

Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat? - Zarkonnen
http://whichfish.org/

======
davidhollander
SeafoodWatch already has a pretty solid iPhone and Android app that does
this[1], but I'm all for more options and having raw JSON available.

[1]
[http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_i...](http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_iPhone.aspx)

~~~
Alex3917
You can also get the same information online here:

<http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1540> (eco best / worst)

<http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694> (health best / worst)

You can even get a pocket guide that goes into your wallet that you can take
out whenever you go into a sushi restaurant or fish market. Here in NYC there
are a lot of hedge fund managers with serious neurological problems from
eating sushi every day for years. They manage billions of dollars in assets
but their hands twitch like they have parkinsons.

~~~
rwolf
Thanks a lot for posting the pocket guide. I like pretending to know what I'm
doing when I eat sushi, and that guide will help to artificially limit my
options so it looks less like I'm choosing at random (and eating healthier to
boot!).

------
IanDrake
I usually only eat what I can catch. And if I can catch it, well... that fish
just won the Darwin award because I suck at fishing.

~~~
spodek
You can't tell just by having caught it. If it already had a lot of children
and propagated its genes it's not very eligible for winning.

------
forgotAgain
A title of "..which are sustainable" would be clearer. The article concerns
the sustainability of the fish and not the goodness of them as a food. There
is for example no mention of the problems of eating catfish farm raised in
China (high levels of toxins).

~~~
sixtofour
Yes, this was my impression/confusion exactly. Even seeing "under pressure" at
the top, I still thought the list was fish that are safe to eat, in light of
or despite pressures.

It would be good to have a second list along side, fish that are safe to eat.
Or just one list, safe and sustainable.

------
MatthewPhillips
I eat fish 3 or 4 days a week but I almost never eat any of the fish listed as
"not okay". Cod is the only exception. Price seems to regulate this list
pretty well.

------
trotsky
Why are various farmed fish listed as "not okay to eat"? Certainly farmed fish
can't be under pressure like wild fish. Is it because of the environmental
practices of the farms? I see us farmed raised catfish is listed ok, but
apparently asian farmed catfish isn't?

~~~
chrismealy
Farmed fish are often fed unsustainable fish! It's just laundering
unsustainability.

~~~
trotsky
wow, really? Are you pulling my leg?

~~~
bh42222
Nope. It's sadly true.

------
patja
Farmed salmon as a good choice? Think you better check that one out, unless it
is in an inland pond (rare), farmed salmon is a pretty bad choice. Also having
only a single listing for "cod" over-simplifies things. Many diverse fish are
marketed as cod, and some of them are quite sustainable. Sablefish aka Black
Cod from Alaska is a delicious buttery treat and quite sustainable.

------
jellicle
This is a silly list. Not because fish aren't important, but because there's
no way to take action on this list. Studies have shown that a huge amount of
fish is mislabelled. Yes, pick up a piece of xxxx from a seafood market and
the odds are that it's not xxxx.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/science/earth/27fish.html>

Consumers have no effective way to verify what they're eating. This is a
situation where there is either government action or no action; no private
personal actions can be successful, barring the creation of instant cheap at-
the-restaurant-table DNA analysis.

~~~
Zarkonnen
That's a very interesting link, but saying that we might as well not bother
because there's labeling issues is rather overstating the problem. The perfect
is the enemy of the good.

~~~
cosgroveb
Did you even read the lede?

>Scientists aiming their gene sequencers at commercial seafood are discovering
rampant labeling fraud in supermarket coolers and restaurant tables: cheap
fish is often substituted for expensive fillets, and overfished species are
passed off as fish whose numbers are plentiful.

The link states that overfished species are being intentionally mis-labelled.
I would say that, yes, we might as well not bother if the seafood industry is
going to pull these kind of shenanigans, absent some sort of regulation from
the government (an unpopular sentiment here).

~~~
dagw
_absent some sort of regulation from the government_

Surely there must be laws against this already. I have a hard time imagining
that claiming that you're selling X when you're in actual fact selling Y is
legal. If no one is being prosecuted it must be because the government doesn't
care enough, not because they lack laws to prosecute under.

~~~
rat
It depends probably but I'm sure some areas the name of different foods are
imprecise. Does caviar mean all fish eggs? all black fish eggs? Beluga,
Ossetra or Sevruga sturgeon eggs? What about True cod. ect.

------
fishyfish
One odd thing about this list:

There are 6 instances where species are listed as okay to eat if they are from
the US while not okay to eat if they are from elsewhere. There are 0 instances
where the opposite is true.

# yes Barramundi (US/Europe/Australia) # yes Barramundi (Closed Production) #
no Barramundi (Other)

# yes Catfish (US Farmed) # no Catfish (Other)

# yes Crayfish (US) # no Crayfish (Other)

# yes Herring (Norway, Iceland, North Sea, US) # no Herring (Other)

# yes King Crab (US) # no King Crab (Other)

# yes Northern Prawn/Pink Shrimp (US and Canadian) # no Northern Prawn/Pink
Shrimp (Other)

There seems to be some bias towards US fisheries in this list.

~~~
Zarkonnen
Yes, there is, due to a lot of the data being sourced from the Monterey Bay
Aquarium, whose data is US-centric. If you look at the detail view of eg
crayfish ( <http://whichfish.org/detail/crayfish_us.html> ), the issue is that
the other sources have no data, so I had to use the likely overly US-centric
view.

~~~
zandor
Which is a pretty big issue. Local sources matter. For example the King Crabs
in the Barents Sea are really invasive and are spreading like wildfire. In
Norway they are trying to hinder it's advancement and reducing it's
population. Russia however, is currently more protective. After all they
introduced them in the first place.

------
metaprinter
Four Fish by Paul Greenberg - tackles this very subject. I recommend it.
[http://roundvalleyfishing.com/2011/06/15/book-review-four-
fi...](http://roundvalleyfishing.com/2011/06/15/book-review-four-fish-by-paul-
greenberg/)

------
DrStalker
Any list that opens with

no: All Bottom Trawled Fish no: All Fish caught by Longline

loses me right there. I don't know how different types of fish are caught, and
I'm not going to reearch it before making each purchase.

~~~
Aloisius
I don't where you buy your fish, but my fish counter has a fishmonger behind
it who is eager to answer questions. Any good fishmonger will know when the
fish came in, how the fish was caught and a good number of them will know if
they are sustainable.

------
Zarkonnen
Since mercury levels are obviously something people are very concerned about,
I will look into adding them to the information. Does anyone have good sources
for mercury levels of different kinds of fish?

------
benstein
Blue Ocean Institute makes a similarly up-to-date sustainable and healthy
seafood database accessible via text message. Text FISH to 30644 to try it.

------
natural219
I read this as, "with the price of equities in the fish market dropping, which
fish are safe to eat, presumably because those companies will be more lax with
health codes?"

I was way off.

------
reedlaw
"Which are okay to eat?" implies how much mercury is present, but it seems
this question is from an environmental perspective.

~~~
jeremymims
The environmental perspective is the most important. The truth is the oceans
are dying and overfishing has created colossal dead zones.

The best option that should be on this list is to not eat any fish at all.

~~~
davidhollander
> _The best option that should be on this list is to not eat any fish at all._

Your logic fails for the following reasons:

\- not all fish are from the ocean

\- not all species of fish are in fact overfished. There is no Sardine crisis.

\- Fish consumption is linked to increased IQ including in babies and children

\- Piscetarians have lower rates of heart disease than both vegans and
occasional meat eaters

\- Promoting abstinence over harm reduction is generally a very silly and
inefficient way to do things

~~~
jeremymims
Just for the record, fish consumption is linked to increased IQ in children
because of the presence of Omega-3 Fatty Acids.

Did you know though that both Flaxseed and Walnuts are both better, cheaper,
and less environmentally damaging sources of Omega 3s than fish? Soybeans and
Tofu are also pretty good sources.

I'm cool with people consuming less, not merely abstaining from eating fish.
But for those out there who are willing to (and there are many such people in
the tech community), it really is the best option.

~~~
davidhollander
> _increased IQ in children because of the presence of Omega-3 Fatty Acids.
> Did you know though that both Flaxseed and Walnuts are both better_

The fatty acid in both Flaxseed and Walnuts you are referring to is alpha
Linolic acid (ALA), whereas fish contains Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Out of these, only DHA is found in the brain. If
DHA is not present in the diet, ALA can be converted into it, but only at an
extremely low rate of efficiency [1]

The only reliable vegan source of DHA I am aware of is certain types of algae.
Additionally, by consuming extremely large quantities of nuts you will
typically be overloading your copper to zinc ratio.

[1] <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1476-511X-8-33> "Are all n-3 polyunsaturated
fatty acids created equal?"

~~~
r0s
ALA is adequately converted to DHA, you didn't read the article you linked.
Studies on rats are far from conclusive... but then why claim it's a human-
health fact?

"While there is discrepancy in ALA conversion rates in rats, these studies
imply that dietary ALA could sufficiently supply the brain with DHA in the
absence of exogenous DHA intake."

This is consistent with all other research I've read, debunking this myth has
become a hobby.

~~~
davidhollander
> _you didn't read the article you linked_

Is this a joke? The article specifically states:

> _It is not enough to assume that ALA exerts effects through conversion to
> EPA and DHA, as the process is highly inefficient in humans._

> _with higher levels of ALA, no net rise in the level of circulating DHA
> occurred [2,3]. For example, feeding 10.7 g/d of ALA from flaxseed oil for 4
> weeks failed to increase low DHA levels in breast milk of lactating women
> [4]. Some estimate that only 5–10% and 2–5% of ALA in healthy adults is
> converted to EPA and DHA, respectively [5], while others suggest that humans
> convert less than 5% of ALA to EPA or DHA [6]. The International Society for
> the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL) recently released an official
> statement on the conversion efficiency of ALA to DHA. They concluded that
> the conversion of ALA to DHA is on the order of 1% in infants"_

Now let's examine the actual context of your quote:

> _"While there is discrepancy in ALA conversion rates in rats, these studies
> imply that dietary ALA could sufficiently supply the brain with DHA in the
> absence of exogenous DHA intake. It is important to note that the hepatic
> DHA synthesis rates observed for rats do not extend to humans [44]. The
> higher rates reflect a more efficient ALA elongation process in mice and
> rats"_

It specifically states that ALA->DHA is only a phenomena that occurs in rats
and not humans.

> _Studies on rats are far from conclusive... but then why claim it's a human-
> health fact?_

Exactly my point. The human studies clearly state it is not reliably
converted, and you are claiming it IS based on a rat study. The whole article
I linked is based on the assumption it is NOT, and from the perspective that
we should be examining the health benefits of ALA independently from the
health benefits of fish oil.

~~~
r0s
Let me clarify: Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither
correlated nor causative to anything.

My point is that ALA provides adequate, not elevated levels of DHA, and
there's no evidence to the contrary.

Now let's examine the actual context of my quote:

> ALA is adequately converted to DHA

I think it's worth mentioning where you make a false statement, directly after
citing inefficient conversion rates in humans.

>It specifically states that ALA->DHA is only a phenomena that occurs in rats
and not humans.

Which is it, inefficient or non-existent in humans?

This statement: >It is not enough to assume that ALA exerts effects through
conversion to EPA and DHA, as the process is highly inefficient in humans.

... Says exactly nothing about healthy levels of DHA. It is non sequitur. It
skirts the issue, it avoids the topic, the statement tries to make a huge jump
in unreasonable unproven logic. This paper shows nothing but the therapeutic
effect of DHA/EPA on diseased people.

There is no evidence to suggest inadequate DHA is produced from dietary ALA in
otherwise healthy humans. Not in this paper, nor any I've seen.

~~~
davidhollander
> _Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor
> causative to anything_

It's correlated with being a human, but the significance of very inefficient
conversion versus trivial conversion is simply that it prevents us from
claiming they are metabolically identical goods.

> _Which is it, inefficient or non-existent in humans?_

Inefficient. 'ALA->DHA' shorthand was meant to token the previous idea of
"efficient endogenous ALA to DHA conversion" and not initialize a new false
one.

> _no evidence to suggest inadequate DHA_

I think you're missing the point by intentionally or unintentionally
rephrasing this in terms of avoiding a negative. Let me requote the initial
context by jeremymims:

> _Just for the record, fish consumption is linked to increased IQ in children
> because of the presence of Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Did you know though that
> both Flaxseed and Walnuts are both better, cheaper, and less environmentally
> damaging sources of Omega 3s than fish?_

My primary point is that one cannot rationally assert that the numerous
_positive_ IQ benefits scientific literature attributes to consumption of fish
and fish oil are somehow equally or better attributable to walnut and flax
consumption. The evidence indicates differing methods of action and a need to
consider their health benefits independently.

~~~
r0s
> The evidence indicates differing methods of action and a need to consider
> their health benefits independently.

Fair enough. I learned a thing or too here, so thanks.

------
alexjgough
Bzzzzz. Sea bass is often really Antarctic toothfish, a species which, while
certified as 'sustainable' is anything but. See <http://www.lastocean.co.nz>
for details on a campaign to protect the Ross Sea, one of the World's last
almost untouched wild places.

------
eykanal
Sooo, why is this top link on HN? Am I missing some nifty tech embedded in the
site, or is everyone here just interested in fish?

------
code_duck
How about everyone just leaves the ocean alone for a while?

Eat jellyfish.

------
senthil_rajasek
This renders very well on my android phone. Thanks.

------
kahawe
Can't eat beef because of mad cow and the heavy medication used in breeding;
same goes for pigs and chicken and all other mass-produced meat. On top of
that you have the question of animal cruelty and the questionable necessity of
killing animals to eat them attached to it. Plus it is generally not that
healthy to eat it all the time and you shouldn't eat meat more than once or
twice a week or so.

Can't eat fish for all the mercury and lots of them being close to extinction
and it kills dolphins and damages the oceans.

Can't eat eggs or milk, again for cruelty and various possible diseases or
other contamination.

And vegetables and fruits? Well, practically all of the mass produced ones
never EVER saw any soil or real sunlight but artificial gel to grow on and
were picked by poor and heavily underpaid and downright exploited people from
(and typically in) poor countries under inhuman conditions and bought by the
rich nations for next to nothing. (here is to you, militant vegetarians!) On
top of that they are heavily laden with chemicals of all sorts and chances are
when you get to buy them, they are far from being fresh.

Plus for practically all the food mentioned above: production heavily, grossly
outranks what actually ends up being bought... so we just dump it, burn it or
do FSM-knows what with it. We certainly do NOT give it to the starving people
in this world because it would cost too much.

And if you go organic and local farmers only? Apart from few choices, you have
even less inspections and regulations to protect your safety because you don't
know what they are selling, what it grew on and how clean and safe to eat it
is. And some of it just taste absolutely horrible.

This is just pathetic... the whole food industry, front to back, top to
bottom. If you go by the warnings on what to avoid, what is dangerous for your
health and what is immoral and wrong to eat, we better come up with a way to
get by on nothing but sunlight and water quickly.

But then again, fresh water supplies are currently being bought up by Big-Food
to make lots and lots of money and water in bottles is very often not as clean
as one might hope and certain chemicals from plastic bottles could basically
work like estrogen in your body.

~~~
trotsky
_And vegetables and fruits? Well, practically all of the mass produced ones
never EVER saw any soil or real sunlight but artificial gel to grow on_

Wait, what? You are going off the deep end here. I assure you that the exact
opposite is true - practically all mass produced produce touches soil and uses
real sunlight. The economics don't support your premise at all. Have you never
been to rural areas? I assure you they are not lined with industrial
warehouses and artificial lighting systems.

 _And if you go organic and local farmers only? Apart from few choices, you
have even less inspections and regulations to protect your safety because you
don't know what they are selling, what it grew on and how clean and safe to
eat it is. And some of it just taste absolutely horrible._

At some level you need to take on a certain amount of responsibility. My
locally grown produce mostly comes from people I know. They don't need a ton
of regulations and inspections to keep me safe - social contracts do. We've
been doing it this way for thousands of years. The regulations and inspections
mostly became needed when you got so far removed from your food source. Also
life isn't 100.00% safe, c'est la vie.

~~~
Tichy
"Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they are not lined with
industrial warehouses and artificial lighting systems."

You are aware that Farmville != rural areas in the real world? There are
movies and books depicting the industrial rising of cattle (for example
"Eating Animals" does a nice, graphics job). You can spot the "pink lakes"
which result from the waste output of industrial pig farming on Google Maps.
But these are indeed not the areas you would visit on a weekend trip to the
countryside, because these areas reek for miles.

Just because some chickens still roam outside, doesn't prove that the majority
of them does.

The article about pig farming was on HN years ago, but I can't find it atm.
But Google provides a lot of info "factory farming".

~~~
rwolf
The things you are saying are true about livestock. The commenters above are
talking about fruits and vegetables specifically. It makes sense to me that a
dirt patch and sunlight out in Ohio are cheaper than setting up hydroponics
plants.

~~~
Tichy
Missed that, sorry :-(

