Fearmongering at its best.
Eat tuna, you'll be fine. Don't buy cheapass generic boo-boo butt ass tuna. Buy the "chicken of the sea" brand all white albacore tuna. Ya, it costs $.25 more per can, but you get what you pay for.
fish fat is DEFINITELY good. but fish meat DEFINITELY has mercury and pcbs and dioxins in it, and those are DEFINITELY bad for you. humans burning coal into the air are apparently the most to blame.
YOUNG PEOPLE are the main concern here. us older people are less important, less well studied, and best of all, more resistant to negative impacts. but if you're like me, you think if it is bad for a 15 year old, I don't want much to do with it either.
Chronic exposure to mercury compounds may have negative effects on the immune system (Moszczysnki, 1997) and there is emerging evidence of potential cardiovascular effects (Stern, 2005). For example, the results of a recent epidemiological study of men in eastern Finland suggested that high mercury content in hair may be a risk factor for acute coronary events and cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and all cause mortality (Virtanen et al., 2005). [These preliminary results] suggest that effects related to cardiovascular disease are seen at similar hair mercury concentrations as those associated with effects related to [young human] neurodevelopment.
Human Health Risk Assessment of Mercury in Fish and Health Benefits of Fish Consumption
All the New England states and Eastern Canadian Provinces have lakes and ponds with fish that have elevated levels of mercury. In Massachusetts, almost half of the lakes and ponds tested have one or more types of fish with unsafe levels of mercury. Over 40 states have issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury.
It is important to be aware of and follow fish consumption advisories.
Mercury in the Environment | MassDEP
Albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. You may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
Seafood
The researchers set out to determine how to balance consumption amounts of different fish species and shrimp based on mercury concentrations and recommended intake levels of omega-3 fatty acids. They conclude that species both high in healthful omega-3s and low in mercury include salmon, trout, and shrimp, while other species with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids (tuna, shark, halibut, swordfish, and sea bass) also tend to have high concentrations of mercury.
Smith, K. L. and J. L. Guentzel (2010). "Mercury concentrations and omega-3 fatty acids in fish and shrimp: Preferential consumption for maximum health benefits." Mar Pollut Bull 2010 Jul 13.
Fatty fish are much better for your omega 3 epa+dha level than lean fish according to this research because while omega 3 from fatty fish was found in human blood serum in the amounts expected, a smaller proportion of the omega 3 from lean fish was found in the blood, implying that fatty fish meat has something else in it that makes our body get the fat.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories/upload/day3a.pdf
Every state and country in the world has news reports like this, they happen every day for water bodies around the world:
People are still eating fish caught west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge despite continuing concerns about highly toxic chemicals that the World Health Organisation says causes cancer.
Commercial fishing was banned in the harbour in December 2005 after raised levels of potentially harmful dioxins, a group of organic chemicals thought to have come from factories at Homebush Bay, were found in several species of fish and crustaceans.
People still ignoring fish warning
Catching your own fish?
Thus, the general consumer should be advised to eat no more than 1 meal/week of noncommercial fish in the U.S.
Consumers should, first and foremost, consider any local advisories.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguid...ad/2004_07_21_fish_advice_1-meal-per-week.pdf
My solution to fish toxicity is plenty of distilled fish oil extract. But even if future research better proves that this is a healthy idea, it isn't a good long term solution for the general population. Fish stocks are already low, and using them to waste valuable protein (just to suck the fat out) is a bad idea when half the world is starving. This is part of the reason we may never see health organizations say... take your fish oil capsules, kids. "Dietary recommendations to increase fish consumption may not be sustainable." ttp://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/180/6/633
The best solution? Not pollute the fish in the first place. The best solution is prevention, who would have expected. But good luck with that, because coal is cheap and easy energy, and the damage will take longer than our lifetimes to undo. Between coal plants making fish toxic and industrial+consumer waste making them transgender, we're well done.
