The hidden cost of eating fish, how things are getting worse

Excerpt

For years, the advice has been simple: eat less red meat, eat more fish. It’s lighter, cleaner, better for your heart, better for the planet.

But once you factor in welfare, environmental damage and sheer scale, it starts to look like one of the most ethically complicated.

In recent months alone, the cracks have started to show. New figures revealed that almost 36 million fish died in aquaculture cages in three years, with regulations being ignored at over 75 per cent of sites surveyed.

In the UK, there is concern that industrial trawlers are still fishing in supposedly protected waters. Once framed as a “better” option to meat or poultry, fish is now more likely to be described as at “breaking point” or on the “brink of disaster”, exposing just how fragile the system behind it really is.

To be clear, the health case for fish is real. In the UK, official dietary advice recommends eating at least two portions a week, one of them oily.

The British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) says these recommendations date back to a 2004 report which found that “the equivalent of two 140g portions of fish per week … had significant health benefits, particularly reducing risk of cardiovascular disease and benefits for maternal health when eaten in pregnancy”.

Fish is rich in protein, iodine, vitamin B12 and selenium, while oily fish provides omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D. More recent evidence continues to support its role in heart health, and there is emerging research suggesting links to reduced risk of cognitive decline.

In other words, the advice to eat fish isn’t wrong. If anything, most of us aren’t eating enough. Average UK consumption sits at around one portion a week, with oily fish intake particularly low.

But the BNF acknowledges that this guidance comes with caveats: “There are likely to be population health benefits of increasing fish intakes, but this needs to be balanced with sustainability concerns.”