It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Eating fish, at what cost?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:01 AM
I usually eat a couple cans of tuna each week, and I am like a sea otter when it comes eating crustaceans. I enjoy eating seafood not only for the taste but for the healthy benefits. But I am wondering at what costs? Most large preditory fish have high levels of mercury and PCBs. I have eleminated eating my favorite fish (swordfish) for this reason. Is possible to acheive a health balance of the Omega 3 fatty acids from eating fish and not worry about bioaccumulation of pollutants. I have started taken fish oil capsules to increase my Omega 3, but I really don't want to lose the fish intake if I don't have to.

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:08 AM
You can also get your Omega 3s from avacados and olive oil too can't you?

The benefits of eating fish still outweigh the negatives IMO. I eat about three pounds of fresh salmon and tuna every week, or at least I try to.


posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 04:59 PM
You're right, the larger species of ocean fish have serious levels of mercury toxicity. The best website resource I could find right away is the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) webpage:

The guidelines I know about so far include:

1. Avoid the top-of-foodchain fishes. Carnivores like tuna should be consumed infrequently, since the larger fishes live longer and thus accumulate more toxins over those longer lifetimes. (I also am a tuna-lover, and I have cut back to once a month or so.)

2. Also be cautious about farmed fish ... recent reports I have seen indicate a heavy exposure of these creatures to antibiotics as well as problems with a substandard diet (cheaper for the fish farmers that way, I guess).

3. Limit your consumption of bottom feeders (a long list here, unfortunately, such as [yes] shrimp, lobster, sole, flounder, prawns, etc.). The toxicity problem here extends beyond mercury to greater susceptibility to ocean floor contaminants near continental coastlines.

So is there any good news? Well, I have seen two different reports from credible sources about the increased longevity of human beings who eat sardines in their traditional diets (Mediterranean is one example). The sources I saw these reports in are subscription health newsletters, not freebie sources. I gather that the omega-3 in these fishes (plus their youth, which qualifies them as a nontoxic source of omega-3) is the key factor.

Also, when you visit a fresh fish market, don't bother to ask what's fresh, because the staff will always tell you that everything is fresh. The key question to ask is:

"What came in today?"

The subject of omega-3 sources is complex, and the best and most current source of information on this topic is in the paperback book for sale on the following website:

I have read the book myself, and while it is Not ! a quick read, it is truly authoritative. If I recall correctly, this book shows that if you want to take omega-3 supplements, the highest sources of omega-3 are in krill oil (as in Arctic and Antarctic krill, no joke).

Finally, if you are eligible to vote, please do so, because these problems are definitely susceptible to political solutions. Wasn't there a similar problem with mercury contamination in U.S. waters due to Nixon or Reagan administration policies? And weren't those problems largely resolved by political action?

Good luck with your quest. Let us know if you have further questions.

[edit on 11/7/2007 by Uphill]

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Uphill

So is there any good news? Well, I have seen two different reports from credible sources about the increased longevity of human beings who eat sardines in their traditional diets (Mediterranean is one example). [edit on 11/7/2007 by Uphill]

Good stuff! Too bad I hate sardines.

new topics

top topics

log in