Fish Stories
Is Eating Fish Dangerous?
By Daniel Muniz

Eating fish has always been controversial. On one side of the spectrum are the health nuts and vitamin shops who are endlessly touting the virtues of eating more fish or at least using fish oil supplements. On the other side of the spectrum are scary news stories from researchers and environmentalists claiming that fish is dangerous because of high mercury levels as well as other pollutants.

So what gives? No pun intended but which one of these fish stories needs to be tossed back into the ocean?

Obviously, something is very fishy here because both sides cannot be true. Unfortunately, the two diverse conclusions are very wrong because they both lack meaningful scientific data to back up their claims.

Let’s examine the positive benefits of eating fish.

The health nuts are quick to point out that consuming more fish improves cardiovascular health. In fact, there is quite a bit of literature circulating about how it can prevent heart attacks. Harvard researchers also claim that fish-eating populations such as Eskimos have far lower rates of cardiovascular disease.

Regrettably, most of this data is anecdotal because correlation is not necessarily causation. There have not been enough controlled studies that take into account lifestyle choices as well as genetics. However, fish products do have a proven nutritional value of vitamins, minerals, and protein but that in no way means that it can prevent cardiovascular disease or any other ailments. It is just a healthy and tasty food source.

Of course, fish is not the only food that has been overrated. Dairy farmers poured hundreds of millions of dollars into slick and expensive marketing campaigns promoting the health benefits of milk. And for decades, milk was touted as a way for people to develop and maintain healthy bones and teeth even though it has always been a crappy source of calcium. In fact, the public would have been better off if they ate more broccoli, which is why milk has to be fortified.

Now to the other side of the spectrum, are fish dangerous?

It seems like every year there is a flurry of frightening news stories about how toxic fish is, especially for pregnant women and their unborn babies. The chief culprit is mercury. The claims are that excessive amounts of mercury may increase the risk for cancer and may negatively impact the neurodevelopment of children.

But here is one rule of science that the press routinely ignores because they simply don’t know any better; exposure is not toxicity. This planet is filled with pollutants and dangerous chemicals but nearly all of them are harmless in miniscule levels. In fact, being aware of their existence is actually a fairly recent discovery because of the enhanced sensitivity of the newer scientific instruments that are now used to detect them.

However, the media doesn’t know any better so unscrupulous scientists, disingenuous environmentalists, and other alarmist take full advantage of the ignorance of the press. The result is these wildly sensational news stories of dangerous fish on our dinner plates. And because of this kind paranoia, billions of dollars of federal money has been poured into research to determine how bad fish really is.

So what has the federal government come up with?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a limit of 1.0 part per million (ppm) of mercury that commercial fish should have. However, this limit contains a rather large “margin-of-safety” of toxicity. So even if you were eating fish that contained 1.0 ppm or slightly more, you would still be fairly safe.

And just how dangerous is an ordinary can of something very popular like tuna?

The highest level that the FDA detected was 0.852 ppm although the median level is about 0.075 ppm. Of course you will never see that vital piece of data in the newspaper. The media makes fish consumption sound like you are eating a thermometer or a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).

But why is the press so ignorant?

The simple answer is that it may be more intentional than anything else because sensationalism sells. The news has to come out every day and boring science stories do not capture the public’s attention but sensational news does even if it is completely bogus. The press loves extremes and something like this fits the bill.

In summary, fish is a great source of nutrition and it is a terrific component to a diet but it will not prevent heart disease or reduce the risk of premature death. And on the other side of coin, fish will not kill or even harm you. Both sides are guilty of their own fish stories.

I personally don’t think that the fishing industry went overboard when they exaggerated their claims because fish does have a real nutritional value and it is nowhere near as duplicitous as milk. It is simply inaccurate marketing that is common when hyping up a product.

The alarmists are a different story because they use hysteria to confuse and misinform the public although the fault really lies with the press because of their flawed journalistic standards.

So continue being skeptical of fishy stories.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.