QUESTION ABOUT FISH

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know if saltwater fish have always had mercury or is this a recent

development from the burning of coal for electrical production releasing metric

tons into the atmosphere.

RO

[Guest guest]

>

> Does anyone know if saltwater fish have always had mercury or is

this a recent development from the burning of coal for electrical

production releasing metric tons into the atmosphere.

It's a fairly recent development.

Nell

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the great information!! I guess if the foods are natural and

organic/wild we shouldn't worry too much about the health risk(s), since most

foods are what our ancestors have been eating for a very very long time.

Well..not including fruits and honey and stuff that particularly feed candida,

if you have a overgrowth:).

Now, reading your informative message, one question came to my mind. What are

other foods that you think are healthy to be eaten on a regular basis that

people usually worry about nowadays? I'm curious, since you said " lets all be

less fearful of FOODS, " so I thought there might be more foods I should know I

can eat safely without any worries....unless you are still researching on that

particular topic.

Thank you.

Reen

> > Hi, I have one question. Is any fish that states " oceanwise " and wild, safe

to eat, or are some fish just unsafe to be eating on a daily basis? I ate a

oceanwise+wild steelhead trout and was wondering if I can continue to eat them.

> >

> > I know the fish isn't on your allowed list, but in my past post, I asked if

" wild ocean-caught trout " was safe to eat and you said " they are great " so I'm

asking again, if ANY fish labelled (or ask the butcher and get a yes) oceanwise

and wild safe to eat. Is ocean-caught and oceanwise totally different terms or

do those two mean the same?

> >

> +++Dear Reen,

>

> I'm glad you asked about fish. I've had to re-think a lot of things I

believed were true when I wrote about them, and fish is one of those issues. It

also means I have more work to do. : )

>

> I am realizing how much fear and false information is being spread about

eating all kinds of natural foods, including fish.

>

> The " claim " is that many fish are unsafe to eat because they contain high

levels of mercury and toxins. While I agree there may be some fish that are

sick due to toxins, however if you look at the fish you can see whether it is

actually sick and unfit to eat. If the fish were sick the fish industry

wouldn't be allowed to put them on the market, and they wouldn't want to since

it would make a bad name for them.

>

> I've also learned that fish are very capable of detoxifying mercury and other

toxins, just like all animal bodies, including Humans. All animals cells are

protected because toxins make the cell membranes rigid/stiff so they are less

able to get inside. In addition to the fact that cells are not programmed to

select toxins for their construction since they are programmed to select

nutrients, water, etc.

>

> While some people may disagree with a reference from a Fishing Association, I

believe such organizations have more knowledge, research and evidence about

fish, and they have the right to protect their industry from wild claims and

false information, just like farmers should - see the references on this site:

> http://www.americanalbacore.com/mercury-info

>

> Here's some quotes from Health Benefits and Risks in Seafood Consumption:

Special Emphasis on Albacore Tuna, by sey, Director of Oregon

State University Seafood Laboratory and the Food Innovation Center:

>

> " There is a disparity about what we read in the popular press and what

research is discovering about seafood consumption and this is caused mainly by

issues surrounding mercury (Hg).

>

> Mercury is a ubiquitous [found everywhere] compound that is in the natural

environment through both natural events (volcanoes) and anthropogenic activities

including emissions from coal-fired plants. Once in the environment Hg can be

transformed to the more harmful organic form of methyl mercury (MeHg) which in

high concentrations can have devastating effect on the nervous system especially

the fetus.

>

> More than fifty years ago, by direct contamination of Minimata Bay, Japan with

Hg, the world witnessed these effects and named it Minimata disease. Because of

this and other outbreaks in Iraq the FDA and other world health organizations

have put a limit of MeHg in foods between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm. Most of the MeHg we

consumed in our diet is through seafood. All fish and shellfish have varying

levels of MeHg in their flesh. In general, larger fish have the higher the

levels of MeHg due to a process called bioaccumulation. Small and mid-size fish

will tend to have reduced levels of MeHg as they consume even smaller organisms

in the food chain.

>

> Bee's Note: They write about two major epidemiological studies that

scientists and advocates point to for determining potential harmful levels, both

of which are misleading and false.

>

> There are two basic questions with regard to Hg [mercury] in seafood. The

first question is at what Hg concentration levels are there demonstrable harmful

effects, especially for the fetus. The second question is a benefits/risk

scenario, that is, when do potential risks of Hg in seafood outweigh the

benefits from seafood consumption that are well documented.

>

> With regard to risk/benefit analysis there has been considerable work to

demonstrate that seafood consumption greatly outweighs the risks.

>

> There has been an exceptional amount of high-quality publications in medical

journals and scientific health journals showing the positive benefits of fish

consumption and health. While most lay-persons know the positive link between

seafood consumption and reduction of coronary heart disease, it is also becoming

evident of the role seafood and the long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and

improving cognitive function in infants, and mental health.

>

> Therefore, we can ask ourselves, if we reduce our seafood consumption because

of perceived risks what are the health consequences in the long run. Several

researchers at the Harvard School of Risk/Benefit Analysis have done just that

and published a series of papers in 2005. In looking at different scenarios of

changes of fish consumption patterns because of advisories they found that

reduction of fish consumption would significantly reduce quality adjusted

life-years (QALYs) for society as a whole even when considering low-level toxic

compounds such as Hg [mercury]. They concluded that there are so many beneficial

compounds in seafood, it would be risky to reduce the levels of consumption

especially seafood that has high levels of long chain omega-3 fatty acids. "

>

> So Reen, let's all be less fearful of foods, including fish, since it is

important to consume them. Your body is perfectly capable of eliminating toxins

in them, including mercury, particularly on this program.

>

> All the best, Bee

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Thank you for the great information!! I guess if the foods are natural and

organic/wild we shouldn't worry too much about the health risk(s), since most

foods are what our ancestors have been eating for a very very long time.

Well..not including fruits and honey and stuff that particularly feed candida,

if you have a overgrowth:).

>

> Now, reading your informative message, one question came to my mind. What are

other foods that you think are healthy to be eaten on a regular basis that

people usually worry about nowadays? I'm curious, since you said " lets all be

less fearful of FOODS, " so I thought there might be more foods I should know I

can eat safely without any worries....unless you are still researching on that

particular topic.

+++Hi Reen,

Many non-organic foods are okay too depending upon what is used to treat them

after plant foods are harvested, after meats are butchered, or the fish are

caught, that is only done to preserve them so they will not spoil (results in

less spoilage costs), to make them look better by adding dyes, glueing together

pieces of meats, etc.

Things to watch out for in " supposedly " fresh unprocessed plant foods and meats:

1) Irradiation (zapped with radiation) which deadens foods so it is of no value

nutrient-wise, and which change and damage the body's cells if consumed. Dr.

Price writes that if insects cannot live on foods then it is not fit for Human

consumption either. lol!

2) Injecting salt or carbon monoxide in meats.

3) Using chemicals like sulfites, nitrates and other similar substances, mainly

fresh meats.

4) Red dye added to meats to make them look less brown. Proteins in meats

naturally change color from red to brown as they are broken down by natural

occurring bacteria, which is okay and makes meats easier to digest. However

consumers think brown meats means they are spoiled, since there been so much

fear-mongering about germs for so long people believe it.

5) Meat Glue used to paste together pieces of meat so they " look like " a

complete steak or roast.

That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure the food industry can dream up

many other ways to deceive us for their own benefit, but not ours.

All the best, Bee