Litchfield Farms Sustainable Seafood

Four Fish: The Fiction of the Fisherman as Herder

2010-10-21T08:59:00.000-07:00

"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

2010-08-25T07:03:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-07-16T06:04:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-07-14T10:46:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-07-11T05:37:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-07-05T08:17:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

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!

Buyer Beware-Sustainable Cod

2010-07-02T05:50:00.000-07:00

I recently met with Chef Sam Talbot (of recent Top Chef fame) to talk about sustainable seafood. He asked me about "Blackburn's Day Boat Cod"- a trademark used by Cleanfish to market cod from the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction on which it owns a seat. He was curious if it was the "real thing," i.e., truly day boat, rod and reel caught, and sustainable; and how it compared to our CSF cod.

I was really baffled on how to respond. The fact is that very little cod is caught with a rod and reel, most is caught with gill nets, trawls and longlines. What is sold as "hook and line" cod is generally from tub trawls- a form of long lining. And for "day boat" status, many of the smaller boats just go out for a day or two- the real issue is the nets and long lines they dropped may be out for longer periods.

If you watch the Cleanfish video (http://www.cleanfish.com/video_blackburn.html) on the cod it definitely leaves the impression all Blackburn's Day Boat Cod is caught by jigging with a rod and reel. This is pretty hard to believe, and even the fishermen on the video is fishing on a boat set up to gill net and run tub trawls. The video and the Cleanfish marketing materials also make clear that Cleanfish sits on the Gloucester Auction and buys off the auction floor. The sustainability claims for this product merely regurgitate the current marine fisheries regulations- essentially the Cleanfish claim is this cod is sustainable because it is caught legally under some pretty damn good regulations. Not very persuasive to me.

The fact is cod is still considered overfished, and overfishing is ongoing. This information is from the folks that still permit cod fishing. Go figure.

So what did I tell Sam? I told him that all I knew was that Blackburn's Day Boat Cod was part of Cleanfish's branding strategy, and that based on the company's own claims it came off the auction house floor. It is thus commodity cod that is part of the overall overfishing of the species, and not sustainable in my view.

I also told Sam that is why our CSF fish is so different. We buy directly from the boats and fishermen cooperatives not at the auction. We support small family owned boats and provide full traceability. When you buy our fish you have access directly to the fisherman or harvester. This traceability makes our fish more than a commodity, it makes it part of a food web that directly connects producers to consumers. This is essential if we wish to build a sustainable food network.

The fact remains though that even our support of local family fishermen must be balanced with the industry overfishing of cod and other species. I feel that we must support only our CSF fishermen and not the auction house fish that may come from industrial fishing fleets. I also feel this support must be limited as we all work together to eliminate industrial overfishing.

I will continue to work for a sustainable wild fishery that relies on direct connections to artisanal fishermen and communities and ceases the industrial exploitation of our marine resources. In so doing though, we must all be wary of sustainability claims that are designed to build market share and not encourage sustainable practices.

Buyer beware.

A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.

2010-06-30T06:59:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-06-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-06-14T06:09:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-06-10T06:12:00.000-07:00

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.

A year without socks.

2010-05-23T08:07:00.001-07:00

So this may be a little off topic, but it has been well over a year that I have not worn socks. I am not really sure why I have done this, so I have been pondering my accomplishment (if you can call it that).

I know that in many places on earth many folks don't even know what socks are not to mention shoes; but around my parts most people wear socks pretty regularly. So why stop wearing socks?

For me, I stopped wearing socks last spring for probably the same reason you wear shorts for the first time after a chilly winter. It felt good to feel the air and grass under foot. As spring turned to summer, I never really had the need to wear socks- so I didn't. Flip flops and my clogs served me well. When fall came, I thought for sure I might need socks, but I had become quite accustomed to not wearing socks. Taking care of my feet with essential oils and massage were such a part of my morning routine by then that I did not want to numb myself to the sensations and awareness going without socks had afforded me.

Now, a year later I realize that not wearing socks has truly affected my connection to the world. I now have to think about the weather and conditions I will face each day- which helps keep me grounded and aware. I also take care of my feet better as they are now part of the exposed self- like your face and hands. The care of my feet has really impacted how I care for my self as a whole.

I think most of us neglect that which we do not see or can easily avoid. Sort of like the mess in my closet versus the neatness of my public spaces at home. By not wearing socks, I consider a often neglected part of the body and in so doing I give thought to other parts of my body and health that are also usually kept covered- either by clothes or by our exterior self.

I have to admit not wearing socks has helped me eat better and pay greater attention to my overall health and appearance. So much good from such a small change.

BTW, did I mention I have also saved innumerable hours sorting socks when I do the laundry? Enough time saved to write this post and help save the planet....cool.

Mercury Update- thanks to the kids menu!

2010-04-27T18:49:00.000-07:00

I was reading the children's menu at the new restaurant AKA Bistro Lincoln (MA) after seeing some tweets on how unique it was. The children's menu at the restaurant includes: Hawaiian Poke (tuna cubes) and Cod (type and source unknown). I was surprised as both can be high in mercury and other environmental contaminants. Restaurant tuna has been found to average over 0.75 ppm- the EPA action level for mercury is 0.5 ppm. At 0.75 ppm a child would be digesting over three weeks of the EPA maximum mercury action level dosage of mercury. This does not seem like a good choice for a kids menu. Cod can have elevated levels of mercury as well, but generally less than tuna- although it often carries dioxins.

As a reminder to folks, I figured I would print this chart based on data from a recent study by scientists at the University of Nevada. This chart applies to adults, so you need to be extra conservative when considering children. Eat safe. Please.

"So, what makes you different?"

2010-04-16T08:05:00.000-07:00

I was recently at a conference and was asked this question in the context of how we compare to another "sustainable" seafood company, specifically CleanFish. I was a little baffled by the question, but I quickly realized that to many folks we appear to be similar companies when in fact we are very different. So I thought it may be useful it to highlight those differences.

First, we believe that no animal protein, including fish, are truly sustainable when compared to plant proteins. Growing beans (an excellent protein source) is much better for the planet and probably your health than raising cows, pigs, chickens and fish. As for wild fish it is pretty obviously that is a very unsustainable proposition. It is in the context of this belief that we believe and support "culturally sustainable" seafood. The fact is you should not be eating seafood every day, but seafood is appropriate to eat to maintain a connection to cultural cuisines and to support local communities. Other "sustainable" seafood companies are out to sell you as much fish as as possible wrapped in a feel good story- even though the story is a fiction in light of the realities of fish harvesting and farming.

So, first difference: we want you to eat less fish, but when you do eat it make sure it is the best it can be for the oceans and local communities; and of course, that you buy it from us or someone like us.

Second, we believe in traceability and accountability to the producer level. We are not about branding a product and story; we are about promoting folks that are doing the right thing. We want you to know who produces your food so that you can reach out and ask them (and us) questions so that you can make an educated decision on what you will eat and feed to your friends and family. Transparency builds trust and underlies your relationship with the food you eat. Other "sustainable" seafood companies are out to sell you fish that is branded to take advantage of the "green" movement and the desire of many folks to eat the "right" fish. The fact these "brands" are just green cover for agribusiness as usual should not be a surprise.

So, second difference: we want you to know where your food is from, who produced it and know that you can contact these producers to learn more about them and their fish.

Third, we believe in working with growers and harvesters to develop their businesses and to implement best practices. We actually go into the field to assist fishermen and farmers to bring the most sustainable fish possible to market- all while encouraging a living wage for families. Other "sustainable" seafood companies are often just fronts for industry seafood companies that are all about corporate profits not supporting communities and our planet. We know you can make a living doing the right thing, because we are; and we can continue to do so with your support.

So, third difference: we are part of social and economic change that helps communities and families make a living while doing the right thing for our food chain and the planet.

We are different from the other "sustainable" seafood companies in many ways not enumerated here. Our culture as a company is one that is based around holistic living and a well balanced lifestyle. We support our vendors, customers, investors and employees in achieving a balance in living a fulfilled and healthy life by creating a network of food that is not just an ingredient, but rather a cultural binding agent that joins us all together.

I guess the real difference from us and all the others that claim to do what we do is that we are true to ourselves, our values, and our community. I think that sums it up.

Observations: 2010 International Boston Seafood Show

2010-03-17T05:07:00.000-07:00

I just returned from a couple days at the largest seafood show in North America. It was nice to meet some old friends and to make a few new ones. I also made some observations.

First, the seafood show has food that is horrible. I usually attend the Fancy Food Show and a few other mainline food shows, and wow what a difference. At FMI I can live off the free samples! If I tried the same thing at the seafood show I would probably die. The majority of the offerings were either highly salted or fried (highly salted) prepared foods- essentially seafood for people who don't like seafood and prefer fast food. The seafood industry is using the Omega-3 message to market us trash food. What a shame that we are depleting our ocean resources so we can have "formed seafood sticks high in Omega-3s". Of course they fail to mention that these "seafood sticks" are high in fats, sodium, preservatives, mercury, PCBs and processed adjuncts. If we insisted that seafood products actually be healthy for you half the display companies at the seafood show would be gone and significant overfishing pressure would be gone as well.

Second, every fish marketed at the show had some sort of eco, green or sustainable marketing hook. The fact is if every fish could legitimately make these claims we would not be facing the commercial extinction of so many commercial fisheries. This was such baloney- it brings me to....

My third observation: "Brand & Bull." This is the new business model for many sustainable seafood companies. The idea is come up with a slick brand and marketing program for what is essentially a commodity fish, and then fabricate some feel good story that is long on consumer appeal and short on any facts to support the sustainable credentials of the fish. This approach will in the long run destroy credibility for sustainable seafood, if it hasn't already.

The more I work in this industry, the more convinced you need to work "outside" this industry to make a difference. At Litchfield Farms I have encouraged people to do a few things: (1) eat less wild fish- because if you don't they will all be gone; (2) support sustainable aquaculture- this means seafood that is raised with real sustainable practices; and (3) support seafood from producers you know (not brands) and make sure they are transparent and open. This is what we sell: a few wild species from our Community Supported Fisheries Program, aquacultured fish from folks that provide us all their sustainability data, and seafood marketed with full transparency as to who raised or produced the fish.

I am glad that we are making a difference- I wish we could do it faster, because I am afraid that every day we loose a local fisherman, and promote a faux brand that further depletes marine diversity. I am keeping the faith though.

The Ones That Got Away: The Decline of Local Seafood

2010-01-08T07:35:00.000-08:00

This is my response to the NY Times article: The Ones That Got Away: The Decline of Local Seafood, Dec. 11, 2009-

Two interesting and equally extreme points of view: (1) our seafood resources are robust and (2) it is a stretch that regional local subsistence economies can survive.

The facts only support one view, that is, wild marine fisheries are under siege. Any rebound in wild seafood populations reflect only the smallest first steps in what will be a decades long process to rebuild even a shadow of the bounty the seas once held. We must continue to restrict our consumption of wild seafood to rebuild the ocean eco-sytems and begin to better understand the effects of environmental toxins contained in seafood.

Furthermore, I truly believe all evidence is that local and regional sustenance fisheries can exist and are in fact the best way to allow local communities to maintain their cultural connection to the sea while permitting a limited harvest of recovering seafood species.

I was once a big supporter of Tim O'Shea and CleanFish, but when corporate success and meeting investor goals trumps the health of the planet and local communities, we need to question the motivation behind the eco-slogans. We must accept that globalization is rarely virtuous, it is an expression of economic Darwinism that will and does destroy local communities that rely on the sea for their survival.

My company has adopted the principal of "cultural sustainability" as its credo. We support local fisheries and communities by promoting responsibly caught and managed local fisheries. At the same time we encourage aquaculture as the highest and most environmentally friendly form of agriculture.

The future is not some globalized food system, it is local people producing food for their communities. We must remain connected to the sea, but we must do so in a non-industrial way that preserves communities and the oceans that constitute the majority of our planet.

Andrea Angera, GM
Litchfield Farms Organic & Natural
www.LitchfieldFarms.net

Has Seafood Turned the Tide? Nope.

2009-10-20T06:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Summer Caught Up with Me

2009-09-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-12T05:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-11T09:20:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-22T06:33:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-21T08:49:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-16T07:05:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-15T15:21:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-14T18:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-12T05:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-06T06:40:00.000-07:00

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.