We’re pleased to announce another all-natural, certified-sustainable Shrimp delight!

Wild Oregon Pink Shrimp are renowned for their sweet, delicate flavor and firm texture.

Their small size and pre-cleaned, pre-cooked preparation makes them ideal for fast meals like salads, omelets, or pasta.

We think you'll be pleased by their fine flavor, extra ease, all-natural status, and sustainable provenance.

Vital Choice is owned and managed by Randy Hartnell and David Hamburg, both of whom spent more than 20 years as commercial Salmon fishermen in Alaska before founding Vital Choice in 2001.

(That's Randy above ... it's damn hard to catch Dave in front of a lens!)
 

Randy and Dave draw upon their vast knowledge and extensive relationships within the wild salmon industry to select ONLY the very best Alaskan seafood.

This sets us apart from many seafood buyers, who tend to choose product by price rather than quality.

To learn more, see Why Vital Choice?.

If you haven't tried our Wild Red Sockeye Salmon you're in for a treat, because it tastes much fresher than standard supermarket brands.

The rich, red color of the meat and oil is unlike any you're likely to have had before.

Our minimal processing methods ensure that you'll get the maximum amount of nutrients naturally abundant in Sockeye Salmon.

These include omega-3s, vitamin D, and astaxanthin: the super-potent carotene-class antioxidant that gives the oil brimming in every can of Wild Red its bright orange-red color. (The liquid in standard canned Salmon is pallid and watery by comparison.)
 

Choose Skinless-Boneless Wild Red, or Traditional Style with skin and soft edible bones for extra flavor and ample calcium.

Both kinds are available with salt (less than is added to most brands) or without added salt ... and several varieties come in EZ-Open pull-tab tops.

“You are providing a wonderful health-giving service to the planet with your business. And it is a pleasure to bring this information to my audience. It is also a pleasure to snap open these little cans of salmon and have an instant healthy meal!”

-- Christiane Northrup, M.D.

Vital Choice supports sustainable food production, from the earth as well as the sea.

So we’re strong advocates of organic farming, and feature organic foods in our product selection.

Until recently, organic farming has been perceived as a pet project of relatively affluent people in Europe and America.

This is absurd, since all farming worldwide was “organic” until the 1940s, when synthetic pesticides and fertilizers made from petrochemicals began to spread around the globe.

Agrichemical-based farming – plus the addition of new, pest- or stress-resistant hybrids – reached Third World countries with the “green revolution” of the 1960s.

For more on the green revolution – and the promise researchers attach to the return of its ancient, organic-style antecedents – see “Green Farming Found Sounder”.

Now, a major joint report from the UN and the World Bank suggests that the time is ripe for a shift – or a return, in some cases – to fully sustainable methods.

The report envisions a wide variety of sustainable agriculture and fishing practices, which may combine new technologies with near-forgotten traditional techniques.

UN report supports organic-style methods for long-term success

Three years ago, the World Bank and the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) commissioned 400 contributors, from scientists to businesspeople, to study agriculture in poor countries and make recommendations.

The study, which examined farming methods in relation to their impacts on hunger, poverty, the environment, and social equity, was released last April by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

While the report recognizes a role for biotech and petrochemical inputs, its conclusions prioritize organic-style farming methods as a primary path to food security worldwide.

The World Bank/FAO report encouraged agriculture that is less dependent on fossil fuels, favors the use of locally available resources, and focuses research efforts on sustainable natural processes.

We’ve translated the main recommendations from the dense, obscure bureaucratese in which the executive summary was written (IAASTD/pdf 2008):

• End subsidies that encourage unsustainable practices.
• Encourage better natural resource management to preserve environmental quality.
• Promote integrated pest management (IPM). As opposed to conventional, all-chemical pest control, IPM combines natural pest control with judicious pesticide use.
• Develop resilient seed stocks.
• Pay farmers and local communities for ecosystem-protection services.
• Provide incentives to strengthen local markets, develop alternative markets such as “green” (organic) food products, establish certification for sustainable forest and fisheries practices, and support organic agriculture.
• Ensure long-term land and water use rights, social safety nets, easier credit, and crop insurance.
• Promote modes of governance that emphasize participatory and democratic approaches, to reduce resource over-exploitation by distant owners.
• Approach use of genetically modified (GM) crops with caution, as reliance on them may raise production costs, restrict experimentation, and undermine local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability.

You can view a five-minute video about the IAASTD report on You Tube.

Of course, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides have helped feed billions and saved many lives. They can play a positive role if they’re applied appropriately when and where they’re actually needed.

In fact, the refusal of one chronically hungry African nation to keep taking international lenders’ advice about fertilizer subsidies points the way toward a stop-gap food security solution for many such countries.

Agrichemicals and food-poor nations … do as we say, not as we do

We can excuse poor farmers who may be confused by the mixed messages coming from the developed ...

Omega-3 fatty acids reaped a lion’s share of positive press over the past decade with regard to heart disease, depression, dementia, and more.

But vitamin D seems set to surpass omega-3s as the subject of scientific study and positive headlines.

Both nutrients occur abundantly only in fatty fish … especially wild Salmon, which are the richest food source of vitamin D, and rank high among omega-3 sources.

Today’s vitamin D roundup covers associations detected recently between vitamin D and reduced death rates, slower breast cancer progression, and healthier baby teeth.

Key Points Vitamin D is linked to a 26 percent cut in risk of death over 8 years, due partly to fewer cardiac fatalities. Breast cancer was twice as likely to progress in women with low vitamin D levels, who were also 73 percent more likely to die. Infants showed less tooth decay when their mothers consumed more vitamin D.

Sensible regulation of toxic pesticides has often been lacking.

Sadly, what we don’t understand about the health effects of the hundreds of approved pesticides far exceeds what we do know.

Among other things, pesticides’ health and environmental effects are not very well studied, with many pesticides having been “grandfathered in” with little or no study.

And almost no research exists on the common practice of applying more than one pesticide at a time. (Such combinations typically cause more problems in animals than exposing them to one chemical at a time.)

Now, a new federal report says that current pollution of rivers and coastal waters by three pesticides used commonly in west coast agriculture pose substantial risks to wild Pacific Salmon.

Pesticide runoff doesn’t cause significant residues to appear in wild Salmon meat … and we test ours for pesticide residues, to ensure their purity.

But the U.S. study finds that the minuscule concentrations found in Salmon migration rivers and nearby coastal waters may threaten the survival of all Salmon species, by subtly impairing key behaviors.

Federal study finds pesticides threaten Salmon survival

Back in 2001, the EPA re-approved three common pesticides without consulting with federal fisheries scientists … despite a federal law requiring them to do so.

The EPA ignored the pesticides’ possible adverse impacts on wild Pacific Salmon populations ranging from California to Alaska.

Yet, the EPA is supposed to consult with scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service before registering (approving) a pesticide or renewing its approval.

But the EPA ignored this requirement when it re-registered three common pesticides: chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion.

Fortunately, folks at toxics-monitoring and fishing associations in the Pacific Northwest noticed the evasion, and in 2001, they sued the EPA with help from lawyers at EarthJustice (slogan: “Because the earth needs a good lawyer”).

Late last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued an exhaustive, 377-page draft opinion.

Suspect chemicals harm Salmon at current aquatic concentrations

Scientists at the federal fisheries agency reported finding “overwhelming evidence” that normal agricultural use of the three pesticides would likely kill the fish and plankton upon which wild Salmon depend, and interfere with their swimming, reproduction, and ability to escape predators.

Importantly, the NMFS researchers concluded that these adverse impacts would affect key Salmon habitats at the pesticide concentrations already found in coastal rivers and ocean waters. (Rain washes the three synthetic pesticides off farm fields and orchards, and into rivers and the ocean.)

As the authors wrote, normal use of these pesticides is “… likely to jeopardize the continued existence …” of all 28 threatened and endangered salmon populations.

(One can only wonder how much of the disastrous decline in California’s King Salmon runs may be the result of ...