Salmon is commonly prized for its health benefits.
It is a fatty fish that is loaded with Omega-3 fatty acids, which most people don’t get enough of.
However … not all salmon is created equal, unfortunately.
Today, a lot of the salmon we eat isn’t caught in caught in the wild, but bred in fish farms.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
Wild salmon is caught in the wild, in its natural environment … oceans, rivers and lakes.
But half of the salmon sold worldwide comes from so-called fish farms, also known as aquacultures.
The annual global production of farmed salmon has increased from 27,000 to more than 1 million metric tons in the past two decades.
Whereas wild salmon eats other organisms found in its natural environment, farmed salmon is given a processed high-fat feed in order to produce larger fish.
Wild salmon is still available, but global stocks have halved in just a few decades.
Bottom Line: The production of farmed salmon has increased dramatically in the past two decades. Farmed salmon has a completely different diet and environment than wild salmon.
There Are Some Important Differences in Nutrition Composition
As you can see in the table, nutritional differences between wild and farmed salmon can be pretty significant.
Farmed salmon is much higher in fat … it contains slightly more Omega-3s, much more Omega-6 fatty acids and three times the amount of saturated fat. It also contains 46 percent more calories, mostly from fat.
Farmed salmon also contains some Vitamin C, which is added to the feed.
Conversely, wild salmon is higher in minerals, including potassium, zinc and iron.
Bottom Line: Wild salmon contains more minerals. Farmed salmon is higher in Vitamin C, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fatty acids and calories.
Difference in Polyunsaturated Fat Content
There are two main types of polyunsaturated fats … Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids.
These fatty acids have important roles to play in the human body.
We need both in the diet, otherwise we end up sick. That’s why they are termed the “essential” fatty acids (EFAs).
However … we need to get these fatty acids in a certain balance.
Most people today are eating too much Omega-6, and the delicate balance between these two types of fatty acids is heavily distorted towards Omega-6.
Many scientists have speculated that this can drive increased inflammation and may play a role in the pandemics of chronic diseases like heart disease and others.
For this reason, the Omega-6:Omega-3 ratio is about three times higher in farmed salmon, compared to wild.
However … I don’t really think this is a cause for concern. Even though farmed salmon contains Omega-6, the O6:O3 ratio is still excellent (at 1:3-4), it’s just less excellent than that in wild salmon, which is at 1:10.
Salmon, both farmed and wild, should lead to a massive improvement in Omega-3 intake for most people, and is often recommended for that purpose.
In a four week study of 19 volunteers, eating farmed Atlantic salmon twice per week increased DHA (an important Omega-3 fatty acid) levels in the blood by 50 percent.
Bottom Line: Farmed salmon is much higher in Omega-6 fatty acids than wild salmon, but the amount is still too low to be a cause for concern.
Farmed Salmon is Much Higher in Contaminants
Fish tend to accumulate potentially harmful contaminants from their environment.
But farmed salmon has much higher concentrations of contaminants than wild salmon.
European farms have more contaminants than American farms, but species from Chile seem to have the least.
One study investigated more than 700 salmon samples from around the world and found that on average, the PCB concentrations in farmed salmon were eight times higher than in wild salmon.
Those contamination levels are deemed safe by the FDA but not by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Researchers suggest that if the EPA guidelines were applied to the farmed salmon they tested, recommendations would be to restrict salmon to no more than once per month.
However, many argue that the benefits of consuming Omega-3s from salmon outweigh the health risks of contaminants, which is a reasonable assumption.
While it is hard to say for sure, we know that risks are far fewer if you eat wild salmon instead of farmed.
Bottom Line: Farmed salmon contains much higher amounts of contaminants like PCBs, but the amount varies between fish from different regions.
Mercury and Other Trace Metals in Salmon
The current evidence for trace metals in salmon is conflicting.
However, one study found that wild salmon had levels three times higher.
Levels of arsenic have been found to be higher in farmed salmon, but levels of cobalt, copper and cadmium higher in wild salmon.
In any case, trace metals in either variety of salmon are found in such low amounts that they do not appear to be a cause for concern.
Bottom Line: For the average person, trace metals in salmon do not appear to be found in harmful quantities. This goes for both farmed or wild salmon.
Is Wild Salmon Worth the Extra Cost and Inconvenience?
It is important to keep in mind that farmed salmon is still very healthy.
Farmed salmon tends to be much larger and contains higher amounts of Omega-3s.
Wild salmon is also much more expensive than farmed and may not be worth the extra cost for some people. Depending on a few things, it may be inconvenient (or impossible) for you to access wild salmon.
However, because of the dietary differences, farmed salmon also contains much more potentially harmful contaminants than wild salmon.
While these contaminants appear to be safe for the average person consuming moderate amounts, some experts have recommended that children and pregnant women only eat wild-caught salmon … just to be on the safe side.
Salmon is Healthy, no Matter Which Way You Slice it
It is a good idea to eat fatty fish such as salmon once or twice a week for optimal health.
The only real concern with farmed salmon is organic pollutants like PCBs. If this is something you’re concerned about, then do some research on the origins of your salmon and choose one that wasn’t bred in polluted waters.
Given the high amount of Omega-3s, quality protein and beneficial nutrients, I believe that the benefits of eating salmon (whether farmed or wild) far outweigh the negatives for most people.
I personally eat farmed salmon every week, and I am not at all concerned about it. I would choose wild if I could, but unfortunately it is not available to me right now.
If wild salmon is easily accessible to you, then that’s a better option. But farmed salmon is still healthy … just slightly “less healthy” than wild salmon.
YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE
By Kenny Stancil
An expert panel of top international and environmental lawyers have begun working this month on a legal definition of "ecocide" with the goal of making mass ecological damage an enforceable international crime on par with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
- Are the Amazon Fires a Crime Against Humanity? - EcoWatch ›
- 'Her Work Will Live On': Climate Movement Mourns Loss of Ecocide ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
After ongoing pressure from environmental groups and Indigenous communities, Bank of America has said it will not finance any oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, making it the last major U.S. financial institution to do so.
- Bank of America Sponsors Polluted Air and Chicago Marathon ... ›
- Youth Activists Hit the Streets to Protest Bank of America - EcoWatch ›
- Environmental and Economic Justice Communities Target Bank of ... ›
By Astrid Caldas
As we reach the official end of hurricane season, 2020 will be one for the record books. Looking back at these long, surprising, sometimes downright crazy past six months (seven if you count when the first named storms actually started forming), there are many noteworthy statistics and patterns that drive home the significance of this hurricane season, and the ways climate change may have contributed to it.
A summary infographic showing hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms predicted from NOAA's 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook. NOAA
The updated 2020 Atlantic hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms. NOAA
- Tropical Storm Theta Is Record-Breaking 29th Storm of 2020 ... ›
- Hurricane Delta Breaks Record for Earliest 25th Named Storm ... ›
By Dana Drugmand
An unprecedented climate lawsuit brought by six Portuguese youths is to be fast-tracked at Europe's highest court, it was announced today.
The European Court of Human Rights said the case, which accuses 33 European nations of violating the applicants' right to life by disregarding the climate emergency, would be granted priority status due to the "importance and urgency of the issues raised."
‘Protect Our Future’<p>Cláudia Agostinho (21), Catarina Mota (20), Martim Agostinho (17), Sofia Oliveira (15), André Oliveira (12) and Mariana Agostinho (8) are <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/09/03/youth-climate-lawsuit-portugal-33-european-countries" target="_blank">bringing the case</a> with nonprofit law firm Global Legal Action Network (<span style="background-color: initial;">GLAN</span>), arguing that none of the countries have sufficiently ambitious targets to cut their emissions.</p><p>Portugal recently sweltered through its <a href="https://www.ipma.pt/pt/media/noticias/news.detail.jsp?f=/pt/media/noticias/textos/resumo-clima-julho-20.html" target="_blank">hottest July in 90 years</a> and has seen a rise in devastating heatwaves and wildfires over recent years due to rising temperatures. Four of the applicants live in Leiria, one of the regions worst-hit by the forest fires that killed more than 120 people in 2017. </p><p>Responding to the development, André Oliveira, 12, said: "It gives me lots of hope to know that the judges in the European Court of Human Rights recognise the urgency of our case." </p><p>"But what I'd like the most would be for European governments to immediately do what the scientists say is necessary to protect our future. Until they do this, we will keep on fighting with more determination than ever."</p>
‘Highly Significant'<p>The decision represents a "highly significant" step, <a href="https://www.glanlaw.org/about-us" target="_blank">GLAN</a> Director Dr. Gearóid Ó Cuinn said in a <a href="https://youth4climatejustice.org/" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p>"This is an appropriate response from the Court given the scale and imminence of the threat these young people face from the climate emergency," he added. </p><p>By suing the 33 countries all together, the youths aim to compel these national governments to act more aggressively on climate through a single court order, which would potentially be more effective than pursuing separate lawsuits or lobbying policymakers in each country.</p><p>If successful, the defendant countries would be legally bound not only to ramp up emissions cuts, but also to tackle overseas contributions to climate change including those of their multinational enterprises.</p>
‘Major Hurdle’<p>The <a href="https://youth4climatejustice.org/the-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">countries targeted</a> include all of the European Union member states as well as Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, none of which are currently aligned with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a> target to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) and pursue a limit of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).<a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> </a></p><p><a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Climate Action Tracker rates</a> most of Europe as "insufficient" in terms of its emissions reduction policies based on the Paris target, while Ukraine, Turkey and Russia are assessed as "critically insufficient" – meaning they are on track for a warming of 4 degrees C or higher.</p><p>The European Union has pledged to slash its emissions by <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least 55 percent by 2030</a>. But the Portuguese youth plaintiffs are calling for cuts of at least 65 percent by 2030, a level that <a href="http://www.caneurope.org/energy/climate-energy-targets" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">European climate campaigners say</a> is necessary to meet the 1.5 degrees warming limit.</p><p> The 33 countries must each respond to the youths' complaint by the end of February, before lawyers representing the plaintiffs will respond to the points of defense. </p><p>"Nothing less than a 65 percent reduction by 2030 will be enough for the EU member states to comply with their obligations to the youth-applicants and indeed countless others," Gerry Liston, legal officer with GLAN, said in a press release.</p><p>"These brave young people have cleared a major hurdle in their pursuit of a judgment which compels European governments to accelerate their climate mitigation efforts."</p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/11/29/court-advances-landmark-youth-climate-lawsuit-against-33-european-nations" target="_blank">DeSmog</a>. </em></p>
Will concern over the climate crisis stop people from having children?
- 'BirthStrike' Movement Encourages People to Stop Having Children ... ›
- Should You Have Kids Despite Climate Change? - EcoWatch ›