Eating fish is really bad for you

Question

PETA article excerpt (claim bolded):

Is fish good for you? “Seafood” sellers have been hard at work trying to convince us that it is, but fatty, chemical-laden fish flesh is just as bad for your health as eating other animals. Here are seven reasons why eating tuna, salmon, swordfish, shrimp, and other seafood is just as bad for you as it is for them.

Comments

I think the abstract, opinion-based language of your claim may make it harder to verify. Rather than positing that eating fish is "really bad for you," you might re-word it to something more concretely verifiable, such as "Eating fish leads to a buildup of mercury in the human body." A claim like that would be easier to fact-check and determine the reliability of!

---

Although the article gives some great points on why fish is bad for you, such as mercury, harmful chemicals, and bacteria. This article leaves out a lot of great points that fish actually can be beneficial to you as well. Also, to be more likely to get sick from fish you would need to eat large amounts.

---

I think the way the claim is phrased is misleading. Looking at the article, the author isn't claiming that fish is unhealthy, but rather that it's difficult to confirm that fish haven't been drugged with harmful chemicals or that they don't contain mercury. In actuality, fish cna be good for you, but there could be contaminants that have adverse affects. So it's not that eating fish is really bad for you, but actually that fish are often contaminated with harmful chemicals that are bad for you.

---

I agree with how you phrase this. I think that re wording is essential to understanding this article actually means. I do believe that looking into other trusted sources would have helped a lot, because then people could get different takes from different people/groups.

---

This article raises valid concerns about fish containing mercury, harmful chemicals, and bacteria, but it overlooks the many health benefits of fish. While contamination is a risk, the phrasing of the claim may be misleading, as the article doesn’t argue that fish itself is unhealthy—rather, that it can be difficult to ensure fish is free from harmful substances. Additionally, the risk of illness typically comes from consuming large amounts. A more balanced discussion of both the risks and benefits of fish would strengthen the argument.

Answer 1

This claim is exaggerated. While fish do contain mercury, you would have to eat a large amount for it to be dangerous. The FDA suggests eating up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of seafood with low mercury content. They claim that certain fish, such as Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish, contain high levels of mercury and advise against their consumption. The American Heart Association also suggests 2 servings of fish per week, specifically fatty fish, for their high amount of omega-3 fatty acids. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment claims that these fatty acids come with a lower risk of heart disease, lower triglyceride levels, slowed growth of plaque in arteries, and slightly lowered blood pressure. PETA is also a biased source, heavily advocating for their readers to go vegan and arguing the morality of eating meat. To say that eating fish is "really bad for you" would be ignoring all of the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.

FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/fdaepa-2004-advice-what-you-need-know-about-mercury-fish-and-shellfish#:~:text=1.,that%20are%20lower%20in%20mercury.

American Heart Association: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/fish-and-omega-3-fatty-acids#:~:text=Eat%20fish%20at%20least%20twice%20a%20week.&text=A%20serving%20is%203%20ounces,in%20omega%2D3%20fatty%20acids.

OEHHA: https://oehha.ca.gov/fish/benefits-and-risks-eating-fish#:~:text=While%20eating%20fish%20has%20nutritional,the%20brain%20and%20nervous%20system.