There is a climate of distrust toward seafood these days. Many feel uncertain as to the safety of fish in general, not to mention which fish specifically are safe, if any.
How do you sort through the news, recommendations and warnings to know what to purchase? Is seafood even a necessary part of our diet? I’d love to answer these questions and more. Let’s explore the sea of issues surrounding seafood consumption: mercury, radiation exposure, aquaculture practices and fisheries.
IS SEAFOOD NECESSARY IN A HEALTHY DIET?
Seafood belongs to a varied, nutrient-dense diet. Fish and crustaceans are an excellent source of good cholesterol, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins A, D, B12 and folate.
Fish canned with their bones, such as sardines and salmon, can be an effective means of supplementing calcium.
Regular intake of fish has been linked to optimum brain health and development, reduced incidents of cancer, healthy blood pressure levels, low levels of inflammation and much more.
MERCURY IN FISH
While many avoid fish for fear of consuming mercury, a heavy metal that damages the nervous system, brain and digestive mechanism, fish also contain high levels of selenium, a mineral we now know is not only essential for thyroid, immune, nervous system and brain health, but is also the key to nullifying the effect mercury can have on humans.
It is not the presence of mercury in fish that is the concern. We must understand the context in which a single entity exists. Mercury binds to selenium and is excreted from the body as a result. If there is more selenium than mercury in a fish the mercury will be excreted.
Given this information, the main “fish” to avoid are actually whales, sharks, swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel. Notice tuna is not on the list. It has a higher ratio of selenium to mercury, by a lot, and is actually recommended as a healthful choice.
RADIATION
What about seafood being contaminated by radionuclides from the Japanese power plant incident? March 11, 2015 marked 4 years since the Japanese tsunami killed 19,000 people and leaked radiation into the Pacific Ocean. During that 4-year period we’ve heard reports of predictable fish contamination. One tuna was found off the coast of California with low levels of radiation, in 2013.
How are things looking now, two years after that fish was found, so far from its native waters? Levels had dropped so significantly between 2011 and 2013 that very few tests have continued. Yet a popular quote in the understandable hysteria that followed this leak was, “There is no safe level of radiation exposure.”
While this is true in one sense, and I don’t plan to eat fish or seaweed from the coastal waters of Japan, the exposure any of us would experience from eating the fish found in 2013 has been compared to one set of dental x-rays or a single airport screening. And that fish was an isolated incident.
The fact is radiation is all around us, impossible not to be exposed to in our modern world. While we certainly don’t want to add to that exposure what are some things we can do to combat our continual exposure?
A leading medical doctor that writes for the Weston A. Price foundation, Tom Cowan, recommends a traditional diet. Foods like bone broth, good fats, fermented cod liver oil, beet kvass, miso, kombucha and sea vegetables like kombu all help the body to detoxify. He also recommends detoxification baths.
FARM-RAISED SEAFOOD: AQUACULTURE PRACTICES
What about farm-raised seafood, is it safe? Yes and no.
While it would be easy to assume that all farmed fish is as unsafe as tilapia, for instance, thankfully the fish farmers of the world are more diverse than that.
There are many reasons to avoid farm-raised tilapia: they are treated with pesticides to kill water lice (and pesticides are then released into the ocean). They are treated with antibiotics due to sickness in their cramped quarters. A large ratio of their feed is animal feces, ground-up small fish and the greatest percentage of it is corn. They are fatter due to their corn-based diet and sedentary lifestyle and are therefore high in omega-6 fats and very low in omega-3. Tilapia is considered a truly dangerous food for those struggling with heart disease or inflammation of any kind.
Farm-raised catfish, salmon and shrimp are raised under similar circumstances and should also be avoided.
There are, however, honorable aquaculture (fish farming) facilities. I discuss below organizations that help us, as consumers, to make informed decisions.
SHRIMP
As a consumer, is there an eco-conscious shrimp safe to buy and eat?
Domestic, wild shrimp are a good choice. Look for the following certifications from independent agencies: Marine Stewardship Council, Wild American Shrimp, or look for the Best Aquaculture Practices label, which is a very stringent stamp for farmed shrimp that are antibiotic-free and actually exceed environmental standards.
According to the Environmental Working Group,
Farm-raised fish are here to stay. If raised correctly, these fish can help meet global demand for high-quality protein and take some of the pressure off of highly depleted populations of wild fish. But major reforms to the industry are needed.
FISHERIES: BYCATCH, ECOSYSTEMS AND OVER-FISHING
We often think in terms of land animals when we discuss endangered species. But there are fish, too, that are over-harvested, due to popularity and the increased human population. Some of these to be mindful of include Atlantic halibut and certain varieties of tuna.
Consumer watch groups help consumers understand healthful choices when it comes to this issue, as well as knowing what seafood does not include bycatch (the capture of other marine animals) or endanger sensitive habitats.
The term fishery embodies all these issues: the activities involved in catching seafood.
What’s one of the most powerful ways you, the consumer, can support responsible fisheries?
Open your mind to new fish varieties.
The ocean is full of a vast variety of not only edible but delicious and healthful seafood. We too often attach stigma to certain fish, either positive or negative. But to decrease the demand on over-fished or unsustainably-fished species, look for ocean or eco-friendly offerings that may not be as familiar.
RECOMMENDED SEAFOOD
You can find comprehensive links and guides to making wise choices when buying seafood HERE. You may also want to read Healthy Seafood: What to Buy.
According to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch these are some examples of good choices: wild salmon, wild or farmed Arctic char, farmed trout, sardines and anchovies.
Sardines (Pacific, wild-caught) are one of the healthiest foods we can consume, according to health and environmental experts. These nutritional powerhouses are one of the best sources of omega-3 fats, with a whopping 1,950 mg/per 3 oz. (that’s more per serving than salmon, tuna or just about any other food) and they’re packed with vitamin D.
Not sure how to prepare them? Here’s a main dish, gourmet salad recipe made with sardines.
Also look for skipjack tuna (FAD-free, troll or pole gear), all varieties of tuna labeled “Best Choice” by the Seafood Watch. They offer the greatest amount of selenium in any fish.
There is one extremely easy, nutritious food made from skipjack alone. Bonito fish flakes! (Where to buy Bonito Fish Flakes)
 |
Thanks for the article and various links to further information! I learned a number of very helpful things.
So glad, Zirah. Thanks for commenting.
Interesting article, thanks for the info! It’s a shame so many people have been scared off eating fish when it can be so healthy. I’m curious about tuna, though. My brother had a serious mercury problem (his levels were astronomical). He’s a pescetarian who consumes a lot of fish, but the main big fish he ate was tuna. Though his story is an anecdote, sure, it makes me nervous about eating (or telling people it’s okay to eat) large amounts of tuna. Might be good to draw out the distinction in types. And perhaps bump up the info about definitely great fish to eat. I favor sardines and anchovies (cheap and safe!) on a regular basis, sometimes trout, and wild salmon when I’m splurging.
What made him aware of a Mercury overload? I’m assuming Mercury levels isn’t something doctors normally test for! I eat lots of salmon but wild caught!
Hi Haley, to find information on which kinds of tuna are sustainably fished the article gives a link to Eat Beautiful, where several links to organizations provide this updated information. Regarding mercury, though, in tuna, it is always in lesser ratio to selenium. These same sites share their regional recommendations, always updated, for which fish are best to eat.
It is very important for people to be wary of the amount of high mercury fish they eat. Here is an informative article. Mercury in Seafood: A Little Clarity, by Carl Safina, Author and host, ‘Saving the Ocean’ on PBS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/mercury-in-seafood_b_5044264.html
Thank you, Julie. I read the article and although it is recent I personally believe that the information is anecdotal and antiquated, or outdated. This is the information we heard 10 years ago that made so many of us back away from tuna. This article does not mention at all the role selenium plays in its relationship to mercury. One man’s blood test one time is not a good indicator of whether that one tuna had more mercury than selenium in its body. IMO 😉
thank you for this info… I do want to add that there has been continuous radiation leaking from Fukushima since 2011, into the Pacific Ocean ..it has never been stopped! There is an astronomical amount of leaking radiation, on a daily basis and apparently we, as in our government, are doing nothing to warn us about this, neither about the Pacific Ocean water being contaminated, in other words enter at your own risk,nor the fish that is coming out of it! I also heard a few days ago that Japan itself has higher standards about radiation levels in the fish they allow for sale to the public and the fish with higher levels of radiation are sold to U.S. markets……You can find this info from scientist online
Kristine, thanks. Feel free to leave an actual link to a recent article. What I find from the source you mention is from 2011.
Kristine: THanks for reminding folks that the Fukushima disaster is a continuous one, not necessarily apocalyptic, but continuous. Recently, TEPCO inb Japan admitted that at least the No.4 Reactor was essentially in “China Syndrome”, that the core has broken through the containment. But of course, this didn’t happen only yesterday! many of us who watchdog nukes knew that this was the case not long after the earthquake and tsunami that caused one of the modern world’s biggest tragedies. SO, while the rad levels in that one specimen on the west coast were elevated, what really matters is this: what isotopes were elevated in that fish? GIven that testing is an adhoc protocol by the powers that be, I think it would be safe to assume that, (and again, this would be based on which isiotopes were present in elevated numbers in that one specimen), the specimen was representative of what might be found in seafood – and not just the west coast, since all the waters eventually, are one.
The Pacific Ocean is a vast body of water, literally quintillions (187 quintillion, to be a bit more accurate) of gallons of water. The radioactive water leaked from Fukushima is literally a “drop in the ocean”, compared to that amount. The dilution of the contaminant causes it to be too small to detect against background sources of natural radiation. The touted danger is being purposefully overstated for political reasons, to bring the public onboard with the lobbyists’ agenda (who are screaming about the supposed danger). We are in no danger from radioactivity from Fukushima in our fish, water or air.
Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over? | Skeptoid
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/
“To put this into perspective, an olympic sized swimming pool holds roughly 600,000 gallons of water. A gallon of water weighs 8.34 pounds, a standard ton is 2000 pounds and a metric ton is 2200 pounds. Using metric tons, 2200 / 8.34 = 264 gallons, or one metric ton equals 264 gallons of water. 264 x 400 = 105,600 gallons [equals 400 tons of water].
So 1/6 of the volume of an olympic sized swimming pool is going into the ocean every day.
That’s it.
And the water is not highly radioactive. If everyone would do the math instead of buying in to the scary sounding numbers being sold by the army of non-experts, this Fukushima thing would simply go away.”
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/debunkingfukushimaradiationhysteria15nov13.shtml
Kristine: THanks for reminding folks that the Fukushima disaster is a continuous one, not necessarily apocalyptic, but continuous. Recently, TEPCO inb Japan admitted that at least the No.4 Reactor was essentially in “China Syndrome”, that the core has broken through the containment. But of course, this didn’t happen only yesterday! many of us who watchdog nukes knew that this was the case not long after the earthquake and tsunami that caused one of the modern world’s biggest tragedies. SO, while the rad levels in that one specimen on the west coast were elevated, what really matters is this: what isotopes were elevated in that fish? GIven that testing is an adhoc protocol by the powers that be, I think it would be safe to assume that, (and again, this would be based on which isiotopes were present in elevated numbers in that one specimen), the specimen was representative of what might be found in seafood – and not just the west coast, since all the waters eventually, are one. As for THX1138 (it WAS a great movie): radiation does not “dliute”. It only takes a minute (pronounced my-noot) amount of something such as Plutonium (as an example) getting into your system (in the ways that a P-isotope does), to cause a cancer or other illness. It isn’t “diluted” by entering water. AGain, one must talk about the isotopes in this discussion, NOT the politics!
I’m more scared than that about Fukushima, as they just announced today they are seeing more radiation on the west coast. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/04/06/fukushima-radiation-reached-north-american-shores/25322871/
This is a great update! Thanks for sharing it. It’s encouraging work this man is doing. His findings are actually a relief: “Woods Hole chemical oceanographer Ken Buesseler emphasized that the radiation is at very low levels that aren’t expected to harm human health or the environment. ‘Even if the levels were twice as high, you could still swim in the ocean for six hours every day for a year and receive a dose more than a thousand times less than a single dental X-ray,’ Buesseler said. “While that’s not zero, that’s a very low risk.” Excellent news!! We should all be less scared and more free, IMO!
I’m a podcast nerd and came across this show on sustainable seafood. They have some good suggestions for trying fish you might not have heard (that’s more sustainable than shrimp and other common seafood we eat). You can get it on Stitcher and such, but here is the link to the website.
http://www.heritageradionetwork.org/episodes/6025-Food-Talk-with-Mike-Colameco-Episode-26-Samantha-Lee-Sean-Barrett-Adam-Danforth
Thanks, Megan!
Is this paragraph saying that eating one fish has the radiation equivalent of an airport screening? It’s not clear to me. “the exposure any of us would experience from eating the fish found in 2013 has been compared to one set of dental x-rays or a single airport screening. And that fish was an isolated incident.”
It is making that comparison of only the one fish found in 2013, not fish in general.
Julie, yes, it is saying that if you ate a fish found in 2013, you would have been exposed to the equivalent radiation as if you had gone through one airport screening OR gone to the dentist and had a single set of dental x-rays,
I sure wouldn’t want to do that several times a week!
No. But that was the ONLY fish ever found in American waters with those levels, ever. And that was two years ago. Most fish are so so nourishing for us.
Great article Megan! Nice to know I’m still ok to enjoy my salmon, although its hard for me to find good quality fish that isn’t farmed and fed god-knows-what. You raised a lot of the same points I’ve read with Chris Kresser *high five*. You reminded me how much I need to learn to eat sardines. I just have an irrational fear of eating them haha, although I have some in the cupboard right now!
Thanks, Bec! I guess I was lucky– I had a mom who fed me sardines from the beginning. Great with raw onions, fermented veggies or spicy foods. Great with homemade aioli or good mustard. Her sandwiches were on sourdough bread with thinly sliced sweet onions, mustard and provolone cheese. Good luck learning to like them. 😉
Fear: The Foundation of Every Government’s Power: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
“Over the ages, governments refined their appeals to popular fears, fostering an ideology that emphasizes the people’s vulnerability to a variety of internal and external dangers from which the governors—of all people!—are said to be their protectors. Government, it is claimed, protects the populace from external attackers and from internal disorder, both of which are portrayed as ever-present threats. Sometimes the government, as if seeking to fortify the mythology with grains of truth, does protect people in this fashion—even the shepherd protects his sheep, but he does so to serve his own interest, not theirs, and when the time comes, he will shear or slaughter them as his interest dictates.[3] When the government fails to protect the people as promised, it always has a good excuse, often blaming some element of the population—scapegoats such as traders, money lenders, and unpopular ethnic or religious minorities. “[N]o prince,” Machiavelli assures us, “was ever at a loss for plausible reasons to cloak a breach of faith” ([1513] 1992, 46).”
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1510
So, external dangers are today’s menu item as far as government-foisted fears, in this case Radiation (and Anthropogenic Global Warming, here in this year of the coldest Winter since the late 1800’s). The opposite of Fear is Love, and so I say let’s just love each other, and ignore the fearmongers. They are doing “business as usual”, and we are becoming alert, awake and alive. Eventually we can get them to just simply go away, by simply ignoring them. Nature is taking care of us, not any government or corporation, so let’s leave fear in the movie theaters, and enjoy our lives as we were meant to.
You did not cover the dangers of eating fish out of the Gulf of Mexico b/c of the oil AND BP’s Corexit…a combo that made it 52 times more toxic than that of oil alone. Eating out of the Pacific has fewer issues than what’s happening (yes, still…and for years to come!) in the Gulf. Just b/c the media doesn’t cover this story and just b/c the cities on the Gulf are advertising like mad that it is “safe” to come down and eat their food does NOT mean that those fish/sea creatures are safe to eat. They aren’t.
Want to read recent info? Here’s a start. (In the side bar are 2 more very recent articles regarding the spill and its impact.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150402174347.htm
Use of a good search engine will yield even more information.
If you do more research, you’ll find that residents of the area are STILL coming up with new, “mysterious” diseases/ailments. We used to vacation in the area and now refuse to go any longer.
Thanks, Sunny. I’ll appreciate looking into what you shared.
This was a great read! Many thanks for sharing safety tips for eating seafood, Keep sharing these type of informative blog.
Great article. I love fish and will miss it when it’s gone.
You demonstrate in a good way.
It is very good to eat seafood compared to red meat. People who want to eat non-veg but avoid red meat, seafood would be a great choice.
There are many health benefits and risks eating seafood.