25 ms·

The Case Against Eating Fish

179 points by breitling 10y ago

mark_l_watson 10y ago
That is my understanding also. That said, I have started eating fish again on the advice of my doctor: I have been on the Eat to Live diet (no red meat, little meat in general, no dairy, no sugar that is not in whole fruit, lots of seeds and nuts). My doctor likes the diet but asked me to add two servings a week of oily fish high in omega 3. Expensive, but there are a few brands of Norwegian sardines packed in water that taste good to me. I won't eat fish in a restaurant or from a grocery store chain.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Not sure if you have access to a good place that smokes fish but you may want to give it a try. I really enjoy it and find my body craves the oil. Smoked lake trout is my favorite because its very oily and to me tastes delicious. It can be a little salty though if you have to watch your salt intake. You can get it with head on and skin so you can tell what kind it is. Also if you ever do try it, try to get a whole one smoked with bone in. Something about leaving the bone in makes it have a slightly different texture and taste, to me at least. One other thing is make sure its smoked well, meaning if it isnt smoked long enough it can be too moist. I wouldnt want anyone to try it and sort of get a soggy smoked fish lol. Nothing "wrong" with it but I think its better eating. Edit..person who posted about smoked sardines just made me so hungry! never had em and its going on list, thanks for suggestion!
  - houst0n_ 10y ago
    Best smoked fish in the entire world (they deliver globally) google the Hebridean smoke house. (This ruined smoked salmon for me, I guarantee they won't disappoint however be warned you can't uneat it and you can't go back...) Give it a go.
  - mercer 10y ago
    > One other thing is make sure its smoked well, meaning if it isnt smoked long enough it can be too moist. I wouldnt want anyone to try it and sort of get a soggy smoked fish lol. Nothing "wrong" with it but I think its better eating. Would you say that this applies to smoked eel as well? It's always quite moist when I buy it and while I love it, now I'm curious if it could be even better.
    - justincormack 10y ago
      if you buy smoked eel whole with skin it is usually better than the packaged skinned one, which can be quite moist. But eels is endangered, and you should generally not get it...
      - mercer 10y ago
        Yeah, I know :-/. I don't buy it often for that reason, but sometimes I'm naughty.
    - Mendenhall 10y ago
      In my experience smoking it longer dries out almost every meat. I notice smoked fish is not like steaks where "well done" "rare" etc are sort of standard. It took me a fair amount of years before I found my fave smoked fish place because of those difference. I think this thread prompted me to buy a smoker and start learning to do it myself.
      - mercer 10y ago
        That sounds like a great hobby to have :).
- donw 10y ago
  Smoked sardines with a splash of lemon are amazing. Capers, or specifically caper brine, also make for a wonderful addition. You could also go for a combination of salt, dill, and Old Bay.
  - el_benhameen 10y ago
    Fresh sardines in olive oil and lemon are another fantastic one. I just wish I knew where to find them outside of a restaurant so I could make my own.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      Also sardines instead of ground beef in meat sauce pasta.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      Also sardines instead of ground beef in meat sauce pasta.
ivan_ah 10y ago
Related, this video on youtube which made me not want to eat fish anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH6wH1dqbwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH6wH1dqbwc WTF?!
- scottLobster 10y ago
  You realize that's specifically talking about farmed Norwegian Salmon and not all fish everywhere, right?
  - houst0n_ 10y ago
    Farmed salmon is really fucked up. We used to catch ones which broke out from freshwater farms (mostly accidentally) and depending on the time of year the flesh would be grey (they feed dyed meal before they go to market) and they all had weird extra fins and deformities.. I'll eat it, I know where it comes from at least though.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      All salmon flesh is naturally pale in color (look at their close relatives the freshwater trout). The pink or red color you see in some wild-caught fish is from carotenoid pigments in the krill they consume (or that has been consumed by other creatures that are then consumed by the salmon). The farm-raised fish are given the exact same pigments before they are sent to market. There are reasons to avoid farmed fish, but the color isn't one of them.
      - pheldagryph 10y ago
        There is a standard measuring instrument for the color of salmon-flesh. The SalmoFan!: https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solutions/products_solutions_tools/Products_solutions_tools_salmon.html https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solu... > DSM has studied consumer preferences regarding the flesh color of salmon. Our research shows that dark-colored salmon flesh consistently commands a premium. Typically bought by more affluent groups, it can command an additional USD 0.50 to USD 1.00 per pound when offered side-by-side with light-colored salmon flesh. > Light-colored salmon attracts a different consumer demographic, being more frequently purchased by minority groups than dark-colored salmon.
jnordwick 10y ago
This again. There are a few good takedowns of the Oceana report and how even the seemingly modest 20% is vastly exaggerated for click bait reasons. Even The Huffington Post attacked it, not exactly a site known to go easy on businesses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/mislabeled-fish_b_2759879.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/mislabeled-fish_b... I can't find it, but there is an even better article that explains how the US fishing industry got Congress to make imported fish be called something else so they wouldn't be seem as competition. Can't find that though.
paulcole 10y ago
Rather than handwringing over what meat it is OK to eat, just don't eat meat.
- dawnerd 10y ago
  What's wrong with refusing to eat one type of meat? I don't eat fish for the same reasons.
  - alsetmusic 10y ago
    I'm not taking a side here. I eat all meats. That said, Jews had a lower susception to plague because they avoided pork. Of course, this was inferred as evidence that they caused plague.
    - ori_b 10y ago
      From what I'm aware, that was largely attributed to regular bathing in the mikveh (ritual bath), rather than diet.
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        That undoubtedly had something to do it, but it's also a fact that pigs, in particular, are prone to many diseases that can be transmitted to humans (there are some with cows too, of course, but not nearly as many). Same thing with shellfish (also forbidden by Kosher rules). Not only do they tend to collect nasty bugs from any human sewage in the water, but they have some truly scary toxins in their own right. None of those are an issue with modern farming and aquaculture, though. What probably happened was that a whole village got wiped out with (say) Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, and the priest from the next village decided that God really, really didn't want people eating oysters any more.
  - houst0n_ 10y ago
    Diversity is good, seems our digestions evolved with the ability and perhaps even requirement to eat a lot of different things.. Mix it up a bit? Venison is a far superior meat to beef in my book however Ive never tried panda or zebra but I would. Why don't you eat fish? I can't work it out :)
psyc 10y ago
Health-wise, I'm unable to summon the tiniest bit of concern about anything in this article. Naturally the environmental situation with the ocean blows.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Looks like we and the rest of life on earth is just going to have to evolve to tolerate plastic in our systems.
partycoder 10y ago
Too late now. We have created an incredible dependency on fish: - "Fishmeal", fish based product fed to animals. - "Fish emulsion", fish oil used as fertilizer for our crops. Yes, your vegeterian meal might not be vegan. - Fish fed to other animals including other fish - Fish, fish that we eat
birksherty 10y ago
Here in India we eat mainly river fish, not seafood. So, does it also have the same issues?
drewjaja 10y ago
And here I am trying to eat less meat and more seafood thinking it's more healthier.
isaac_is_goat 10y ago
Oh look - another item on my list of justifications for my vegan diet. Nice.
mirimir 10y ago
If you're going to eat meat, fish has the least ecological impact. That is, if it's produced in systems that don't trash natural ecosystems. Or use wild-caught fish as food. The point is that fish, being ectotherms, don't waste energy keeping warm.
- Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
  Populations of commercially-important species are only about 50% of he size they were 100 years ago. And, i shit you not: that is a rather conservative estimate. Don't take my work for it. The most cited number is 10%. And farmed fish are wreaking havoc in the local marine environment wherever they are. Most countries have laws protecting water from "overnutrition" (which kills most marine life) yet the farmed fishing industry seems largely exempt from those laws. Outside my home town of 100.000 inhabitants they just opened a new salmon farm that lets out as much nitrogen into the water as would the whole town's sewer system if we just dumped it all at sea. Fish might be sustainable from a co2(e) point of view, but most fisheries and fish farms are not.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Yeah, I get that. That's why I added the proviso about ecosystem damage. I'm talking about designed ecosystems that process human waste into soil, plants, fish, and finally potable water.
houst0n_ 10y ago
Okay; mislabelled fish happens but it always has. Boycotting things you work with is a bit of a trend once the the initial shock kicks in but usually when we look from the inside we overblow the impacts of these things.. How many of us in the marketing/analytics/tracking/social media biz have Facebook profiles or browse signed into google?£ A lot of restaurants also sell ox or bison instead of beef. Fresh fish is loaded with omegawhatever and is completely delicious. Instead of cutting out one thing instead just maintain a balance like a grown up. Eat fruit, nuts, fish, cattle, paper clips, the fear of junior developers etc etc. If you only eat loads of cheap mislabelled fish then the problems warned in this story might come true but who really does that? I buy whole breams once a month or so and with some greens on the side I consider it a completely healthy (and delicious) meal. I grew up eating crabs and lobsters weekly and it didn't kill me. What's the case here?
- fredsir 10y ago
  > I grew up eating crabs and lobsters weekly and it didn't kill me. You don't know yet what is gonna kill you. You might get a stroke tomorrow caused in some part by doing those things. That is essentially why living healthy is a thing, and why the number one cause of human death in the world is bad eating habits and not old-age.
  - houst0n_ 10y ago
    Well, not to get too off topic but this argument never really resonated with me. I'm either going to die suddenly/instantly in some accident (or otherwise in some situation like this stroke where I don't knowing it's coming) or I'll contract cancer or some other miserable thing that'll off me slowly in which case I'll die by suicide. Should I avoid nice things to get an extra 10 years when I'm 70? Not this cat, but I don't judge anyone for feeling different.
    - fredsir 10y ago
      Lots die suddenly from strokes and heart attacks (and other diet-related stuff) in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s too. I get it when you're 70, but when there's a real chance of it happening already at 30 and increasingly from that point. That realization is what made me switch my unhealthy habits out what healthy ones that I've come to enjoy just as much if not even more since I'm now also much healthier and can enjoy much more cool stuff that I couldn't before. Said another way: if food is your measure of happiness in life, you should branch out and try something other than eating, and even then, food is not good because there is meat in it. A good dish is a good dish in any case, and there are thousands of good dishes containing no animal products what so ever.
DodgyEggplant 10y ago
We are destroying the planet
jroblak 10y ago
It's hard to take something like this seriously when it spends 3 (large) paragraphs scare mongering about the fact that fish "may" contain plastics, only to end with: >> Even though current research shows we do not absorb most plastics, it’s possible that a small amount (about 1 percent) can still accumulate in our bodies over time. That number might change: research on microplastics in our food is still in its infancy, and while some studies have documented the detrimental effects of plastics on fish and other aquatic animals, we still don’t know much about their long-term effects on humans. So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem. But it _might_ _maybe_ _someday_! edit - I've also never heard of any food safety guidelines that specify different storage temperatures for different species of fish. The whole thing is pretty suspect.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  Note, too, that he abruptly switches from "microplastics" to "plastics" in mid-sentence. As far as I know, the "detrimental effects of plastics" that have been "documented" are stuff like getting caught in six-pack rings, getting intestinal clogs, etc., none of which are likely to be an issue with microplastics.
- deno 10y ago
  > So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem. Do you mean our lack of current scientific evidence? The fact that we have no idea about long term effects of ingesting those plastics should be alarming enough. I didn’t sign up to be a guinea pig for this experiment. Thanks to this article at least I know I’m part of one.
- pvaldes 10y ago
  Anyone using a computer several hours each day will collect probably much more micro particles of plastic in its fingers; as our badly worn-out keyboards can tell us.
didibus 10y ago
Labeling is a major issue for all products, but I have to say, I think he'd stop eating everything else he's eating if he was also a scientist in touch with their production. The food we eat is mass produced, we should assume very low quality and environmental sustainability. Now, should I stop eating fish? Nothing was proven a health concern, what's the effect of the small plastic I'll ingest through fish? Most studies I've seen on health correlate healthy individuals with eating fish. Now, those are probably a few years or decade old, is fish worse today? I think it's still inconclusive.
- houst0n_ 10y ago
  Right! How many places did you work that made you vow to never use after seeing behind the curtain? We live in happy ignorance of the horrible shit in most of our food but we have pretty reasonable controls that none of it is complete poison.
- deno 10y ago
  > Most studies I've seen on health correlate healthy individuals with eating fish. Eating fish would also correlate with a lot of other things in many parts of the developed world, like spending more on food, or following mainstream “healthy” advice, which correlates with other choices.
- milesrout 10y ago
  >The food we eat is mass produced, we should assume very low quality and environmental sustainability. Is it? The food I eat predominantly isn't. Speak for yourself.
moozilla 10y ago
I think this kind of article is downright irresponsible - when you weigh the small amounts of extra toxins you consume, the effects are always going to be lesser than the enormous benefits of consuming fish. > Drs. Mozaffarian and Rimm put this in perspective in their analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (1) First, reviewing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere, they calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer—but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. (source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/) I'm certain a similar argument can be applied to the dangers of mislabeled fish or micro-plastics. To put it in perspective: if the sort of argument this article presents convinced even 7% of people to not eat fish, it would counteract the 7000 potential heart disease deaths in the above example.
- projectorlochsa 10y ago
  The problem is that one individual is not an average population. Average population in USA is incapable of eating right. There's a bunch of stuff that other than fish that would have the same if not better effect and it has no side-effects.
  - koverstreet 10y ago
    That isn't even an argument, it's a bunch of non sequitars.
    - timothycrosley 10y ago
      I think the argument the original poster is trying to make is: statistics say people that eat fish are more healthy, but this is because of certain components of fish (like Omega 3s) and not something only providable by fish. These other sources (like flax seeds for omega3s) aren't shown to have large amounts of toxins. However, because it takes a variety of alternative foods to get all the healthy components in fish - even though an individual will be better off doing that - it would be hard and complex to find enough individuals eating all the healthy things combined to statistically show it's healthier then fish.
lomereiter 10y ago
I treat fish with much suspicion after reading (ZeroMQ author) Pieter Hintjens' opinion, which is based on similar reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11626182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11626182
- pm90 10y ago
  To be fair, it seems like he's making a case against eating sushi, and not all fish in general. But yes, good point.
amelius 10y ago
How dangerous is it to ingest microplastics? Isn't this stuff just coming out the rear end completely unprocessed?
- singularity2001 10y ago
  it also acts as a sponge for toxins. can microplastics pass membranes or get stuck?
jondubois 10y ago
I think that this problem probably isn't just restricted to fish. I think if you dug deep into any kind of food, you would find similar issues.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  By what mechanism would it get into other foods?
hd4 10y ago
>The Case Against Eating Fish >thewalrus.ca It's the little things.
noir-york 10y ago
I just had an awesome monkfish with scallops for dinner last night. And earlier this week a John Dory. And they were great! But then again, I don't order fish from any restaurant, but go to a fishing village and the restaurants there show you the fresh fish for you to choose from. Good fresh fish is not cheap. I cannot understand why the writer, a scientist, engages in scaremongering instead of presenting a holistic picture. A dinner of fresh fish paired with an excellent white wine makes for a healthy and very enjoyable evening.
- knocte 10y ago
  You clearly didn't read the article.
  - milesrout 10y ago
    Insinuating someone didn't read the article is against the guidelines of HN.
dorfsmay 10y ago
This both interesting and depressing. When I grew up cod was a "love it or hate it" thing, because of it's strong taste. Nowadays, cod means some white flaky texture with no taste.
glaberficken 10y ago
When I read these types of articles and the myriad of "studies" that come out daily, I always think there's really only one way to eat as healthy as possible for the typical "urban westerner" - To eat a bit of everything, no big rules, or removing any specific food from your diet. Just integrate lots of variety and never get accustomed to consume too much of anything. Include the notion of not being loyal to brands or geographic origin. Examples: Don't eat too much tuna, but when you buy tuna always buy a different brand/type. When you buy meat, don't always eat beef or pork, alternate, and choose from different brands suppliers. Same with vegetables, etc. By all means avoid sugar added / too much processed foods, I think these 2 points are above reasonable doubt today. It's a real luxury and privilege to have access to the variety of foods we enjoy today, we should exploit it more IMHO.
- taneq 10y ago
  This makes me think of that 'antifragile' principle. Sounds like a good idea.
exodust 10y ago
Microbeads get a small mention yet they went viral, with a clambering of global policies and government bans; and endless industry activity in response. Now you can't buy Nivea face wash for example, with these beads. Their R&D team came up with a replacement, done and dusted by the end of 2015. Change happens rapidly when reputation and sales are on the line.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
If anyone wants to skip over the veganism, and the locavore and the organic and the ecovore and all of that, it's going to come down to this: You should only eat animal products that came from your pets, i.e. you observe their lives, empathize with what's happening to them, and take responsibility* for their subjective experience. Beyond that, on the cosmic scale, it doesn't matter what your practices are. We can disagree about what constitutes a subjectively good experience for a chicken or a fish. Future generations will disagree on those things too. They won't judge you for where your empathy steers you, but they will judge you for opting out of the responsibility. If you want to pay someone to take care of "your" pets, that's fine too, but they're just your employee. You can leave your dog with the dogsitter, but you're still responsible for their care. The same is true of chicken you eat. You're still the CEO in that interaction, and still responsible for the life of the animal, so due diligence is necessary. Ecological care, health, animal welfare, labor welfare, all of these things naturally shake out empathy and responsibility. Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either. They use "vegan" as a proxy for "humane" but it's not good enough. It's better than a meat eater who is absconding responsibility, but not as good as a meat eater who is taking responsibility. The vegan myth is that it's possible to produce food with no animal impacts. "Don't eat fish" or "Eat local" or "Don't eat animal products" all suffer the same fate: they're rough heuristics in a process where we need actual responsibility. Before computers it was too hard to actually understand what was happening to your "pets" or where your "vegetables" were coming from but now that we have computers we can do it.
- tao_oat 10y ago
  I don't understand the argument that opting out of using animal products is avoiding responsibility. Isn't that equivalent to saying that by boycotting sweatshop products we aren't taking responsibility? Are you arguing that we should work within the system? > Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either. Vegans aren't interested in animal welfare in the way we usually think of it, i.e. in terms of bigger cages, access to fresh air, etc. Vegans are interested in animal rights as in not using animals at all. It might not be possible to product food without hurting some animals, but there's a moral difference between accidentally and intentionally hurting someone.
sunstone 10y ago
Ok admittedly I'm a Costco fan boy but I only buy fish from there because I believe their supply lines are more trustworthy.

179 points by breitling 10y ago

That is my understanding also. That said, I have started eating fish again on the advice of my doctor: I have been on the Eat to Live diet (no red meat, little meat in general, no dairy, no sugar that is not in whole fruit, lots of seeds and nuts). My doctor likes the diet but asked me to add two servings a week of oily fish high in omega 3. Expensive, but there are a few brands of Norwegian sardines packed in water that taste good to me. I won't eat fish in a restaurant or from a grocery store chain.

Mendenhall 10y ago
Not sure if you have access to a good place that smokes fish but you may want to give it a try. I really enjoy it and find my body craves the oil. Smoked lake trout is my favorite because its very oily and to me tastes delicious. It can be a little salty though if you have to watch your salt intake. You can get it with head on and skin so you can tell what kind it is. Also if you ever do try it, try to get a whole one smoked with bone in. Something about leaving the bone in makes it have a slightly different texture and taste, to me at least. One other thing is make sure its smoked well, meaning if it isnt smoked long enough it can be too moist. I wouldnt want anyone to try it and sort of get a soggy smoked fish lol. Nothing "wrong" with it but I think its better eating. Edit..person who posted about smoked sardines just made me so hungry! never had em and its going on list, thanks for suggestion!
- houst0n_ 10y ago
  Best smoked fish in the entire world (they deliver globally) google the Hebridean smoke house. (This ruined smoked salmon for me, I guarantee they won't disappoint however be warned you can't uneat it and you can't go back...) Give it a go.
- mercer 10y ago
  > One other thing is make sure its smoked well, meaning if it isnt smoked long enough it can be too moist. I wouldnt want anyone to try it and sort of get a soggy smoked fish lol. Nothing "wrong" with it but I think its better eating. Would you say that this applies to smoked eel as well? It's always quite moist when I buy it and while I love it, now I'm curious if it could be even better.
  - justincormack 10y ago
    if you buy smoked eel whole with skin it is usually better than the packaged skinned one, which can be quite moist. But eels is endangered, and you should generally not get it...
    - mercer 10y ago
      Yeah, I know :-/. I don't buy it often for that reason, but sometimes I'm naughty.
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    In my experience smoking it longer dries out almost every meat. I notice smoked fish is not like steaks where "well done" "rare" etc are sort of standard. It took me a fair amount of years before I found my fave smoked fish place because of those difference. I think this thread prompted me to buy a smoker and start learning to do it myself.
    - mercer 10y ago
      That sounds like a great hobby to have :).
donw 10y ago
Smoked sardines with a splash of lemon are amazing. Capers, or specifically caper brine, also make for a wonderful addition. You could also go for a combination of salt, dill, and Old Bay.
- el_benhameen 10y ago
  Fresh sardines in olive oil and lemon are another fantastic one. I just wish I knew where to find them outside of a restaurant so I could make my own.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    Also sardines instead of ground beef in meat sauce pasta.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    Also sardines instead of ground beef in meat sauce pasta.

ivan_ah 10y ago

Related, this video on youtube which made me not want to eat fish anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH6wH1dqbwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH6wH1dqbwc WTF?!

scottLobster 10y ago
You realize that's specifically talking about farmed Norwegian Salmon and not all fish everywhere, right?
- houst0n_ 10y ago
  Farmed salmon is really fucked up. We used to catch ones which broke out from freshwater farms (mostly accidentally) and depending on the time of year the flesh would be grey (they feed dyed meal before they go to market) and they all had weird extra fins and deformities.. I'll eat it, I know where it comes from at least though.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    All salmon flesh is naturally pale in color (look at their close relatives the freshwater trout). The pink or red color you see in some wild-caught fish is from carotenoid pigments in the krill they consume (or that has been consumed by other creatures that are then consumed by the salmon). The farm-raised fish are given the exact same pigments before they are sent to market. There are reasons to avoid farmed fish, but the color isn't one of them.
    - pheldagryph 10y ago
      There is a standard measuring instrument for the color of salmon-flesh. The SalmoFan!: https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solutions/products_solutions_tools/Products_solutions_tools_salmon.html https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solu... > DSM has studied consumer preferences regarding the flesh color of salmon. Our research shows that dark-colored salmon flesh consistently commands a premium. Typically bought by more affluent groups, it can command an additional USD 0.50 to USD 1.00 per pound when offered side-by-side with light-colored salmon flesh. > Light-colored salmon attracts a different consumer demographic, being more frequently purchased by minority groups than dark-colored salmon.

jnordwick 10y ago

This again. There are a few good takedowns of the Oceana report and how even the seemingly modest 20% is vastly exaggerated for click bait reasons. Even The Huffington Post attacked it, not exactly a site known to go easy on businesses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/mislabeled-fish_b_2759879.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/mislabeled-fish_b... I can't find it, but there is an even better article that explains how the US fishing industry got Congress to make imported fish be called something else so they wouldn't be seem as competition. Can't find that though.

paulcole 10y ago

Rather than handwringing over what meat it is OK to eat, just don't eat meat.

dawnerd 10y ago
What's wrong with refusing to eat one type of meat? I don't eat fish for the same reasons.
- alsetmusic 10y ago
  I'm not taking a side here. I eat all meats. That said, Jews had a lower susception to plague because they avoided pork. Of course, this was inferred as evidence that they caused plague.
  - ori_b 10y ago
    From what I'm aware, that was largely attributed to regular bathing in the mikveh (ritual bath), rather than diet.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      That undoubtedly had something to do it, but it's also a fact that pigs, in particular, are prone to many diseases that can be transmitted to humans (there are some with cows too, of course, but not nearly as many). Same thing with shellfish (also forbidden by Kosher rules). Not only do they tend to collect nasty bugs from any human sewage in the water, but they have some truly scary toxins in their own right. None of those are an issue with modern farming and aquaculture, though. What probably happened was that a whole village got wiped out with (say) Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, and the priest from the next village decided that God really, really didn't want people eating oysters any more.
- houst0n_ 10y ago
  Diversity is good, seems our digestions evolved with the ability and perhaps even requirement to eat a lot of different things.. Mix it up a bit? Venison is a far superior meat to beef in my book however Ive never tried panda or zebra but I would. Why don't you eat fish? I can't work it out :)

psyc 10y ago

Health-wise, I'm unable to summon the tiniest bit of concern about anything in this article. Naturally the environmental situation with the ocean blows.

goatlover 10y ago
Looks like we and the rest of life on earth is just going to have to evolve to tolerate plastic in our systems.

partycoder 10y ago

Too late now. We have created an incredible dependency on fish: - "Fishmeal", fish based product fed to animals. - "Fish emulsion", fish oil used as fertilizer for our crops. Yes, your vegeterian meal might not be vegan. - Fish fed to other animals including other fish - Fish, fish that we eat

birksherty 10y ago

Here in India we eat mainly river fish, not seafood. So, does it also have the same issues?

drewjaja 10y ago

And here I am trying to eat less meat and more seafood thinking it's more healthier.

isaac_is_goat 10y ago

Oh look - another item on my list of justifications for my vegan diet. Nice.

mirimir 10y ago

If you're going to eat meat, fish has the least ecological impact. That is, if it's produced in systems that don't trash natural ecosystems. Or use wild-caught fish as food. The point is that fish, being ectotherms, don't waste energy keeping warm.

Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
Populations of commercially-important species are only about 50% of he size they were 100 years ago. And, i shit you not: that is a rather conservative estimate. Don't take my work for it. The most cited number is 10%. And farmed fish are wreaking havoc in the local marine environment wherever they are. Most countries have laws protecting water from "overnutrition" (which kills most marine life) yet the farmed fishing industry seems largely exempt from those laws. Outside my home town of 100.000 inhabitants they just opened a new salmon farm that lets out as much nitrogen into the water as would the whole town's sewer system if we just dumped it all at sea. Fish might be sustainable from a co2(e) point of view, but most fisheries and fish farms are not.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Yeah, I get that. That's why I added the proviso about ecosystem damage. I'm talking about designed ecosystems that process human waste into soil, plants, fish, and finally potable water.

houst0n_ 10y ago

Okay; mislabelled fish happens but it always has. Boycotting things you work with is a bit of a trend once the the initial shock kicks in but usually when we look from the inside we overblow the impacts of these things.. How many of us in the marketing/analytics/tracking/social media biz have Facebook profiles or browse signed into google?£ A lot of restaurants also sell ox or bison instead of beef. Fresh fish is loaded with omegawhatever and is completely delicious. Instead of cutting out one thing instead just maintain a balance like a grown up. Eat fruit, nuts, fish, cattle, paper clips, the fear of junior developers etc etc. If you only eat loads of cheap mislabelled fish then the problems warned in this story might come true but who really does that? I buy whole breams once a month or so and with some greens on the side I consider it a completely healthy (and delicious) meal. I grew up eating crabs and lobsters weekly and it didn't kill me. What's the case here?

fredsir 10y ago
> I grew up eating crabs and lobsters weekly and it didn't kill me. You don't know yet what is gonna kill you. You might get a stroke tomorrow caused in some part by doing those things. That is essentially why living healthy is a thing, and why the number one cause of human death in the world is bad eating habits and not old-age.
- houst0n_ 10y ago
  Well, not to get too off topic but this argument never really resonated with me. I'm either going to die suddenly/instantly in some accident (or otherwise in some situation like this stroke where I don't knowing it's coming) or I'll contract cancer or some other miserable thing that'll off me slowly in which case I'll die by suicide. Should I avoid nice things to get an extra 10 years when I'm 70? Not this cat, but I don't judge anyone for feeling different.
  - fredsir 10y ago
    Lots die suddenly from strokes and heart attacks (and other diet-related stuff) in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s too. I get it when you're 70, but when there's a real chance of it happening already at 30 and increasingly from that point. That realization is what made me switch my unhealthy habits out what healthy ones that I've come to enjoy just as much if not even more since I'm now also much healthier and can enjoy much more cool stuff that I couldn't before. Said another way: if food is your measure of happiness in life, you should branch out and try something other than eating, and even then, food is not good because there is meat in it. A good dish is a good dish in any case, and there are thousands of good dishes containing no animal products what so ever.

DodgyEggplant 10y ago

We are destroying the planet

jroblak 10y ago

It's hard to take something like this seriously when it spends 3 (large) paragraphs scare mongering about the fact that fish "may" contain plastics, only to end with: >> Even though current research shows we do not absorb most plastics, it’s possible that a small amount (about 1 percent) can still accumulate in our bodies over time. That number might change: research on microplastics in our food is still in its infancy, and while some studies have documented the detrimental effects of plastics on fish and other aquatic animals, we still don’t know much about their long-term effects on humans. So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem. But it _might_ _maybe_ _someday_! edit - I've also never heard of any food safety guidelines that specify different storage temperatures for different species of fish. The whole thing is pretty suspect.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
Note, too, that he abruptly switches from "microplastics" to "plastics" in mid-sentence. As far as I know, the "detrimental effects of plastics" that have been "documented" are stuff like getting caught in six-pack rings, getting intestinal clogs, etc., none of which are likely to be an issue with microplastics.
deno 10y ago
> So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem. Do you mean our lack of current scientific evidence? The fact that we have no idea about long term effects of ingesting those plastics should be alarming enough. I didn’t sign up to be a guinea pig for this experiment. Thanks to this article at least I know I’m part of one.
pvaldes 10y ago
Anyone using a computer several hours each day will collect probably much more micro particles of plastic in its fingers; as our badly worn-out keyboards can tell us.

didibus 10y ago

Labeling is a major issue for all products, but I have to say, I think he'd stop eating everything else he's eating if he was also a scientist in touch with their production. The food we eat is mass produced, we should assume very low quality and environmental sustainability. Now, should I stop eating fish? Nothing was proven a health concern, what's the effect of the small plastic I'll ingest through fish? Most studies I've seen on health correlate healthy individuals with eating fish. Now, those are probably a few years or decade old, is fish worse today? I think it's still inconclusive.

houst0n_ 10y ago
Right! How many places did you work that made you vow to never use after seeing behind the curtain? We live in happy ignorance of the horrible shit in most of our food but we have pretty reasonable controls that none of it is complete poison.
deno 10y ago
> Most studies I've seen on health correlate healthy individuals with eating fish. Eating fish would also correlate with a lot of other things in many parts of the developed world, like spending more on food, or following mainstream “healthy” advice, which correlates with other choices.
milesrout 10y ago
>The food we eat is mass produced, we should assume very low quality and environmental sustainability. Is it? The food I eat predominantly isn't. Speak for yourself.

moozilla 10y ago

I think this kind of article is downright irresponsible - when you weigh the small amounts of extra toxins you consume, the effects are always going to be lesser than the enormous benefits of consuming fish. > Drs. Mozaffarian and Rimm put this in perspective in their analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (1) First, reviewing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere, they calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer—but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. (source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/) I'm certain a similar argument can be applied to the dangers of mislabeled fish or micro-plastics. To put it in perspective: if the sort of argument this article presents convinced even 7% of people to not eat fish, it would counteract the 7000 potential heart disease deaths in the above example.

projectorlochsa 10y ago
The problem is that one individual is not an average population. Average population in USA is incapable of eating right. There's a bunch of stuff that other than fish that would have the same if not better effect and it has no side-effects.
- koverstreet 10y ago
  That isn't even an argument, it's a bunch of non sequitars.
  - timothycrosley 10y ago
    I think the argument the original poster is trying to make is: statistics say people that eat fish are more healthy, but this is because of certain components of fish (like Omega 3s) and not something only providable by fish. These other sources (like flax seeds for omega3s) aren't shown to have large amounts of toxins. However, because it takes a variety of alternative foods to get all the healthy components in fish - even though an individual will be better off doing that - it would be hard and complex to find enough individuals eating all the healthy things combined to statistically show it's healthier then fish.

lomereiter 10y ago

I treat fish with much suspicion after reading (ZeroMQ author) Pieter Hintjens' opinion, which is based on similar reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11626182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11626182

pm90 10y ago
To be fair, it seems like he's making a case against eating sushi, and not all fish in general. But yes, good point.

amelius 10y ago

How dangerous is it to ingest microplastics? Isn't this stuff just coming out the rear end completely unprocessed?

singularity2001 10y ago
it also acts as a sponge for toxins. can microplastics pass membranes or get stuck?

jondubois 10y ago

I think that this problem probably isn't just restricted to fish. I think if you dug deep into any kind of food, you would find similar issues.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
By what mechanism would it get into other foods?

hd4 10y ago

>The Case Against Eating Fish >thewalrus.ca It's the little things.

noir-york 10y ago

I just had an awesome monkfish with scallops for dinner last night. And earlier this week a John Dory. And they were great! But then again, I don't order fish from any restaurant, but go to a fishing village and the restaurants there show you the fresh fish for you to choose from. Good fresh fish is not cheap. I cannot understand why the writer, a scientist, engages in scaremongering instead of presenting a holistic picture. A dinner of fresh fish paired with an excellent white wine makes for a healthy and very enjoyable evening.

knocte 10y ago
You clearly didn't read the article.
- milesrout 10y ago
  Insinuating someone didn't read the article is against the guidelines of HN.

dorfsmay 10y ago

This both interesting and depressing. When I grew up cod was a "love it or hate it" thing, because of it's strong taste. Nowadays, cod means some white flaky texture with no taste.

glaberficken 10y ago

When I read these types of articles and the myriad of "studies" that come out daily, I always think there's really only one way to eat as healthy as possible for the typical "urban westerner" - To eat a bit of everything, no big rules, or removing any specific food from your diet. Just integrate lots of variety and never get accustomed to consume too much of anything. Include the notion of not being loyal to brands or geographic origin. Examples: Don't eat too much tuna, but when you buy tuna always buy a different brand/type. When you buy meat, don't always eat beef or pork, alternate, and choose from different brands suppliers. Same with vegetables, etc. By all means avoid sugar added / too much processed foods, I think these 2 points are above reasonable doubt today. It's a real luxury and privilege to have access to the variety of foods we enjoy today, we should exploit it more IMHO.

taneq 10y ago
This makes me think of that 'antifragile' principle. Sounds like a good idea.

exodust 10y ago

Microbeads get a small mention yet they went viral, with a clambering of global policies and government bans; and endless industry activity in response. Now you can't buy Nivea face wash for example, with these beads. Their R&D team came up with a replacement, done and dusted by the end of 2015. Change happens rapidly when reputation and sales are on the line.

erikpukinskis 10y ago

If anyone wants to skip over the veganism, and the locavore and the organic and the ecovore and all of that, it's going to come down to this: You should only eat animal products that came from your pets, i.e. you observe their lives, empathize with what's happening to them, and take responsibility* for their subjective experience. Beyond that, on the cosmic scale, it doesn't matter what your practices are. We can disagree about what constitutes a subjectively good experience for a chicken or a fish. Future generations will disagree on those things too. They won't judge you for where your empathy steers you, but they will judge you for opting out of the responsibility. If you want to pay someone to take care of "your" pets, that's fine too, but they're just your employee. You can leave your dog with the dogsitter, but you're still responsible for their care. The same is true of chicken you eat. You're still the CEO in that interaction, and still responsible for the life of the animal, so due diligence is necessary. Ecological care, health, animal welfare, labor welfare, all of these things naturally shake out empathy and responsibility. Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either. They use "vegan" as a proxy for "humane" but it's not good enough. It's better than a meat eater who is absconding responsibility, but not as good as a meat eater who is taking responsibility. The vegan myth is that it's possible to produce food with no animal impacts. "Don't eat fish" or "Eat local" or "Don't eat animal products" all suffer the same fate: they're rough heuristics in a process where we need actual responsibility. Before computers it was too hard to actually understand what was happening to your "pets" or where your "vegetables" were coming from but now that we have computers we can do it.

tao_oat 10y ago
I don't understand the argument that opting out of using animal products is avoiding responsibility. Isn't that equivalent to saying that by boycotting sweatshop products we aren't taking responsibility? Are you arguing that we should work within the system? > Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either. Vegans aren't interested in animal welfare in the way we usually think of it, i.e. in terms of bigger cages, access to fresh air, etc. Vegans are interested in animal rights as in not using animals at all. It might not be possible to product food without hurting some animals, but there's a moral difference between accidentally and intentionally hurting someone.

sunstone 10y ago

Ok admittedly I'm a Costco fan boy but I only buy fish from there because I believe their supply lines are more trustworthy.