This Smells Fishy
Greetings to you, dear reader.
You may be wondering what you’re about to read — and whether it’s worth your time. Fair enough. It’s not like we’re lacking “newsletters”. You’ll be happy to know that ours is not one of those.
What you’re about to read in this fortnightly publication is a short and relevant report from the frontier of societal pursuits as we’re preparing for an equitable tomorrow — composed by people who care and compiled into a healthy mix of provoking thoughts from the fields of impact, decentralisation, digitisation and modern life philosophy, our aim is to let you start your weekend on a high note.
Sounds like something worth your time? Excellent, we’re thrilled to have you with us!
What’s up?
We’re in the midst of August, the last month of summer, in which some of us may find ourselves on some distant beach, trying to build up vitamin D reserves for the upcoming winter. The temptation to round off a day in the sands with a sumptuous meal at the local seafood tavern is hard to ignore. But if you happen to have been anywhere near the recent articles on overfishing or the sensationalist Netflix documentary on the abysses of the fishing industry, you’ll likely have some second thoughts on your dietary choices. To what extent are these warranted and has seafood become a “21st century no-go”?
The low-down
Before we dive into the answers, it seems reasonable to take a quick look at the drivers behind this “fishy” predicament as it’s being discussed across the spectrum of media channels. With the enhancement of commercial fishing methods beyond the traditional rods, the per capita consumption of fish was seen to be rising exponentially — de facto doubled — over the last 60 years. Naturally, the fishing industry — on which one in every 13 people on Earth now depend — grew along, and little to no attention was paid to the direct and indirect consequences of such expansion. Fast forward to 2022, we’re catching fish at a rate quicker than any species’ stock could ever replenish. Add to that the problem of bycatch, the destruction of marine environment (including drudged-up carbon) through modern fishing methods and the spreading of diseases from fish farms (yes, even the ones in Scotland), and we’ll find ourselves in a situation where one third of all fish stocks are well below their biologically sustainable levels. With the detrimental consequences of a vanishing marine life rapidly understood, a global debate on alternative fishing methods, marine conservation efforts and the role of seafood in our diets altogether, broke out.
Okay — and now what?
With the above in mind, we’re circling back to our initial two questions — “yes”, the situation warrants second thoughts, and “yes”, seafood will likely be a “21st century no-go” — or at least until humanity has entered a more “balanced” relationship with marine life. Does that mean everybody has to stop consuming seafood immediately? No, of course not. While being mindful of non-plant-based food choices is always a sensible recommendation, some of us see a pescatarian diet as a needed “step-in-between” to a herbivorous lifestyle or may, in some cases (think of gluten intolerance), even require alternative sources of nutrients — such as seafood. For those of us, a few unambiguous considerations can help that seafood may become a “22ndcentury go” after all:
- “Wild-Caught is the New Organic” — despite the myth, not necessarily true. Certainly, wild-caught seafood does not require additional land or freshwater, nor does it encourage the spread of diseases as much as its farmed equivalent — but the fuel used in fishing boats and the detrimental fishing methods lead to the necessity of assessing the adequacy of procurement on a case by case basis (for instance, the “environmental harm balance” of farmed bivalves — mussels, oysters, scallops and clams — and wild-caught herrings, sardines and anchovies are equally good). In general, the further down the food chain, the less environmental harm the consumption of fish and seafood brings about.
- “Diversity is Important” — yes, and not just in the workplace. 80% of all seafood consumed in the UK, for instance, traces back to five species — cod, haddock, salmon, tuna and prawns. That such species are under distress is therefore not surprising and suggests that an oversupply of certain fish at the supermarket does not necessarily indicate that there’s plenty of stock in the sea. Switch salmon for farmed trout, and code with hake, and we’ll see distressed species return to biologically sustainable levels in no time.
- “Evil Labels” – wait, you mean labels can’t actually guarantee anything? No, they most certainly can’t. The drawbacks of certifications and labels are evident — unless what they try to encourage is enforced by law, there is — under the labels’ current funding levels — no guarantee that signatories adhere to a label’s standards. Similarly, the effort to obtain such a label often seems unjustifiable for smaller fisheries, leaving them unable to assert their position in markets with more stringent requirements. Nevertheless, they’re an excellent starting point and worth taking into account. A 2016 meta-study on seafood identification, for instance, found that seafood sold under a label has a 99% chance of being labelled correctly — compared to only 30% (!!) for ones sold without a label. When adding some of the very useful tools provided by the labels to the mix, their purpose and practices of implementation do not seem all too evil after all.
Pair the above with a healthy cognizance on dietary choices and governmental support, and we might see changes in policy, supply chain traceability and sustainable management of marine life stocks become a reality sooner rather than later.
To round up this inaugural report from the Frontier, a quote from Seafood Watch’s programme director Erin Hudson in a recent BBC article, in which she masterfully distils the essence of the debate at hand: “When customers ask for sustainable seafood, restaurants and retailers begin to seek and demand sustainable options from their suppliers. And, honestly, the answer is not the critical part here; it’s the question.”
