More bad fish???

I found it very interesting what was posted about escolar. I have read the same things about the fish and since have avoided using it in my restaurant. My question is, what other fish would you recommend that I stay away from and why?

Thanks,

Joe

[Bob S]

Good question. I would also avoid Amberjack. The fish is a reef diner (eats all kinds of stuff around reefs). As a result it is susceptible to Ciguatera.....this is a nasty ailment that the Spanish discovered off of Cuba in the 1500's....the ailment is named after the snail that caused the ailment. You will be very sick, you will think hot things are cold and cold things are hot......There are other ciguatera fish that are not popular in restuarants such as Barricuda....I would avoid these also.

[Nick.Shu]

ive also been advised to avoid eating or serving the larger species of fish (swordfish and the big guys that weigh over 30 kgs) due to the fact that being at the top of the food chains, they have higher levels of heavy metals and mercury etc in their flesh.

A good example of this is "minamata disease" from japan.

What is your opinion or take on this?

I have also heard the same, that the older fish can actually be very unhealthy for you.

[Bob S]

Nick

Wow, Heavy metals......alot is not know, but alot is suspected. The size of the fish correlates but the aggressiveness of the fish seems to be most important. In Australia, US and most European countries the acceptable measure is 1.0ppm (parts per million)......most of the fish tested is under this level. The fish to watch is bonita,halibut,mackeral,marlin,shark,sword and bluefin tuna.

Unfortunately, I only have inconclusive data to date........I will advise the forum if I learn more.

[Katherine]

It is unclear at this time exactly what the threshold for human toxicity of various toxins in fish might be, or how you would determine how toxic your fish might be, and how much you can safely eat of it.

For those of you not familiar with the occurance of Minamata disease in Japan, though: this outbreak was caused by an extreme amount of industrial pollution over a long period of time, in a region where most people relied on locally caught fish as a mainstay of there diet. The risks to a person eating a varied diet typical to Americans cannot be considered as comparable.

Katherine's points are well taken. The question of hazard due to chemical contaminants in fish and other seafood is complex. For example, the 1 ppm level cited earlier for mercury applies only to methyl mercury, which is not the same thing chemically as elemental mercury, and does not necessarily apply at all to any other metals, much less to organic contaminants.

In fact, much is known about risk levels for the more common contaminants, though much work has yet to be done. The current US Food and Drug Administration guidelines ("action levels") for common contaminants are available here: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov though that is only half the picture as it does not tell you the levels present in food you are about to buy or eat.

In general, many contaminants introduced into the marine or aquatic environments both bioconcentrate (concentration in organisms greater than that in the environment) and biomagnify (concentration increases up the food chain). Biomagnification is why predatory (someone earlier said aggressive, which is sort of similar) fish generally have higher concentrations of contaminants than fish that feed lower on the food chain. In general, it is true that older fish will have higher levels of contaminants than younger fish.

Another factor is fattiness, more properly called lipid content. Many of the organic contaminants - dioxins and PCBs, for example - partition preferentially into fatty tissue (are lipophilic), so fatty fish such as bluefish or mackerel are more likely to contain contamination than fish such as flounder, all other things being equal. As a practical matter, reducing the amount of fatty fish consumed in favor of less fatty fish is a worthwhile thing to do. Another very simple thing to do is not eat the small area of darker flesh along the body midline that most fish have - that's where most of the contamination will be found. In particular, never, ever eat the tomalley (green material) in a lobster, which can be loaded with contaminants.

If you've followed me this far, you may have guessed that I make my living working with this, and you would be correct. The few simple guidelines above are the ones I practice to reduce my overall exposure to contamination from seafood.

[This message has been edited by Dick (edited September 07, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Dick (edited September 07, 2000).]

I remember from college my lecturer telling us that the mackerel was the fish to be weary of - she called it "The scavenger of the sea" because it eats anything and often hang round sewerage pipes in some areas feeding off waste !!!

Although I have prepared, cooked and eaten mackerel myself many times and have had no complaints.

[Bob S]

Mackerel gets a bad rap because it is so far up the food chain.......any fish that has toxins is on the mackerel's diet