Hello!

Okay, here's the deal. For a while there I was really starting to wonder if I was the only one on earth who included fish in their raw diet, for b-12 purposes (canNOT take the idea of being on supplements the rest of my life). I'm not too sure about dairy, and try to stay away from it for fear of both osteoperosis and overeating (cheese is BIGTIME addicting for me). So I logically came to the conclusion that I should get a b-12 supply from fish (most likely after reading about the Okinawan Japanese and how they are the healthiest people on the planet). Also I think I took into account comparative anatomy that's often used in omnivore v. vegetarian debates. Anyway, I would like to hear any arguments against the addition of fish to the raw diet, speaking purely from a dietary perspective v. a moral one. I don't and will never have a moral dilemma over eating fish.

You see, I haven't yet seen any arguments against the addition of fish.. it just seems kinda like a given that most raw foodies are vegans (possibly w/ the exception of honey). So if there are any well-researched ones out there, by all means, lead the way! I want to get this all straight in my head before I start a family.

Thanks a bunch!
aubrey

(and obviously, this is assuming you have a pristine, unpolluted and fresh supply of fish. which I do.)

I too do the same thing, eat fish once a week for b12 and other nutrients. The main goal is to be healthy now and for a long time. I do not take any supplements but mostly live on green smoothies, wheatgrass and sprouts. It is working very well.

you might want to try posting on the NFL site. There are a lot of veggies/omnivores on there who should be able to help
[www.rawfood.com]

(:

Hey aubrey,

when it comes to fish, disregarding the moral and environemtal consecuences of fish consumption, there are a few potential health problems that I'm aware of:

a) Heavy metal toxicity which accumulates in the fish, very well documented, do a google on that one, the larger the fish, the more toxic, in general.

b) as with eating raw meat, there is the issue of parasites, and as far as I know, raw fish contain parasites which aren't beneficial to a good healthy system, see for example [seagrant.oregonstate.edu]. Also, run a google on pfiesteria, for example, to realise how polluted the oceans really are.

c) then there are the obvious issues of cholesterol, fats, etc... which come from eating fish or any animal product. Eating minimal to low amounts of fish would circumvent this problem though.

Cheers,
J

ps If you are interested in looking at this issue from a wider perspective, that of our general relationship with living beings, check out this movie, which, I have to say, is not for the fainthearted [video.google.com].

Thank you for the help guys! )

hey aubrey,

im not trying to imply that you should or should not eat fish. it is your discernment that will determine that. i eat fish sometimes, i love raw sushi. i will someday give fish up completely however because of:

=murcury and other heavy metals found everywhere
=fish are filters, and what they are filtering is chemicals...
=the high risk of biologic contamination of any animal product ie. viral, bacterial, pathagenic...
=ESKEMOS ate raw fish and blubber when we had a clean environment and lived long energetic lives, now they eat cooked foods, fish, etc... and are very unhealthy
=EVERY NUTRIENT KNOWN IS AVAILABLE FROM THE NON-ANIMAL KINGDOM, b-12, vitamin-d, ammino-acids.....

other factors are probably more responsible for the Okinawan's health, long life

Thanks for the imput everyone!

I've been eating cold smoked wild line-caught salmon on occasion for a while, but thought I could easily give it up if I came to the conclusion that it wasn't ideal for me. After researching this for a while though and asking all the questions I can think of, I've decided to eat two servings a week to keep my b-12 up in case I get pregnant when my husband comes come on leave. I'd rather risk possible food-chain contaminants than deal with almost certain nerve damage and b-12 shots for my raw babies. / I could of course take supplements, but I'm a whole foods kinda girl. I just hope I can stop changing my mind back and forth already! P

I can't understand why anyone would rather kill and consume a sentient being rather than take a pill once a week. Even if it weren't for the killing of a sentient being, we are killing the oceans, not only polluting them, but also overfishing, and it isn't right for all of us to feel that we can take what we please from them when they are in such a precarious state.

You can get this:
[www.iherb.com]

Cut each pill into 4ths, and put 1/4 of a pill under your tongue (let it dissolve) once per week. This will have better bioavailability than swallowing and it's all you need to do to be sure your bases are covered.

If you keep it in the fridge, it will last about 2 years. A $6 investment for two years and a couple of micrograms per day is not much in terms of supplements. Also if you think about it, it's the more direct way to get your b12. When we eat an animal to get B12, we get it indirectly from bacteria, but when we take a supplement from bacterial synthesis, we get it more directly. It isn't necessary to kill and eat animals or animal products to get B12. We just eliminate the cruelty part when we take a pill.

Heck, I'd rather take 100 pills than eat a fish.

If you are worried about direct sources of DHA, you can get your DHA from a algae-based pill, and avoid not only cruelty, but also avoid heat-processing of the very delicate long-chain double bonded fatty acids that oxidize so easily, not to mention the fat-soluble toxics that tend to bioaccumulate with successive trophic layers in the food chain.

The Okinawan elders do very well. But I think that they would do even better if they were high raw with adequate B12 status.