Consumption Guide Discussion

Sure no problem.

How about Harvard studies?

“ But the source of the fat appears to make a difference. That's according to researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who studied dietary data from more than 90,000 people over an average of 22 years. Heart disease risk was lower when unhealthy saturated fat, refined carbohydrates, or trans fat was replaced by plant-based monounsaturated fat, but not by animal-based monounsaturated fat. Higher intake of the plant-based fats was associated with a 16% lower risk of dying from any cause. In contrast, higher intake of the animal-based fats was linked to a 21% higher risk of dying from any cause.”

“ We have observed a beneficial role of monounsaturated fats for the prevention of cardiovascular and total mortality when plant-based foods are the primary sources,” says Marta Guasch-Ferre, a research associate in the department of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who co-authored the paper with Dr. Geng Zong and Dr. Qi Sun”

I can continue this but what the point. You have stated your big pharma conspiracy already so who care how much more data I post? You go on eating animal fats that lead to heart and cardiovascular disease and keep spreading false data. Means nothing to me. Educated people will ignore it.

Yes, let those who want to consume farm fish, canola motor oil, aspartame and all the other garbage, have lots.

The expression 'name your poison' prob has never been more apt than it is these days. Just when you think you have chosen healthy food to eat along comes a new study that supposedly, at least, identifies a new hazard! I was quite enjoying my 2-3 squares of dark choc each night until someone pointed out that it is contaminated with lead and cadmium. I think it's fair to say that most of us abuse our health one way or another by the more obvious smoking and drinking to the less obvious eating junk food or overeating any kind of food. It amazes me how much junk is out there in fast food restaurants and groc stores-----fruit loops, 'cheese' in a spray can LOL. Without sounding too self-righteous, I try my best to eat healthy w/o becoming obsessed and stressed out about it. We use EVOO and vinegar on salads instead of the usual goop such as French dressing. Then I come on here and some of you identify the hazards of using olive and other oils. Then there is the matter of what to believe. There is so much 'info junk food' (and false info) out there.The Healthline and WebMD sites extoll the virtues of coconut oil whereas an article on the U of Ohio site warns of the hazards. I suspect the credibility of the first 2 supposedly medical sites but who's to know? Maybe the authors of the U of O study were given a financial incentive to say that.
I cannot get enough lake trout to eat them every second or third day as the Ont guidelines allow, nor would I want to. But if I can get an occasional meal of smallish fresh lakers I  will pig out on it and not let thoughts of 'forever chemicals' and the like ruin my appetite.

Very well said. You just never know for sure. One study says this, one study says that. I lost track of what was good to eat, and what was bad to eat, a long time ago. Here is some good honey and almonds.....and some bad Fruit Loops and sauce. The freezer(fish), fridge and pantry are full of good and bad products. Who knows for sure? Not me.

yup and that is how bad food is maintained in the system....keep things changing all the time and fund studies to sow enough doubt that keep us all guessing. Simplify, less processing, less preservative, less additives, etc., etc. is in general a good way to live by but of course not always possible all the time. Limit your poisons. Lakers from the lake is still much better than someone's packaged, seasoned, flavoured, farmed lakers (or other fish)....which likely also have the same problems of the lakers from the lake but with more bang for your buck with the other stuff added to it.
Hey, Diana Sauce. It use to be really, really good with none of the same stuff they have in it now. That was when it was owned by a small company and still using glass bottles. It seems it got worse with more stuff added later and then they switched from the glass to plastics.
So many cases now that we have found products getting worse. We take some time to find a good product with minimal crap and then it's sold to a larger company. Then they start adding stuff or using cheaper ingredients to increase profits and then it's back to the drawing board again to find a similarly good product if it even exists....what a sad world we live in when a tiny company providing a good product can make a decent profit from doing the right things but a large corporation "can't" after buying the small company out.

you are right Harold......we try and eat healthy but also reall enjoy some items that are deemed not so good

as stated te research keeps changing

I was taking fish oil supplements and now they got the no go for consumption so I will stick with herring because I like them..pickled that is

I\m also never giving up on a wood fired bbq'd rib eye steak cause so damned good

so dammed complicated, but fr the most part we don't eat junk food nor order any fast foods cause our family all like to cook

I will confess though that I do enjoy a bag of Lays potato chips up at the cottage and that will continue

stressing out over all this stuff is probably just as damaging as consuming some bad stuff once in a while

X2

I agree with DISCO that the Ontario GUIDE is the good source of info to follow.
The advisories from Michigan are way more alarming but at the same time sound less scientifically to me.
Consider that if they say only one meal per year of certain fish is allowed to eat then that meal means that the one who ate this meal should not eat any fish in this year at all because he/she already reached the limit of contaminants this year.
To me, this type of ‘recommendation’ is at least misleading.

About the Ontario GUIDE.
Some time ago I found strange discrepancies in it. It is very time consuming to do this type of research so I only found a couple but for sure with more time to spend there could be way more stuff which does not make sense.
Ex.1 For Whitefish in GB3 for sizes 45-55 and 55-65 in 1999-2000 it shows no restriction (means at least 8 meals per months), in Guide for 2011-2012 it shows only 2 and 1, and for now, in 2024, it shows 16
Meaning that it was somehow good in 2000, then became bad in 2012 and then again good by now.
Ex. 2 Few years past, In Nottawasaga river it allowed us to eat more salmon upstream than downstream or in the lake (North of Collingwood). It seems to be illogical because all salmon upstream come from the lake and downstream area and cannot have less contaminants than the fish in the area where it came from.
Also it never seemed logical to me that smelt very often has much more contaminants than the fish which prey on it (salmons and trouts) while logically all these contaminants (mercury, PCBs, PFOS/PFAS etc) are supposed to accumulate in the species along the food chain.
I had long suspected that this sort of discrepancy came either from not reliable/nonuniform testing or from the fact that the amount of contaminant differs quite broadly among different fish samples of the same species of the same size.
Thanks to Hubbabubba who posted this info
https://www.michigan.gov/egle/newsroom/mi-e...n-smelt-mystery
which supports my longtime suspicion.
My biggest concern for now is the big allowance of consumption of almost all fish in Erie, especially walleye. It appears that Erie, according to the Guide, is almost the cleanest waterbody in Ontario which does not seem logical to me either.
However I’m struggling to give any explanation to that - justified or not so. I only hope that it is somehow true or not completely opposite as I switched almost all my fishing to Erie only because of this better consumption allowance.
I contacted MECP regarding the discrepancies between Ontario Guide and the data available in the States.
Here is there respond:
The Province of Ontario monitor PFAS and other contaminants in fish from the Great Lakes to develop fish consumption advisories. Levels of PFAS in Great Lakes fish observed to date are generally below the current fish consumption advisory benchmarks. Existing advisories are mainly due to two contaminants-PCBs and mercury. Although average PFAS exposure from eating fish can be higher than exposure from drinking water, that does not automatically translate into high health risks because the exposure still could be below harmful levels. However, it is acknowledged that fishers who eat in excess of advisories could be at higher risk. Additionally, eating fish low in contaminants provides many health benefits, which may in part offset the health effects of exposure to contaminants, including PFAS.
The science on the adverse health effects of PFAS and other contaminants continues to evolve. The Province of Ontario is tracking these scientific developments so that the advice on safe eating of Great Lakes fish is updated based on the latest and most reliable science. Scientific advancements and additional monitoring data for PFAS may result in more restrictive advisories in near future.

So yes, in my opinion the Guide is still a good source of info just because there is nothing better and as with all science at the edge you have to rely on it before some newer/better info would be available.
Meaning that you can either rely on not perfect science or on your “perfect” gut feeling which, in turn, comes from agitated BS on the Web.
It’s your call.

About PCBs and PFSAs how really they are bad.

It is sort of a mantra that PCBs and OFSAs are deadly devils for living. It goes from one publication to another.
As for PCBs there was a previous discussion on this forum. And I pointed out at that time that the most attention to this chemical was given after two really bad poisonings in Japan and Taiwan. But that was real poisoning and people and animals consumed large amounts of this crap.
Still most who were affected were youngsters. And it is logical that the older you are the less effect this crap could have on your health.
There was a study years ago in Michigan (quite reliable in my view) that concluded that kids from families which ate a large amount of Great Lakes fish had statistically significant more neurological disorders and some delayed development compared with the general population.
But still, considering that these families may have different social environments (education, nurture etc.) and habits they live within I wouldn’t be 100% convinced that the observed retardant development was contributed only to Great Lakes fish consumption.
As for PFSAs, so far I did not see any study on the human population which would provide any insight on the effect of these chemicals on human life.
If I missed it I would appreciate it if anyone could point it out to me.
As for animal studies… oh, well… they can show whatever they want in animal studies.
So, in my opinion, fish contamination could be a great concern for children and childbearing women but the older we are, the less probability it will affect us.
Using science data is common sense but being crazy on science data is not.
Saying that, I still stopped fishing LO or small lakes I used to go and fish now mostly Erie and GB following Ontario Guide recommendations.

Fresh water vs Salt water

Another concern is the repeated, following from one publication to another, statement that only freshwater fish is full of contaminants while saltwater fish is safe for consumption.
Does anyone here come across a reliable study on it?
Well known fact that tuna is full of mercury, in my opinion, directly contradicts this belief.
As well as “Fireproof killer whales” https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f05-244
By the way, it is interesting that, apparently, a whale full of fire retardants still seems to be doing quite well, is it?
This is once again the question of whether this crap is really that harmful in moderate amounts.

More about the Guide
The biggest problem with the Gude is that it does not state the date of the sample was taken, amount of fish (for the same category) tested and specific contaminants it was tested for.
So you open this online resource tomorrow for the lake you are going to fish and you may assume that this lake was tested recently for all today's known contaminants.
And very likely you are wrong.
The lake might be tested years ago (as far back as 10 years) and for only some contaminants, available for testing at that time or at that lab\location.
So, yes, it is science. And yes, science is tricky business too.
I think it would be appreciated by many if someone would take his time and request MECP to include this info into the Guide.
Unfortunately I have no ability to do it right now.

Great detailed comments!


A couple of things seem clear to me--1 We have contaminated our whole planet. 2. You can drive yourself stark raving mad figuring out what food to avoid and which ones are 'safe'.

A couple of statements you quoted are 'interesting' :"Although average PFAS exposure from eating fish can be higher than exposure from drinking water" So it's in our drinking water too! Here in Southern G Bay in particular we get a lot of precipitation that originates in L Huron esp in the winter with lake effect snow. So do those contaminants get left behind during the evaporation process? If not, the crops that are growing nearby also have must have those contaminants.


"Additionally, eating fish low in contaminants provides many health benefits, which may in part offset the health effects of exposure to contaminants, including PFAS."

Given that fish oils are supposed to be quite health for us, I think the benefits could not just offset but even outweigh any harm. I will continue to enjoy my occasional meal of G bay fish.

Just thought I would let you know that there are many studies on these chemicals and the effects they have on the human body. Thousands of chemicals that cause many, many, health problems. Too many chemicals to list, and too many destruction of body functions to list as well. If you can't find what you are looking for, ask your family doctor. Many doctors will take the time to explain questions we may have on our health and the environment we live in.