Uncategorized
Hello world!
Welcome to Complete Elementor Demos – Phlox WordPress Theme. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
Uncategorized
Uncategorized
All Blog Posts
Seafood Lovers and the Supply Chain
Most American consumers don’t know where their seafood comes from. In fact, a recent report from the Food Marketing Institute suggests that less than 30% of domestic consumers consider themselves knowledgeable about the seafood they eat.
So why is that? And what can we do about it? What is the consumer’s role in the supply chain? It would be a fair assumption that the remaining 70% of those surveyed by FMI take a passive role. That is, they either rely on third-party information like eco-labels or they just don’t care. They surrender responsibility of the decision to someone else.
No wonder our markets are so jammed with cheap, unhealthy imports.
This topic was the crux of the fifth installment in the SlowFish webinar series, Slow Fish 201: Role of the Consumer, held on Sept. 23. To follow is a blog written by One Fish Foundation Intern Jennifer Halstead. In it, she captures some of the most salient points about how fishermen, fishmongers and others in the supply chain can help engage consumers in conversations about why they should care where, when, how and even by whom their seafood was harvested.
by Jennifer Halstead
Throughout the Slow Fish 201 Webinar series, expert panelists from different backgrounds, geographies and perspectives shared thoughts on how each link in the supply chain can help ensure the availability of responsibly harvested seafood. During the most recent webinar, Role of the Consumer, each panelist was thought-provoking, sharing their stories on how to engage consumers in the supply chain. Attendees left the discussion with a clear understanding of how consumers can become better informed (ASK QUESTIONS!!!) and assume a more active role in the supply chain.
On the panel were:
Patty Lovera, Food and Water Program Director, Food & Water Watch
Chef Evan Mallett, Chef, Co-owner, Black Trumpet
Capt. Tim Rider, New England Fishmongers
Charlie Lambert, Fisherman, Co-founder, Ocean2Table
Kirk Hardcastle, Premium Sales Accounts, Seafood Producers Cooperative
Colles Stowell, President, One Fish Foundation
Jessica Hathaway, Editor and Chief, National Fisherman, served as moderator
Each of them views the supply chain from a different perspective. But all of them agree that change within the supply chain is not only possible, but that it in many ways depends on consumers making smarter choices.
Fraud, mislabeling and a lack of transparency continue to cast a shadow over seafood sales in the U.S. It’s easy to see how consumers can feel helpless when it comes to fixing such issues. There are so many eco-labels providing conflicting guidelines and grocery store displays touting green-label “fresh, sustainably raised farmed salmon from Chile.”
As discussed during the webinar, well-informed seafood eaters have the power to pressure suppliers into knowing more about the products they are selling and to source from community-based fishermen who care about the resource.
Where to start
Panelists agreed that consumers should be asking restaurants and grocers a couple of questions just to get a part of the story of the seafood. It doesn’t have to be complicated or intimidating. You learn much just asking where, when and how it was harvested or grown. Even better if you can find out who harvested it. Is it local? Regional? Domestic? The U.S. has some of the best seafood safety and fisheries management policies in the world. If you can’t get domestic seafood, you’re better off choosing something else. Imported products carry a high risk of having been unsustainably farm raised or harvested.
“There is a lot of burden on the consumer,” said Patty Lovera. “We have to ask a lot of questions. The status quo in the supply chain isn’t good enough.” She and Colles Stowell both mentioned the influence consumers can have over retail seafood sourcing. If suppliers don’t know the answer to these questions, they will either feel compelled to learn, or responsible consumers will feel compelled to spend their money elsewhere.
What’s in season?
Chef Evan Mallett, Capt. Tim Rider and Charlie Lambert spoke about the importance of consumers better understanding seasonality. Just like when you go to the grocery store or market for vegetables and find different items available throughout the year, fish have their own seasonality. In New England, the height of the scallop season is in winter, while squid are generally available for a few weeks in the spring. Understanding what should be available during different times of the year will help consumers filter out which purveyors are supplying fresh, local fish and which are importing or using frozen, stored fish. “Being a chef is understanding sense of place, seasonal food, and the changes that the seasons bring,” said Mallet. That should also be true for consumers.
Eating seasonally enables consumers to enjoy fresh product throughout the year, experience cooking and preparing new species, support local fishermen, and promote healthy ecosystems by reducing fishing pressure on more popular species.
Location, location, location
Some tools, such as the Local Catch nation-wide Seafood Finder, can help seafood eaters find local, responsibly harvested fish, shellfish and seaweed. In a map or list view, you can search for purveyors by location and species.
All agreed that consumer education is critical. Once consumers have enough information, they’ll feel empowered to own those decisions and will likely make smarter decisions again in the future. “Instead of telling people what to buy, which is what eco-labels do, we need to educate and equip them with tools to make the decision on their own,” said Colles. Charlie added, “We’re providing them with information and letting them complete the thought process on their own, … and not force-feeding the consumer.”
Buying local benefits the consumer, economies, and even the ecosystem. Fewer food miles, fresher products, strengthening local economies by building relationships with fishermen, and supporting healthy ecosystems are all advantages that consumers can feel good about.
Charlie acknowledged that carbon footprint is a growing concern for his customers. The average distance seafood travels from boat to plate in the U.S. is an astounding 5,000 miles. “The supply chain was largely hidden, and when it was exposed, it was very nasty. The West Coast is famous for market squid and calamari, but the supply chain is tumultuous. [The squid] is landed, frozen, shipped overseas, thawed, processed, refrozen, shipped back, thawed, then distributed to local businesses and consumers. The amount of food miles is not right,”he said.
Quality is everything
Distance traveled can also (but not always) affect freshness. A fresher product tastes better and has a better shelf life. Rider said both his restaurant and retail customers note the long shelf life of his product because his crew properly bleeds and brines the fish on board the vessel at the time of catch, ensuring the fish is as fresh as possible for as long as possible. “Shelf life is huge. If something comes up and you can’t cook it when planned, it’s still good four days later.”
Chef Evan agreed: “ It was really with the first fish I got from Tim that I saw a marked difference between everything that I was getting from the Gulf of Maine before that.”
Product quality is integral to attracting and keeping customers. Kirk Hardcastle drove this point home, drawing on his decades of experience as fisherman, chef, distributor and now marketer with Seafood Producers Cooperative. “It starts with the fishermen, not the eco-labels, … making sure the quality of the product really comes through. … If it gets to someone’s house and the fish is poorly handled… You can put millions into messaging and you’ve burned it all away with the first bite of fish. Go for quality first and everything after that is easy,” he said.
Know your fisherman!
Charlie and Capt. Tim both sell directly to consumers: Charlie providing product from the network of fish harvesters he sources from in Monterey Bay up to San Francisco to his community supported fishery (CSF) customers, and Capt. Tim from the two boats he and his crew operate out of Maine and Mass. via drop-off points and farmer’s markets. When fishermen come off their boats into the community to sell their fish and meet customers, they’re building relationships that help support a stronger local economy.
These relationships build trust and help harvesters and consumers alike have open discussions about the industry, fishing methods, problems and challenges that fishermen have.
In the end, failure to know the story of seafood surrenders consumer decisions to other elements in the supply chain, which is often driven by industrial players with only profit in mind. Complacency in the supply chain will only ensure that consumers receive sub-par products, and the supply chain grows more opaque, rather than transparent. Lack of communication and interest can lead to what started this conversation last year, intentional mislabeling to turn a buck.
Smarter, responsible consumers and the relationships they forge with fishermen and fishmongers will help shift supply chains away from industrial-driven structures and toward a supply chain rooted in trust and knowledge.
In short, the role of the consumer is to ask questions and make responsible decisions. However, fishermen, chefs, retailers, distributors, educators, advocates and others in and around the supply chain should help consumers get smarter. That means telling the story of the seafood they’re selling.
Not sure where to start? Seafood eaters should ask the questions mentioned above. Check out the 7 C’s of Sustainable Seafood. If you can, buy local. If you can’t buy local, buy US caught and processed.
Fishermen, chefs and retailers should get to know their customers and tell them more about the seafood they’re selling them.
A supply chain built on trust is the best path forward.
Resources
Local Catch Core Values: Another reference point for how to think about the seafood supply chain.
Slow Fish Values: More values regarding seafood’s journey from boat to plate.
Eating with the Ecosystem, The 5 Anchors: A New England-focused view of values to consider when choosing seafood.
To view a recording of the webinar, follow this link.
Top photo: Boat to consumer…literally. Opening day for the Tuna Harbor Dockside Market in San Diego. Credit: Eric Buchanan
All Blog Posts
Fish, Tamales and Community
The banana leaf pollock dressed in a cilantro peanut tamale did it. I am no chef, but I like to cook and explore new interpretations of dishes I thought I knew. Growing up in New Orleans meant a vast menu of cool, authentic dishes that often transcended expectations.
I still remember the smell, taste and texture of the corn husk-wrapped tamales the neighborhood kids would buy from the old man pushing his cart up and down Napoleon Ave. We had no concept at the time of ingredient sourcing, labor, etc. We just knew that a couple of those tamales for $1 after playing football in the streets made for a great cap to the afternoon.
So biting into Chef David Vargas’ spin on the cod tamale opened my eyes and fired my taste buds. I would not have thought of this combination as a kid (I may not have wanted to try it). But it was a stark reminder of the beauty of culturally diverse approaches to seafood.
Deep roots
Chef David spoke about growing up in a Santa Ana (California) neighborhood of little means but deep cultural roots and strong food traditions. His family grew its own vegetables. If they wanted fresh seafood, they went to the local pier and caught it themselves. Local sourcing is ingrained in his DNA and is the bedrock of his menu at Vida Cantina in Portsmouth, N.H.
Chef David spoke about growing up in a Santa Ana (California) neighborhood of little means but deep cultural roots and strong food traditions. His family grew its own vegetables. If they wanted fresh seafood, they went to the local pier and caught it themselves. For him, local sourcing is ingrained in his DNA and is the bedrock of his menu at Vida Cantina in Portsmouth, N.H.
That explains his enthusiasm for hosting a KNOW FISH Dinner®. It was not too far of a leap from the community dining he grew up with, and the embracing of locally sourced food.
Capt. Tim Rider of New England Fishmongers provided the cod, haddock and pollock (that had been swimming the day before) Chef David turned into south-of-the-border feast fancies: cod ceviche served with a thin, but lightly crisp jicama tortilla and fresh mango, serrano and seeds; charred haddock taco paired with a crispy caper tartar sauce and marinated avocado; and the aforementioned tamale that also came with a mouth-warming charred arbol salsa.
Appreciating fish tales
Capt. Tim also provided some perspective on fishing for a living. He shed light on the passion, drive and unrelenting commitment required just to survive. The long hours, sometimes 20-hour days, sometimes 36 hours, are physically and psychologically draining to be sure.
But the attendant pressures to make a living for a captain and crew outside of the actual harvest can be staggering. The expenses can drain bank accounts quickly, which leads to heavy debt. Beyond the table stakes of boat costs such as monthly payments, insurance, fuel, gear, maintenance etc. are, for many, the staggering fees just to be allowed to fish. Someone like Tim may have to pay in excess of $100,000 a year to someone else for the right to fish for cod, pollock, haddock, scallops, flounder and a host of other species in the Gulf of Maine.
It’s the complex, and often debilitating nature of the current fisheries management structure in New England and elsewhere in the United States. Without passion and commitment, facing those kinds of costs and demands on personal well-being would be a short-lived fool’s errand.
And so, KNOW FISH Dinner attendees at Vida Cantina last week gained new appreciation for the fish harvesters who produced the seafood they were eating.
They also heard from Tim Henry, owner of Bay Point Oyster Company, LLC., who also described the effort to produce top quality oysters right out of Great Bay in New Hampshire. It’s a three-year commitment, requiring tons of patience, significant capital, physical fortitude and an ability to adapt to constantly changing circumstance. Heavy rains can force the state to shut down the harvest, and alter scheduled deliveries, for example.
As we dined on light, crisp sopapillas drizzled in chocolate sauce and local honey, we discussed why knowing the story behind the food we eat, especially the seafood we eat, matters. This is an important point for both classroom and community discussions. When you know when, where, how and by whom your seafood was harvested, you can appreciate the effort that went into producing that seafood. Moreover, you can trust it.
Frozen shrimp from Thailand? Not so much.
All Blog Posts
One Seafood Conversation at a Time
One conversation at a time. That’s been my mantra for changing the seafood purchasing dynamic in the U.S. Whether I’m speaking with a 76-year-old retiree sporting a blue blazer, a group of AP Environmental Sciences students or a cluster of six-year-olds anxious to get their hands on some live green crabs.
The question comes up occasionally. “How do you keep your content fresh?” It’s a good question. A lot of the eye-popping statistics don’t move much year after year. More than 50% of the seafood we eat is farm raised, and 90% of the shrimp we eat is farm raised. The fact remains, sadly, that at least 90% of the seafood we eat here is imported. Some argue the percentage is actually 91 or 94. Either way, the number has not gone down, and it isn’t likely to change substantially in the next few years unless we have some significant policy changes.
For me, it’s not the numbers that change so much. It’s the people I’m speaking with that change. I want to democratize the message. Reach as many people as I can. Tell them the story. Answer their questions. And hopefully convince them to take those messages with them so they change their buying habits and spread the word.
Each new face or group of faces is an opportunity to spread that message. And I’ve found the most effective way to ensure the message resonates is to adapt the way I tell the story to the audience. So the method of the story telling changes too.
This varies dramatically between classrooms by age and subject and also between different restaurant demographics I may be engaging. I look at each new “audience” and venue as a challenge. How do I connect? How do I engage? How do I get them to own the conversation so they own their next seafood decision?
I thought of these questions, as I always do, prior to a couple of school visits last month. Part of my preparation involves strategizing with the teacher beforehand about where the students are in their curriculum and what messaging would best fit with what they’ve learned or with what they will learn.
I’ve established relationships with several teachers who know what to expect. I still check in with them beforehand to make sure there aren’t any new messages they want me to introduce, or advise them of some new content or props (live mackerel, gear, etc.) One of these teachers is Doris Gianforte, a 5th grade science teacher at Rye Elementary School in New Hampshire.
As usual, when I met with her students, they were well prepared. They wanted to know more about why we import so much seafood, and why green crabs are such ecological monsters on this side of the Atlantic, and not in Europe. They couldn’t wait until they had the opportunity to ask questions at a restaurant.
Prior to my visit with 7th grade students at Harpswell Coastal Academy in Maine, I had a good discussion with their teacher Sarah Crockett. We talked about how they were in the middle of field lab work on green crabs in conjunction with an education program at Gulf of Maine Research Institute.
So we discussed introducing green crabs as a climate change marker, one that has implications for local ecosystems and shifting predator/prey relationships.
These students were also very well prepared, accurately talking about when and how European green crabs were introduced in US waters, what they like to eat and why they’re so destructive.
Students asked great questions about what fishermen and researchers are doing to minimize bycatch associated with different gear types. Like most students, getting their hands on some trawl net and a turtle excluder device helped them better understand efforts to reduce turtle bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery as well as other fisheries.
These types of connections give me hope that change, real fundamental change, lies within the possibilities and ideas sparked by these conversations.
Even if it’s one at a time.
Top Photo: Harpswell Coastal Academy 7th graders getting their TED (turtle excluder device) talk on. Credit: Sarah Crockett
All Blog Posts
Students Teaching Students
Last week, One Fish Foundation visited Portland High School for the third year in a row to discuss seafood sustainability with seniors taking a Marine Sciences course. Intern Jennifer Halstead, a senior at the University of New Hampshire, adeptly presented a clear, concise and digestible explanation of ocean acidification and how it is affecting cornerstone Gulf of Maine species like lobster and mussels. In this guest blog, Jennifer discusses the importance of taking advantage of opportunities to speak to students and community members about ocean acidification, other challenges our oceans face with climate change, and why we all need to be involved.
By Jennifer Halstead
Speaking to a crowd of people, no matter the size or demographic, can be at once daunting and rewarding, especially for a college student. Truly. It’s empowering to have people listen to your words. It’s uplifting to have them ask questions and even challenge your ideas.
Talking to a small class of students at Portland High School last week was no different. Ocean acidification (OA) is something that’s not easy to wrap your head around, but these students understood the urgency related to the issue. If at least one of them continues to ask questions and be curious, I feel as though I did my job.
Sadly, we don’t know how acidification is going to impact lobsters, one of the most important economic industries in Maine (the entire industry, including the supply chain is valued at over $1 billion). [Lobster harvests already face threats from the rapidly warming Gulf of Maine. A recent study suggests the lobster harvest could decline by as much as 62% by 2050 if the Gulf of Maine keeps warming at its current pace].
As concerned citizens and scientists, we need to start asking more questions and demanding more answers. And that is how we create change. The power is in your hands – our hands – to save oceans and our beloved lobster rolls.
I’ve spent a good portion of my college career learning about OA. Unfortunately, while our understanding of the impacts of OA is growing, OA is occurring more rapidly than we can keep up with in some places, including the Gulf of Maine. The West Coast has dealt with OA fallout, such as steep declines in oyster hatchery production in 2005, which threatened economics and 130 years of oyster hatchery history. In the Gulf of Maine, we haven’t seen complete devastation yet, but top scientists fear that it’s coming, and so do I.
We understand climate change impacts like OA, temperature, salinity, and currents, but not the details of how they interact and impact different species. We don’t understand the entire system. We only understand the pieces. Imagine trying to put a puzzle together with no idea what the end result is supposed to look like. That’s the immense challenge of trying to understand climate change impacts here in the Gulf of Maine and elsewhere; things are happening now that we won’t fully realize for several months, or even years.
To move forward and get research to catch up with the changes in the Gulf of Maine, we need the public’s interest and support. We need people to ask questions and demand answers. Spreading the word about these issues through presentations and hands-on demonstrations is a key piece to garnering support for these causes. Every time I stand in front of a group of people and talk to them about acidification, I can see us moving forward. Future generations are interested in problems, but even more interested in pushing for solutions.
As a college student, I often get asked where I see myself in 5 years, or what I want to do after I graduate. My broad answer is that I hope to be doing something to change the world for the better. To do that, I’ll keep standing in front of crowds of people, telling them about problems our oceans face, and asking for their help in saving them.
All Blog Posts
One Fish Foundation 2017
Happy New Year from One Fish Foundation!
2016 was a year of continued growth, broadened horizons, hands-on experiences, shared stories and several firsts. One Fish remains committed to educating students, parents and communities about why they should care where their seafood comes from, how it was caught and by whom.
Here are a few of the highlights from the past year, including some important firsts that set a precedent for spreading the sustainable seafood message in communities.
- The first sustainable seafood dinner was staged at Rosemont Market in Portland in June, bringing interested residents to the historic bakery to have a frank, thoughtful discussion about myriad factors affecting seafood choices.
- The KNOW FISH dinners hosted at When Pigs Fly in Kittery, Me. and Black Trumpet in Portsmouth, NH. extended the discussion of the June event to include fishermen, chefs and fishmongers talking about different links in the seafood supply chain. Attendees learned about one fisherman’s unfailing drive to catch groundfish such as haddock and pollock by hand, on rod and reel, up to 80 miles offshore to reduce bycatch and preserve the species.
- One Fish Foundation expanded its educational reach into New Hampshire schools.
- One Fish Foundation has been featured in the media:
- One Fish Foundation helped plan and attended Slow Fish 2016 in New Orleans, an international event aimed at sharing fisheries stories from around the world and addressing some of the challenges to fishermen and seafood sustainability.
We have set some ambitious goals for 2017.
- We will hire a social media communications coordinator to expand One Fish Foundation’s presence on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.
- We will extend the website to include more content for students.
- We will grow our footprint in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
- We will host more KNOW FISH dinners along the coast, inviting more fishermen and chefs to share stories about seafood sustainability and offer tips for consumers.
- We will launch a newsletter that brings the latest news and events regarding sustainable seafood and what’s going on at One Fish Foundation.
- Hats and T-shirts sporting the One Fish logo will be available online, proceeds directed toward the foundation.
- One Fish will attend key conferences focused on the front edge of seafood sustainability issues, including climate change impacts, policy changes, new science, community involvement, etc.
It’s going to be an exciting year. Through the blog, the KNOW FISH dinners and in the classroom, we’ve found one inescapable truth: change happens one conversation at a time. The more people we can reach with the message about learning where their seafood comes from, the more we can improve the resource, and the lives of the fishermen who depend on it.
Come join us!
All Blog Posts
What’s in This Fish?
I was sitting at a quiet sushi bar in Wilmington, N.C. at lunchtime a few years ago when the owner asked me a question that would have a lasting impact.
“Want to try some special tuna? It’s called white tuna.” This was several years ago, and I hadn’t yet delved into the world of seafood awareness. But I knew just enough to be sure there was no such species swimming in the ocean. When I asked exactly what species it was, he said it was escolar. “It’s just as delicious as tuna, but much cheaper.”
My skepticism gave way to curiosity, which gave way to the first lasting impact of gastrointestinal distress. Only later did I find out escolar has proteins that can wreak havoc on your bowels.
Deceptive marketing is nothing new. But I had to ask why someone would take that approach knowing the downstream impact. I wondered how someone could get away with that. Eventually the ramifications would catch up to them, right?
Ecolabeling’s initial steps
This was one of the seminal episodes that started me on my path. A year later, I wrote a blog on eco-labeling, suggesting it was a new tool to provide necessary information to consumers, like where and how the seafood was caught. Then I dug a bit deeper to find that while the practice was great in principal, there were issues.
Some leading labels ran into problems, such as certifying fisheries that weren’t really sustainable (see North Atlantic longline swordfish and its huge bycatch), or allowing fisheries to hire the “third-party” certifiers (the fox minding the henhouse).
I have written and spoken about seafood fraud several times since. It is a key classroom topic exemplifying the need to be smarter about the seafood we eat. We talk about the implications when someone substitutes cheaper farmed salmon for wild-caught at a restaurant or lower-priced pollock for cod at a seafood store.
Trailing the pack
One outcome from the most recent seafood fraud report by ocean conservancy Oceana is that while the U.S. is a leader in stock management and preservation, its oversight of the supply chain compared to the European Union and other countries is wanting.
This is ironic. The current administration has made combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing a priority. Global IUU – which covers everything from human trafficking to mislabeling – costs the seafood industry up to $23 billion a year, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. There is a new rule under consideration in the U.S. that would require labeling on 13 key species before they are imported into the country.
But the current administration also embraces the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that would essentially encourage larger exports of U.S. caught seafood and larger imports of cheaper, less regulated seafood. Many in the U.S. industry fear such a deal would flood the market with lower quality seafood that may not even be correctly labeled. Worse, language in the deal would render the U.S. virtually helpless to prevent that product from entering the market.
The Oceana report cites the European Union’s labeling standard as a potential role model for the U.S. According to Kimberly Warner, one of the report’s authors, the EU has reduced its seafood mislabeling to about 9% of the seafood sold there (excluding restaurants). This compares with 19% for the global average and a whopping 28% for the U.S.
“When we found fraud at 18% at the retail level in stores in Boston (in 2014), people were cheering,” said Warner. “But people in the EU were aghast. The question becomes, what level of mislabeling are you comfortable with?”
Indeed.
I’ve said before that increased transparency and labeling standards will only work if US fishermen have a say in developing the process and they aren’t completely saddled with the cost. Otherwise, any such proposal will fail before it gets started.
The National Fisheries Institute says better enforcement of the laws on the books, not increased labeling standards is the answer. But Warner counters that domestic laws leave a lot of room for the type of mislabeling found in the report. “You need strong laws to enforce,” she said. Vague or voluntary labeling (as has been discussed with genetically engineered salmon) don’t help.
Consumers want more info
Oceana released a poll yesterday that says 83% of Americans support new traceability requirements, including proper labeling of the seafood and where and how it was caught (or farmed). Of the 1,000 respondents, 76% said they would pay more to know their seafood was caught legally and labeled correctly and honestly.
Consumer desire is there. But we need the political will to make it happen. The EU program relies mostly on government subsidies as well as some infrastructure costs born by seafood processors. The EU seafood processors and traders association said in 2011 that implementing the new rules governing labeling and other IUU measures did not have long-term impacts on their businesses. And several links in the supply chain now view labeling as a competitive advantage.
A handful of small operations have cropped up in the U.S. aimed at digitizing supply chain records to elevate transparency. That’s a start. But, we need to bring all stakeholders to the table and make transparency and adequate labeling happen on a national scale. Otherwise, it’s just a process of randomly putting out small fires.
Our best defense is information. A national, verifiable schema for tracing the seafood from boat to retailer, and developed with fishermen’s input, would be helpful and widely embraced by consumers.
Photo credits: NOAA
All Blog Posts
Know Fish: A Dinner Series of Food, Fun and…
For most people, seafood is simply a protein either on a menu, laid across some ice in a display case or pre-packaged in a box at a supermarket. There’s typically no story about where and how the fish was caught, much less by whom. Consumers have little or no idea of how far the fish has traveled, nor whether the fish and shellfish are abundant, stressed or fed antibiotics and hormones at an industrial aquaculture site.
One Fish Foundation arose from a wish to spread the word about our relationship to oceans and specifically to seafood. This means bringing the story behind the seafood we eat into classrooms. I’ll lug in a bunch of fishing gear to talk about different harvest methods and their impact on the resource and marine ecosystems. I’ll throw out eye-popping stats to illustrate how skewed our domestic seafood consumption picture is.
Spreading the word also means going into communities and having conversations with people who care about the environment and want to learn more about the food they eat. That’s what the Know Fish Dinner Series is about. For the past five months, I’ve worked with Seacoast chefs who are passionate about sourcing sustainably harvested seafood; activists who speak out on issues like fisheries management fairness and climate change; fishmongers selling locally abundant, underutilized species; and one fisherman who is bucking the trend toward consolidation, resource depletion and massive bycatch.
These dinners will be a fun, interactive dialogue about why we should be concerned that 90% of the seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. We’ll eat deliciously prepared, sustainable groundfish caught on rod and reel by Capt. Tim Rider out of Eliot, Me. We’ll discuss why supporting local fishing communities is important and how our seafood choices make a difference: to the resource, the oceans and the fishermen who work them
We’ll have some fun with trivia that sheds light on the resource, the supply chain, marine ecosystems, aquaculture, invasive species, climate change impacts and more. We’ll discuss these topics, ask and answer questions, and bring more of the story to life.
This will be your chance to talk to Capt. Rider about why he spends 18 hours a day or more on the water, fishing with rod and reel in a fishery dominated by trawl nets.
You’ll have the opportunity to talk with chefs Evan Mallett of Black Trumpet, Rob Martin of When Pigs Fly and Brendan Vesey of Joinery Restaurant (Brendan will be cooking with Evan at the Black Trumpet event) about how they choose what seafood to put on the menu.
You’ll be able to ask fishmongers Spencer Montgomery of Dole and Bailey and Amanda Parks of New England Fishmongers about the products they market and handle, and some of the discussions they’ve had around underutilized species.
Got questions about why many small-scale fishermen are struggling? Follow up with one of the event collaborators, Brett Tolley, the community organizer and policy advocate for Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance. He’s been at the forefront of a campaign to revise current fisheries laws that are consolidating the fleet and squeezing out fishermen like Capt. Rider.
(And, I’ll be on hand to talk about sparking student interest in seafood sustainability, and the effectiveness of waving a dead fish at 6th graders).
This is the team that has volunteered many hours to help organize these events. Everyone brings a great energy and passion to the dinners on Oct. 13 at When Pigs Fly and Oct. 27 at Black Trumpet.
So come out and eat some fabulous seafood, listen to some cool stories, test your seafood trivia, and most of all, get to know your fisherman, your fishmonger, your chefs, a couple of evangelists and your FISH.
Get tickets via the links below.
I hope to see you there!
Aquaculture
Canada Greenlights GE Salmon
Congrats Canada! You may become the first nation in the world to sell genetically modified animals as food.
That’s because the health ministry approved Mass.-based AquaBounty’s genetically engineered (GE) salmon as a safe food source for sale May 19. Dubbed “Frankenfish” by critics, AquAdvantage salmon are grown from eggs developed in Prince Edward Island and raised in land-based pens in Panama. AquAdvantage salmon promises to grow to market size twice as fast, requiring about a quarter of the feed than other farmed salmon. Proponents see this as reducing environmental impact while meeting increasing demand. Critics see it as a dangerous money grab setting a bad precedent.
From the Health Canada statement announcing the approval:
“GM [genetically modified] foods are becoming more common every day and are part of the regular diets of Canadians. GM foods that have been approved by Health Canada have been consumed in Canada for many years, and are safe and nutritious. Changes to the genes of plants and animals can improve food quality and production – for instance by reducing the need for pesticides, making crops resistant to drought, preventing bruising, or allowing foods to be grown more quickly.”
I’ll get back to that last sentence. First, some background. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration actually approved AquaAdvantage Salmon for sale last November, but ran into a wall of opposition, including a legal challenge filed by several environmental groups such as the Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch and Friends of the Earth. They claim the FDA does not have the authority to regulate GE animals based on a decades-old law used to regulate animal drugs and cosmetics. To wit, the FDA used the 1938 Food and Drug Cosmetic act to qualify the gene manipulation in GE salmon as an animal drug safe for human consumption.
Huh? As I’ve blogged before, this just seems like a ridiculous premise to be basing an important food safety issue potentially affecting millions of U.S. consumers.
So, the U.S. market may have to wait a bit longer for its shot at GE salmon than Canada. Unless there is another legal challenge in Canada. Ecology Action Centre in Halifax is currently appealing a federal court ruling against the centre’s previous suit challenging Canada’s approval of production of the eggs at a plant in PEI.
AquaBounty says it won’t have any market-ready salmon for a year.
Transparency and fairness
The issues surrounding GE salmon are many, but they generally center on transparency and fairness. Most critics want — at a minimum — mandatory labeling of all GE salmon, not to mention all GE foods. But the industry has fought this tooth and nail, claiming that it would unfairly bias consumer decisions because of the negative connotation widely associated with the genetically modified food industry.
This has been borne out by several studies showing that despite scientists’ proclamations that GE foods are safe for human consumption, an overwhelming majority of consumers, up to two-thirds or more, do not trust the science. Not only do they think GE salmon isn’t safe, they also don’t think scientists have a clear understanding of all of the potential health risks. Not coincidentally, a majority of scientists in a poll by the Pew Research Center and U.S. members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science suggests 88% of scientists polled believe genetically modified foods are safe to eat, while only 37% of the U.S. public thinks it’s safe.
I am in the same camp. I don’t think enough long-term, independent research has ruled out all risks associated with ingesting this type of hormone. Consider that FDA approval is based on the agency’s analysis of the test results paid for and submitted by AquaBounty … not by an independent third-party group with no vested interest in the outcome. For reference, see page 16 of this Congressional Research Service report, noting concerns over the FDA review process. To me, this leaves too much room to force the results into pre-determined conclusions, and perhaps explains in part why there is so much general skepticism about safety.
As such, I think the transparency issue is paramount. If the FDA or Health Canada deem GE salmon safe, they should require all such products be clearly labeled. One would think that if AquaBounty wants to appear trustworthy, it would label its product to demonstrate it’s not hiding anything from customers.
Ah, but there’s the problem. AquaBounty is following Monsanto’s playbook, spending tons of money to prevent labeling. Both the FDA and Health Canada claim that labeling is not necessary because “scientific research” suggests that there will be no “material difference” in the nutritional profiles between GE products and a non-GE counterpart. The FDA is offering GE producers like AquaBounty the option of voluntarily labeling the product, which is code for “You don’t have to do this.”
Here’s the fairness issue. Consumers wishing to buy organic pancake mix can look at the product to see a seal indicating the producer has paid a fee to have the product inspected and certified, along with a label that clearly indicates all of the ingredients. Hell, the same is true for a box of non-organic cookies. Salt, sugar, fat grams. All of that stuff must be listed somewhere. So why shouldn’t AquaBounty be compelled to tell the public that a hormone from an ocean pout (a completely different species) has been used in the “manufacturing” of that salmon fillet? Even if you can argue that doesn’t change the nutritional profile, it sure changes the ingredient list that yielded the end product.
Several big-name stores like Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Safeway and Kroger have pledged to not sell GE salmon.
It’s a slippery slope. Approving GE salmon using antiquated animal drug legislation or whatever other rationale without a fully thorough, third-party, long-term analysis is bad enough. Allowing AquaBounty to hide its product in a veil of secrecy, deliberately misinforming consumers, is egregious.
Top photo credit: AquaBounty
All Blog Posts
Fisheries Policy A Mixed Bag
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) turns 40 this year. This is significant for fisheries because the law has been the backbone for management policy since its implementation in 1976.
And that fisheries policy is largely working, according to the 2015 Status of the Stocks released by NOAA last week. In short, the annual report boasted the percentage of domestic fish species that are overfished is near record lows. Thirty-nine fish stocks have been rebuilt since 2000 because of effective management policies, (up from 37 stocks in 2014), says the report. The number of stocks experiencing overfishing (when the harvest rate exceeds the stock’s ability to sustain harvest) has increased by 2 since 2014. The number of stocks that are overfished (when the population is too low and may not be able to support harvest) has increased by one to 38 since 2014.
Some of the lowlights of species still considered under threat by NOAA’s standards: Atlantic cod (no surprise), Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna (no surprise), Atlantic salmon (longtime resident on this list), red snapper (ditto), different species of flounder, different shark species, Chinook and Coho salmon in different areas of Washington state, Atlantic halibut and Pacific swordfish.
To be sure, a lot of work goes into compiling these reports. And it gives a general barometer of fisheries in US waters, even if some of the species, such as bluefin tuna, are highly migratory and thus, fished by international fleets.
NOAA calls out the annual catch limit as an effective tool for ensuring against overfishing. One of the more recent “tools” added to the NOAA anti-overfishing toolbox is the individual transfer quota (ITQ). In essence, a certain fishery has a certain amount of quota that is available to fishermen…for a price. Fishermen can buy and sell quota within their regulated area just like stock traders can with stocks. The concept was to allow fishermen to self-regulate while managing to a catch limit.
Unintended consequences
The unintended consequence shifted control from the pool of local fishermen to a select few with the money to buy up all of the quota. As quota became more expensive, more smaller scale fishermen were forced out of the equation. So not only is the ITQ system skewing access and control of the fishery away from local commercial fishermen, but it’s actually encouraging greater fishing pressure on the resource by larger operations who care more about profit than the health of the resource.
Many fishermen argue it is this environment that fueled the ascent of large operators, such as Carlos Rafael, the New Bedford distributor arrested last month on fraud charges. Authorities allege that he hid actual catch volumes and mislabeled fish in a scheme to sell regulated species to buyers in New York for bags of cash. He is currently under “house arrest” wearing an ankle bracelet that monitors his whereabouts and ensures he abides by his curfew.
Fisheries management is a complex issue. There’s no one-size-fits-all formula that provides equal protections for Atlantic Striped bass and Pacific Ocean perch. Different species in different ecosystems with different complexes of predator prey relationships and environmental factors require specific, targeted policies to account for all of these variables. And that doesn’t fully encompass the calculus of ecosystem-based management (managing fisheries not just by the narrow window of one specific species at a time, but as an entire ecosystem from plants up to alpha predators like sharks).
It’s hard to get it 100% right.
Magnuson-Stevens provided the framework that has evolved to the point where specific species management is possible. But the scale of the framework and sheer administration needed to manage such a menagerie of diverse fisheries has created what some fishermen see as a type of caste system where the well funded “inherit” the right to control large chunks of the US fishery. Smaller-scale fishermen who depend on the resource for their lives are forced out, and the resource suffers.
Mssing in this equation is a key tenet described in the amendment and renaming of the law in 1996: “Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.”
So yes, Magnuson-Stevens has provided a critical framework for managing a hugely diverse network of fisheries in U.S. waters. Better science gives us a more realistic idea of what is happening in our marine ecosystems, and policies are in place to help avoid fishing beyond capacity. But there is also room for improvement. Effective fisheries policy must include all stakeholders, including small-scale fishermen. Failure to do so has made the system vulnerable to fraud and disparity that hurts fishermen, consumers and the resource.
A better, more democratic approach that lets everyone have an equal voice is surely available. We just need to break the longstanding habit of repeating the same mistakes.
Photo credits: NOAA
All Blog Posts
Slow Fish Rises to the Challenge
To say Slow Fish 2016 (March 10-13) in New Orleans was a success is an understatement. Overcoming last-minute weather challenges that shut down the planned venue, moving several thousand pounds of food around and getting people to deliver and attend informative, compelling presentations at three different, distinct venues was a stroke of genius from the event organizers and their motivated team. Here is the blog I wrote about the experience.
It’s a surreal, if a bit funny experience to eat oysters surrounded by larger-than-life representations of male and female anatomy. Kind of a Harold-Robbins-meets-Jules-Verne aura.
How a bunch of fishermen, chefs, scientists and seafood activists from around the world ended up in a dilapidated warehouse surrounded by lewdly, yet very craftily decorated Mardi Gras floats for the Krewe du Vieux (pronounced “croo du voo” and which pulls no punches lambasting anything/anyone political or sexual) is a study in adaptation.
We had gathered for the Slow Fish 2016 event in New Orleans to discuss important fisheries issues, make connections and celebrate locally caught, fresh and delicious seafood. Naturally, intense Louisiana spring weather turned carefully planned scheduling on its head with impending violent thunderstorms and potential flooding. Not one hour into the 150-person event at the Old US Mint, the state called for emergency evacuations and closed our base of operations for the next three days.
So instead of celebrating the gathering on the grounds of a historic building, we found ourselves feasting on pompano and sea bass in the shadows of papier-mâché sex. Ironically, that kind of mandatory last-minute logistical two-step closely parallels the rapid fire challenges many family fishermen face, constantly having to adapt to ever-shifting polices, seafood markets, climate, etc. beyond their control. We banned together at Slow Fish to pull it off, perhaps serving as proof that collaboration and flexibility are critical to addressing broader policy and market challenges ahead. That was the first of several truly unique experiences at Slow Fish 2016.
The next was the following day at the quirky Broad Theater in Mid City, a neighborhood at the heart of New Orleans. There, fishermen ranging from Alaska to California, and from Louisiana to Maine shared stories about their watersheds, community-based fisheries traditions and the management policies changing the landscape of how, when and where they can fish.
They discussed challenges such as privatization and resource allocation, biodiversity, policy impacts and ways to protect watersheds and fishing community heritage. Former Alaskan salmon fishermen and current Slow Fish board member Kevin Scribner described how the Salmon Safe program has worked with farmers, businesses and urban planners to reduce downstream impacts on native salmon habitat. This means the owners or tenants of more than 95,000 acres of agricultural and urban land (including the Nike campus, and several major farms) in three states and British Columbia have committed to reducing harmful nutrient and pollutant discharge into precious streams.
Kindra Arnesen spoke passionately about the challenges facing fishing families on the Mississippi River delta. She described her Herculean efforts to unite struggling fishermen after the BP oil disaster, first to get jobs helping with cleanup, then to challenge BP, the EPA, NOAA and other local, state and federal agencies on their methods of cleanup, cover-up and compensation. It was yet another story of adaptation and survival.
Other presenters discussed creating direct channels between fishermen, retailers and chefs to bring fresh seafood inland from the coast. Marianne Cufone, executive director of Recirculating Farms Coalition, showed the audience how a motivated team was able to start a clean, productive aquaponics operation right in a Central City neighborhood. Restaurants have already expressed interest in the fresh lettuce and catfish growing in recirculated water.
Set to the backdrop of compelling images, each story brought to life some of the common struggles many fishermen and coastal communities face, and some of the successful solutions to those challenges.
The adaptation of the Slow Fish 2016 continued Saturday at the Dryades Market, whose previous life had been a public school in Central City, another neighborhood steeped in diversity. Groups of concerned fishermen spoke about adequately addressing quotas and fairness issues and ways to promote local fisheries management. One common theme that emerged, perhaps prophetically, was the issue of adaptation.
Louisiana fishermen are constantly forced to adapt to changing ecosystem habitats, based on the chilling statistic that the coastline loses a football field of marsh every 45 minutes. Okanagan tribes have to adapt to the ebb and flow of wild sockeye migrating several hundred miles into incredibly diverse watersheds straddling the border between British Columbia and Washington state. Maine fishermen have to navigate the fluctuations in their fisheries due to the rapidly warming Gulf of Maine and the seemingly arbitrary nature of regional management.
Perhaps it was divinely appropriate that Mother Nature decided to throw a curveball and forced organizers to scramble. Because it is that instinct to go into auto pilot in the face of adversity and figure out a solution that determines success. For a Pacific salmon, that instinct to swim several hundred miles to its natal waters to spawn, die and give sustenance to its young is pure survival. For fishermen, it’s the ability to chase different available species when Nature or policy forces their hands. It’s in banding together to work toward a common cause to bring communities closer to their seafood.
Through all of the rain and high wind and last-minute venue changes, the shuttling of food from here to there…and back again, the audio-visual challenges, the taxis, carpools and long walks through a noisy French Quarter, Slow Fish 2016 attendees made connections. They found common ground. They discussed ways to organize, set goals and pursue them. They made friends.
Perhaps the skies dawned on a warm,bluebird day on the tail end of the gathering at Docville Farm in Violet, La., a boucherie and seafood feast, as a reckoning of sorts. Adapt. Persevere. Hope. Something good will come out of it.
The memory of the food, the conversation, the energy and camaraderie will stay with all of us for a long time.
All Blog Posts
Climate Change Could Threaten Several Northeast Fisheries New Study…
Go ask Long Island lobstermen … if you can find any … what they think about climate change. Trouble is, there aren’t many left because there aren’t many lobsters left in Long Island Sound. Same thing with Atlantic cod fishermen. There aren’t nearly as many boats targeting cod compared to 25 years ago because there are fewer fish.
We can blame climate change to a degree. No, it would be shortsighted to blame all fisheries depletions on warming waters. Myriad factors including fishing pressure can conspire to harm stock health. But a new study from NOAA underscores a concern many scientists and fishermen share: ever warming waters will continue to dramatically impact fisheries.
Published in the journal PLOS ONE, the study relies on a new methodology to look at how 82 species in the Northeast region have been and will be affected by climate change. Specifically, the study measures which species will be most vulnerable to climate change effects, including ocean acidification, as well as which species’ migratory patterns will most likely change because of ocean warming. In a nutshell, species that live along the ocean floor such as cod, mussels and lobsters, and those like salmon and sturgeon that migrate between salt and fresh water are most at risk.
Some of the species’ responses we already know. As the Gulf of Maine warms faster than 99% of all ocean climates on earth (at a rate of a half a degree Fahrenheit increase per year for the past decade), several native species have reacted. Lobsters have moved north and east along the coast, leaving fisheries in Long Island and Cape Cod in succession. The Northern Shrimp fishery has collapsed in the past few years. Scientists speculate the combination of warming waters limiting spawning and reducing the amount of plankton the shrimp eat is largely to blame. Scientists also say these warming waters limit cod reproduction and health and survivability of juveniles.
Gulf of Maine temperature increases have opened the door to invasive species like black sea bass and scup, and have made bays and estuaries more hospitable to European green crabs, whose numbers have risen exponentially in the past few years. Green crabs wreak havoc on eelgrass flats as they burrow in to eat larval mussels, clams and oysters.
Jon Hare, a fisheries oceanographer at NOAA Fisheries’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and lead study author, said the main purpose of this study is to give fisheries managers and other stakeholders tools to take climate change into account when devising management policy.
“We’re never going to have perfect information,” he said. “The ecosystem is going to change because of a combination of anthropogenic influence such as greenhouse gas and natural climate variability.” To keep up with the pace of that change, which has been dramatic in the past 10 years, Hare and his colleagues developed a methodology that incorporates already established research and factors in expert extrapolation. This methodology helps them predict things like how mussels will respond to warming waters or how they will react to increased acidity in their ecosystem in the next 10 years.
The scientists graded each of the 82 species’ vulnerabilities taking into account different variables, and set those grades to peer review. The result is a composite view of how likely a species may suffer reproductive pressures from increased temperatures or how likely a species may change migratory patterns.
Hare said other studies are beginning in the Bering Sea and off the coast of California, and the National Marine Fisheries Service wants to conduct these studies on all U.S. coasts.
No doubt much discussion will arise from this study and others like it. Some will question the study’s approach, efficacy or even need. Some fishermen may view the study as simply another tool for regulatory bodies like the New England Fisheries Management Council to further restrict fishing without real stakeholder permit. Others might ask why this hasn’t occurred before.
I see a couple of potential positive outcomes. First, the fact that NOAA is not only acknowledging climate change, but also actively trying to take steps to factor that into management decisions is significant. Like any federal agency, NOAA moves at a glacial pace (I wonder how long we’ll be able to use that descriptor…). But Hare and his colleagues eschewed the traditional approach to ecosystem-based management via species-specific analyses, which could take decades, to adopt a faster, potentially more efficient methodology for studying the issue. This is largely because climate change has been transforming ecosystems faster than we can study them.
Secondly, Hare says he hopes this tool becomes iterative — that in fact it will adapt as ecosystems change so scientists and researchers will have a chance to keep closer tabs of impacts than before. Some of fishermen’s frustrations with past NOAA research/policies is that that they are static, and don’t change dynamically with ecosystems. But Hare hopes the iterative process for this methodology will take into account fishermen input when considering which species may be affected by climate change. “Fishing communities will be impacted as well,” he said.
One impact is that some of these communities will start adapting to the changing marine ecosystems and harvest “locally abundant” species that were once considered invasive species. For example, black sea bass have started showing up in lobster traps in Maine because they’ve followed the warming trend north. Now they are an available seafood choice in local stores and restaurants.
I too hope this process becomes more collaborative. Because without that interactive participation in the science and policy making, the process will continue to be viewed by many as a set of unilateral decisions curtailing fisheries at the expense of small scale fishermen. As Hare said, even if we magically stopped all green house emissions now, the lingering effects of warming oceans would continue for decades.
Acting now, collaboratively, is the best chance at present for ensuring we effectively manage fisheries even as warming waters seek to change the dynamics. I attended a workshop a year ago in which scientists (including Hare), fishermen, and policy makers discussed how to better predict climate change impacts on fisheries and how to communicate that to fishermen.
Perhaps this is the first step.
Lobster photo credit: NOAA