Puget Sound is home to scores of fish varieties, including Chinook, Rockfish, Ling Cod, Herring, and English Sole, just to name a few. This diversity makes Puget Sound one of the most ecologically and fiscally valuable bodies of water in America. Taylor's Shellfish in Shelton, WA, is just one of the many fisheries that depend on the Sound for income. However, pollution has been a continuous problem for Puget Sound, threatening the health of marine plants and animals as well as the consumers who eat them.
In 2006, Puget Sound was termed a "toxic stew" by The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which revealed that Chinook in the Sound contained six times the amount of PCB's than the Columbia River. Puget Sound fish also contained high levels of chemicals identified as flame retardants, drugs such as caffeine, anti-depressants, and hormones. These chemicals cause developmental and fertility problems in fish, and high levels can cause fishkills. Edward Furlong of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver said that exposure to these chemicals was, "constant, direct, and unavoidable."
Although Puget Sound Partnership and other organizations have taken on major restoration of Puget Sound since 2005, pollution is still a problem. As recently as October 5, reports of new toxins called PBDE's have surfaced; PBDE's are a major concern because they cause thyroid and brain development problems in humans. Humans that consume fish containing these chemicals are thus put at risk.
The problem with the Puget Sound is that the water inside cycles around the entire Sound, so chemicals that affect one end will eventually disperse throughout the Sound. The Sound is just large enough that water can cycle, but not large enough for it to be completely flushed out after a pollution problem occurs. This is critical because the Puget Sound's current population of 6 billion people- increasing to 9-11 billion people by 2020, depend on fish from the Sound for their livelihoods. Preservation of the Sound must become a priority, and soon.
-Christina Heinlen
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Genetically Modified Salmon
The discovery of DNA and the advancement of knowledge about genetics has been an exciting and alarming development in science. Chronic illnesses with no cures may be cured through research associated with genetics, but genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are threatening to overhaul the entire way our society gets its food. GMOs are produced by inserting genes from a different species or deleting genes in a species. Currently, there are a growing number of genetically modified agricultural crops that are resistant to certain pesticides and herbicides and thus can produce a larger cash crop with less monetary input. These GMO crops are patented and drive smaller farmers out of the market.
Now, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, genetically altered salmon could be sold in the United States in two years. These fish are the same as farmed Atlantic salmon, except the genetic modification that allows them to grow twice as fast as farmed fish due to growth hormones. It is awaiting approval from the Food and Drug Administration, and if approved, it will be the genetically modified animal to be sold for food in the United States. It is uncertain whether the genetically modified salmon would be labeled as such in super markets.
Environmentalists oppose the genetically modified salmon and call it a “Frankenfish”. They say it may cause more allergies and are concerned about flawed safety studies, as well as a reduction in nutritional value. Some farmers and the food industry support the genetically modified salmon and say it will allow more Americans to get proper nutrition because it will lower the price of salmon. Personally, I believe the genetically modified salmon needs much more research before it is introduced to the market. It needs to be studied by scientists that are not backed by the food industry. There need to be multiple independent long-term studies, and even if there are, the possibility of a reduction in the nutritional quality of the fish leads me to disagree with the whole idea because many farmers will probably want to raise this fish because of the monetary aspect: they will make more money selling it and have to spend less money raising the fish. The Food and Drug Administration needs to do its job and protect the citizens and small business owners of the United States instead of playing in to corporate interests.
-Janet Pasko
Fish Farming
Aquaculture, also known as fish farming, is a highly controversial solution to food shortage problems. With an increasing population “The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that an additional 40 million tons of aquatic food will be required by 2030 — just to maintain current levels of consumption”. Fish farming will not only meet these new needs, but it also boost the economy. In British Columbia, Canada, farmed fish are actually the top agricultural export. Between that and the help alleviating world hunger, it is hard to even notice any potential problems that could arise from farmed fish.
However, there are many concerns that arise with fish farming. Not only are these fish taken out of natural environments and raised in cages, but due to their high concentration in a small area, disease is much more prevalent. Since these cages are kept in open water, the diseases still spread to the wild salmon, creating unfixable health problems such as sea lice. Furthermore, fish farming interferes with traditional practices of First Nations. So in this case, culture is affecting nature which is affecting culture. The ultimate solution is to improve wild salmon stocks, but if that doesn’t work, what is the next best option? I think fish farming is ultimately detrimental to both nature and culture, but decide for yourself:
-Rebecca Teel
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Surprising Research about Traditional Fishing - Danny Gibson
As I was searching the web, looking for something to post for this first blog. I wasn't quite sure what to expect, but certainly not what I found! If you read through the article, what is explained is that not only commercial fishing, but also traditional fishing has adverse effects on the environment, in this case, the Great Barrier Reef. The study shows that even using native "tools such as spears and hook-and-line" kills off substantial predators of the Crown-of-Thorns starfish. This leads to population booms of the coral-eating starfish, and the decline of the living reef.
While I figured I would be pulling up articles about the co-evalness of traditional fishing, I imagine that this data put into context would show some more insights. It would be awesome to see this study compared against one on the effects of more modern commercial techniques. I would guess that newer methods would lead to more fishing of Crown-of-Thorns predators. I'll keep looking.
-Danny Gibson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)