You can listen to this episode by pressing play above. Or to listen to this episode on your preferred podcast app head to https://remedialpolymath.podbean.com/ and click on your apps icon.
Intro
Welcome to part II of our exploration into all things seafood, which also examines all things related to fishing and the oceanic ecosystem. It goes without saying that while part II can stand well by itself, you should take in part I to understand this topic holistically, especially as concerns the level of my concerns, specifically relating to how important the oceans are to human life no matter what you eat (I’m alluding to how the oceans, and the creatures within them, actually give us the majority of our oxygen and remove more CO2 than another other ecosystem by a long shot).
I’ll be honest. I wanted to investigate seafood because it’s always fascinated me. After all, I’m not too fond of it as a food source in an almost irrational way. But I came out of the womb that way, hence my natural interest. And outside of taste, I’ve always found it odd that we would rely on what’s under the waves to the extent that we do as humans. I remember the distinct feeling when I first went scuba diving, thinking, “Okay, this is another universe; it’s their universe, and it seems to make it clear that we don’t do well within it. It’s not for us.” However, I never expected to assemble well over 30,000 words on the subject. It just ended up feeling that important. It is that important. And hey, if Andrew Huberman can talk for 3 hours about caffeine and people love it, maybe I can explore seafood for just as long, and people will enjoy it as well.
Another thing. I realize now that initially, I almost subconsciously wanted to write a piece that countered my somewhat odd gut feelings on this subject. I didn’t want to write from a place of feeling. I imagined being accused of just asserting my own biases. Well, I didn’t write from a place of feeling; I did extensive research and even more thinking and writing. But accusations be damned, my gut feeling was valid.
We find ourselves in a scary situation without anyone talking about it. Not enough, at least. Excuse the language, but us humans are raping this ecosystem and in more ways than one.
However, please know that’s not all that this episode is about. I will examine actionable information concerning the most popular types of fish eaten in the Western world and types of sushi. We’ll look at their positive and negative health attributes, sustainability, and how to purchase the best of each species. So worry not all your seafood lovers; this has useable information for you!
We will also look at the nutritional profile of fish in general, different types of oceanic pollution, and explore what is happening with plastic and its implications.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Let’s dive in.
The Food Part of Seafood
Now, unlike myself, a lot of you eat and enjoy seafood. It is undoubtedly a much more intriguing food source than I previously thought. Interestingly, this uber-common food source seems to have its fingers in so many other pots, unrelated to calories. Is that an expression? Let’s hope so. Regardless, let us take a closer look at the actual reality behind the food aspect of seafood. So, now I will provide the information I discovered about seafood to hopefully provide some actionable information for all of you who enjoy consuming water creatures. Hopefully, maybe, you’ll be entertained along the way.
Let’s begin by examining the health effects of eating fish, assuming no contamination, which we will get to later. I will attempt to keep this brief, or at least I attempted to. Let us dive in.
First, let’s explore the nutritional effects of eating fish on the human body.
Fish are rich in Omega-3 fatty acids. You’ve probably heard of these. You have presumably also heard that these fatty acids are good for your heart, brain, blood pressure, inflammation, eye health, and even mental health (potentially, at least, that isn’t set science yet). What’s fascinating about these fatty acids is that they are absolutely consequential for the human body. Yet, we cannot produce them on our own. It is supposed that we evolved, as discussed before in part one, close to water sources and ate a diet so abundant with marine life that as we grew into Homo sapiens, the development and functioning of the brain almost became reliant upon them. Obviously, you can operate without them; your brain will not fall into a witless stupor should you avoid them. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating; it truly is best for your body not to deprive yourself of this specific fatty acid. After looking into this closely, I can’t stress this enough: it’s best to supplement if you don’t eat marine life like a particular author/podcaster.
Another fascinating tidbit is that one doesn’t need fish to create “fish oil,” as it originates not within fish but within marine algae. Somehow, that makes it even more odder that human brains like it to the extent they do. Regardless, krill and plankton feed on said algae; small fish eat them, bigger fish eat the smaller fish, and so on. So you can get your essential omega-3s by supplementing with algae-based omega-3 and skip the fish step entirely. This point is very noteworthy, and we’re lucky it is so. It is something to keep in mind when we discuss the future of fish in a little bit. Either way, it is a wild reminder of the strange interconnectedness of life on our planet that our bodies and brains seem to crave a fatty acid that originates from an algae living in an environment we don’t. It’s borderline trippy.
While you could eat some land-based foods to gain a bit of omega-3s, you’d have to go out of your way to get the appropriate amounts. It’s just easier to supplement. Honestly, omega-3s are the best – and with certain eyes, the only – health argument for eating a seafood-laden diet. It’s bizarre how much they can benefit the human body, which lives entirely on land. Forgive me for harping on this; it sincerely took me by surprise.
As we evolved and our brains grew, it seems that we required more omega-3s daily for optimal health. The daily DHA (an omega 3 fatty acid) requirements would be 110 mg for Homo habilis, 160 mg for Homo erectus, 275 mg for Homo sapiens, and 310 mg for Homo neanderthalensis. That’s right; Neanderthals required even more than we do, meaning they had bigger brains than us. It makes one wonder how we could run them out of existence, right? Maybe they weren’t the simple grunts we usually conceptualized them as.
It is bewitching, to my brain at least, to ponder upon the extent to which meat and these fatty acids played a part in the evolution of humans. We wouldn’t be what we are without them; plants wouldn’t have gotten us here. At first glance, it doesn’t make sense when you remember from school that we evolved on the African savannas and the jungle (to put it incredibly simply). Why, and how, could we be so reliant on these fatty acids? Well, a proposed answer to that riddle may surprise you. We may have gotten it from scavenging the remains of animals, probably more from ones that had died in a manner other than being hunted, at least by humans. We would have eaten what nature or larger prey or vultures left for us, primarily animal brains and bone marrow. Because we had crude tools and knew how to smash bones and skulls open, and eventually how to even cook these foods, this is what we ate. It would have been an available food source that didn’t require the skills or dangers of hunting down live prey. It turns out that marrow and the brain are rich in nutrients, including DHA. Our brains, in turn, treasured this food source and, in essence, became reliant upon it. It seems to have helped fuel the ridiculously rapid growth of our brains, which is one of the most bizarre aspects of human evolution. Marine life would then play a more significant part in fulfilling this need as we evolved, became more intelligent, learned to fish, and relied less on eating like bone-smashing vultures.
One can get lost in the details here. What’s important is that this DHA molecule is not only essential historically but is also quite beneficial currently for us all. It is remarkable to learn how it played into our evolution and how influential it still is, from birth until death. Please supplement if you don’t eat fish regularly (or brain or bone marrow). And if you have children, please ensure they get enough of it into their growing brains. This research has changed this author’s understanding of this vital molecule.
Okay, that was a bit of a sidebar/rabbit hole. To finish it off though, for you seafood lovers, here are some of the common fish that have the most omega-3 fatty acids:
- Atlantic Mackerel. These guys have a lot of EPA and DHA. It’s just a fatty fish with lots of healthy fats.
- Wild-caught salmon like sockeye and chinook.
- Sardines
- Anchovies
- Herring
- Trout
- Albacore tuna
And it’s good to note that wild-caught fish usually have more omega 3s than farmed fish.
Let’s move on to some other healthy aspects of consuming seafood. Vitamin D can be obtained from fish, and fatty fish like salmon, mackerel, and sardines seem best if you’re a bit sun-deprived and searching out some natural vitamin D. B-vitamins, especially B12 (which is important for your energy, nerve function, and red blood formation), are found in fish. It seems that salmon and tuna are best for this. Selenium is found in fish as well. This essential mineral acts as an antioxidant and supports your immune system. Tuna, halibut, and sardines are examples of fish that provide this mineral. Let’s round out the list with phosphorus, iodine, and calcium. These are all necessary for humans and our health (I am sure you’ve heard of them all) and can be found in the common types of fish usually consumed by humans.
It may come as no surprise that while reading up on this, I realized there are many opinions and, at times, conflicting information on the difference between the nutritional content of land-based proteins and seafood. At the end of the day, however, it does seem that land-based proteins give you everything you need and are more nutrient-dense (meaning you have to eat less to get those proteins) than seafood. When it comes to essential nutrients such as iron, B12, and zinc, they’re more abundant and bioavailable (meaning your body will absorb them better). Land-based proteins have the edge in providing everything necessary to create and sustain human protein, except for omega-3s, which we need for our brain. That’s the big stand-out difference; everyone would be better off being aware of that.
Now, I know people will now complain about how fish is a great lean meat compared to land-based animals, which makes it healthier for humans, and that this positive attribute needs to be discussed. So let’s discuss. You may not believe me that my opinion on the matter is unweighted, which I would understand but oppose. I cannot convince you now except to say I hope you think my ability to research is at least halfway decent. The “lean meat” argument is an overreach of an idea that smacks of old-school marketing and thinking. One, there are plenty of land-based protein options that are lean. Get leaner cuts, get a different animal, prepare it differently, get grass-fed, etc. If it’s important to you, search for lean meats like chicken, lamb, pork tenderloin, rabbit, venison, bison, turkey, etc. But honestly, the whole “leaner is better for you” argument doesn’t hold as much weight today, pardon the pun. Fat is rarely your enemy – assuming you’re preparing a home-cooked (or nice restaurant) meal and not debating this question before you place an order at a drive-through. Avoid processed carbs or sugar if you want the meal to be healthier. For most, that will have a much more significant effect on your health than the level of “lean-ness” of your protein source. If you still want to say the flesh of fish is superior for this reason, then please keep listening to what else comes along for the ride in that lean flesh.
Could your brain and body survive well – omega-3 wise – on only a land-based diet, even if you avoided marrow and brain? Of course. Our distant ancestors probably did the heavy lifting, getting us to the brain size we currently enjoy. I seem to have grown up just fine without the input of this fatty acid (despite the feelings of some around me). However, I certainly wish I had supplemented growing up. I am ensuring my children are supplementing with omega-3 gummies. It’s effortless to find vitamin gummies that contain it.
Would humans have evolved into homo sapiens as we did without access to seafood? We would have gotten there. It’s not like you can’t find these fatty acids in other land-based grains and nuts. Omega-3s do exist in other food sources. But there is a good bet things would have gone differently on the margins, or maybe it would have taken longer. Who knows? We can’t say (even if I personally kind of just did). But it’s all fascinating. I’m just glad our ancestors did what had to be done to increase our brain size until we could supplement if we wanted to.
And there is good reason to want to, outside of personal taste. Because while I just listed off a bunch of the favorable compositions of seafood, in a way, I was steel-manning eating seafood (at least when you don’t have to for survival or for a healthy amount of protein intake, please always keep that caveat in mind when considering what is said here). But for those of us in the developed calorie/protein-soaked world, let’s look at some of the – shall we say “unfriendly” aspects of eating seafood.
The impetus for exploring seafood in general comes from 2 things, 1 of them personal and 1 of them objective. This author cannot stand seafood. That’s the personal one, and we went over it in part I.
The other one is more objective and related to something I alluded to before as well. One reason eating from the realm of water puzzles me is that the oceans have been our garbage pits for the entire history of modern man. That’s where we have, for most of history, felt okay just letting anything go. Plastics, oil, chemicals, heavy metals, agricultural runoff, sewage, wastewater, and occasionally even radioactive material (much more radioactive waste than you’d like to think about, actually) go into the ocean on purpose or by accident. And, sadly, as we all know, it’s often on purpose, or at least done in a way that is stoppable if we want to.
The oceans are unfathomably large, vast, deep, and wide. But they are finite. It’s so interesting that humans know how much we pollute these waters and then happily consume the animals that call those waters home. And it’s the oceans. It’s the original source of life. It’s the majority of our planet. What happens in those waters affects our lives regardless of how immense they are. How are we so okay both slowly killing it off and yet eating its productions?
Don’t believe me? Let’s look at some information about how we treat the home of the fish we eat. I won’t spend too much time on the stats here. This could be an episode in and of itself. Let’s just touch upon what we know undoubtedly.
When you think of ocean pollution, many will think of oil spills. It makes sense. Personally, I grew up seeing images of cute animals awash in oil after major spills. This oceanic pollution was very much put into our psyche through popular media. It certainly creates visceral images. However, those headline-grabbing spills account for just 12 percent of the oil in our oceans. It is estimated that two to three times as much oil is carried out to sea via runoff from our roads, rivers, and drainpipes alone. That statistic seemed wild to me when I first read it, but it makes sense once you think about it.
Oil pollution in the oceans can have several adverse effects on seafood and humans who consume it. The chemicals in oil, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals, can contaminate marine life. When humans consume contaminated seafood, there’s a risk of ingesting these harmful substances.
It’s important to remember these substances follow the rule of bioaccumulation. The contaminants may accumulate in the tissues of marine life over time, leading to higher concentrations as you move up the food chain. It is thought that seafood contaminated with oil pollutants can pose health risks to us humans, including cardiovascular issues and potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure to certain chemicals. There is also an economic impact to consider, as contamination can impact the fishing industry, as consumers may avoid seafood from affected areas, leading to financial losses for fishermen and related businesses. So, the effect of oil pollution on marine life can be very regional; one must keep that in mind. But the overall picture isn’t promising. And while it may be best to consider where your seafood is from, that’s quite the task to ask of someone in the grocery store. And that’s if you’re even being told the truth to begin with.
Another aspect of ocean pollution that many may think of is sewage water. That being the water that is heading away from homes and businesses. Now, there are two types of sewage: treated and untreated. In case you aren’t aware, treated sewage undergoes a process to remove or reduce contaminants and pollutants. Treatment plants aim to remove the physical, chemical, and biological waste before that water is returned to nature in some manner. Untreated sewage is what you think: raw wastewater. In the West, essentially all wastewater is treated (except runoff water, which unfortunately often goes straight back into nature). But it’s still wastewater, treated or not, and we dump much of it in the US – if you’re anywhere near the coasts – into the ocean. Even a few spots are left that dump untreated wastewater back into the ocean. Should you not believe me, just do a Google for “wastewater into the ocean in south Florida.” You’ll see videos or pictures of dark greenish-brown water being pumped into the ocean not far from the shores of Fort Lauderdale, and being dumped at an alarming rate. Some fish seem to line up to eat it. It feeds algae blooms and seaweed, as they also like to feed off the wastewater. Don’t confuse those points with an overall positive effect on the environment, however, or for anyone swimming in the waters nearby, of which there is a constant multitude.
South Florida will outlaw this type of wastewater dumping in a couple of years and are on track to do so. They should be applauded for that. But that’s not the point, because 80 % of sewage in the world goes into the water untreated! All of the fertilizers, sewage, physical waste, drugs discharged from peoples’ bodies, chemicals, etc., from the sewer systems of cities worldwide go straight into the ocean. Seem far-fetched? There have been serious issues with corals worldwide, as they have bacteria within a mucus membrane they possess that are necessary to their survival and have been dying off in certain areas because of the antibiotics in wastewater. That’s correct; the antibiotics we take eventually find their way into the sewer system, then into the oceans, and then harm the coral. You know they’re finding their way into more than just coral also. That is a wild knock-on effect that showcases some of the unintended consequences of how we treat our water, and that’s just antibiotics that pass through our bodies!
There are instances of pharmaceutical drugs finding their way into seafood as well. Human pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other medications can enter water bodies through wastewater discharges. These substances may not be entirely removed during water treatment, even when done to the best of our abilities. This leads to their presence in aquatic environments.
Once in the water, aquatic organisms, including fish and shellfish, can absorb these drugs. It really isn’t that surprising. The phenomenon of pharmaceuticals in marine systems and their potential accumulation in seafood is an emerging area of concern in environmental and public health research.
Research has identified traces of various pharmaceuticals in seafood in certain areas. However, because it’s an emerging field of study, continued monitoring and research are needed to understand the potential implications for aquatic ecosystems and human consumers. So, I don’t have any hard stats to relate at the moment. But there is a good chance there is some marine life out there either getting slightly high or experiencing a little bit of the effects of Prozac. It’s just an odd situation that can in no way be good.
Too many problems result from our wastewater entering the ocean to list here. One poignant one, however, is that the wastewater and fertilizers from agricultural runoff can lead to massive algae blooms. Then, the algae eventually die off and take the oxygen in the water with it. All of the marine life has to leave the area when this happens. Locations where this happens are called dead zones, and we know of 148 of them worldwide, including a 7,728 square-mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico! That is a number so large it becomes hard to conceptualize.
Again, this could be an episode all unto itself. We could explore all the shit, pardon the pun, we dump into the ocean. But this episode is about seafood. I mention all this to highlight all the unnatural contaminants we toss into the interconnected stew that is our oceans, the interconnected stew that is the home to most of the seafood eaten in the world. These contaminants affect our waters and make their way into all marine life. The pollutants make their way into the food chain from microbes to whales. Listen, animals on the land also have their issues, but they can be separated from each other in a manner that’s impossible in the oceans. It seems so obvious and almost frivolous to point out the difference. Still, it is crucial to remember how all marine life share the medium of their existence in a way land animals do not. Everything is shared within the salty water of our planet. It is what all the animals move through, breathe and drink. There is no such thing as a garbage dump, sealed away from its environment, upon which you can eventually put a golf course. Because it is so vast, we treat it as infinite. But the truth is, in a way, it is less extensive than the land because everything becomes diluted and then spreads out eventually. I don’t mean to suggest that things cannot dilute to safe levels in some instances, such as the radioactive water near Fukushima. You don’t have to worry about that should you live in California… However, for other substances that humans seem to toss into the seas collectively, it doesn’t matter where you are and what marine life you eat. It will affect you.
While researching this topic, I found it very interesting that while wastewater and dumping (illegal or legal) are well-documented problems, the ocean’s plastic issue has repeatedly emerged. I thought some “sexier” topics, like radioactive materials or dangerous chemicals, might be discussed more. Yet, each website and organization stresses the amount of plastics in our oceans. And from the stats, you can see why. Let’s quickly touch upon it because these plastics make their way into the seafood people eat (again, this could be its episode, so let’s just explore the major highlights).
Interestingly, though. For the topic of plastics, I will play two sides of the coin, in a way. I will play devil’s advocate with myself in an attempt to illuminate some of the intricacies and viewpoints on this specific issue. This is due to a fascinating conversation I heard on the Jordan Harbinger podcast in a recent episode where he interviewed Chris DeArmitt (episode 924) about plastic. It made me rethink things enough that I knew I had to include some of the information within my little treatise on the subject. Ah, the power of podcasts…
So, let’s first begin with the traditional viewpoint on the matter of plastic pollution and then look at the science Chris has brought to light.
Humans are estimated to dump an astounding 12 million metric tons of plastic into the oceans yearly. That is 1000kg of plastic waste dumped into the oceans twelve thousand thousand times each year. I could tell you that equals about 25 billion pounds, but numbers like these are almost useless as they are hard for the mind to understand. However, one site describes it as equivalent to 100,000 blue whales being thrown into the ocean yearly, should that help.
One stat that is easier to comprehend is that by 2050, the plastic in the ocean will outweigh all marine life on the planet. That’s a terrifying prediction, made even more head-scratching because it just considers plastic. It’s not clear precisely what the total amount of all types of waste is compared to marine life. Still, it wouldn’t be a stretch to think we’re probably already past that point where they’re equal.
Plastic comes in many shapes, sizes, and types, meaning some of it sinks, some break down (which should not be mistaken for disappearing), and – as we know – much of it floats atop the water. We’ve all probably now heard of The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This giant debris field gets coalesced in the Pacific due to current patterns and is primarily composed of plastic. It contains an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of trash and covers an area twice the size of Texas. Now, is it some floating island of plastic-loaded trash? No, much of it is smaller pieces of plastic, and not all floats directly upon the surface. But it’s there. It’s also not alone. It is the largest of 5 giant garbage patches we have in the world.
We’ve all been taught how plastic is dangerous because it doesn’t decompose. Well, that is and isn’t true. A lot of the plastic in the oceans does get broken down, through exposure to sun and waves, into smaller and smaller pieces. Eventually, they become so small they are what are known as microplastics. And then, maybe a few hundred years later, these plastics will degrade completely. All that means is that the chemical components from fossil fuels become fully released into the water. And while that doesn’t sound great either, it is desirable over microplastics, but even that takes numerous lifetimes.
The confusing aspect of this comes down to the fact that it is almost a better proposition to have the immense amount of plastic we dispose of into the water not get broken down. Would there be more visible trash? Certainly. Would having large amounts of plastic sinking or floating cause many issues? Again, no doubt. But at least that is plastic you can see. You can at least remove it if you can see and touch it. That’s not so with the microplastics, which have broken down to the point where we basically have no way to remove them. They are so small that they quickly make their way into the bodies of marine life, which larger types of seafood or humans may eat.
Let’s look at how miniature they can get and their ubiquitousness. From an article in The Guardian:
A group of scientists from Shandong University in China collected cloud water atop Mount Tai, finding microplastics in 24 out of 28 samples. They include polyethylene terephthalate (otherwise known as PET), polypropylene, polyethylene and polystyrene, all particles commonly found in synthetic fibers, clothing and textiles, as well as packaging and face masks.
“This finding provides significant evidence of the presence of abundant MP’s [microplastics] in clouds,” the researchers stated in the paper published today in Environmental Science and Technology Letters.
You read that right. These microplastics are so minuscule and so ubiquitous that they’ve made their way into the damn clouds. The bird-flappin clouds at 30k feet above our heads. To continue from the same article:
Earlier this year, a study out of Japan showed that microplastics were present at the peak of Mount Fuji and Mount Oyama, suggesting that the particles may have originated from plastics in the ocean and been transported via air masses. The concentration of microplastics in Mount Tai cloud water was up to 70 times that of Japan’s mountains’ cloud water.
So we throw trash in the river, it gets to the ocean, breaks down, breaks down more, some gets eaten by fish, some floats to the top, GETS EVAPORATED into the air, joins the clouds afloat, and then – voila, it’s the cycle of life – because it then snows down on Mount Fuji. Everyone, this is nuts. There is so much plastic in the water that it gets into the clouds. Just imagine how much gets into a bluefin tuna.
But our waltz down the silly brick road continues. Do not worry. I want to present to you exhibit B from The Guardian: Microplastic pollution has been detected in human blood for the first time, with scientists finding the tiny particles in almost 80% of the people tested. The discovery shows the particles can travel around the body and may lodge in organs. The impact on health is as yet unknown. But researchers are concerned as microplastics cause damage to human cells in the laboratory, and air pollution particles are already known to enter the body and cause millions of early deaths a year.
You can find the links to these articles for this episode at the end of this article. Please know I am not saying these microplastics in people all come from fish somehow. I must point out the obvious to stay on episode topic here, so forgive the potential overreach. It’s more just to prove a point about what we’re up against here. This entire microplastic situation where we live irrevocably is genuinely disheartening and quasi-confusing. And while this is an issue we should attempt to fix, the dye may be cast. It seems you can’t entirely avoid these things regardless of your diet. So all I suggest is to think about what little extra you could be exposing yourself to when eating the creatures that swim in the waters from which the microplastics come. The oceans are just the microplastic world; it seems they won that battle.
Microfibers, not to be outdone, are minuscule plasticized fibers that also pose their own risk. They are from the synthetic textiles that we wear and use. Ever wonder how “moister wicking” or “sweat/water resistant” clothing works? It is due to these plasticized fibers. With each load of laundry, more than 700,000 synthetic microfibers are estimated to be washed into our waterways because most water treatment plants cannot remove them. Like the pharmaceuticals in our water, they’re just too tiny for even the most modern treatment plants to remove. Hopefully, that will change one day, but we’re not there yet.
It is thought that 4 billion plastic microfibers exist for every square kilometer of water. Unlike cotton or wool, they don’t break down and can have the same detrimental effect on any animal that accidentally eats them or eats another animal that has ingested them. You can add a microfiber filter to the wastewater exit on your washing machine to address this, and from 2025 on, France will mandate this on all new washing machines. However, until countries with a large enough market to make manufacturers change their way (like the US), or the leading ocean polluters (like Indonesia, India, and China) make a similar mandate, one cannot help but think microfibers in the ocean are here to stay.
Exposure to these microplastics and plasticized microfibers puts harmful and unnatural chemicals into our bodies. We’re not even sure of all the health implications they could impose, but we know it’s not good. We are aware that they can cause inflammation and cellular damage, affect one’s GI system, and probably interfere with our endocrine system, peculiarly altering our hormone levels.
Dr. Shanna Swan addresses these issues in her book terrifyingly titled “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race.” In this book, she outlines how, in the last 40 years, male sperm counts have mysteriously dropped by 50%. Testosterone levels are also decreasing, and some troubling trends in in-utero reproductive organ development exist. While more research needs to be done, and her work talks about exposure to microplastics as a whole and not solely due to seafood (such as through our water or from contamination from food/beverage containers), it is safe to say we are playing with fire when we dump ungodly amounts of the stuff into our oceans each year. In a world where Western birth rates are steadily declining, and in some instances (such as with China and Russia) falling off a cliff, the last thing we need to do is alter nature so that human reproduction becomes more difficult.
Interestingly, Japan and South Korea are two of the highest per capita seafood consumers, and both have astonishing dismal reproduction rates that fall well below the replacement rate. This is not to say that their birth rates are because of the seafood. That is most certainly not what is going on, but just to say that it’s an intriguing and unfortunate coincidence that should give one pause. When, or if, they ever try to thoroughly address that societal problem – and it is a problem – they might have to take a look at their seafood consumption. That is, of course, if there is any meaningful amount of seafood left when they do decide to address it. But, we digress…
Okay, now I have to point out some competing science concerning plastic pollution. It’s not a claim that it isn’t a massive issue for the oceans or humans consuming the ocean’s bounty, but it is relevant enough to be shared here.
This information comes from Chris DeArmitt’s research in his book “The Plastics Paradox, Facts For A Brighter Future.” From listening to him explain himself on podcasts and reading through some of his material, I have to say that he genuinely does seem to back up his conclusions with robust scientific research from reputable resources. It does seem that there has been a bit of an exaggerated narrative surrounding this topic. I am no expert in this field and can’t provide definite answers, so you’ll have to use the information as you see fit.
He points out, about the giant garbage patches around the world (the Pacific one being the most famous) that the National Ocean Service (NOAA) had this to say: “A lot of people hear the word patch and they immediately think of almost like a blanket of trash that can easily be scooped up, but actually these areas are always moving and changing with the currents, and it’s mostly these tiny plastics that you can’t immediately see with the naked eye.”
We’ve already established that smaller plastic doesn’t mean it is safer. It could be the opposite. But it seems that when we’re told there is a garbage patch the size of Texas, it is misleading, and we should be aware of that. We shouldn’t consider it a floating island that can be picked up by specialized ships (that don’t exist in any number) if we wanted to. The only reason I included the information before was because the size of the plastic isn’t too important, and it’s still an eye-opening reality check about what we’re doing to our oceans.
As far as microplastics are concerned, there seems to be some discrepancy – and probably just a lot of unknowns – about the amount we release into the ocean. A recent report from scientists from the University of Barcelona, which you can read at Science.Org, says that the global release of microplastics in the oceans has been estimated to be about 1.5 Mtons/year. However, when researchers took a second look at the measured amount of microplastics entering the oceans from rivers, it was determined that the best guess put the number at about 6000 tons per year. While that number is still scary, the original estimate seems about 1000x too high.
What about the prevalence and toxicity of the microplastics? Well, in terms of prevalence, the picture is still pretty perilous. From a study posted on researchgate.net from scientists at the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, we see that “Plastic was detected in 49 out of 64 fish (77%), with 2.3 pieces on average and up to 15 pieces per individual” and “Most were polyethylene (52.0%) or polypropylene (43.3%).” So, microplastic is undoubtedly making its way into the fish we consume. But does it matter? Is this toxic?
Now is when I would like to quote from DeArmitt’s research and writing:
“It is interesting to see that PE and PP are the main plastics. It should not be too surprising, as they are the two most commonly used plastics, and they both float on water, making them more visible and more likely to be ingested by fish. PE and PP are also two very safe plastics that we use all the time to package food. PE is used for sealable food bags in the kitchen, and PP is used for sealable food containers. Both have been used safely for several decades.
The press has drawn the public’s attention to studies claiming that plastics leach toxins, but when we look at those studies, it turns out that the plastic was shown to be safe and only released toxins after the plastic was intentionally soaked in toxins by the experimenters. These studies are not only misleading but irresponsible. We could soak more or less anything in poison and then show that it released some poison once placed in clean water. Interestingly, other workers showed that plastics absorb toxins from water and hold them tightly so that even when ingested by fish, they are able to protect the fish. Have you ever seen a headline highlighting those studies? I have not. Why is that?
So, it is a myth that microplastics are toxic. You can see details of the various studies in the myths tab in the section below. To summarize, having read many studies, here is what they say:
- Several studies show that microplastics are non-toxic to marine life
- Some studies show that microplastic intentionally pre-soaked in poison are somewhat toxic – but so is any substance
- Some studies state that microplastics protect marine life by binding poisons from the ocean and preventing exposure
- Other studies claim microplastics cause harm, but none of them are credible because they use the wrong type of plastic, they use the wrong shape of particle, they use 100-10 million times too much plastic, and they use fluorescent colored plastic, which is completely unrealistic”
The last point that doesn’t seem to jive with what we’ve been told for as long as I can remember, and which I did find from seemingly reputable resources when I did my research, is about the degradation rate of plastics. DeArmitt has much to say on this, which again seems backed up by thorough research and studies. I suggest anyone look at it for themselves if this interests them.
To sum it up, the idea of plastic lasting hundreds or thousands of years seems untrue. Plastics will degrade quickly when exposed to radiation (aka sunlight) and oxygen. About oxidation, DeArmitt tells us:
“Polypropylene (PP) is so unstable that it is unusable unless you add stabilizers to it. In fact, you cannot buy polypropylene without stabilizers added because they have to spray them onto the powder the moment the PP is made. If you don’t, then the plastic is immediately attacked by oxygen in the air and begins to degrade. This has been widely known among scientists for decades. You can easily measure the oxidation of the plastic and it has been verified by teams of scientists around the world. What effect does this oxidation have? Well, a film of PP left in air for one year will lose all its strength and fall to pieces. I bet you are surprised to hear that.”
Regarding sunlight, PP, and PE plastics (the most commonly used), I will again refer to his words as I think it’s better to hear them in full than to summarize things through me. He tells us: “How does PP behave when exposed to sunlight which contains an ultraviolet component? Scientists found that out the hard way. When PP was first manufactured, they left a pile of PP granules out in the sun. The degradation became faster and faster because it’s a chain reaction that accelerates rapidly. Soon, the pile became so hot due to the degradation reaction that it melted. The melting point of PP is 160°C (320°F), so you can see just how violent the degradation was. Polypropylene is famous for degrading very rapidly. Remember I mentioned stabilizers a while ago? Well, it is only by adding those that we can use PP at all. By selecting the correct type and amount of stabilizers, we can stall the chemistry that degrades PP and end up with parts that last years or even decades. Typically, 0.01-0.05% of stabilizer is used to create the PP parts we use every day. The PP appears stable to us only because of those stabilizers.
What about other plastics? Polyethylene (PE) represents over one third of the market for thermoplastics. How stable is polyethylene? Its chemical structure is very similar to PP, so it should come as no surprise that its stability is similar. Although somewhat more stable than PP, polyethylene also degrades rapidly. We’ve been told that plastic bags are a problem because they don’t degrade but no evidence is ever presented when people tell us that. I’m a scientist, so statements need to be backed by evidence, or they are of no value. I looked to see whether scientists had studied the degradation of plastic PE grocery bags. Two such peer-reviewed studies exist, and both of them found that the bags loses all their strength and disintegrates in under one year left in the open outdoors. 1000 year? No. Hundreds of years? No. Less than one year!”
You would be forgiven if you’re wondering why I am telling you all this. This isn’t an episode about plastic (although that isn’t a bad idea for the future). I wanted to relate it because, as I alluded to before when I researched oceanic pollution and its effect on marine life, humans eat plastic, and it came up first and foremost again and again. So, if I was going to talk to you about how scary of a situation we’re putting ourselves and our bodies in by consuming this food and, therefore, the plastic, I felt it was only responsible for relating this information.
So here’s where I stand as it relates to microplastics in seafood. It seems that some of the information about the amount of plastic in the ocean, its toxicity to humans, and the rate at which it degrades has probably been overstated or just been incorrect. That is a good thing. No, that’s not right; it’s just not as terrifying as we thought. But this illustrates more than anything that this is a moving target. We’re still learning about the effects of having these particles around us everywhere and in our food. Regardless of which camp you may believe as regards the perils of plastic pollution, things are still undeniably horrible; there’s too much plastic pollution, and it’s still getting into our seafood. It might make us feel like we – potentially – dodged a bullet regarding its toxicity. There is no way in hell it can be good for us. The jury is still out on its effect on human reproductive processes. You don’t have to be a scientist to know it has to be negative; it just has to be. You won’t convince me otherwise. I hope you’ll appreciate what I was trying to do there, or at the very least, find that little diversion and showcasing of two viewpoints on that pollutant as interesting as I did.
The microplastic rabbit hole we’re now out of. Let’s move on because even if you discount the effect of microplastics in seafood on the human body, there are plenty of other toxins to examine. They’re more dangerous anyway, and the science is not in dispute.
The last enjoyable tidbit regarding pollutants are those that arise from agriculture, which we previously touched upon. We know that agricultural runoff eventually enters our water systems and releases many unnatural, artificial chemicals into our waterways, such as pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, antibiotics, and “natural” compounds such as phosphorus and nitrogen from fertilizers. Those fertilizers, surprisingly, do as “wash-off” what they were intended to do on the farm. As we discussed, algae will bloom in explosive ways, which consumes the oxygen in the water, and then they decompose, in part causing problems such as the vast dead zones devoid of marine life and leading to the bleaching and death of coral.
For the moment, let’s focus on what gets into the seafood people actually enjoy. The pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, heavy metals, and other toxins from agricultural runoff (as well as from manufacturing and some other endeavors) are very startling. The sea’s plants, organisms, and fish are exposed to these contaminants. Even minuscule microorganisms such as plankton will absorb them into their bodies. Since they are considered the building blocks of the oceanic ecosystem, you can see why no creature is spared. Due to biomagnification, the amount of pollutants within an animal will be “magnified” the higher up on the animal’s food chain; the larger a fish is, the more toxins will be in their flesh. This is a disquieting reality.
Shark meat was once consumed in ocean-side cultures around the world. Due to their place on the food chain, sharks are not eaten these days outside of for their fins, which are highly valued in many cultures and used in soups and curries. Oddly, there are just as many toxins in the fin as in the meat, and the preparation method of drying and boiling the fins actually increases the concentration of toxins. I’ve had shark fin soup, actually. And, sincerely, it tastes like nothing. It tastes like whatever you cook it in. What it really comes down to, in these Asian cultures, is that it is a flex to eat it as it’s highly valued and has cultural roots. It has zero nutritional value, no protein, no taste, yet plenty of toxins. I don’t think it would be asking too much to place that tradition on the chopping block. Other fish high up on the food chain one needs to be worried about toxin-wise are swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish, and large tuna such as albacore.
I do want to take a moment and say I sincerely did not intend this to be some masochistic exploration of everything we know about ocean pollution and its effect on ocean creatures and then the humans that consume them. In fact, this initially was not included in this episode. I originally intended to look at fishing and seafood from a historical, practical, and everyday perspective that could reveal and benefit our land-based eating perspective. Sure, I felt that the health benefits had been overstated in society, and I had misgivings about such an important food source being a resource instead of a commodity and a resource that existed in a polluted environment. But the more I learned, the more I understood that not only is the juice not worth the squeeze, but the squeeze’s side effects are mind-numbing in their potential adverse effects.
I sincerely apologize for being a broken record. However, I genuinely feel that people need to hear this song. Listening just once doesn’t seem to do the trick…
And here’s another thing: finding out that we don’t correctly treat our oceans well is no surprise. I am under no illusion that I am catching people off guard by relating that information. I remember learning about this in Ms. Golf’s second-grade Earth Club in the 90s. We’ve all seen the images of rivers of plastic trash making their way to the sea with barely any actual water still visible. We all know that we’ve treated the ocean like it’s simultaneously an inexhaustible black hole of a garbage dump as well as a limitless grocery store, errantly acting like they’re too large, too vast, and too deep to be irrevocably harmed by what humans are doing on land. We all know we’ve collectively f’ed up at some level.
Somehow, we’ve become numb to this; we’ve seen for too long that it’s “just life these days,” or we doubt the veracity of these assertions. And I promise you I understand that sentiment as well. We were also told in that very same second-grade Earth Club that we’d run out of space for garbage dumps sometime around ten years ago. That certainly never happened and was a mistake. But with this issue, I think people end up feeling, “sure, the ocean and the life within it are hurting, but it’s still at the store, how bad can it be? It’s just another way humans are mistreating the world. But I don’t live in the ocean and have other food. Let’s focus on electric cars and these heatwaves and droughts first.” But with driving animals to extinction, and we have a solid track record with that, there is no doubt we’re doing that . And, in case you haven’t heard the first episode, it’s larger than caring about the lives of the water creatures. The creatures within the oceans guarantee that the ecosystem creates the most oxygen and sequesters the most CO2 on Earth. If you haven’t heard that episode, please check it out to see what kind of fire we’re playing with here.
Here’s the thing I need to stress: this all is worse than what you think or what I can communicate in a podcast or an article. The amount of distressing information found upon researching this topic is an order of magnitude larger than what has even been hinted at here.
Why is this such a hidden problem? There are a couple of factors at play. Many feel this issue is primarily caused by far-off people in the “global south,” not a prevalent close-to-home issue. Sure, there is truth in that it is estimated that 90% of all plastic waste comes from 10 rivers, 8 of which are in Asia. The Ganges and the Yangtze stand out as quite horrible in this regard. Some people are more bad actors than others in this regard. At the end of the day, however, we’re all guilty here. And we’re all capable of helping change things. We must fight the “out of sight, out of mind” human tendencies. Like the oceans, this can seem like such a massive and amorphous issue that learning the details of the situation is an exercise in futility.
We must push back against that.
Like air pollution, what happens in our oceans happens to everyone. It is a shared system. It’s tempting to say it’s a system we share with marine life. But it’s not. We force ourselves, our appetites, our greed, our waste upon this system. Then, we still decide to look at that system to fill out our menus.
Okay. Rant over, or at least paused.
Now, it is time to be more practical; instead of filling our heads with overwhelming and scary information, why don’t we move on to some actionable information about commonly eaten types of seafood? It only makes sense to look at what we should know about their implications for our health and the future of each species and possibly what we can do to help our sea friends.
To do that, we must first examine the two types of fish one can buy, not by species, but by how they are raised and caught. One way is the obvious and, for the sake of this argument, simple: wild-caught fish. The other is more nuanced and less known about by the general public: farmed fish. Understanding the difference is paramount to understanding the health implications of different fish types and what people should – or even can – do to improve this scary situation. It is essential to acknowledge and understand the differences between fresh and farmed fish to understand better the differences between the most popular types of fish used for food.
Wild-caught fish, or “fresh fish,” as we will call it for this section, is what it sounds like. It is what we take out of our oceans, rivers, and lakes but taken out from their natural habitat. It is fish in which we take no part in their reproduction, health, migration (movement in general), safety, or feeding. Most importantly, it is fish that are a resource. No one owns them like they do farmed fish. And that is part of the problem. They are hunted, and we are the hunters. Unlike regular hunting, which in the US and many other places is highly regulated and provides resources for the preservation of land and animals – we humans don’t seem to care much about this resource. We treat the oceans and their bounty as limitless and the ecosystems within them as unimportant. We are intelligent and important, but they’re not. We live on land, and they live in water.
Out of sight, out of mind. Let’s move and have dinner…
Does this simplicity bother you? Has it been boiled down to an absurd level? If you need to fish to procure calories and nutrition, then I understand, but then I highly doubt you’re consuming this podcast.
Aquaculture is the fancy name for farmed fish. It is when fish are raised in controlled environments such as ponds, tanks, and floating cages. People participate in the fish’s breeding, feeding, safety, health, and movement. They are owned. They are farmed, not hunted. They are not a resource like their cousins in the wild; they are a commodity. Because of this, the farm’s bounty is not seen as limitless, and the ecosystem is cared about quite differently.
However, this doesn’t mean it’s always better.
The way we farm fish leaves a lot to be desired. Humans would still probably do better to care more for the fish so as to care more for themselves. Plus, there are just some consequences of keeping the fish so close together, so close to land, and so close to human activity. Sea lice have been known to decimate certain species in certain areas. Salmon seem particularly susceptible to these gross, tiny little crustaceans, which can eat away at the fish tissue. They massively stress out the fish and probably cause them much pain. There is even a type of chlamydia bacteria that is emerging and evolving within aquaculture, which also makes life stressful and painful and can lead to death. Like with livestock throughout history, penning up animals close together presents us and the animals with problems. However, the light at the end of the tunnel concerning fish farming seems larger than wild-caught fish. We can improve how we do this practice, drastically improve oversight and regulations, and innovate. That will be very hard, but especially in the West, we can do this as quickly as we collectively want to.
It is incredible how prevalent and integral farmed fish are today. It caught me totally by surprise. Aquaculture is estimated to produce 83 million metric tons of farmed fish yearly. So farmed fish are almost on par with naturally caught fish in terms of the weight produced each year. The top-farmed fish are carp, tilapia, salmon, and shrimp. They are the best suited for farms and seem to survive in those controlled environments. It is larger species that have complex life cycles, require lots of space to roam and often feed on smaller fish that find life on farms challenging. This is the case for tuna, especially bluefin, who understandably don’t just don’t do well when their space is limited. China is the world’s leader in this food source, which isn’t all that surprising. In general, it’s prevalent in South and Southwest Asia, but also in some unexpected places like Chile and Norway. We have cultivated and modified certain species of land animals over time to work well on a farm and not others in specific regions and climates. The same is true for marine life.
Here is the thing. Like livestock raised in large farms, farmed fish have very different diets than would be found in nature, including various pellets, flakes, and just in general formulated diets. The feed is often whatever is cheapest and locally available. Like livestock, the fish are often fed, on purpose or otherwise, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, and other pollutants. Factory farms often have to compensate for the living situation their animals are in by pumping them full of antibiotics, hormones, and the like. When you contain fish in a small area, similar needs arise as they have a usual amount of contact with each other and each other’s excrement, etc.
When determining if there was a clear health difference for humans regarding farmed vs. fresh fish, especially in the West, it wasn’t easy to get a clear answer. At certain times, in certain places, for certain species, farmed fish will have more contaminants and fewer omega-3s. In other instances, the complete opposite seems true. This was especially true as it concerns mercury. For tilapia, it appears that farmed fish have noticeably lower levels of mercury, and their controlled environment is a plus. This was often true for other species as well and certainly seems more true in the West than farmed fish that, for example, come from China near urban areas. It was interesting to see that, at least in the West, the argument of the health benefits and risks between farm and fresh seems to be a wash.
One thing I cannot speak to, but I suppose it is worth mentioning, is that there are taste and preference differences. People do report a difference in texture and flavor between the two. Famously, farmed salmon are given additives to their feed to ensure they have the same pink color to their meat as their wild-caught cousins. It makes sense that not living in the open ocean and not eating a natural and often varied diet would result in a difference in taste. However, it doesn’t seem to be a massive difference on balance. And like with beef and how many Americans prefer an unnatural diet due to the more reliable marbling, there appears to be just as much debate on this topic for fish. At the very least, it’s clear that the farmed fish business is massive and only growing, so the taste difference can’t be that substantial. But again, I wouldn’t know, so don’t ask me.
The most important takeaway from understanding farm vs. fresh is that it is an owned commodity vs natural resource. Humans, on average, care more about something when they own it, and they’ll take care of it enough so that it will reproduce and be healthy enough to be bought at the market. This is the paramount observation. Can things be done to improve farmed fish? 100%. But at least the fish will exist in a generation, and the practice doesn’t interfere as much with the ocean ecosystem at large.
Okay. Now, let’s look at what fish eaters are consuming. We will examine the most popular seafood choices in America and Europe. Maybe we can even suss out some information you’ll find helpful the next time you’re at the store or dining out.
Tuna. The big kahuna. Chicken of the sea.
Tuna is highly praised for its taste and texture. It’s interesting to linger on tuna as, in many ways, this species is in a league of its own. Bluefin tuna is the most highly praised and sought-after type, not just of tuna but of fish. They, indeed, are remarkable creatures. They travel in packs and are voracious hunters. In a statistic worthy of a double-take, some tuna can weigh as much as 2000 pounds, swim over 40 mph, and migrate great distances, with some routinely traveling from the Gulf Coast to Europe and back depending on whether they’re focused on eating or breeding. People may call them the chicken of the sea, but with size and speed like that, they seem more like the stallions of the sea. Bluefin tuna are interesting because only 5% of them are currently of age to reproduce; the other 95% are too small and young. This is due to overfishing. 96% of the bluefin tuna stock is essentially gone. The amount of bluefin tuna that can reproduce right now is beyond slim. They are in an emergency. Remember, these can’t be farmed, so if we don’t stop our ways, bluefin tuna, and not long after, the other types of this majestic animal will go the way of the dodo bird. So, if your kids enjoy this fish, maybe you should let them try some now, as it may not be an option when they’re older. But just once, after that, I suggest not supporting any business associated with hunting tuna. The massive reduction in supply, one would think, may hamper demand or lead to strong regulations. Not so with bluefin, though, especially not for the Japanese, where recently, a 612-pound bluefin catch was sold for an eye-watering $3.1 million. My God… It’s evident market pressures won’t make this change for us. We need to undergo a change of heart and actions.
Tuna, because they are large predators high up on the food chain, have significant exposure to toxins such as PCBs and mercury in particular. Outside of sharks, which nowadays aren’t supposed to be eaten at all – no matter the type or location – due to their high levels of toxins, tuna is one of the most “infected” species regarding heavy metals and other contaminants.
Should you be pregnant or have young children or infants under your care, you should steer clear of this food source. Ingesting too much mercury isn’t pretty; it can lead to neurological and developmental issues. Remember the expression “mad hatter”? Those people went crazy from the mercury they used to line hats with back in the day.
Conversely, tuna is very high in healthy protein, has ample omega-3s, and is rich in selenium, a trace mineral essential for human health. It has strong antioxidant properties and contains a form of glutathione, which is excellent for cell health, your liver mainly. Tuna is packed with essential minerals and is considered awesome for the heart. Because of its size, diet, and strength, tuna seems – to this untrained eye – to be similar to healthy livestock options in its positive health effects, with the bonus of omega-3s. It is a shame that we’ve both contaminated this animal and almost enjoyed it to extinction.
Salmon. The silver bullet.
No surprise, salmon is one of the most popular types of fish. They spend most of their lives in the oceans before famously making their way up rivers to procreate and die. Fish eaters should know that wild-caught salmon, much more so than other fish, are considered a healthier and tastier option as they usually have much lower contamination issues than farmed salmon and have better diets. The farmed versions tend to contain PCBs and dioxins, which are carcinogenic and have toxic effects on the immune, reproductive, and nervous system. While it is not as stark as tuna, there are certainly overfishing concerns, especially those that migrate to spawn in freshwater rivers. Thankfully, illegal fishing of salmon doesn’t appear to be as common a problem. If that holds, there may be a chance, with the proper oversight, of getting salmon numbers back up to a healthy level. And there could be changes made to how they’re farmed, which could improve their taste and toxin issues. Of course, reducing the yearly haul of fresh-caught salmon would greatly help.
Cod. The captain’s delight.
Cod is a versatile and popular fish. Interestingly, it played a significant role in shaping history and economies throughout the centuries. Known for its mild flavor and flaky texture, cod has been a staple in various cuisines worldwide. However, the story of cod is intertwined with a cautionary tale of overfishing. In the early days of European exploration, cod was abundant in the North Atlantic waters in the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly in the New England region. Sailors would share stories of the water teeming with cod for as far as the eye could see. The demand for cod was so immense that it drove the rise of extensive fishing fleets, leading to the eventual collapse of cod populations in the region due to overfishing.
Yet people would forget the lessons of the past and were due to repeat the mistakes. Again, the fishing industry collapsed in the 1970s, often referred to as the “Cod Moratorium,” a significant event that profoundly impacted the economy and communities in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. In that area, due to a belief that the cod were somehow inexhaustible, people relied on fishing as their primary source of income. Entire towns and regions depended on the income of the fishing industry. However, fishing technology advancements and increased fish demand led to stark overfishing. By the 1960s and 1970s, the cod population had drastically decreased, and the fishery was no longer sustainable.
In 1992, the Canadian government took a drastic step to address the crisis by imposing a moratorium on cod fishing. This moratorium essentially banned cod fishing in the region, intending to allow time for the fish population to recover. The populations have improved but never fully recovered from their previous heights; the same can be said of the economy of the communities.
These historical examples serve as a reminder of the delicate balance between human consumption, marine ecosystems’ sustainability, and the absolute need for oversight. Left alone, the fishing industry, even in Canada, will fish until they can no longer.
Like other fish, cod is susceptible to containing high levels of heavy metals, especially when caught near industrial areas, where it can often be found. So please pay attention to where your cod is sourced, especially as it is a fish that is often illegally caught.
Cod is a source of lean protein that provides essential nutrients. If you are health-conscious, look to cod for a good meal. It is rich in vitamins B6 and B12, crucial in maintaining healthy nerve function and supporting one’s metabolism. Additionally, cod is a good source of phosphorus and selenium, contributing to bone health and antioxidant protection.
Some things to remember as a consumer: Cod can be high in sodium, mainly if it’s processed or prepared with added salt. Be aware of potential mercury content in cod, as we’ve learned that larger fish tend to accumulate more mercury over their lifetimes. Cod is considered a medium to large fish, so it’s not as mercury-laden as tuna, but keep in mind that the smaller fish are safer when shopping for cod. It may be worth preparing numerous smaller cods rather than one or two larger ones so as to avoid the heavy metals. Choosing sustainably sourced cod and consuming it in moderation is vital. Cod is primarily wild-caught, and efforts to farm cod are limited compared to other fish species.
Shrimp. Pink gold. The bottom feeders.
Lobster. Sea bugs. The cockroaches of the sea.
Let’s group these two fascinating creatures together. And for good reason. They are both arthropods; they are quite literally bugs that live underwater. In colonial America, neither was considered a delicacy. Shrimp were so abundant that they were often used as bait for fishing rather than being a prized food item. Lobsters were once so plentiful along the northeastern coasts of North America that they were commonly used as fertilizer for fields and as food for indentured servants. They were often fed to prisoners, and servants even included clauses in their contracts to prevent them from eating lobster more than a few times a week! I am unsure if they didn’t know to slather it in butter, but this shows the power of suggestion. If one is told it’s cheap throwaway food, one won’t like it, but if you’re told it’s a delicacy, you can’t eat enough.
The perception of lobster shifted in the mid-19th century with the development of railroads and improved refrigeration and transportation. Lobster started to be shipped inland to major cities, and it began to gain popularity among the urban elite. As lobster became scarcer in coastal areas due to overfishing, it became associated with rarity, luxury, and fine dining.
Nowadays, some shrimp and lobster populations have been overfished, leading to habitat degradation and bycatch issues in shrimp trawl fisheries, in addition to a large amount of illegal fishing.
Both shrimp and lobster are low in calories and fat, making them a good source of lean protein. That will probably surprise many. They provide essential nutrients such as vitamin B12, selenium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids. However, shrimp and lobster can be high in cholesterol. Hence, if you have any cholesterol concerns, you should consume them in moderation. Also, shrimp and lobster are farmed intensively, which can lead to potential issues with contaminants like antibiotics and pesticides within the farmed varieties. So, if you enjoy shrimp or lobster, it’s crucial to ensure they are sourced sustainably and when you can go for fresh caught over farmed.
Catfish. Mudcats. Whisker Fish.
Catfish are interesting because they were important to ancient Egyptian culture and considered sacred. They were often depicted in hieroglyphs and artwork. They were associated with the goddess Bastet, the goddess of home, fertility, and childbirth. In North America, catfish were an important food source for many Native American tribes. Now, in America, catfish are a staple in the cuisine of various cultures, but especially in the South, where they are usually fried. In the mid-20th century, researchers and farmers began developing techniques to raise catfish in controlled environments. Catfish farming is now a significant industry in the United States, particularly in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas.
Noodling is a unique and daring tradition in which individuals catch catfish using their bare hands. This practice has a long history in some Southern states, particularly in Oklahoma. Noodlers search underwater cavities and use their hands to catch catfish, often at the risk of bites and injuries.
Catfish is a good source of lean protein, vital for building and repairing tissues in the body. It is low in saturated fat compared to some other types of meat. It’s important to note that catfish contain omega-3 fatty acids like all other fish. Still, the levels are usually lower than those of fatty fish like salmon or mackerel.
Also, it is good to know that catfish generally have lower mercury levels than larger predatory fish like sharks, swordfish, and certain types of tuna. This makes it a safer option on balance.
Those are some of the most popular types of fish in America. There are others, but one hopes you received helpful information and an understanding of what to look for, at least for those species. There is one other thing we should touch upon: sushi. It’s so popular in the West, not to mention East Asia, so it’s worth discussing.
First, let’s be honest: the Japanese culture has one of the worst approaches to fishing engrained into them. Apologies, but it’s the truth. Their approach is decimating fish populations worldwide. And them viewing dolphins and sharks as competition and therefore worthy of killing should make one pause when considering what to have for dinner and what companies to support. Please note that the EU and the US are also guilty of overfishing practices (the Mediterranean is, by some estimates, the most overfished area on earth). But I won’t sugarcoat the realities here; Japan is unique in its ability to murder dolphins at an alarming rate and style that very often seems just to be plain entertainment (the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, being the most well-known gross manifestation of this, look up YouTube videos of this at your peril). China, the world’s largest seafood consumer, must also be pointed out. Their vulgar practice of murdering dizzying and reprehensible amounts of sharks only to cut off their dorsal fin to discard the remainder of the bodies of these essential animals so they can have shark fin soup is scary stuff.
Sorry. This episode isn’t about pointing fingers. This is a global problem. However, we need to be honest about what’s happening. And those two cultures are decimating these vital, beautiful, ancient, intelligent creatures in a way that singularly threatens the oceans’ ecosystems. Sharks are older than trees. Dolphins are possibly the second most intelligent creatures on the planet, with languages, mind-boggling mental abilities, and playful dispositions. Shark fin soup isn’t popular in the West, though. Sushi is though, hence why I would like to inform you about it. I could not learn and not share the eye-watering practices just mentioned.
Okay. Deep breath. Back to the food.
Eating raw fish, as commonly done in dishes like sushi and sashimi, comes with benefits and potential health considerations compared to eating cooked fish. Preparing fish raw tends to preserve its nutrient content quite well, including all vitamins, minerals, and healthy omega-3 fatty acids, which can be partially lost during cooking. Some people find raw fish easier to digest than cooked fish, as cooking can alter the protein structure and make it harder for some individuals to tolerate. And, of course, I am told eating raw fish offers a distinct texture and taste experience that is often preferred.
You should know that raw fish can contain parasites and bacteria that can be harmful if not properly handled, stored, or sourced from reputable suppliers. Entirely freezing fish to a specific temperature can help reduce the risk of parasites. So, if you see a restaurant offering never-frozen sushi, keep that in mind.
Illnesses from eating sushi occur much more often than with other types of fish due to consuming it raw. There is an increased risk of foodborne illnesses like Salmonella, Vibrio, and Norovirus infections. People with weakened immune systems, such as the elderly, pregnant women, and those with certain medical conditions, should be cautious about consuming raw fish due to the increased risk of foodborne illnesses. Just for regular people, it is recommended that you don’t eat sushi more than 2-3 times per week. Each year, there are an estimated 48 people who die from eating sushi. That’s not ridiculous, but there are an unknown number of people who develop scary sicknesses, including parasitic worms and flesh-eating bacteria from sushi. What is known, though, is that the number of people being affected by consuming raw fish is on the rise. It’s no surprise as the fish populations decrease and the toxin/parasite levels in the oceans increase, so will the health effects for those who consume it.
And you should know, just like with any other meat, cooking fish at a proper temperature can help eliminate harmful parasites and bacteria, reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses. While some nutrient loss may occur during cooking, the heat can also make certain nutrients, such as protein and vitamins, more easily absorbed by the body.
There are a handful of simple pieces of advice one can follow with sushi to minimize the effects of toxins. And if you think this is overreacting, that you’ve always eaten sushi and eaten it how you want to, this isn’t my advice. It’s easily found online, and it’s not advice given lightly. Google some images of the diseases commonly contracted from eating sushi. Also, don’t fall victim to “what aboutism” for sushi. Sure, food and meat from other sources can and have always caused issues. But properly prepared meat from land animals is pretty much always fine and poses no risks. Problems exist with well-prepared, land-based meats, just as some people die yearly from vending machines. Sushi can be prepared perfectly, and it’s still a much higher roll of the dice percentage-wise, and it pretty much always contains toxins.
Here are some good guidelines for eating sushi:
- Limit consumption of high-mercury fish like tuna, especially if you’re pregnant, nursing, or part of a vulnerable group.
- Balance Sushi Choices: Vary your sushi choices to reduce exposure to specific contaminants. Incorporate a mix of fish types to diversify your nutrient intake.
- Mindful Portion Sizes: Pay attention to portion sizes, as larger servings of high-contaminant fish can lead to higher exposure levels.
- When dining at sushi restaurants, inquire about the fish’s sourcing and adherence to sustainable and responsible practices. If you’re pregnant, have little kids, compromised people with you, or dining with the elderly (some parasites from sushi seem to infect people over 50 more so than younger people), then just do a little research and don’t skimp. If you’re going to eat this food source, make it a rare treat.
- Educate Yourself: Stay informed about advisories and recommendations from health organizations regarding seafood consumption.
Let’s face it, though, people will continue eating sushi. Most listening to or reading this probably enjoy it. So, let’s now discuss some information about different types of sushi—just some basic information so that you know about what you’re eating.
Tuna (Maguro):
Tuna is obviously very popular in sushi, fetching extremely high prices. There are five primary types of tuna. I assume by now you understand that predator fish have toxin issues because of their position in the food chain. To put it into perspective, for a tuna to gain 1 kilo requires roughly 10 kgs of mid-size fish, 100 kilos of small fish, 1,000 kilos of small plant eaters (herbivores such as zooplankton), and 10,000 kilograms of phytoplankton.
If you’ve made it this far, you also understand that it has significant overfishing issues, and a lot of collateral damage is created in catching them. Dolphins, sharks, and a myriad of other fish and the ocean floor ecosystem find their demise through tuna hunting.
On balance, pole-and-line caught albacore tune is best for sustainability, and skipjack tuna seems to be a good bet for lower mercury levels. Skipjack also generally has more sustainable populations, which is essential to note. It would probably be considered the healthiest of the sushi options we are currently discussing as it is loaded with omega-3s, high-quality protein, and essential nutrients such as vitamin D. Still, you can’t evade the mercury and PCBs, so this needs to be eaten in moderation, both for your body and the ocean ecosystem. When eating sushi, one should opt for leaner types of tuna, like albacore, yellowfin, or skipjack, as these tend to have lower mercury levels.
Tuna is a paradox. It is probably the healthiest species to consume in terms of its natural properties and the worst in terms of potential adverse health effects from manufactured issues. It is also the fish with the most risk of extinction, especially bluefin tuna. I apologize if you love tuna; that’s the reality, though. In all likelihood, should you possess concerns over your health and that of the ocean, it is best to keep this to special occasions and only when you can be assured it was obtained sustainably or certified from a reputable source (more on that soon).
Salmon (Sake):
Salmon, like tuna, is considered pretty healthy in its natural form and can compete with tuna for the top spot, having the same health properties we’ve discussed often. When it is wild-caught, it is considered one of the safest, relatively speaking, sushi items to eat (maybe being beaten by crab). Farmed salmon, while being more sustainable, can have more PCBs. Interestingly, there is not much mercury concern for salmon sushi because of their diets (they eat tiny things), habitat, and life span. Try to order or buy salmon that is wild-caught Alaskan salmon; they are generally considered more sustainable and have fewer contaminants. Salmon is regarded as the most sustainable of these popular sushi options and is almost tied for the least negative health consequences.
So salmon seems to be, relatively speaking, a better choice for your sushi order – or your cooked fish order – than other species.
Yellowtail (Hamachi):
Yellowtail is again a predatory fish, so it can accumulate toxins easily, meaning moderation is likewise suggested. It is liked for its rich, fatty texture. And that fat is quite healthy in its natural state. For this reason, raw is more popular as the fat can be cooked away. But of course, some of the toxins would, too. Cooking yellowtail does help eliminate the potential pathogens and maybe a bit of the toxins, so keep that in mind if you want to eat it raw. You can find it from fisheries or wild-caught. You are encouraged to ask your sushi restaurant where they source it and do some research. It’s not as daunting as you may think, as you can just use your phone and the resources we’ll cover soon to get an idea. I bring this up while speaking about yellowtail because of the need to enjoy it in moderation as it doesn’t have a reputation for that as much as, say, tuna.
When served as sushi, yellowtail is in the middle of the pack for positive health attributes. Not surprisingly, it is middle of the pack in terms of toxins when served raw as well. It is towards the end of the pack for sustainability. It is being overfished, just not as bad as tuna.
Shrimp (Ebi). When shrimp is served in sushi, it is low in calories and a good source of protein. Still, of course, it can contain contaminants and high cholesterol levels. As it is so commonly fished, you should be aware of the excellent chance of contamination and antibiotics if it’s farmed. Raw shrimp can carry parasites and bacteria that might be harmful when consumed and are usually killed in cooked shrimp.
You should look for wild-caught shrimp that is certified sustainable, and if possible, avoid excessive fried or breaded preparations. If you want to eat a dish, this author would be scared to try going for the amaebi, a sweet shrimp served raw with its crispy fried head as a delightful garnish.
Raw shrimp for sushi is low on the list for positive health effects and follows tuna and eel in terms of potential adverse health effects. It is in the middle of the pack in terms of sustainability. There are a lot of shrimp farms around the world. Some create environmental impacts, so always look for sustainable options when available.
Eel (Unagi):
Raw eel is high in fat and calories, providing a good energy source. However, some sushi preparations involve high sugar content and cooking methods that may affect its nutritional profile, so keep that in mind. It is last on our list for positive health effects and first on the list for potential adverse effects. It can undoubtedly have elevated levels of mercury due to its position in the food chain. If you grill or broil it, you can reduce your mercury exposure, so please order it that way. This is a dish you should consider a treat, not a regular option. It has more than the average fish’s fear of extinction in nature. It depends on the particular species; their sustainability varies, but it is an overall concern, hence why there are a lot of farms. Japan, Taiwan, and Europe are probably preferred regions or habitats for sourcing eel, as they have been at it for a long time and have some sustainability practices.
Crab (Kani).
Crab is interesting because it is popular in sushi restaurants but usually cooked. There is also imitation crab, which can be minced cooked crab, a kind of fish paste mixed with fish or with minced fish seasoned to taste like cooked crab. Just know it contains additives and fillers. This practice comes down to cost and regional availability. Crab is usually low in fat and calories, high in protein, and a good source of essential nutrients like vitamin B12 and selenium. Of course, when you get imitation crab, it often has processed ingredients and is of less nutritional value. It is lower in terms of positive health effects, with eel and shrimp being the lowest sushi options in that regard. To minimize the health impact, minimize dishes prepared with minimal added fats and sauces. However, it is the lowest of our options regarding potential adverse health effects, as crabs don’t seem to pick up as many contaminants as the others. For sustainability, it is your best option, below only salmon.
Blue crab from the Gulf of Mexico is considered a more sustainable option with well-managed populations. This information came up several times, so grab this crab if possible. Locally sourced crab, in America or Europe, is usually an intelligent way to go for your health. Just ask the waiter or guy in the fish market about this. Dungeness Crab from the US West Coast is also considered well-managed and sustainable. It seems that wild-caught crab is better than farmed health-wise as farmed tends to have slightly deeper toxin concerns, yet it’s nothing outlandish. And if you get it from a good farm in a western country, you should probably be okay. Mercury isn’t much of an issue either way. It seems that crab, when gotten from the right place and isn’t imitation, isn’t a bad option to get both in terms of health and sustainability.
Now, let us examine some of the organizations and things to look out for that can help you make good seafood-related choices regarding sustainability and contamination issues. None of these are perfect and beyond repute, but you should be aware of their existence and what they claim to do. Using some external input is better than none, that’s for sure.
1. Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch: Seafood Watch provides science-based recommendations on seafood choices that are environmentally sustainable. They offer consumer guides, mobile apps, and an online database that rates different types of seafood based on their environmental impact. They also provide information about responsible fishing practices and aquaculture. Their recommendations are widely trusted for their unbiased approach.
2. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC): The MSC is an international nonprofit organization that sets standards for sustainable fishing practices and certifies seafood products that meet those standards. Their blue MSC label indicates that the seafood comes from a certified sustainable fishery. Their website provides information about certified products and sustainable fishing practices.
3. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Seafood Selector: EDF offers a comprehensive online tool that helps consumers make informed choices about seafood. Their database includes information on health advisories, overfishing, and sustainability status for different fish species. They also provide recommendations for making sustainable seafood choices.
4. FishChoice: FishChoice is an online platform that connects businesses and consumers with sustainable seafood suppliers. Their website provides information about sustainable seafood options, certifications, and seafood industry news. They aim to promote responsible sourcing in the seafood supply chain.
5. Good Fish Guide by Marine Conservation Society (MCS): MCS offers a Good Fish Guide that provides ratings for different seafood species based on their sustainability and impact on the marine environment. They also provide information about responsible fishing practices and marine conservation.
When looking for unbiased information, it’s essential to rely on sources that are transparent about their methodologies, independent from industry influence, and well-respected in marine conservation and sustainable fisheries. These organizations mentioned above are known for their commitment to providing accurate and unbiased information to help consumers make informed choices about seafood.
Conclusion
Let’s explore some big-picture conclusive reflections upon our wildly diverse and thoroughly deep dive into everything related to seafood, fishing, and the health of our oceans. To put it succinctly, things aren’t going well on those three points and are inarguably worsening. The vast ecosystem of our oceans is being decimated and polluted and is far more important to us than just being a food source. We are playing with fire in a way we don’t completely understand. Still, we do understand how integral this ecosystem is to the health of the overall planet. Most of the animals that make up our seafood are being fished in a manner that makes it clear they’re headed towards extinction. And in the fishing process, we are creating massive collateral damage. Not only that, but those creatures are absorbing much of the byproducts of modern human existence, and it’s difficult for that to be avoided due to the nature of the medium of their existence, the interconnected oceans.
So what can we do about this?
Let’s start with what should happen in a perfect world.
Farmed fish should be used instead of wild-caught when it works for the species. There should be good oversight of these farms, and they should be allowed ample space to have the healthiest fish. Unlike on land, these farms could, in theory, be as big as they need to be as they won’t encroach on humans’ habitat. We must recognize that when fish are commodities as opposed to natural resources, we treat them and, in the long run, ourselves and our oceanic ecosystem much better. The farms need to meet strict Western regulations for the health of the fish, the ecosystem it’s in, and the labor used to make it. We should let the wild-caught-only fish species remain untouched for at least a few generations. They need time to replenish, or we will lose them forever.
We should let communities in poor regions fish their own waters as they need to for food, or better yet, provide them with alternative food options. But in reality, those aren’t the communities that do deep sea fishing on an industrial scale, which is the real issue that needs to be addressed. We can’t command countries to stop being evil in their own waters. Still, we can make efforts to stop people in international waters. The West should refuse to buy fish that don’t meet sustainability rules. We should pressure other countries with our dollars, boycotts, sanctions, and political pressure.
Ideally, we would implement ways to communally and completely rethink fish as well as educate people about the health, sustainability, and general ecosystem implications of a collective diet heavy in seafood. Seafood should be an expensive and rare treat. In the era of globalization, the US Navy, post-World War II, made the seas safe for international shipping. There should be a coalition of willing governments that use their navies to stop illegal fishing and fishing tactics, probably starting with the NATO countries. This should become a priority, and it would be money well spent. It wouldn’t require different materials or infrastructure, just a different manner of thought. We cannot discuss what rules would help us secure these species’ future and the oceanic ecosystems’ health until we can address the rampant illegal fishing already occurring under our noses in all corners of the world.
Okay, now let’s discuss what can be done in the real world.
Honestly, the first step, the necessary step, is simple. But simple in no way whatsoever means easy. We need to care. And we need to care about knowing what’s going on all around us. We need to care about the creatures in the oceans. We need people to know about the precipice many species find themselves on. We must collectively care about this ecosystem for non-toxic food, O2 creation, CO2 sequestering, and healthy interconnected economies. It matters not if you consume seafood or not. It affects you, and you need to care about it. Seafood consumers must care about what species they buy, from whom, and where. If you consume seafood often, please vote with your wallet (as they say). Use the resources I discussed before, or seek out others. With helpful websites and apps sitting in a device in your pocket that can give you feedback on a purchasing decision within seconds – why not?! We just need to care to put in a little bit of effort and novel thinking. It will only feel odd the first time.
And please, make seafood a rare treat. Your body and the earth will be better for it. Seafood in its current form shouldn’t be a staple in anyone’s diet. And if you can, maybe consider cutting seafood out altogether. Or, at the very least, sticking only to well-farmed or unquestionably sustainable options.
That’s it, people. If you have stuck with me for the 30,000 words plus of these two episodes on seafood, fishing, and the oceans, I thank thee! The fancy details have already been exhausted. As with many things in life, we’re left with a simple yet tricky reality. We need to care, and we need to start doing it now collectively.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about telling people what food to eat. This isn’t about taking care of marine life in some hippie’ish way where we want to save all animals possible for saving’s sake. We can even be slightly selfish about this topic: This is about taking care of the oceanic ecosystem, taking care of the planet so that it can continue to support human life as best it can so that it can provide food well into the future, and so that the oceans will support and feed our children like they can for us. Go ahead, be selfish! You should still reach the same conclusions.
Please share these episodes if you learned anything at all. People can’t care before they know.
Okay. I said care too much. Hopefully, it was so annoying that it made an impact.
This soapbox is getting too slippery, so I’ll bid adieu.
Written by Sean Brna
References:
Unique to Pt. II:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe0290
https://www.yumpu.com/fr/document/view/16946575/convention-de-barcelone-oceana
https://plasticsparadox.com/degradation/
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/what-to-know-about-farmed-fish
https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/the-ocean-plastic-sink-that-went-away-with-the-rivers-
Used in both parts:
https://www.conservation.org/stories/ocean-pollution-facts
https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/full_html/2018/04/ocl170035/ocl170035.html
https://thehealthyfish.com/aquaculture-brief-history-fish-farming/
https://www.reelcoquinafishing.com/blogs/florida-fishing-blog/the-history-of-fishing
https://www.alimentarium.org/en/fact-sheet/history-fishing
https://www.rookieroad.com/fishing/history/
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fishing
http://www.historyoffishing.com/
http://bertan.gipuzkoakultura.net/eu/17/en/7.php
https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/tuna
https://www.wired.com/story/dolphins-are-still-accidental-casualties-of-tuna-fishing/
https://nykdaily.com/2020/05/ancient-history-of-fishing/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/health/raw-fish-vibrio-vulnificus-amputation/index.html
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1305191110
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/activity/save-the-plankton-breathe-freely/
https://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ca9229en.pdf
https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing#discards
https://www.msc.org/what-you-can-do/eat-sustainable-seafood/fish-to-eat/salmon
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/will-the-ocean-really-die.html
https://www.condorferries.co.uk/marine-ocean-pollution-statistics-facts
https://www.fao.org/3/i2727e/i2727e.pdf
https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/farmed-seafood
https://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-basics/sustainable-solutions/manage-pollution-and-disease
Leave a Reply