Saving Seafood

MASSACHUSETTS: Piping down on pollution

June 27, 2018 — The clock was ticking on the young crew from Seafood Sustainability on Tuesday, as they rushed to complete about 20 new fishing line collection containers that will be donated to Gloucester and other Cape Ann communities to install at docks and other high-volume boating and fishing areas.

The problem was that it was Tuesday and the St. Peter’s Fiesta was set to begin a mere 24 hours later. And Fiesta, as anyone knows who’s experienced it, tends to monopolize the time and focus of the Gloucester Harbormaster corps as the city’s water-borne population swells to huge numbers of revelers.

“We’re rushing as fast as we can,” Kate Christiansen, the project manager for Essex-based Seaside Sustainability’s “Reel In and Recycle” program, said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon. “We’re in the process of building them right now and trying to get as much done as we can before Fiesta.”

Literally as Christiansen spoke, Josh Sheridan, Essex Sustainability’s marine science coordinator, led a team of three interns in an impromptu assembly line to transform 6-inch PVC piping — donated by the Building Center on the Gloucester waterfront — into monofilament collection containers.

Working in a backyard on Marchant Street in Gloucester, Ryan Keeth of Belmont, Jack McMahon of Hamilton and Sophia Guerriero of Essex toiled in the bright sunshine to complete the marked recovery units designed to mitigate the environmental pollution and navigational hazard of abandoned monofilament fishing line in oceans and other marine venues.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

Rep. Rob Bishop Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order on Ocean Policy

June 20, 2018 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), today issued the following statement in reaction to President Trump’s executive order promoting a healthy ocean economy and engagement with marine, science, and technology industries. The action reverses the previous administration’s overreach of the nation’s ocean policy.

“Today’s announcement of President Trump repealing and replacing the bureaucratic, overreaching policy created under the previous administration puts our country’s ocean policy back on the right track. Over the past 10 years, the Committee has held dozens of hearings on heavy-handed Obama-era policies and the negative impacts they have caused on both the nation’s oceans and agricultural industries. Earlier this month, the Committee heard from Americans whose livelihoods depend on a healthy ocean economy and the prior administration’s ocean policy was one of their main challenges. President Trump’s action will help the health of our oceans and ensure local communities impacted by ocean policy have a seat at the table.”

Visit the House Committee on Natural Resources’ website here

Climate Change May Spark Global ‘Fish Wars’

June 15, 2018 –Warming seas are driving commercial seafood poleward into waters controlled by other countries, setting up international conflicts.

Atlantic mackerel, a fatty schooling fish, for years has been caught by fleets in parts of Europe and sold around the world—where it gets pickled, grilled, smoked, and fried. It is among the United Kingdom’s key exports.

But a decade ago, warming temperatures began driving this popular fish north, into seas controlled by Iceland. Almost overnight, this seafood gold began shredding relations between some of the world’s most stable governments. It led to unsustainable fishing, trade embargoes, and boat blockades. It even helped convince Iceland to drop its bid to join the EU. And that was among friendly nations.

Welcome to the climate-change food threat you may not have considered.

In many parts of the world overfishing is already draining the ocean of important sea life. But a paper published today in the journal Science suggests potentially explosive ocean fish wars are likely to simmer across the world as warming temperatures drive commercial fish species poleward into territories controlled by other nations, setting up conflicts with sometimes hostile neighbors that are suddenly forced to share. That could lead to far fewer fish, economic declines and, in some areas, serious threats to food security.

Read the full story at National Geographic

New Ray Hilborn study investigates environmental impact of aquaculture

June 13, 2018 — A new study from fisheries expert Ray Hilborn compares the environmental impact of various forms of animal husbandry.

The study, which appeared in “Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment,” is an all-encompassing look on how animal protein production affects the environment.

“From the consumers’ standpoint, choice matters. If you’re an environmentalist, what you eat makes a difference,” Hilborn said. “We found there are obvious good choices and really obvious bad choices.”

Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, has been working on the study for almost a decade. The study investigates the impacts of animal-rearing including energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer and other excess nutrient exposure to the environment, and emissions of substances that can cause acid rain.

The study found industrial beef and catfish farming to be among the most environmentally costly meat and seafood production methods. On the other hand, farmed mollusks and small wild-caught fish pose the least amount of environmental impact.

Because constant water circulation is needed to raise species like shrimp, tilapia, and catfish, livestock production generally uses less energy than aquaculture. But at the same time, beef production results in emissions of large amounts of methane. As a result, both catfish aquaculture and beef production contributes 20 times more greenhouse gases than farmed mollusks or farmed salmon and chicken.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Survey finds Americans put premium on Alaska seafood

June 13, 2018 — New research has found that nearly 40 percent of Americans would pay more for Alaska seafood. With the Alaska salmon selling season now underway, that’s music to the ears of retailers and restaurants looking to grow their profit margins.

The consumer survey was completed by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) and research firm Technomic. The online survey, completed in January 2018, registered the opinions of 4,000 American seafood consumers over the age of 18.

The survey found that 39 percent agree that they would pay more for Alaska seafood. For those willing to pay more, 71 percent said they would be willing to pay at least 10 percent more, while 51 percent said they would pay at least a five percent premium. The top reasons respondents said they support Alaska seafood is that it is a “pure source of healthy proteins,” followed by the fact that the industry supports American jobs, is sustainable, and is made up of family fishermen.

“We continue to feature the Alaska sustainability story through images of fishing in Alaska. It is clear through the research that American jobs [are] an important piece of the sustainability [and] quality story of Alaska seafood,” Victoria Parr, domestic marketing director for ASMI, told SeafoodSource.

The survey also found that restaurants serving Alaska seafood benefit from increased consumer loyalty. The survey found that 54 percent of patrons will return in the near future to the restaurants that serve Alaska seafood, and 48 percent will recommend the establishment to their family and friends.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Eating Plants & Seafood

June 13, 2018 — A paper we wrote about yesterday, Hilborn et al. 2018, went out with a press release that argued that a selective diet of seafood could have a lower environmental impact than a vegetarian or vegan diet. This claim comes from comparing the results of Hilborn et al with Poore and Nemecek 2018, a paper published just a few weeks before the Hilborn paper that used the same kind of analysis to also evaluate the environmental cost of food.

Both papers used a newer kind of analysis, called life cycle assessment, that can quantify nearly every environmental impact of a food product throughout all stages, from “cradle to grave.” Life cycle assessments are a comprehensive way to measure and compare the environmental impacts of food.

Poore and Nemecek compiled the most complete dataset of life cycle assessments for agricultural food production and reported general findings for several major food types. Hilborn et al. focused only on animal-protein, but went into greater detail. For example, Poore and Nemecek reported the impact of all capture fisheries grouped together, while Hilborn et al, reported the impact of different kinds of capture fisheries, like small pelagics, large pelagics, and white fish.

The results from Hilborn et al’s analysis show that certain kinds of seafood have a lower environmental impact than plants. For example, farmed oysters and small pelagic fish (like sardines) are probably the best food you can eat for the planet. Below is an unpublished figure provided by Ray Hilborn that adds plants to the comparison from Figure 1 in Hilborn et al. The figure, and discussion of plant-based food vs animal-based food, were cut during the review process.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Report: UK buyers fail to support coastal communities amid ‘sustainability’ concerns

June 13, 2018 — The lack of sufficient work on monitoring and certifying UK fish and seafood supply chain’s sustainability forces the country’s buyers to go overseas for species that could be sourced locally, according to Sustainable Fish Cities.

The report, also published in the Independent, claims UK fishers are losing out on markets worth an estimated £62 million because companies are buying-in sustainable fish from overseas, said Sustainable Fish Cities, pointing out that UK species not considered sustainable include some scallops, nephrops, seabass and halibut.

UK fish buyers are importing more sustainable varieties of fish traditionally caught in British waters from the US, Turkey, Greenland and South America rather than risk selling fish that is unsustainably caught from UK waters, Sustainable Fish Cities claimed.

“What a travesty that our fishers are losing out on so much business. Caterers in the UK want to buy UK fish and support our coastal communities but for some species they have no choice but to import from across the world to ensure that what they buy is sustainable,” said Ruth Westcott, co-ordinator of Sustainable Fish Cities.

“The government simply hasn’t invested enough in research, data collection, and monitoring of fishing vessels. Even if boats are operating sustainably, if there isn’t a good enough understanding of the fish stocks and impact on the environment the fishery can’t achieve sustainability certification or be considered ok to eat according to the Marine Conservation Society.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

A closer look at the environmental costs of food

June 13, 2018 — The relationship between food and environment is one of the most important conservation issues in the anthropocene. Currently, agriculture uses 38% of the world’s land and accounts for over 90% of freshwater use. Farming and food production has been, and continues to be, the largest driver of habitat and biodiversity loss on the planet.

But, not all foods have the same environmental cost. Comparing and quantifying environmental impacts of different foods is important to guide agricultural policy and empower consumer choice. A paper published today is the most comprehensive comparison of the environmental impacts of meat and fish production—its findings can better inform personal food choices and, hopefully, will help decision-makers devise better food policies that account for environmental cost. Lead author of the study, Ray Hilborn said, “I think this is one of the most important things I’ve ever done…Policymakers need to be able to say, ‘There are certain food production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.’”

The paper used 148 different life-cycle assessment papers (also know as “cradle-to-grave” analysis) to look at environmental impacts associated with every aspect of animal protein as food. Researchers quantified 4 different kinds of major environmental impacts caused by food production: (1) electricity/energy use; (2) greenhouse gas emissions; (3) potential for nutrient runoff—this causes most of the world’s water quality issues; (4) potential to cause air pollution.

By standardizing environmental impacts per 40g/protein produced researchers were able to compare different kinds of animal proteins. Basically, the paper answers the question: what are the environmental costs of producing a hamburger patty’s worth of protein from different animal sources?

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Scallops, oysters, mollusks better for environment than other proteins, study finds

June 11, 2018 — When it comes to the environmental impact of multiple animal protein sources, small wild-caught fish and farmed mollusks, such as scallops, oysters and mussels, are stars, says a study to be published Monday in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

The study, led by Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, is based on nearly a decade of analysis in which the researchers reportedly reviewed hundreds of published life-cycle assessments for various types of animal protein production and chose 148 to focus on, according to a summary.

The researchers used four metrics to compare the protein sources, including: energy use; greenhouse gas emissions; the potential to contribute excess nutrients to the environment; and the potential to emit substances that contribute to acid rain. They compared environmental impacts across food types by using a standard amount of 40 grams of protein — roughly the size of an average hamburger patty, and the daily recommended protein serving.

“I think this is one of the most important things I’ve ever done,” Hiborn said. “Policymakers need to be able to say, ‘There are certain food production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.'”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Hundreds of seafood stakeholders heading to Spain to tackle top sustainability issues

June 11, 2018 — Barcelona, Spain will play host to more than 100 speakers and even more attendees from across the sustainable seafood movement for this year’s SeaWeb Seafood Summit, occurring from 18 to 21 June at the Hotel Arts.

Over the course of up to five days, summit speakers and registered attendees – including global representatives from the seafood industry, the conservation community, retail/foodservice, academia, government and the media – will convene to learn, network, and problem solve, said Diversified Communications, which produces the summit in partnership with SeaWeb.

“This year, we’ve expanded interactive formats across more sessions,” said Brenna Hensley, event director for Diversified Communications. “This forum vastly benefits from wide participation and input from diverse stakeholders.”

The educational sessions planned for the summit are formatted as “engagement-driven panels or workshops,” explained Diversified, and aim to unpack and troubleshoot challenging and emerging issues within the seafood sustainability oceanscape.

The event will feature several plenary and panel discussions, including the opening session set to take place on Tuesday, 19 June at 11:15 a.m.: “Is Spain Really as Important as the Global Seafood Sustainability Movement Believes?” During this kickoff plenary, “panelists will examine the key factors that explain and drive the success of the global seafood sustainability movement through the lens of global consumer appetite for mature (whitefish, small shrimps, salmon, cold water crabs) and non-mature (octopus and squid) markets,” Diversified said in a press release.

Such discussions will continue to heat up on Wednesday, 20 June, when the plenary “Building Socially Responsible Seafood Supply Chains Through Worker Voice,” is scheduled to take place. The session will involve a “dynamic, multi-stakeholder “ perspective on the concept of worker voice, covering why worker voice is important and how to incorporate it into seafood supply chains.

Read the full story at Seafood Source