Replacing the global fish supply would cost 22 times the world's rainforests. If we replaced the protein we got from fish with land based agriculture, we'd need extra grazing land equal to the entire world's rainforest 22 times over. SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton – March 15, 2010 – At a recent conference in New Zealand sponsored by the New Zealand fishing industry council, noted Univ. of Washington fisheries professor Ray Hilborn shared some research on the impact of halting commercial fishing.
He found that replacing the global fish supply would cost 22 times the world's rainforests. If we replaced the protein we got from fish with land based agriculture, we'd need extra grazing land equal to the entire world's rainforest 22 times over, said Hilborn.
Hilborn evaluated published research into the effects on the environment of protein production (including farming animals on land and catching wild fish). He found that on average, commercial fishing had a lesser impact on the environment than land-based animal farming.
Seafood industries are held to 'higher environmental standards generally' when compared with other food producers, he says.
'Protein production is always going to have some effect on the environment. But it is important that we are aware of the trade off required to feed the world. It wouldn't be smart to suggest we stop producing any single category of food, especially without thinking about how and with what we're going to replace it.'
'Commercial fishing in particular is held to higher environmental standards. If green groups were consistent and applied those same standards to other forms of food production we wouldn't have anything to eat. '
Professor Hilborn examined existing published and peer reviewed research from a wide range of scientific sources into the environmental effects of food production. 'When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense that fishing has a relatively small environmental impact. In terms of water use, water pollution, pesticides, fertiliser, antibiotics and soil erosion, fishing barely figures. Then when you compare energy use and CO2 footprint, fishing in general comes out on top again. '
Fishing also compared favourably in terms of biodiversity, Professor Hilborn said. 'This is interesting because biodiversity is an area where fishing has been strongly criticised. ' He said the other scientists' work shows that fishing typically reduces measured biodiversity by 30 per cent and reduces abundance of fish by one half to three quarters. 'Land based agriculture has a far greater effect on biodiversity. For every acre that's ploughed you lose 100 per cent of the biodiversity. '
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com