Guest guest Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Thanks Bee! Â Tammy From: Bee <beeisbuzzing2003@...> Subject: [ ] Are Fish Unsafe to Eat? Date: Monday, May 2, 2011, 9:23 AM Â 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. I am realizing more and more how much fear and false information is being spread about eating all kinds of " real " 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 [impact on the environment] 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. " Conclusions: The bottom line is, let us all be less fearful of " real " natural foods, including fish, since it is more important to obtain the nutrients in them than to be concerned about mercury or toxins. Your body is perfectly capable of eliminating toxins in them, including mercury, particularly when you are on this program. The best in health, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hi Bee,  Thank you for posting this interesting and educating literature at our forum. I would like to clarify a few things with you regarding to this article: 1) Are you referring to ocean-free fish o as a ‘natural food’ or farm fish is ok too? 2) How does sick from toxin fish looks like? I am asking, because I am also sick from toxins and no one can tell by my look(thanks God for this).. 3) You often say ‘body is perfectly capable of eliminating toxins in them, including mercury, particularly when you are on this program. ,I agree with you, however don’t you think is best to avoid all toxins as much as possible while we are on the poor health stage and we are already overloaded with them so it doesn’t add up? Thanks  Dobrusia From: Bee <beeisbuzzing2003@...> Subject: [ ] Are Fish Unsafe to Eat? Date: Monday, 2 May, 2011, 14:23  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. I am realizing more and more how much fear and false information is being spread about eating all kinds of " real " 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 [impact on the environment] 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. " Conclusions: The bottom line is, let us all be less fearful of " real " natural foods, including fish, since it is more important to obtain the nutrients in them than to be concerned about mercury or toxins. Your body is perfectly capable of eliminating toxins in them, including mercury, particularly when you are on this program. The best in health, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 > > Hi Bee, > > Thank you for posting this interesting and educating literature at our forum. I would like to clarify a few things with you regarding to this article: > 1) Are you referring to ocean-free fish o as a ˜natural food " or farm fish is ok too? +++Hi Dobrusia. Farm fish are also okay if they are not sick, which would be obvious. Companies couldn't put farm fish on the market if they were sick anyway. > 2) How does sick from toxin fish looks like? I am asking, because I am also sick from toxins and no one can tell by my look(thanks God for this).. +++Cutting fish open makes it is obvious if they are sick. > 3) You often say a body is perfectly capable of eliminating toxins in them, including mercury, particularly when you are on this program. > ,I agree with you, however don't you think is best to avoid all toxins as much as possible while we are on the poor health stage and we are already overloaded with them so it doesn't add up? +++Yes it is wise to eliminate as many toxins as possible, but use good judgement and also consider your resources and finances. I wouldn't want anyone to think they are doing themselves a disservice by consuming non-organic meats. +++It much more important to obtain the nutrients in them rather than become overly concerned about possible toxins. The same is true for water. It is better to have tap water since it contains all of Nature's natural minerals than to be concerned about any toxins, contaminants, etc. In other words " pick your battles " and just know that obtaining the combination of nutrients on this program are most important! The 3 top things that help your body most are: 1) nutrients, 2) nutrients, 3) nutrients! All the best, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Thank you for your comments on this Bee, Â Kind regards, Â Dobrusia From: Bee <beeisbuzzing2003@...> Subject: [ ] Re: Are Fish Unsafe to Eat? Date: Tuesday, 3 May, 2011, 18:29 Â > > Hi Bee, > > Thank you for posting this interesting and educating literature at our forum. I would like to clarify a few things with you regarding to this article: > 1) Are you referring to ocean-free fish o as a Ëœnatural food " or farm fish is ok too? +++Hi Dobrusia. Farm fish are also okay if they are not sick, which would be obvious. Companies couldn't put farm fish on the market if they were sick anyway. > 2) How does sick from toxin fish looks like? I am asking, because I am also sick from toxins and no one can tell by my look(thanks God for this).. +++Cutting fish open makes it is obvious if they are sick. > 3) You often say a body is perfectly capable of eliminating toxins in them, including mercury, particularly when you are on this program. > ,I agree with you, however don't you think is best to avoid all toxins as much as possible while we are on the poor health stage and we are already overloaded with them so it doesn't add up? +++Yes it is wise to eliminate as many toxins as possible, but use good judgement and also consider your resources and finances. I wouldn't want anyone to think they are doing themselves a disservice by consuming non-organic meats. +++It much more important to obtain the nutrients in them rather than become overly concerned about possible toxins. The same is true for water. It is better to have tap water since it contains all of Nature's natural minerals than to be concerned about any toxins, contaminants, etc. In other words " pick your battles " and just know that obtaining the combination of nutrients on this program are most important! The 3 top things that help your body most are: 1) nutrients, 2) nutrients, 3) nutrients! All the best, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.