Sustainable seafood...from China

Who knew that China is a world leader in seafood sustainability?

Check out this video about some fascinating low footprint fish farms in China, using integrated farming methods that date back more than one thousand years!



The video above is the 60 second promo, and below you'll find the full 8 minute video.



Fish, mulberry plants, and silkworms are grown together and the waste of one process feeds the next step.

BTW, in case you wondered what I've been doing lately, now you know, helping to turn over interesting stories and make some videos.

Tweet

Have a snack, save a species

Yvon Chouinard has an idea, and he's not a person that should be ignored when he has an idea. I won't go into his record here, suffice it to say it's good.

Now he's onto seafood, introduced by his "Have a snack, save a species" essay. Can salmon jerky revolutionize seafood? If anyone else said so, I'd be skeptical, but I think Patagonia Provisions salmon jerky has a chance because of the person behind the product.

Tweet

Sustainable pangasius farming in Vietnam

During a recent trip to Vietnam I had the pleasure of meeting again Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh, President of Hùng Vương Corporation, and the largest pangasius farmer in Vietnam.

Mr. Minh signed an agreement with WWF to advance one of his pangasius farms to sustainability certification by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, and to use his farm as a demonstration to other pangasius farmers. Mr Minh is in the light blue shirt with some of his staff and the WWF team.

We toured one of his farms and processing plants, the operations are big, efficient, and very impressive. Here's feeding time on the farm (photo right).

Our hosts then treated us to a wonderful Vietnamese seafood feast at the Thuong Nyen restaurant in My Tho in the Mekong Delta region. Including some wonderful squid, shark, and much more, all cooked in a steaming pot right on the table. Vietnam is a great country to visit, I know I'll be back.

Tweet

Carp dinner in China, sustainable and good

What could be more sustainable than a dinner of plant-eating farmed carp? But is it a GOOD dinner for a westerner? Time to find out.

During my recent trip to China I was interested to find a real Chinese carp dinner. I grew up fishing, and my father and everyone else taught me to throw carp back in the water. "You can't eat those things" I remember being told.

But the Chinese know better, they've farmed carp for thousands of years. In fact, carp farming in China is the biggest farmed fish industry in the world. Most of the carp never make it out of China, and they almost never find their way to the western world.

My host in Qingdao, Songlin Wang, took me walking through the

town restaurant district and we shopped the live fish tanks until we found a place we wanted to stop.

All of the restaurants had a variety of live fish in tanks, ready for diners to call one out to become dinner. We chose the grass carp, the staff reached into the tank with a net (photo, top right), and our dinner came out of the tank flopping and headed for the kitchen.

We asked for a spicy preparation and the cooked carp soon arrived in a steaming pot, head, tail, spinal column and a few more interesting bits (photo, left). The dish had Sichuan pepper which was spicy and had a slight, temporary numbing effect on the lips.

The carp was great. It was tender, with a mild flavor that complemented the sauce nicely. The only challenge was some small bones that had to be pulled out of many of the pieces. The bones didn't bother me, but might easily annoy a more squeamish eater. Of course, the carp's head staring at us from the pot would probably be a bigger challenge.

One nice feature of this dinner, you can be sure that you know what you're getting in this type of seafood restaurant, there is no chance for fish fraud. Unlike the widespread problem in the US of restaurants feeding customers fake substitutes for expensive and desirable fish, here you can see that you're getting what you ordered.

The dinner was a great success, I'm a carp fan now, ready to promote these sustainable fish.

But wait, they're not certified!? It's true that there may be some farming practices of concern, waste or nutrients in the effluent water. But these plant-eating fish can be grown without added feed, so they're very close to sustainability without much extra effort.

Growing millions of tons of carp is a sustainability success story for China, it's a very good thing that China is NOT growing this much farmed salmon.

Tweet

Sustainable salmon farming

Is this the answer for sustainable aquaculture? Salmon grown in locked tanks in Montana? With feed low in fish content? Montana's Hutterites are on the cutting edge of aquaculture.

It's an operation developed by SweetSpring, and it's rated super green by Seafood Watch. Sounds good to me, I wonder how their fish taste? I think I'll find one to try.

Tweet

Real ocean sustainability action from Safeway

Safeway, the supermarket chain, has made an impressive seafood sustainability pledge. They are working with NGO FishWise to make their pledge real and credible.

They are reforming their seafood purchasing, but that's not all. To me, the most impressive part is their work outside of what they buy and sell. Safeway has sailed into some rough waters around Marine Protected Areas in California, including no fishing zones in California and around Antarctica. And the California action is not risk-free.

California's Marine Life Protection Act has supporters and detractors. Some activist recreational fishermen are aggressively fighting closure of fishing spots, even though most of the coast remains open for fishing. But Safeway is willing to stick their necks out and support the rational, transparent, inclusive, science-based process of creating marine protected areas that allow fish some refuge areas.

This is real green, when entities with political clout use their influence for the public good. Safeway can help achieve ocean protection that will make their sustainable purchasing goals easier to achieve. Go Safeway!

You can see for yourself, read about Safeway's sustainable seafood pledge:

"As one of the nation’s largest food retailers, Safeway recognizes its responsibility to be a steward of our natural resources. We aim to develop an unrivaled reputation for pursuing growth through leadership in environmental, socially responsible and ethical business practices.

As part of this important “sustainability” journey for seafood, we are fully engaging with our vendors to balance our ongoing business requirements for meeting growing consumer demand for seafood while making a measurable difference to our rivers, lakes, and oceans. To achieve our goal, we have joined forces with FishWise, a non-profit organization focused on improving the sustainability of seafood retailers, distributors, and producers, and have implemented a comprehensive sustainable seafood policy centered on four key areas: formation of a sustainable seafood task force, supplier outreach, staff training and customer outreach. In fact, information about our seafood sustainability policy can now be found at most Safeway seafood departments.

An important part of being a responsible seafood business is to not only limit the impacts of where we are fishing, but to set aside areas where we are not. Marine Protected Areas (MPA's) are important to ensure the biodiversity and productivity of our oceans. In California, Safeway is a proponent of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA), which balances the use and conservation of living marine resources through a statewide network of MPA's. Additionally, we are helping to preserve one the last pristine marine areas on earth; Antarctica’s Ross Sea. Safeway has pledged to not buy or sell toothfish (Chilean Sea Bass) harvested from the Ross Sea and encourages Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) member countries to designate the entire Ross Sea as an MPA.


We are also taking the following actions:

Supporting groups that make a difference, such as the Food Marketing Institute’s Sustainable Seafood Working Group, the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions and the World Wildlife Fund’s Aquaculture Dialogues

Not selling “Red List” species, for example, bluefin tuna and shark

Supporting fishery and aquaculture improvements by encouraging unsustainable fisheries and farms to establish credible improvement projects designed to both meet our purchasing policy and result in measurable conservation gains

Seeking sustainable alternatives from sources that are working towards eliminating the environmental impacts of traditional harvesting and production methods, like coho salmon and shrimp from contained aquaculture production and handline caught tuna from Indonesia"

Thanks: Casson Trenor

Tweet

Naughty restaurant owner speaks out

But has nothing to say.

His seafood dinner trying to challenge ideas of what's sustainable may have merit, but his stated reasons for doing it sure don't.

So I have a message for Legal Sea Foods CEO Roger Berkowitz. You're in way over your head dude. Send me a note next time you want to try this.

I was of mixed mind after reading the first few articles written about this affair. But after reading more and more about his ideas on what's sustainable and why he thinks so, it's clear that he should stick to serving up tasty seafood and leave sustainability to someone else.

It's too bad, because the idea he raises has merit. It's useful to consider carefully whether "don't eat" lists make sense. Too often, seafood is categorized as sustainable or not by species--regardless of catch method, catch location, and management reliability. Some groups "just say no" to Atlantic cod, and idea that seems wrong to me. Some cod fisheries are sustainable and we should reward those doing a good job.

But Berkowitz's witless ideas are perhaps the worst sustainable seafood "reasoning" I've ever seen. He cites overblown critiques of scientific methods as if he were capable of judging them himself, and offers platitudes as his supposed "answers." I think this issue got away from him and he starting talking silly with too many reporters.

The back and forth debates over this issue are also getting silly. The Gloucester Times hopes that Berkowitz will be a champion for New England fishermen, even though the lead item on the menu is black tiger shrimp farmed in Vietnam. Not exactly an All American menu.

I like Roger Berkowitz's fire on this one, and I'd be happy to help him next time. We could cook up a real fine feast together, one that would truly test the mettle of sustainable seafood advocates like me. But he should let me choose the seafood and I'll agree to let him and his staff cook it. Then we'd both be doing something we know how to do.

Whattya say Roger, can you hear me?

Tweet

Naughty seafood dinner

Legal Seafoods is brewing up a storm with their "eat blacklisted seafood" dinner. Are they profiteering off endangered species, or smartly challenging the status quo?

Sustainable seafood advocates are concerned, including some fairly reactionary words as well as some more thoughtful concerns.

I agree that there are some suspect arguments in the promotional materials. But I also agree with the dinner's co-hosts that there can be a lot of important detail that gets lost in simple eat/don't eat arguments.

Overall, I give the dinner a thumbs down for stupid language trying to attract the wrong kind of attention. Even though there is a good point hiding somewhere in this botched dinner.

The announcement from Legal Sea Foods:

Legal Sea Foods’ Roger Berkowitz Speaks on Sustainable Seafood

President/CEO Hosts Dinner of Supposed “Blacklisted” Fish

To Educate the Public on the Truth about Sustainable Fishing Practices

WHAT: The Culinary Guild of New England and Legal Seafoods co-sponsor an educational dining event to shed light on sustainable seafood. Legal Sea Foods’ President and CEO Roger Berkowitz presents a four-course dinner, followed by a discussion on the most current information concerning sustainable seafood fishing practices.

Over the last few years, news reports on the sustainability of seafood have become more frequent, causing widespread discussion on what fish is sustainable, and therefore safe to eat. Unfortunately, this discussion is flawed by outdated scientific findings that unfairly turn the public against certain species of fish. In a direct effort to counter existing misinformation about sustainability, the menu for this event is deliberately designed to serve what is commonly believed to be outlawed or blacklisted fish. The menu includes:

Fritters
Black tiger shrimp, duck cracklings, smoked tomato, and avocado sauce
Hermann J. Wiemer Reisling, Finger Lakes, 2008

Cod Cheeks
Spaghetti squash, toasted pecans, melting marrow gremolata
Schiopetto Sauvignon, Collio, 2008

Prosciutto Wrapped Hake
Braised escarole, Rancho Gordo beans, blood orange marmalade
Domaine du Viking Vouvray, "Cuvée Tendre," Loire Valley, 2009

Citrus Almond Cake
Yuzu semi freddo, candied kumquats
Jorge Ordoñez Moscatel Selección Especial No.1, Málaga DO, 2007

There will be an opportunity for CGNE guests to ask questions about what’s safe to eat, which species are indeed plentiful, and how to read between the lines of media reports. In addition, Sandy Block, Master of Wine, and Legal's Vice President of Beverage Operations, has chosen wines specifically to complement the menu devised by Rich Vellante, Legal's Executive Chef. Alexander Murray, Assistant Director of Beverage Strategy, will be there to present the pairings.

A more sensible take on this dinner, from co-host Culinary Guild of New England:

Learn about sustainable seafood practices and the misinformation regarding fish from Roger Berkowitz, the President and CEO of Legal Sea Foods and Bill Holler, Legal's Vice President of Seafood Purchasing. The menu for this CGNE meal will be deliberately designed to serve what others consider outlawed or blacklisted fish, but that Berkowitz and Holler believe to be sustainable! There will be an opportunity for CGNE guests to ask questions about what's safe to eat, which species are plentiful, and how to read between the lines of media reports. In addition, Sandy Block, Master of Wine and Legal's Vice President of Beverage Operations, has chosen wines to complement the 4 course menu devised by Rich Vellante, Legal's Executive Chef.

Tweet

More pangasius controversy

WWF representative to arrive in Vietnam

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) global seafood coordinator, Mark Powell, will visit Vietnam next week, according to the WWF Vietnam.

During his stay in Vietnam, Mr Powell will answer technical questions related to methods and procedures to assess tra fish production. He will also hold meetings with the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP), reporters and other related parties.

In addition, WWF Vietnam has received a list of questions and the results of assessing tra and basa fish. This information has been transferred to the Directorate of Fisheries and the VASEP.

WWF Vietnam agreed on the Directorate of Fisheries’ recommendation that the WWF should remove Vietnam’s tra and basa fish from the Red List in their 2010-2011 consumer guidance manual while waiting for the results of the WWF assessment. Future assessments should also be carried out with the participation of all related parties.

Although WWF Vietnam is not involved in assessing Vietnam’s tra and basa fish, it said it should be responsible for participating in resolving the issue.

Earlier, in the 2010-2011 guidance manual on Vietnam’s tra fish for European consumers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway and Demark, several WWF member organizations have moved Vietnam’s tra fish products from the Orange List (products that can be considered for use) to the Red List (products should not be used).

This information has been opposed by tra fish breeders and related seafood agencies in Vietnam as it lacks scientific foundation.

Tweet

Politically correct fish and Powell's Law

"...good thing there's no fish..."

Did I hear that right? I'm with a group of seafood experts having dinner, and someone's glad there are no fish on the menu? Asking around the table, the feeling is mostly shared, I'm the only oddball who wants seafood.

This is sustainable seafood gone too far. Something's wrong when some of the world's experts on seafood sustainability don't want seafood on the menu in front of them.

So I'm ready to offer Powell's law:

Enthusiasm for (sea)food should increase with knowledge.

Isn't it obvious? Learning more about your dinner should make dinner better. And for seafood in particular, a bit of knowledge about seafood should make you eager to order fish for dinner.

Otherwise, why bother? Will you listen to a story about sustainable seafood if the message is to eat chicken instead? If learning about bad fishing methods makes you turn past seafood in the menu, will you really make the effort to learn about the impacts of bottom trawling?

Of course it does make sense to smother seafood in guilt if the real reason for explaining catch methods is to scare people away from seafood.

But most sustainable seafood advocates say they want you to choose the best seafood, right after a sermon about how our oceans are in trouble and your appetite is to blame.

Knowledge about fish and how they're caught ought to make you a happier, more enthusiastic seafood consumer. This doesn't mean you have to like every item. Learning the facts about grouper fishing in Southeast Asia may turn you away from grouper caught by dynamiting coral reefs. But enthusiasm should go up when you learn more about seafood or there's no reason to make the effort.

Regarding food correctness used as a weapon Peter Meehan offered these thoughts after getting lectured about buying grain-fed beef:

And I’m left to wonder: Is all this righteousness going in the right direction? Or will the snake eventually eat its own tail? What originally drew me to so many of these better-practice/better-flavor foodstuffs was the joy, the passion behind them. What I’m worried about is that as the food thing gets trendier and trendier, at some point the know-it-alls will scare off the casually interested. Maybe even their fellow foot soldiers. Is that sustainable?

And as Navneet Alang blogs at Scrawled in Wax, food correctness can become a kind of achievement badge:

At times, this is about the the personal political: the small choices we make in consumption and behaviour that mark out a kind of political choice in how we engage with the world. At others, however, it turns into a game of one-upmanship, peer-pressure and self-righteousness, those bugbears that have always been the dark, rotting underbelly of the left. Food becomes another kind of marker of an activist consciousness, in part perhaps, because it is one that can be performed through consumption. There is no better anti-capitalism than the one you can display through purchasing.

The "dark, rotting underbelly of the left?" Food-ism as a way to feel superior? Are things really this bad?

Sarah Palin has an answer, a celebration of salmon slaughter that is unabashedly put forward as a challenge to the left. From SarahPalinUSA (her twitter account): "Tomorrow-"Sarah Palin's Alaska" we slay salmon. A bunch of 'em. (Watch the Left's reaction to that, if harvesting halibut freaked them out!)"

If we're going after Sarah Palin for catching Alaska halibut and salmon in Bristol Bay, then we may have a problem. Since when is it a problem to catch a lot of fish from sustainable fisheries?

So while Sarah Palin is celebrating sustainable fish, compare this blog post from a Greenpeace sustainable tuna campaigner who asks where to find a good vegan dinner in Paris. And ask yourself who's capturing the hearts and minds of the seafood-loving public?

Tweet

Why green business is the new conservation

An ongoing fight over sustainable seafood is really a fight between old vs. new conservation. That's why the latest brouhaha over the Marine Stewardship Council is interesting. One side is building the green economy, while the other side calls foul over greenwashing.

On the left, scientists and advocates attack the Marine Stewardship Council certification of sustainable seafood products as "failing on its promises as rapidly as it gains prominence." That's a revealing bit of critique. If the MSC were small and insignificant, certifying as sustainable only near-perfect boutique fisheries, the same critics would likely be singing the praises of the Marine Stewardship Council. In fact, Jacquet, et al., say as much in their opinion piece in Nature.

Memanwhile, on the right, support from sustainability advocates and the seafood businesses that are rapidly transforming to improve the environmental performance of fisheries. Oh, and the MSC has their own answer, although a bit wordy and technical.

Think about it, what would you rather have? A shining stamp of approval for the very best fisheries on earth, relying on (for example) hand-thrown harpoons to catch a few tons of big swordfish each year? Or a broad march towards lower-impact fishing by a large fleet of big fishing businesses that catch a few million tons of all kinds of fish each year?

The right answer is we want both examples. And that's a silly part of this fight. Both examples are needed, and the fight is mostly about which word to apply to which example. Since "sustainable" is the only handy label, both sides want to claim it. Even the most hard-core purist who thinks all fishing is bad ought to agree that improving fisheries is a good thing...so long as they don't try to appropriate the "S-word" until their fishery is perfect.

No matter how you define it, sustainable fishing is what the green economy is all about. Transforming business to include improved environmental performance. It's happening in fisheries and seafood, and we need to see the movement spread.

What should we make of the greenwashing claims? Attacks over supposed greenwashing are getting louder and more strident as the green economy grows. Let a company mention a change to reduce packaging or make a more concentrated product, and critics jump all over them for allegedly claiming to be green. Where is it written that improving a business is bad if the improvement doesn't go all the way to deep green? Here's an example of a greenwashing expose that finds 99% of corporate green ads to be guilty of greenwashing, and by-the-way was done by a group of people that offers to help you avoid such criticisms for a fee.

Green guru Joel Makower finds greenwashing attacks are often overblown, and I tend to agree. Green advertising is often overstated, but a religion of green that finds 99% the flock to be sinners is using damned harsh judgment. I don't think this is the way to build a new movement of green business. Fear of greenwashing attacks may force companies to be careful, but such attacks may backfire and actually hinder progress towards real business sustainability. We should expect step-by-step improvement and offer some encouragement instead of attacking 99% of companies claiming some green values for products.

This greenwashing and sustainability argument is not unique to fish, note the picture (top left) and delve, if you will, into the deeply intellectual green vs. greenwashing debate over the "Swiffer," a replacement for the good ol' mop. And maybe you'll find, as I do, that the whole greenwashing argument gets a bit tiresome, and move on to the real work of changing the world instead of arguing about who are the real greens.

Tweet

The rumors are true, I really did see a coelacanth in Puget Sound

Rick MacPherson tells the story better than I can, at his blog Malaria, Bed Bugs, Sea Lice, and Sunsets.



It's in a smoker in my backyard right now.

Note added: this is an April 1 post!

Tweet

Shark fin soup endangered

Younger asians are shunning shark fin soup, partly because of expense but also because of campaigns by environmentalists. Now it's shark fin soup that's endangered, and there's new hope for sharks.

According to SeafoodSource.com:

In Singapore, the Association of Chefs has pulled the soup from the menu at its recent annual dinner, which represents a major shift in attitude toward this traditional Chinese dish.

Singapore University students report that very few people would eat shark fins, partly because of the expense, but also because they're opposed to shark finning.

The British wildlife group Traffic says that with increasing access to information via the Internet, younger Asians are rejecting many of their parents' culinary traditions.

Shark catches are down in parts of the world that catch a lot of sharks, so maybe we're on the right track. But let's wait until the world economy improves and see if worldwide shark catches increase. Then we'll know if it's money or ethics that are saving sharks.

Stop by The Shark Alliance if you want the latest info from the world's experts on shark conservation.

Tweet

Wild fish vs. farmed fish

Time for a battle royal, a smackdown over who's the real sustainable source of fish, fishing or fish farms.

Right now, fishing has the moral high ground with stories on contamination in farmed fish and ocean harm from fish farms. But aquaculture is making a strong push with economic clout and improving technology, and the acccurate pitch that the world needs farmed fish.

Now a fish farming business is making a run at the moral high ground of sustainability, with a striking new argument that actually rings true to me.

Does fishing really have less impact on oceans than fish farming? Many ocean people make this claim, often in a blanket way as though fish farming is always bad. From my perspective, badly-managed fishing is clearly worse than a good fish farm. And, I think for good fish farms and good fishing it's not clear which is worse for the ocean.

One point rarely raised is that fish caught in the wild are eating a lot of forage and may have more ecological impact on forage fish than capture for fish farming. I know some will say "that's ok, because it's natural impact" but that argument doesn't sway me.

Kona Blue, purveyors of sustainable farmed fish, want you to think about these questions. According to The Earth Times, they've just released a new report that includes some provocative claims about how farmed fish are often much more sustainable than wild fish. I'm trying to track down the original report for you, and I'll offer more when I've had a chance to dig in. Stay tuned, this issue is going to grow in importance.

Here's Kona Blue, quoted in The Earth Times.

“If we examine the true environmental cost of wild-caught predatory fish -- such as swordfish or tuna -- we find sustainably maricultured fish have some 60 times less impact on fish stocks at the base of the food chain, such as sardines and anchovies,” said Neil Anthony Sims, President of Kona Blue. The leading offshore mariculture operation in the U.S., Kona Blue raises sashimi-grade Kona Kampachi®, a Hawaiian yellowtail, off the coast of Hawaii.

“What would ocean-conscious consumers rather have on their plates?” asked Sims. “One pound of Kona Kampachi®, or one sixtieth of a pound of tuna? The impact on the oceans is about the same.”

Sims bases this estimate on three primary considerations. First, aquaculture is continually moving towards sustainable substitutes in farmed fish diets to lessen reliance on fishmeal and fish oil. Kona Blue’s current feed formulation includes only 35% fishmeal/fish oil from wild baitfish, of which approximately 3% is from capture fishery by-product. Contrary to outdated ratios of 5:1 or higher quoted by some environmental groups, the current ratio of “wild fish in to farmed fish out” has fallen to approximately 1.5:1 (1.5 lbs. of anchovies producing 1 lb. of sashimi-grade farmed fish).

By contrast, wild fish are subject to the laws of trophic transfer, where only 10% of their prey’s food value is transferred up each step of the food chain. “If a tuna eats a mackerel that earlier ate an anchovy, then there are two trophic steps, compounding the costs,” said Sims. “A tuna may therefore need to eat the equivalent of 100 pounds of baitfish to increase its weight by one pound.” As the fishmeal/fish oil for farmed fish feed involves only one efficient step, trophic transfer loss is minimized.

Tweet

Hope for the world's tuna

Good news, a new partnership between big tuna companies, scientists, and conservationists is seeking to improve the plight of the world's tuna.

They've formed the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, and this is a big deal that I think will make a big difference in helping to improve tuna sustainability.

This group has the world's heavyweights in canned tuna, Bumblebee, Starkist, and Chicken of the Sea. When they talk, the world's tuna fishermen listen.

It's a good day for the world's tuna.

Tweet

Boston seafood show 4

Bye Boston. How charming to leave downtown in a water taxi that gets to the airport cheaper than a car taxi.

I rode Alaska flight 15, loaded with Seafood show people. I sat ina middle seat between a person from Trident Seafoods and a person from Icicle Seafoods, two of the really big northwest seafood businesses with more than a $1 billion per year in combined seafood sales (according to Seafood Business Magazine).

That pretty much tells the story of the seafood show. Can a conservation group find common cause with big seafood businesses? I think so. They didn't try to throw me off the plane.

We had a meeting today that proves the point. It was a group of shrimpers from the Guf of Mexico, shrimp buyers, and fish conservation NGOs, all of us working together on finding ways to improve the shrimp fishery. Improve the business of catching and selling shrimp while also lowering the environmental impact of shrimping. And there were no big arguments, we have shared goals and we're pretty much agreeing on the steps we're going to take together to move in the right direction.

Bye, Boston, see you next year.

Tweet

Boston seafood show 2

I just rolled into my hotel at midnight, after a full (FULL) day of meetings and events. Here's a photo showing just a small part of the display areas, where you can find someone selling just about anything that swims. How would you like your kampachi?

photo: a small part of the seafood displays at the Boston Seafood Show

I did my part, talking about how to fix problem fisheries. Then the whirlwind began with a cocktail party, dinner, and a desert party. Meetings and discussions with drinks and seafood, reay getting down to shared goals and agendas. I truly coudn't believe it I walked out of the fancy desert party at 11:35pm. The ice cream was out of this world, to say nothing of the dinner at the sushi restaurant. Can you spell t-o-r-o? Am I excommunicated yet?

Attending this meeting is a trip for a conservationist, because the focus is on fish as seafood, not fish as part of an ocean ecosystem. Is there a place for seafood in our future oceans? I think so, and so does this crowd. Can environmentalists buy in to the concept? We'll see.

A couple of lessons. Farmed fish is more and more important, and conservationsits are going to have to figure out how to live with farmed fish. International perspectives are essential, because fish are shipped across jurisdictional boundaries and it's no good to think about what happens in one country in isolation. Finally, seafood is yummy, and our solutions have to bear that in mind...just say no to seafood is a tough sell.

Tweet

Is organic food safer?

Buying organic food does not ensure that the food is safe. It might be contaminated with--for example--salmonella. But organic food buyers expect more from organic food. What this means is that a safety problem with organic food probably undermines the value of organic food even more than safety issues affect non-organic food.

This is an important point for us advocates of sustainability. We're only addressing one of the qualities that make food "good" when we talk about sustainbility, and probably not one of the most important qualities in the minds of consumers.

If sustainable seafood turns out to be lousy seafood, then we have a BIG problem.

Seafood consumers want good seafood. That includes quality, reliability, safety, sustainability, and price-price-price. Single issue certifications have value, like the Marine Stewardship Council sustainability label. But I once heard a major seafood buyer complain: "I can buy MSC-certified seafood that is rotten, so what good is the MSC label?"

MSC is not about freshness, but the buyer has a good point. In fact, I think freshness problems are especially important for seafood that is supposed to carry a special value like sustainability.

So this turns into an open question...how can sustainability advocates unite sustainability with other issues like safety? If we don't have a good answer, then we may hit problems like the story below about organic peanut butter.

The New York Times story that prompted me to write this post tells a chilling tale about a consumer choosing safe peanut butter over organic peanut butter. It starts with a description of the food value of the contaminated peanut butter that's been much in the news recently:

The plants in Texas and Georgia that were sending out contaminated peanut butter and ground peanut products had something else besides rodent infestation, mold and bird droppings. They also had federal organic certification.

Has this problem affected buyers of organic food? Here's one personal story, again from the New York Times:

Meanwhile, consumers remain perplexed about which food to buy and which labels assure safer and better-tasting food.

Emily Wyckoff, who lives in Buffalo, buys local food and cooks from scratch as much as possible. Although she still buys organic milk and organic peanut butter for her three children, the organic label means less to her these days — especially when it comes to processed food in packages like crackers and cookies.

I want to care, but you have to draw the line,” she said.

But the line stops when it comes to basic food safety.

Recently, a sign near the Peter Pan and Skippy at her local grocery store declared that those brands were safe from peanut contamination. There was no similar sign near her regular organic brand.

“I bought the national brand,” she said. “Isn’t that funny?”

That's an "ouch" moment for organic food.

Tweet

Red lists of seafood to avoid

Is a list of seafood to avoid a good way to save our oceans? Here's a quote from a Canadian who is working to protect fish and save our oceans, who has a sharp opinion on the question of do-not-eat lists:

“The do-not-eat lists are important, because they get people to think about what they are doing and what their actions result in. The hope would be that they result in meaningful moderation, but I think they are such small private statements that they will not work fast enough to stop the over-fishing of several species.”

Her name is Julie Pithers and here's a what Fast Forward Weekly has to say about her: Pithers played an active role in having shark fin soup removed from all Loblaws stores, the company that owns Superstore. A protest was set to be held at a Calgary Superstore against the grocery chain’s sale of shark fin, but just days prior, the Loblaws company distributed letters to protest organizers and other concerned patrons announcing the decision to remove the product from its stores.

Seems like she knows how to help save fish.

What do you think? What's the best way to make more seafood sustainable?

Tweet

Inhaling fear

You can't scare people away from smoking. That's the conclusion of a study talked up in a New York Times op ed today. So we're wasting a lot of money won in anti-smoking lawsuits, spent on futile scare stories that just happen to be true (smoke and you're gonna die, sucka!).

What does this have to do with fish?

We're using some similar scare stories in efforts to get people to stop eating unsustainable seafood (eat this fish and the ocean will die, sucka!). With a weaker pitch, it must be even less likely to work than the anti-smoking scare story.

Is there a lesson for save-the-fishes people in this story?

Tweet