How to make a nutrition based case against eating fish.

[Jebus]

Most of the time one can argue that although seafood is the only way (except algae) to get a safe amount of DHAs and EPAs, this comes at a high price as one would simultaneously ingest undesirable toxins. However, I live in Mauritius which is as far away as one can get from the industrialised world. Fish is a big part of the local diet and I'm unsure how to make a nutritional case against it. Do toxins float around everywhere in the world or only in the lakes and oceans around industrialised zones?

[DarlBundren]

You just give 'em an article from Michael Greger's Book of Lamentations. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/

On a more serious note, is it really necessary to make a nutricion-based case against eating fish? Aren't all the other reasons enough to get you motivated? I'm with Ginny Messina when she says that we simply cannot know if a person needs to be 100% vegan to reap the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. The mere possibility that veganism and vegetarianism may be the healthiest diets around is more than enough for me.

[Jebus]

is it really necessary to make a nutricion-based case against eating fish? Aren't all the other reasons enough to get you motivated?

Unfortunately not with everyone. My wife is a pesce-vegan for this very reason.

[brimstoneSalad]

Distance doesn't matter much, it's more of a question of ocean currents.
Like second hand smoke in the wind. You can be a meter away if you're up wind, or fifty if you're down wind and get the same dose.

What are you down current from?

Either way, fish are still going to be rich sources of natural lead and mercury due to bioaccumulation and biomagnification, as well as toxins from algae if by chance too much of the wrong type is in the water (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with industrial contamination).

If somebody is convinced that he or she is eating fish from completely clean water, then the strongest argument against fish would probably be the heme iron and methionine content, along with the still high cholesterol levels relative to plant sources.

Fish is unnecessary and includes health risks; they're just lower than for things like chicken or beef. Vegetable protein along with supplements is still much better.
The only argument people might make for fish in areas where it's readily available is lower cost, since it's being taken pretty much for free from the ocean. There are practical considerations for the poor.

[DarlBundren]

I see. Have you read this? http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/more-on-omega-3-fats-in-vegan-diets.html

[Jebus]

Distance doesn't matter much, it's more of a question of ocean currents.
Like second hand smoke in the wind. You can be a meter away if you're up wind, or fifty if you're down wind and get the same dose.

I can see how you could get part of the dose, but the same dose doesn't make any sense to me.

What are you down current from?

It's a circular current that goes from western Australia, Southern India, and down towards eastern Africa. Our neighbour island even got parts of the missing Malaysian Airways plane.

the strongest argument against fish would probably be the heme iron and methionine content, along with the still high cholesterol levels relative to plant sources.

The argument is that this is good cholesterol. Do you think "good cholesterol" is still bad?

[brimstoneSalad]

I can see how you could get part of the dose, but the same dose doesn't make any sense to me.

As I understand it, there's not all that much mixing of water between ocean currents. The ocean is huge, so that's a long distance for solutes to diffuse. And currents are pretty fast. There are significant differences in temperature and salinity in different currents.

It's a circular current that goes from western Australia, Southern India, and down towards eastern Africa. Our neighbour island even got parts of the missing Malaysian Airways plane.

You're probably getting a lot of downstream pollution from India there.
You may be able to look up the heavy metal levels, or even have them tested.
If it whirls around in a circle, it may even have a chance to build up over several passes by India before it dissipates into the ocean at large.

The argument is that this is good cholesterol. Do you think "good cholesterol" is still bad?

As I understand it, dietary cholesterol is just cholesterol; it's all bad. It's your body that makes HDL in response to certain things (like omega 3 fatty acids). Fish are rich in these, but it's not as good as a plant source because they come with cholesterol, heme iron, extra methionine, and more saturated fat typically. HDL mitigates LDL, but you still want your total cholesterol to be low.

[miniboes]

What does your wife think of the ethical and environmental objections to eating fish?

[Jebus]

What does your wife think of the ethical and environmental objections to eating fish?

She hasn't thought much about it. She is at the level where she is bothered by the poor treatment of cute animals. Although she is quite intelligent she has a poor educational background.She thinks I'm an extremist and needs to meet more vegans before she can open her mind and realise that my ideas are not too weird and crazy.