Discussion Board

As you're all at least somewhat familiar with Dr. McDougall and reading this, my guess is you care about the enviroment. It's been driving me slightly crazy lately that my mum and her husband have upped their fish in take in a big way since deciding to be "enviromentally friendly."

Why has this been driving me crazy?

I've been really supportive of their new recycling, composting and energy saving ventures but - out of no where - as soon as they started doing this they also started eating fish again. My mum is "vegetarian" so long as "the fish isn't too meaty" and her husband calls himself "vegetarian" apart from when he eats meat

Maybe it's a case of "don't think of the colour orange." You know, you can't help but think of orange when I tell you not to think of it. Sometimes I wonder if when people think of the enviroment they have images of trees, forrests and open clear skies in their minds... and clean rivers of fishes which they then unconciously purchase to eat. Saving the enviroment = eating fish? I don't think so, but it seems like a lot of people do.

Dr. McDougall has written about eating fish before, but I don't know how many of you do on the boards. As I was watching my family eat salmon covered in fatty cheese sauce tonight I thought I'd post here and share this highly informative podcast about fish, by-catch and the enviroment. It's by Colleen Patrick Goudreau and she's done some amazing work. She even cooked for Dr. McDougall's retreats and taught cooking classes for him, if I'm not mistaken

Click here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/VegetarianFoodForThought/~5/146258939/bycatch.mp3

If you liked this, the link in my signature is to the rest of her episodes

I'm very happy to see this post. Many people- even on this board which absolutely amazes me- seem to feel that eating fish is the lesser of many evils. But all we have to do is look at the oceans and the drop in populations of fish- the interbreeding of farmed fish and the the diseases that wild fish catch from farmed fish- to know that ecologically at least, fish eating is irresponsible. And anyone who has seen a fish caught by a fisherman knows that fish suffer as do all animals. Additionally, eating fish is not healthier than eating meat- it's full of cholesterol, large amounts of protein and contaminants. We need to replenish the oceans, not take away from them.

Many people are eating salmon for omega 3 intake, but farmed fish have none! Fish get their omega 3's from algae which is not given to farmed fish. But farmed fish are interbreeding with wild fish (many of them escape) and then the offspring do not spawn. Additionally, the farmed fish carry many diseases that they then pass on to wild fish. And of course eating wild salmon is just as bad due to declining populations (which is due in large part to overfishing). It's time to stop this madness!

My original reason to become vegetarian- many many years ago- was to protect animals and not increase suffering in the world. I still think that's a valid reason. By not eating fish, we help protect them- and we don't add to their or our own suffering.

I've only talked about salmon in this post- but a very small amount of research will show that populations of most fish are declining very rapidly- due to what we are doing. It has to stop.

People who eat salmon are not vegetarians.
Having said that, there many well informed people and professional medical doctors who feel that eating ocean caught salmon is beneficial for ones health. More beneficial than not eating fish.

People eat and do not eat fish for a variety of reasons. I have not seen persuasive science on either side of the issue.
Its not fair to throw in farmed fish in the discussion and then use that type to taint all fish.
If you are vegan or vegetarian or have animal issues, then of course you should not eat any fish.
On the other hand if you are strictly eating for your health, then you'll have to look at both sides of the fish issue.
There is a substantial amount of science suggesting that the omega-3's from salmon are beneficial for things such as Alzheimer's and prostate cancer.
Whether this is true is one thing, and whether these same omega-3's can be obtained from another source like flaxseed is another issue.

I'll continue to study the matter and choose what is in my best interests.
I certainly would not second guess anyone who ate salmon a couple times a week for their health..........just as I don't second guess women who get mammograms or men who get their PSA tested. These issues are not black and white with the science being overwhelming on one side.
I don't sign up for 100% of what anyone says except, Al Gore....
Did you know he's right about everything. Just ask Tipper
After seeing An Inconvenient Truth, I went right out and purchased a snorkel.

Why is it not fair to throw in the issue of farmed fish? Farmed fish are one of the causes of the decline in salmon populations.

Additionally, Dr. McDougall has said time and time again that fish is not health food. He has the science to back this up.

Omega 3's are available in supplements made from algae if your belief is that you need them. We do not need to eat fish to obtain DHA.

Anna

Oh, and by the way- Nope- no animal issues here- caring about them is a whole 'nother thing! And it's not me who's tainting the fish- lay that at someone else's doorstep.

I'm not sure about the farmed fish causing the decline in the wild salmon population.

As to the science backing up one side or the other.....I've not seen anything definitive.
There are countless articles and studies suggesting that salmon is good for your health. Actually far more than those suggesting its bad.
Like I said, I'm continuing to read.

I'll check into the Omega 3's from algae, but to date, I've not seen that much on equally beneficial results from both algae and salmon. Perhaps the studies have not compared the two.
I'm open to any real science. But like I've said, I'm not dogmatic about this. If a study shows me salmon is better than algae produced Omega 3's, then I'll eat salmon.
I don't require consistency in what I eat. Exceptions to a rule are just fine if they are backed up with real information and science.
I'm open to the Earth revolving around the Sun and the Earth not being the center of the Universe.
I'm not signing up for any rules carved in stone.
Well see what the science reveals.

In case anyone wants to read what Dr. McDougall's has written about eating fish and about the current state of our oceans:


http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/jun/confessions.htm

Thank you everyone for your replies, it's very encouraging. I thought the article below was very interesting.

According to the USDA's annual statistics survey, 10 billion animals are killed for human consumption every year in the United States. (Worldwide, I believe it’s 45 billion.) However, it is more accurate to say that “10 billion land animals are killed for human consumption every year"; otherwise, we’re disregarding the billions of aquatic animals killed for the same purpose – to satisfy human appetites. Although the number of aquatic animals killed for consumption in the United States goes unreported, annual estimates are more than 17 billion in the U.S. alone, and sport fishing and angling kills another 245 million animals annually. So, basically, we’re talking about over 27 billion animals – both land and aquatic – being killed every year in the U.S. so humans can eat them. We’re not talking about human survival – we’re talking about appetite. And these numbers don’t count the millions of aquatic animals killed every year as incidental catch.

Incidental catch, or "by-catch," refers to unintended or unwanted animals caught by the fishing industry. It is estimated that by-catch-related mortality is causing population declines in 13 out of the 44 species of marine mammals that are suffering high death rates from human activities. Commercial fishers use a number of techniques for ensnaring animals, from setting miles of line and baited hooks (called longlines) to catch animals such as sharks, swordfish, and tuna, to using large nets to catch schools of fish. These large nets are towed underwater by what are called trawlers. A trawler is a fishing vessel designed for the purpose of operating a trawl, a type of fishing net that is dragged along the bottom of the sea (or sometimes just above the bottom at a specified depth).

UNEARTHING THE OCEAN FLOOR
A single pass of a trawl removes up to 20% of the seafloor fauna and flora - legally. And the fisheries with the highest levels of by-catch are shrimp fisheries: 80%-90% of a catch may consist of marine species other than the shrimp being targeted. 80%-90% of the animals caught in these nets that are targeting shrimp and prawns are actually non-target animals – they’re by-catch.

Shrimp are bottom-dwellers, which is why trawling nets are used to – remove them from the ocean. Since even jumbo shrimp are really small, the nets used to catch the shrimp are very fine, which means these nets scoop up all the animals – all the life – found on the ocean’s floor. According to a 2003 U.S. News and World Report article on fishing and its detrimental affects on the oceans of the world, every pound of shrimp that’s caught results in the killing of ten pounds of other marine life. According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, in the Gulf of Thailand it can be 14 pounds of by-catch per pound of shrimp.

Now, a lot of the dead by-catch is made up of tiny animals that people don’t have emotional attachments to; that is, they may not be as cute as baby seals or dolphins, but they contribute to the oceans’ biodiversity and they have a right to be there – to live.

The other thing to consider is that the dredging along the ocean floor also breaks up coral and the habitats of bottom-dwellers. And because the same areas are dredged again and again, it’s not like these habitats and inhabitants have time to recover before being destroyed again. Fish populations, communities, and ecosystems are being destroyed so humans can eat shrimp cocktail.

The animals termed as by-catch are often discarded back into the ocean already dead or dying. Many are half-alive and die slow, unnecessary deaths. Trawl nets in general, and shrimp trawls in particular where the discard may be 90% of the catch, have been identified as sources of mortality for many species of concern, including endangered animals and cetaceans, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises. Sea turtles, already endangered, have been killed by the thousands in shrimp trawl nets.

It's hard to get exact number, but another way to put this is that anywhere between 6.8 million and 27 million tons of fish could be being discarded each year. We may be looking at the one fish on our plate or the 5 shrimp in our seafood salad, but countless numbers of animals were dredged up and killed for the individuals we see on our own plates.

CETACEANS (WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES)
I've been focusing primarily about the by-catch caused by trawling nets and shrimp nets, but there are other commercial fishing methods that also result in by-catch. Nets tend to kill cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises and whales), and longline fishing kills birds, for instance. As for the first group, an estimated 300,000 cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) die as by-catch each year, because they are unable to escape when caught in nets. We may not think cod fish are particularly cute, but most people get pretty emotional about whales, dolphins, and porpoises. If we don’t consider the cod, perhaps we can consider the animals for whom we do have sympathy.

SHARKS - THE TRUE VICTIMS IN THE HUMAN-FISH RELATIONSHIP
In the case of the shark by-catch in the tuna industry, "data for Pacific longline tuna fisheries are limited, but available data indicate that shark catches are often as high as tuna catches and more than 50 species of sharks and fish are captured as by-catch in West Pacific tuna longline fisheries." (Incidentally, in defense of sharks, it has been estimated that a staggering 100 million sharks are caught every year, have their dorsal fins cut off - to serve in soup, and are thrown back into the ocean to die a slow death.

SEABIRDS - MANY ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION
As I mentioned earlier, seabirds are also inevitable "by-catch" victims, as they dive for the bait planted on long fishing lines, swallow the bait along with the hook, and are pulled under the water where they drown. Around 100,000 albatrosses are killed by longline fisheries every year, particularly where tuna are fished, and because of this, many species are facing extinction. This is very prevalent in the waters off Chile, where sea bass is aggressively hunted by boats towing fifty-mile longlines.

According to the Pew Oceans Commission, Patagonian toothfish long-liners killed around 265,000 seabirds between 1996 and 1999; in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, where the total breeding population of the black-footed albatross is 120,000 birds, annual fishing-related mortalities of 1,000 and 2,000 birds are significant; and longline fisheries in the U.S., including the Pacific cod fishery kills some 9,400 to 20,200 seabirds every year.

In subsequent posts, I'll address the dolphins, sea turtles, seals, and other marine mammals who are also written off as "collateral damage." Look forward to more on the un-sustainability of farm-raising fish, on the evidence of fish intelligence, and much more related to our pursuit of gustatory pleasure. Check out my previous post for the reasons to obtain Omega-3 fatty acids from plant sources rather than fish (hint: the fish obtain these fats from plant sources, too!)

Humans have no nutritional requirement for the flesh or secretions of other animals. Like the non-human animals we eat, we can go straight to the source - to the plants - for all the nutrients we need to survive and thrive.