Sunday Telegram.
>
>
Yahoo! Photos
Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.
Wim de Kok
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3302/05.html
Stories on cultured meat appeared in:
New York Times Magazine, 11 December 2005 (below)
The Economist, The World in 2006, p.109
New Harvest: Advancing Meat Substitutes
http://www.new-harvest.org
in...@new-harvest.org
In Vitro Meat
By RAIZEL ROBIN
New York Times Magazine, "The Year in Ideas," December 11, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/ca2ul
In July, scientists at the University of Maryland announced the development of
bioengineering techniques that could be used to mass-produce a new food for
public consumption: meat that is grown in incubators.
The process works by taking stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal (or a
piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal) and putting them in a
three-dimensional growth medium - a sort of scaffolding made of proteins.
Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and minerals, the stem
cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, which eventually form
muscle fibers. Those fibers are then harvested for a minced-meat product.
Scientists at NASA and at several Dutch universities have been developing the
technology since 2001, and in a few years' time there may be a lab-grown meat
ready to market as sausages or patties. In 20 years, the scientists predict,
they may be able to grow a whole beef or pork loin. A tissue engineer at the
Medical University of South Carolina has even proposed a countertop device
similar to a bread maker that would produce meat overnight in your kitchen.
There are still several major hurdles to clear, like figuring out a way to get
stem cells to proliferate cheaply enough that meat could be mass-produced. But
if in vitro meat becomes viable, the environmental and ethical consequences
could be profound. The thought of beef grown in the lab may turn your stomach,
but in vitro meat would avoid many of the downsides of factory farming, most
notably pollution: in the United States, livestock produce 1.4 billion tons of
waste each year. What's more, once a meat-cell culture exists, it could
function the way a yeast or yogurt culture does, so that meat growers wouldn't
need to use a new animal for each set of starter cells - and the meat industry
would no longer be dependent on slaughtering animals.