Re: Re: question for Rodney

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

Quick question, I am fairly new to this also and I would like to know why canned fish and not fresh fish? Thanks

Sandy

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

Quick question, I am fairly new to this also and I would like to know why canned fish and not fresh fish? Thanks

Sandy

[Guest guest]

At 03:49 AM 1/17/2006, you wrote:

>Some people also prefer canned (wild) salmon to fresh (farmed)

>salmon. But that is not an issue for me.

Hi, Rodney. Farmed is said to have more dioxin, mercury and other

toxins - and less of the omega-3's and the red Astaxanthin (so they

dye farm raised salmon). You don't buy that?

--

Regards,

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 03:49 AM 1/17/2006, you wrote:

>Some people also prefer canned (wild) salmon to fresh (farmed)

>salmon. But that is not an issue for me.

Hi, Rodney. Farmed is said to have more dioxin, mercury and other

toxins - and less of the omega-3's and the red Astaxanthin (so they

dye farm raised salmon). You don't buy that?

--

Regards,

Ken

[Guest guest]

is all canned fish already cooked?

Photos Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

[Guest guest]

is all canned fish already cooked?

Photos Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

[Guest guest]

At 01:01 PM 1/17/2006, you wrote:

Hi Ken:

I have not heard that salmon contains material amounts of mercury.

The big issue about a year ago was PCBs - polychlorinated

biphenyls.

At the time of that flurry of publicity, I emailed the source of the

scare 'The Environmental Working Group' and asked them two

questions.

First, did they agree that the amounts they were complaining about

amounted to parts per TRILLION? Yes, spelt with a

" T " . Second, did

they have any scientific evidence to suggest that parts per trillion

might be expected to have any effects on humans?

Of course they did not reply. Also of note was that they took care

in their press releases not to use the term 'parts per trillion' or

billion, or million, or whatever as is usually done, but instead in

terms of nanograms per whatever, so that most observers would never

realize the microscopically tiny amounts they were trying to create a

scare about.

I do not know their motivation for this.

Here's part of it:

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/113

EWG’s game plan is simple. It releases “scientific” analyses designed

to make the public (especially parents) worry tremendously about tiny

amounts of pesticide exposure from fruits and vegetables. Throwing around

phrases like “cancer risk” and “nervous system toxicity” attracts press

coverage and lends EWG the veneer of scientific respectability. The

“Environmental Worrying Group,” as some commentators have dubbed the

organization, then goes on to recommend that Americans “buy as much

organic food as possible” in order to avoid the supposed health risks

associated with these pesky chemicals.

What they’re not telling us, of course, is that most of the pesticides we

find on fresh produce are completely natural, and manufactured by plants

themselves. In a 1995 interview with Vegetarian Times magazine,

the award-winning Berkeley biologist Bruce Ames insisted that “99.99% of

the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants to ward off insects

and other predators… Reducing our exposure to the 0.01% of ingested

pesticides that are synthetic is not likely to reduce cancer rates.”

etc.

There's a great deal at the linked page about the various financial

machinations this group and its earlier incarnations have gone through

since 1979 before it became a subsidiary of the Tides Foundation/Center

in 1996.

Maco

[Guest guest]

At 01:01 PM 1/17/2006, you wrote:

Hi Ken:

I have not heard that salmon contains material amounts of mercury.

The big issue about a year ago was PCBs - polychlorinated

biphenyls.

At the time of that flurry of publicity, I emailed the source of the

scare 'The Environmental Working Group' and asked them two

questions.

First, did they agree that the amounts they were complaining about

amounted to parts per TRILLION? Yes, spelt with a

" T " . Second, did

they have any scientific evidence to suggest that parts per trillion

might be expected to have any effects on humans?

Of course they did not reply. Also of note was that they took care

in their press releases not to use the term 'parts per trillion' or

billion, or million, or whatever as is usually done, but instead in

terms of nanograms per whatever, so that most observers would never

realize the microscopically tiny amounts they were trying to create a

scare about.

I do not know their motivation for this.

Here's part of it:

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/113

EWG’s game plan is simple. It releases “scientific” analyses designed

to make the public (especially parents) worry tremendously about tiny

amounts of pesticide exposure from fruits and vegetables. Throwing around

phrases like “cancer risk” and “nervous system toxicity” attracts press

coverage and lends EWG the veneer of scientific respectability. The

“Environmental Worrying Group,” as some commentators have dubbed the

organization, then goes on to recommend that Americans “buy as much

organic food as possible” in order to avoid the supposed health risks

associated with these pesky chemicals.

What they’re not telling us, of course, is that most of the pesticides we

find on fresh produce are completely natural, and manufactured by plants

themselves. In a 1995 interview with Vegetarian Times magazine,

the award-winning Berkeley biologist Bruce Ames insisted that “99.99% of

the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants to ward off insects

and other predators… Reducing our exposure to the 0.01% of ingested

pesticides that are synthetic is not likely to reduce cancer rates.”

etc.

There's a great deal at the linked page about the various financial

machinations this group and its earlier incarnations have gone through

since 1979 before it became a subsidiary of the Tides Foundation/Center

in 1996.

Maco

[Guest guest]

At 03:01 PM 1/17/2006, Rodney wrote:

>But some groups like these

>have found it easier to raise funds to pay themselves fat salaries if

>they manage to scare a few people, rather than tell them that the

>amounts are so small as to be difficult to distinguish from zero.

Thanks, I feel I should have known that.

What about the flip side? The claim that farmed salmon are lower in

omega-3's and astaxanthin?

--

Regards,

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 03:01 PM 1/17/2006, Rodney wrote:

>But some groups like these

>have found it easier to raise funds to pay themselves fat salaries if

>they manage to scare a few people, rather than tell them that the

>amounts are so small as to be difficult to distinguish from zero.

Thanks, I feel I should have known that.

What about the flip side? The claim that farmed salmon are lower in

omega-3's and astaxanthin?

--

Regards,

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 08:14 PM 1/18/2006, you wrote:

>There is at least one study (Physicians Health Study)

>which concluded it was not the oil.

Yes, I'd read one study from a few years ago (sorry, don't have a

reference) that found CV benefit in those who ate a Mac's fish

sandwich once a week. It was suggested that the benefit was from the tyrosine.

As for astaxanthin, it's " a naturally occurring carotenoid pigment,

is a powerful biological antioxidant.. Astaxanthin has been the focus

of a large and growing number of peer-reviewed scientific publications. "

http://www.astaxanthin.org/

and it's also an anti-inflammatory. Both the astaxanthin and O-3's

apparently need to be eaten by fish in order to end up inside the

fish on your plate. So, I was asking if anyone could verify or refute

that aspect of farmed vesus fresh - and this really applies more to

someone eating salmon more than once a week.

(Also, as an aside: with the world being what it is, there is a brand

of farm raised salmon that is named " Ocean Raised "

>Saying one should not eat farmed salmon because it does not have as

>much x or y as wild salmon, is a bit like saying one should not eat

>canned green beans because fresh green beans contain more nutrients.

>Sure fresh green beans (or fresh anything) are an excellent source of

>nutrients. But canned green beans are very nearly as good if the

>other is not conveniently available.

There is, OTOH, the argument that canned and/or frozen is better,

because it goes quickly from the field to the nearby processing

facility, whereas the fresh produce might take many days to end up in

your local market.

--

Regards,

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 08:14 PM 1/18/2006, you wrote:

>There is at least one study (Physicians Health Study)

>which concluded it was not the oil.

Yes, I'd read one study from a few years ago (sorry, don't have a

reference) that found CV benefit in those who ate a Mac's fish

sandwich once a week. It was suggested that the benefit was from the tyrosine.

As for astaxanthin, it's " a naturally occurring carotenoid pigment,

is a powerful biological antioxidant.. Astaxanthin has been the focus

of a large and growing number of peer-reviewed scientific publications. "

http://www.astaxanthin.org/

and it's also an anti-inflammatory. Both the astaxanthin and O-3's

apparently need to be eaten by fish in order to end up inside the

fish on your plate. So, I was asking if anyone could verify or refute

that aspect of farmed vesus fresh - and this really applies more to

someone eating salmon more than once a week.

(Also, as an aside: with the world being what it is, there is a brand

of farm raised salmon that is named " Ocean Raised "

>Saying one should not eat farmed salmon because it does not have as

>much x or y as wild salmon, is a bit like saying one should not eat

>canned green beans because fresh green beans contain more nutrients.

>Sure fresh green beans (or fresh anything) are an excellent source of

>nutrients. But canned green beans are very nearly as good if the

>other is not conveniently available.

There is, OTOH, the argument that canned and/or frozen is better,

because it goes quickly from the field to the nearby processing

facility, whereas the fresh produce might take many days to end up in

your local market.

--

Regards,

Ken