wild or farmed?

Not my favorite part of the article, but wild and farmed fish are such a big issue...

Sustainability is a central factor in in the buying process for sides of the counter.    The difference between farmed fish and their wild counterparts is one of the most common question customers raise, all part of the larger debate over environmental sustainability and human health.

On the up side, farmed fish typically contain lower levels of mercury.  Farmed also has the benefit of year-round availability in addition to a lower price tag for consumers.

The US is one of the largest importers of farmed salmon. Yet the 2004 Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Report recommended avoiding farmed Atlantic salmon.  Farmed Atlantic salmon touched on the bigger issues of aquaculture: pollution and disease, escaped fish into wild populations and unsustainable feeding practices.

But the alternative may not be a sustainable option either.  High prices for wild tuna indicate the environmental costs of tuna fishing.  Removing young tuna that have not yet reproduced puts obvious strain on a struggling population. In addition, unsustainable fishing methods raise the problem of bycatch and its detrimental effects on other marine species literally caught up in the net. 

  “Wild isn’t necessarily the better fish,” Pete says reasonably.  Idaho-farmed Rainbow trout for instance is recommended by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch as the best “ecological responsible” alternative for wild-caught lake trout. Full of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids and low in environmental contaminants, wild Alaskan salmon and farmed rainbow trout are equally promoted by the Environmental Defense Fund.  The debate between farmed and wild comes down to personal conviction and awareness of the pros and cons of each practice.