Blog Posts: Fish

By Meredith Moore

Fish, Inc.: The Privatization of U.S. Fisheries Through Catch Share Programs

A recent editorial by the New York Times attributed the successful rebuilding of six fish stocks to a management scheme called catch shares. Putting aside the fact that only three of those stocks are under a catch share, the entire comparison is flawed.

The Times criticizes republicans in Congress and their fishermen allies for hating the environment. “Add fish and oceans to the long list of environmental issues that House Republicans do not much care about,” opens the piece. But equating catch shares to any other environmental issue overlooks the larger point: catch shares are a way of managing fishermen, not fish.

Fish sustainability is guaranteed by setting scientifically-based limits on the total number of fish that can be caught each year. These are called annual catch limits, and are mandated under our nation’s key fishing law. The United States is leading the way in setting and enforcing these limits, and the hard work is paying off as more and more fisheries recover. This is the sort of regulation our oceans need—not catch shares.

Catch shares, currently being pushed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), are a way of distributing portions of that total catch to individual fishermen, in a way that is often grossly unfair. Catch shares cause significant unemployment and financial hardship among our nation’s traditional small fishermen and their communities. Since catch shares always come packaged with an annual catch limit, the gains made setting sustainable limits are often attributed to catch shares management. But catch limits and catch shares are not the same thing.

Contrary to what the Times editorial board thinks, Congress isn’t trying to hurt fish; they’re trying to stop NOAA from hurting fishermen.

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

It used to be that unscrupulous salesmen would try to sell you the bridge; nowadays, they’ve climbed a rung lower – they’re trying to sell you the public trust water flowing under the bridge. A recent website, thebaybank.org, has planted a giant “For Sale” sign on the Chesapeake Bay and the stage is now set to create a marketplace out of this sacred common resource, with the Bay being sold off credit-by-credit.

So what exactly do you get when you buy a credit on Baybank’s website? You don’t actually get a cup of Bay water. The water bottling companies have already figured out how to commoditize our water resources by pouring it into containers and selling it in the supermarkets. Baybank actually promotes a much more insidious way to market our waterways – they’re facilitating the sale of the right to pollute the Bay with more of the same contaminants that are already threatening the very future of this important watershed.

Here how water pollution trading—also known as water quality trading—is supposed to work: instead of recognizing that waterways are owned by everyone as a public trust and enforcing the prohibition on polluting our water, these market-based approaches allow some polluters to claim they’ve decreased their pollution and then sell that alleged decrease, in the form of pollution credits, to other polluters who want to increase their pollution. Read the full article…

By Lane Brooks

Food & Water Watch is rolling out its presence on Pinterest, and if you haven’t yet pinned something from us, then surf right over to our Pinterest boards and check out what we have in store for you.

If you are into Pinterest, you’ve probably already stopped reading and clicked the link. If you are still with me, you may wonder: What is Pinterest? It’s one of the fastest growing new sites on the web. It’s comprised of pictures you post about things that interest you, and lets you see what other people who share your interests are also looking at. Is it a place to connect with your friends and family? Not really—you already know what they are up to from other social media sites. This is a place to easily, quickly and simply discover new things that interest you—through the power of images.

Do you like to cook? Check out recipes from other cooks. Do you like to travel? Check out new spots or someone else’s take on one of your old favorites. Are your interests more specific like collecting thimbles or stitching needlepoint or watching birds? You will be surprised at how many people are doing the same things you are. As a friend of Food & Water Watch, we know that some of your interests can be found on Pinterest:

Ending fracking? Check.

Stopping GMO foods? Check.

Checking in on other activists are doing? Check.

Taking back the tap? Check.

You might be surprised by how many other people are pinning images related to these causes. Conveniently, you can find all of these passions on one Pinterest page. And, naturally, we have a section devoted to good food, too, because what’s a Pinterest page with out that? We hope you will check us out and follow us.

By Mitch Jones

Ah… there’s nothing like fresh, domestic fish, especially salmon. Too bad most of the salmon that we consume here in the U.S. isn’t fresh or domestic. A new report out this month announces that U.S. imports of salmon were up 22.8% in January and February of this year versus the first two months of 2011. This isn’t surprising, but it’s really unfortunate, especially for America’s fisheries. Each year the U.S. hands over about 85% of our domestic seafood market to imports, while we export a smaller amount of high quality, domestic wild-caught seafood. Yep, that’s right: we import and eat the cheap, farmed stuff while we ship out the good stuff. This is insane and it means our fishermen are being undercut by cheap imports.

Another recent report highlights this. Gunnar Knapp, an economist at the University of Alaska – Anchorage, points out that the price of farmed salmon is falling. He notes that the Chilean farmed salmon industry is rebounding, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that the import report notes a 117% increase in fresh Chilean fillets and an 81.7% increase in frozen Chilean fillets imported in to the U.S. Other factors paly a part in this: the Chilean aquaculture industry, for example, is just recovering from a major problem with illness in their fish. But this means more farmed, imported salmon is available on the market.

Sadly, if we know anything at all about our seafood imports, we should know that only two percent of it is inspected. Considering much of the seafood we import is coming from nations that have food safety standards much lower than ours, this can be disconcerting. We also know there are myriad problems associated with fish farmed in the open ocean, even here in the United States.

So, what can seafood lovers do to avoid a bad catch? The simplest step you can take to combat these seafood woes is to make sure you buy wild-caught, domestic seafood.

By Mitch Jones

Today, our friends over at Grist published a story about the attempt to bring open ocean aquaculture, that is, industrial fish farms, to U.S. territorial waters. The story is based on a recent press release from Kampachi Farms trumpeting their recent attempts to demonstrate the viability of drifting cages in the open ocean.

Unfortunately the story leaves out many of the questions that surround this project…

First, while the story says the purpose of the Velella Project was to show that the cages could operate in open waters, the cages have been seen only four miles off the coast and have attracted wild species that would normally be fished. The presence of these cages will likely have a negative impact on local fishermen’s ability to catch fish, not only because they attract wild fish, but also because of the harm they could cause to the local marine environment.

Second, fish escapes and equipment loss can also reap havoc on the environment immediately surrounding fish farms. In the summer of 2011, Kona Blue Water Farms reported that they lost two of their empty net pens while towing them out to sea, as the Grist story mentions. What is left unsaid is that the whereabouts of one of these cages is unknown. Attempts to sink it failed and it may still be floating at or just below the surface of the water creating a potential hazard for shipping activity. No environmental study of the impacts has been conducted on the sinking of the second cage.

Third, despite initial claims that the project would produce 2,000 fish at 8,000 pounds total, the company’s release is completely silent on how much fish was produced, leading us to question how much of a success it actually was. The public has a right to know all the facts. After all, the project was partly funded with U.S. tax dollars: $500,000 from the National Science Foundation and $242,889 from National Marine Fisheries Service.

Finally, if this project was a much of a success as the company claims, and is reported in this story, how come the next phase of the project will use anchored cages? If the project successfully proved the viability of drifting cages, why won’t the cages be drifting any longer? And, if the next round of cages are anchored, what does this mean for the supposed environmental benefits of having the cages drift? Surely anchored cages will not lead to the wide dispersal of fish waste promised by this project.

Instead of providing a solution, the Velella Project raises serious problems with the concept of open ocean aquaculture. To learn more about the decade-plus track record of setbacks and failures in open ocean aquaculture read our report Fishy Farms.

By Marie Logan

Seafood lovers beware: there’s a chemical that threatens to deceive you about the freshness of your flaky fillets of fish. You might be paying more for seafood that contains this chemical, because it can increase the weight of the products to which it’s applied. Worse, you might not even know it’s there, because labeling of this potentially toxic chemical is not mandatory in the U.S.

So what is it? It’s an additive—called sodium tripolyphosphate, or STPP for short—and it is used to make your seafood appear firmer, smoother and glossier. Seafood manufacturers may soak your seafood in a quick chemical bath of STPP in order

to achieve these effects. Some of the more commonly “soaked” seafood items include scallops, shrimp and anything filleted that’s very flaky—like hake, sole or imitation crab meat. (For those of you following food safety news, this is similar to the spraying of carbon monoxide on red meat, which can make older meat appear fresher than it is.)

If seafood is soaked for too long in an STPP bath, it may absorb more water, which means you’ll pay more for the product by the pound because the excess water makes it weigh more. A product may have been “soaked” with STPP if a milky white liquid oozes from the fish as you cook it, and it may also deflate in size a bit.

In large quantities, STPP is a suspected neurotoxin, as well as a registered pesticide and known air contaminant in the state of California.

How can one steer clear of STPP? Ask at your market or fish shop if the scallops or shrimp you’re being sold are “dry.” You can ask the same thing of waiters at seafood restaurants—they should have an understanding of the topic. (In industry-speak, “wet” fish means a product has been soaked in phosphates.) You can also check labels of packaged products, which may list STPP as an ingredient. Unfortunately, it’s not mandatory for companies and sellers to do so.

Remember, consumers have the power. Start wielding yours today! Find out where the fish you’re ordering comes from, and how it’s produced, to help influence your local food system.

Read up more on STPP in our fact sheet, “What’s on Your Fish?” As always, if you have any questions, please post them here in our comments section and we’ll do our best to respond in a timely manner.

By Lane Brooks

I watched the Oscars on Sunday and couldn’t help but think optimistically about key decisions that certain leaders—business and political—need to make this year to determine the future of our food and water. Dare I hope that by next year’s awards season, we’ll have a whole new slew of awards to hand out to those that have taken decisive leadership in the face of enormous industry pressure? With that in mind, here are some potential future nominees for such an award—the “Oscars” of food and water, if you will:

Gov. Cuomo of New York. Will he push for a ban on fracking in the Empire State? The energy industry wants badly to drill in New York for the profits to be made from vast a supply of natural gas. Potentially permanent harm to the water and the environment are of little concern to them. What are the chances he will act for the citizens and ban fracking? It’s possible if we keep up the pressure not only on Governor Cuomo, but on Congress, too.

Walmart. Will the largest grocery retailer in the United States decide not to sell Monsanto’s GE sweet corn? If enough of their customers let them know they won’t buy it, Walmart may decide this time to do the right thing. Read the full article…

By Meredith McCarthy

Taking care of the oceans is a big challenge that needs the right solutions. That’s why we oppose turning our fisheries into privatized markets through catch shares, filling our coastal waters with environmentally degrading factory fish farms, and forcing controversial private eco-labeling onto fisheries.

Not surprisingly, we were disappointed with the positions adopted by The Global Partnership for Oceans, a new international alliance, coordinated by The World Bank. This coalition of major environmental groups, governments, and private sector interests has a chance to work together to find real solutions to the challenges of sustainably managing the world’s fisheries for the good of the oceans and the people who depend on them. Instead they’re parroting some of the same negative policies we’ve opposed for years.

Although it is an organization tasked with reducing poverty in the world, the World Bank has yet again chosen to align itself with strategies that only increase income disparity. Catch shares consolidate control of fish to a small group of wealthy fishermen, forcing small-scale fishermen into bankruptcy and destroying coastal communities in the process.

Read the full article…

By Lane Brooks

Stop Agent Orange Corn Before It Reaches Your Plate!

We’ve been focused on our campaign to tell the nation’s largest grocery retailer – Walmart – to not carry Monsanto’s GE corn because it is unlabeled, untested and potententially unhealthy. We’ve had hard hitting actions, a call-in day that closed down Walmart’s customer service lines with the volume of calls, and even a fun Facebook campaign. (We also just released a report that shows why Walmart can’t fix the food system.)

Unfortunately, corn is not the only thing on Monsanto’s menu of Frankenfoods. Now they want a new GE soybean, but like the corn, this soybean has not been tested enough to prove it’s safe – which is especially weird since it will be marketed as “healthier” due to the Omega-3 engineered in. Is it healthier for human consumption? Is it healthier for the environment it’s grown in? Since it hasn’t been thoroughly tested, there is no way to know for certain. Tell the USDA not to approve this soy shot in the dark.

Parting thoughts:

Do you live in Nevada? Check out the real story on the unsustainable, multibillion-dollar water pipeline under discussion for your state. You can probably think of a better use for that money – I know I can.

Do you live in Alaska (or love wild salmon)? Wild salmon depend on the watershed from the 17,000 square-mile Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska. But it’s being endangered with excess logging and too little conservation and restoration. Help protect the Tongass.

Lane Brooks is Chief Operating Officer
See my recent posts

We often point to the importance of sustainably sourcing wild populations of fish. One of the reasons it’s so critical to abide by our Smart Seafood Guide is due to endangered populations of fish. In particular, salmon is a species that is difficult to label “sustainable” across the board, due to the various circumstances surrounding the different locations where it’s sourced. Former Food & Water Watch Fish Program Director Andrianna Natsoulas, now working for the Sitka Conservation Society on salmon conservation, describes how development in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska can quickly threaten an ecosystem, in this case, a watershed that’s home to wild Alaskan salmon.

By Andrianna Natsoulas, Sitka Conservation Society

Salmon rank third-highest on America’s most popular seafood list, but not all salmon are alike. Savvy seafood lovers know that the best of the salmon are wild Alaskan salmon. What some may not know is that those salmon depend on the healthy watersheds of the Tongass National Forest, 17,690 miles of salmon habitat to be exact.

The Tongass National Forest is the largest national forest and is actually a temperate rainforest, covering over 80 percent of Southeast Alaska. Walking through the Tongass, you’d feel as if you’d stepped into a storybook forest with giant moss-covered cedar, spruce and hemlock trees. Over 200 species depend on the Tongass to survive and, of those, nearly 50 animals feed directly on salmon, including brown bears and bald eagles. Salmon go a long way, but they need your help. Read the full article…