If we are to take the AAH argument of seafood having been the ancient source of e.g. DHA, EPA and Iodine to heart, meaning that we all need seafood in our diets for the benefit of especially our brains, then as a species we may have a serious problem on our hands. Where would this seafood come from, in theory for 7+ billion people?
I have been reading about various forms of aquaculture lately. I eat a lot of seafood these days (go figure), especially cultured Norwegian salmon from my local supermarket. Problem is now, that some sources claim that this type of salmon is actually low on e.g. DHA, because salmon doesn't produce this themselves, but need it in their own diet, and that the farmers traditionally feed them terrestrial foods, e.g. soy products, due to finance.
Cultured clams seems to be a different story, they are grown in large semi-openwater cages, e.g. here in Scandinavia in inland seas and fjords
, and therefore have plenty access to their pertinent nutrients. (So I'm trying to eat more clams now.)
It's already law and standard in many industrialized countries to add Iodine to e.g. kitchen salts, to force it into the general population, and that has proven a benefit to these countries. Can it, should it, be made into law to add e.g. DHA to the feed of cultured seafood, if not otherwise naturally occuring? Can it be added to traditional live stock, like Iodine is being added to the feed of cows so the kids get it in their milk? And ... how do you procure large quantities of such DHA, EPA, etc. for industrialized feed? Can it be synthesized? 'Cause the world seas are being drained for eatible fish as it is. I think that if we are to make it through this semi-invisible food crisis, we would probably have to engage in a lot more aquaculture as a species. Perhaps to match our level of terrestrial farming and husbandry.