Deadly. Destructive. Delicious?
Within the past decade, highly-venomous lionfish have invaded Western Atlantic waters, permanently threatening native fish populations. These exotic fish from the Indo-Pacific were accidentally introduced into this new environment, where they have no natural predators, making it easy for them to hunt and kill indigenous species including shrimp, grouper, and snapper, while competing against or crowding out other native predators. While experts argue over the best way to curb the lionfish threat, the answer may be fairly simple – eat it.
The Andrew Six
According to one popular theory, these unwelcome intruders were first introduced when Hurricane Andrew hit Southern Florida in 1992 and destroyed a waterfront aquarium in Miami, releasing six lionfish into Biscayne Bay. Others believe it’s more likely due to a worker in the aquarium trade that released the fish or eggs into the wild. Either way, lionfish began to spawn rapidly after introduced, catching regional currents and spreading up the east coast of the US, through the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Nobody knows the exact number now living in these non-native waters or the complete impact they are having on other fish populations, though most everyone now agrees that some sort of intervention is required before it’s too late.
Solutions
Realizing the acute threat posed by what might be the most devastating marine invasion in history, divers, anglers, government, and environmental organizations have banded together. Lionfish hunting tournaments, some with cash prizes, have helped capture thousands of the voracious predators in affected areas.
Still though, it’s not enough.
Eat Lionfish
Luckily, lionfish filets are very edible, with a mild taste and texture. While the fish do have sharp, venomous spines which can cause pain, headaches, vomiting, and breathing difficulties in humans, the venom can be neutralized through cooking or by simply removing the spines. This has led the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to start the “Eat Lionfish” campaign, hoping to start a market for the fish by encouraging seafood consumers to make a responsible and tasty choice. The campaign has organized lionfish tastings across the US with top chefs sharing recipes and preparation techniques, hoping diners can overcome any biases they may hold against the odd-looking fish.
Unlike other fish species, there is no risk of overfishing lionfish. In fact, NOAA hopes we will do just that. It’s possible struggling fishing communities could even benefit from new income brought in through catching lionfish.
So, do your part – eat a sustainable fish and save the ocean. Eat lionfish!
Your thoughts…
Would you eat lionfish?
Calorie Count co-founder Erik Fantasia and his girlfriend, Heather Curtis, are currently traveling through South America as part of a trip around the world. You can follow their adventures online with Facebook and their blog.
Comments
I generally limit my fish intake because of the dwindling supply and the havoc that overfishing creates on marine environments. These Lionfish would be a perfect choice for me, easing my conscience and allowing me to once again enjoy more healthy fish in my diet. As I would not be the one catching and cleaning the fish its appearance and venomous spikes don't bother me in the least.
I'd eat them but unfortunately they don't sell lionfish where I live.
I'm curious how this fish "stacks up" nutritionally with other fish. What would it be most comparable to?
Original Post by: bestephensI would eat them on the road, I would eat them on a toad.
I would eat fish with toxic hair, I would eat them anywhere!
I lovelovelove fish, and I can't wait to try this new delicacy! I hope my local grocer get's them soon!
I wish I loved fish like you do since it's so healthy!
I will begin to do my part and spread the word.
Original Post by: rbrain98I'm curious how this fish "stacks up" nutritionally with other fish. What would it be most comparable to?
The USDA does not (yet) provide a nutrient breakdown for lionfish, but in recipes, catfish can be substituted for lionfish, and so I assume catfish is a close proxy.
I expect the cost for lion fish will be high because it will be labor-intensive to bring them to market. As a suba diver, I have seen lion fish in the wild. They tend to be solitary, not in schools, and live among the coral. This means they must be caught individually, rather than netting them in large numbers. I don't even thing trapping them like lobsters would work.
Having said all that; yes, I would definately eat them if the price was within reason.
Thanks Mary_RD! mmm, blackened lionfish, mmm....
great post bestephens 
hope I can find it - not only is it a guilt-free, eco-friendly food choice, but it's actually a beneficial food choice. wow, those are hard to find.
Original Post by: bestephensI would eat them on the road, I would eat them on a toad.
I would eat fish with toxic hair, I would eat them anywhere!
I lovelovelove fish, and I can't wait to try this new delicacy! I hope my local grocer get's them soon!
The best answer yet!
yum! I'll eat any fish that tastes good and is easy to catch :-)
Since we are about to move on our boat and live there full time, I will make sure that we'll help catch this fish. Since fish will be our primary food source, why not the Lionfish:)..I can't believe I have not heard about this problem before. Hmmm...to preoccupied with regular life schedule...GOT TO GET OUT OF HERE AND DO WHAT IS IMPORTANT......
Sounds good to me, and the jumping carp in the Mississippi River can be added to the list. If the carp are inedible by american standards they could open the fishing to cat food producers.
This reminds me of a horribly offensive (but funny if you have the humor for it) podcast that discussed eating whale if it were legal. As one of the podcasters said, "I'd have my dumb face all up in some [lionfish]."
Maybe we should all start eating stray cats too, I hear they are overrun in most neighborhoods.
*sarcasm*
Original Post by: allicaterpillarMaybe we should all start eating stray cats too, I hear they are overrun in most neighborhoods.
*sarcasm*
talk to any poor kid in the appalachians who had to shoot a squirrel for his dinner and his momma will tell you that it's all meat. do you have a better idea than "eat it"?
Jamaica's waters are already overfished. The introduction of Lionfish is already having a disastrous effect, but groups have come out to teach our fishermen about the Lionfish and thankfully I see more and more being sold on the road. I personally have not eaten lionfish yet, but your story has inspired me...after all, if we create a demand for Lionfish, then fishermen will seek them more.
I understand that Grouper are actually the Lionfish's only predator. Unfortunately we do not have any Groupers of any significant size in Jamaica.
Finally, I love bestephens' post...you have inspired me to try Lionfish, I shall try them with green eggs or ham.
I would definitely eat it. You say it's mild, and not unusual for fish? Yeah, definitely, wouldn't be a problem. Who cares if it looks strange in the wild? They all look the same when filleted!
I just looked them up and they are beautiful fish, too bad they have to be so destructive. Yes I would at least try to see if I like them.
Saute them up with a little garlic and lime
serve them on tortillas with a Mango Slaw
Lionfish Tacos!
Eat them, eat them, here they are!
Or maybe beer-battered and fried with some tartar sauce... Yum!
BTW, love bestephens' post!
In regards to eating overpopulated species Gist writes:
"Westerners in particular have gotten far too accustomed to getting whatever we prefer to eat, regardless of the impact on wildlife and the earth. Americans practically consider it their birthright to enjoy an endless supply of burgers, chicken and fish, no matter the cost.
Of course, it wouldn’t be too surprising to see people get attached to a certain overpopulated species and continue to seek it out after numbers have gotten under control, creating a potentially bigger problem. We Americans, always causing trouble one way or another."
The problem herein is eating other species in general. Not to consume one sea creature because it threatens the existence of other sea creatures that humans have adapted to consume. I am disappointed with this article as it is terrible advice. And the kid in me just wants to point out that fish is just gross.
I like that point about the cats allicaterpillar, yea why not people, you eat other animals, whats the difference?
Original Post by: katayani108In regards to eating overpopulated species Gist writes:
"Westerners in particular have gotten far too accustomed to getting whatever we prefer to eat, regardless of the impact on wildlife and the earth. Americans practically consider it their birthright to enjoy an endless supply of burgers, chicken and fish, no matter the cost.
Of course, it wouldn’t be too surprising to see people get attached to a certain overpopulated species and continue to seek it out after numbers have gotten under control, creating a potentially bigger problem. We Americans, always causing trouble one way or another."
The problem herein is eating other species in general. Not to consume one sea creature because it threatens the existence of other sea creatures that humans have adapted to consume. I am disappointed with this article as it is terrible advice. And the kid in me just wants to point out that fish is just gross.
I like that point about the cats allicaterpillar, yea why not people, you eat other animals, whats the difference?
Seriously?? Let's not solve one really BIG problem because it MIGHT cause another far lesser problem? Give me a break. Just because you think "fish is just gross" doesn't make this bad advice, or a bad idea. If you're looking at this from a "meat is murder" point of view... well, what do you suggest? Just hunting them down and killing them all? Or letting them kill off all the other species around them, when it's OUR fault they're there in the first place? Your post doesn't offer any solutions-- it just knocks the very practical ones that others have put forth. Silliness.
And let me just point out that stray cats are not the threat to an entire ecosystem that lionfish are.
I think it's a great idea to eat this fish and I'd give it a try.
I'm curious about people who say they don't like fish. There are so many different types with different flavours and textures it seems odd to me to reject fish on mass. It's a bit like rejecting all vegetables, when they al taste different too.
Anyone want to enlighten me?
Personally, I find it morally unjust. When there are an endless amount of options available for protiens, I just dont find it necessary in my own life.
Using overpopulation as an excuse to eat another animal seems midevil to me; what a poor excuse. Its not the fact that animals are involved here, its the fact that people would use that as an excuse for eating them. Nature takes care of itself. Leave the tiger fish be. I dont come to your house and put your fish in my mouth.
The people who are using this fish "as an excuse" to eat meat are --except for a very few-- going to eat meat anyway. That's just how it is. This is about WHICH meat they choose to eat, not about whether or not one should eat it at all. In this context, your argument just doesn't make a lot of logical sense.
Yes, nature can normally take care of itself. But if WE have introduced a species into an environment in which it doesn't belong, how can nature "take care of it?" The same way it takes care of our oil spills?
I'd say that it would be more morally unjust to let other species die off because of our actions than would be to target a specific species-- which is a practical and ecological way to fix a problem WE created. Death is death, right? It seems to me you support one kind of death but not another.
If you don't think people should eat meat, well... you don't think people should eat meat. And that's an argument I completely understand. But mixing it up with THIS argument and trying to support it with ideas that simply aren't true in this context (like, "nature can take care of itself") doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I shouldve quoted it--- i was only responding to nicholawebb who asked why people say they dont personally like to eat fish.
but youre right, its beside the point.
Oh! But I think nichola's question was about people who don't LIKE fish, not people who object to it. Though she should correct me if I'm wrong. :)
I definitely understand the moral objection to eating it in general, though.
These types of accidental introductions are always difficult. I have to agree historically when the government agencies campaign and encourage people to create a demand for nuisance species it rarely ends when the supply depletes. This leads us back to square one. What should the government do to remedy the situation?
Rather than advertising and campaigning to have people create a market for the fish, it makes better sense to create a works program similar to the ones FDR set-up in the 1930s. It would put people back to work in the form of fishing for the nuisance fish, cleaning and packaging it. The only difference is these fish would not be for sale. Instead, the packaged fish is given to soup kitchens, families in need, and food banks. This helps alleviate a couple problems in one shot, unemployment, hunger, and removes a species not meant to be on the Atlantic Coast. Yes, it is a short-term solution, but this is a short-term problem. This path would create less of a market for the fish than the current proposed method.
I am sure many people would argue that more government spending is the last thing we need to do and this only creates a bigger strain on the budget. To those who argue this I say, would you rather have people work for their money or collect unemployment? Sometimes you have to pick the better of two evils.
Eating stray cats? I'm game. As long as PETA is going to slaughter them all anyway, we might as well do something more than throw their corpses in a dumpster.
I'm not big on fish, but I would totally try lionfish! I can't seem to find it anywhere but I'll keep looking. I must save the ocean! :D Also I'm going to try to find bear meat just because I really hate bears. They keep slaughtering the neighborhood children and all. No sympathy there, people. I'm sorry.
Don't get me wrong, I have respect for vegetarians and have briefly considered the lifestyle. Personally I take more offense at the industry than the practice of eating animal products. I never could comprehend the ethical dilemma vegans seemed to have with milk and eggs until learning a little bit more about what goes on. To me, eating eggs, drinking milk, totally not wrong. But abusing animals for them shouldn't be the way to go, and it really doesn't need to be part of it.
This doesn't apply to bears though. Bears have no rights.
Original Post by: upsidedownkittenEating stray cats? I'm game. As long as PETA is going to slaughter them all anyway, we might as well do something more than throw their corpses in a dumpster.
I'm not big on fish, but I would totally try lionfish! I can't seem to find it anywhere but I'll keep looking. I must save the ocean! :D Also I'm going to try to find bear meat just because I really hate bears. They keep slaughtering the neighborhood children and all. No sympathy there, people. I'm sorry.
Don't get me wrong, I have respect for vegetarians and have briefly considered the lifestyle. Personally I take more offense at the industry than the practice of eating animal products. I never could comprehend the ethical dilemma vegans seemed to have with milk and eggs until learning a little bit more about what goes on. To me, eating eggs, drinking milk, totally not wrong. But abusing animals for them shouldn't be the way to go, and it really doesn't need to be part of it.
This doesn't apply to bears though. Bears have no rights.
hahaha well done
Original Post by: karenlyn2The people who are using this fish "as an excuse" to eat meat are --except for a very few-- going to eat meat anyway. That's just how it is. This is about WHICH meat they choose to eat, not about whether or not one should eat it at all. In this context, your argument just doesn't make a lot of logical sense.
Yes, nature can normally take care of itself. But if WE have introduced a species into an environment in which it doesn't belong, how can nature "take care of it?" The same way it takes care of our oil spills?
I'd say that it would be more morally unjust to let other species die off because of our actions than would be to target a specific species-- which is a practical and ecological way to fix a problem WE created. Death is death, right? It seems to me you support one kind of death but not another.
If you don't think people should eat meat, well... you don't think people should eat meat. And that's an argument I completely understand. But mixing it up with THIS argument and trying to support it with ideas that simply aren't true in this context (like, "nature can take care of itself") doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
You don't get it.
Lionfish have NO predators in the western hemisohere. They multiply (like rabbits would be a gross understatement as they lay thousands of eggs at a time) and they eat everything. This is not what the creator meant to be.
Regardless of whether you eat them or not, every right-minded person should still kill them if they see one. They have the potential to wipe out thousands of current living species.
Here's a thought...how would you like to go to a rock covered beach to eat your veggie picnic, because parrot fish are largely responsible for white sand beaches and the lionfish are currently decimating their numbers.
Original Post by: bazvaldoOriginal Post by: karenlyn2The people who are using this fish "as an excuse" to eat meat are --except for a very few-- going to eat meat anyway. That's just how it is. This is about WHICH meat they choose to eat, not about whether or not one should eat it at all. In this context, your argument just doesn't make a lot of logical sense.
Yes, nature can normally take care of itself. But if WE have introduced a species into an environment in which it doesn't belong, how can nature "take care of it?" The same way it takes care of our oil spills?
I'd say that it would be more morally unjust to let other species die off because of our actions than would be to target a specific species-- which is a practical and ecological way to fix a problem WE created. Death is death, right? It seems to me you support one kind of death but not another.
If you don't think people should eat meat, well... you don't think people should eat meat. And that's an argument I completely understand. But mixing it up with THIS argument and trying to support it with ideas that simply aren't true in this context (like, "nature can take care of itself") doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
You don't get it.
Lionfish have NO predators in the western hemisohere. They multiply (like rabbits would be a gross understatement as they lay thousands of eggs at a time) and they eat everything. This is not what the creator meant to be.
Regardless of whether you eat them or not, every right-minded person should still kill them if they see one. They have the potential to wipe out thousands of current living species.
Here's a thought...how would you like to go to a rock covered beach to eat your veggie picnic, because parrot fish are largely responsible for white sand beaches and the lionfish are currently decimating their numbers.
Sorry karelyn...this wasn't supposed to be a response to your comment. Was meant for katayani108
I beleive in eating meat - and I prefer to hunt my own food then I know there was no animal abuse since I went out and shoot it myself. And I buy my dairy and other animal products mostly from local farmers and some others overseas that do not torture their animals and have fresh wonderful eggs, milk and cheese to share.... They're vegetables and fruits are also amond my favorite - whatever I cant grow myself I prefer to get locally grown. Not only does it make me feel better about what is done to the animals, but it's also much better for my body as there's no antiboitics/growth hormones or pesticides injected into or on my food.
Original Post by: pubnicopointI would eat them if they had fins and scales.
Thats exactly what I was thinking! Is the lionfish kosher?
Original Post by: alogia67I beleive in eating meat - and I prefer to hunt my own food then I know there was no animal abuse since I went out and shoot it myself. And I buy my dairy and other animal products mostly from local farmers and some others overseas that do not torture their animals and have fresh wonderful eggs, milk and cheese to share.... They're vegetables and fruits are also amond my favorite - whatever I cant grow myself I prefer to get locally grown. Not only does it make me feel better about what is done to the animals, but it's also much better for my body as there's no antiboitics/growth hormones or pesticides injected into or on my food.
Killing isn't abuse? I think that's pretty easy to state from the killer's point of view.
I live down the road from a local farm and the manure stinks just as badly as human sewage but there's no regulation on it. The more local farms - the more local pollution we'll have. If we all go "local" do we really think that's going to feed all the people in the city? What about the poor and the people on fixed incomes? Do we really think that they will be able to afford local flesh? IMHO This is an elitest fairy tale. It's not logical. Factory farming is way more efficient resource wise and look at all the destruction it does. There is no sustainable method of farming animals. There are too many humans on the planet.
I'm glad *you* feel better about your hunting and local flesh .. but I'm pretty sure the poor creature that died doesn't quite see it your way again.
About the Lionfish. It's not their fault that *we* made this inbalance in *their* environment. As far as being stewards of this planet we are failing pretty swiftly. And it's this very attitude of ultimate human consumption that will catch up with us. The planet is an organism and it by nature will start to put things straight if we don't abide.
Original Post by: garycoutureI expect the cost for lion fish will be high because it will be labor-intensive to bring them to market. As a suba diver, I have seen lion fish in the wild. They tend to be solitary, not in schools, and live among the coral. This means they must be caught individually, rather than netting them in large numbers. I don't even thing trapping them like lobsters would work.
Having said all that; yes, I would definately eat them if the price was within reason.
Yeah, what he said.
american
apples
asian
beans
beef
blog
bmi
breakfast
calcium
calories
cheese
chicken
chocolate
coffee
confidence
cooking
dessert
diabetes
diet
dieting
dietsinreview
dinner
eggs
emotionaleating
exercise
family
fiber
fish
fitness
fruit
goals
healthyeating
hunger
hungrygirl
inspiration
italian
loseweight
mediterranean
mexican
mindset
motivation
nuts
obesity
party
pasta
portioncontrol
potatoes
protein
quinoa
recipe
recipes
salad
self-esteem
sleep
snack
snacks
soup
spinach
stress
successstory
sugar
support
tbl
thebiggestloser
tips
turkey
tv
vegan
vegetable
vegetables
vegetarian
water
weightloss
workout
yogurt
I would eat them on the road, I would eat them on a toad.
I would eat fish with toxic hair, I would eat them anywhere!
I lovelovelove fish, and I can't wait to try this new delicacy! I hope my local grocer get's them soon!