Is it okay to eat fish?

Are fish food?

  • Yes, its okay to eat fish

    Votes: 205 85.8%
  • No, its not okay to eat fish

    Votes: 10 4.2%
  • I dont' eat fish, but it has nothing to do with their intelligence

    Votes: 24 10.0%

  • Total voters
    239
daveedka said:
Yup I have, I've also heard of mad cows disease, e-coli, botulism (sp), mutiple possible diseases from crustaceans/ mollusks, raw fish, rare beef, I've heard of trichonosis (sp again) distemper, rabies, salmonella (sp boy this is tough)

If you read the truth about the mercury contents in fish and use some sensable practices it isn't at all difficult to avoid any real danger and eat fish to your hearts content.

The United States has become a scare tatic and lawsuit ridden world where isolated and extremely minimal issues are glorified to seem like serious problems. People may chose to eat and beleive what they want but I personally refuse to go through life scared of everything the media wants to scare me with. I won't be filing a suit against a sushi bar when I get sick, and it irritates me to have to read the liability waivers everywhere I go. I try to eat fish at least 5 meals a week as well. and limit red meat to breakfast and the occasional beef shashimi appetizer at the sushi bar. I don't eat racoon during distemper season, I cook ground beef very well, and eat my steaks very rare. I eat raw oysters a couple times a week if I can as well. I never fish in lakes or rivers that are at the high end of the mercury warnings, and don't eat large predator fish in large quantities. But the way mercury concentrations work, there is really far less danger than the warnings indicate. the warnings are designed to absolve doctors, dieticians and Fish and Game departments of any possible liability for the 1 in 1 million problem that will arise.

Just my 2 cents worth
get a mercury test and prove us all wrong then...you can order them online for like 10-20$ and I think you just need to submit a hair sample.
 
The more of Dave's posts I read, the more I like the guy. People are far too caught up in "isolated and extremely minimal issues [which] are glorified to seem like serious problems". Part of the problem, or perhaps just reason, that this is so, IMO, is that while scientists who may or may not ( :mad2 ) know the practical implications of their work, the general public gets their news from the media which is a) completely uninformed of the practical implications and b) has a slight tendancy to exagerate or sensationalize the story. This is only made worse by the funding structure for scientific research where the most immanant threat or most sensational research gets the most money. So if I were to say I wanted to research something that probably isn't a threat but would help me better undertand and be able to explain the world, no money for me. If I said that I wanted to measure something that could kill us all in a few weeks, big $$. Meanwhile, even if my results find no problems, there's still that initial story: "scientists believe immanant danger".

On a like note, it's complete foolishness to believe that vegan diets are more healthy than omnivorus ones, and vice verse. The danger does not lie in any particular food group, but rather the diet as a whole. We are omnivorous beings, period. As such, we were made to have a balance of meats, grains and vegetable matter. Yes, we can certainly do fine with meat substitutes, but it's naive to believe that the root of societies health problems can be laid at the feet eating animals.

A healthy balance of all foods is easily achievable. Balance it with a proper amount of exercise and you get a healthy person. Whatever your dietary choice if you do no exercise, you won't be healthy, whatever your weight and BMI suggest.

Fad diets are sneaky ways to try to trick people into balanced lifestyles. Atkins tries to break people from their carb dependance, and if after kicking the habit you return to the food guide's recomended daily intake, you're in good shape. But as a long term diet, no, it is certainly not healthy to base your daily coloric intake on meats and fats.

Some folks seem to think that there's some magical formula waiting to be discovered or to be found in a book to bring them the proper, healthy diet, but it already exists, it's called the Food Guide (ours is called Canada's Food Guide, I don't know what the US version is called). That and exercise.

Oof, so far off topic but I couldn't help myself...

Yes, I love fishies for watching and for eating. But I won't eat Atlantic Cod because it should be under full moratorium until the stocks can grow back, which would take 10-15 years of full moratorium at least.
 
Yes, I eat fish, but not the one's in my aquarium. There's not a whole lot of edible flesh on cories, harlequin rasboras and mollies anyway.

As far as freshwater fish are concerned, my grandfather used to fish for and catch some brook trout that were fantastic (especially the smaller ones) when saute'd with some butter.
 
Sensei_the_dojo said:
Yes, I eat fish, but not the one's in my aquarium. There's not a whole lot of edible flesh on cories, harlequin rasboras and mollies anyway.
:laugh: What type of wine would you have with, say, Harlequin filets served on a bed of wild rice?
Seriously, I did see a full-grown giant gourami at the zoo last year, and you could get a few meals out of one, believe me! (I think they are used as food fish in Asia, if I'm not mistaken). I also read in a book about Oscars that they're a form of bass and people catch and eat them - not sure if I buy that though.
 
Lauren said:
I'm sure everyone here has heard, and probably discussed, Peta's new argument that fish are intelligent animals and thus should not be eaten. I would like to get the aquaria enthusiasts point of view on this.
Heh, I hadn't heard that. PETA obviously have never met my mollies... the most unintelligent creatures ever. I wonder, in fact, what they are basing this claim on. Well, it doesn't matter. Radicals have never been to my liking anyway. The ideals are good, but the people that espouse them usually turn me off. This goes for any extreme. For instance, militant Vegans (you know the ones - "I can't believe you're eating a cow. That animal was once alive and then" they go into detail about the slaughterhouse, etc. Like I give a rat's rump) or hunters that go overboard just to make people mad (you know the ones - "I'll shoot anything that moves, strap it to the hood in plain sight, and eat it... raw!"). I am an omnivore. I eat meat, fish, vegetables, tofu... pretty much whatever.

As for the discussion on vegetarianism: My sister-in-law has been one for ten years now. She isn't a total vegan. She is ova-lacto...something, meaning she eats eggs and dairy products. Vegetarianism is a perfectly healthy way to go, so long as you understand about how carbs and proteins work. Heck, look at the Hindu people.
 
I love fish, cod, bass, trout, salmon, haddock, plaice, flounder, jellied eel, monk fish, ect, i could go on with a list.

I wouldnt eat catfish like in Laurens avatar though, you'd get hair balls...
 
Last edited:
AquariaCentral.com