SandwichShortOfAPicnic
Über Member
[ Mod.Edit: this post has been moved from another thread to form a new topic (MG) ]
It’s not considered good for you full stop. (edit: this line does not read as intended, it is meant to read as ‘fish being good for you is not the end of the story’).
In fact most governments recommend limiting intake due to the toxin levels found in fish.
This has softened recently as apparently the toxin levels have lowered but tbh I’m dubious.
There used to be a blanket health message of “Fish is good for you, eat more” which in Europe and the UK they quietly dropped some time ago as the monitored mercury levels increased.
Even the extremely conservative (small c conservative) uk gov website who are frightened of damaging the fishing industry recommends limiting intake.
Especially if you are a girl or woman of child bearing age as it can damage a developing foetus and these are ‘forever chemicals’ that accumulate over time never to be expelled by the body.
I think
it was Finland that introduced a health warning when you bought fish to explain it’s status had changed from being healthy to not.
If you eat fish regularly it’s recommended to stick to smaller fish or fish with a shorter lifespan, the longer it’s out there floating around in a bath of dioxins, pcb’s and heavy metals like mercury the more toxins you imbibe.
It’s easy to find a toxin table of the safer fish to eat using any search engine. There’s a surprising disparity.
A professor of toxicology was on radio four being interviewed, they asked him how often he thought it was safe to eat fish? He said once or twice a year. They asked how often do you eat fish? He laughed and said never!
It’s a far cry from the “EAT MORE FISH” message I was hammered with when I was pregnant 20 years ago.
Now they say “NO OILY FISH”!
That’s a loaded statement
It’s not considered good for you full stop. (edit: this line does not read as intended, it is meant to read as ‘fish being good for you is not the end of the story’).
In fact most governments recommend limiting intake due to the toxin levels found in fish.
This has softened recently as apparently the toxin levels have lowered but tbh I’m dubious.
There used to be a blanket health message of “Fish is good for you, eat more” which in Europe and the UK they quietly dropped some time ago as the monitored mercury levels increased.
Even the extremely conservative (small c conservative) uk gov website who are frightened of damaging the fishing industry recommends limiting intake.
Especially if you are a girl or woman of child bearing age as it can damage a developing foetus and these are ‘forever chemicals’ that accumulate over time never to be expelled by the body.
I think
it was Finland that introduced a health warning when you bought fish to explain it’s status had changed from being healthy to not.If you eat fish regularly it’s recommended to stick to smaller fish or fish with a shorter lifespan, the longer it’s out there floating around in a bath of dioxins, pcb’s and heavy metals like mercury the more toxins you imbibe.
It’s easy to find a toxin table of the safer fish to eat using any search engine. There’s a surprising disparity.
A professor of toxicology was on radio four being interviewed, they asked him how often he thought it was safe to eat fish? He said once or twice a year. They asked how often do you eat fish? He laughed and said never!
It’s a far cry from the “EAT MORE FISH” message I was hammered with when I was pregnant 20 years ago.
Now they say “NO OILY FISH”!
Last edited:
.
I've sat down on the beach in Venezuela and consumed 4 dozen oysters, carried in a plastic bucket with a bag of ice on top. I wouldn't want to miss that experience ever. I eaten tuna, swordfish, Manta ray, Amberjack, barracuda, sea bream, John Dory - and never got sick or felt like I was being poisoned.
