To Fish, or Not to Fish

I'm sorry that I haven't posted anything new in a while. A nasty cold/flu knocked me out for a week and I still haven't fully recovered. Having lost my appetite, the kitchen holds little appeal for me at the moment. So here's a little food for thought instead.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal published a paper this week that questions the wisdom of advising people to eat more fish when the world's fish stocks are in critical decline.

It's very easy for a doctor to tell her patients to eat more of this or less of that. How often do these doctors think about the ecological and ethical ramifications of their counsel? What if doctors start recommending foie gras as an effective means of preventing cancer? Would it lead to the cheapened, mass production of the product, prompting unscrupulous businesses to practice barbaric, industrial methods of force-feeding ducks and geese? Would consumers stop caring about ethics or animal rights if it means dodging the cancer bullet? What would be the impact of mass duck/goose farming to the food chain or the environment?

The Canadian researchers who authored "Are dietary recommendations for the use of fish oils sustainable?" weighed the limited health benefits of fish against the devastating ecological and socio-economic impacts of depleting fish stocks. Even fish farms are no solution, because popular fish like salmon and tuna are carnivorous -- an increase in their farming requires the further depletion of smaller fishes that comprise their diet.

I've always rebelled against sudden, ubiquitous health fads like the soy craze, probiotic obsession or the omega-3 mania. It leads uninformed people to overdo it, and even those who aren't buying into it find it impossible to avoid when manufacturers start pumping these supplements into all kinds of products. There's a butterfly effect to every dietary choice. It's a good sign when the medical professionals start considering the bigger picture before doling out their advice.