Vegetarian Society UK definition + EPIC-Oxford cohort framing
Pescatarian Is Not Vegetarian: What the Term Actually Means
Pescatarianism is a coherent and internally consistent diet, but it is not vegetarianism. The Vegetarian Society UK definition explicitly excludes fish and seafood. The academic literature on diet and disease treats pescatarians as a separate cohort. This page covers the definition, the nutrition profile, the environmental tradeoffs, and the practical fish-choice guidance, with the published sources to back it up.
The definitional disagreement, traced
The English word vegetarian was coined in 1842 by the Alcott House community at the Vegetarian Society's predecessor meetings, formally adopted by the Vegetarian Society at its 1847 founding. From the start the definition excluded all animal flesh, including fish. The current Vegetarian Society UK definition reads "someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, legumes, nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, fungi, algae, yeast, and other non-animal-based foods (e.g. salt) with, or without, dairy products, honey and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat foods that consist of, or have been produced with the aid of products consisting of or created from, any part of the body of a living or dead animal. This includes meat, poultry, fish, shellfish, insects, by-products of slaughter, or any food made with processing aids created from these."
The North American Vegetarian Society and the European Vegetarian Union both use compatible definitions. The Vegan Society's vegan definition extends further to exclude dairy, eggs, and honey, plus non-food animal-derived products. The academic public health literature follows these definitions when classifying cohort participants.
Where the confusion enters: many people who describe themselves casually as vegetarian do eat fish, treating the term loosely as "I don't eat red or white meat." This is colloquially common but technically conflates pescatarian with vegetarian. When the conflation matters (medical research, certified labelling, dietitian consultation), the precise terms should be used. When it does not matter (a friend choosing a restaurant), the colloquial usage is usually fine.
Where the word comes from, and when it first appeared
Pescatarian is a blend word: the Italian pesce (fish) joined to the ending of vegetarian. The spelling pescetarian, closer to the Italian pesce-, is the more etymologically consistent form, but pescatarian is now the dominant spelling in both US and UK English and is the headword in Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary.
On when it entered English: Merriam-Webster dates the first known use of pescatarian to 1993. That first-known-use date is the source behind the widely repeated claim that the word was "coined in 1993." The Oxford English Dictionary has since traced the word a little earlier, giving its earliest evidence as 1991. So both are true in their own terms: 1993 is Merriam-Webster's first-recorded use, while the OED's citation record pushes the real first appearance back to about 1991. Either way, pescatarian is a product of the early 1990s that only became mainstream after roughly 2010.
Why the research literature separates the groups
The EPIC-Oxford cohort recruited 65,000 UK adults from 1993 with deliberate over-representation of vegetarians, vegans, and fish-eaters. Their classification system has five groups: regular meat-eaters, low meat-eaters (under 50 g per day), fish-eaters (no meat but fish), vegetarians (no meat or fish but dairy and eggs), and vegans. The Adventist Health Study-2 cohort uses similar categories: non-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pescovegetarian, lacto-ovo vegetarian, and vegan. Both studies treat the fish-eating group as biologically distinct.
The separation matters because outcomes differ. The Tong 2019 EPIC-Oxford paper (BMJ 2019; 366: l4897) grouped its 48,188 participants into three diet groups: meat-eaters, fish-eaters, and vegetarians (with vegans counted inside the vegetarian group rather than as their own category). Compared with meat-eaters, fish-eaters had 13% lower ischaemic heart disease risk and vegetarians had 22% lower risk; the same paper also found vegetarians had a 20% higher rate of total stroke, driven mostly by haemorrhagic stroke. The Adventist Health Study-2 found mortality patterns broadly similar across pesco-vegetarians and lacto-ovo vegetarians, both lower than non-vegetarians but the exact ordering varies by cause-of-death subgroup.
The biologically plausible reasons for the differences: fish-eaters get long-chain EPA and DHA omega-3 directly (cardiovascular benefit); vegans avoid all saturated fat from animal sources; vegetarians eat dairy fat but less than meat-eaters. The interactions are complex enough that lumping pescatarians with vegetarians would smear the data.
Pescatarian nutrient profile vs vegetarian
| Nutrient | Pescatarian | Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian | Vegan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitamin B12 | Excellent (fish + dairy + eggs) | Good (dairy + eggs) | Requires supplement |
| Vitamin D | Good (oily fish) | Borderline (eggs only) | Requires supplement |
| Omega-3 EPA, DHA | Excellent (oily fish) | Modest (eggs only) | Requires algae oil |
| Iodine | Good (white fish + dairy) | Adequate (dairy) | Requires supplement or seaweed |
| Iron | Some heme from fish | Non-heme only | Non-heme only |
| Calcium | Good (dairy + bony fish) | Good (dairy) | Needs fortified milks or tofu |
| Choline | Excellent (eggs + fish) | Excellent (eggs) | Needs deliberate planning |
| Selenium | Excellent (fish) | Adequate | Brazil nuts essential |
On nutrient adequacy alone, pescatarian is the easiest plant-forward diet to plan. The flip side is that it carries the environmental and ethical considerations of fishing, which a strictly vegetarian diet does not.
Fish choice: sustainability and contaminants
The Marine Conservation Society UK Good Fish Guide and Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch in the US are the two leading consumer-facing sustainability ratings. Both classify species and source on a green (eat freely), amber (think carefully), red (avoid) scale. Common examples for 2026 ratings:
| Fish or seafood | MCS rating typical | Mercury level | Pregnancy guidance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anchovies (wild) | Green | Very low | Eat freely |
| Sardines (wild) | Green | Very low | Eat freely |
| Mackerel (wild) | Green or amber by source | Low | Once a week max |
| Salmon (wild, MSC-certified Alaska) | Green | Low | Twice a week |
| Salmon (farmed Scotland, RSPCA Assured) | Amber | Low | Twice a week |
| Mussels (rope-grown) | Green | Very low | Eat freely |
| Oysters (farmed) | Green | Very low | Avoid raw during pregnancy |
| Pollock (Alaska) | Green | Low | Eat freely |
| Cod (Atlantic, Iceland or Barents) | Amber to green by source | Low | Eat freely |
| Tuna (skipjack, pole-caught) | Amber | Moderate | 2 cans per week |
| Tuna (bluefin) | Red | High | Avoid |
| Swordfish | Red | Very high | Avoid in pregnancy |
| Shark | Red | Very high | Avoid in pregnancy |
| Prawns (UK farmed or MSC) | Amber to green | Low | Eat freely |
| Prawns (warm-water imported) | Often red | Low | Eat freely |
Use the MCS Good Fish Guide in the UK or Monterey Bay Seafood Watch in the US to look up specific species and sources. Ratings change as fisheries are managed differently year by year, so the snapshot above will drift.
Environmental footprint compared
The Poore and Nemecek 2018 Science meta-analysis (a database of 38,700 farms and 1,600 processors across 119 countries) provides the most comprehensive comparison of greenhouse gas emissions per 100 grams of protein across food categories. Beef sits at 50 kg CO2e per 100 g of protein. Dairy beef at 17 kg. Lamb at 20 kg. Pork at 8 kg. Chicken at 6 kg. Wild-caught small pelagic fish (anchovies, sardines) at 2 to 4 kg. Cheese at 11 kg. Eggs at 4.5 kg. Farmed Atlantic salmon at 6 kg. Farmed warm-water prawns among the highest of any protein here, roughly 18 to 27 kg depending on the system (high because of mangrove clearing and feed). Tofu at 2 kg. Legumes at 0.8 kg.
The implication: a pescatarian who eats sardines and mussels has a markedly lower footprint than a vegetarian who eats cheese and eggs. A pescatarian who eats farmed salmon and prawns has a comparable or higher footprint than a vegetarian. The category label does not determine the footprint; the specific choices within the category do.
Related diet-type pages
Keep reading
Frequently asked questions about pescatarianism
Are pescatarians considered vegetarian?
Where does the word pescatarian come from?
Why do researchers separate pescatarians from vegetarians?
Is a pescatarian diet better for the environment than a vegetarian one?
Should pescatarians worry about mercury and contaminants in fish?
Why do some people choose pescatarian over vegetarian?
Sources cited. Vegetarian Society UK definition; Tong TY et al. Risks of ischaemic heart disease and stroke in meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians over 18 years of follow-up: results from the prospective EPIC-Oxford study, BMJ 2019; 366: l4897; Orlich MJ et al. Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in Adventist Health Study 2, JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 1230-1238; Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers, Science 2018; 360: 987-992; Marine Conservation Society UK Good Fish Guide; Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch; UK FSA fish and shellfish advice for pregnant women; US FDA Advice About Eating Fish 2021 update; Merriam-Webster (first known use of pescatarian, 1993) and Oxford English Dictionary (earliest evidence 1991) for the word history. Word history and EPIC-Oxford figures verified August 2026; fish sustainability and mercury snapshots as of May 2026.