For years, we've known that tuna and even swordfish are more polluted with mercury than most seafood. And sure, knowing this has been a bummer for people who enjoy the occasional tuna salad sandwich or spicy tuna roll, but it really wasn't anything all that alarming. But now, new research has revealed a fact that anyone who likes to eat fish should find truly upsetting ... 84 percent of fish have unsafe levels of mercury, according to a study from the Biodiversity Research Institute in Maine and the International POPs Elimination Network. Ugh. This is no joke. It could have serious health implications for us.
But, okay, say you only really eat fish on Saturday nights when you go out for a hot date night with your honey ... or when it's on sale? So you should be safe -- for the most part -- right?
Not necessarily. The researchers warned:
Fish samples from around the world regularly demonstrate mercury concentrations exceeding human health advisory guidelines based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reference dose. Our findings demonstrate that 84 percent of the fish sampled were not safe for consumption for more than one meal per month.
Yup, more than once a month! They might as well say never eat it! So sad. Apparently, we've polluted our waters so much -- they say concentrations of mercury have increased approximately threefold as the result of us humans treating the planet like a trash dump -- that the majority of our fish may be too high in mercury to enjoy. Seriously, this is seriously heartbreaking for anyone who enjoys seafood.
Still, there are some fish that are better than others. According to MontereyBayAquarium.org's "The Super Green list" seafood list, the following fish contain low levels of contaminants, provide a daily minimum of omega-3s, and are classified as a Seafood Watch "Best Choice": Albacore tuna (troll- or pole-caught, from the U.S. or British Columbia); freshwater Coho salmon (farmed in tank systems, from the U.S.); oysters (farmed); Pacific sardines (wild-caught); rainbow Trout (farmed); salmon (wild-caught, from Alaska).
Ultimately, though, let's hope negotiators from more than 130 countries, who are working to finalize a treaty to reduce the use of mercury and limiting emissions into the environment, succeed. Because how sad would it be if we get to the point where fish is off the menu for good?
Here's the news report on the study ...
How do you feel about this news? Do you plan to cut back on how much fish you eat?
Image via Ari Helminin/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 38
No, I don't eat fish from Alaska or the other locations noted in the study. I live along the Gulf coast of FL and we try to eat local seafood and support our local fishermen. I keep in mind bioaccumulation and try to stay away from the larger fish. A news story like this is more likely to scare people than inform them of anything realistic.
Oh no! Fish and seafood are some of my favorites!
We rarely eat fish but that is scary.
i rarely eat fish and part of it is because of stuff like this....so sad
84% is a lot but ya know, unless we grow or raise it ourselves we never really know what we're getting.
Well considering all the oil spills that go unannounced in the ocean and the toxins we put into the water every day....it doesnt surprise me.
yum yum .,, I like my fish but this is scary
So you are telling me that after 40 years of trying, I finally get my husband to eat fish, and now it's bad for him??? What can we eat? Chicken has salmonella, beef mad cow, plus high fat, veggies are contaminated, how can we be told on one habd to eat a healthy diet, and on the other be told that all these are bad for us? You have to die some way, I'll keep eating my tilapia.