The Tasmanian salmon industry is facing calls for independent nutritional testing after an analysis by activist groups found far more fat in farmed fish than wild-caught salmon and industry-reported figures.
Environment groups concerned about the impact of salmon farming bought two salmon fillets from a Coles supermarket, an IGA supermarket and a fishmonger in Melbourne to have them tested.
The results suggested farmed salmon has higher total saturated and trans fats than figures available for each of the three Tasmanian salmon companies and those known for wild-caught salmon.
Of the three farmed salmon companies, Tassal is the only company to publish nutritional information directly on its website. It says that its fish contain 16.1g total fats and 3.1g saturated fats per 100g.
Similar data was not readily available for Huon Aquaculture and Petuna but independent nutrition website MyNetDiary lists the total fat content of fresh fillets of Huon salmon per 100g as 17.9g with 3.5g of saturated fat. Total fats for Petuna salmon were 12g with 3g of saturated fat per 100g.
But tests on the fillets bought from the supermarket or fishmonger revealed the total fat content in Tassal salmon was 28.5g, and 21.2g of saturated fat per 100g. Huon’s two fillets recorded fat content of 24.2g and 23.7g, while Petuna logged 16.3g and 19.8g.
Wild caught salmon, by comparison, contains total fats of 6.3g and 1g of saturated fat per 100g, due to the difference in diet and habitat the fish were raised in.
A spokesperson for the Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association dismissed the results citing in a statement the small sample size and variations in fat levels in fish between seasons.
“Due to this natural variation of the fish, the companies use an average of the past three years nutritional testing results for our nutritional information panels (NIP) on the labels of our products,” the association said. “The data in the nutrition panel also states that all results are ‘averages’ and not absolute values.”
They also rejected calls for independent testing, saying the industry already complied with all existing regulations set by Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
“Australia has some of the most robust food safety and production regulations on the planet,” they said. “Nutritional information is widely available on product packaging so consumers can make informed decisions from assured sources versus an unknown methodology and politically motivated consumer spot testing.”
Environment Tasmania said the tests called into question the reliability of the companies’ own figures and called for an independent government body such as the CSIRO to conduct its own testing.
“It needs to be truly independent,” ET campaigner Jilly Middleton said. “And it would need to be run from a consumer perspective rather than having the salmon samples chosen and handed over by the industry.”
“Consumers trust the Australian government to give them honest information about food. When you look at a nutrition panel, you expect to get the truth. It shouldn’t be up to Environment Tasmania and others to go digging.”
Michael Skilton, a professor of nutrition and cardio-metabolic health, was given the chance to review the results and said that it raised questions that should be investigated further.
“All that evidence [about salmon’s health benefits] is based on the samples and the nutritional data for what it used to look like and not necessarily what it looks like now,” Skilton said.
Skilton said the testing showed that healthy omega-3 fats had increased, as had fats overall. He also said the saturated fat levels should be a focus as they can have an effect on cholesterol levels and is a major risk factor for heart disease.
“The implication here is that farming practices of the salmon led to these changes, and I think that’s reasonable,” he said. “A comparable comparison would be the difference between grass fed and grain fed beef.”
