COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 36 Number 11
July 2009
Guest Column
Fearmongers threaten industry, human health
The media has been flooded with doom and gloom stories of fish stock wipeouts since last fall when Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival previewed the controversial “End of the Line” movie. The negative coverage has intensified tremendously with the premier of the film in England coinciding with World Oceans Day on June 8.
The movie is based on a book by Charles Clover, who largely based his book on a paper prepared in 2003 by Ransom Myers and Boris Worm. The paper, which was published by Nature magazine, claimed there had been a 90% reduction in the biomass of large pelagic fishes in the oceans of the world. Following publication, Nature was hit by a wave of criticism for allowing such poor science and environmental advocacy disguised as science to see the light of day.
The criticism included comments by noted Pacific large pelagic scientist Dr. John Silbert, who labeled the Myers/Worm paper as “fundamentally flawed” and said that the authors “do the fisheries community a disservice by applying a simplistic analysis … which exaggerates declines in abundance and implies unrealistic rebuilding benchmarks.”
Dr. Gary Sharp of the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study commented that the paper “is not good science” and called it the “most recent nonsense.” Dr. Mike Sissenwine, a world leading authority on large pelagics, remarked that most of the decline cited by the authors occurred more than 50 years ago, before establishment of international regional fisheries management authorities to tackle problem fisheries. Sissenwine also commented, “Humanity cannot harvest the oceans and expect to leave behind a pristine environment.”
In the face of the overwhelming criticism, even Myers ultimately agreed, saying, “When fisheries management is used … there is not a concern about the biomass reducing by 50% or 60% or even 70%.”
But the Myers/Worm damage had already been done. Charles Clover got his easy sensational book and Executive Film Producer Christopher Hird got his sexy, environmentally obscene but sure-to-be financially successful film.
Hird is now asking top-of-the-line seafood retailers to run the film in their outlets. Movie stars are waiting in line for someone to listen to their condemnation of the decision by Nobu to keep bluefin tuna on the menu. This criticism persists even though the world-class Asian-themed restaurants, which are partially owned by movie actor Robert DeNiro, added a disclaimer that overfishing in the Mediterranean Sea is occurring.
And this problem is getting worse.
“Empty seas”
Worm’s even more outrageous recent claim that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 has been picked up by more than 17,000 Google searches, according to Nils Stolpe, a media watchdog for the Garden State Seafood Association and other groups.
This claim has been labeled “just mind-bogglingly stupid” by eminent fish scientist Dr. Ray Hillborn and, fortunately, also rejected by new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco.
ICCAT successes
Yet, the messages of the “End of the Line” fable and Worm’s “2048 empty seas” are far from the reality brought to light by the latest assessments from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
While overfishing problems still exist for east and west bluefin tuna, billfishes, and some sharks, these assessments reflect many success stories:
Swordfish has been rebuilt beyond the biomass necessary to produce maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy);
Yellowfin tuna is near or at Bmsy;
Bigeye is at 92% of Bmsy;
Skipjack tuna east and west are above Bmsy;
Northern albacore has recently rebuilt to levels near Bmsy; and
South Atlantic albacore is about 91% of Bmsy.
As far as our coastal fisheries, the latest 2009 report to Congress from Acting National Marine Fisheries Service Director Dr. Jim Balsiger notes that “the majority of our domestic assessed fish stocks are not subject to overfishing (84%) or not overfished (77%).”
It doesn’t sound like we are heading for empty seas here at home either.
Boycott
So how should the seafood-producing industry and knowledgeable public respond to damaging and flawed environmental advocacy science stories? Here are my two-cents.
First, boycott movies like “End of the Line.” Do not contribute to lining the pockets of doomsday profiteers willing to distort reality and frighten people away from consuming healthy seafood.
Does anyone really think that most consumers will go to high-end fish markets or restaurants, refer to their wallet-size “certified fish choice card,” and then select the sustainable sardines or tilapia instead of swordfish and tuna steaks as recommended? Of course not. Faced with such a choice, consumers will head to the meat counter and fillet mignon.
Given the irrefutable health benefits of seafood consumption, it is unconscionable that anyone would discourage it in this way.
Get the word out
Second, the true success stories and information on remaining problems needs to get out to the general public, but this will not happen with a few of us preaching only in our own trade magazines.
We need to use programs like NOAA’s Fish Watch, which has the scientific competency and objectivity to verify the facts on the status of a fishery stock or at least add credibility to industry promotions when they are accurate.
Over 30,000 NOAA Fish Watch logo brochures, jointly produced by NOAA’s Partnership and Communications Office and Blue Water Fishermen’s Association, are being distributed in the Northeast to set the record straight on swordfish. It’s a starting point.
Control imports
Third, we need to encourage our government to take steps to ban the imports of fish harvested outside of accepted ICCAT agreements.
NOAA, the secretary of commerce, and the President already have the authority to identify/certify countries engaged in and products resulting from illegal fishing and bad fishing practices and ban their importation. They need to do what they have been empowered to do.
If the US and the governments of Japan, the European Community, and a few more of the largest seafood producers and importers were to fulfill this longstanding responsibility, the problem effectively would be eliminated in an efficient fashion.
In this context, “certification” is a process undertaken by a government or the scientific arm of a regional fishery management organization. This contrasts with the private “eco-label” “certification” entities that seem to pop up every day.
There are dangers in supporting these private certification programs. One should be suspicious of private groups taking over the fish and human health responsibilities of governments, and one should be especially concerned that environmental advocacy groups ultimately will take over these “certification” processes.
Derailing good health
In conclusion, Nobu, other restaurants, and fish retailers should not be in the business of scaring people away from seafood over sustainability issues. It’s the government’s job to ensure sustainability.
And “End of the Line”-type fearmongers and certification advocates bear responsibility for denying the overwhelming health benefits of increased seafood consumption, Omega-3, and selenium for healthy hearts and neurological and developmental skills, especially for young children, every time the choice for seafood is not made.
We in the seafood-producing industry need to communicate this message to the public.
Rich Ruais
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
