Chilean sea bass: overfished, confusing, and political dynamite.
Al Gore's appetite was the subject of recent controversy when he was accused of scarfing down Chilean sea bass at his daughter's Beverly Hills wedding rehearsal dinner. Chilean sea bass, officially named Patagonian toothfish, is heavily overfished in Antarctic waters. For Gore, the toothfish was also a public relations nightmare. First came the accusations of hypocrisy and eco-obliviousness, including my own at the Shifting Baselines blog, and then rumours that the Gore family had not actually eaten the fish, and then the final sigh of relief from Gore supporters when the Daily Telegraph retracted their blow and reported the Chilean sea bass actually was "caught and documented in compliance with the Marine Stewardship Council" (though it is not clear the fish was MSC-certified).
Political hack job? Sloppy journalism? One thing is certain: Gore's character assassination was fueled by a confusion rampant in today's global seafood market.
"We did not co-evolve with fish they way we co-evolved with mammals," says Daniel Pauly at the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre. "Therefore, we cannot wrap our minds around fish or our hearts around them either." Perhaps for this reason, our primary way of conserving fisheries over the last decade has been through our stomachs.
Expensive campaigns
From 1999 to 2004, the Seafood Choices Alliance alone has invested $37 million US in seafood consumer awareness campaigns, partially out of exasperation with the government's failure to regulate fisheries or seafood imports. These campaigns aim to educate consumers about fisheries issues and also to empower them to make a difference in the market. If only collapsed fish stocks were increasing at the same rate as these market-based initiatives. Instead, what seems to be growing is the web of complex messages and the number of confused consumers.
The 2007 "Seafood Watch" wallet card from Monterey Bay Aquarium lists tuna 12 different times (i.e., species, method of fishing, country) between the three columns of best choices, good alternatives, and avoid. But most tuna consumers are not aware that there are nine tuna species and often do not know the meaning of "troll-caught." Though these complexities reflect the reality of the global seafood market, they also overwhelm the average tuna shopper.
Similarly, the aim of Canada's Living Ocean Society's "Farmed and Dangerous" campaign is to convince consumers not to eat farmed salmon. But several studies over the past few years indicate that retailers frequently mislabel farmed salmon as "wild caught." Studies from the U.S. have shown as much as three-quarters of the "wild" salmon sampled were actually farmed. How meaningful is a boycott of farmed salmon if they pose in the market as wild?
Toothfish. Sea bass. Confused?
But no fish exhibits the mass confusion possible in today's global seafood market better than the Patagonian toothfish, renamed Chilean sea bass by the Los Angeles fish merchant who discovered its market potential in North America. Sales of Chilean sea bass increased through the 1980s as word spread that the fish flesh was virtually indestructible and could take on any flavor. In the 1990s Chilean sea bass became a best seller and chefs simply could not get enough of the oily fish. There was a reason for that; by the late 1990s, many stocks of toothfish had collapsed.
The Convention of Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (signed in 1982 and the only recognized power over these southern fish) set harvest levels but, in 1999, an estimated 80 percent of Patagonian toothfish sold were illegally caught. That same year, Whole Foods, an eco-friendly grocery chain in the U.S., discontinued Chilean sea bass. (The chain thought it would pre-empt government action but the government did not act.) Meanwhile, fishing boats began targeting Antarctic toothfish, a relative of Patagonian toothfish, and sold it as Chilean sea bass, too.
In 2001, U.S. law enforcers caught several toothfish pirates, one of whom was smuggling two tonnes of toothfish under a thin layer of crayfish. That same year, Bon Appétit magazine named Chilean sea bass the "Dish of the Year." Less than one year later, in February 2002, the D.C.-based National Environmental Trust (NET) launched the "Take a Pass on Chilean Sea Bass" campaign, which encouraged a boycott of the fish. The government next door mustered its energy to adopt NET's request that toothfish landings had legitimate paperwork (though they denied their appeal to get rid of the ambiguous title "frozen fish fillet," under which many illegal toothfish enter the U.S.). Wal-Mart, ever known for its social conscience, discontinued Chilean sea bass from its shelves in 2003. In the meantime, Bruce Knecht wrote his book about rampant toothfish piracy. And then...
Mixed messages
In 2006, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified 4000 tonnes of Patagonian toothfish off the South Georgian Islands, Antarctica. In October last year, Whole Foods reintroduced the MSC-bass. In January this year, Wal-Mart followed. Within weeks, a scientist working off Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf reported seeing pirate vessels fishing for toothfish. From "Dish of the Year" to, less than one year later, a boycott. From de-shelved to re-shelved and legal to illegal. From threatened to MSC-certified (yet, still threatened). Amidst the mixed and remixed messages, how can consumers or journalists covering the Gore wedding stay afloat of the toothfish crisis let alone the fisheries crisis as a whole?
They cannot. And so seafood awareness campaigns risk ineffectiveness due to information complexity and overload. More important, these campaigns hold as their axiom individual consumption rather than collective action (likely because that is what consumers are comfortable with). The Vancouver Aquarium's Ocean Wise program continues to grow and to encourage restaurants to sell sustainable fish. The "success" of Ocean Wise is a stark contrast to Canada's 2006 refusal to sign the UN high seas trawling ban. Having all but abandoned their mandate to protect fisheries resources, national governments are content that individuals do what they can to save fisheries -- the nations' leaders have more important things to discuss. But the liability in accepting consumerism rather than citizenship as the predominant form of fisheries conservation shows a dearth of results.
At present, the complicated messages of seafood conservation efforts -- not to mention the counter-marketing strategies by industry, the self-serving eco-labels and the mislabeling of species -- undermine the integrity and effectiveness of these market-based initiatives. For these programs to have a hope at obtaining their desired outcomes (including improving the ecological health of fisheries), seafood consumers must receive simple and accurate information followed by a clear and convincing call to act. And their actions must elicit transparent results on the water.
It is possible. In 1989, Sam LaBudde went undercover, videotaped the dolphin slaughter onboard Mexican tuna vessels, and turned the footage into a news piece. Overnight, he revolutionized public sentiments toward tuna fishing and became the accidental father of new regulations and the dolphin-safe logo. But subsequent seafood consumer campaigns, as evidenced by Chilean sea bass, have had less success.
After nearly 10 years of investment, fisheries conservationists should consider re-strategizing buyer-oriented campaigns, and not just for the sake of Al Gore's reputation. Otherwise, just as consumers experienced fatigue in the 1990s after corporate eco-advertising and spending on public relations amounted to little action or outcome, so might this decade witness the same fatigue in terms of seafood awareness campaigns.
The "greenwash" corporations were accused of in the 1990s could turn to a "bluewash" accusation of fisheries and ocean conservation groups today. The difference, of course, is that conservation groups have the interest of fisheries and the environment firmly at heart while corporations never did -- a difference consumers might be too confused to realize.
Related Tyee stories:
Jennifer Jacquet, an environmental economist, is with the Sea Around Us Project (SAUP) and the UBC Fisheries Centre. To read more of her articles for The Tyee go here. She also has a blog.
15
Login or register to post comments
skeptikool
5 years ago
So satisfying to be able to say, "Gotcha!"
Even if the charge was true, can we fairly expect Al Gore to be a "detail" man in every respect? There are so many with the "gotcha!" mentality, including much of the media, out to introduce straw men in order to sabotage the man's greater good. Hypocrisy abounds.
I was so shocked by the following appalling report, that I was compelled to bring it to a Web message board:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6904249.stm
Better it had been about dogs than fish. The response after two days? Nil.
Frank
5 years ago
skeptikool
Agree completely, the whole "Gotcha" thing is so 1970's which unfortunately is the box within which most journalism still lies.
If they spent half the time trying to inform their audience that they instead spend on running around trying to find some shred of hypocrisy somewhere we'd all be better off.
Now I can see why you'd want to expose a premier (or city councillor) that drives drunk, but most of it is just the journalist indulging in ego masturbation.
GJW
5 years ago
Was it... ill-tempered?
And really, who cares what a former politician eats. I'm more interested in what people are eating who can't afford premium organic non-endangered protein sources.
And don't blame the media for going "gotcha" – you all read it.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Media = Bashing
Doesn't matter if it's a politician, a celibrity, business tycoon or sports hero. The media trend is to bash them at first sign of trouble. The old adage, "if it bleeds it leads" holds true. Figuratively it's the same thing. Gut and clean them in the public eye. Nice trend in jouranlism, just what we needed in these times where real issues have been buried under so many piles of useless reports, scientific opinion, inquiry's and congressional hearings. Mudied waters, distracting the majority voters just enough to keep their focus off the real problems. Take climate change and it's poor cousin global warming. Just one of many challenges on the horizon for society, and certainly not the most threatening. Warming, cooling, flooding drought, all normal in the cycles of life. We choose to ignore them over building permanent structures in area's that might best be avoided. Nomads didn't have this problem, they moved. The media gives you the score, the body count.... hundreds drown as flood waters rise! Car bombs kill 20, earthquake topples buildings! Like we should be surprised at that fact.
One last thing, Al Gore couldn't carry David Suzuki's jock strap....
NoLeftNutter
5 years ago
[OFFENSIVE TITLE REMOVED]
Al Gore is a hypocrite, he of the “do as I say not as I do school” - He’s an Important Man doing Important Work. Nice to see him get a kick in the nuts once in a while…..
BC Dude
5 years ago
Here's another new coldwar
Here's another new coldwar heating up shocker?
Kissinger and Putin meeting?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6365
Moosebeer
5 years ago
It's Dinner Time
I am just about ready to go out on the town for dinner with my friends. I am thinking about taking my digital camera so I can document their eating habits for future use? Maybe I can get two friends together to pose (Male-Female) and send a copy to their spouses with a nasty note inside?
It appears the election is nearing down in the states and the best way to get votes is to destroy your opponents’ character. I wish the electorate could see through this facade!
seatown17
5 years ago
On the right track
I am very familiar with the MSC and wanted to address a few points made in this article.
There’s no doubt that all the talk about sustainable seafood is confusing. Fish move, live in various places around the globe, are caught with different gear types, etc., and each detail makes a difference in the overall picture. You can’t make sweeping generalizations of a fish species and say to not eat it – that’s not fair to those who fish in a sustainable manner and will not help address the global problem of overfishing.
Sustainable seafood is by nature an overwhelming topic. However, various seafood awareness campaigns know this and are trying to do their best – and are working together – to find the best way to convey their message. It’s difficult to launch a global communications campaign when you’re tackling a giant issue with limited funding.
Most of the effort these days isn’t going into consumer education, but actually into educating retailers and suppliers and bringing them on board. If stores and restaurants don’t sell unsustainable seafood, consumers won’t have to worry so much about avoiding it. This is proving to be a good tactic, as seafood sellers want to be in business ten years from now. Wal-Mart has already pledged to sell only MSC-certfied wild-caught fish in less than five years, and other retailers and restaurants around the world are following suit.
Also, the MSC requires that there is a chain of custody in place for certified products to ensure that fish sold as MSC-certified are indeed certified (more info on this, the certification process, and the MSC at www.msc.org).
RickW
5 years ago
It's the Kermit Complex.....
....which is: "It's not that easy bein' green!"
Given that our entire societal structure is based on consumption and profligate waste (deliberate waste being the hallmark of prosperity and just about the sole demonstration of those we deem "rich"), we are going to need an epiphany if we want the conservation movement to become dominant.
While many of us think green, not very many of us practice green in all it's manifold presentations. We have not yet grasped the notion of the word "finite". In the instance of this article, what's one fish?
Or in the more generic sense, what's it hurt leaving the lights on now and then, or cranking up the heat on a chilly day; or taking the car to work, because we got up late; or running the tap until the water is good and hot? Etc, etc.
We still make the assumption that these things are infinite, and that a little more money will buy what we need. But if we take the Gilligan's Island scenario, Thurston Powell's wealth doesn't serve him well at all when there is only so much to go around.
The Al Gore's of the world at present though, can treat conservation as an option. If push comes to shove, they can have their "Chilean sea bass" if all it takes is a little more cash.
That's what wealth is all about. And that's the paradigm that must change.
BobbyPeru
5 years ago
Can you only be a bit hypocritical?
This exposes the hypocrisy inherent in the whole global warming scam that celebrities are joining simply to raise their own profiles or sell more movies or CDs. Have you seen their lifestyles or Al Gore's massive home? They preach about limiting our own lifestyles or making it more expensive to live while living profligate lives themselves.
Indeed, it is the working person and working and middle class families that suffer or pay the most for these save the world initiatives. How can a struggling family or a plumber afford these new green cars? They can only afford old cars- which are by definition more dirty. And who will lose the industrial jobs that Kyoto and David Suzuki will precipitate because of emissions controls? It's not Madonna, that's for sure.
It wasn't long ago that Gore was written off as a loser. Now the whole global warming movement has given him a high enough profile to jump into the Presidential race if he chooses. Here's another ironic joke. Gore's loser son recently got busted driving a batter powered Prius while smoking weed. How's that for organic hypocrisy?
Great, if Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt want to adopt a dozen kids then great- they each make US$20 million a picture so it's no problem for them. They're certainly not a guide to how any normal working person should lead their life.
If celebrities believe in something then live it. Don't try to foist it upon us and think that you aren't being watched.
RickW
5 years ago
Bobby Peru
Yes the working person will "pay for" most of this. But the working person is as guilty as the rich; only the degree is different.
What we see in so-called "celebrities" is ordinary people (for the most part) "making it". Now they feel it necessary to demonstrate that they have "made it". And the traditional way of showing this off is to waste, waste, waste.
This attiude has infused itself throughout our society. As soon as someone "from the lower classes" chances upon some good fortune (win the lotto?) one of the first things that happens is a new (read: bigger) house. Why not a smaller house, but one that doesn't waste resources? Or retrofit their existing house? Or they buy a "green" car, never thinking to ask what it takes to manufacture such a car, and whether the savings in fuel and maintenance offsets the pollution generated at the factory.....
And on it goes.
IAMC
5 years ago
Bush eats grizzlie bears
At a recent bar-b-cue in Texas, George Bush was seen eating Polar Bear testicles.
Now that is real news that these readers can get their teeth into.
ov
5 years ago
Polar Bear testicles
I'd give every cent I had and live on the street in exchange for seeing him try that on a live bear.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Scale
Further to Rick's always astute observations, I would add that crying hypocrisy on celebrities is a useless waste of time and energy. Certainly we all have much room for improvement and the media should, by all accounts, be doing serious journalism. This type of reporting and commentary belongs in the newspapers that line the supermarket check out isle, right beside the soap opera digest...
oceanrev
5 years ago
SHRIMPSUCK.org
The #1 seafood in the US is shrimp. The shrimp fisheries and farms of the world are among the most destructive forces on our coasts and oceans. While the intricacies of "sustainable seafood" are complex and sometimes confusing, one this is certain: SHRIMP SUCK. (well, at least 99.9% of them)
"A staggering 92 percent of shrimp eaten in the United States is imported; last year, 8 percent of it, about 151 million pounds, came from China."
(http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07/09/china_ban_may_be_too_late_to_rescue_us_shrimpers/)