Everything in moderation . . . even fish?

Mercury, PCBs, dioxins . . . are these pollutants enough to deter you from eating the very fish that they contaminate?

On the one hand, we need omega-3 fats to fight heart disease, and fish is hands-down the best source for these fats. But do we want to pollute our bodies with the same contaminates that pollute the fish we eat, potentially exposing ourselves to health problems while we are trying to combat others?

Recent reports say that eating fish in moderation is the best thing we can do, and to eat a variety of different types of fish. The fatty fishes, like salmon, are best, and also smaller fish with short life spans (they tend to accumulate less toxins).

The reports stress that you really only need a little bit of fish, about two servings of fatty fish each week, to get the health benefits.

I wonder, though, if you really do have to eat fish. I am all for whole foods, and we do eat wild Alaskan salmon about once a week. But would fish oil be enough? Dr. Mercola thinks so, and doesn't agree with the other experts that the benefits of eating fish outweigh the risks.

Incidentally, the experts still strongly advise pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as children under the age of twelve, to avoid certain fish, such as shark, swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel.

How do you get your omega-3s? Do you feel safe eating fish?