why is this the worst

Although there is more and more talk about him fish consumptionthe reality is that in Spain did nothing but fall. If previously we consumed about 3 kg per person per year, now this figure has dropped to 2 kg, with a 6% decrease between 2022 and 2023. Despite its availability on our shores, the situation is getting worse.

Not all fish are the same: we know what they are best and worst options, both from an economic and nutritional point of view. Although consuming fish and seafood has its downsides, such as concentration Mercury or even perfluorinated substances accumulates in some seafood, the reality is that eating fish is healthy and necessary.

Although we know that it is necessary to consider both the content of neurotoxic heavy metals and the rotation of their types, in order to avoid excessive accumulation, we must first take into account nutritional quality the fish itself. This is of great importance if we strive to maintain and improve our health.

(I’m a doctor and this is the best (and cheapest) fish I recommend to my patients in Spain.)

Although fish contains various macro- and microelements, their content is healthy proteins and fatty acids This is usually the brightest and most noticeable. This is what can help us best distinguish good fish from bad. Among these fatty acids, the well known Omega 3especially EPA and DHA, which have known anti-inflammatory and cardioprotective properties.

We now know that the key to success is the balance between the omega-6 fatty acids present in nuts, seeds and meat– and omega-3 fatty acids – present in other seeds, microalgae, and bluefish-. However, a large portion of the population consumes too much omega-6 and too little omega-3, which causes long-term problems.

Thus, the fish most recommended for its nutritional qualities will always be blue fish rich in healthy fats. The best known examples are sardines or herring, which are interesting from an economic and nutritional point of view, as well as salmon or mackerel. Against, white fishWhile some of these may be recommended and appropriate on a dietary level, there won’t be many in comparison.

A striking example we could call “the most terrible fish” in the end it would be panga. Like tilapia or grouper, as we have analyzed many times, they are not a highly recommended fish for various reasons. However, panga is most likely the worst of them all.

We are talking about a freshwater fish from Asia that has several characteristics that make it not suitable for consumption. It contains excessive levels of mercury, in some cases exceeding 0.5 mg/kg, which is the level of swordfish and emperor fish. European regulations previously set mercury limits at 0.5 mg/kg, but these limits are now set at 1 mg/kg body weight.

On the other hand, as in the case of tilapia, growing pangasius industrializes largely in fish farms whose feed is exposed to pesticide residues and other chemicals. 90% of pangasius consumed worldwide comes from Vietnam. Mekong River They are heavily polluted. Spain is the main consumer at European level. All wrong.

Finally, although its very low price may make pangasius consumption attractive, its nutritional value is evident by its absence: both pangasius and tilapia or perch have bad taste, very little protein and very low levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids. Especially compared to other more recommended white fish such as hake.

How alternatives in Spain We have a wide selection of white fish to consider. Although they are more expensive than pangasius, their nutritional qualities protect them: hake, cod, flounder, sea bass, turbot or monkfish are just a few examples that are easily found frozen or fresh in supermarkets or fishmongers.