Friday, September 3


In an article headlined "Study Raises Concern on Benefits of Fish," the AP reports that the constantly-cited "heart health benefits" from fish like salmon and mackerel are "weakened" when the fish are fed vegetable oil instead of fish oil. Thing is, feeding them fish oil increases the levels of pollutants. "It's yet another fish conundrum for consumers, like the debate about whether the mercury in some fish offsets their health benefits." Yeah, it is like that debate, because both are based on the inescapable fact that animal fat stores and concentrates pollutants just as it does vitamins. But the key difference is that this time, it's not just that the benefits are offset by the new findings, it's that they may be nonexistent. "Norwegian scientists showed that people who ate salmon fed on pure vegetable oil or on 50 percent fish oil and 50 percent vegetable oil did not get any meaningful improvement in the relevant blood tests." (My emphasis.) So to put it simply, unless you want to guzzle dangerous levels of flame retardant, dioxins and PCBs, these fish offer ZERO heart-health benefit. And of course the AP fails to note that there's only a "conundrum" if you're stuck on trying to get your Omega-3s from an animal source rather than an inherently healthful plant-based one.

No comments: