Catch and Release?

It’s one of the iconic images of the good life in Minnesota: a beaming governor holding a meaty walleye, or possibly a northern pike, on his line. It’s the fishing opener photo op that signals the real start of summer, when Minnesotans can finally drop their lines in open water and fill their coolers with the bounty our 10,000 lakes have to offer.

Back in the day, there was only one question that concerned anyone about fish: Beer-battered, butter-fried, or broiled? Now when people ask Tim Lauer about their catch, their concerns often go beyond matters of taste. They wonder if they should be eating fish at all. 

“Mercury is always the big concern,” says Lauer, general manager of Coastal Seafoods in the Twin Cities. Not only does he have to walk customers through the messier aspects of cleaning a fish, but often through the state health department’s determination that most fish caught in most of Minnesota’s lakes and rivers are safe for most people to eat.

Lauer might point customers toward a host of studies showing that eating fish of all kinds is important for good health—that eating fish may cut the risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure, and even reduce the effects of depression. He might add that no less an authority than the Mayo Clinic says that most Americans aren’t getting enough fish in their diets. The three ounces of fish the average American eats every week adds up to less than ten pounds per person a year—a flash in the pan compared with the fifty pounds of chicken and sixty-four pounds of beef Americans eat on average annually.

Yet, in spite of the relatively small space it takes on our dinner plates, fish has become a major focus for anxieties about the food we eat, the environment we’ve compromised, and the intersection of the two. The “brain food” that our mothers pushed on us without a thought has become a kind of brain-teaser for the current generation confused by headlines about pollutants, the politics of farm-raised fish versus wild-caught, and federal guidelines that tell us to eat more fish—but not too much.

Little wonder a recent survey conducted by NPD, a New York market research firm, found that 67 percent of us are aware and concerned about the mercury content in fish and seafood—though we have little knowledge of which fish we should actually be concerned about. Only one in five consumers was able to identify the fish highest in mercury for a study conducted last summer by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit food-safety advocacy group headquartered in Washington, D.C. The correct answers: swordfish, shark, king mackerel, and tilefish. Instead, 21 percent of those surveyed picked salmon as a serious offender. In fact, most salmon contains relatively low levels of mercury, while it’s loaded with the omega-3 fatty acids that researchers say we need.

“Consumers are definitely confused,” says Pat McCann, a research scientist with the Minnesota Department of Health and coordinator of its fish advisory program. “But our message has been consistent. Most fish is good for you. The benefits of eating most fish still far outweigh the risks.”