Here's an article today in USA Today about the two variables in deciding whether to eat fish -- the good side (health benefits) and the bad side (toxins like mercury). Not present in the discussion: the other bad side (raping the oceans through over-fishing). Isn't this the object of all the seafood guides? What's happening? Why isn't that criteria entering the picture? Why are some people foregoing their favorite fish (swordfish or Chilean seabass) when their efforts are not part of the mainstream discussion? Is anyone asking these questions?
Does it matter what you don't eat?Posted by Randy Olson at October 18, 2006 12:11 PM