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

91–99 of 99 posts

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

#91

Post by JFPetersen »

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…

I just want to give a plug here for a very underrated & unknown newspaper; the Saint Petersburg Times. They did tests like this about 5 years ago with similar results, and I believe they were the first investigative reporters who looked into this issue.

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

#92

Post by r0s »

davidhollander wrote: post #90
r0s wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ALA is adequately converted to DHA, you didn't read the article you linked. Studies on rats are far from conclusive... but then why claim it's a human-health fact? "While there is discrepancy in ALA conversion rates in rats, these studies imply that dietary ALA could sufficiently supply the brain with DHA in the absence of exogenous DHA intake." This is consistent with all other research I've read, debunking this myt…

> you didn't read the article you linked Is this a joke? The article specifically states: > It is not enough to assume that ALA exerts effects through conversion to EPA and DHA, as the process is highly inefficient in humans. > with higher levels of ALA, no net rise in the level of circulating DHA occurred [2,3]. For example, feeding 10.7 g/d of ALA from flaxseed oil for 4 weeks failed to increase low DHA levels in b…

Let me clarify: Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor causative to anything.

My point is that ALA provides adequate, not elevated levels of DHA, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

Now let's examine the actual context of my quote:

> ALA is adequately converted to DHA

I think it's worth mentioning where you make a false statement, directly after citing inefficient conversion rates in humans.

>It specifically states that ALA->DHA is only a phenomena that occurs in rats and not humans.

Which is it, inefficient or non-existent in humans?

This statement: >It is not enough to assume that ALA exerts effects through conversion to EPA and DHA, as the process is highly inefficient in humans.

... Says exactly nothing about healthy levels of DHA. It is non sequitur. It skirts the issue, it avoids the topic, the statement tries to make a huge jump in unreasonable unproven logic. This paper shows nothing but the therapeutic effect of DHA/EPA on diseased people.

There is no evidence to suggest inadequate DHA is produced from dietary ALA in otherwise healthy humans. Not in this paper, nor any I've seen.

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

#93

Post by megablast »

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…

Just as we should dismiss the police force because they are not 100% effective, they do not capture all murders and theives, and sometimes convict innocent people.

It would be a better argument if you could talk about the actual odds.

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

#94

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

kahawe wrote: post #81
trotsky wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to give you a picture, I get most of my vegetables from a Community Supported Agriculture farm here in the spring and summer. They give me a box of what is available. Onions, peppers, beets, potatoes, cucumbers, fennel, tomatoes, garlic and cilantro have been some of the recent arrivals. Spring had lots of lettuces and spinach, in the future there will be squash. Some are local heirlooms, they certainly aren't f…

Wow, this is pretty sweet - especially the part where they are still using real seeds! I doubt the majority of farmers are doing this here.

Is Germany really that different? Here in the US I can just go to a farmer's market and get all kinds of heirloom vegetables or just veggies that are hard to find commercially because they don't do well at large scale. Further, there are large farms that only sell tomatoes to supermarkets within a limited radius because that way they can be guaranteed picked when ripe since they don't have to ship cross-country.

The demand for tasty fresh food is there and in true capitalist spirit, farmers are rising to the occasion ;-)

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

#95

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

DanielStraight wrote: post #62
riffic wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right. It was just a randomly chosen example. Perhaps it was a poor one. I'm aware of the size of the Brassica genus and the B. oleracea species in particular. I was not, however, trying to make the point that B. oleracea is a species without a lot of variety. I was trying to make the point that the food industry consistently simplifies the genetic variety of foods, sometimes alarmingly so. Bananas are definitely a b…

And like any "industry" there are niche providers that specialize in different areas. This is where Community Supported Agriculture, farmer's markets, and supporting your local farms comes into play.

You don't have to buy all your vegetables and fruits at the convenience store or local supermarket. It may be easier, but in that case you're exchanging variety for convenience, so don't be surprised at the result.

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

#96

Post by rat »

dagw wrote: post #65
cosgroveb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the lede? >Scientists aiming their gene sequencers at commercial seafood are discovering rampant labeling fraud in supermarket coolers and restaurant tables: cheap fish is often substituted for expensive fillets, and overfished species are passed off as fish whose numbers are plentiful. The link states that overfished species are being intentionally mis-labelled. I would say that, yes, we might as w…

absent some sort of regulation from the government Surely there must be laws against this already. I have a hard time imagining that claiming that you're selling X when you're in actual fact selling Y is legal. If no one is being prosecuted it must be because the government doesn't care enough, not because they lack laws to prosecute under.

It depends probably but I'm sure some areas the name of different foods are imprecise. Does caviar mean all fish eggs? all black fish eggs? Beluga, Ossetra or Sevruga sturgeon eggs? What about True cod. ect.

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

#97

Post by davidhollander »

r0s wrote: post #92
davidhollander wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you didn't read the article you linked Is this a joke? The article specifically states: > It is not enough to assume that ALA exerts effects through conversion to EPA and DHA, as the process is highly inefficient in humans. > with higher levels of ALA, no net rise in the level of circulating DHA occurred [2,3]. For example, feeding 10.7 g/d of ALA from flaxseed oil for 4 weeks failed to increase low DHA levels in b…

Let me clarify: Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor causative to anything. My point is that ALA provides adequate, not elevated levels of DHA, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Now let's examine the actual context of my quote: > ALA is adequately converted to DHA I think it's worth mentioning where you make a false statement, directly after citing inefficient conversion rates…

> Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor causative to anything

It's correlated with being a human, but the significance of very inefficient conversion versus trivial conversion is simply that it prevents us from claiming they are metabolically identical goods.

>Which is it, inefficient or non-existent in humans?

Inefficient. 'ALA->DHA' shorthand was meant to token the previous idea of "efficient endogenous ALA to DHA conversion" and not initialize a new false one.

>no evidence to suggest inadequate DHA

I think you're missing the point by intentionally or unintentionally rephrasing this in terms of avoiding a negative. Let me requote the initial context by jeremymims:

> 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?

My primary point is that one cannot rationally assert that the numerous positive IQ benefits scientific literature attributes to consumption of fish and fish oil are somehow equally or better attributable to walnut and flax consumption. The evidence indicates differing methods of action and a need to consider their health benefits independently.

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

#98

Post by r0s »

davidhollander wrote: post #97
r0s wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me clarify: Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor causative to anything. My point is that ALA provides adequate, not elevated levels of DHA, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Now let's examine the actual context of my quote: > ALA is adequately converted to DHA I think it's worth mentioning where you make a false statement, directly after citing inefficient conversion rates…

> Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor causative to anything It's correlated with being a human, but the significance of very inefficient conversion versus trivial conversion is simply that it prevents us from claiming they are metabolically identical goods. > Which is it, inefficient or non-existent in humans? Inefficient. 'ALA->DHA' shorthand was meant to token the previous idea of…

> The evidence indicates differing methods of action and a need to consider their health benefits independently.

Fair enough. I learned a thing or too here, so thanks.

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

#99

Post by DanielStraight »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #95
DanielStraight wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It was just a randomly chosen example. Perhaps it was a poor one. I'm aware of the size of the Brassica genus and the B. oleracea species in particular. I was not, however, trying to make the point that B. oleracea is a species without a lot of variety. I was trying to make the point that the food industry consistently simplifies the genetic variety of foods, sometimes alarmingly so. Bananas are definitely a b…

And like any "industry" there are niche providers that specialize in different areas. This is where Community Supported Agriculture, farmer's markets, and supporting your local farms comes into play. You don't have to buy all your vegetables and fruits at the convenience store or local supermarket. It may be easier, but in that case you're exchanging variety for convenience, so don't be surprised at the result.

The impact of industrial agriculture can't be undone simply by buying from local farms. It can be mitigated, but mitigated does not equal undone.

If I buy my produce from a local farm whose soil is full of run-off from an industrial farm upstream, I'm still being impacted by industrial agriculture. If my local farm only has one type of banana because industrial agriculture has killed all the other ones (this is a metaphor, not reality), then I'm still being impacted by industrial agriculture. If I cook my locally grown produce with water polluted by industrial farms, I'm still being impacted by industrial agriculture.

Riding your bike to work doesn't make you immune to the impacts of climate change. Neither does buying locally grown produce make you immune to the impacts of industrial agriculture.

Post reply on HN