The public faces fish consumption advice from a variety of sources. Diverse perspectives have influenced messaging related to fish consumption, including toxicological, nutritional, ecological, and economic viewpoints. For example, federal and state agencies, concerned about exposure to toxicants in fish such as methylmercury and polychlorinated biphenyls, have issued advisories targeting the general public, sport fishers, pregnant women, and young children. These advisories recommend that consumption of fish of certain types, or from certain sources, be limited or avoided. However, national organizations of physicians and nutritionists encourage oily fish consumption as a way to increase dietary intake of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids that may prevent cardiovascular disease and improve neurological development. Meanwhile, environmental groups have recommended that consumers avoid certain fish based on concerns about species depletion, farming methods, site of origin, or type of harvesting. Furthermore, many guidelines do not provide detailed information on the range of fish available, and conversely consumers may not have access to the facts they need to make informed choices, for example how or where a fish was caught. Frequency of consumption and species type consumed are also influenced by taste, cultural tradition, recreational habits, budget constraints, and the availability of alternative foods.
Thus, the consumer who wants to know "which fish should I eat?" is likely to find no advice, or at times directly contradictory advice. For example, farm-raised salmon is high in omega-3 fatty acids and very low in mercury, but environmental groups consider it a “Fish to Avoid” because aquaculture may adversely impact ecosystem integrity and wild fish stocks. While some experts worry that a complicated or overly detailed message may confuse the public, it is likely that much of the public is already confused.
No review exists in the scientific literature that lays out viewpoints on fish consumption from different perspectives together in the same paper. In this analysis, we will summarize the issue of fish consumption advice from nutritional, toxicant, ecological, and economic points of view. We will identify areas of overlap and disagreement among these viewpoints. We will also review experience with previous advisories, and discuss the key elements of a good public advisory. The opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the US EPA or any other institution.