A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.

I was asked yesterday if I was comfortable being part of a social movement. I wasn't sure what that really meant. I always considered what I and my company do as part of a community movement- a sort of build it and they will come model of social change. So, I responded with an emphatic "I guess so."

The fact is that while I wish to see political and social changes that align the world with a more holistic view of food, community and the environment, I have never felt confident that organizations could effectuate this change without in some way co-opting the vision.

I feel deeply that our relationships to food and each other need to change. My way to effectuate this change has been to speak about and encourage the consumption of sustainable seafood and sustainable food in general. I support local communities and ignore large industrial food concerns. My hope has been that these efforts will motivate others to do the same, just as I am motivated when I see or hear about others doing work similar to mine. A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.

I keep thinking about the "social movement" question though. I realized that in fact the time may very well be right for social movements. The current economic conditions have and will continue to have drastic effects on people's lives, including impacting whole communities. Economic recovery seems unlikely to be quick and when it does come it will be limited. Thus, a large part of America is now re-evaluating what success will mean and what is most important to them. Do we pay the mortgage on the McMansion or invest in our kids education? Do we eat at Burger king or cook a healthy meal for ourselves? Do we invite our neighbors to share a community garden or do we buy peppers from Holland? In this context, and with sufficient awareness, I believe "social movements" can have tremendous impacts on people's lives today.

As Grouch Marx said, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." So while I would still be a reluctant member of a social movement, I sure would like to see the world change in such a way that we can all eat better while enhancing our sense of community.

So sure, I am comfortable being a part of a social movement. I do not however want to abandon my personal connections to people and the planet. I suspect that that in a "movement" there is success and failure, while in personal interactions the actual relationship is the success.

Pesticides and Toxins: We take a stand!

We are now partnering with Environne (http://www.vegiwash.com/) to offer an effective way to remove pesticide residues from fruits and vegetables.

The risk from pesticide and other contaminants is very real, especially for children, pregnant women and those over sixty.

Recent findings of chemical and pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables are disturbing. A new study in the journal Pediatrics associates exposure to pesticides with cases of ADHD in the U.S. and Canada. The fact is we simply do not know all the risks of exposure to these contaminants, but all evidence is that they are serious and cumulative.

In addition to pesticides from fruits and vegetables we also know that chemical exposure is potentially even greater from a variety of plastics and packaging. These exposures have been shown to cause reproductive abnormalities amongst other health issues.

The chart below lists the "dirty dozen" of contaminated fruits and vegetables. The best bet is to purchase the most highly contaminated items in organic form, but when this is not possible due to cost or supply reasons, the use of the Environne wash is the best way to minimize contaminant exposure. Note that it is a good idea to wash even organic vegetables for a variety of reasons, including mishandling and false labeling of non-organic products.

I have often mentioned the risks from contaminants in seafood. A recent research report however has shown that heavy metals and toxins beyond anyone's imagination has been found even in remote areas of the oceans in whales. "These contaminants, I think, are threatening the human food supply. They certainly are threatening the whales and the other animals that live in the ocean," said biologist Roger Payne, founder and president of Ocean Alliance, the research and conservation group that produced the report.

It is difficult at best to choose safe seafood, but it is safe to assume all predatory seafood is contaminated, and that virtually all wild seafood carries at least minimal contamination. The chart below may help and can be viewed at: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694.

Please don't let the seemingly pervasive exposure to chemical contaminants deter your efforts to eat and stay healthy. I firmly believe that you can make a difference by eating food you know from people you trust!

The end of lobster: Who cares?

Over the summer it will be decided whether to close the southeast New England lobster fishery to permit lobster populations to rebuild.

The lobster population in the southern portion of its range has been on a dramatic decline for some time now for no conclusive reason. My guess from reading the scientific papers is is a combination of environmental pollution, ocean warming and ocean acidification. Either way, the lobsters are disappearing and those that are left are often affected by shell disease- not pretty and definitely not something you want to see on your plate.

In discussing the appropriateness of closing the lobster fishery to deal with this problem, two related issues jump up: (1) Since no one is suggesting that overfishing is causing this problem, why will stopping fishing help? and (2) If any of the usual suspects are at play (pollution, temperature and acidification), how will closing the fishery deal with these underlying causes?

The fact is that most likely lobster in its southern is done for without dramatic changes to environmental policy. I had one person suggest that with this being the case, and if the lobsters are really done for, why even bother protecting them? This question reflects a pretty common opinion actually.

So many people I meet with hear the dire conditions our ocean fisheries are in and they wonder why they should make the "right" choice and eat only sustainable seafood and support limited fishing when everyone else continues to enjoy all that great Chilean Seabass and Bluefin tuna? This view reflects a sense of hopelessness and a live for the moment attitude created by the complete domination of industrialized fishing/agri-business as supported by our own government that has tainted our entire food supply system.

Well the fact is that we can make a difference by supporting sustainable food producers and companies like ours that do the right thing. It may be a small difference now, but think back a few years ago when the Prius was an oddity on our roads- proof that people doing the right thing can have a real impact.

My hope is that closing the lobster fishery is the right thing and will bring two benefits: (1) Permit research into what is causing the severe population decline so that it does not spread to other areas; and (2) Highlighting how fragile our marine resources are.

I am deeply saddened by the state of the lobster population, as I it has been such a big part of my diet for a long time. I hope that the fact that yet another iconic species is disappearing from our tables will encourage us all to reflect on what we eat and make choices that reflect a commitment to saving our planet and oceans. In the mean time, we need to be cognizant that we may be the last generation that enjoys lobster and so many other species unless we take a stand by supporting those fighting the good fight.

Generation Next: Us?

Link to Article: http://www.litchfieldfarms.net/Images/SeaFood%20Business%20Article.pdf/

The June 2010 cover story of Seafood Business Magazine is entitled "Generation Next." This article highlights our company and two others that each have slightly different views of sustainability yet share a common "passion for high-quality seafood that consumers can trust - and that benefits the harvesters and producers."

I am glad that we are recognized as part of the next generation of fishmongers, yet I think the article also highlights that we are also very unique.

Our uniqueness is premised on our recognition of the fact that mankind has never been able to manage a wild species as a sustainable food source; and seafood is no exception. Failure to recognize the inherent impossibility of managing wild ocean species for food reflects an industry and governmental bias and campaign to support the seafood industry at the expense of our oceans health.

One of the other companies highlighted in the article asserts that "[w]e need to support the fisheries that are making responsible decisions and leading the recovery." This assertion accepts the false assumption that there can be a recovery. The notion of recovery in wild fisheries is nurtured and furthered by various NGOs that are adjuncts to industrialized fishing and the governmental agencies that support commercial fishing. There simply can be no "recovery." We can protect various wild species in the short term, however such efforts merely slow the inevitable demise of commercial fisheries. Seafood is a finite resource and so long as we continue to increase commercial harvests the resource will be depleted. As over 75% of world species are either in a state of collapse or severely depleted, and the remainder are at the limits of their ability to survive, the only way to even approach a "recovery" is to dramatically reduce fishing pressures, i.e., cease virtually all large scale commercial fishing. We need to make hard choices if we wish to preserve ocean resources for future generations. The choices currently promoted only slow the eventual demise of all now know commercial species.

Another of the companies highlighted supports a NGO and governmental model that accepts that "[m]ost of our [United States] stocks are not overfished and the American public should know that." This belief is based on the concept of managed commercial fishery stocks that measures its success by how much fish is available for harvest. Once a species is fished to the edge of extinction it is no longer considered a commercial species by NOAA and the NGOs, so claims of a managed sustainable commercial fishery are self fulfilling to large extent. Thus, any claims of success in managing domestic commercial species fails to account for all the species that have been fished past the point of commercial viability. It is easy to claim success in fish management when the failed efforts of the past just disappear- sort of like having an "A" average in school while all the "F"s are not counted in the grading. The chart below highlights the overfished species of New England with a graphic for the cod harvest- a species that has been managed for decades. How does this reconcile with the often repeated mantra that US species are well managed and safe to eat?

The true future for "Generation Next" is for us to all reduce our seafood consumption; and what fish we do eat must reflect cultural values by supporting sustainable aquaculture and local family fishermen. This is the essence of cultural sustainability and I hope you will join me in supporting this vision- for the sake of the planet and future generations.