4 ms·
On the consumer side we could stop eating seafood.
by lprubin 8y ago
On the consumer side we could stop eating seafood.
- vanderZwan 8y agoIf nothing else, I think that might be a good idea for our own health's sake. Especially fish that is at the top of the food chain (tuna) is more likely to have high concentrations of whatever toxins are now in the ocean thanks to us.
- komali2 8y agoOn the other hand, pushing people to choose fish over beef/pork/corn starch would cause healthier populations, and might be easier than convincing people to become vegetarians (especially people in food deserts that subsist primarily on fast food). Then again I'm probably just contributing to first world decision locking here lol
- gpvos 8y agoI could not find what "decision locking" meant. Did you maybe mean "decision lock-in"?
- komali2 8y agoOh shit, maybe it's a made up term my friend group and I use? It's the idea that there are too many decisions to make, so you can't decide. It can happen when too many people play devil's advocate during a meeting and we don't know what's real anymore.
- chrisallenlane 8y agoThis is sometimes referred to as "analysis paralysis."
- ekianjo 8y agoContamination is everywhere, including on land. How about plants grown using heavy amounts of fertilizers? is that safer in the long run? We have very poor visibility of risks related to the food we eat.
- jurip 8y agoThe problem is that seafood is really healthy. Finland has special permission from EU to keep Baltic fish that exceeds permitted dioxin and PCB levels on the market, because even with the pollutants, people who eat the fish live on average longer than people who eat no fish. https://thl.fi/web/environmental-health/environmental-pollutants https://thl.fi/web/environmental-health/environmental-pollut...