Remember when fish used to be good for you? Like yesterday.

Well now apparently new scientific studies are showing that eating one serving of freshwater fish is equivalent to drinking a month's worth of water contaminated with PFES.

PFAS – or perfluoroalkyl substances – are a group of more than 9,000 different chemicals, some of which are already banned or highly restricted. Manufacturers often use them in non-stick cookware, food packaging, stain repellents, coatings, and fire-fighting foams.

The chemicals in PFAS are nearly impossible to destroy. They can accumulate in animals throughout the food chain and also contaminate everything from drinking water to food and personal care products. PFAS can build up in our bodies and never break down. Studies have found them in the blood of virtually everyone, including newborn babies.

Studies have also linked very low doses of PFAS in drinking water to the suppression of the immune system, weakening the effectiveness of vaccines, and increasing risk of certain cancers. Researchers believe PFAS can also increase cholesterol, reproductive and developmental problems, and other health issues.

Environmental Working Group (EWG) scientists discovered that the average amounts of PFAS in freshwater fish throughout the U.S. were 280 times greater than forever chemicals detected in some commercially caught fish. The findings estimate that eating a single freshwater fish caught in a lake or river could cause PFAS exposure equal to consuming store-bought fish daily for an entire year.

“People who consume freshwater fish, especially those who catch and eat fish regularly, are at risk of alarming levels of PFAS in their bodies,” says study lead author David Andrews, Ph.D., a EWG senior scientist

What I don't understand in the article is how fish caught in lakes and rivers in the US are so much more contaminated than fish caught commercially in the ocean?

Currently I'm not fishing, because of my job and other responsibilities, but I plan on fishing more when I retire, and to say that this discovery is concerning is an understatement.

I guess farm raised catfish, pond raise trout, pond raise crawfish, and basically any freshwater farmed fish would be in the same boat. (No pun intended.)

These chemicals were used inland at plants. The run off and waste water disposal ended up in the water system and is discharged into lakes/rivers. There, it bioaccumulates and never sees the ocean. You also have to consider what commercially caught fish is. If it didn’t specifically say saltwater, it’s likely talking farmed catfish and salmon. These places are in the middle of nowhere and don’t share a water source with large industry (usually).

Here's a link to the article...

https://studyfinds.org/freshwater-fish-forever-chemicals/

When I see stories like this it makes me wonder if they are just a catch and release nut.
My wife while she was pregnant had a lady tell her not to eat deer meat.
I am fully convinced she just was against the killing of animals and never did find out a real reason other than the meat wasn't regulated by FDA.
So silly

I bet that study was funded by a group that wants you to buy "safe" farm raised fish. No point in catching those nasty wild fish cause they are full of cancer chemicals.
In the north, Minnesota, Wiscosin, Michigan, etc... a lot of people fish but they dont eat the fish cause the gubberment or somebody has convinced them that the fish are contaminated with mercury and other chemicals. I always wondered how those fish are even alive if they are contaminated that bad.

Well... In all fairness you are comparing "had a lady tell her" with a multi-year, peer reviewed scientific study done by Duke University.

You do have a point about the last part... How are the fish even alive?

When I read the article, the first thing that popped up in my mind was, "I wonder if this was funded by the commercial fishing industry?" because the article was quick to point out that...

The findings estimate that eating a single freshwater fish caught in a lake or river could cause PFAS exposure equal to consuming store-bought fish daily for an entire year.

In my mind if this article is true, then pretty much any fish or shellfish born and raised in any body of freshwater in the United States should no be consumed, including from a commercial farming operation.

The second thing that comes to mind is "What percentage of people are actually catching their own fish?" It can't be but a tiny percentage, which means that the commercial fishing industry, surely wouldn't be concerned about losing sales.

My point is, the conspiracy theory angle, just doesn't seem to pass the smell test. The commercial fishing industry is not losing money from people fishing on the weekends.

Probably funded by the same people who told us gas stoves are dangerous.

Bass Pro Shops should probably fund their own study, because I could see where these findings could certainly damage their business model.

As always FOLLOW THE MONEY

I've tried to justify an argument for that in my previous posts (you may not have not read them), but I'm not so sure the motive is there.

I would guess that the fishing tackle industry is making more money off of people fishing than the commercial fishing industry is losing off of people catching and eating their own fish.

So where do you think the money trail is coming from?

Unfortunately after all the Lies we have been told, over the last however many years you want to go back. It’s hard to believe anything you read. So I guess I’ll keep eating Fish ……. Oh Bass Pro Sucks. 👍

I just used Bass Pro as an analogy for the fishing tackle industry. The fishing tackle industry would be the ones hurt the most, think bass boat sales, etc...

Its well known that for saltwater, the commercial industry has been lobbying congress to make things more difficult for sport saltwater fishing. So it would not surprise me or anybody else if the commercial freshwater fish business is not looking for ways to make sport freshwater fishing more difficult.

Right...

But anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that freshwater is freshwater, so it shouldn't matter if the fish was wild caught or farmed it's still going to be supposedly contaminated.

PFAS levels are becoming an issue. We've sent samples off and got them tested before. I had posted on here before about people spreading chicken plant sludge and biosolids as fertilizer. (Not chicken litter) We've tested fields where it was spread and the numbers are through the roof. All that is running off into every creek and river around it. I posted here trying to bring awareness and some people jumped on me because the farmer should be able to do what every they want. (I highly support farmers, just not this practice). I buy as much as i can from local farmers. The big industries use this as a free dump for the materials instead of paying landfill fees. 3M just settled a large lawsuit for land applying waste with known high levels of PFAS.

All that being said, I wouldn't put all my faith into one article. I definitely think it matters where the fish come from. Some areas are worse than others and some will surprise you. Tellico lake in Tennessee has some high restrictions. I wouldn't eat any that comes from down river of 3M.

I say had a lady, but it was a nurse practitioner that she had a call in with once a month to discuss pregnancy wellness.
But still, I think she just didn't like hunting, or it was one of those things that she didn't know much about so she advised against.

Agreed about where the fish comes from. I wouldn't think twice about eating fish that came from Little River up here near the cabin.

It makes you wonder about PFES levels in oysters a little bit since they are water filtering.

My oldest daughter is a nurse, and she loves hunting and fishing, but she still gets on her soap box with the whole family about environmental chemicals.

Point is just because someone is against environmental pollution doesn't mean that they are against hunting and fishing.