Seafood Warning Video

[GB1]

If you eat fish......



TOXIC SEAFOOD WARNING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0F8x...eature=related

[Medley]

Tis misleading, methinks.

I can't go into specifics without turning this in a political direction. However, just as an example, I think it's both fair and relatively innocuous to point out that the USDA and NOAA also do checks of imported seafood products. So to say that the FDA only checks 1% of the imports, while possibly true..............

There is a rebuttal to this video from the National Fisheries Institute (whom you would think would be all for more stringent controls) on YouTube. Worth checking out, but as I said, a violation of political posts to link here.

- Joe U.

[GB1]

Hey Joe - I don't think it's a political issue at all. If there's a logical rebuttal to this, I'd like to C it! But it would be funny if what you're pointing out is correct: the FDA inspects 1%, but the other agencies inspect another percentage and the total percentage comes out to something very high ...

G

[SmartWombat]

but the other agencies inspect another percentage and the total percentage comes out to something very high

If each agency inspects 1% and finds of their 1% sample 10% fails the check.
That does not mean that 3x10% would fail.
You have to use the average of the inspections, not the total.
So that's still only 10% fail.

There's nothing like statistics to abuse and prove what you like.

[Medley]

Hey Joe - I don't think it's a political issue at all. If there's a logical rebuttal to this, I'd like to C it!

Ok G, but don't blame me if PJ 'disappears' the thread.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj2sn...eature=related

- Joe U.

[GB1]

If each agency inspects 1% and finds of their 1% sample 10% fails the check.
That does not mean that 3x10% would fail.
You have to use the average of the inspections, not the total.
So that's still only 10% fail.

There's nothing like statistics to abuse and prove what you like.

Maybe, not really applicable here. The ideal situation is to test 100% of the imports but that obviously isn't feasible.. The objective should be to catch bad fish. They don't just want to determine what percentage is good or bad (much like a political poll before an election) and release the results in the newspapers, for taking just that approach a lot of bad stuff gets through! The more they catch that's bad, the less that gets through to the consumer.

[OldClicker]

The 'science' of pop-nutrition is so filled with sensationalistic crap like this that I have put it on the level of astrology. - TF

[GB1]

The 'science' of pop-nutrition is so filled with sensationalistic crap like this that I have put it on the level of astrology. - TF

Sounds like what the fish are filled with, unfortunately ..

[JordanRHughes]

This is completely true. I would not trust any seafood that has traveled in more airplanes than I have.

If you eat fish......



TOXIC SEAFOOD WARNING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0F8x...eature=related

[Medley]

......which is why the Asian countries, who exist primarily on a fish-based diet, are dying in droves and have some of the lowest per-capita country populations, right?

????

Anybody but me notice that these so-called experts, who are so concerned about my health, don't actually include any health professionals?

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/REL...0908_oken.html

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2006/Seaf...and-Risks.aspx

The fact is that in 2008 the AMA, based on study after scientific study, came to the collective conclusion that the benefits of a seafood-rich diet far outweughed the risks. In a parallel study (see first link) they determined that higher prenatal fish consumption leads to better physical and cognitive development in infants, as well as a lower incidence of post-partem depression in neww mothers. Based on these findings, they recommended that the FDA should encourage the USDA to review the suggested seafood intakes for these groups (The USDA updates their nutritional guidelines every 5 years, in part to accommodate new scientific findings)

I now work as a medical technician at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU). Now, I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject, but from my perspective, the general conclusion that the benefits outweigh the risks doesn't seemed to have changed much in the last two years.

So why would the EPA disapprove? Because a poisoned fish makes a great poster child for clean oceans. Tell the average person that the ocean is polluted, and they shrug. But tell them that they're eating poisoned fish because the ocean is polluted... Cleaner oceans are an admirable goal, until the plight of the fish gets put ahead of that of pregnant women and pre and postnatal infants.

Add to that the agendas of the domestic and international seafood growers, and OC's spot-on: you have a merry mix.

Now, you can take health advice from any of these groups- it's your right. Me, I listen to my Internist. He advises me that I should drink wine with dinner. When I recently told him that I'd heard that a drink in the evening was healthy, his response was "Well, at the worst, it's probably a wash health-wise." Then he smiled and said, "sure, give it a shot".

Yep, I kinda like that guy. Besides, if I took health advice from a government agency, I'd probably already be dead.

- Joe U.

Oh, by the way, if anyone is actually interested in reading the full 60 page report from the Institute of Medicine (the second link), let me know. As a member, I can download it (though I'm not sure how to go about sending 60 pages electronically).

[GB1]

...
The fact is that in 2008 the AMA, based on study after scientific study, came to the collective conclusion that the benefits of a seafood-rich diet far outweughed the risks. ...

Joe, I agree .. and I don't know if anyone is disagreeing that seafood is good for you. But if you have a choice between eating fish that didn't swim in contaminated water vs. fish that did, I think people would choose the cleaner. It appears that their standards are less over there.

Coincidentally, I do know people who feel that any contaminants are bad regardless of the benefit. We have had that logical conversation - but it doesn't do any good.

[Medley]

Better be produce your own clean food for total safety...:thumbsup:

True that!

GB, don't look too hard at levels of mercury then. Methylmercury levels are actually much higher in domestic (U.S.) seafood. Not quite sure what THAT says about the standards. In reality, the only thing it may say is that we have more industrial processes that produce mercury as a by-product. Or that we have them closer to our coastline.

And that was my whole point. It's always a trade-off. Omega-3's vs contaminants. Antibiotics (used in beef , but not fish) vs Mercury. Better to do the homework, and make an informed choice, than submit to a keyhole perspective. It's not as simple as "imported seafood is bad for you".

- Joe U.

[panday]

That would gonna be a waste of money... and another waste of money if admitted to the hospital... yaykkzzz...

[cLod]

aha , bv siji caricui =]:idea:

[JETA]

I don't debate topics (don't have the brains of mentality for it)

However, I do not ever buy fish that came from out of the country or farmed. I eat a clean diet and neither of these fit my bill.