Has Seafood Turned the Tide? Nope.

In a column posted in The Huffington Post, Julie Packard, daughter of David and Lucile Packard, founders of the Packard Foundation, says the health of the world's seafood resources is improving.

This is simply not accurate. Julie Packard and the Monterey Bay Aquarium have partnered with the industry they seek to hold to the fire. I am sure they feel this is the best way to effectuate change, however this approach is based on poor science that is used to justify the continuation of wild fisheries as an industry.

The future of seafood is to preserve wild resources at all cost so that we maintain the ocean ecosystems for future generations and as the sole protein source for so many communities in developing nations.

The exploitation of the seas by pollution and abuse of marine populations must cease. The validation of this continued exploitation by the Monterey Bay Aquarium and other NGOs, albeit in a milder form, does not resolve the risk we have placed our planet.

In sum, I have accepted the following to be true:

1.Wild seafood is not sustainable and never will be until we manage ocean resources in a holistic manner;
2. Eating seafood with high mercury and PCBs levels makes no sense from a public health point;
3.We need to manage the oceans with no fishing zones and other techniques that preserve our ocean resources;
4. Ocean resources must first be allocated to communities that have no other sources of protein;
5.We need to develop well managed aquaculture that reduces overall global pollutants when evaluated in the context of global agricultur e/aquacult ure.

The ocean is currently the last frontier of global abuse by pollution and environmental exploitation. We need to abandon the romantic view of the fisherman just as we abandoned the romantic view of the frontiersman that wiped out the buffalo. My company only supports artisanal producers and harvesters- and so should us all.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-packard/turning-the-tide-for-seaf_b_323992.html

Summer Caught Up with Me

Sorry for the lack of updates to the blog; the summer was a busy one with the roll out of our new Community Supported Fisheries Program and our Local Fish Initiative. Developing this program has really brought some of the real issues that prevent a coherent and rational approach to sustainable seafood. Our foundational concept, Cultural Sustainability, exists to support local communities. These communities though have long traditions that must be addressed. Often these traditions involve the exploitation of the ocean and the environment. We are working with local fishermen and communities to preserve our ocean resources as well as make a lasting connection to consumers. My feeling is that while many current fishermen will make the adjustment to "right" path- what we really need is a new generation of fishermen that see marine resources as one to protected not as a birth right to be exploited. I see this happening now, but recognize our work will hard for the foreseeable future.

Greenpeace recognizes our approach is needed.

Greenpece recently issues two evaluations of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Friends of the Sea (FOS) certification programs. They wrote:

A variety of seafood certification schemes have developed over the past decade, all claiming that the fish that they certify have been sustainably caught or farmed and that they are the best option for consumers to purchase.

Greenpeace is of the opinion that no fully credible certification system for sustainable wild-caught seafood currently exists. So far, the challenges facing our oceans are far from being tackled and the fundamental principles of precaution and ecosystem approach are not yet incorporated into fisheries management.

This has been our message for more than the past three years. Most of the certification programs out there are just marketing tools for the seafood industry. Their greatest value is often the data they can provide to help us preform our own internal evaluations of the subject fishery.

I believe we need a drastic overhaul seafood management that encompasses all marine resources. Absent that, I truly believe we will only do more harm than good by supporting third party certifiers that fail to take the "world" view. This includes addressing food safety issues such as inspection and contaminants.

My company is the only voice that rejects the blatantly manipulative efforts by the seafood industry to come off as sustainable and "green." Until the essential issues are addressed we must avoid all wild fisheries, with the exception of program like our new Community Supported Fisheries Program that supports artisanal fishermen that only use best practices. We must also avoid all aquacultured fish unless they are fully traceable and document and assure best practices.

Brief Response to Mark Bittman Article

Quite a few folks have contacted me for my comments on the Mark Bittman article in the New York Times on June 10, 2009 entitled " Loving Fish, This Time with the Fish in Mind." So here they are.

1. Essentially Mark Bittman makes the following points:

a. wild fisheries are at risk, with only a few species not yet depleted;

b. the NGO guidance on which species are "best" choices is essentially contradictory;

c. farmed fish, except for some mollusks, often have negative environmental impacts;

d. in the future, farmed fish will be a good option, but not quite yet; and

e. the strategy he adopts to address his concerns is to eat less fish; try to eat only some farmed species and the few wild species he deems abundant; and to constantly re-evaluate.

2. I think Mark's comments are fairy accurate and in line with my views. I deeply question a few of his assumptions, however, including:

a. Mark assumes you can have a sustainable wild capture commercial fishery. I am not sure this is the case on anything but an artisanal level. By encouraging the consumption of more abundant species like mackerel, anchovy and herring Mark is contributing to the exploitation of all species by supporting a failed wild fisheries management scheme. The correct position is to drastically reduce or eliminate wild seafood consumption of all species.

b. Mark seems to assume that somehow aquaculture will improve its practices despite his avoidance of farmed fish. The reality is that without consumer acceptance and pressure, aquaculture will never adopt best practices. The reason we have such wide acceptance of hybrid cars is because early adopters proved there was a market for these cars which encouraged the manufacturers to offer more hybrid options. We must all support aquaculture, however this support should be limited only to those producers that adopt and encourage those practices that respect the environment and the food we eat.

c. Mark suggests eating less fish is a good idea. Why? If he doesn't have fish on his plate, what will take its place? If its beef, pork or chicken, that decision will have a much greater negative impact on the environment than eating aquacultured/farmed seafood. Aquaculture generates less greenhouse gas emissions, uses less water resources and causes less environmental pollution than agriculture. If you care about fish and the environment the solution is to eat less red meat and wild fish and more aquacultured fish and seafood.

So I guess that sums up my initial thoughts. What do you think?

Carbon Footprint of Aquacultured Seafood

I have often thought of the carbon footprint of our products. I have calculated the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to ship all our products, but my research has shown that this makes up just 11-15% of the life cycle GHG emissions.  Fully 83% of GHG emissions is believed to be from the production side rather than the shipping side of food, including seafood.  Red meat, for example,  is 150% more GHG intensive than fish and chicken.  

While I support "buying local" I have also supported artisanal producers wherever they are. The current research supports my belief that it is not just local that matters, but the broader food production scheme. I will continue to seek a reduction in the carbon footprint of our products, though it is good to know that my business model supports a food chain that is dramatically better for the planet than reliance on traditional agra-business. 

California Wild Salmon Closure- the "wild" myth

The recent closure highlights of the Pacific Salmon fisheries in California has been blamed on two major factors: (1) ocean conditions and (2) hatchery fish. The former is not easily addressed, the later is.

Recent studies indicate that as much of 90% of the California salmon are from hatcheries.  Studies have stated that these fish lack the genetic diversity necessary to deal with the natural changes in the marine environment. 

Keep in mind that hatcheries are simply fish farms.  When you hear the endless promotion of wild pacific salmon when up to 70% of Alaskan and 90% of California "wild" salmon are genetically selected and farmed raised hatchery fish it makes you question the integrity of the wild capture fisheries industry and their regulators.

Alaska claims it does not permit fish farms in its waters, yet its state supported hatchery (read fish farm) program is one of the largest.

The time has come to stop the nonsense and be honest with the consumer.  Tax dollars should not be wasted on supporting an ecologically unsupportable industry. Let's leave wild salmon in the sea and manage aquacultured salmon operations so that they are safe and environmentally responsible.

Is fish feed a red herring in debate on aquacultured fish?

One of the oft repeated indictments of aquacultured fish is that the feeds utilized to grow out the carnivorous species use a lot of other marine species as the source of fish meal and oils.  I acknowledge the goal of reducing the baitfish component of fish feeds is a good one, I believe the issue is overstated in the context of favoring wild capture seafood to aquacultured fish.

I personally feel we need to curtail the consumption of wild species in favor of sustainable aquacultured seafood.  Yet, many who take the opposing view and urge the consumption of wild capture fish at the same time criticize the harvest of bait fish for fish meal and oils for aquacultured fish. So let's take a closer look at the issue.

The most common fish used in fish meals are sardines, anchovies, mackerels and herrings. These "forage" species are some of the links between plankton and the upper level predators.  These species are obviously near the base of the food pyramid in the seas.  These species also recover their populations fairly quickly and have been put forth as an alternative source of table food by some commentators (although many of these species make very poor table fare).

These forage fish are represent 40% of all wild harvest fisheries.  So if these fish were left in the sea what would be the net gain to the other 60% of the wild capture fisheries that so many urge us to eat?  The issue comes down to efficiencies: are the bait fish better utilized in the sea or as feeds?  I think the answer is feeds- preferably fish feeds not poultry and hog feeds.

Aquacultured fish have pretty impressive conversion ratios of feeds, typically approaching 1:1.  This is because farmed fish are raised in a controlled environment to yield the most finished fish per economic input.  Wild fish on the other hand spend a lot of time searching for food, fighting disease and stress, and reproducing.  This makes the amount of forage species necessary to grow out a wild fish three to ten times greater than growing out the same species in farmed environment.  Add in the forage fish consumed by the unwanted by-catch of wild capture fisheries, and the efficiencies are even less.  By some estimates aquacultured fish are fifty times more efficient utilizers of forage fish than wild fisheries.

This issue is not nearly as simple as many make it out to be.  The issue also has relatively less relevance if the principals of Cultural Sustainability are adhered to, especially the limitations on the consumption of wild capture fish.

NGOs and Fishery Managers are not the enemy

In getting feedback on some of my posts, I realize some folks who do not know me well may get the wrong impression.  I respect the work of the NGOs and Fishery Managers.  I do feel they are doing a disservice to marine resource management, but I attribute this to the the faulty assumptions and goals of wild fisheries management that has been institutionalized by various treaties and regulatory schemes.

The reason any one even manages marine fisheries is to make sure there are commercially exploitable stocks of seafood.  So it is all about business and explains why the National Marine Fishery Service is part of the Department of Commerce.  The NGOs have forced the fishery managers to taker a broader view (which is good), but the goal of that view is still to maintain commercial stocks.  So the NGOs are working in the context of what I view to be a broken and ineffective management scheme for marine resources.

I am advocating and guiding my company by the principal that the marine ecosystem and environment must be managed as a whole.  I value the preservation of species and respect the needs of various communities to utilize marine resources.  This utilization must be ethically grounded and socially responsible.

I remain eager and committed to working with all constituencies to preserve seafood as a culturally appropriate part of our cuisine so long as the the marine resource is preserved and managed for future generations.

Why are so many managed wild fisheries in collapse?

Virtually all wild fisheries are at capacity or overfished, many to collapse.  The majority of these fisheries are or were under some form of management- so what gives?  Ignoring the fact that many fishery management schemes are either poorly enforced or unenforceable, there is is one overarching and fundamental flaw that would make fishery management as currently practiced ineffective even in an ideal global enforcement regimen: MSY.

MSY is the abbreviation for Maximum Sustainable Yield.  MSY reflects the the largest yield/catch that can be taken from a species' stock over an indefinite period.  Reliance on MSY is based on several erroneous assumptions, including: (1) fish and ocean systems are infinitely resilient; (2) it reflects an agricultural malleability of  species that is not reflective of wild species; (3) it presumes science and technology can effectively model and evaluate dynamic wild ecosystems; (4) it assumes there is a "surplus" population of fish; and (5) its assumes a free market in seafood where falling efficiencies would be reflected in a switch to other enterprises. In fact none of these assumptions are true, and the the result is the only way to determine MSY is to "fish though" this level to an overfished condition.  Thus, it is no surprise virtually all fisheries are at this state.  

Applying MSY (or its recent variant Optimum Sustainable Yield) marine managers are using flawed science to focus on individual fish rather than focus on the overall impact of fishing of fishing on ocean ecosystems. This needs to stop, however, this will require political and legal change as MSY is incorporated into most marine fishery legislation and treaties.

My efforts at espousing and advocating Cultural Sustainability will hopefully be a first step in changing the way we view and manage our ocean and marine resources.

Non-Governmental Organizations and Sustainability

NGOs recognize that the utilization of ocean resources needs to be “sustainable.”  Thus, they apply the sustainability principles derived from agriculture and resource management, but fail to acknowledge that marine fisheries are essentially wildlife, not managed input-output based systems. Entities such as Seafood Watch, Blue Ocean Institute, Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace advocate a sustainability scheme that is intended to preserve marine resources and the environment by recommending the harvest and consumption of “green” species and discouraging the consumption of “red” species and when they are not sure they accept the “yellow” species as acceptable alternatives.  This methodology does not recognize the relationship of species in the ecosystem.  The seafood they recommend may very well be the prey of the fish wish to protect, thus we (man) become competitors with the fish we wish to protect for the same resource. 

The rise of eco-labels such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) highlights the conflict. The MSC label was developed by Unilver and the WWF to certify marine fisheries as sustainable.  The label is de rigor with corporate interests such as McDonalds, Walmart, Target and Whole Foods. MSC is essentially an industry sponsored program that values commercial species over ecosystems and ignores the essential element of sustainability—man. Thus, wild capture fisheries are accepted as good (a commercial fisheries perspective) and aquaculture is bad (an environmentalists perspective).  The NGO movement is the unseemly union of environmental and commercial interests in which each camp claims it is doing its part for the long-term sustainability of marine fisheries. But, the sustainable movement is an agricultural/environmental movement not a wildlife management tool. 

Flawed assumptions lead to flawed efforts.  The NGO alliance has supported the MSC initiatives.  These have included certification of the Patagonia Toothfish (Chilean Seabass) fishery, which sustained a challenge to certification despite the overwhelming evidence this fishery is threatened; the Alaskan Pollock fishery- a leading supplier to McDonalds and now the subject of a rigorous challenge by Greenpeace; and the wild Alaskan salmon fishery which relies on hatcheries for up to 70% of the so called “wild” catch. The MSC is now seeking to certify tuna fisheries because of the tremendous demand by the tuna industry for the MSC label of approval.  To lead the tuna certification efforts the MSC hired the head of a tuna company.

The NGOs have also made a mockery of sustainability standards.  Whole Foods recently received a passing grade for its efforts to support sustainable seafood with a 47% score from Greenpeace.  Yes, 47% was considered passing.  Whole Foods sells 16 of 21 red listed fish on the Greepeace recognized seafood list. Whole Foods had the highest score. Other top scorers were Target and Walmart. Further, the Environmental Defense Fund has no problem supporting fisheries that their own safety recommendations are recognized health risks due to mercury and PCB.

 It is undisputed that virtually 100% of all wild capture fisheries are at or beyond sustainable capacity.  The NGO recommendations in light of this fact: eat more wild fish. Mark Bittman in a recent New York Times article suggest those that can afford the at risk species should support “sustainable” wild fisheries and the rest of us should eat more common wild fish such as anchovies (currently viewed as sustainable despite endangered in some areas and collapsed in others), mackerel (green but high in mercury) and herring (the food for the rest of the fish). A very myopic view that still over-harvests top of the food chain species while encouraging consumption of  those very same species primary diet.

We need to acknowledge that industry insiders cannot manage fisheries. Common sense and objective analysis must be brought to bear on these problems. This is especially true in light of the international nature of the issues involved and the limited global coordination of fishery management efforts.

I support the articulated goals of the NGOs and marine fisheries management organizations, but I also recognize the system is flawed and needs to be repaired.  Failure to do so soon will mean the end of many species as we know them and the destruction of the cultural connection to the sea for many communities. 

Oppression of Labels

I was an early believer and adopter of the USDA Organic label.  I am a member of the Organic Trade Association and active in the organic, local and slow food movements. I am also disillusioned.  The USDA organic label has really been co-opted by agra-business. When I see "organic" pop tarts wrapped in the same packaging and with the same flavor and texture as the commodity pop tarts I just shake my head in disbelief.  I suspected that once the USDA got into the branding business it would mean trouble, but I had no idea the values I have always associated with the organic movement would be so completely transformed.  Today, I think the USDA organic label has minimal value.  The proof is as simple as picking up a package of organic anything and reading the label-- pretty much the same as any other product.  I still buy many organic products, but mainly out of hope rather than any real belief that they are better.

My feelings about the sustainability moniker is following the same path.  I have made sure our company has clearly articulated standards and beliefs-- just go to our Seafood page and click on "Sustainability: Beliefs and Standards" and you can read them. It seems however that whenever I try to elicit such standards and beliefs from other companies I get a blank stare.  I am afraid that today sustainable is a fairly meaningless term.  You really have to ask questions today- just be prepared for the answers as they may surprise you. 

I still hold onto my "organic" and "sustainable" values, but increasingly I am suspect of the use of these terms.

Cultural Sustainability

Over three years ago I developed the notion of "Cultural Sustainability."  This notion derived from my belief that food and resources are not mere commodities, but cultural icons and artifacts.  This concept guides our company in supporting sustainable aquaculture and agriculture, as well as artisanal wild capture fisheries.

The evidence is undisputed that wild fisheries world wide are either at capacity or in a state of collapse.  To preserve our marine resources we must vastly reduce our consumption of wild seafood.  In so doing, who should continue to have access to the limited wild capture seafood that is sustainable?  I believe these wild fish must be allocated to local populations that depend on wild capture fisheries for their survival, or to preserve cultural and community identity. Any other allocation of these at risk resources is ethically suspect. We must recognize and support the needs of the developing world while preserving local culture worldwide.  Of course, such cultural support is not unconditional.  For example, we should not support cultural traditions that do not respect the resource or other cultures.

Cultural Sustainability also accepts man as part of the ecological equation.  We need to manage the seas as we manage terrestrial resources.  Thus, as we have land use laws, we must have sea use laws.  We need national parks and game preserves under under the sea as much, if not more so, than on land. We also need farms and industry at sea.  These uses must be well managed and utilize best practices. 

Best practices at sea are those that are analogous to such terrestrial practices as organic or biodynamic or grass fed for livestock. We must hold all food chain producers to the same high environmental and social standards whether on land or at sea.  The evidence is that we should bias our food production to the sea though.  Aquaculture is more efficient  and has less environmental impact than land based agriculture.  This is because fish are more efficient feed converters and resultingly produce less waste.  Combine this fact with the health benefits of seafood and aquaculture shows real promise in providing the most sustainable sources of protein.

Cultural Sustainability reflects a world view that encourages cultural and ecological diversity and preserves marine resources for future generations.  I appreciate your support in bringing this message to market.