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.

A year without socks.

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!

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?"

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

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