Four Fish: The Fiction of the Fisherman as Herder

"Four Fish" by Paul Greenberg is one of the most balanced and thoughtful books addressing the issues involving wild fisheries and aquaculture. There is one suggestion by the author that I find troubling though: the idea that wild fisheries can be managed much as a shepherd manages her flock.

The fallacy of this suggestion is that one cannot manage wildlife like one manages domesticated livestock. With domesticated animals we control the genetics of the animals, their range, what they eat, how we manage their waste and how many we raise and harvest. Wild species simply cannot be managed this way. Wild species are part of an ecosystem and when we tinker with one element of the system we can cause untold consequences elsewhere in the system.

The image of the fisherman-herder may be a romantic one that appeals to the author's nostalgia of fishing the way it was, however it has no validity in wild fisheries management.

NYC Restaurant Week Hurts Sustainable Seafood

Restaurant week began as a great way to affordably introduce folks to some wonderful restaurants and chefs while boosting sales during some traditionally slow periods. Restaurant week was so successful it now is close to becoming "Restaurant Month!"

Seems like a good thing, right? Well not if you support sustainable seafood.

Restaurant week does bring in business, but with the current pricing scheme there is a lot of pressure on the restaurants to cut corners on food costs to make the program work out financially. This is especially true as many restaurant week diners do not rack up a very large liquor bill. This price pressure falls large on center of the plate proteins like seafood leading chefs to switch from higher quality and principled choices to less expensive options.

So, I have seen a dramatic drop off in our business during restaurant week (sorry weeks). Many chefs have been totally up front in telling me they just can't pay for sustainable seafood and hit their promotional pricing levels. Sad, but understandable on some level.

It used to be the restaurant week loss of business ended when restaurant week ended. This is no longer true. Chefs and restaurant owners have realized that during the restaurant week switch to unsustainable and less expensive fish that the customers just didn't care- they ate the fish and were happy. This begged the question: Why not just use the unsustainable seafood and reap higher mark-ups year round? And so it has come to be with many restaurants.

The fact is a sustainable fish and an unsustainable fish often taste exactly the same- often the unsustainable fish may even taste better. The benefit of sustainable seafood is most often not the eating experience but rather the benefits of lower toxins, healthy ecosystems, and a cleaner environment. Unfortunately these benefits get lost when the cheapest seafood choice wins.

I hope that those diners that support restaurant week hold the participating restaurants to task and ask the chef if the fish they are being served is sustainable. I also hope the restaurants and chefs recognize that their choices will decide whether our children will share in our seafood traditions.

Pollock and the Myth of Fisheries Management Science.

The US Department of Commerce under which marine fisheries are managed has just increased the quota for New England pollock from 6 million pounds to 36 million pounds. A six fold increase!

The reason given was that the original assessment of the species was wrong and that "new science" has shown that there are plenty more pollock than they thought. Of course intensive lobbying by industry and our elected representatives certainly helped in the ready acceptance of the "new science" by the Secretary of Commerce. [Off point: why are fish managed by the Commerce Department and not the Department of the Interior like buffalo or wolves? I bet you can guess!]

So how is it possible that the estimates for a marine fish population can be so terribly wrong? The simple reason: marine fisheries science is based on flawed assumptions, incomplete models and supported by inaccurate and incomplete sampling methodologies.

This fact is the 800 pound gorilla in the closet of marine fisheries management. The basic science underlying fisheries management was memorialized in treaties after WWII- the often cited "maximum sustainable yield" ("MSY"). This concept was at the time a hypothetical assumption based on the centuries old perception that the oceans were a limitless resource. In fact, the resource was vast, but certainly limited as we now know. Unfortunately the hypothetical MSY was already the treaty established standard in international marine fisheries management; and no one has been willing to change what has turned out to be the best possible formula for the commercial fishing industry.

Thus, for decades marine fisheries managers have been justifying and tweaking MSY to support the various fish quotas set-mostly with poor results. The mathematical models have gotten better for sure, however the ability to sample and evaluate fish populations in the wild has not not improved nearly as much. As we all know from basic computational science: "garbage in; garbage out." So that is where we are at with fisheries management- we are plugging in inaccurate and often blatantly wrong numbers into models that are incomplete and never fully validated. Result? Fishery science is largely guesswork that is only truly verifiable when a species disappears.

Disappearing, by the way, can happen on two levels when it comes to fish- ecologically and biologically. Ecological extinction has already occurred with blue fin tuna, that is, blue fin tuna no longer fulfill their role in the ecosystem as a dominant apex predator. Biological extinction has yet to catch up with blue fin tuna as evidenced by the fact that fishermen are still catching the fish and shipping it off to grace our sushi bars.

To illustrate the difference between biological and ecological extinction, picture there being five lions left in all of Africa- so there are still lions left, but are they performing their expected role in the ecosystem? My guess is many a zebra family will sleep easier if there were only five lions remaining that want them for dinner- in fact they will do more than just sleep!

By overfishing apex predators we dramatically alter the marine ecosystem in ways that overfishing prey fish would never do. And yes, as you probably recognize, most of our favorite fish to eat are higher up the food chain with the resulting disproportionate effects on the entire marine ecosystem. The chart above highlights the effects overfishing of predator fish has on the entire ecosystem. This graphic, while helpful in visualizing the effects of fishing, is not so easily modeled and even harder to quantify which is why marine fisheries managers have an impossible job.

Thus, the effects that marine fishing has is nearly impossible to model on a single species basis- which is exactly what marine fisheries managers attempt to do every day. There is no mystery then as to why marine fisheries management is a doomed enterprise and as a result our oceans will never be able to rebound from centuries of overfishing without a dramatic cessation of industrial fishing.

I note that fishing down the food chain is also problematic. It is not as simple as saying let's skip the tuna fishing and go for the sardines. In so doing we essentially flood the oceans with planktons and their jelly fish friends as the previously referenced chart highlights. This is not so good. Jelly fish are wreaking havoc in many local ecosystems with increasingly negative impacts. As for plankton, while at one level they absorb CO2 (good) they also increase ocean acidity (bad). This acidification of the ocean along with increasing water temperatures resulting from global warming will have devastating effects on many species- including many planktons! Furthermore, as plankton populations grow they will eventual transition from CO2 sinks (good) to CO2 emitters (bad). So overfishing has a link to global warming- who knew?

In sum, my guess is that a few years down the road we will again be reading headlines about the pollock fishery in New England-this time again restricting the catch limits. I pray that before this happens we recognize and address the urgent need to cease industrial scale fishing of the planet's most precious resources.

Don't talk dirty to me, and please, the truth!

I think we need to stop talking dirty. We need to talk water (not dirt) to improve our urban environment and effectuate change in our food sourcing.

Our urban centers all have excess industrial capacity since we have abandoned our manufacturing industries to China and elsewhere. These resources include waste systems, water systems, power infrastructure and distribution resources including rail, truck and seaborne.

Our urban centers also have large unemployed and underemployed populations. All hungry.

So what shall we do with these fallow resources?

I suggest aquaponics. It makes sense to change abandoned factories into farms by using existing aquaponic technologies to raise greens, vegetables and fish. These new "food plants" will leverage existing resources to feed local neighborhoods while providing the opportunity for displaced workers to learn new skills and become financially secure.

This is the way to reduce dependency on factory farming as it exists today, and to revitalize urban environments. This can be a tremendous win for our environment and our urban citizens.

Some may suggest that this system may be more expensive than current practices. This would be true only if the real costs are not considered. By converting abandoned industrial factories to "farms" we will reap many benefits, including: (1) revitalizing urban centers; (2) reducing shipping and other costs of delivery to key markets; (3) reduce drain on social programs by empowering whole new economic networks; (4) raise awareness of the benefits of eating healthy and local by connecting urban dwellers and their suburban kin to the food production system; and (5) reduce sprawl and green house emissions. This is not an all inclusive list of benefits, but illustrates the tremendous benefits that can be achieved with minimal investment.

Of course, these factory farms can turn into something not so good. The picture above is from a Chinese whitefish re-processing factory. The light tables are used to remove worms and other parasites. [Curiously, do you want food handled in a lab environment designed to remove parasites and worms?] One can easily imagine these new factory farms becoming co-opted by existing agribusiness with the result being the same low paying jobs and externalization of costs that plague current agricultural practices. China's seafood business is a fine example of this happening.

So the question is why buy fish that is shipped half way around the world and is recognized for its negative environmental impacts when we can raise our own aquaponic fish and greens right here where these foods will be consumed? Acknowledging we need to structure these new factory farms properly to realize all the potential benefits, would this not be a tremendous advantage to our nation socially, environmentally and economically?

Industry versus community. Same fish, our choice.

Sustainability, green and a new economy.

It seems that every industry is attempting laying claim to being "sustainable" and "green." Sounds good to me, however what does this actually mean and what will its effects be long term?

“Sustainable” is a reference to self-sustaining production, i.e., nature can replace that which is harvested. So when resources are consumed at rate in which they can be replenished, there is a sustainable balance. In essence more energy produced than consumed. "Green" is most often associated with being environmentally friendly although I think its original meaning was more aligned with a vision of feeding the world by agriculture. Either way both these terms have now come to mean something very different.

The seafood industry in which I toil has truly led the way in marketing itself as sustainable and green. With over 70% of wild fisheries overfished and the remainder at the limit of capacity, it is truly a feat of imagination to categorize any wild fishery as sustainable. Yet the seafood industry and its sycophant NGOs have created the perception in the market that wild fisheries are sustainable if only we pick the right species to overfish- sorry, I mean fish. The industry has also laid claim to being green as well. Factory freezer ships effectively take processing and packaging capabilities to the point of harvest thus minimizing shipping and other inefficiencies that would be "less green."

The seafood industry is not alone in its bogus and disingenuous claims to sustainability and being green. From green coal and petroleum, to the auto industry, to the plastics industry, to the agriculture industry, well to virtually all industries- being green and sustainable is the new bigger, better, faster and cheaper claims that once sold products.

Accepting that few industries are truly green and sustainable, could it be they are at least honestly working to be so? I suggest that it is unlikely. The reason being that achieving true sustainability and green status would dramatically transform our economy and negatively impact industry itself. In effect being green and sustainable would mean the dramatic restructuring of industry as it exists today.

If the seafood industry for example were to be truly sustainable, it would mean the end to industrialized wild fisheries. Yep, the seafood industry can become sustainable by ceasing to exist as we now know it. This transformation would mean the relocation of thousands of jobs and the end to many corporate seafood companies that harvest, process and sell wild harvested seafood. This will happen eventually when all the fish are gone, but my guess is that the seafood industry is in no rush to stop the music quite yet.

The example of the seafood industry is not unique. Some products are inherently not sustainable nor green. Walk down any aisle in the supermarket and just take a look at the vast array of packaging- can you say definitely not sustainable? Sure you bring your recycled shopping bags when you shop (which is good) but once you fill those bags with packaged goods whose environmental impacts dwarf the good you have done by not choosing paper or plastic you begin to confront the magnitude of the problem.

By embracing sustainability and being green, you are effectively rejecting the consumer economy that has been the mainstay of economic growth in the United States since WWII. You are saying no to hatchery raised Alaskan "wild" salmon and Fruit Loops and juice boxes. You are saying no to CAFO raised beef, pork and chicken. You are saying no to fruits and vegetables that are genetically modified, shipped half way around the world, and coated with pesticides and herbicides. You are saying yes to supporting local farmers and growing your own food. You are saying yes to making less money while living in a community that spends more time helping itself raise food and its children. You are saying you will skip the new television or car so that your water will be cleaner and your air safe. You will be taking responsibility for yourself, versus supporting a system that outsources the essentials of life in the name of efficiency and progress.

Sustainable and green are more than feel good marketing terms, they are at heart the battle cry for a new economy. Are you ready?

Genetically Modified Crops/Salmon-I'm a guinea pig.

The USDA chart below confirms the extent genetically modified crops now dominate the total plantings of cotton, soybeans, and corn in the United States. Sugar beets are not included in this chart, but GM sugar beets exceed 90% of the total plantings.

So it is safe to assume that pretty much anything with corn, soybeans and beet sugar you buy or eat has a great likelihood of containing GMO. All of these products have been minimally and unsatisfactorily studied for their effects on the environment and human health. No offense to guinea pigs, but I suspect I am being used as a lab animal for the testing of these unnatural crops- and I don't really like it.

Eating organically certified foods certainly is one way to avoid GM crops; but with word that up to 70% of Chinese certified organic crops are mis-labelled or mis-handled this not totally reassuring. Even in the United States, organic certification is based on independent certifiers and the honor system such that we really have no way to know for certain if the products they certify are truly GMO free.

There is evidence that GM soybeans is linked to fertility and infant mortality in hamsters (thank goodness I am a guinea pig!). It is also acknowledged that research on GMO is very limited because the seed companies like Monsanto and DuPont fund so many research programs and that studies critical of GMO may well end a researcher's grant winning career.

In seafood things are heading in the same direction with the FDA considering the approval of GM salmon. This is truly frightening based on the lack of knowledge base on how fish will evolve with genetic modifications and the complete lack of data to show these mutated fish will effect human and animal health.

The bottom line is genetically modified organisms, plant and animals, are terribly understudied from a safety point of view. There is simply no evidence that these genetic modifications will not have unintended consequences both in nature and in our bodies.

I am thus very suspect of this technology and the rush to commercialization. We have safe alternatives to feed the planet (non-GM plants) so why take this risk?

I am also deeply disturbed by the secrecy that GMO are developed and approved. This same secrecy is also carried into the area of labeling- why not label all GMO products as such and let consumers decide if they want them? Transparency should be the benchmark of any food source.

Let's continue genetic research, but let us move slowly in exposing an unknown population to the uncertain risks GMO represent. With many crops it is already too late and we are the guinea pigs. I pray the experiments go well- it means a lot to me and my family.

Independence Day: Thoughts on a New Revolution

I recently revisited the Freedom Trail in Boston as well as the battlefields of Lexington and Concord. It was an enjoyable reminder of how our country was founded by patriots who were united in their common opposition to restraints on trade and taxation by their legitimate government. These patriots took to smuggling, acts of civil disobedience and eventually armed rebellion-- largely to protect economic interests. (Sure, many came to the colonies for religious freedom, but that was not the reason for our rebellion.)

Since these United States of America were founded this country has certainly remained true to its valuation of freedom, and particularly economic freedom. In time however this underlying desire for economic freedom has somehow mutated into a desire for economic growth. This is not what our founding fathers envisioned. In fact, I believe our founding fathers would be ashamed and shocked by our subordination of personal and political freedoms to homeland security and economic growth.

Current policies across the broad spectrum of American society has been to place the interests of industry and finance above those of individual citizens. Regrettably, this now means we are exposed to an incredible array pesticides, toxins, antibiotics, GMO and chemicals all to support an industrial complex that few of us participate in and that cares nothing about us as individuals.

I know- we should all care about big corporations because they pay taxes, provide jobs, and their stocks constitute the currency of our retirement funds. These arguments are largely nonsense; pure manipulation by those that push for greater economic growth without constraint and at the expense of individual health and safety.

The greed of politicians and industry has caused the largest economic crisis in memory with the resulting destruction of wealth for the average pensioner since the Great Depression. Unemployment is hovering at 10% with working class unemployment much higher. What about all those taxes paid by big business? Well, big business uses the carrot of big tax revenues to get tax incentives and government subsidies every chance they get; and then have no problem walking away from the communities that helped them when it is easier and cheaper to do so.

Yes, I think we are now in a place very similar to our founding fathers.

We are taxed without representation as our government is largely in the hands of special interests and industry. We are being forced to participate in a global economy that values cheap consumerism over community and family. We are forced to take the bullet for unsustainable economic growth that will leave us isolated from our neighbors and ill from environmental poisons, all while we sit in front of our flat screen televisions eating processed foods and texting away on our iPhones. Yes indeed, I think we are much like our founding fathers absent the toys.

Of course, we brought this on ourselves. Our founding fathers risked everything to achieve independence. They designed a government that protected individual freedoms above all else and held governmental power in such low regard as to assure its authority was limited by dividing it amongst three independent branches. These three branches each drew their power from different sources and were self regulating.

Over time, we the people, traded our freedoms for a more centralized federal government that now runs rough shod over the states and our local communities all in the name of security and economic growth. So no wonder our food system has created the largest health crisis in history and we are banned from seeing the true impacts of the BP oil spill and our wars by government media censorship.

I have worked tirelessly to support local and sustainable foods, free of GMO, pesticides and other toxins and chemicals; foods that support local communities and often create the glue of these communities. This has embroiled me in a constant struggle against agri-business and governmental policy that values Monsanto's right to sell genetically modified seeds over my right to eat the foods I want without adulteration. I know I am not alone though.

I hope that on this Independence Day we recommit ourselves to the faith of our founding fathers. May we find the resolve and courage to rebel against the status quo and re-take our country so that real freedom will again flourish- the freedom to love, raise a family, share food that is safe and healthy, to establish communities that value individual rights and responsibilities, and to embrace liberty over possessions.

I am proud to be an American, there is no doubt. I live in a country that values liberty so much that it would fight a war against the most powerful nation in the world to govern itself in freedom. I feel I am doing the same by fighting our current system to make sure our communities and food system remain safe and strong. The struggle continues, and we are up to the task. Just check out the history books...enjoy this Independence Day!