In a unique review of fish consumption choices, consumers are not getting required information they need to make informed decisions about fish consumption posit a team of researchers from Brigham and Women's Hospital. Their research is published in the June 1 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.
The researchers, led by Susan Korrick, MD and Emily Oken, MD of Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), summarized the issue of fish consumption choice from toxicological, nutritional, ecological, and economic points of view through evaluation of the scientific literature, public health guidelines and fish consumption advisories made in the United Sates. They found that there is no one place that gives consumers a complete view of the advantages and disadvantages of various fish species. "Our research shows that there is no one perfect fish when considering nutritional value, toxicity rates and the environmental and economic impact," said Oken. "Consumers are forced to decide what tradeoffs they are willing to make. But as a consumer standing in a store, it is difficult to understand the pros and cons of a fish purchase, because the amount of readily available information is limited."
"Our research highlights the need for the development of clear and simple consumer advice that describes the multiple impacts of fish consumption," said Korrick. "Despite caveats, fish is generally a healthy food; the challenge is providing advice that is both comprehensive and accessible so consumers don't give up eating fish out of frustration."
Additionally, researchers also emphasize the need for policy and fishery management interventions to ensure long term availability of fish as an important source of human nutrition.