{"id":19166,"date":"2026-02-06T12:07:49","date_gmt":"2026-02-06T20:07:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/foodrevolution.org\/?p=19166"},"modified":"2026-09-15T00:27:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T07:27:13","slug":"health-and-environmental-impacts-of-eating-fish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/foodrevolution.org\/blog\/health-and-environmental-impacts-of-eating-fish\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Eating Fish Good for You? Health & Environmental Impacts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Some studies suggest that people who eat fish live longer and enjoy healthier lives, with a lower risk of chronic diseases that affect much of the Western world. For instance, the ongoing Adventist Health Study has so far <\/span>found<\/span><\/a> that vegetarians outlive omnivores, vegans outlive vegetarians, and pescatarians (people who avoid all animal products except for fish) appear to have the longest life expectancy of all.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, in a 2019 review of 44 studies published<\/a> in the highly specialized medical journal PLEFA (Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids<\/em> isn\u2019t what most people would call light reading), researchers concluded that children of mothers who ate seafood weekly had significantly higher verbal IQ scores. The review also concluded that children who ate seafood had better school grades and higher IQ scores than their peers who ate no fish, by an average of 7.7 points.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why are we seeing these benefits? Is it because fish is high in the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, and these are beneficial for <\/span>brain<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>cardiovascular<\/span><\/a> health? Is it because fish-eaters are generally eating less red meat, or less processed foods, and these are the real culprits in harming cognitive development? Do fish-eaters tend to get more exercise? Are they less likely to smoke? Do they generally live healthier lifestyles?<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research is ongoing, and the data isn\u2019t necessarily conclusive. However, there is substantial evidence that, for most people, at least compared with the Standard American Diet, fish consumption may be linked to positive health outcomes.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But There\u2019s Something You Should Know About Eating Fish<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But before you run out to chow down on a fish burger or buy a bunch of stock in the nearest fishing fleet, there\u2019s something you should know.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fish are killed, of course. And for ethical vegetarians, that\u2019s reason enough to steer clear. It\u2019s true that some scientists <\/span>say<\/span><\/a> that fish lack the neurophysiological capacity for conscious awareness of pain and do not feel pain the way humans do. But others say that it is impossible to definitively know whether another creature\u2019s subjective experience is like our own. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s certain is that in recent years, fish biologists around the world have <\/span>discovered<\/span><\/a> substantial evidence that, just like mammals and birds, fish also experience conscious pain<\/strong>. It is now widely accepted that fish produce the same opioids \u2014 the body\u2019s innate painkillers \u2014 that mammals do.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A <\/span>2025 study<\/span><\/a>, for example, found that rainbow trout experience roughly 10 minutes of \u201cmoderate to intense pain\u201d during slow asphyxiation after being removed from the water.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there are other issues as well. Modern fish swim in polluted waters and exist at the top of very long food chains. As a result, many fish today are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other toxins<\/strong>. And industrialized fishing operations are practically strip-mining the oceans, leaving fish stocks depleted, eviscerating marine food chains, and threatening the viability of the commercial fishing industry for future generations.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about fish farms? They have some big, big problems, too, which we\u2019ll explore below. So many people are wondering whether there are any better ways to obtain the health benefits of eating fish without devastating our oceans or exposing consumers to dangerous levels of pollution.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Types of Fishing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
istock.com\/Laura Ragsdale<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

When many of us think of fishing, we conjure up images of intrepid fishermen in yellow oilskin jackets bravely sailing out of the harbour, enduring lashing rain and fierce winds, and returning at the end of the day with a fresh catch. That romantic vision has nothing to do with how most fish are caught these days. The modern fishing industry relies on two methods for the vast majority of its product: trawling in oceans and seas, and farming in human-made lakes and tanks.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wild-Caught Fish<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Fish labeled as \u201cwild-caught\u201d come from the ocean through commercial fishing methods. There are several huge problems with wild-caught fish. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overfishing<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Overfishing is exactly what it sounds like. We\u2019re pulling more fish from the ocean than the ecosystem can replenish, creating an unsustainable system that has put certain species on the brink of extinction. Overfishing has been a problem since at least the early 1800s, when the whale population was severely <\/span>affected<\/span><\/a> by humans seeking blubber for lamp oil. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commercial fishing industries harvest 92 million metric tonnes (around 200 billion pounds) of sea life out of the ocean every year. That\u2019s more than half a billion pounds every single day. And according to the FAO, over a third<\/a> of the world’s fish stocks are already being fished beyond sustainable levels. A 2024 investigation published in Science found the situation may be even worse than official figures suggest, with the number of collapsed fisheries<\/a> likely 85% higher than currently reported.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One obvious outcome of this collapse is that there will be no more fish for us. We\u2019ll regale our wide-eyed grandchildren with unbelievable tales of shelves loaded with cans of wild-caught salmon.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We don\u2019t know exactly how removing entire species from the web of ocean life will affect the rest of the food chain and ecosystem, but various models make it clear that we can expect devastation, leading to dead zones and impaired human health. As ocean biodiversity declines, more room is left for invasive species to colonize coastlines and further destabilize ecosystems. As algae-eating fish go extinct, algal blooms can pollute water and contribute to epidemics of disease in humans (and other species, too). <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And while commercial fishing produces the vast majority of the fish we eat, there are still plenty of places where old-style fishing cultures are still catching enough for subsistence and a local economy. These cultures are being devastated by the die-off of their preferred seafood sources due to overfishing. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bycatch<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Commercial fishing nets \u2014 also called trawling nets \u2014 are no joke. They can be up to <\/span>two miles long<\/span><\/a> and around the size of a football field at their opening. Do you think a net that large will only catch the salmon, shrimp, or tuna that commercial fishers set out to catch? <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer turns out to be a resounding \u201cno.\u201d Estimates suggest approximately 40%<\/a> of the global commercial catch is actually not the intended species. This 40% is called bycatch and can include species like dolphins, sharks, whales, sea turtles, and anything else that happens to be swimming through at the time of the catch. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides being incredibly sad, bycatch causes other problems. It leads to more overfishing, slowing down the recovery time for exploited and overexploited species. It kills already endangered species like sea turtles and seabirds. They may be caught in the nets and killed, or they could become entangled<\/a> in netting debris, carrying around pieces that are disfiguring and can even drown or starve them. Bycatch is also extremely wasteful<\/a>, both physically and financially. Even fisheries certified as sustainable have been found to discard a large percentage<\/a> of their catches.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Destruction of Ocean Ecosystems<\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Millions of ocean species cannot be killed without also disrupting the ocean itself. Any dead carcasses thrown overboard can attract scavenging species and disrupt<\/a> the ocean\u2019s nutrient balance.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plastic Pollution<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
istock.com\/tunatura<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Netting debris often gets caught in the physical ocean environment, like the seabed, coral reefs, and sponges. A <\/span>2019 Greenpeace report<\/span><\/a> found that the biggest source of plastic pollution in our planet\u2019s oceans comes from fishing. More than 640,000 tons of lost or abandoned fishing gear find their way into the ocean every year.<\/strong> Just to give you an alarming visual, that\u2019s the weight equivalent of about 210,000 SUVs, or a new SUV hitting the water every two and a half minutes, all year long.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This \u201cghost gear,\u201d as it is known, kills hundreds of giant sea turtles annually, and can compromise the ability of whales to filter water as they feed. It can also suffocate seabirds, crustaceans, and small fish. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Farm-Raised Fish<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Spurred on by the depletion of the oceans and the stocks of fish that swim in them, an ever-growing share of the world\u2019s fish is being produced in fish farms. In fact, over <\/span>half<\/span><\/a> the world\u2019s fish harvest now comes from aquaculture. Unfortunately, this isn\u2019t great for the oceans, either.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Farm-raised fish contribute significantly to <\/span>pollution<\/span><\/a> and disease. The largest source is the waste that fish produce, as well as uneaten food that sinks to the bottom of the pens and contaminates the water. Chemicals, such as pesticides, antibiotics, disinfectants, and anti-corrosives, are widely used in fish farming to prevent the spread of diseases. However, these chemicals contaminate the water, the equipment, and the fish themselves. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And in a protocol similar to factory farming of cows and pigs, fish are given routine doses of <\/span>antibiotics<\/span><\/a> simply to keep them alive under miserable conditions. The overuse of antibiotics in these environments poses a significant public health risk, increasing the likelihood that <\/strong><\/span>antibiotic-resistant bacteria<\/span><\/strong><\/a> will enter our food system.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nutritionally, there are measurable differences between farm\u2011raised and wild fish. In a direct comparison of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon, researchers <\/span>found<\/span><\/a> that farmed salmon fillets contained substantially more total fat and a markedly higher omega\u20116 to omega\u20113 fatty\u2011acid ratio than wild salmon. This reduces the concentrations of anti\u2011inflammatory long\u2011chain omega\u20113s (EPA and DHA) that are especially abundant in wild salmon. That said, a single 150-gram portion of salmon, whether farmed or wild, will still contribute more EPA and DHA than the recommended weekly intake for adults.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You may have noticed a color difference between farm-raised and wild-caught salmon. Because fish raised on farms don\u2019t have access to things in the ocean that would naturally give them their carotenoid-rich pink pigmentation, like crustaceans and algae, most salmon farmers add <\/span>pigmenting<\/span><\/a> compounds like astaxanthin to their salmon feed to enhance the coloring that consumers want. These chemical dyes that turn otherwise grey fish into a rich reddish hue are actually the most <\/span>expensive<\/span><\/a> part of farm-raised salmon feed.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historically, producing one pound of farmed salmon required roughly five pounds of wild-caught forage fish \u2014 species like mackerel, anchovies, or sardines \u2014 once processed into fishmeal and fish oil, according to a landmark 2009 analysis<\/a> in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/em>. Many of these forage fish are threatened or ecologically important, and their harvest for fish feed can contribute to population declines and disrupt marine food webs. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a bit of good news, salmon farming has become dramatically more efficient at using marine ingredients since then. Recent analyses<\/a> using updated accounting methods show that farmed salmon and trout are now roughly “net neutral” \u2014 producing about as much fish biomass as they consume in feed \u2014 while fed aquaculture as a whole now produces three to four times more fish than it uses as feed. Nonetheless, farmed fish diets may still include<\/a> plant-based ingredients such as GMO soybeans and byproducts from<\/a> land-based livestock operations, raising questions about resource use, environmental impact, and the overall sustainability of these systems.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Genetically Engineered Fish: A Threat That May Have Passed (For Now)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"man
iStock.com\/nickalbi<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For years, the fish farming industry pursued genetically engineered (GE) fish as the next frontier. At least <\/span>35 fish species<\/span><\/a> were being genetically engineered around the world, including trout, catfish, salmon, and tilapia \u2014 often <\/span>modified<\/span><\/a> with growth hormone genes to make them grow faster and larger.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most controversial <\/span>example<\/span><\/a> was AquaBounty Technologies’ AquAdvantage Salmon, approved by the FDA in 2015 despite significant opposition from consumers, environmental groups, and members of Congress. The salmon was engineered to grow twice as fast as regular salmon, raising serious concerns about what would happen if these fish escaped into the wild and crossbred with wild populations, potentially eliminating natural salmon stocks.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The good news? By 2024, AquaBounty faced significant financial challenges and operational setbacks, <\/span>effectively ending<\/span><\/a>commercial production of GE salmon in the North America. As of now, genetically engineered fish are not widely available in the marketplace.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the technology still exists, and regulatory frameworks vary globally. The AquAdvantage salmon saga serves as an important reminder to stay vigilant about novel food technologies being rushed to market without adequate long-term safety studies or environmental impact assessments. Just because GE fish aren’t currently on your plate doesn’t mean the issue has disappeared permanently.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can Fish Be Farmed Sustainably?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
istock.com\/y-studio<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Since our oceans are increasingly depleted, and human appetite for fish has been on the rise, the question naturally emerges: Is there a way that fish can be farmed safely and sustainably? <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With farm-raised fish production outpacing that of wild-caught fish and of global beef, the good news is that there\u2019s a growing conversation about <\/span>sustainability<\/span><\/a>. The goal of more sustainable fish farms is to raise healthy fish that don\u2019t damage local ecosystems. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

How has that been going? When we look at aquaculture operations that have <\/span>adopted practices<\/span><\/a> aimed at improving sustainability, <\/span>concerns remain<\/span><\/a> about the environmental and health impacts of farmed fish. Even when so-called \u201cmore sustainable\u201d farms limit non\u2011essential additives, synthetic chemicals, and routine use of antibiotics or hormones, these measures do not fully eliminate potential risks. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While some producers are incorporating natural, plant\u2011derived feed components and alternative health-promoting ingredients (e.g., phytogenics, probiotics) to support fish welfare and disease resistance, the long-term effects of these interventions remain unclear. Aquaculture continues to pose challenges related to ecological impact, feed sourcing, and chemical exposure, making it far from a truly sustainable or risk-free source of seafood<\/span>.<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More sustainable fish farms are vigilant about monitoring water quality to ensure they don\u2019t produce pollution levels that harm local ecosystems or native wild fish. Some <\/span>are<\/span><\/a> in the deep open ocean, where the water is more pristine, and currents are strong and steady enough to continually flush the farms of fish waste and pests such as sea lice. Others <\/span>are<\/span><\/a> placed in <\/span>zero-waste, closed-loop land-based systems<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While practices like these can be a big step forward, the reality is that there is stunningly little government oversight of the aquaculture industry, and claims of \u201csustainable\u201d may or may not mean anything. So if you wish to partake, here are a couple of labels that might mean something:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n