Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Imagine a World Without Seafood for Supper -- It's Nearer Than You Think

By Andrew Purvis, The Observer UK. Posted April 29, 2009.


The majority of fish populations have been reduced by 70-95% -- and global demand keeps rising.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As I step off the train at Heysel, the vast art deco structure of the Palais du Centenaire rises like a cathedral. With its four soaring buttresses topped by statues, the Palais forms the centrepiece of the Parc des Expositions in Brussels, Belgium - a trade-fair complex built in the 1930s to commemorate a century of independence from the Netherlands. This is the temporary home of thousands of fish products from around the world as 23,000 delegates descend from 80 countries for the annual European Seafood Exposition - the world's largest seafood trade show and a grim reminder of man's dominion over the oceans.

"If I wanted people to understand the global fishing crisis, I would bring them here," says Sally Bailey, a marine program officer with the World Wide Fund for Nature, one of the more moderate NGOs combating the exploitation of the seas. Last year, one of the more militant groups - Greenpeace - managed to "close down" five exhibitors trading in critically endangered bluefin tuna, by deploying 80 activists to drape their stands in fishing nets, chain themselves to fixtures and put up banners that read: "Time and tuna are running out".

Their main target was the Mitsubishi Corporation, the Japanese car manufacturer that is also the world's largest tuna trader, controlling 60% of the market and accounting for 40% of all bluefin tuna imported into Japan from the Mediterranean. The other companies were Dongwon Industries (Korea), Moon Marine (Taiwan/ Singapore), Azzopardi Fisheries (Malta) and Ricardo Fuentes & Sons (Spain).

The day I am there, Greenpeace activists are stalking EU fisheries ministers and waiting for a chance to unfurl their banners - but the security guards thwart them. However, the gargantuan catch on display speaks for itself. At the stand run by the Sea Wealth Frozen Food Company of Thailand, the shelves are groaning with jauntily designed packets of frozen squid, surimi (minced fish) dumplings, spring rolls, samosas and deep-fried cones with shrimp tails poking out of them. In the next aisle, a frenetic chef is wok-frying prawns from Madagascar, dipping them in little square dishes of cumin, coriander, chilli powder, salt, cinnamon and garlic. At the Taiwan Pavilion, the cabinets are full of chilled and frozen tilapia, barramundi, sushi, eel and vacuum packs of tobiko - orange flying-fish roe, salty, crunchy as granola and served by a young woman in national dress who literally has not heard of sustainability. "All the boats are out there catching fish with roe," she tells me. "With so many after the same species, this is a very difficult business for us."

These halls take several hours to negotiate, and the stands seemingly go on forever - 1,650 businesses in all, together peddling most of the 147m tonnes of seafood produced globally every year. Of this, 100m tonnes is caught in the wild while the rest is farmed to satisfy an insatiable demand. Already, 1.2bn people depend on fish in their diet - and in Europe we each consume 20kg per year on average, compared to 5kg per person in India. However, as the emergent middle classes in Asia develop a taste, and a budget, for seafood - considered a luxury item until now - demand will rocket further.

What the organizers must know, but are keeping mum about, is that the oceans are in a parlous state. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 70% of the world's fisheries are now fully exploited (ie, fished to the point where they can only just replenish themselves), overexploited or depleted. The majority of fish populations have been reduced by 70-95%, depending on the species, compared to the level they would be at if there were no fishing at all. In other words, only five per cent of fish are left in some cases. In more practical terms, fishermen are catching one or two fish per 100 hooks, compared to 10 fish per 100 hooks where a stock is healthy and unexploited - a measure of sustainability once used by the Japanese fleet. In England and Wales, we are landing one fish for every 20 that we landed in 1889, when government records began, despite having larger vessels, more sophisticated technology and trawl nets so vast and all-consuming that they are capable of containing 12 Boeing 747 aircraft.

Where have all those other fish gone? In short, we have eaten them. "Tens of thousands of bluefin tuna used to be caught in the North Sea every year," says Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at the University of York. "Now, there are none. Once, there were millions of skate - huge common skate, white skate, long-nosed skate - being landed from seas around the UK. The common skate is virtually extinct, the angel shark has gone. We have lost our marine megafauna as a consequence of exploitation."

Then there are the devastating effects of bottom trawling around our coasts, which began with the advent of the steam trawler 130 years ago. "Sweeping backwards and forwards across the seabed, they removed a whole carpet of invertebrates," Professor Roberts says, "such as corals, sponges, sea fans and seaweeds. On one map, dating from 1883, there is a huge area of the North Sea roughly the size of Wales, marked 'Oyster beds'. The last oysters were fished there commercially in the 1930s; the last live oyster was taken in the 1970s. We have altered the marine environment in a spectacular way."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: fish, seafood, depletion, fishing stocks

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nature Bats Last.
Posted by: Sparks56 on Apr 29, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Only when the last fish is caught, and the last tree is felled, will the white man understand that you cannot eat money." Chief Seattle. ( I paraphrase.)
It all comes down to more and more people each demanding more and more from the Earth. If the human population were to be controlled, in numbers and attitudes, there would be no need to be concerned about the numbers of fish or the numbers of any other natural resource. We would do well to keep in mind that human populations are as subject to population crash, and extinction, as any other species. Nature bats last.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice to hear....
Posted by: PJAW on Apr 29, 2009 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like to read that the US is one of the world leaders in fisheries management, I hope that it's true. If it is, the news should be inspirational to all activists of any stripe who are working to bring humanity into a more harmonious and sustainable relationship with the planet we inhabit.

We will make more and better progress when real environmental crimes are recognized for what they are and effectively prosecuted. It's unfortunate that so many environmental laws are selectively enforced, often against small land owners or fleet operators who are doing good things but perhaps not in complete technical compliance. This creates damage in two ways, it allows major crimes to go unpunished while at the same time creating contempt of regulation among us common folk. Almost as if by plan... hmmmm...

Perhaps that will change if we keep at it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every time I watch the Most Dangerous Catch
Posted by: NYmediator on Apr 29, 2009 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that with every trap full of king crab - another trap closer to extinction. But hey, the crew makes money and that's all that matters, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Seafood For Me
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 29, 2009 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Rising Sun harvey Keitel's character is offered some sushi and he says "if want some mercury. I'll bite a thermometer".
Truer words were never spoken...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Seafood For Me Posted by: Sekhmetnakt
sadly, it is worse than stated
Posted by: Drclaw on Apr 29, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only are we over exploiting nearly every harvestable species, our habit of fishing down the food chain (nailing the top predators first, like Tuna, sharks etc) is causing massive ecological disruption that makes it hard for the species to recover. Many of these top predators control the abundance of other (often inedible) species that otherwise denude vegitation (or coral) that form nursery habits. So, no top preds = more lower level fish = no habitat for juveniles, which would allow for recovery. We're fairly close to the tipping point in which these non-linear systems have been pushed to far, and may never recover even if we back off on the catch.

The sad thing is, there's plenty we can do to reform fishing practices-the science is there. What is lacking is the political will to control the largest commercial harvesters. We also need novel strategies to remove fishing pressure in a way that still allows fishermen to make a living. The lobster industry has been a model for this for years, and there have been recent collaborations between fisheries and conservation groups (e.g the CA groundfishing industry) to reform practices to make them more sustainable while not simply saying to the fisherfolk that they cannot continue their way of life. Although I respect Greenpeace, they too often make it an us-v-them situation, which almost never helps. People who fish for a living (often for generations) cannot just be told to stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it makes sense to eat lower on the food chain
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 29, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to a national Vegetarian Resource Group Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly 15 percent of Americans say they never eat fish or seafood.

The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be "commercially extinct." Another species classified as "commercially extinct" is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game and domesticated species raised by livestock ranchers. Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state because this animal is a predator of moose.

Nor can fish provide any help in alleviating global hunger. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets," and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods--useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population during the next generation would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption.

On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it makes sense to eat lower on the food chain Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
we need a world-wide ban on fishing to allow for replenishment of the seas
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 29, 2009 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
although i am vegan and would never eat any living being, i do believe that we need a world-wide ban on fishing (10-20 years minimum) to allow for replenishment of the seas back to sustainable levels so fish are a viable food source for the next generations. or perhaps, with the amount of toxic waste and plastic soup killing the oceans, it's too late.

humans are so short sighted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We take the "good" species first
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 29, 2009 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last nesting pair of great auks on earth were taken because they were much too valuable to leave, because of their rarity.

The last 14 buffalo on earth were preserved in a new kind of reserve called a national park. From these 14 buffalo came all of the buffalo alive today.

First, I put out a plea for the nations of the world to preserve their children's heritage. Take the eggs of several giant bluefin tuna and freeze them in liquid nitrogen.

Second, we need to realize that after we eat all the good fish, only the pet food fish will remain, and then after we sweep the seas for them too, only the microfauna will remain. Farmers who own plots of land know better than to grow only bad weeds for their herbivores. Perhaps we need to balance our fishing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about those sleazy seafood commercials on the radio, tv, and even the Internet?
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 29, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cut down such sleazy advertising and the demand for seafood will drop like a rock. Demand for seafood only increased in the last few decades when seductive advertising to promote bad foods became the norm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I refuse to buy farm raised fish...
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Apr 29, 2009 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
particularly if it comes from China, and I can't afford wild-caught fish. In a way I'm refraining from depleting the oceans, but it's too late: humans have pretty much destroyed this planet. I don't see much hope unless a really good flu epidemic--along with starvation from global warming--depletes humanity and reduces our rapacity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Collapse
Posted by: chuckeseats on Apr 29, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to ask yourself what the guy on Easter Island was thinking, while he was cutting down the last tree on the island. That marked the virtual end of that civilization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

honeyman
Posted by: honeyman on Apr 29, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having written about[ honeybees], and as a long time observer of the environment the only word that comes to mind to describe the condition we have reduced the live world to is, "biocaust".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: honeyman Posted by: ADCS
Here in coastal Florida
Posted by: bettyn on Apr 29, 2009 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we see evidence of the depletion of fish everytime we go out on our boat. You must go at least fifty miles offshore here to see fish of any size. The blue crab population is way down, both here and in the Chesapeake Bay waters of my native Virginia. Go scuba diving anywhere and you will immediately notice the lack of fish on our reefs and the poor health of the corals. Add to that the idiots that increasingly get rid of aquarium fish (when they become too large for tanks) by dumping non-native species into local waters. There are now lionfish all along the eastern seaboard and I recently saw a Moorish Idol in the Florida Keys. These fish have no natural predators and can destroy native populations.

People need to be educated about what they throw into our oceans and onto our shores. Many of our beaches and reefs are little more than garbage dumps. (We cleaned a beach last weekend.)

Overfishing, pollution, and global warming are turning the undersea world into a desert rapidly. In the thirty-plus years I've been diving, the change has been truly frightening...and there's no sign of improvement in local waters except for the very slow return of queen conch. These molluscs were placed under a fishing moratorium many years ago and are just starting to come back. The ban was supposed to be for five years. It is now close to twenty-five years and still can't be lifted. It is likely to be permanent and probably should be.

Farming fish is one answer, but talk to folks in the Pacific Northwest about the harm being done by irresponsible salmon farming there and you'll soon learn this isn't always going to be an answer.

We may all soon be FORCED to become vegans whether we like it or not. Even plants won't last with the rate our planet is being denuded of vegetation and viable soil along with the rapid climate change now underway.

We're going to starve ourselves to death if something doesn't change...yesterday. It's a shame most of us don't realize this....or don't want to because we're too busy making money at the expense of our environment.

HHow many "wake-up" calls do we need?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Don't Eat the Animals
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 29, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Don't Eat the Animals (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 29, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupidity
Posted by: wireup on Apr 29, 2009 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The utter STUPIDITY of our species simply never ceases to amaze me. Truly, we are dysfunctional, suicidal, and so dumb that it is hard to believe that we have lasted as long as we have.

I doubt that there is any other animal on this planet that behaves as we do. We slaughter and maim, all in the name of profit. We kill off that which we need to sustain us, all in the name of profit. We plunder and consume and defile where we live - and for what? We over-populate - and for what?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH HUMAN BEINGS?

I'll tell you what is wrong with us. We are an insane species and, since we ARE all insane, we are unaware of our insanity. Insanity is the norm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I think you are a little off Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
We Need Population Control and Aquaculture
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Apr 29, 2009 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Less people would mean lesser amounts of fish and other seafood eaten by humans.

Aquaculture, raising fish and other seafood in farms (by farms I mean ponds or indoor aquariums not rivers and bays) would also eliminate our depletion of fish and other seafood from the wild.

Humans will not stop consuming seafood so we ought to try and come up with ways of allowing us to continue to eat seafood to our hearts content rather than eat seafood species into extinction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

whenever I eat in an asian restaurant
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 29, 2009 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm always STUNNED by the amount of seafood on offer.

& STUNNED by the heaps of seafood consumed.

I've had this conversation with friends for YEARS...





perspective, people.


Perspective.

The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST

FREE podcast

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The End of the Line
Posted by: Pickleodeon on Apr 30, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mankind must change the way it fishes the world's oceans if we want there to be any seafood for future generations.

It's not that we must stop eating seafood, we must eat the right seafood.

The film mentioned in the piece - The End of the Line, deals with all the issues raised in this article. Ted Danson has just recorded the voice over for it. See what he thinks of the film at The End of the Line website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flax Not Fish !
Posted by: TomOfMaine on May 1, 2009 6:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title says it all, enjoy flax instead of fish and the sealife will be able to survive as nature intended. Seaweeds are also a good alternative, all the nutrients that people think they need from fish are actually also available in seaweeds, that's where the fish get theirs from in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Only Depletion but Also Mercury Pollution: What Does Cap-and-Trade Do About This?
Posted by: waves16 on May 2, 2009 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are destroying this resource not only by overfishing some species but also by poisoning others. We are slowly losing the tuna fishery through mercury pollution.

We have to realize that cap-and-trade will not solve these problems. This is the premise behind a recent book published by Mark C. Henderson in which a proposed a strategy that would address most environmental problems.

An article just appeared today (DeSmogBlog, “Ottawa Think-Tank Calls B.C.'s Carbon Tax Canada's "Most Effective") suggesting that carbon taxation (which is a component of Henderson's strategy) would work better than cap-and-trade.

Check out A Structural Strategy for Global Warming and the Environment for more details. We really need to go beyond cap-and-trade.

Tags: Cap-and-Trade Alternative Solutions

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PolarBearAtEase
Posted by: DavidMichaelSmith on May 4, 2009 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not the first to posit this idea, but what if humanity has become so viral that, like any parasite, we will find ourselves having run our course with our host. The earth's antibodies, in this instance, will be starvation, suffocation and who-knows-what other forms of antedotes that will rid the globe of the homo not-so-sapien sapien disease. Hubris has been the order of the day for so long that we apparently don't have the capacity to curb our own voraciousness, and it will have to be affected for us via natural mechanisms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soylent Green is people...n.m.
Posted by: jimidee on May 6, 2009 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n.m.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Human Population and Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Posted by: Urgelt on May 8, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA are, to put it bluntly, essential to human health.

Most of our ancestors evolved within walking distance of oceans. Fishing is ancient; it far predates agriculture or civilization. Those ancestors adapted to a diet which includes fish.

Countless scientific studies have demonstrated just how dependent we are on fish. The Omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA, which are only available from ocean food sources, have huge health benefits. The reverse side of that coin is that there are terrible health consequences to a diet which excludes them.

Those Omega-3 fatty acids which are available from terrestrial food sources, like ALA, can't substitute. They don't provide the same benefits.

We should be asking ourselves what a sustainable harvest is from ocean sources. We should also be asking what population can be supported from sustainable harvests, such that every human alive is able to obtain these essential nutrients.

Science has begun to attempt to answer the first question. The second seems to be a question no-one dares tackle.

I'll venture a guess as to why. The answer would be a population so far below what we currently have, it would shock us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement