Observations: 2010 International Boston Seafood Show

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

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.

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.