Food Project
Essay
The Given Fish: Hidden Costs of the Fishing Industry
Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime. However, man wants to be given the fish, and thus we have water polluting fish farms and environmentally destructive fishing methods to ensure that fish are available for everyone. While the farms are less destructive to the environment, wild caught fish are healthier as they contain fewer contaminates.
Fish are associated with two main health particulars, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and Omega-3 fatty acids. PCBs are artificial, oily chemicals that, before they were banned, were used in paint, plastic, and electrical gear (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). These substances most likely cause melanomas, liver cancer, gall bladder cancer, biliary tract cancer, gastrointestinal tract cancer, brain cancer, and breast cancer (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”). In addition to these extreme effects, PCBs can also provoke nose and lung irritation, severe acne, rashes and eye problems (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”). These risks relate mainly to babies, children, and adults; however they can also cause severe hazards for a human fetus. If a pregnant mother were exposed to PCBs, the child could have a variety of issues ranging from lowered IQ to motor control problems to decreased birth weight and head size (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”). The most common way that people are exposed to PCBs is through fish (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”).
Fish are also affected by these PCBs. Since there is not a naturally occurring process that removes PCBs, animals higher on the food chain accumulate them (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). If these levels get too high, then that animal will die. PBC’s are also found in farm-raised fish, as the food they eat is made from other fish. In fact, the amount of PCBs in farmed fish is much greater than the amount found in wild fish. A large study consisting of 700 salmon samples printed in the January 2009 edition of Science confirms this:
The study found that the PCB concentrations in farm-raised salmon were, on average, almost eight times higher than the concentrations in wild salmon (36.63 parts per billion vs. 4.75) (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”).
This number, despite its size, is still much lower than the FDA’s cutoff number for PCBs, which is an astronomical 2,000 parts per billion (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). This “safe zone,” however, is overly broad as people experience reactions to PCB exposure even at current levels.
While there may be a seemingly overwhelming number of reasons not to eat fish, fish and seafood also come equipped with natural advantages that counter several of the negatives and lower the chance of many other health risks. These natural ingredients are the Omega-3 fatty acids most commonly found in seafood (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). While these helpful substances have been deemed necessary for normal growth and development in addition to brain function, they aren’t and can’t be made by the human body (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). Besides development and growth of the body and mind, these fatty acids also help with an extensive list of diseases and conditions: high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoporosis, depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD, skin disorders, schizophrenia, cognitive decline, inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, macular degeneration, menstrual pain, colon cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). They also lower the risk of irregular heart rhythm, stroke, and heart attack (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). Despite the downsides of fish consumption, these many benefits have led organizations like the American Heart Association to believe fish should be eaten as often as twice a week (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). Farm-raised salmon are a great source of this substance having 3½ grams per every six ounces of fish, a much greater ratio than any other popular fish (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”).
Despite the fact that fish are killed and eaten, their health is also a concern. Like with any other organism, a crowded living space means that diseases and parasites are easily spread. One such bug is the sea louse, which eats its host fish. Luckily, fish farms search for these creatures monthly and treat for them whenever numbers reach an average on three lice per fish (“Farmed vs. Wild Salmon”). While this may seem like a good solution, it, in reality, may not be enough as most fish farms contain thousands of fish which could mean a sea lice infection of three times that number. To keep these fish healthy, treatments would need to be utilized more often than they already are. This choice would not be a perfect solution either as treatments, like antibiotics, can leak into the immediate environment causing toxic conditions (“Tox Town – Fish Farm Text Version”).
In general, fish farms can cause excessive pollution, not only through antibiotics but also through fish feed, fish feces, and untreated water with these substances (“Will Farmed Fish Feed the World”). According to the Worldwatch Institute, “A fish farm with 200,000 salmon releases nutrients and fecal matter roughly equivalent to the raw sewage generated by 20,000 to 60,000 people” (“Will Farmed Fish Feed the World”). This pollution occurs underneath the fish pens in Baltic habitats, but only remains in this location for a short while before it is “cleaned up” by the ocean’s currents (“Farmed vs. Wild Salmon”). While it is temporary in its current location, the pollution is then spread to the rest of the ocean through the currents that these farms claim remove the pollution, thus making the cleaning issue more difficult to deal with, as it would be easier to sanitize one spot rather than the entire ocean. While the currents do affect cleaning negatively, they also lessen the problems caused by the pollution as the ocean water dilutes it and allows it to be recycled. Fish feed is not only part of this pollution problem, but it also wastes energy and fish as more fish are needed to produce it than the food actually feeds (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”). In Fact, “to create 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of high-protein fishmeal, which is fed to farmed fish, it takes 4.5 kg (10 lbs.) of smaller pelagic, or open-ocean, fish” (“Fish Farming’s Growing Dangers”). This ratio is only worsened when the size of the fish increases:
Ranched tuna, for instance, dine on live pelagic fish, such as anchovies, sardines and mackerel, but it takes about 20 kg (44 lbs.) of such feed to get 1 kg of tuna ready for a sushi bar near you. (“Fish Farming’s Growing Dangers”)
Fish feed is also how farm raised fish are exposed to PCBs (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”).
All of this pollution can also lead to habitat destruction and other environmental issues. Environmentally fish farms can introduce non-native species to surrounding environment, damage coastal area when a new production site is built, and spread diseases from fish in the growing pens to the wild fish (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”). However, they do refrain from the use of some environmentally damaging gear and techniques like dynamite fishing (using explosives to kill/stun fish) and trawling that damage and destroy habitats (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”). They also avoid killing non-target animals, as there aren’t any in the tanks (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”).
Wild fish, on the other hand, produce little to no pollution, but the methods used to collect them can destroy entire ecosystems. Trawling for example, a technique that involves dragging nets through the ocean, traps almost everything in its path including species that humans do not eat. By the time these fish are taken out of the nets, most if not all of them are dead (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish – New York Times”). If that weren’t enough, trawling also destroys the rest of the ecosystem as well, not even coral reefs are spared; all that’s left is mud (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”). These mud trails left by trawling boats not only can be seen from space, but make it almost impossible for anything to live in what was once a flourishing environment (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”). Any fish that are left are forced to leave, for if they stay, all of the floating mud blinds them and clogs their gills, and they die (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish – New York Times”). This also leads to an algae bloom that prompts an increase in bacteria (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”). When added together all of these factors create a dead zone. Even if the worst-case scenario does not occur, the environment becomes a shrimp farm where any other sea life is gone (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”).
Although fish and fishing may not seem like a big problem, it is not just going to disappear, as the average per person consumption of fish is up 1000% since 1970 (“Will Farmed Fish Feed the World”). Despite the drawbacks of fish farms, a sustainable version of aquaculture is the best choice. Remember where your fish comes from the next time you buy.
Works Cited
1. Farmed vs. Wild Salmon :: Washington State Dept. of Health. Washington State Dept. of Health. April 21, 2013 http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Food/Fish/FarmedSalmon.aspx
2. Fish Farming’s Growing Dangers – Time. Time Magazine. April 21, 2013. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1663604,00.htm
3. Tox Town – Fish Farm Text Version. National Library of Medicine. April 21, 2013. http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/locations.php?id=25
4. Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish – New York Times. New York Times. April 21, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/15mud.html?_r=0
5. Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs – The Family Heath Guide. Harvard Medical School. April 21, 2013. http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0404b.shtml
6. What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs? Hudson River Sloop Clearwater. April 21, 2013. http://www.clearwater.org/news/pcbhealth.html
7. Omega-3 Fatty Acids. University of Maryland Medical Center. April 21, 2013. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/omega-3-000316.htm
8. Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae. The Environmental Blog. April 21, 2013. http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2012/03/farmed-fish-good-bad-algae/
9. Will Farmed Fish Feed the World?½Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch Institute. April 21, 2013. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5883
Fish are associated with two main health particulars, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and Omega-3 fatty acids. PCBs are artificial, oily chemicals that, before they were banned, were used in paint, plastic, and electrical gear (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). These substances most likely cause melanomas, liver cancer, gall bladder cancer, biliary tract cancer, gastrointestinal tract cancer, brain cancer, and breast cancer (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”). In addition to these extreme effects, PCBs can also provoke nose and lung irritation, severe acne, rashes and eye problems (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”). These risks relate mainly to babies, children, and adults; however they can also cause severe hazards for a human fetus. If a pregnant mother were exposed to PCBs, the child could have a variety of issues ranging from lowered IQ to motor control problems to decreased birth weight and head size (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”). The most common way that people are exposed to PCBs is through fish (“What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs?”).
Fish are also affected by these PCBs. Since there is not a naturally occurring process that removes PCBs, animals higher on the food chain accumulate them (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). If these levels get too high, then that animal will die. PBC’s are also found in farm-raised fish, as the food they eat is made from other fish. In fact, the amount of PCBs in farmed fish is much greater than the amount found in wild fish. A large study consisting of 700 salmon samples printed in the January 2009 edition of Science confirms this:
The study found that the PCB concentrations in farm-raised salmon were, on average, almost eight times higher than the concentrations in wild salmon (36.63 parts per billion vs. 4.75) (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”).
This number, despite its size, is still much lower than the FDA’s cutoff number for PCBs, which is an astronomical 2,000 parts per billion (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). This “safe zone,” however, is overly broad as people experience reactions to PCB exposure even at current levels.
While there may be a seemingly overwhelming number of reasons not to eat fish, fish and seafood also come equipped with natural advantages that counter several of the negatives and lower the chance of many other health risks. These natural ingredients are the Omega-3 fatty acids most commonly found in seafood (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). While these helpful substances have been deemed necessary for normal growth and development in addition to brain function, they aren’t and can’t be made by the human body (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). Besides development and growth of the body and mind, these fatty acids also help with an extensive list of diseases and conditions: high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoporosis, depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD, skin disorders, schizophrenia, cognitive decline, inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, macular degeneration, menstrual pain, colon cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). They also lower the risk of irregular heart rhythm, stroke, and heart attack (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”). Despite the downsides of fish consumption, these many benefits have led organizations like the American Heart Association to believe fish should be eaten as often as twice a week (“Omega-3 Fatty Acids”). Farm-raised salmon are a great source of this substance having 3½ grams per every six ounces of fish, a much greater ratio than any other popular fish (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”).
Despite the fact that fish are killed and eaten, their health is also a concern. Like with any other organism, a crowded living space means that diseases and parasites are easily spread. One such bug is the sea louse, which eats its host fish. Luckily, fish farms search for these creatures monthly and treat for them whenever numbers reach an average on three lice per fish (“Farmed vs. Wild Salmon”). While this may seem like a good solution, it, in reality, may not be enough as most fish farms contain thousands of fish which could mean a sea lice infection of three times that number. To keep these fish healthy, treatments would need to be utilized more often than they already are. This choice would not be a perfect solution either as treatments, like antibiotics, can leak into the immediate environment causing toxic conditions (“Tox Town – Fish Farm Text Version”).
In general, fish farms can cause excessive pollution, not only through antibiotics but also through fish feed, fish feces, and untreated water with these substances (“Will Farmed Fish Feed the World”). According to the Worldwatch Institute, “A fish farm with 200,000 salmon releases nutrients and fecal matter roughly equivalent to the raw sewage generated by 20,000 to 60,000 people” (“Will Farmed Fish Feed the World”). This pollution occurs underneath the fish pens in Baltic habitats, but only remains in this location for a short while before it is “cleaned up” by the ocean’s currents (“Farmed vs. Wild Salmon”). While it is temporary in its current location, the pollution is then spread to the rest of the ocean through the currents that these farms claim remove the pollution, thus making the cleaning issue more difficult to deal with, as it would be easier to sanitize one spot rather than the entire ocean. While the currents do affect cleaning negatively, they also lessen the problems caused by the pollution as the ocean water dilutes it and allows it to be recycled. Fish feed is not only part of this pollution problem, but it also wastes energy and fish as more fish are needed to produce it than the food actually feeds (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”). In Fact, “to create 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of high-protein fishmeal, which is fed to farmed fish, it takes 4.5 kg (10 lbs.) of smaller pelagic, or open-ocean, fish” (“Fish Farming’s Growing Dangers”). This ratio is only worsened when the size of the fish increases:
Ranched tuna, for instance, dine on live pelagic fish, such as anchovies, sardines and mackerel, but it takes about 20 kg (44 lbs.) of such feed to get 1 kg of tuna ready for a sushi bar near you. (“Fish Farming’s Growing Dangers”)
Fish feed is also how farm raised fish are exposed to PCBs (“Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs”).
All of this pollution can also lead to habitat destruction and other environmental issues. Environmentally fish farms can introduce non-native species to surrounding environment, damage coastal area when a new production site is built, and spread diseases from fish in the growing pens to the wild fish (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”). However, they do refrain from the use of some environmentally damaging gear and techniques like dynamite fishing (using explosives to kill/stun fish) and trawling that damage and destroy habitats (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”). They also avoid killing non-target animals, as there aren’t any in the tanks (“Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae”).
Wild fish, on the other hand, produce little to no pollution, but the methods used to collect them can destroy entire ecosystems. Trawling for example, a technique that involves dragging nets through the ocean, traps almost everything in its path including species that humans do not eat. By the time these fish are taken out of the nets, most if not all of them are dead (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish – New York Times”). If that weren’t enough, trawling also destroys the rest of the ecosystem as well, not even coral reefs are spared; all that’s left is mud (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”). These mud trails left by trawling boats not only can be seen from space, but make it almost impossible for anything to live in what was once a flourishing environment (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”). Any fish that are left are forced to leave, for if they stay, all of the floating mud blinds them and clogs their gills, and they die (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish – New York Times”). This also leads to an algae bloom that prompts an increase in bacteria (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”). When added together all of these factors create a dead zone. Even if the worst-case scenario does not occur, the environment becomes a shrimp farm where any other sea life is gone (“Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish”).
Although fish and fishing may not seem like a big problem, it is not just going to disappear, as the average per person consumption of fish is up 1000% since 1970 (“Will Farmed Fish Feed the World”). Despite the drawbacks of fish farms, a sustainable version of aquaculture is the best choice. Remember where your fish comes from the next time you buy.
Works Cited
1. Farmed vs. Wild Salmon :: Washington State Dept. of Health. Washington State Dept. of Health. April 21, 2013 http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Food/Fish/FarmedSalmon.aspx
2. Fish Farming’s Growing Dangers – Time. Time Magazine. April 21, 2013. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1663604,00.htm
3. Tox Town – Fish Farm Text Version. National Library of Medicine. April 21, 2013. http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/locations.php?id=25
4. Commercial Fishing - Environmental impact – Trawlers – Fish – New York Times. New York Times. April 21, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/15mud.html?_r=0
5. Getting your omega-3s vs. avoiding those PCBs – The Family Heath Guide. Harvard Medical School. April 21, 2013. http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0404b.shtml
6. What are the Human Heath Effects of PCBs? Hudson River Sloop Clearwater. April 21, 2013. http://www.clearwater.org/news/pcbhealth.html
7. Omega-3 Fatty Acids. University of Maryland Medical Center. April 21, 2013. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/omega-3-000316.htm
8. Farmed Fish: The Good, The Bad, and The Algae. The Environmental Blog. April 21, 2013. http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2012/03/farmed-fish-good-bad-algae/
9. Will Farmed Fish Feed the World?½Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch Institute. April 21, 2013. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5883
Reflection
This food project had multiple aspects leading up to a final exhibition. This project started with the class reading passages from The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The book told us that there were multiple food chains: Industrial, Industrial-Organic, Local, and Hunter-Gatherer, and went into detail about each of these types of eating. We, however, were only able to read the section on the industrial food chain, and read other works of the other types of diets. After we had read about the food industry, we began the initial research we would need to choose a topic for our research papers. After I had completed this step, I decided that my paper would be on the fishing industry, specifically the pros and cons of wild caught fish and farmed fish. Once we had found our topics, we began to research in earnest and found information on many websites. When we had all the information we needed, we assembled it into an outline. Finally, we wrote up the information we had found into our papers and, after a few critiques, revisions, and our final exhibition, we had finished our food project.
The food project taught us about the food industry from corn to meat, and even to McDonald’s, and what we learned changed the ways we think and allowed us to set eating goals for ourselves. My thinking changed in that I think more about food. I wonder about what’s in the food, why it’s in the food, where my food comes from, and whether or not it’s actually healthy. All this wondering and thinking led me to set the goal of eating more locally, so I know where my food comes from, what’s in it, and therefore have a better idea if it is healthy or not.
While figuring out if food is healthy or not can be difficult, overall, this project was fairly easy for me. There was, however, one aspect that I found challenging: revising my research paper. This was difficult for me, as I already thought it was nearly perfect. It was also challenging for me trying to revise based on the peer critiques, even though I kept an open mind. This problem was due to the lack of good, solid ideas for revision. For example, one student asked me to add a pronunciation for polychlorinated biphenyls, and I did, but later this idea was rejected by our student teacher. While those who critiqued my paper did make some helpful corrections, I found most attempted revisions nearly useless.
Even though critiques did challenge me, overall I found that my process worked well for this type of writing. I used an orderly step by step process. I learned that making an extremely detailed outline is particularly helpful when writing a research paper. I would not change anything about the way I wrote this paper even if given the chance.
To navigate one’s own personal omnivore’s dilemma, information is key. One needs to know where the food comes from, what is actually in it, why those ingredients are in it, how fresh it is, and if it is healthily. Only when these questions are answered can the omnivore’s dilemma be solved, and this solution is different from person to person. No one can tell you how to solve the issue of what to eat; each person must answer all of these questions for himself or herself and in this way solve the omnivore’s dilemma.
The food project taught us about the food industry from corn to meat, and even to McDonald’s, and what we learned changed the ways we think and allowed us to set eating goals for ourselves. My thinking changed in that I think more about food. I wonder about what’s in the food, why it’s in the food, where my food comes from, and whether or not it’s actually healthy. All this wondering and thinking led me to set the goal of eating more locally, so I know where my food comes from, what’s in it, and therefore have a better idea if it is healthy or not.
While figuring out if food is healthy or not can be difficult, overall, this project was fairly easy for me. There was, however, one aspect that I found challenging: revising my research paper. This was difficult for me, as I already thought it was nearly perfect. It was also challenging for me trying to revise based on the peer critiques, even though I kept an open mind. This problem was due to the lack of good, solid ideas for revision. For example, one student asked me to add a pronunciation for polychlorinated biphenyls, and I did, but later this idea was rejected by our student teacher. While those who critiqued my paper did make some helpful corrections, I found most attempted revisions nearly useless.
Even though critiques did challenge me, overall I found that my process worked well for this type of writing. I used an orderly step by step process. I learned that making an extremely detailed outline is particularly helpful when writing a research paper. I would not change anything about the way I wrote this paper even if given the chance.
To navigate one’s own personal omnivore’s dilemma, information is key. One needs to know where the food comes from, what is actually in it, why those ingredients are in it, how fresh it is, and if it is healthily. Only when these questions are answered can the omnivore’s dilemma be solved, and this solution is different from person to person. No one can tell you how to solve the issue of what to eat; each person must answer all of these questions for himself or herself and in this way solve the omnivore’s dilemma.