Fish is a rich source of essential nutrients, particularly omega-3 fatty acids, which are important for heart health. However, fish can also absorb harmful substances from polluted water, such as heavy metals or pesticides. As a result, consumers are faced with a complex choice: they must weigh the health benefits of eating fish against the potential risks of contamination. A recent study conducted around Lake Victoria in East Africa has shown that warnings about contaminants have a stronger influence on consumer choices than information about the nutritional benefits of fish. Lake Victoria, the largest lake in Africa by surface area, supports a bustling fish market where consumers make daily decisions about what to eat. Like in markets worldwide, buyers may choose fish based on factors like freshness, size, price, and whether it is farmed or wild-caught. However, unlike other food choices, the health impacts of eating fish are not immediately visible. While the benefits of omega-3s are well known, the presence of harmful substances in fish is invisible and can be difficult to detect without testing. The risks of consuming contaminated fish are just as invisible. As pollution increases, fish are more likely to contain harmful substances such as microcystins, toxins produced by certain types of algae that thrive in polluted water. These toxins can be harmful if ingested in large amounts, especially for children. The World Health Organization has set limits for microcystin-LR, a type of cyanobacterial toxin, with stricter guidelines for children. In response to these risks, sellers are using labels to help consumers make more informed choices by highlighting both the nutritional value and the level of contamination in the fish they buy. Researchers conducted an experiment with fish consumers in western Kenya to understand how information on labels influences their choices. Participants were presented with hypothetical fish purchase options, each labeled with information about the level of nutrients and the level of toxins. The results showed that most consumers considered both types of information, but they were more influenced by warnings about risks than by information about benefits. This highlights the need for a balanced approach when communicating about fish consumption, as overly emphasizing risks could lead to people avoiding fish altogether, potentially depriving them of essential nutrients. The study also revealed that not all consumers react the same way to the information. Some were more responsive to both the benefits and the risks, while others were less affected by either. These less responsive consumers were more likely to have lower incomes, less education, or a limited understanding of environmental risks. This raises concerns about how better information might affect different groups in society. If more informed consumers avoid certain fish, the price of these fish could decrease, potentially leading to higher consumption by those less informed, who may be more vulnerable to health risks. Ultimately, the responsibility for addressing these complex trade-offs should not rest solely on consumers. The underlying issue lies in environmental pollution, which degrades the quality of fish and makes it harder for people to make healthy choices. Reducing pollution is essential not only for protecting ecosystems but also for ensuring the safety and availability of nutritious food for all.