Saving Seafood

Oceana Issues Statement On Netflix’s ‘Seaspiracy’ Documentary

March 29, 2021 — As compelling as Netflix’s new “Seaspiracy” documentary is, the issues raised in it regarding commercial fishing aren’t quite that cut-and-dried, according to the folks at Oceana.

The ocean advocacy organization issued a statement when the film was released on March 24th. It reads:

“Today, Netflix released a new movie titled Seaspiracy that features passing references to Oceana and a brief excerpt from what was a two-hour interview with a former employee, who was one of Oceana’s key leaders in winning policy victories against illegal fishing.

“To set the record straight, what Oceana campaigns for and focuses on is increasing ocean abundance through policy victories that put in place science-based fisheries management in national waters, where most of the world’s fish are caught. We are already campaigning in countries that account for 28% of the world’s catch. The science is clear: This country-by-country approach can help the oceans rebound dramatically and feed a billion people a healthy seafood meal each day. We can save the oceans and feed the world.

“We believe people have the right to choose what they eat, and we applaud those who make personal choices to improve the health of our planet. However, choosing to abstain from consuming seafood is not a realistic choice for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who depend on coastal fisheries – many of whom are also facing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. Oceana campaigns to save the oceans for both the people who depend on them and to protect the marine animals (and other forms of life) who live in them.

Read the full story at Deeper Blue

MSC: Our Seaspiracy response

March 26, 2021 — The following was released by the Marine Stewardship Council:

The Seaspiracy film on Netflix raises a wide range of issues relating to our oceans, including questioning the credibility of the sustainable seafood movement and in particular, our organisation, the Marine Stewardship Council. While we agree more attention needs to be given to the crisis of overfishing, we do want to set the record straight on some of the misleading claims in the film:

There is no such thing as sustainable fishing

This is wrong. One of the amazing things about our oceans is that fish stocks can recover and replenish if they are managed carefully for the long-term. Examples of where this has happened and stocks have come back from the brink include the Patagonian toothfish in the Southern Oceans or the recovery of Namibian hake, after years of overfishing by foreign fleets, or the increase in some of our major tuna stocks globally. And what is even more amazing, is that if we take care of our fish stocks – they take care of us. Research shows that fish stocks that are well-managed and sustainable, are also more productive in the long-term, meaning there is more seafood for our growing global population, which is set to reach 10 billion by 2050.

MSC certification is too easy and not credible

The reform of fishing practices and growth of the sustainable seafood movement is something that the MSC is very proud to have played a part in, along with many other partners and organisations. There are more than 400 MSC certified fisheries around the world. This certification process is not carried out by the MSC – it is independent of us and carried out by expert assessment bodies. It is an entirely transparent process and NGOs and others have multiple opportunities to provide input. All our assessments can be viewed online at Track a Fishery. Only fisheries that meet the rigorous requirements of our Standard get certified. Contrary to what the film-makers say, certification is not an easy process, and some fisheries spend many years improving their practices in order to reach our standard. In fact, our analysis shows that the vast majority of fisheries that carry out pre-assessments against our criteria, do not meet these and need to make significant improvements to gain certification.

MSC is funded by industry and is not independent

The MSC is an independent not-for-profit that was set up by WWF and Unilever more than 20 years ago because of concern about overfishing. We are not a commercial enterprise and we do not receive any income from fisheries or from the third-party certification of fisheries.

Our income is derived from two sources: charitable donations from foundations, and licensing of our blue ecolabel, which is used by companies in the supply chain, such as food producers, supermarkets and restaurants to identify MSC certified seafood. The use of our ecolabel is voluntary, and only a fraction of seafood coming from certified sustainable fisheries bears our ecolabel.

The MSC is entirely transparent about its market-based funding model. We believe consumer demand for sustainable seafood products helps to drive reform of the fishing industry, incentivising the take-up of sustainable fishing practices.  All of the income from licensing use goes back into our programme of work.  This includes, for example, providing grants through our Ocean Stewardship Fund, to support fisheries in the developing world.

MSC certified fisheries have unacceptable levels of bycatch

In fact, fisheries certified to the MSC Standard must provide evidence that they are actively minimising unwanted catch. Fisheries that need to improve in this area, can be set goals that they have to meet in order to keep their certificates or risk being suspended.  We believe the Icelandic fishery mentioned in Seaspiracy falls into this latter category. It  was suspended from the programme because of bycatch issues and only allowed back into the programme when they had been resolved. There are numerous positive  examples of MSC certified fisheries introducing innovations to protect marine life, such as modifying gear type to decrease turtle bycatch or adding LED lights to increase the selectivity of catch. Among some notable achievements by MSC certified fisheries is a rock lobster fishery in Australia that reduced its bycatch of sea lions and a hake fishery in South Africa that reduced its bycatch of albatross by 99%.

Sustainable fishing helps protect our oceans and us

While we disagree with much of what the Seaspiracy documentary-makers say, one thing we do agree with is that there is a crisis of overfishing in our oceans. However, millions around the world rely on seafood for their protein needs. With the global population set to reach 10 billion by 2050, the need to harness our natural resources more responsibly is more urgent than ever. Sustainable fishing has a vital role to play in securing those resources.

Read the full release here

Seaspiracy film assails fishing and aquaculture sectors that seem ready for a good fight

March 26, 2021 — The following was released by the Global Aquaculture Alliance:

Seaspiracy, a documentary-styled film released on Netflix this week, intends to shock, and on that count it succeeds.

The 90-minute exposé shows ocean pollution and its vast effects on marine life; it displays grotesque images of dolphins and whales being slaughtered and of vast bycatch species dying, alleging that commercial fisheries have little regard for marine animals and birds; and it outright dismisses aquaculture for its use of marine ingredients and for what it says are poor culture environments.

With the financial backing of Hollywood star and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio, Seaspiracy follows in the footsteps of the similarly produced film Cowspiracy, released in 2014. Like its predecessor, this new film’s clear aim is to turn viewers off of animal proteins in favor of plant-based diets. It doesn’t pull any punches in doing so, alleging:

  • That the oceans will be empty of fish in 27 years and will become a barren wasteland
  • That aquaculture’s use of fishmeal and fish oil in feeds reduces it to “wild fishing in disguise”
  • That farmed salmon are raised in lice-plagued waters and the fish are “swimming in circles in their own filth”
  • Dismisses the concept of sustainable seafood entirely
  • That the best action is to abstain from any seafood consumption whatsoever.

To make his case, director Ali Tabrizi exhibits victims of forced labor on fishing vessels, notably those from previously documented cases in Thailand. One person who survived tells of physical abuse and the constant threat of death from vessel operators.

Read the full release here

Seaspiracy: Recognizable Propaganda

March 25, 2021 — The following was released by the National Fisheries Institute:

The concern with some slickly produced propaganda pieces, masquerading as “documentaries,” is that audiences will not recognize the film’s true agenda. Despite the artistic aerial shots, exciting albeit hyperbolic cloak-and-dagger scenes and stirring action-movie like sound track, there is little concern Seaspiracy will be mistaken for anything but a vegan indoctrination movie.

The film begins by suggesting, without evidence, that fisheries bycatch is an issue “governments [have] practically given up on enforcing.” Then touts a narrative that an “internationally recognized seafood label [is] a complete fabrication.” All this before whipsawing viewers from the argument that getting rid of plastic straws was once considered a pollution fix but that now the only real solution is getting rid of the entire commercial fishing sector.

Before long the producers describe a fishing vessel with the caveat that, “what it really is, is a death machine.” They then dive headlong into an embrace of the idea that the oceans will be empty by 2048, which is based on a completely debunked 2006 statistic, refuted by none other than the author of the original study. The 2048 statistic was put to rest by a follow-up report in the Journal Science released in 2009 under the title New hope for fisheries.

Gravitating towards the popular call to ban fishing in 30% of the oceans by 2030, the film turns to an author, who owns a vegan food company, an animal rescue sanctuary and is also apparently a dentist. His endorsement of the 30 by 30 slogan/policy is based on his calculation that, “in reality, less than 1% of our oceans are being regulated.” This is of course not only inaccurate it’s nonsensical. But it doesn’t end there. He goes on to compare choosing fish based on some eco labels to, “essentially saying  it’s more sustainable to shoot a polar bear than shooting a panda.”

During a segment on Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fishing in Africa director Ali Tabrizi claims, “In the United States up to 1 in every 3 wild caught fish imported have been caught illegally and therefor sold illegally. Stolen, often from countries in most need.” The methodology behind this wildly inflated statistic has been picked apart in the very Journal where it first appeared; “Methods to estimate IUU are not credible.” Meanwhile, papers using the same approach have been retracted.  While IUU is a serious issue and unacceptable at any level, Tabrizi’s calculated film making seeks to conflate over estimated IUU numbers with U.S. seafood imports from Africa. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports less than 2% of U.S. seafood imports come from Africa.

Before setting their sites on aquaculture, the filmmakers can’t help but slip in a vegan dog whistle in describing fishing boats they say “…It became clear these vessels were more like floating slaughter houses.”

Adeptly leading viewers down the primrose path, fish farming is lauded as a potential “method that could provide some kind of solution” before it is eviscerated with out of date tropes like the lie that farmed salmon is died pink. The film later digs up another classic in complaining about PCB’s in fish but never (ironically) mentions that Harvard University research finds seafood broadly, not just farmed salmon, makes up only 9% of the PCBs in the average American diet, while products like vegetables make up 20%. Yes, vegetables.

As the film begins its expected arch into unabashed vegan rhetoric about fish feeling pain and how, “animals… use democratic decision making,” it logs a chapter about labor abuses in the seafood space. This is a serious and concerning topic that the filmmakers bring nothing new to.  While their interviews with silhouetted victims are heartbreaking, what is really on display here is, as the New York Times put it, a “cheap imitation of hard-hitting investigative journalism.”

In the end the film sputters to a close with what is essentially a predictable commercial for highly processed plant-based alternative products.

The following are excerpts from the New York Times Review of Seaspiracy:

“The film’s rhetorical style often feels like a cheap imitation of hard-hitting investigative journalism.”

“Even the film’s notable points seem to emerge only briefly before sinking beneath the surface, lost in a sea of murky conspiratorial thinking.”

Read the full review at the New York Times

New Netflix Movie is Propaganda not Documentary

March 9, 2021 — The following was released by the National Fisheries Institute:

Netflix’s long history of providing a platform for oft over looked documentaries is being called into question with its promotion of vegan activist propaganda.

Seaspiracy, the seafood sister to the vegan activist film, Cowspiracy, will premiere on Netflix in March.

“A vegan? To each their own. But when you’re producing a ninety minute vegan propaganda piece and calling it a ‘documentary’ that’s disingenuous,” said NFI President John Connelly.

The National Fisheries Institute has written to Netflix citing the litany of the hyperbole, half-truths and mischaracterizations associated with the producer’s previous animal and food related productions.

Noting the clear definitional difference between:

Documentary:  a presentation (such as a film or novel) expressing or dealing with factual events: a documentary presentation

and

Propaganda:  the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

NFI suggested Netflix start a new “propaganda” content tab where films based on exaggeration, fabrications and conspiracy theories can be accessed.

“Keep in mind, this is the same entertainment network that brought us the whack-jobs of Tiger King. So let’s all take a breath,” said Connelly.

Massachusetts: ‘Cod is Dead’ uses New Bedford to highlight hurdles affecting fishermen

January 25, 2018 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — One of the first scenes in “Rotten: Cod is Dead” opens at night in the Port of New Bedford. Spotlights atop the fishing vessels light the area.

A few belong to Carlos Rafael, noted by their green color and “CR” logo.

A recording of Rafael from 2012 then plays. “I consider myself the biggest player right now on this industry…” he said. “I’m not going down. I’ll be the last one fallen, you can rest assured.”

The case of Rafael first attracted investigative reporters from the documentary to New Bedford in 2016. The episode “Cod is Dead” premiered Jan. 5 on Netflix.

Through two years of reporting, interviewing and filming, director David Mettler discovered more within the fishing industry than the man known as “The Codfather,” who now is serving a 46-month prison sentence.

“It’s so much more than just a way to pay the mortgage,” Mettler said. “There’s a very deeply felt connection to this way of life, and it’s very emotional and very powerful for a lot of people.”

The hour-long show looks beyond Rafael and focuses on catch shares within the New England fishery.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times