Thursday, June 12, 2008

Easy Weeknight Fish

Since tuna is out of the question as a dinner option in our house (too much mercury) and it looks increasingly like wild salmon (see article linked here) will be harder to acquire on a weekly basis, I have had to rethink my weeknight fish of choice for Baby Flava. Low mercury content fish like sole and tilapia have become good options for us and for the most part the price is right. The only downside is that these types of fish do not have as many Omega-3 fatty acids as other fattier fish do. So, it is important not to forgo salmon altogether! I suggest feeding your little one wild salmon as much as possible and otherwise increasing the amount of whitefish you prepare each week.

Yesterday I pulled some Trader Joes Dover Sole out of the freezer to defrost for dinner. These thin fillets make for a simple dinner because they cook fast. However a fish like sole needs a different kind of preparation than something like salmon. My favorite easy white fish fillet preparation is as follows. Baby Flava snarfs this fish so fast I can hardly keep track of how much she has eaten. Cut into bite size pieces for your toddler or mash up with a fork for your younger baby.

Easy Weeknight Fish
Rinse fillets in the sink and pat off excess water leaving fish slightly damp. In a separate dish (a deep baking dish is best) place 1/3-1/2 cup of white whole wheat flour. Add a few pinches of salt, some ground pepper, garlic powder, cumin, and a pinch of chili powder to the flour. Mix until well combined. Heat a skillet to medium/high and place a few teaspoons of butter/smart balance in the pan. Once the butter is hot take each fish fillet and dredge it in the flour mixture. Make sure each fillet is covered completely and then shake off any excess flour. Place fillets in the pan and saute until golden brown then flip each fillet and cook until second side is golden.

I serve this fish as is to Baby Flava. For adults I like to add a simple brown butter sauce on top or (if I have a little more time) I deglaze the pan with white wine and create a simple sauce with garlic, butter, and spices.

- Mama Flava -

12 comments:

rafael said...

You should read the report from the Institute of medicine that places farmed salmon as the safest and most healthy of all fish.

Also the Harvard public medical school report, instead of bias journalists.

You are influencing people to walk away from the safest protein available, that is eaten and has been eaten all over the world for decades with nothing more than wonderful results.

Just google Institute of medicine and seafood choices.

The institute of medicine is comprised of eminencies and Nobel prices scientist not charlatans.

Mama Flava said...

Hello Raphael,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, I will go and read the report you cited from the IOM.

Please let me clarify my position. There are two reasons my family will be staying away from farm raised salmon.
1. High levels of chemicals, some which are know to be cancer causing. To read more check out the Environmental Working Group website.
2. Environmentally destructive practices. Read more here http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5323
Whether you consider the staff of the Environmental Defense Fund charlatans is up to you.

I do encourage my readers to continue feeding their children salmon, just the wild version.

rafael said...

I am sorry you feel this way, I do trust The Harvard Medical School and IOM more than a bias unethical NGO who has a financial interest on discrediting Farmed salmon. It is a matter of who makes money on their reports? IOM ? Harvard university? The World health organization? The FDA? The Norwegian medical authorities? Or an NGO that gets funding for discrediting Farmed Salmon.

I feed my Children the safest protein available; Farmed salmon, I also give them wild when I want to spend more money but there is no scientific difference just perception.

Check why the US is way below Norway and Japan in life expectancy, one reason Farmed salmon consumption.

Daddy Flava said...

Is that you Dick Cheney? :)

I would hardly call the New York Times charlatans (but you can). I'll let them refute all your points:

"The United States Food and Drug Administration, already hard-pressed to inspect imported Asian seafood for antibiotic and fungicide residues, does not test imported salmon for emamectin benzoate. In other words, the farmed salmon in nearly every American supermarket may contain this pesticide, which on land is used to rid diseased trees of pine beetles."

"It takes four pounds of small fish like sardines and anchovies to make a single pound of farmed salmon, a process that deprives humans of precious protein."

"If my hankering for salmon gets the better of me, I suppose I could eat wild salmon from Alaska. The state does not permit salmon farms in its coastal waters, and its cold rivers still teem with healthy salmon runs."

If you want to make your points then link to the studies you quote.

Of course I can always reply to you by calling your sources charlatans. It's such a convenient reply. ;)

rafael said...

The article you quote is not the NY Times, a paper a I respect and I subscribe, it is an opinion “Op ed” so it is not the opinion of the Times.

Now a few weeks ago there was an article in the NY Times written by a journalist about Farmed salmon, it claimed they had interviewed the port director of Castro ( a port in a location in Chile where Farmed salmon is raised) and it stated that the bags had a label that stated “Growth hormones”. Obviously growth hormones have never been used for Farmed salmon anywhere in the planet but later on after many complaints even from the Ambassador of Chile in Washington to the NY Times the times agreed to investigate and it was found the journalist never interviewed the port director that was actually a security guard and so on. And this was in the NY Times so even the Times could be wrong when using a not so ethical journalist. But in general the Times support the consumption of salmon and Fish. Even in an admission of exaggerating they admitted that the Tuna and Mercury article some time ago was more damaging to consumers than beneficial, there are no Japanese babies dying because their mother eat Tuna which they have been doing for 6000 years and Mercury is a natural element that has always been present in Tuna.


Check this out. http://www.regrettheerror.com/newspapers/security-guard-in-controversial-nyt-story-says-he-never-spoke-with-reporter

If you send me your email I’ll send you studies, including the complete Harvard study.

rafael said...

Here is the latest scientific study comparing Wild and Farmed salmon, like most scientific studies a bit boring, but this written by scientists not journalist. And for my health I rather trust Doctors than journalists.

http://www.allenpress.com/pdf/i1552-8618-27-6-1361.pdf

Daddy Flava said...

I appreciate your enthusiasm.

The scientific study you quote is interesting. I don't know how complete it is without reading it in more detail but there seems like a good chance that farm raised Canadian salmon could be safe to eat. That's good news. It doesn't change any of the facts about the negative environmental and economic impacts of salmon fisheries but its still nice to know.

As for who to trust, I like to listen to everyone including doctors and journalists. Sometimes one group makes mistakes (even medical consensus).

I personally find a bunch of faults in your logic about the Times, mercury, and Japanese babies but it might not be worth going back and forth.

How about we leave it at that I don't like to eat farm raised Salmon because of its negative environmental and economic impacts. Hard to refute unless you have a study that says there are actually a lot of Salmon in the Atlantic. ;)

rafael said...

I am happy we agree on the safety on eating Farmed salmon, I will gladly provide you with much more studies.

As for the environmental impact of salmon Farming I will gladly provide scientific studies done in Norway, the only country with more than 50 years of Salmon Farming and considered worldwide as a model for environmental responsibility. It is a very difficult decision to eat something that does not have any impact on the environment, but Farmed salmon is way below all proteins in that list, feed conversion, or use of water or impact is only a fraction of Cows, pork and Chicken, and we need to feed the planet. The people in Darfur don't have the privilege to chose Organics.

But If you don’t want to see any study I leave you with one thought, everything you ate today (or most) was farmed, even if you eat organic chicken, it was farmed, there is no such thing as wild pork or wild cows, or wild tomatoes. We need to feed ourselves farming. Of course there are many ways of farming, one is organic and in Europe there are two Salmon Farms that are Organic, one in Ireland the other in Scotland. As for the environmental impact of eating Wild Salmon, every study shows that the cost of oil (carbon foot print) is higher than farmed, and the effects on the fish? well look what happened this year in Oregon and California with wild salmon.

Daddy Flava said...

I'm glad that you brought up the people in Darfur, because despite your good intentions, it highlights the exact thing that you don't comprehend.

The parent article for these comments suggested a more careful consumption of fish, both in type and quantity. Regardless of our difference of opinions, everyone benefits from a more enlightened consumption of what they consume.
The intention of the parent article was to promote a more educated eater, not advocate a fanatical non-eating of one fish over another. To say that one type of fish production is better and will always be better was not the point. The point was, if you can, err on the side of caution where reasonable when you choose what and how you eat, particularly when cooking for a baby. All that people can really do is make the most conscientious decision they can for themselves.

I don't know where your consistent histrionics (Do you really think I advocate only organic food for starving people? Do you think farm raised fish is the cure for starvation in the developing world?) and need to have absolutes may come from but I don't think the comments field here are the proper place. If you want to shout at others thinking you know all the right answers then get your own blog.

Ali said...

I've read different things about when to start fish. Is it safe to start before 1 year?

rafael said...

I am sorry if I sound like shouting, I just wanted to share some scientific studies about Farmed Salmon.
I believe before we spread bad comments about a particular food we should use scientific data and not anecdotal opinions.
Specially when it has to do about our children. For example when my children are sick I rely on a doctor and a hospital not on anecdotal articles from magazines.
As for the question about that Ali made when to start fish in children. There are plenty studies linking brain development and fish, actually even before birth mothers that consumed fish had children that perform better at school, had less tantrums and were less incline to depression.

There was a large study in England linking also criminal behavior and Omega 3 oil consumption.

I don't know how to attach article to this blog, but I will gladly share these studies with anybody interested.

Mama Flava said...

Hello Ali,
I have never heard that it is not safe to start fish before 1 year. Where did you come across that information? Fish is a wonderful healthy protein; once cooked it is simple to mash and very easy for little ones to gum up. The trick (like with any animal protein) is just to cook fish very well. Check with your Ped to see what she/he has to say.
- Mama Flava