Epidemiologists correlate eating more fish to better health and while skepticism is warranted - we're talking about what people claim on food surveys and taking it as scientific truth - there is no question its economic impact is real.

Yet food activists then piled out to an environmental strain problem by claiming that farmed salmon is somehow worse. It resonated without any skepticism because many weealthy elites want to go to restaurants and know blue collar workers risked their lives for expensive fish. 

If I sell jelly, and tell you peasants picked each berry by hand, and it is $40 a jar because it is picked in the wild, you are going to laugh at me. You know that the berry is not different in any meaningful way if it was grown in rows on a farm or in a bush near a stream. It takes true scientific illiteracy to think otherwise. Yet in the fish restaurant business chefs know rich patrons will turn their noses up at agriculture, the same way they pretend solar power is viable and their electric car is better for the environment.


Is this farmed fish an abomination of nature you would never consume? I not only know how you vote, I know how you shop, and I know what other anti-science beliefs you hold with so much accuracy even Facebook algorithms would find it creepily accurate.

If everyone listens to health claims about fish and won't eat farmed salmon, the natural stocks would be depleted in one year. Dana Angelo White, R.D., gently introduces some scientific reality into the discussion. Gently because this is on the Food Network, where hosts don't even get hired unless they are willing to promote woo even Dr. Oz would've said was too specious 10 years ago. 

Some berries do taste better than others, as does some meat. Some salmon you may like more because of where it grows, or the feed they use on the farm. It just has nothing to do inherently with one being better because of the process harvesting it. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling you something.