Have you ever noticed how many times we’re offered competing advice and information? Everything from eggs to broccoli to red wine could be interpreted as either good for you – or not. Perhaps the most prudent path is to stick to common sense and moderation, rather than jumping to follow the latest craze. But why is it so hard to pin things down?
Here’s a good example. Nutritionists, dietitians, and medical professionals advise a regular dietary intake of fish. Eating fish several times a week provides a low-fat source of protein along with essential fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA) are all seen as vitally important, and fish is a rich source of these compounds. In fact, countries where people rely on fish for protein boast better cardiovascular health rates, specifically coronary artery disease.
But wait a minute – isn’t it also true that global fish stocks are plummeting? Yes. The increased demand for fish plus efficient fishing techniques and environmental degradation have seriously impacted many species. A new report focuses on exactly this dichotomy, and the authors expect to stir up some controversy.
Across much of the developed world, nutritional guidelines recommend at least two servings of fish each week. But how can this be sustained as the global human population continues to boom? In short, it is not sustainable. And affluent countries are likely to strip the seas, while poorer and more subsistence-level fisheries will lose out despite needing the protein source more.
In fact, the report also raises some questions about just how healthy fish oils really are. There are studies that have found little benefit from eating fish oils. And apparently fish-eaters have a tendency to lead healthier lifestyles overall, considering activity levels and other factors.
At the same time, global fish catches have been plummeting since the late 1980s, and major fisheries have collapsed. Fish products are big business. Aquaculture is not a viable solution, since it tends to be resource-intensive (up to 5 kilograms of feed fish are needed to produce 1 kilogram of cultured fish) and hard on the local environment.
Just to mention a few other considerations: many fish species have high contaminant levels – think swordfish and mercury for example. And there may be other sources of fatty acids with lower impact.
When it comes to interpreting science, part of the problem lies with press releases and trying to apply scientific data to daily life. The language of science is necessarily cautious, as every study and experiment has a particular context and bunch of specific provisos. Add in the fact that natural variation requires statistical analysis, and that conclusions are often creative and extrapolate from the data. The end result is a long-winded explanation of possibilities. Not exactly newsworthy – yet funding is tied to results.
This is where popular reports come in, often spurred by press releases. Whether online, in a blog, on the television or radio, in a newspaper or magazine, somebody is trying to distill scientific findings into a one-line summary. And that’s how each study can produce opposite “facts” – since most of the explanation has been pared away.
In short, picking through the information is a minefield. Watching and waiting is a sensible approach, as well as finding out more. The internet is a great place for that, since studies are published online and abstracts are usually available. Being informed is the best policy.
Photo credit: jakeybob@Flickr.com
