Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

whichfish.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#51

Post by riffic »

simonsarris wrote: post #34
DanielStraight wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For decades we as a species have been deciding to turn food into an industry. This decision has had disastrous consequences, but like CO2 in the atmosphere it can't be reversed overnight. Cross-pollination can bring genetically modified strains into organic crops, making it hard to keep a crop organic even if you want to. Run-off from industrial agriculture has damaged water and soil, which will impact whatever is pl…

> Why does all broccoli look the same? Surely pre-industry, there were numerous varieties of broccoli. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. If you are sincere then you are mistaken beyond your wildest dreams. All cultivars of the broccoli species look magnificently different. Broccoli, kale, collard greens, Chinese broccoli, cauliflower, Romanesco broccoli and broccoflower, cabbage, brussels sprouts, a…

you're missing the point. The point is, monocultures in agriculture can cause major issues. see the banana

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#52

Post by fishyfish »

One odd thing about this list:

There are 6 instances where species are listed as okay to eat if they are from the US while not okay to eat if they are from elsewhere. There are 0 instances where the opposite is true.

# yes Barramundi (US/Europe/Australia) # yes Barramundi (Closed Production) # no Barramundi (Other)

# yes Catfish (US Farmed) # no Catfish (Other)

# yes Crayfish (US) # no Crayfish (Other)

# yes Herring (Norway, Iceland, North Sea, US) # no Herring (Other)

# yes King Crab (US) # no King Crab (Other)

# yes Northern Prawn/Pink Shrimp (US and Canadian) # no Northern Prawn/Pink Shrimp (Other)

There seems to be some bias towards US fisheries in this list.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#53

Post by trotsky »

sliverstorm wrote: post #48
trotsky wrote: post #43

Why are various farmed fish listed as "not okay to eat"? Certainly farmed fish can't be under pressure like wild fish. Is it because of the environmental practices of the farms? I see us farmed raised catfish is listed ok, but apparently asian farmed catfish isn't?

Environmental impact of the farms, and raising practices. You can grow catfish in awful waters and as they are bottom-feeders, basically feed them trash. Allegedly many Chinese catfish farms do just that.

That makes sense, I just thought the website was only about sustainability of the populations based on some of the wording. I'm afraid to even look into the chinese catfish raising - wasn't there a recent scandal where asian catfish was being mass sold as US farm raised?

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#54

Post by davidhollander »

jeremymims wrote: post #39
davidhollander wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Just for the record, fish consumption is linked to increased IQ in children because of the presence of Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Did you know though that both Flaxseed and Walnuts are both better, cheaper, and less environmentally damaging sources of Omega 3s than fish? Soybeans and Tofu are also pretty good sources. I'm cool with people consuming less, not merely abstaining from eating fish. But for those out there who a…

> increased IQ in children because of the presence of Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Did you know though that both Flaxseed and Walnuts are both better

The fatty acid in both Flaxseed and Walnuts you are referring to is alpha Linolic acid (ALA), whereas fish contains Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Out of these, only DHA is found in the brain. If DHA is not present in the diet, ALA can be converted into it, but only at an extremely low rate of efficiency [1]

The only reliable vegan source of DHA I am aware of is certain types of algae. Additionally, by consuming extremely large quantities of nuts you will typically be overloading your copper to zinc ratio.

[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1476-511X-8-33 "Are all n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids created equal?"

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#56

Post by Zarkonnen »

fishyfish wrote: post #52

One odd thing about this list: There are 6 instances where species are listed as okay to eat if they are from the US while not okay to eat if they are from elsewhere. There are 0 instances where the opposite is true. # yes Barramundi (US/Europe/Australia) # yes Barramundi (Closed Production) # no Barramundi (Other) # yes Catfish (US Farmed) # no Catfish (Other) # yes Crayfish (US) # no Crayfish (Other) # yes Herring…

Yes, there is, due to a lot of the data being sourced from the Monterey Bay Aquarium, whose data is US-centric. If you look at the detail view of eg crayfish ( http://whichfish.org/detail/crayfish_us.html ), the issue is that the other sources have no data, so I had to use the likely overly US-centric view.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#57

Post by mturmon »

jellicle wrote: post #12

This 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…

Here's an earlier story, with similar conclusions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/science/22fish.html

And here's a reference to an even earlier story from 2005, in which farmed salmon are substituted for wild (not DNA-checkable):

http://vitalchoice.com/shop/pc/articlesView.asp?id=95

So, 6 years later, we still don't know what we're eating.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#58

Post by elehack »

jellicle wrote: post #12

This 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…

Unfortunately, government action is also incredibly limited in what it can do. Tragedy of the commons - all it takes is a few nations that don't subscribe to whatever sustainable fishing agreement is devised, and fishers can fish unsustainably under their flag.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#59

Post by chrismealy »

trotsky wrote: post #43

Why are various farmed fish listed as "not okay to eat"? Certainly farmed fish can't be under pressure like wild fish. Is it because of the environmental practices of the farms? I see us farmed raised catfish is listed ok, but apparently asian farmed catfish isn't?

Farmed fish are often fed unsustainable fish! It's just laundering unsustainability.
Post reply on HN