93
6 Food Security in the Context of Fisheries and Aquaculture…
contaminated with red tide organisms and pathogenic microorganisms, ciguatera toxin
in reef fi sh, and histamine from poor quality, inadequately stored tuna (e.g., see
Chamberlain 2000 ) . Global warming is increasing the risks of toxic algal blooms, and
Hales et al. ( 1999 ) have predicted that it will increase risks of ciguatera poisoning.
On a wider front, in inland and coastal waters, government agencies do not always
communicate effectively to the public the potential risks of eating self-caught fi sh from
polluted waters (Chess et al. 2005 ) . On the other hand, the mass media sometimes
publish eye-catching but misleading items concerning food fi sh safety; for example, in
the U.S.A, gross exaggeration of the risks of mercury poisoning from eating tuna, as
opposed to its health bene fi ts.
The debate over the potential bene fi ts and risks of farming and consuming
so-called Genetically Modi fi ed Organisms (GMOs) has long been highly polarized
between those who see them as essential for future world food security and those
who see them as products that are dangerous and that will enable rich corporations
to dominate world food security (e.g., FAO 2001 ) . This debate continues with widespread ignorance and misconceptions as to how GMOs might or might not be
hazardous. Every captive-bred farmed organism is to some extent genetically
changed (i.e., modi fi ed in the broad sense), whether it has been selectively bred, or
produced by hybridization or by any biotechnology. Genetic engineering is just one
type of biotechnology, which produces transgenic organisms, otherwise known as
GMOs (narrow sense) or Living Modi fi ed Organisms (another confusing term used
in international conventions and protocols). Hybrids that are crosses between two
species are more genetically modi fi ed (broad sense) then transgenic organisms. The
same applies to some other forms of genetic manipulation, including multiplication
of chromosome numbers (polyploidy). The pros and cons of farming GM fi sh
are being hotly debated, but a broader view is needed, encompassing the use of all
biotechnology in aquaculture.
Contributions of Fish to Food Security
Fish and fi sh products make essential contributions to human food security worldwide (e.g., Elvevoll and James 2000 ; ADB 2005 ; www.seafood.net.au ), both
directly as dietary components and indirectly in feeds for farmed animals. FAO
( 2009b ) summarized the latest (2006) average regional annual per caput fi sh consumptions in kg as: China, 26.1; Oceania, 24.5; Europe; 20.8; North and Central
America, 18.9; Asia (excluding China), 13.9; South America, 8.4; Africa, 8.3. Gupta
( 2006 ) concluded that fi sh contributes over 20% of the animal protein intake of
more than 2.6 billion people. FAO ( 2006b ) gave per caput annual fi sh consumption
in traditional Asia-Oceania fi sh eating countries as mostly above 25 kg/year (above
50 kg/year in some and 190 kg/year in the Maldives) and estimated that fi sh was
providing 22% of total protein intake in sub-Saharan Africa and approaching or
exceeding 50% in some poor countries: e.g., Sénégal, 47%; Gambia, 62%; Ghana
and Sierra Leone, 63%. In the 1990s, the average annual fi sh consumption of Paci fi c
6 Food Security in the Context of Fisheries and Aquaculture…
contaminated with red tide organisms and pathogenic microorganisms, ciguatera toxin
in reef fi sh, and histamine from poor quality, inadequately stored tuna (e.g., see
Chamberlain 2000 ) . Global warming is increasing the risks of toxic algal blooms, and
Hales et al. ( 1999 ) have predicted that it will increase risks of ciguatera poisoning.
On a wider front, in inland and coastal waters, government agencies do not always
communicate effectively to the public the potential risks of eating self-caught fi sh from
polluted waters (Chess et al. 2005 ) . On the other hand, the mass media sometimes
publish eye-catching but misleading items concerning food fi sh safety; for example, in
the U.S.A, gross exaggeration of the risks of mercury poisoning from eating tuna, as
opposed to its health bene fi ts.
The debate over the potential bene fi ts and risks of farming and consuming
so-called Genetically Modi fi ed Organisms (GMOs) has long been highly polarized
between those who see them as essential for future world food security and those
who see them as products that are dangerous and that will enable rich corporations
to dominate world food security (e.g., FAO 2001 ) . This debate continues with widespread ignorance and misconceptions as to how GMOs might or might not be
hazardous. Every captive-bred farmed organism is to some extent genetically
changed (i.e., modi fi ed in the broad sense), whether it has been selectively bred, or
produced by hybridization or by any biotechnology. Genetic engineering is just one
type of biotechnology, which produces transgenic organisms, otherwise known as
GMOs (narrow sense) or Living Modi fi ed Organisms (another confusing term used
in international conventions and protocols). Hybrids that are crosses between two
species are more genetically modi fi ed (broad sense) then transgenic organisms. The
same applies to some other forms of genetic manipulation, including multiplication
of chromosome numbers (polyploidy). The pros and cons of farming GM fi sh
are being hotly debated, but a broader view is needed, encompassing the use of all
biotechnology in aquaculture.
Contributions of Fish to Food Security
Fish and fi sh products make essential contributions to human food security worldwide (e.g., Elvevoll and James 2000 ; ADB 2005 ; www.seafood.net.au ), both
directly as dietary components and indirectly in feeds for farmed animals. FAO
( 2009b ) summarized the latest (2006) average regional annual per caput fi sh consumptions in kg as: China, 26.1; Oceania, 24.5; Europe; 20.8; North and Central
America, 18.9; Asia (excluding China), 13.9; South America, 8.4; Africa, 8.3. Gupta
( 2006 ) concluded that fi sh contributes over 20% of the animal protein intake of
more than 2.6 billion people. FAO ( 2006b ) gave per caput annual fi sh consumption
in traditional Asia-Oceania fi sh eating countries as mostly above 25 kg/year (above
50 kg/year in some and 190 kg/year in the Maldives) and estimated that fi sh was
providing 22% of total protein intake in sub-Saharan Africa and approaching or
exceeding 50% in some poor countries: e.g., Sénégal, 47%; Gambia, 62%; Ghana
and Sierra Leone, 63%. In the 1990s, the average annual fi sh consumption of Paci fi c