Once Mark Bittman, Twice Shy

Yep, another paid advertisment for Alaska salmon. This time brought to you by Mark Bittman, a food writer also known as “The Minimalist”. The term “minimal” also describes his depth of knowledge of salmon.

Another paid hack?

In his recent blog in the New York Times, entitled “The Bottom Line on Salmon”, he promotes the consumption of…you guessed it…Alaska salmon. He also attacks the quality of…you guessed it…farm-raised salmon. Too bad that his opinions (and the comments below the article) are formed from a complete lack of knowledge of farm-raised salmon. And of course, you can bet he has no idea that 1 in 3 Alaska salmon are farm-raised – called salmon ranching. You can also bet that he has no idea that Alaska’s famed Copper River salmon has been tested for PCB’s, and has scored the highest mark (that’s not good by the way) of all salmon (farmed and wild) ever tested (Ewald et al. 1998).

It’s no coincidence that the Alaska salmon season is just around the corner, so get ready for more of this “attack the competitor” type advertising.

Well done Mark Bittman, your ignorance has got you a permanent place in our blog!

Laura Fleming, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, says “don’t take her word for it”

Please welcome Laura Fleming to our blog. Laura works for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI). It’s the marketing firm that promotes everything Alaskan. And trust us, can Laura and the ASMI ever promote! Heck, they could probably sell you a rotting salmon carcass that’s labelled ‘aged jerky’.

In the comment section under a recent article entitled “25 things vanishing in America, part 2: Wild salmon”, Ms. Fleming is quick to promote her product, claiming that Alaska’s “abundant salmon runs are managed sustainably”.

Really? Well, consider this: 1 in 3 salmon from Alaska that are sold in stores in the US are actually salmon that are not “wild” – they were born in hatcheries and released into the ocean to find food. It’s called salmon ranching. Just because Alaska floods the ocean with billions of tiny salmon (1.5 billion to be precise) doesn’t make it sustainable.

And just because programs like the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Seafood Choices also promote your product, doesn’t make it sustainable either. These groups are simply extensions of ASMI.

But Laura does give some good advice, “don’t take my word for it, look for yourself!”. Yeah, look for yourself and find that all Laura and the ASMI do is attack competitors and use smoke and mirrors.

We’re on to ya’ Laura!

Dear Serena Federman: give us facts or shut up

The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program is at it again. For a program that apparently has hundreds of seafood species on their “what to eat/what to avoid” list, they sure have a focus on salmon. And a really keen interest in attacking farm-raised salmon. Makes you wonder why? Why the focus on just one species? Is there politics, protectionism or marketing at the root of this narrow minded attack?

A recent email from the Seafood’s Watch programmer, Serena Federman, promotes a new fish that’s been upgraded to “best choice”, but can’t seem to help herself from attacking farm-raised salmon;

Here’s her email:

“Arctic char is an up-and-coming alternative to farmed salmon because the texture and taste is similar. For this reason, we added it to all regional Seafood Watch pocket guide versions as a “Best Choice” back in January. Arctic char are in the salmon family and native to the northern regions of North America and Europe. Though it’s available wild-caught, char is typically raised in land-based re-circulating systems which reduce the risk of disease transfer, pollution and fish escapes. Like salmon, Arctic char are carnivores that require feed made from wild fish — causing a drain on the ocean’s natural food web. However, the amount of wild fish needed to produce farmed Arctic char is low compared to other carnivorous farmed fish like salmon and this one issue of concern does not warrant a lower overall Seafood Watch ranking. This makes Arctic char a great alternative for salmon lovers, especially now that the wild salmon fisheries in California and Oregon are currently closed. Wild Alaska salmon is still available and is a “Best Choice”". 

HOLD ON SERENA! You clearly state that what concerns you about farmed salmon is disease transfer, pollution, fish escapes and wild fish consumed in feed. Now, we could certainly debate that level of concern and argue, quite convincingly that farmed salmon is a very sustainable choice. Maybe another time. The REAL issue is this: you promote wild Alaskan salmon as a “Best Choice”, but cleverly avoid stating that 1 in 3 Alaskan salmon are not wild. They are raised in hatcheries, cultured in net pens and then released into the ocean to find food until returning to be caught in a commercial fishing net. So when you look at the impact of Alaska’s salmon ranching program, you have to consider disease transfer, pollution, fish escapes and wild fish consumed in feed. Let’s compare salmon ranching in Alaska against your concerns.

Disease transfer: 1.5 billion ranched salmon are not typically vaccinated against disease and are able to mix with wild salmon.

Pollution: There are more ranched salmon in the Pacific Ocean than farm-raised salmon – therefore more pollution may be created from ranched salmon.

Fish escapes: In Alaska, 1.5 billion salmon escape each year. (farm-raised salmon are kept seperate from wild salmon)

Wild fish consumed: Ranched salmon eat too. In the Pacific Ocean, there are more ranched salmon than there is farm-raised salmon and therefore more wild fish is eaten by ranched salmon than by farm-raised salmon.

Why does  Serena Federman and her Seafood Watch program not even make mention of these realities or discuss the fact that Alaska’s ”wild” salmon may not be so “wild? Perhaps her “Best Choice” would be to admit that her program is nothing more than a marketing gimmick for Alaska salmon.