Could you provide a link to the source. I would love
to subscribe to their service and check out their
sources?

Thank you,

JoeZychik
--- Paleogal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> September 3, 2003
> NUTRITION NEWS FOCUS
> "Nutrition news is important.  We help you
> understand it!"
>
> Today's Topic: Wild or Farmed Fish For Health
>
> There is uncertainty among the public whether farmed
> fish is less
> healthy than wild caught fish, particularly salmon.
> Claims that
> farmed fish have less omega-3 fats, more pollutants,
> pollute the
> ocean, and so forth have been made.  Some issues are
> easily settled
> while others are not.
>
> Theoretically, farmed salmon could  have more
> pollutants like PCBs
> than wild salmon, primarily because farmed salmon
> has more fat and
> PCBs dissolve into fat.  But several analyses shows
> the opposite.
> However, the level in both types is so low that it
> is not a health
> issue.  Salmon farming is highly regulated in the
> U.S.; the fish
> cannot be farmed under any conditions that pose a
> hazard to human
> health by exposure to contaminants or infectious
> agents.
>
> The claim that farmed fish have less omega-3 fat is
> true only when
> expressed as a percent of total fat.  Because farmed
> fish has more
> total fat, the omega-3 content is the same as in
> wild fish.  The
> charge that farmed salmon are artificially colored
> is untrue.  Wild
> salmon eat smaller creatures that contain
> astaxanthin and other
> carotenoids that turn their flesh orange.  The same
> pigment is added
> to the fish meal fed to farmed salmon.
>
> Wild salmon have higher mercury levels than farmed
> fish but, again,
> the levels are low enough in both that this is not a
> concern.  These
> are examples where statistically significant
> differences are exploited
> by some but are biologically meaningless.  The
> bottom line is salmon
> is a healthy food and it really doesn't matter where
> your fish got
> fat.