Red List your plate
As Greenpeace has said yesterday in its presentation to the press, these are not luxury items, style caviar or bluefin tuna, unaffordable, or when unusual products (which eats often the shark for dinner?) that are most difficult to remove from the daily diet of the average consumer for non-environmental rectitude.
We already do not eat or very little.
The fact that these endangered species is just yet another reason to avoid them.
No, that is difficult is the rest of the red list of seafood that we should eat.
These are all fish and seafood we eat every day, which are everywhere in our menus. And problematic because they are overfished, ill-bred, ill-harvested ...
Take the Atlantic salmon, for example. Smoked, grilled, sushi, it is ubiquitous in the restaurant and supermarket. Well! Do you know that in most cases it comes from factory farms where they are fed coastal dye pink and bone meal before the heinous contaminate the ocean with its parasites? When I read the description of these farms in the book Our nourishing sea of journalist Taras Grescoe, I had cut the appetite.
If you want to eat salmon, choose wild - the Pacific Coast or Alaska - or biological , or else ultimately, one that comes from farms closed. However, be prepared to pay. The salmon is usually the cheap over-industrialization, specifically the one to avoid.
One would expect that these are green for fish farming in order to protect wild stocks but this is not the case.
However, livestock is the future for fish consumption. This is the only method that will ensure fish for all. This is the only method to ensure the survival of wild fish. This fish
need to eat so much by these nutritionists, Greenpeace and Co. do not want you to have.
And to achieve this, they denigrate aquaculture as they know so well: with cliches, half-truths and generalizations inappropriate.
Take the Atlantic salmon. Do you know that in most cases it comes from factory farms where they are fed coastal dye pink and bone meal before the heinous contaminating the ocean with its parasites?
Belle sentence Lortie, but completely biased.
First, these farmed fish are not fed pink dye (which does not really fed elsewhere ...) and the heinous animal meal as you say are just meat and oil Fish.
- There They Are Fed a mixture of fishmeal, fish oil, grains, minerals and vitamins Until THEY reach market size.
- a balanced diet containing oils derived from plants Such as soybean and fish "as well as fish meal and natural fillers.
This way of describing the food of these fish is typical of these organisms ecologists.
"horrifying animal meal" ...
And what is that pink dye that horrifies you, Lortie, know that it is carotene. Yes, yes, the same carotene if you find good health in your food! Why do we give the carotene in these animals? First, it is also good for fish health, but above all to acquire the color of pink flesh. In nature, salmon gets carotene through the consumption of krill and crustaceans. In livestock, he puts in his food as a supplement.
Is it really so horrible is that?
Again, talk about feeding fish of pink dye, thus suggesting that this is a sham, is typical of those people who manipulate public opinion.
Take these large frozen shrimp sold in supermarkets at ridiculous price. Alert.
These are derived from shellfish farms in Asia that are problematic in several respects. Again, the book Grescoe we portrays petrifying.
First, in some countries, these intensive farms are now completely disrupt traditional fisheries upon which millions people. Then, to produce edible food, these farms have to resort to all kinds of disinfectants environmental pollutants.
Do not you think, moreover, that sometimes those big shrimp taste like chlorine?
derisory price, alert, Asian livestock farms, intensive ... again we begin to see the next picture ...
But look beyond the adjective used by Lortie, what is the main reason against shrimp farming? This farming threatens traditional fishing! But realize that
asking that livestock is more, on behalf of traditional fishing, is what you ask these people to freeze in time, in their condition. With a beautiful label of "compassion", you want to deny them the right to advance.
Whether you like it or not, the world is constantly in motion, it must continually adapt to its environment ... And desire that these people remain frozen in their condition is certainly not want their good medium and long term ...
You talk of disinfectants for environmental pollutants. Although I am not aware of this culture, there is little question about the relevance of this assertion.
Especially when you insinuate these shrimp is a taste of chlorine to support your point.
(Indeed, on this point, maybe the thaw in running tap water is not such a good idea than that. No?)
Finally, as c is also the case with salmon, shrimp are fed animal protein found at sea, which are heavier than the meat produced. To produce 1kg of shrimp, you have 2 kg of animal food.
Imagine if, to produce a beef, we had to kill two pigs ...
Does that make sense?
You make me laugh with this kind of calculation ... By the way, you know how many pigs it takes to raise a child to maturity? Does that make sense?
This argument is so crappy ... These people will say it's OK to eat shrimp in the wild but not those of livestock. But also in nature, the shrimp must eat twice his weight in food ... What is the difference?
None. Apart from the fact that these people do not just want you to eat shrimp and this is why they forge half-truths such as these.
That said, is that the culture of fish does not cause problems? Yes, there are some pollution problems due to the concentration of a species in a confined space. But is this a reason to abandon it? No!
is through raising fish as fish become cheap and in sufficient quantity.
is through fish farming natural fish stocks are protected.
But again, the ecologists show us they have lost all human value and serve absolutely no purpose. If these people had a bit of trial, they would realize that culture is the future and would put their efforts to ensure that this industry is improving.
They would work to give us an accurate picture on the impact of this culture instead of our fears simplistic rant in the non-lawyer to harm humanity.
Meanwhile, on behalf of fish stocks in the world, eat farmed fish is the best option. This industry is not yet optimal in terms of environmental impact but it is certain that these people are working strongly.
Francois.
0 comments:
Post a Comment