5 ms·

"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.

by reedlaw 15y ago

jeremymims 15y ago
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.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Preserving fish species is more important than not poisoning yourself?
- elmomalmo 15y ago
  Dead zones are not created by overfishing but by intensive farming techniques on land and what's subsequently washed into the sea via rivers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
- Duff 15y ago
  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.
- davidhollander 15y ago
  > 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
  - yequalsx 15y ago
    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.
    - davidhollander 15y ago
      > The website that started these conversations has listed only ocean fish http://whichfish.org/detail/catfish_us_farmed.html http://whichfish.org/detail/catfish_us_farmed.html http://whichfish.org/detail/crayfish_us.html http://whichfish.org/detail/crayfish_us.html http://whichfish.org/detail/trout_rainbow_trout.html http://whichfish.org/detail/trout_rainbow_trout.html http://whichfish.org/detail/tilapia_organic_or_closed_production.html http://whichfish.org/detail/tilapia_organic_or_closed_produc...
  - jeremymims 15y ago
    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 are willing to (and there are many such people in the tech community), it really is the best option.
    - davidhollander 15y ago
      > 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1476-511X-8-33 "Are all n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids created equal?"
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Even if the entire United States ceased eating fish, the problem would continue and get worse. Other countries would step in and eat the fish we would have been eating. In other words, the way to solve the problem is not by not eating fish (though that is perfectly fine at an individual level) but to establish sustainability around the globe.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  The Hawaii-based longline fishery for swordfish was closed in 2000 over concerns of excessive sea turtle by-catch. One consequence of the closure was that 70 Hawaii-based vessels were replaced by 1,500-1,700 longline vessels from various Asian nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longline_fishing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longline_fishing The problem does not simply go away because Americans stop eating fish.
elmomalmo 15y ago
I disagree, I very much read that as 'which are [environmentally] ok to eat'. However, a friend's wife is pregnant. He - being somewhat preoccupied with pregnancy at the moment - may well have read it they way you did.
mrspeaker 15y ago
I think that would make an interesting poll... how many people read it as "Which are okay to eat - for our planet" and how many read it as "Which are okay to eat - for my health"?
- sixtofour 15y ago
  for my health, until I scrolled to the bottom.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  For the planet. Funnily enough my little lad asked me randomly "can we have cod". I'm conscious that we should only eat tuna once a week (line caught seems hot at the moment) but don't eat much fish and hadn't thought about mercury/environmental chemicals for other catches.
lean 15y ago
I assumed this was about mercury levels too, I would have never guessed it was environmental.
AJ007 15y ago
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.
- Zarkonnen 15y ago
  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.
jonknee 15y ago
"With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?" makes it really obvious...

"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.

by reedlaw 15y ago

"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems this question is from an environmental perspective.

jeremymims 15y ago

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.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Preserving fish species is more important than not poisoning yourself?
elmomalmo 15y ago
Dead zones are not created by overfishing but by intensive farming techniques on land and what's subsequently washed into the sea via rivers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
Duff 15y ago
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.
davidhollander 15y ago
> 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
- yequalsx 15y ago
  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.
  - davidhollander 15y ago
    > The website that started these conversations has listed only ocean fish http://whichfish.org/detail/catfish_us_farmed.html http://whichfish.org/detail/catfish_us_farmed.html http://whichfish.org/detail/crayfish_us.html http://whichfish.org/detail/crayfish_us.html http://whichfish.org/detail/trout_rainbow_trout.html http://whichfish.org/detail/trout_rainbow_trout.html http://whichfish.org/detail/tilapia_organic_or_closed_production.html http://whichfish.org/detail/tilapia_organic_or_closed_produc...
- jeremymims 15y ago
  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 are willing to (and there are many such people in the tech community), it really is the best option.
  - davidhollander 15y ago
    > 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1476-511X-8-33 "Are all n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids created equal?"
sliverstorm 15y ago
Even if the entire United States ceased eating fish, the problem would continue and get worse. Other countries would step in and eat the fish we would have been eating. In other words, the way to solve the problem is not by not eating fish (though that is perfectly fine at an individual level) but to establish sustainability around the globe.
sliverstorm 15y ago
The Hawaii-based longline fishery for swordfish was closed in 2000 over concerns of excessive sea turtle by-catch. One consequence of the closure was that 70 Hawaii-based vessels were replaced by 1,500-1,700 longline vessels from various Asian nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longline_fishing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longline_fishing The problem does not simply go away because Americans stop eating fish.

elmomalmo 15y ago

I disagree, I very much read that as 'which are [environmentally] ok to eat'. However, a friend's wife is pregnant. He - being somewhat preoccupied with pregnancy at the moment - may well have read it they way you did.

mrspeaker 15y ago

I think that would make an interesting poll... how many people read it as "Which are okay to eat - for our planet" and how many read it as "Which are okay to eat - for my health"?

sixtofour 15y ago
for my health, until I scrolled to the bottom.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
For the planet. Funnily enough my little lad asked me randomly "can we have cod". I'm conscious that we should only eat tuna once a week (line caught seems hot at the moment) but don't eat much fish and hadn't thought about mercury/environmental chemicals for other catches.

lean 15y ago

I assumed this was about mercury levels too, I would have never guessed it was environmental.

AJ007 15y ago

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.

Zarkonnen 15y ago
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.

jonknee 15y ago

"With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?" makes it really obvious...