Free or Farmed, When Is a Fish Really Organic?

[Gifted Gourmet]

NY Times article

But what makes a fish organic?

That is a question troubling the Agriculture Department, which decides such things. The answer could determine whether Americans will be able to add fish to the growing list of organic foods they are buying, and whether fish farmers will be able to tap into that trend and the profits that go with it....  wild fish, whose living conditions are not controlled, are not likely to make the grade. And that has led to a lot of bafflement, since wild fish tend to swim in pristine waters and are favored by fish lovers.... it appears that only farm-raised salmon may pass muster, as may a good number of other farm-raised fish — much to the delight of fish farmers.

Your opinion?

Is it true that the farm-raised fish may actually be the best alternative in this debate?

[Corinna Dunne]

I find the term "organic fish" very misleading. I think that among some poeple, there is a misconception that it is better than "wild". It would be much clearer if these fish were labelled "organically farmed fish".

Fish farming worries me for the following ecological reason:

But those work-arounds have infuriated some environmentalists, who take issue with the idea that a fish could be called organic if it ate meal made from wild nonorganic fish. This constituency complains, among other things, that demand for fish meal is depleting wild fisheries.

Perhaps equally worrying is what "organic fish" are being fed:

Mr. May says he believes that he has created the perfect environment for organic fish. His “natural” fish are raised in pens that hold fewer fish than those for his regular farm-raised salmon, and they live in a body of water where fast-moving currents constantly provide fresh water and flush away waste.

His fish eat a mixture of oily brown pellets that resemble dog food and contain protein in the form of ground-up fish; other farm-raised salmon are fed protein from chicken and other land animals, he said.

Am I the only person who finds the idea of salmon being fed farmed chicken and other land animals a bit unsettling?

[Mallet]

One thing the task force did was rule out the possibility that wild fish could be labeled organic.

“It takes some thinking about,” said Rebecca J. Goldburg, a senior scientist at the advocacy group Environmental Defense, who was on the advisory panel. “What it comes down to is organic is about agriculture, and catching wild animals isn’t agriculture.”

I find this to be a particularly interesting statement. Catching wild animals certainly has a role to play in our food system, and the way certain stocks are managed it may as well be called agriculture.

I think the organic label should also carry a meaning that relates to the environmental impact of its practices. A sustainably managed fishery, paying attention not only to population numbers but to habitat preservation and minimizing bycatch, surely deserves the organic label.

[Gifted Gourmet]

Am I the only person who finds the idea of salmon being fed farmed chicken and other land animals a bit unsettling?

←

Wasn't the feeding of animal body parts one of the causes of bovine spongiform encephalopathy or Mad Cow Disease?

[JohnL]

Am I the only person who finds the idea of salmon being fed farmed chicken and other land animals a bit unsettling?

←

Wasn't the feeding of animal body parts one of the causes of bovine spongiform encephalopathy or Mad Cow Disease?

←

I will be avoiding shark fin soup!

(what about land sharks?)

[ghostrider]

His fish eat a mixture of oily brown pellets that resemble dog food and contain protein in the form of ground-up fish; other farm-raised salmon are fed protein from chicken and other land animals, he said.

Don't the oily brown pellets & ground-up land animals all have to come from certified organic sources in order for the fish that eat them to be labelled organic?

[Corinna Dunne]

Am I the only person who finds the idea of salmon being fed farmed chicken and other land animals a bit unsettling?

←

Wasn't the feeding of animal body parts one of the causes of bovine spongiform encephalopathy or Mad Cow Disease?

←

Exactly my thinking, although, if I remember correctly, the spinal chord was the issue with BSE.

[Gifted Gourmet]

Exactly my thinking, although, if I remember correctly, the spinal chord was the issue with BSE.

←

Correct .. but one can't be terribly certain that in the (rapid) processing of body parts of the chickens, some spinal tissue doesn't get mixed in with the rest ... maybe it isn't a cause for concern but it made me think and thinking of BSE always makes me, heaven should pardon me for this, 'nervous' ....

[JohnL]

Exactly my thinking, although, if I remember correctly, the spinal chord was the issue with BSE.

←

Correct .. but one can't be terribly certain that in the (rapid) processing of body parts of the chickens, some spinal tissue doesn't get mixed in with the rest ... maybe it isn't a cause for concern but it made me think and thinking of BSE always makes me, heaven should pardon me for this, 'nervous' ....

←

Do chickens get mad cow disease?

Are fish in danger of getting bird flu?

If a human gets mad cow disease from a cow and is eaten by a shark

would one be in danger when ordering shark fin soup?

I am about to become a vegetarian!!!!

Wait!

Isn't fish meal used on plants!!!???

Edited November 28, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[Gifted Gourmet]

Wait!  Isn't fish meal used on plants!!!???

←

Perhaps you have seen a mad geranium?

Seriously though, the article does bring up a number of issues related to our foods and their sources and what can be truly called organic ...

[JohnL]

Wait!  Isn't fish meal used on plants!!!???

←

Perhaps you have seen a mad geranium?

Seriously though, the article does bring up a number of issues related to our foods and their sources and what can be truly called organic ...

←

I hate it when plants go mad!

Yes the issue is important, however, attempting to use terms like "organic" is sheer folly.

The problem is defining these terms. They end up becoming confusing and worse meaningless.

They are more often than not, used by producers to justify charging more.

[Corinna Dunne]

Exactly my thinking, although, if I remember correctly, the spinal chord was the issue with BSE.

←

Correct .. but one can't be terribly certain that in the (rapid) processing of body parts of the chickens, some spinal tissue doesn't get mixed in with the rest ... maybe it isn't a cause for concern but it made me think and thinking of BSE always makes me, heaven should pardon me for this, 'nervous' ....

←

We're on the same page...

What I find most unsettling is the food chain disconnect, fish eating land animals. It spells doom in my totally unscientific opinion.

[JasonZ]

Michael Pollan, in the "Omnivore's Dilemma" (OD), has an excellent discussion of these issues, in the section on industrial agriculture. His discussion of organic is divided into "industrial organic" and what I would call "local, small-scale" organic ... industrial organic is typified by many of the same "efficiencies" that characterize "industrial agriculture".

The problem is that the word "organic" has been hijacked by the USDA, who now defines organic based on its own agenda, and not what people think or have always believed it should be.

Is a farmed fish that eats "organically fed" meat (chicken, beef) or "organic corn" to be considered "organic"? I don't recall seeing beds of corn on the ocean floor, with fish grazing on them ... and yet, fish are now being genetically modified (as were cattle a few years ago) to be able to eat foods they were never intended to eat.... Since reading OD, I've decided I will only eat wild caught fish, or fish that have been fed their natural foodstuffs ... and will go for community sustainable agriculture, rather than the Whole Foods version of organic, which simply tries to avoid pesticides and fertilizers, but is otherwise indistinguishable from industrial food.... the word "organic" has become as useless as the term "low fat" or the word "natural" -- meaningless in accurately describing anything we care about.

As for BSE, yes, it results from feeding parts of the nervous system (spinal cord or brain matter) from an animal to the same species. Are there likely to be versions that can cross species -- I would think so. Does the USDA really care? When you're killing 400 cattle an hour in an industrial slaughterhouse and killing poultry even faster, can you really be sure what part is going where? I love meat, but this is enough to either make me a vegetarian .... or a hunter/forager.

Europe wisely banned many of the practices common in US agriculture. Maybe when the new Congress arrives in January, food safety (not from terrorists but from our own capitalists) should be a high priority.

Edited December 1, 2006 by JasonZ (log)

[godito]

Part of the problem is the term "organic" and the infatuation some people have with it. We had a huge discussion (me and some other cooks) on people's percpetion of "organic". I think most people view organic as the opposite of genetically modified. I don't think it's wrong for the USDA or any government agency to set up the regulations under which food can be labeld organic. It is a problem, however, when those regulations are favoring big producers.

Now, fish... that's a tough one. There is more control over farm-raised fish. You can control what they eat, the kind of water they have, their procreation and their growth. Plus, with all the industrial fishing that's going on (The Japanese are famous for invading Chilean waters to fish ilegally. Thay just take anything into their huge factory-boats and process whatever they don't freeze), farm-raised fish may be the only fish available in the future.

Now, of course, wild fish, although more exposed to polution, is better tasting. I wouldn't dare call it organic, though.

[JasonZ]

Part of the problem is the term "organic" and the infatuation some people have with it.

Now, of course, wild fish, although more exposed to polution, is better tasting. I wouldn't dare call it organic, though.

←

Now, you see, I would consider anything left in its own habitat as "organic". If we pollute that habitat, the fish (or wild turkey or boar) may not be particularly healthy to eat, but it has lived its life as its predecessors have, it has hunted for its own food, and lived its life without the overt (key word) control of man ... whether it is still healthy to eat is another question. The example that sticks in my mind is the salmon from Lake Michigan, which used to have PCP from polluted water in its subcutaneous fat; these fish were not farmed or controlled in any other way by man, and were thus "wild game". They hunted for their food and lived naturally, which ultimately led to their being polluted and being "unhealthy", but "organic" in the USDA definition.

I think governmental agencies should not be allowed to redefine words which are already in common use and in the dictionary ... I now longer know what "natural" or "organic" mean ...

[godito]

Part of the problem is the term "organic" and the infatuation some people have with it.

Now, of course, wild fish, although more exposed to polution, is better tasting. I wouldn't dare call it organic, though.

←

Now, you see, I would consider anything left in its own habitat as "organic". If we pollute that habitat, the fish (or wild turkey or boar) may not be particularly healthy to eat, but it has lived its life as its predecessors have, it has hunted for its own food, and lived its life without the overt (key word) control of man ... whether it is still healthy to eat is another question. The example that sticks in my mind is the salmon from Lake Michigan, which used to have PCP from polluted water in its subcutaneous fat; these fish were not farmed or controlled in any other way by man, and were thus "wild game". They hunted for their food and lived naturally, which ultimately led to their being polluted and being "unhealthy", but "organic" in the USDA definition.

I think governmental agencies should not be allowed to redefine words which are already in common use and in the dictionary ... I now longer know what "natural" or "organic" mean ...

←

I completely agree. Now, I'm no expert, but I think organic means (among other things) something that grows with only organic feed (no chemicals) and that's harder to control in the wilderness.

Again, I'm not familiar with the USDA definition of organic. Maybe I should do some more research

[JohnL]

Part of the problem is the term "organic" and the infatuation some people have with it.

Now, of course, wild fish, although more exposed to polution, is better tasting. I wouldn't dare call it organic, though.

←

Now, you see, I would consider anything left in its own habitat as "organic". If we pollute that habitat, the fish (or wild turkey or boar) may not be particularly healthy to eat, but it has lived its life as its predecessors have, it has hunted for its own food, and lived its life without the overt (key word) control of man ... whether it is still healthy to eat is another question. The example that sticks in my mind is the salmon from Lake Michigan, which used to have PCP from polluted water in its subcutaneous fat; these fish were not farmed or controlled in any other way by man, and were thus "wild game". They hunted for their food and lived naturally, which ultimately led to their being polluted and being "unhealthy", but "organic" in the USDA definition.

I think governmental agencies should not be allowed to redefine words which are already in common use and in the dictionary ... I now longer know what "natural" or "organic" mean ...

←

I would suggest that there are consequences to everything.

For example--the risk of Mad Cow disease is greater when one eats--natural, organic, wild game!

Parasites and myriad diseases from wild--seafood from unpolluted waters are possibilities for people who eat these fish.

The truth is--nothing is 100 per cent safe!

Years ago when people ate wild caught, natural, organic they died at earlier ages-- they got food poisoning at greater rates as well as myriad other food born illnesses that were once prevalent.

I'd say that looking at where we are at today--things are better in terms of health and safety--and we are feeding a population that is a hundredfold larger.

Are things perfect-NO--food production mass or otherwise can be improved.

This infatuation with vague and debated (by proponents) terms like organic and natural etc assumes we are going to hell in a handbag foodwise.--that just ain't the case. It does sell books and various headline grabbing expose's though.

If hormones and antibiotics in cattle were killing us--well seems to me our population growth indicates otherwise!

As for the USDA it is a miracle they function as well as they do what with all the special interests --and not just the big so called agrobusinesses, last I looked the healthfood industry and the Sierra Club and the animal rights folks are all registered lobbying groups with lots of cash.

People are not dying in the streets.

The food supply is pretty safe.

(for eg please name the verified cases of say--mad cow disease in humans in this country).

We have been eating genetically modified foods for a long time.

So far so good! The incidence of famine has decreased dramatically in large part because of the often derided agribusinesses. (the scorecard indicates that Monsanto has done more good for mankind than Whole Foods). Technology has enabled us to clean up polution and correct mistakes (and ok criminal acts)--shad are back in the Hudson River!

Fish farming will actually help stocks of wild fish thrive--technology can be good.

I have no problem with Mr Pollan. He is thought provoking and we certainly have much to learn.

Businesses both large and small as well as our government have their good and bad sides.

There are few inherently evil people killing unsuspecting consumers anywhere. There is room for improvement all around!!!

This is not a zero sum game.

And can we stop this nonsense about how much more "enlightened" the Europeans are. I recommend a film "Our Daily Bread".

They are no better or worse off than we are.

In the end. I for one, prefer we focus on artisinal foods-- produced by dedicated folks who want to simply produce the best tasting food items.

I believe that mass producers can and are improving techniques all the time--to produce safe food. Small producers are welcome competition in quality and price and value is good. it will lead to better techniques--better food.

It is good that we have people like Pollan speaking out and provoking thought.

Let's not get carried away though-- a little perspective is in order.