"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.
I assumed this was about mercury levels too, I would have never guessed it was environmental.
Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
11–20 of 99 posts
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#12This is a silly list. Not because fish aren't important, but because there's no way to take action on this list. Studies have shown that a huge amount of fish is mislabelled. Yes, pick up a piece of xxxx from a seafood market and the odds are that it's not xxxx.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/science/earth/27fish.html
Consumers have no effective way to verify what they're eating. This is a situation where there is either government action or no action; no private personal actions can be successful, barring the creation of instant cheap at-the-restaurant-table DNA analysis.
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#13I usually only eat what I can catch. And if I can catch it, well... that fish just won the Darwin award because I suck at fishing.
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#14"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.
The environmental perspective is the most important. The truth is the oceans are dying and overfishing has created colossal dead zones. The best option that should be on this list is to not eat any fish at all.
Unfortunately, international legal frameworks with respect to the oceans are not keeping pace with technology.
Anything that reduces consumer demand is a good thing, but American demand in the big picture is a small piece of pie. The Japanese will not be satisfied until every last aquatic creature is extracted from the Mediterranean.
America's biggest contribution to eradicating sea life are the destructive land use policies in the Mississippi watershed. We provide ridiculous incentives via direct payment to grow corn with massive quantities of fertilizer, build massive levee systems to reclaim floodplain land and cut canals in the Mississippi delta.
All of these things together have turned the Gulf of Mexico into an aquatic wasteland.
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#15"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.
I'm not going to run down the whole list, but some of the worst from a mercury perspective -- shark, swordfish, and most types of tuna are listed here as "not okay to eat." May be there is a correlation between larger fish with the most mercury and fish that are more endangered.
The fish in my diet consists almost entirely of salmon and trout, and occasionally a tuna tartare (I would have a real hard time giving that one up.) I avoid farmed stuff.
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#16"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.
The environmental perspective is the most important. The truth is the oceans are dying and overfishing has created colossal dead zones. The best option that should be on this list is to not eat any fish at all.
> The best option that should be on this list is to not eat any fish at all.
Your logic fails for the following reasons:
- not all fish are from the ocean
- not all species of fish are in fact overfished. There is no Sardine crisis.
- Fish consumption is linked to increased IQ including in babies and children
- Piscetarians have lower rates of heart disease than both vegans and occasional meat eaters
- Promoting abstinence over harm reduction is generally a very silly and inefficient way to do things
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#17This is a silly list. Not because fish aren't important, but because there's no way to take action on this list. Studies have shown that a huge amount of fish is mislabelled. Yes, pick up a piece of xxxx from a seafood market and the odds are that it's not xxxx. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/science/earth/27fish.html Consumers have no effective way to verify what they're eating. This is a situation where there is…
That's a very interesting link, but saying that we might as well not bother because there's labeling issues is rather overstating the problem. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#18"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.
I'm not going to run down the whole list, but some of the worst from a mercury perspective -- shark, swordfish, and most types of tuna are listed here as "not okay to eat." May be there is a correlation between larger fish with the most mercury and fish that are more endangered. The fish in my diet consists almost entirely of salmon and trout, and occasionally a tuna tartare (I would have a real hard time giving that…
There is actually a correlation: large, predatory fish accumulate the most mercury because they're highest on the food chain, and they also tend to be rare and slow to breed, and hence more endangered.
With farmed fish it basically depends on where it's farmed. It can be very healthy and sustainable, or quite terrible.
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#19"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.
"With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?" makes it really obvious...
Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The environmental perspective is the most important. The truth is the oceans are dying and overfishing has created colossal dead zones. The best option that should be on this list is to not eat any fish at all.
> The best option that should be on this list is to not eat any fish at all. Your logic fails for the following reasons: - not all fish are from the ocean - not all species of fish are in fact overfished. There is no Sardine crisis. - Fish consumption is linked to increased IQ including in babies and children - Piscetarians have lower rates of heart disease than both vegans and occasional meat eaters - Promoting abst…
The person you responded to stated a belief that environmental considerations were the most important. The website that started these conversations has listed only ocean fish. Three of the five points you listed have nothing to do with the environment. Your statement about jeremymims logic is out of place.
There are negative environmental impacts from ocean fish farms. I don't enough about non-ocean fish farms to comment on the environmental impacts of non-ocean fish farms though.