http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com/go-green/food/sustainable-seafood-guide-how-to-save-our-seas-with-our-diet/?pid=1003
As human health concerns largely intertwine with environmental issues, our most intimate worry should be what we are putting into our body. Our use of the world's resources for food consumption is a hot debate - from the industrialization of food production to fair trade products. With that said, in this day and age it seems that humans must struggle to find food products that are healthy for both our bodies and for the environment.
The fish craze isn't new. Since the health wonders of omega-3s have been revealed, fish consumption has been on the rise. Still, the downfalls of fish consumption are also news of the past - from high mercury levels in fish high on the food chain to cancer-related PCBs in farm raised fish. This article warns us of yet another problem related with fish consumption - the dangers of overfishing. Americans eat four times as much seafood as we did 50 years ago. Tuna, one of the most popular fish for consumption, has declined in population by 90% since 1952. Our high demand for fish is the main culprit of this issue, but fishing technology facilitates our high demand and adds on to the issue. High-grossing fishing methods with the use of large nets, cages and such save fishermen time and money. However, these methods inevitably catch a lot of byproduct, or marine life that is not wanted by the fishermen, which is then thrown back into the ocean injured or dead. Fish farming is not the perfect answer either. Besides the possible negative health effects related to farmed fish, farmed fish use much fish from the ocean for feed and can bring pollutants to local human environments. In the larger scale, diminishing fish populations could mean ruining the natural "circle of life". Marine life is important for oxygen production and carbon absorption.
So can we still eat fish? Luckily, this article gives us some tips to try to balance out our demand for fish while keeping in mind the diminishing fish population and related health effects. But the issue of overfishing and diminishing fish populations delves into a larger issue within the realm of environmental anthropology - as the world's population continues to grow, how do we accommodate the world's food demands while still maintaining our safe environmental practices? Many people already say that overpopulation of humans is the main cause for environmental degradation, poverty, etc. Are we simply in a constant battle with our environment? Either we continue growing in population and use more of earth's resources, or we limit our population to save earth's resources?
I have been a vegetarian for over a year now, but I continue to eat seafood. This is largely because of health and nutrition reasons. Overfishing is of great importance to me, because fish are the hardiest substance in my diet currently. I did know about avoiding salmon and tuna since they are at the top of the fish food chain (although, sometimes, it's hard to resist at a restaurant). However, I did not know about the better choices you could make for seafood in terms of reproduction life, capturing method, or a closed farm system. Informing people about a fish's position on the food chain and the benefits of buying local will definitely help in terms of steering seafood in the sustainable direction. Information about fishing methods or farm vs closed system may be harder to find, and is up to the fish supplier to provide that information. I feel that all of this information should be provided both at restaurants and at the supermarket. When I shop at Martin's, I see signs for fish that are "not from a farm" and there are others that do not have any sort of demarcation on them. Should I just assume that these are farm raised fish? This will not be true 100% of the time. Hopefully fish suppliers will see the benefit of sustainable fishing, and know that thorough labeling of their fish will help to keep it sustainable.
ReplyDeleteLooking at seafood in relation to environment and justice is interesting because it seems like it is a realm that is never stagnant. As Ofuga indicates, the debate continues to change over time, from warnings of the dangers of mercury and overfishing to the health benefits of fish as a lean protein and source of omega-3 fatty acids. I think this indicates, however, the merits of moderation. It seems that problems only arise with developments that seek only to be highly productive (like fish farms and fishing technology) and disregard the health effects of their practices. If the fishing industry was reformed to focus less on grosses and more on quality it might help solve the problems of fish supply and dangerous levels of chemicals. One drawback to this, however, could be that the price of fish would rise. It could be argued that people should be willing to pay higher prices in exchange for the insurance that their fish is safe for them, but this implication could have problems of its own. It could result in the disparity between availability of healthy foods for rich and poor growing even wider. One thing I disagree with, however, is the false choice that we must either consume more resources or limit the population. There will have to be concessions on both sides, but I believe sustainable development that allows for both the thriving of both the environment and its human population is possible.
ReplyDeleteThis article is important because it raises important questions on another health trend. Like Ofuga points out, the connection between fish consumption and environmental and human impact is not a new one. Seafood consumption has increased tremendously given new health fads. I agree with Summer, though, that educating consumers about the "fish food chain" and the implications of where the seafood came from (e.g. - farm raised) are steps in the direction of sustainable consumption. Biofinity also raises a good point about the merits of moderation. The increased demand for seafood has resulted in these unsustainable production practices. I am not advocating for less fish consumption, but perhaps greater demand for quality would lead to a more sustainable industry. We have already seen this with several other industry markets like vegetables and cleaning products. In other words, something like a seafood industry version of the organic movement may help solve some of the problems with overfishing and farm raising and create a balance between human consumption and environmental impact.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that it might be a good idea to start an "Organic" Fish movement, soon-- we've all undoubtedly heard about the tragedy of cod fishing in North America. But at the same time, I feel like Biofinity does point out that this would mean offering only the healthiest foods to the richest people. But aren't we doing this anyways? Other blogs and readings are already talking about food deserts that end up promoting (if not necessitating) the consumption of packaged and unhealthy foods for those living in the food deserts, which usually ends up being those of lower income. I don't want to promote this, either. But I still want to save our fish populations; if 70%+ of our Earth is covered with water, fish are a VERY key species in the successful ecology of most of the planet, and we cannot sacrifice that just for the healthy benefits of eating fish. Yet fish are yummy and healthy and important! We need to draw the line somewhere.
ReplyDeleteOne temporary fix I would make is to not rely on fish as a primary staple to a diet, but as a much needed supplement. Fish is good for you and should be consumed, but we shouldn't be eating it for every meal when there are plenty of substitutes. We should also try to primarily consume fish that are local, since not only will they be fresh but they will also help promote local supply and demand, which provides increased incentives for sustainability and decreased waste. It also might be a good idea to try to supplement our diets with Omega-3 in other forms: I know my mom, who has a HUGE thing against fish, takes an omega-3 supplement periodically to keep those nutrients in her system. The "bioprospecting" for this nutrient has been done, so there is any real injustice to maintaining a healthy body without harming the environment as much? Or are there even stickier situations associated with that?