You’re sitting at a Friday night dinner during Lent, and someone asks why the salmon on the plate doesn’t count as "meat." It feels like a trick question. Biologically, a fish is an animal. It has muscles, blood, and a skeleton. If you’re a vegetarian, you’re certainly not eating it. Yet, for centuries, culinary traditions, religious laws, and even legal definitions have insisted on a separation. This isn't just about semantics; it’s a deep-rooted cultural distinction that affects everything from global diets to how we label food in the grocery store.
Honestly, the confusion is understandable. If it walks like a cow and talks like a cow, it's meat. But fish don't walk. They swim. And in the eyes of history, that changed everything.
The religious roots of the fish vs. meat debate
Most people first encounter the idea that fish isn't meat through the lens of the Catholic Church. This is where things get really interesting. For over a thousand years, the Church prohibited the consumption of "carnis"—the Latin word for meat—on Fridays and during the forty days of Lent. But here's the kicker: carnis specifically referred to the flesh of warm-blooded animals that live on land.
Thomas Aquinas, the heavyweight philosopher of the 13th century, actually weighed in on this. He argued that land animals were more "pleasurable" and similar to humans in their makeup. Fish, being cold-blooded and "of the water," were seen as fundamentally different. They were less "fiery" in their temperament. It sounds strange to a modern ear, but back then, the physiological differences between a cow and a cod were seen as a spiritual divide. Because fish didn't belong to the earth in the same way, they were a permissible "fasting" food.
This wasn't just some niche rule. It shaped the entire economy of Europe. The demand for salted cod and herring skyrocketed because people needed a protein source that didn't violate religious law. You've basically got a thousand years of Western history reinforcing the idea that "meat" belongs to the field and "fish" belongs to the sea.
🔗 Read more: The Truth About Shampoo for Dry Hair Men and Why Your Scalp is Actually Angry
Biological reality vs. culinary tradition
If you ask a biologist, "is fish meat?" they’ll likely look at you like you’ve lost your mind. Of course it is. Fish are vertebrates. They have muscle tissue. They have protein. From a strictly scientific standpoint, "meat" is animal flesh used as food.
But we don't live in a lab. We live in kitchens.
Culinary traditions differentiate based on texture, fat content, and preparation. Red meat (beef, lamb) and white meat (poultry) have high levels of myoglobin—the protein that stores oxygen in muscles. Fish have significantly less myoglobin, which is why their flesh stays light or translucent until cooked.
There's also the fat factor. Land animals generally have saturated fats that are solid at room temperature. Fish are packed with polyunsaturated fats, specifically Omega-3 fatty acids, which remain liquid. This creates a completely different mouthfeel and digestive experience. When a chef talks about "the meat" of a lobster or a swordfish steak, they’re using the word descriptively, but they still won't list the fish under the "Grill and Meat" section of the menu. It's its own category.
Why fish is not considered meat in legal and dietary terms
The government often steps in to make these distinctions official, mostly for the sake of taxes, trade, and labeling. In the United States, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees meat and poultry. They handle the cows, the pigs, and the chickens. But fish? That’s usually the territory of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Commerce.
🔗 Read more: Why the Hot 70 Year Old Aesthetic Is Changing Everything We Know About Aging
This bureaucratic split reinforces the cultural one. If the people regulating your food don't call it meat, the public won't either.
Then you have the rise of "pescetarianism." It’s a term that gained traction in the 1990s to describe people who avoid land-based meat but still eat seafood. It’s a middle-ground diet. Many people adopt it for heart health, following the advice of organizations like the American Heart Association, which praises fish for its low saturated fat. By branding themselves as "not meat eaters" who eat fish, an entire demographic has cemented the idea that these two things are separate entities.
The "Cold-Blooded" argument
We have to talk about thermoregulation. It’s arguably the strongest physical argument for why fish is not considered meat in various cultures.
Land animals are endothermic. They generate their own heat. This requires a massive amount of energy and a complex metabolic system. Fish (with a few rare exceptions like certain tuna and opah) are ectothermic. Their body temperature fluctuates with the water around them.
Ancient civilizations noticed this. They saw that the "warmth" of life felt different in a mammal than in a fish. In many Eastern philosophies and even in some interpretations of Jewish dietary laws (Kashrut), the distinction between land animals and water creatures is clear. In Kosher law, meat (fleishig) and dairy cannot be mixed. However, fish is considered pareve—neutral. You can eat a piece of salmon with a cream sauce, but you can't put cheese on a burger.
This neutrality is a huge reason why the "not meat" label stuck. If fish were meat, it would be subject to a thousand more rules. By being "not meat," it exists in a space of convenience and flexibility.
Surprising exceptions and the "Capybara" loophole
History is full of people trying to game the system. If fish isn't meat, then anything that spends time in the water must be fish, right?
In the 17th century, the Bishop of Quebec famously asked the Church if his flock could eat beaver during Lent. Since beavers are excellent swimmers, the Church agreed: the beaver was a fish for dietary purposes. A similar thing happened in Venezuela with the capybara, the world’s largest rodent. To this day, in certain regions, capybara is eaten during Lent because it was "classified" as fish centuries ago.
Even puffins and barnacle geese were occasionally categorized as fish because people didn't see them nest; they just saw them emerge from the water or the sea-cliffs. These loopholes show that the definition of "meat" was never really about biology. It was about how we interact with the natural world.
The environmental and ethical nuance
Today, the conversation is shifting again. We are starting to look at the environmental footprint of our food.
Beef has a massive carbon footprint. Fish, particularly wild-caught or responsibly farmed bivalves, often has a much lower impact. When people say they are "cutting back on meat," they usually mean they are swapping steak for sea bass. They are using the "not meat" label as a shorthand for "more sustainable."
However, ethical vegetarians argue that the distinction is a fantasy. Organizations like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have long campaigned against the idea that fish don't feel pain or aren't "meat." They point to studies showing fish have complex nervous systems and social structures. For them, the distinction is just a way for people to feel better about eating an animal.
📖 Related: Why Lawless Forget the Filler Foundation Is Actually Changing the Skin-First Makeup Game
Real-world takeaways for your diet
So, where does this leave you? Whether you consider fish meat depends entirely on the context of your conversation.
- If you’re talking to a chef: Fish is a distinct category with different cooking temperatures and safety profiles (you can eat raw fish more safely than raw chicken, for instance).
- If you’re following religious fasts: Fish is generally the go-to alternative because it lacks the "warm-blooded" status of land animals.
- If you’re focused on health: The "not meat" distinction is a helpful way to identify proteins that are lower in saturated fats.
- If you’re a biologist: It’s all muscle tissue, buddy. It’s meat.
How to use this information today
Knowing the history helps you navigate menus and social situations, but it also helps you make better choices for your own body. If you’re trying to transition to a more plant-based lifestyle, using fish as a "bridge" protein works because of that specific culinary and biological profile we’ve discussed.
Actionable Next Steps:
- Check your labels: When buying "meatless" products, look closely. Many "vegetarian" soups use fish-based broths (like dashi) because of the historical "fish isn't meat" logic.
- Experiment with "Meaty" fish: If you're missing the texture of land meat, try Monkfish or Swordfish. They have a denser muscle structure that mimics pork or veal, bridging the gap between the two worlds.
- Understand the "Pareve" status: If you are cooking for someone who keeps Kosher, remember that fish is neutral. It offers a versatility that beef simply can't provide in that culinary framework.
- Audit your protein: Instead of a binary "meat vs. no meat" mindset, categorize your intake by "warm-blooded" vs. "cold-blooded" to see how it affects your energy levels and digestion. Many people find the "cold-blooded" proteins are easier on the gut.