Hacker News Reader

Comment by blunte | Hacker News Reader

But what about microplastics and various other man made contaminants that are increasingly present in fish?

Go for Omega-3 sourced from algae, that's where the fish get it from. The algae are grown artificially, so you avoid both pollutants and participating in the destruction of our oceans.

I take Opti-3 [1], it had the highest (DHA + EPA) / price ratio last time I checked. Not affiliated, just a fan.

[1]: https://www.vegetology.com/shop/opti3-omega-3-epa-dha

You're getting far more microplastics in your diet just from interaction with packaging and household materials than what you're going to get from an ocean-caught fish.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Nope, but given the prevalence of plastics in human households, packaging materials and the fact that we literally eat with plastic forks and straws and drink from plastic cups...I'd say you're getting a lot more plastic in your diet than a wild salmon off the Alaskan coast.

That doesn't intuitively make sense to me. I'd say for 90% of the packaging of various products I consume, the plastic has been wrapped around the product for a very short time.

I imagine consuming something that has involved multiple steps of digestion of plastics is probably not the same.

It's a bit like comparing water that I put in plastic container a few days ago to water that's been bottled and sitting there for weeks or months.

I'm not saying there's a difference there, just that at least intuitively it seems that way to me. so a source for such a claim is pretty crucial.

The issue is really with dioxin, you need to source your fish from somewhere where they are fed properly and there's no pollutants like dioxin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com