YES, SAYS RANDY OLSON: Until There Is Effective Leadership, There Is Little Point in Making Sacrifices
I say we should not be expected to stop eating seafood until there is a clear strategy that will make use of individual efforts -- namely boycotts. Asking people to make sacrifices in the absence of organized efforts is asking them to make gestures that are more symbolic than real. That, in my opinion, is essentially religious behavior.
Let me describe a similar situation. I support in general the idea of a reasonably high tax burden in our society with the intention of funding an effective and well meaning government. But at the same time, if taxes are lowered, I'm not about to go ahead and pay a higher rate just because I believe in it, knowing it will make no difference. That's what I feel it's like to not eat shrimp when you see everyone else in our society doing it. At some level these large scale issues are a matter of government. As politically incorrect as it might be to tell consumers this, sometimes they and their meager "buying power" are meaningless if they aren't being organized into a major force.
At our Hollywood Ocean Night in 2004 we handed out the Blue Ocean Institute's Seafood Mini-guide. Many of my friends left that night, much better informed about the impending seafood problems, and ready to put their seafood cards to work. But by a year later they had thrown their cards away. They said that if they had heard any signals in the mass media that they were taking part in a nationwide effort that was making progress, they would have hung in there. But they didn't.
What are you supposed to tell them when you turn on the television and there's Red Lobster promoting its latest Shrimp Feast as if the oceans have endless supplies. And there is absolutely no opposing voice to be heard. I'm sure they are left with a certain amount of skepticism for the next time they are asked to make sacrifices for seafood.
The answer to this dilemma is exactly what our Shifting Baselines project was founded upon. We are today a mass media society. There are ways to use mass media to inform and alert the public of major problems. In the same way that the government attempts to preface any major political move (like starting a war) with a mass communications campaign intended to motivate the populace, environmental efforts ought to be accompanied by similar powerful mass communication.
But at this point I honestly don't know what to say to the world of ocean conservation when I look around and see all the "positive messaging," going on--specifically the Thank You Oceans PSA produced in California last fall that features beautiful shots of pristine oceans, and the Keep Oceans Clean campaign from NOAA, NMFS, Environmental Defense, Disney and the Ad Council that produces movie posters of the Little Mermaid characters smiling and looking healthy. These campaigns are using visual media to send messages, and the messages they are sending are that the oceans are a fun, happy, healthy place today, which doesn't quite square with the thousands of beach closure days around the country.
It's like having your house on fire and instead of telling the people in your living room about the fire, you tell them how beautiful your house is in hopes they will want to see more of the house and discover the fire themselves on their own (believing that if they do this they will feel more personally connected to the issue of your house being on fire and want to fight it more aggressively).
There is a common belief that, "if you make people love a resource they will fight to defend it." Well... some of us witnessed how Jacques Cousteau in the 1960's made the entire world fall in love with the oceans. But that was the same ocean-loving world that brought the oceans to where they are today.
There are ways to communicate to the public that our oceans are in a terrible tailspin of decline. Bad news can be tempered with sincerity (the crying Native American PSA of the 70's) or even entertainment (our Jack Black PSA that scored over $10 million in free air time). But to present only images of happy, healthy, clean oceans? I don't get it. Nor do a lot of people who have sent me e-mails about these campaigns asking the same questions.
There are serious problems in the oceans. There exist ways to address them. The public is ready to take part. But they need to be led in a way that will build their trust. Asking them to stop eating Chilean Seabass (the only species I could offer up in 2004 when people asked about the "one thing" they could do), only to learn there is no national boycott campaign in the works, and then to have the MSC certify the South Georgian Chilean Seabass fishery as they did that year, and then see one of the top gourmet magazines pick Chilean Seabass as their Dish of the Year, and then to even today still see it for sale in my local supermarket...
Come on. Don't lie to the public. They're smarter than that.
NO, SAYS JENNIFER JACQUET: It's Time for a Global Strike from Seafood
When we talk about overfishing, we are really talking about overeating. More than 99% of fish extracted from the ocean is eaten (by humans or the animals we eat). Of pork, seafood, chicken, beef, and mutton--SEAFOOD ACCOUNTS FOR THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF FLESH EATEN GLOBALLY. The human appetite, a combination of population growth, sashimi, tuna noodle casserole, and shrimp gumbo, is at the root of the global fisheries crisis. It's time to go on a global diet.
America now consumes five times more fish than it did one hundred years ago. But the problem does not reside only within the boundaries of the U.S. Globally, per capita fish consumption and the human population has doubled since the 1960s. Global fisheries production has risen from 20 million tons in 1950 to more than 140 million tons today (Figure 1). How can marine fisheries feed the global appetite? They simply cannot. What to do?
These days, it's easy to make a statement and much harder to make a difference. The media encourages us to do so many things: to take action, contribute to social consciousness, broadcast the latest news, and to create our own entertainment. From MySpace, to iTunes, to FaceBook it's me, me, me. Last year, Time magazine voted "You" (Me) as Person of the Year. But even with this heightened status, nothing I do seems to make a difference. All individual behavior is engulfed at the national and then again at the global level. On an Earth of 6.5 billion people, how can one person's actions possibly matter?
The simple answer, and the one I espouse most often, is: they can't. But this simple answer is simply how the conscience justifies acts of hedonism. Individual behavior is still where any strong argument begins. Which is why, as someone committed to doing something about overfishing, I do not eat seafood.
For better or worse, I have not yet committed to being environmentally righteous (for the record: I drive and fly obscene distances, I often won't recycle a container if I have to wash it first, I use regular laundry detergent). But I have made my own small efforts to try not to add to the quickly shifting baselines in the ocean.
There are many good reasons not to eat fish: the issue of overfishing, the ethical issues that fish are wildlife and they feel pain, and the health reasons that fish often have high levels of contaminants. But Elton John put my reason best when he sang, "It's no sacrifice, no sacrifice, no sacrifice at all". It's the low-hanging fruit argument. The truth is, I actually enjoy seafood-less cuisine. It is easy to abstain.
The word sacrifice has religious connotations and, as Elton mentioned, this is no sacrifice. It is not religious. It is purely scientific. Global consumption of fish is causing a global collapse of fisheries. This is not a complex problem involving methane, CFCs, carbon emissions and ice core samples. We eat too many fish and therefore we catch too many fish. It's easy. Cutting back on consumption or, better yet, eliminating it altogether is the simplest solution to the global fisheries crisis.
During WWII, boats and their crews went to war rather than fishing. In their absence, fish populations in the North Sea rebounded. If those of us who eat seafood as a luxury could go on a global strike, perhaps we would see the same ecosystem response. The motto is simple: Reduce. Refuse. Restock.
Daniel Pauly often cautions that voicing my belief in seafood abstinence could place me "outside of the discussion". "You will hit a wall," he says. "And then to whom are you speaking?" But I am speaking to you. YouTube, Googlezon, Time magazine's person of the year. Turns out, you are important. Turns out, the first step to abate overfishing begins with you.
- Log in to post comments
I'm a marine scientist in the conservation policy world. Translation: I go out for dinner and friends order with trepidation.. "Can I get Chilean Sea Bass?" or "Atlantic salmon, is that the good kind?" I smile at the well-intended person across the table realizing he would not stop to consider such a decision in anyone else's company. I could take the staunch environmentalist approach. "No! Don't you know we're fishing down trophic levels?!" Now call me a pragmatist, but that seems a bit ridiculous. Instead, I acknowledge his thoughtful consideration of my profession and say "Order whatever you'd like, we both know that it's already dead on ice in the kitchen."
You see, while I agree with Jen that individual decisions do matter, a great big problem with environmentalists is that we are easily dismissed when mistaken for extremists. Yes, if everyone held hands and declared 'No More Seafood!' it would do something. But externalities like bycatch, run-off, ocean acidification, etc. exacerbate the problem to such extremes that my personal decision to eat fish now and then does not have enough of an impact to rationalize nixing something I enjoy. [Paging Garrett Hardin..] Am I contributing to the Tragedy of the Commons? Perhaps. But then, fish is healthy, tasty, and simple to cook.
When all those seafood buffets across the country transition to sustainable choices rather than piles of grouper and cod, I'll likely follow suit, but first and foremost, we need to get the message out. I see this as the most significant contribution to the cause I can personally make. As Randy suggests, it's about marketing. My best friend can tell me all the finalists on American Idol, but hasn't a notion that overfishing is a real issue. Mounds of colorful seafood at her local supermarket suggest otherwise. And more importantly, why should she care? Unless we do our part to make it personally relevant, she's justified feeling there are more important immediate things to worry about as she balances family and a budget.
I digress. We live in a world where we are faced with so many complex decisions. Until we wake everyone up to the fact that the oceans are in REAL BIG TROUBLE and WILL impact all of us, I'm not giving up Mccormick and Schmick's.
Randy's entry ends with the very reason why we just shouldn't eat seafood! Consumer decisions are wrought with conflict and misinformation. Can I order Patagonian Toothfish (the real name for Chilean Seabass....do you still want to eat it?) from this restaurant, do they know where it comes from?
Surprisingly, the people supplying our fish are often less informed than customers trying to order it. I once asked my server in Ontario if the salmon on the menu was wild, and he thought I was asking if it was alive! I abstained from salmon while in Ontario.
And like Sheril, I often have friends asking me what they should and should not eat. Like Randy, I mailed out all the seafood wallet cards I could get my hands on! Several of my facebook messages are now questions about fish - the mercury level in tuna, the issues with farmed salmon etc. I like that my friends can depend on me to give them an informed answer. But my responses of late have just been "no, don't eat it".
Although I love eating fish and seafood, I also love the ocean. I am slowly trying to lower my seafood consumption, with a personal ban on those species I know to be particularly unsustainable to either fish or to eat. Hopefully with this step by step approach I will fall in line with Jennifer's argument and just eliminate it all together.
And maybe it doesn't need to be an egocentric argument: whether or not my actions make a difference on a global scale. Maybe I should just stop eating fish and seafood because it's the right thing to do.
I do not eat seafood. EVER.
When I was younger, my family ate "fish sticks." I saw no resemblance between the rectangular pieces that came out of the oven and the finned friends that swim in the ocean. At four years old, I asked my mother, "What are fish sticks made of?"
Her reply: "Fish!"
Me: "Fish that swim?"
Her: "Yes, fish that swim."
And that is when I stopped eating seafood.
Albeit, today, as a graduate student in environmental science, my logic for not eating seafood is somewhat more advanced than simply liking the "fish that swim." Most people do not consider the impact their consumption choices have on the environment. For example, do people consider the fishing gear used (trawls, seines, etc.)? Do they think about the bycatch (non-target species incidentally caught) involved? I doubt it. With increasingly advanced technology, we are far from hook-and-line fishing or any minimal impact fishing.
Furthermore, mislabeling seafood is a quandary in itself. Companies label fish as "sustainable" or "ocean friendly" and people consume seafood with a warm-fuzzy feeling that they are not harming the environment. Does farmed fish have less impact than wild caught fish? It seems to change constantly. The labeling may not be much more than a marketing scheme, which is self-enabled as the consumers are often unaware of current fisheries/ocean issues and practices.
For example, you may buy furniture from IKEA labeled "Forest Stewardship Council certified wood," only to find out that China has been illegally logging and you may have contributed to the problem. Last week, MSNBC posted pictures of the forest in 2001 and 2005 for a drastic visual comparison. Unfortunately, the state of the ocean is not easily displayed and consequently, it is so easily neglected. If people could visualize the impact fishing has on the oceans, would they make a different consumption choice? Does it require mass-media attention?
I have moral qualms consuming seafood because I do not want to contribute to fisheries collapsing. Better to be safe than sorry.
The more I read about this, the more I consider giving up seafood (and coming from a family raised on things like crawfish and seafood gumbo, that's a big deal). Thanks for the education -- I'll get there!
Whether Jennifer's position on eating seafood is realistic or unrealistic, effective or ineffective, it is admirable for being CLEAR. However, like all rules, it does have exceptions. The version I was given: Thou shalt not eat any fish unless you catch it yourself.
The pocket guide to OK and not-OK seafood is a good idea, but difficult to implement given that truth-in-labeling is so elusive. I therefore suggest a simple rule for those who are unwiling to give up seafood entirely but wish to have less impact on the oceans: Thou shalt not eat any seafood unless you can swallow it whole. Now, this obviously produces all sorts of inconsistencies, but it is one place to start.
I am with Jennifer on this 100%.
Randy, it seems to me that "waiting to be organized into a major force" is precisely religious behaviour. Making a personal sacrifice for something you believe in is the opposite. The latter is what should we ought to encourage more than ever in today's society.
Waiting to make a personal decision until there is a large enough group doing it, in order to validate it, dooms the outcome of that personal decision to failure. How will anything ever be achieved if the recommendation is inaction?
Jennifer:
For shame! I don't have any of those vile habits. So ... I guess it's OK for me to eat fish, right?
I'm not suggesting being oblivious to the issues and not trying to make reasonably intelligent choices, but there are problems with damned near everything we eat and otherwise consume. Short of raising my own tofudalope for "meat" and jute to make my clothing, I can't avoid all the problems. I see little sense in something like a blanket personal prohibition on seafood. It might make me feel virtuous, but that's about it.
But assuming I did ban seafood from my diet, what then? Chicken? Problems there for sure. Pork? Same thing. Become a vegetarian or a vegan? Not willing to go that far, but even if I were, the issue would become "organic." Well, not enough of that to go around if very many people switched.
I suspect I could even come up with a decent argument that demanding the more acceptable varieties of seafood would have more of an effect than a personal boycott.
I think I'll go make a cup of fair-trade-certified shade-grown certified-organic coffee. I wouldn't drink anything else ...
The recent Florida fake seafood stories have convinced me that most people can't tell what they're eating, and I put myself in that category. I simply order aquaculture products like tilapia or catfish (avoiding salmon because of the sea louse issue) instead of wild-caught fish at a restaurant and don't feel like I'm giving up anything. The fact that I order tilapia when others are pontificating about the delicious wild-caught salmon tends to make for some interesting conversations as well.
Ahoy There!Good point, Brother George Dyson. At least the one about "Thou shalt not eat any fish unless you catch it yourself."Brethren of the Coast would also extend this rule to wild land animals, if not for all land animals, wild or domestic, modifying "catch it yourself" to at least "participate in the kill and process of it yourself."Brethren of the Coast would modify your second "Thou shalt not...." to "Thou shalt not eat any wild seafood that is not caught by yourself on a single handheld line with single circle hook."JL
Let's face it. The human race is quickly ruining this planet in almost every way possible. So, your arguments against eating fish are valid, and so are the arguments against eating meat (even worse imho), driving a car, having air conditioning, using airplanes, ad infinitum.
We live in a consumer based capitalistic system. I can't believe how apathetic the younger generation is to all of these problems. The planet they are inheriting gets worse every day. What will it be like for their grandchildren (if the human race is not extinct by then). But most people, and to me most distressingly, most people in the generation of say 18 to 30, worry more about shopping and clubbing than having a good planet to live on.
It think it's great that at least some of us try to remain aware of the damage being done to earth, and make our own personal attempts to lessen the overall problem. Think Globally, Act Locally is a saying that has been around for a long time, and it remains true to this day. Too bad there are a lot of people that will not see the light until it is too late.
Several of the opinions expressed in these essays and comments bring to mind the old asage that "The perfect is the enemy of the good." That is, someone can always complain that the action you take does not completely solve the problem. That may well be true but it is not an excuse for throwing up your hands and doing nothing.
My dear friend Dr. Olson suggests that abstaining from seafood is futile because everybody else is still eating it. On a practical level he's right -- what I personally consume makes virtually no difference whatever to the global footprint (unless I happen to be, for example, Kim Jong Il pounding down the tens of thousands of bottles of Chivas regal he allegedly orders each year). But there is another important level. I submit that one's personal habits are important in a zen sort of way in preparing you psychologically and setting an example of living right in the world, enabling you to make a believable argument to others, and in getting accustomed to sacrifice. In girding one's loins for battle, so to speak. Because the world will have to make sacrifices eventually, whether they are chosen or ultimately forced upon us by our complacency.
The other side of this coin, and this is where I agree with Randy, is that personal action doesn't count for jack unless you can amplify it into something that makes a real impact on some part of the world. So don't just pass on the shrimp -- write your congressperson! Get the message out in creative ways, as Randy is doing! Individuals really can make a difference.
But, oh yes, this was about seafood. Personally, I've turned more to tilapia. It ain't tuna, that's for sure. But I get this glowy good karma when I eat it. And (are you ready for this?), according to Lester brown of the Earth Resources Institute (see his excellent book "Plan B"), chicken can actually be *more* resource efficient than some types of agriculturally intensive plant foods, like soybeans (that of course doesn't take into account the horrific conditions under which these animals live). Nothing is easy. But that doesn't relieve us from the necessity of dealing with these problems.
The Natural Patriot
In order to form a more perfect union
Regarding the actions being "more symbolic than real" "in the absence of organized efforts," I don't think that's entirely true. While the actions may not carry the same political weight, the end result of reducing the demand for seafood, which is really the main goal, can still be accomplished without any centralized organization.
And politically, it certainly helps to not appear as a hypocrite. It's a little difficult to look credible in asking people to cut back on seafood consumption, if you're regularly going out to eat at Red Lobster.
I agree to Jennifer in just saying "no" to seafood. And it's based on the same reasoning. I don't really like seafood, so it's easy for me. For years I tried to like seafood because I was told it was healthier and better for animals if I ate seafood. But it never caught on.
Does it make me feel warm and fuzzy? Not really. But it does make me sigh in relief when contemplating a menu and glancing at the seafood selections.
A few weeks ago I joined some friends for Mongolian Barbecue. When the waitress came to the table I asked her where the shrimp came from. After checking with the kitchen she reported back, and though I no longer remember her answer I do remember that she asked me why I wanted to know. I talked briefly about overfishing, habitat degradation and bycatch, then pulled out my seafood watch card. I offered it to her and showed her how to read it. She actually exclaimed: "I'm so glad I asked!" and promised to talk to her chef.
Maybe one person can't make a difference, but I still believe that one person talking to one person talking to one person can. What else do we have?
That being said, I do have a bone to pick with the seafood watch cards (sorry Monterrey Bay Aquarium). I carry the cards in my bag, I hand them out, I ask where my fish comes from. But I recently received the 2007 version in the mail and noticed that tuna is listed 17 different times! Mahi mahi, which used to be listed in two categories (best and good alternatives), is now listed five different times and in all three categories (best, good and avoid). I understand that fisheries are complicated and that where a fish comes from and how it's caught determines its sustainability rating. But if we design our educational materials in such a way that we make them impractical and unfeasible to use, then we've made it impossible to create a movement. People can't get behind a campaign if there's no clear campaign to get behind. There's nothing catchy about: "Don't eat albacore tuna worldwide if it's caught by Longline unless it's Hawaii Longline." But "No more seafood" is also not a realistic campaign. My vote: save the excessive detail for the policy makers and give consumers (and suppliers) clear choices.
As someone else pointed. We have a problem. Thanks for the article. I thought I was informed, until I read this. Can you believe me that I was completely unaware of this problem? Sure, I knew about the rain forest. Sure, about the dangers of red meat...
So, what are the options we have? Does anyone know what can I eat which affects the less? Veggy??
Randy,
I would not normally be openly critical of anyone who is working in their own way for conservation. But since you were (http://scienceblogs.com/shiftingbaselines/), I must say I thought your blog posting--about whether we should continue eating fish--was just awful.
The debate you want to have about should we eat seafood or eat no seafood, is simplistic, and behind the times. It's not an either/or question. The idea of getting people to shop for sustainably produced items as a way of shifting market pressures does not rely on boycotts. Those of us who know how to do boycotts know how expensive, labor-intensive, surgical, and most of all selective they need to be to succeed.
If anyone thinks no one is listening to consumers who are using the personal responsibility you so denigrate please direct your attention to WalMart; the behemoth has pledged 100% sustainable sourcing in 5 years. Whether they can or will is not the point, the point is that markets are responding to needs they perceive, because there are now enough consumers trying to lead by doing the right thing to be noticed by companies who (unlike you, it might seem) care about their image and want to be seen acting responsibly�if only to protect their market share from new niche competitors who are coming up in the rear-view mirror.
Saying that everyone who is working to make a difference is "lying to the public" is itself the lie and not worthy of further comment. The idea that you should keep indiscriminately slurping shrimp until "someone shows leadership" is not only oxymoronic; it's just moronic.
Meanwhile, fish sellers are feeling consumer pressure and the U.S. Congress recently passed amendments to federal fisheries law that actually improved, built on, and strengthened the Fisheries Conservation Act of 1996. These improvements were brought to fruition by people who don't just wait for leadership, but actually provide it. (That's why it's called leading; it's not called waiting.)
Gandhi didn't say, "If you want change in the world just keep doing what everyone else is doing until a messiah arrives." He said, "If you want to see change in the world, be that change."
Finally, you should cut the denigration of other efforts and other profile-raising work that happens not to be yours. There are enough bad people doing enough bad things worth criticizing. Yes we have big problems. But other people are working on change with some notable success. We all know that other efforts haven't solved all the problems; your Shifting Baselines project has not solved the problems either.
C
I agree that there needs to be a mass-media, global movement to reduce the consumption of fish.
But I do not think Randy has given enough credit to the power of example. If someone you love or greatly admire has stopped eating fish, it makes it easier to do yourself, or at least creates an opportunity to spread awareness about the problem of overfishing.
I don't eat fish. The reasoning behind this is simple to me. I can't be involved in the destruction of an environment that is important to me in both intellectually and emotionally. And that is where my argument begins and ends. I am fairly sure my contribution will not be able to turn the tide but when there are too few fish left to warrant large-scale fishing, I want to know that it was not my appetite that brought them to that point. Self-righteous perhaps, but these are the choices I make in order to be able to live with myself.
I think this is a political issue, not a social issue.
You know, I see a few people here beating up on Randy about his viewpoints, but I have to say that I mostly agree with him. I truly believe in the power of the government (mostly State, but Federal as well) to create regulations and laws that drive consumer spending. They do it all the time when it comes to interest rates, the stock exchange, etc. Why isn't there more government regulation of the fish market?
I don't see much of a use in not eating fish as long as the current administration is creating the laws, although I will admit that I don't buy shrimp any more (hard to defend bottom-trawling no matter who's the president).
Overall though, I think most people are in agreement that this issue needs to be solved politically. Eating seafood, and fishing in general are too woven into the fabric of our society and human-nature to change. As long as fish can be bought on every street corner, and as long as it is still cheap, people will buy it and eat it, no matter how bad the environmental movement says the problem is. The common perception is, "if the government lets me do it, then it must be okay."
Every society since the beginning of man has eaten fish, in fact there are a few very mainstream theories circulating throughout anthropology about whether upright walking, hairless bodies, and fat reserves on humans evolved because of early humanity's fondness for the water.
A universal cultural trait is too hard for individuals to stop. We have to start blaming our governments for the loss of animals/habitat, the stripping of electric mass transit, the persistence of gasoline-powered engines, the increase in greenhouse gases, etc. Some issues are too large for society alone to tackle. That's what big government was created for.
Thank you Randy and Jennifer for a thought-provoking, honest discussion!
"Try all of Soylent's delicious flavors: Soylent red, Soylent yellow, and new, delicious, Soylent green. Made from the finest undersea growth."
-- Soylent Green (1973)
I agree with Scott, and think Jennifer is being hypocritical too. She admittedly is non-environmentally friendly in certain aspects out of what appears to be pure laziness, despite being informed of those issues (I mean really, it takes 2 seconds to rinse out a milk carton). And yet we're supposed to follow her pet cause just because she seems to care about it more than the others? A global boycott isn't what's necessary - personal responsibility is. I love sushi and treat myself from time to time - I also don't own a car and walk/bike/take mass transit anywhere I need to go. Does my contribution to the reduction in carbon emissions offset the few pounds of fish I eat in a year? Does Jennifer's contribution to the reduction of fishing offset her "obscene" amounts of fossil fuels burned? Do our combined efforts balance out? Who can tell? Maybe a wider understanding of environmental consciousness in general is what is necessary, and each of us, adapting to our own lifestyles and supporting our pet causes, will lower our collective environmental impact. Nobody can do it all themselves.
And nobody's even mentioned the environtmental tox studies that detect all sorts of pharmaceuticals that make their way to our planet's water supply. It's really quite frightening. Every drug researchers have looked for, they've found. Does that mean that next time you have a headache you should suffer through it so it's a few less milligrams of acetominophen altering the ecosystem? That's a question only you can answer.
Randy and Jennifer,
I'm not giving up seafood for one simple reason...I refuse to concede seafood to the !$%@&*&#$%%^$# who did the damage. I LOVE seafood and I LOVE oceans, and I plan to eat seafood as part of my personal ritual of connection to the ocean.
In fact, one of my favorite times to eat seafood is right before I go argue with somebody about saving fish. I'm a marine conservationist and part of the reason why is that I want to be able to eat my clients without feeling guilty.
I try to eat sustainable seafood, hopefully something that I caught myself or bought from local sources. But that doesn't always work out and sometimes I find myself going for something not fully sustainable. Check out http://blogfishx.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-ate-coho-salmon.html for a bit more on this.
So I think Jennifer's answer is a little too pure and holy for me, and Randy's seems a bit lazy. You guys both have great ideals, but your seafood positions seem a bit weak. Advocacy is harder than it looks.
Mark
Here's my extraordinary, reasonable, compromise proposal to help reduce the international consumption of seafoods, while not having to sacrifice anything myself. (If you really think about the matter, I suspect that most of you will find this deeply offensive and I suggest that thus reveals something interesting about the hyocrisy that's often involved in these sorts of discussions): the idea is to just raise tariffs, taxes and so on to the point where only people like my (wealthy Italian) family will be able to indulge in this glorious extravagance. In this manner, poor people who live in coastal areas and depend on seafood as their only nutritional source will eventually disappear. Small-time fisherman will be out of business or have to consoidate into large comngolomerates that will continue to serve the folks who want to eat fish.
Hmm....now that I think of it, this is exactly what would happen under any other sort of proposal!! Boycotting seafood will only hurt small-scale fisherman and an out them out of business. The price will rise. The rich will eat seafood and the poor will starve. Ban seafood and the buisness will go inevitably go to the blackmarket.
What idiotic nonsense!! Seafood is a indispensable staple of the human diet in so many parts of world that attempting to chahcnge it would be like attempting to stop lions from eating carabou.
Mark, I don't mean to get into a personal battle here, but if Jennifer's position is too pure, and Randy's is too lazy, then yours is just absurd. While those of us that are fully informed about the state of the ocean continue to eat fish and seafood that are unsustainably caught, the oceans don't stand a chance. I guess that means you'll continue to have a job though, and maybe that's your underlying motive. Then you can continue to fight with people about saving fish because it's the people like you that keep the oceans in their dependent state. They wouldn't need ocean conservationists if we would just leave them alone.
Megan's post contains a rather naive idea about how the oceans would fare if we simply stopped fishing. As far as influencing and profoundly changing the shape of marine ecosystems (not to mention all others), that ship has sailed. If we simply tied up all our fishing boats and walked away from the docks, hoping the ocean will heal itself and return to some Eden-like state in which everything lives in balance, that may actually be a really stupid approach. The point is, our activities in and around and the oceans have so greatly affected marine ecosystems that we have a better chance of preserving whats left and perhaps stabilizing these dynamic equilibria by paying close attention, practicing good science and management, and, in some cases, extracting resources. For example, a recent paper by the late Ransom Myers suggests that the population of cownose rays has exploded in Chesapeake Bay because the large sharks that eat them have been killed off by humans. The rays now seem to be devouring much of the oysters and other bivalves that are their natural food items, and in time all levels of this food chain could suffer. Its a cascade effect. So do we simply throw up our hands and say Well, we messed things up by fishing out the sharks, so lets just leave it alone and walk away? or do we perhaps fish for the cownose rays so that all trophic levels can perhaps rebound in time?
Yes, it can be arrogant and naive to assume that science and management are the answer, especially after so many stories of failure and mismanagement and plundering the Earth. But its also naive to assume that if we stopped fishing that everything would be back to normal.
The common prevailing thought from prominent fisheries scientists around the world is that managing fisheries is about managing people. The fish can take care of themselves. I have no naive notions of a state of Eden. I am a fisheries economist, and understand the importance of fisheries management. But if things were really well-managed, we wouldn't need conservationists. I certainly don't believe that we don't need managers. Any "conservationist's" goals should in fact get us to a sustainable fisheries state where conservation isn't needed because our practices are inherently sustainable. Preaching sustainability, as Mark suggests he does, while practicing unwise seafood consumption, is counteractive to the very goals conservationists seek.
Megan (& Randy & Jennifer),
Tell me how your approach(es) will change the world. If Megan and Jennifer stop eating seafood, that's very nice. But will a billion other people follow you? How will you make that happen? Will you mount a campaign to tell them about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and why they should join you? And why do you think your campaign will work?
Randy, how will you find your Cesar Chavez? Wait until he finds you?
The nitty gritty of change is not a proud speech from atop a soapbox---it's what you do when you come down.
Mark Powell
I think that's why Jennifer, myself, and others do what we do. It is our actions on the ground that matter, not what we preach to the masses. I'm not foolish enough to think that my individual actions will change the world. But that's not my goal. My goal is to ensure that I am not contributing to the very problems I am working to solve. I can't think of a much more perverse waste of time.
Megan,
Conservation advocacy seems to be the great hobby of nearly everyone who studies fish or fisheries. I guess it's one endeavor that requires no expertise.
Things were simpler when I was a brain surgeon, at least I got less advice from armchair experts.
Mark
I certainly do not consider myself an expert. We know so little about the oceans that it seems wise to stick with the "better safe than sorry" mantra. I think it's important to remember that we are all working towards the same goals (or at least I think we are...). Hopefully Randy's, Jennifer's, your, my, etc viewpoints and opinions of how things should be done aren't mutually exclusive. If individuals continue to make better decisions, as Jennifer, Emily, James, Linette et al. suggest, and groups continue to fight for collective action, as Randy and Ty promote, and scientists continue to communicate the plight of the oceans, like Carl does, then ideally we can tackle these issues from all sides.
Some people might disagree, Megan, that abstaining from seafood is a more responsible or less "perverse" thing to do than selectively eating certain species, even on a personal level or in actions on the ground terms. There is a pleasing neatness, practical simplicity, and moral clarity to the decision to boycott the entire seafood industry, but that doesnt mean it is ultimately better for fish populations or less perverse than the actions of Mark Powell or others who selectively eat certain marine species while campaigning for their survival. In other words, hypocrisy may feel worse, but the important issue is marine ecosystems, not individual egos or feelings. If we were all hunter-gatherers, maybe things would be that simple because cause-and-effect relationships would be easier to quantify and we wouldnt have to ponder the intricacies of our roles in a global marketplace.
Opting to support a fishery that targets a stable resource or fishes in a more sustainable way, instead of withdrawing all economic support from all fisheries, may actually help steer things in the right direction. For example, someone could understand that supporting a certain sector within a larger fisherysuch as the small bottom longliners (hook boats) that catch haddock and cod off Cape Cod without tearing up the habitatby buying their fish rather than the haddock and cod caught by trawlers might do more to steer things in the right direction than simply abstaining from eating those fish altogether. It could be better for the future of the oceans if people spent their money on the right sectors or the right fisheries rather than removing themselves entirely from the economic equation. Especially when billions of people and several exploding economies are more than happy to take your spot in the marketplace.
It is very true that if you are perceived as an extremist you will not be taken seriously. This is why it is important not to force your views on others. Anyone can eat, wear, or generally consume anything they want in my presence. That does not preclude me from having my own opinions however, and I will continue to quietly exercise my choice to not consume fish or meat products despite the reality that these choices do not make a global, national, provincial, or even municipal difference. Why should I deprive myself of food I love or take pains to find non-exploitative clothing when I know how futile it is? Because I hope that I can quietly be a role model for my friends and family. People will know that I am making an effort, and when they are ready to join me, in whatever capacity they feel comfortable, they will. If no one acts, then there is no movement to join. If you are passionate about an issue, but are discouraged about the magnitude of the projected accomplishments, I encourage you to act anyways. There is always the chance that you will inspire someone with greater drive, greater resources, or greater contacts that you have.
Posted to blogfish
http://blogfishx.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Should ocean lovers eat seafood?
Seems a bit of a silly question, but hey, why not weigh in at the new shifting baselines blog, where Randy Olson has turned over the reins to Jennifer Jacquet.
These two heavyweights have done a point-counterpoint thing on seafood ethics. Blogfish finds both sides wanting, and I've popped off down around comment 22 or something like that.
Jennifer just says no to seafood, and she thinks you should too although she doesn't push too hard. Randy says yes to seafood, at least until saying no can be part of a mass happening. Hmmm...they both seem to be missing the point.
I'll eat seafood and try to save the oceans that produce seafood. If I give up on seafood, then I'm giving up my ocean and I'm not going to do that. I say keep eating seafood, stay connected and engaged with the ocean and the ocean creatures that stir your soul (they must or you wouldn't be here). And then, so fortified with the right stuff, go forth and save the ocean.
I won't be satisfied with something so trivial as making a statement with refusing to eat. Seafood anorexia doesn't seem like a powerful statement, it's more like hiding in a cave and hoping really hard that things get better. No thanks.
In reply to Carl Safina
Recent successes in ocean conservation are great, but hardly sufficient to justify business as usual. Big success in ocean conservation requires change that is monumental, on a scale equal to the social movements of the 1960s and 70s (you mentioned Ghandi for several reasons I think). The challenge today is how do you get large numbers of people to care about ocean issues when environment is not a daily worry, like security and economy? Part of the answer lies in effective use of MASS MEDIA. If Shifting Baselines (Randy) is critical about how others communicate ocean issues its because the needs are great and the failures huge. Yes, we need the efforts of everyone working in their own ways, but we also need some high risk efforts with the potential for high returns. Unfortunately, we have 1001 environmental groups who largely communicate to maintain their mailing lists - to survive they have to communicate in ways that are risk-averse. As a result, the oceans suffer.
Regarding leadership, or the lack of leadership, the ocean community (and science in general) surfers painfully from not having spokespeople who are trusted national celebrities. Im not talking about famous actors who take on environmental issues, but accomplished scientists who can speak for the oceans modern-day Jacque Cousteaus or Rachel Carsons. Why we don't have such spokespeople is another topic, but related to how the media enviornment has changed in the last 25 years, and how scientists and environmental groups have not.
A couple things that I noticed have not been mentioned at all here. I don't relish playing devil's advocate, but someone needs to.
-- What are you going to do about all the doctors who are recommending that everyone eat more fish, for low fat diets, for reducing cholesterol levels, and for the benefits to neural development in fetuses and growing children?
-- What are you going to do about the many other nations that consume much more seafood than we Americans do? Especially the Japanese, who seem to be determined to exploit almost every major fishery in the world.
Changing American eating habits will hardly put a dent in world-wide seafood consumption.
The cause is worthy, but without massive, properly framed publicity and probably government actions here and around the world, there's unlikely to be any noticeable effects on the continuing decline of world fisheries.
When people become aware - whether it is that little voice that speaks to you or an article that you have read calling your attention to the subject - you should be compelled to do your part. You are justified in referring to this response as religious. Stewardship of our oceans is a not-for-profit cause - quite the contrary - and we need to be its disciples.
I went into Whole Foods the other day and they had the Chilean bass (?) for sale $25. bucks a lb. I asked the man behind the counter "Hey, I thought that was forbidden now"...He said oh no, they got it all worked out so it's fine to buy it now. ?????
as Randy Olson says, positive messaging is only half of the truth. actually, for more detail on this look at laelaps and the funny Simpsons video he has:
http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/to-consume-or-not-to-consume-fi…
Hey Randy, you're sounding a lot like Tony there after he and one of the Seafood Watch people got into arguing at the California Oceans Conference last September. BTW was that your work in the April National Geographic?
I've seen the Chilean sea bass AND orange roughy at Whole Foods, and supposedly they're getting MSC cert for orange roughy. That's sketchy. After reading the National Geographic article about bluefin, I was just ANGRY, like bile-welling-in-throat angry. If people can refrain from fur, dolphin-unsafe tuna, beluga caviar and milk-fed veal, people can refrain from bluefin tuna, chilean seabass, and roughy. But there needs to be some major media exposure and some serious lobbying to dislodge the fishing interests. MSC cert for chilean sea bass smacks of acquiesing to some insider lobbying.
I'm vegetarian, and while I'm more than happy if people give up seafood, I also know it's not happening soon. Yes, doctors are going around telling people to eat fish because its healthy, so why aren't we trying harder to get more tilapia out there as the "healthy choice"? More farmed oysters and clams? Giving people responsible options? There is good aquacultured seafood, and getting everyone from corporations to subsistance fishermen/persons to cut down on bycatch needs to be a priority, and if that increases the costs of seafood, then that needs to be part of the equation. Stop subsidizing fleets around the globe, and stop subsidizing the growth of "cash crop" carnivore aquaculture in developing nations.
We all have our work cut out for us, and no one has the perfect approach. We'll never make any progress without a balanced approach, and we won't accomplish anything without our eyes on the prize, even if it's not entirely realistic. But everyone has to make a sacrifice, however small because our entitlement problem and unwillingness to make any sacrifice is what got us into this mess in the first place.
thanks for sharing
I'm vegetarian, and while I'm more than happy if people give up seafood, I also know it's not happening soon. Yes, doctors are going around telling people to eat fish because its healthy, so why aren't we trying harder to get more tilapia out there as the "healthy choice"? More farmed oysters and clams?
A couple things that I noticed have not been mentioned at all here. I don't relish playing devil's advocate, but someone needs to. -- What are you going to do about all the doctors who are recommending that everyone eat more fish, for low fat diets, for reducing cholesterol levels, and for the benefits to neural development in fetuses and growing children? -- What are you going to do about the many other nations that consume much more seafood than we Americans do? Especially the Japanese, who seem to be determined to exploit almost every major fishery in the world.
I agree I just doctors.. :)
hi
Furthermore, mislabeling seafood is a quandary in itself. Companies label fish as "sustainable" or "ocean friendly" and people consume seafood with a warm-fuzzy feeling that they are not harming the environment. Does farmed fish have less impact than wild caught fish? It seems to change constantly. The labeling may not be much more than a marketing scheme, which is self-enabled as the consumers are often unaware of current fisheries/ocean issues and practices
thanks for this.good
Animals are friends of human beings to kill animals is a crime, we should stop them, I support the author.
Changing American eating habits will hardly put a dent in world-wide seafood consumption.
The other side of this coin, and this is where I agree with Randy, is that personal action doesn't count for jack unless you can amplify it into something that makes a real impact on some part of the world. So don't just pass on the shrimp -- write your congressperson! Get the message out in creative ways, as Randy is doing! Individuals really can make a difference.
I digress. We live in a world where we are faced with so many complex decisions. Until we wake everyone up to the fact that the oceans are in REAL BIG TROUBLE and WILL impact all of us, I'm not giving up Mccormick and Schmick's.
beautifull and probably equally priced, can I get them as a gift pretty please
I'm not sure what to think when it comes to seafood. We all need to be more responsible, but many fish contain toxins and such cause it collects in their cells over time and stays there. Of course those toxins are mainly our fault too.
went into Whole Foods the other day and they had the Chilean bass (?) for sale $25. bucks a lb. I asked the man behind the counter "Hey, I thought that was forbidden now"...He said oh no, they got it all worked out so it's fine to buy it now
teÅekkürler ellerine saÄlık
The challenge today is how do you get large numbers of people to care about ocean issues when environment is not a daily worry..
hi Furthermore, mislabeling seafood is a quandary in itself. Companies label fish as "sustainable" or "ocean friendly" and people consume seafood with a warm-fuzzy feeling that they are not harming the environment. Does farmed fish have less impact than wild caught fish? It seems to change constantly. The labeling may not be much more than a marketing scheme, which is self-enabled as the consumers are often unaware of current fisheries/ocean issues and practices
hi Furthermore, mislabeling seafood is a quandary in itself. Companies label fish as "sustainable" or "ocean friendly" and people consume seafood with a warm-fuzzy feeling that they are not harming the environment. Does farmed fish have less impact than wild caught fish? It seems to change constantly. The labeling may not be much more than a marketing scheme, which is self-enabled as the consumers are often unaware of current fisheries/ocean issues and practices thank...
yeÅilçam dilber ay
In other words, hypocrisy may feel worse, but the important issue is marine ecosystems, not individual egos or feelings. If we were all hunter-gatherers, maybe things would be that simple because cause-and-effect relationships would be easier to quantify and we wouldnt have to ponder the intricacies of our roles in a global marketplace.
I agree with Randy, is that personal action doesn't count for jack unless you can amplify it into something that makes a real impact on some part of the world. So don't just pass on the shrimp -- write your congressperson! Get the message out in creative ways, as Randy is doing! Individuals really can make a difference.