U.S. Supermarkets not doing enough to protect fish - Greenpeace report

Today's Greenpeace song-and-dance should finally make the group a nationwide laughingstock, if it isn't already.

Does anyone really believe EVERY grocery retailer in America is threatening global fish stocks with extinction? Greenpeace apparently does.

Does anyone really think more than half the fish being caught and sold in supermarkets should be strictly off-limits? Greenpeace apparently does.

Does anyone really think the sustainability wish-list of the environmental lobby is more important than the health and welfare of PEOPLE who should be eating more fish in order to stay healthy? Again, Greenpeace apparently does.

My hat is off to the grocery chains who refused to participate in Greenpeace's seafood survey to begin with. If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

David Martosko
Director of Research
Center for Consumer Freedom

I have no concern for where or how my seafood is caught, and I didn't know greenpeace still existed.

So, what should we expect next from Greenepeace? Well, if their European model is a bellwether Greenpeace will turn from writing reports to vandalizing stores—sure, a natural progression when your stated goal is to “provide a roadmap for both consumers and supermarkets to make sustainable choices when purchasing seafood.” Also an understandable next step when your organization has signed an Accountability Charter that promises its agents will not be involved in “illegal or unethical practices.” A “campaigner for Greenpeace” recently wrote that Greenpeace’s direct action tactics were “a key instrument” for change and part of an “orchestra” that plays together with WWF, Oceana, MSC, and others. To be honest, after a who’s who of environmental activists signed on to a “Common Vision for Environmentally Sustainable Seafood” and notably absent for the list was Greenpeace... it sounds like their sigin' solo on this one.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute

be a vegetarian if you want to be healthy...
i don't trust anything i buy...
it's buyer beware

Greenpeace aside,

Are either of you clowns aware that over fishing is a real problem?

Soog,
Feel free to identify yourself and your affiliation, especially when beginning a blog posting with an ad hominem attack.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute

I have always thought over fishing was a looming problem for the fish species, even before Greenpeace came out with the news. I only eat shellfish because of its over population explosion in the North Atlantic waters. I feel bad for the fish, I think they are cute.

Planet Earth is not for human only, “PEOPLE” is not the greatest or most important specie compare to the rest of the species which we share the planet Earth with.

Even though some “PEOPLE” like to think so or doesn’t have the brain to comprehend that once we broke the biological food chain, we are in serious problem and we are threatening lives of our own specie. Wake up and DO hear what GreanPeach has to say!!

Of COURSE grocery chains should bear some of the responsibility for not selling us fish species which are overfished or fished irrisposnibly. Consumers should be vigalent too, by the way. If you don't care where your food came from, or if you are eating an overfished species, you are a perfect example of why grocers need to step in and cut the cord so consumers to do not unwittingly deplete our natural resources beyond repair. Cheers to greenpeace for attempting to educate the public and grocers.

I wonder who funds the National Fisheries Institute and Center for Consumer Freedom. I think I can probably figure it out though. National Fisheries is probably funded by commercial fishermen who do not want to stop until they have caught the last fish, Gortons and Starkist. Anyone want to take a stab at who funds the other?

As with any issue, you cannot simply disregard it and say that's ridiculous I don't care or that's horrible I have to drop everything and change my life for it. i conducted research on overfishing this past year along with a program at MIT and I can tell you it truly is a problem. Even if you don't care about the environment, you have ot understand that overfishing hurts humans in the long run. And it's not just overfishing. Fish farming, notably salmon, pollutes groundwater and contaminates wild stocks, hurting wild populations.

I personally went through an "omnivore's dilemma" when I began to consider all the mixed signals out there (the "green noise"). No beef? Okay maybe pasture-raised. No chicken? Ok maybe just eggs. Oh but wait-apparently the worst treatment goes to the animals kept for eggs. Ok pure vegan-but wait, many veggies are flown in from different continents. So local vegan. But wait again-growing veggies locally can be even more energy intensive (i.e. New England in December). There are going to be many campaigns for different causes out there, social, political, environmental. What matters is that you give them the consideration they deserve, or at least do not bash them, and make a clear decision for yourself, even if that decision in the end is to disregard the message. In the end, half of environmentalism really is about protecting ourselves.

So let's all be reasonable and considerate. By the way, the program was called Terrascope and there are dozens of active participants whom you can contact with us for more information. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2011/finalwebsite/

Greenpeace might be overreacting, they might not. Regardless, the ignorance of some of the people posting in this thread in regards to overfishing is incredible.

Were it not for some strict regulation that is taking place in the fishing industry, many speices of fish that we regularly eat would already be effectively extinct. Even fishermen strongly support regulatory policies that regulate fishing and will help ensure fish stocks for years to come - because they've seen first hand the effects of overfishing in their half-empty nets.

Get a clue people.

It upsets me to see how ignorant and self-involved some people are. Greenpeace doesn't do what they do just for the hell of it, they stand for what us as human beings should be concerned about. This is what we put in our bodies. This is the affect we have on the planet. It's not ok to think that humans are the only species that matter. Get with the program dude!

Greenpeace Activist

According to wikipedia, the Center for Consumer Freedom "was created in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company."

If the question is, who do you trust to look out for the health of individuals and the planet? and my choice is between Greenpeace or a front group funded by Philip Morris.... I choose Greenpeace.

You?

There are some serious morons commenting about how overfishing isn't a problem! How ignorant and selfish could you possibly be? People can't just do whatever the hell they want on this earth, but they do, and the idiots on here show that they exist in large numbers. It takes EVERYONE'S cooperation to make a difference in saving the environment , ourselves, and the other species that occupy it. PS- i love how one of the negative greenpeace comments is written by some national fisheries employee!! That figures!

Overfishing IS a HUGE problem. No surprise that the National Fisheries Institute is attacking on this one.

The killing off of our oceans in the name of greed is going to bite us in the ass sooner or sooner...
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/24/magazines/business2/Prob6_Overfishing.biz2/index.htm

Not to mention all the mercury that the fish are now packed with.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18556432
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/advisories.htm
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

I say NO THANK YOU...

If you think there is no seafood problem, change the channel and go have another beer, but don't attack the very organizations that are trying to protect the health of your grandchildren, who will look back on your wasteful materialistic lifestyle life.. with tears in their eyes.

Wake up.

Not only will there be major shortages of seafood, the remaining fish will become more toxic each year... for many generations to come.

Novel PCB transport pathway discovered
------------------------------------------------------------
When sockeye salmon return to their natal lakes to spawn and die, they bring with them PCBs accumulated during a lifetime in the northern Pacific Ocean, according to a study published by Canadian and U.S. researchers in the September 18 issue of Nature. Their decomposing bodies release these persistent industrial pollutants, increasing the PCB content in some Alaskan lake sediments by more than sevenfold.

"In the lakes that receive the highest salmon densities, we're looking at 7 to 10 times the amount [of PCBs] traditionally assigned from atmospheric pathways," says Jules Blais, a biologist at the University of Ottawa and one of the study’s coauthors. In some cases, he says, "We're getting levels comparable to what you find in places like Lake Superior, which is surprising when you consider that these are remote Alaskan lakes."

Blais and his colleagues extracted sediment cores from eight lakes during 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2002 for the PCB analysis. They also measured the types and concentrations of PCBs in the muscle tissue of returning sockeye salmon. PCB patterns and concentrations in lake sediments correlated with the density of returning salmon. In particular, PCB sediment concentrations in a lake that receives no salmon spawners were 10 times lower and included a greater proportion of lighter congeners, which are effectively transported by air.

REF: Link to pubs.acs.org article, (Nature 2003, 425, 255-256)

http://OpenDoorWorld.com

http://OpenDoorWorld.com/pcb

http://GentleDragon.org

Larry (in Key Largo)

In the sea of commercial and advertising messages, "bottom-line" short-term thinking, and concern for stock prices more than for the comprehensive (including ecological) costs of doing business, I WELCOME such report that presents a different story than the one in a glossy tabloid sold at the same grocery stores that sell the fish. Something smells here. And it's not the report...

When you post something like this, give us a boiler plate complaint letter we can edit complete with the CEO's name and address (home, preferrably) so we can zip out a letter expressing our concerns, offering to help them identify seafood that is sustainable and demanding a reply--something like that. Then we can print the things out, fold em into envelopes, and make an impact. Maybe include a few letters for the editors of local papers. That's the kind of thing I was hoping for when I joined this organization. By the way, why are those bozos up at the top of the comment area allowed in here?

I wholeheartedly agree with Sophie. Even if eating fish was healthy (which it most certainly isn't), unfortunately, humans are not the most important thing on planet earth, in the grand scheme of things. I honestly find it hard to believe that people still think eating fish is healthy for them. Is mercury poisoning healthy? How about toxins from the contaminated water the fish live in, not to mention high amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat?

Ah, right--Gavin Gibbons of the media relations office for a seafood INDUSTRY mouthpiece. So Gavin, what happens to your precious industry if the harvest starts becoming sustainable? What's the next species to experience a population crash? The California and Oregon coastal salmon fishery perhaps? Your bias is equal and opposite to Greenpeace, but for some reason I trust them more than I trust an industry yeoman.

Signed, a former fisheries scientist that has seen overfishing, the disasters of wholesale offshore aquaculture and countless instances of commercial fisherman ignoring rules, regs and seasons.

Unless things like this are brought to the publics attention nothing will ever change. I commend Greenpeace for all their outstanding work. I personally think that no animal or fish should die for human consumption. It doesn't send happy thoughts into the universe.

I would like to point out that overfishing is a grave problem, if u like to even eat fish sure it wont effect you immedietly but eventually you will be faced with higher prices for yoyr tuna and cod. other species enjoy eating fish too, and actually require it to survive. not only will the fish be extinct but also the second and third level consumers will be affected. you need to realize this is serious, dont be a fool...

Seems odd that right off the bat there is comments bashing greenpeace rather than the report itself... i smell ulterior motives

I all for protecting fish, the bad tasting fish. Once they perfect a tasty version of Soylent Green then I will switch my diet to hippy, but for now, its fish.

Yes, please think where twice about over fishing. Some day there will be nothing left, because of what we did today.

There will not be much consumer freedom when the endangered fishing stocks have collapsed.
I find it a bit worrying that "National Fisheries Institute" take this so lightly and just try to ridicule Greenpeace.

By the way, I find it hard to believe that the Center for Consumer Freedom suddenly care about the health of poor people. Did the funding from Philip Morris run dry?

over fishing is not dangerous for you, but dangerous for them "fishes" and your grandchildren. And I don't expect anyone who had no idea about "Greenpeace still exists", be a sensitive person about environment. Yes, we people are consumers, that's fine, but even the thing being "consumed" should have rights. Being a consumer does not require being a terminator.

I seem to recall how Georges Bank was closed for many years to commercial fisherman. That was because the fish stocks were/are so depleted. It stands to reason that taking more fish than can be replaced isn't going to work for very long. There is a big problem in the world's oceans. Other scientists have reported larger, and more frequent areas called "dead zones" where no sea life is present. Responsible consumers will do their homework before heading to the fish counter. Every action by the individual shopper has a consequence..no one is exempt. "Soylent Green" anyone?

I am with the VAST MAJORITY of you who think there is a big problem with overfishing around the world, and polluted fish as well. I have noticed where I live on the German river, west of the shenandoah valley in virginia, that many fishermen will take the last native trout from the stream and even when the stream has dried up. No concern whatsoever for the future.
I must disagree, though, in calling these two or three commenters at the beginning are "clowns." They are scarey people ! How about "killer clowns from outer space,' that seems more appropriate. Notice my full name, and I don't represent any organization. I represent common sense and a concern for our planet and it's creatures.

It is good that this is an open dialog. I am glad to see the Center for Consumer Freedom and the National Fisheries Institute engaged and concerned about the potential for over-fishing. So, I went over to the National Fisheries Institute blog (www.aboutseafood.com) which started out by acknowledging that they really don't know "all there is to know about sustainability." Again, how refreshing. Their blog sends you to NOAA (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/). So, I thought I'd check to see what NOAA tells us about the "redlist" fish (again, this is from NOAA, recommended by the National Fisheries Institute):

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna - population low which should have a multi-year moratorium on fishing
Atlantic Halibut - not listed
Atlantic Cod - population low with strict rebuilding measures in place
Sharks - Atlantic Shortfin Mako is the only shark (of 6 listed) that is identified as potentially overfished.
Skates - not listed
Orange Roughy - not listed
New Zealand Hoki - not listed

So, according to NOAA, of those Redlist fish listed, overfishing is an issue.

HEY, NATIONAL FISHERIES, read your own data.

It is really simple. Overfishing leads to extinction, extinction leads to NO MORE FISH. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. I do not care about monkfish as long as there are monkfish. Once they are gone it will affect us all. It will cost us money. Fishermen will go broke and start whinning and the goverment will rush to help with money. Guess who´s money.

i no understans wy the people make damage at world

I don't know about you, but I DO care what I'm feeding my family and where that food came from that sits on the grocery shelves. I also care that it will still be available when my sons are shopping for their families.

The Center for Consumer Freedom, what a joke. They are out to protect Corporations and not consumers.

"The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' "

Also, "CCF opposes compulsory warning labels on food, bans on smoking in restaurants". Losers!

I love how, as most have pointed out, the two industry's that can really stand in the way of Greenpeace's creative efforts (no protest? no banner? no specific target?) only had lifestyle criticisms against Greenpeace.

Here's some news guys - the answer to your questions and response to your criticisms seems to be: Greenpeace does and so do WE!

Wake up and smell the algae bloom!

It is so utterly surprising and disterbing how light some people are making of this report. With comments obove, like "we should be eating more seafood"...i just want to scream at the top of my lungs HELLO!!!!! In 40 years or so there may not be much seafood LEFT to eat. "What we do makes a difference and you have to decide what type of difference you want to make"...please be responsible for yourself and the world around you.

We have a group of people waving a red flag and screaming, "Danger! Danger! Danger!" What is our response today? There's no problem here. Down the road when we have full-blown crisis on our hands some people will say, "Why didn't you warn me?"
Come on! open your eyes; use your brain. History has a way of repeating itself; we use up the natural resources and then wonder what we are going to do. We take the easy way out in almost everything. Why don't we take care of what we have AND teach our children to take care of what we have. Let's look at the long term-- not the $$ we can get or have to pay today. THe cost will be greater in the future if we aren't careful.

I'm astonished at some of these ignorant comments, doesn't anyone know how high the cost of over fishing is to humanity and all living creatures? Apparently the people of our society aren't being taught the right things, and as for the comments from "director of consumer freedom"- it just figures what you've said, yes we have to sacrifice a little to help the health of our eco-system and of course you have a problem with it.

Striped Bass off New England are teeming, healthy and sustainable.
After over-fishing, the regulations enacted fixed the problem.

We can do the same with other species

im a vegan because i really love animals and i like this planet but sadly i hate us humans THE DESTROYERS thats what our race should be called after all thats all we really are.over fishing ,global warming is our fault and if we dont stop and correct our way of thinking now and work towards a better way soon they will be nothing left for greenpeace to fight for or protect.we should all be greenpeace and love our planet and respect all life no matter how small or insignificant it may seem if is alive it should be protected ,love ,admire and sherish not abuse,kill and destroy for ever.PLEASE LOOK AROUND YOU AND MAKE THIS RIGHT DO IT FOR YOU FOR THE ANIMALS ..FOR THE PLANET.JUST DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!THANKS TO ALL WHO READ MY MESSAGE AND EMBRACE IT PLEASE SHARE IT...PEACE....ROSE CORLETTO.

There is a huge problem, and when will you, David Martosko and Gavin Gibbons, between others, realize it?! Can't you see that if there is no sustainable fishing, but overfishing like there IS now, there just won't be any fish left in a few decades? That the fishing industry will then be dead?
You're ignorant, and as Soog posted earlier, you're just clowns in not understanding that our oceans will be left lifeless soon if we don't act now!
Greenpeace is right, and we're not alone on Earth, millions of other species live with us but if we don't protect them and keep on our current lifestyle (that is one of destruction) they will be doomed to extinction, and us with them - indeed, how could we survive on this great planet Earth if everything else is dead, by our fault! Fight overfishing and support Greenpeace!!

We use and misuse our natural sources and this must stop. Our children and grandchildren must stil live on this planet long after we will be gone lets leave something beautiful for them.

just some comments to the idiots who have replied to this post-

-You don't need to eat fish to be healthy. I don't eat fish and many others don't either and I'm perfectly healthy. Think about the pollution in the ocean, oil spills, and all the mercury problems we've had...do you really think all fish is still healthy to eat?

-over fishing is a problem

-It's very sad that some of you don't care were your fish comes from and whether i's healthy
-Greenpeace is trying to make positive change..don't hate.

-

The NFI and CCF are the food equivalents of the Clear Skies and Healthy Forest Initiatives, as well as many other ironically named right/libertarian groups. They are trade funded and as such are great examples of conflict-of-interest’ers who should not have a hand in a debate on how to handle a problem until they can at least admit the basic fact of that problem. In this case, severe over fishing. But they can’t admit this problem exists because they work for industry fronts that demand that the problem be ignored. Not dealt with. Ignored. Which is easily done. All you need to do is marginalize a cause in the general public’s mind by working at a business or org that sounds legitimate like say “National Fisheries Institute” and treating all claims that run contrary to what your corporate sponsors desire with derision and exasperation.

(It worked pretty well for the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and many more.)

It’s the “I make a living selling Hummers and don’t think there is an oil shortage or a need for greater fuel economy” school of rhetoric. By working in the industry they’re defending—yes, working as a front man for a particular industry does indeed qualify as “in the industry” these days-- they hope to turn a negative into a positive, by making the fact that they work as corporate activists a good thing, as if defending soda companies that helped lead the U.S. to an obesity epidemic and standing up for super-trawlers that scrape up the ocean floor for whatever is left after the waters themselves are emptied has imbued these guys with special insider information, or has forced them to think about the issue at hand more than most. Well, the latter is probably true actually…but not in a good way. Sure they’ve been thinking about these food issues a great deal, but only in terms of how to defend their particular industry, not how to solve the problem.

The basic failure of David and Gavin to openly announce that conflict of interest is itself a self-imposed ad hominem attack. Whereas Soog’s affiliation is most likely that he’s simply a human being and doesn’t want to sit around pretending there is no problem and then when forced to admit there is one, debating the merits of not doing anything until it’s too late. For a great real-world example of how poorly that manner of dealing with a serious problem turns out, take a look at W’s ever evolving almost-stance on Global Warming. First it wasn’t a problem, then he was “looking into it,” then it was a problem but we needed to talk about it for a few more years to see what could be done. All of which would have been a very sensible position to take in say, 1975. In 2008, it should be a crime.

The most passionate defenses made by industry propagandists from places like NFI and CCF always seem to be for a person’s, or more likely a corporation’s, “right” to do whatever they want, consequences be damned. Which would be a legitimate view if we all lived on separate Earths. Sadly, we live within an intimately interconnected ecosystem & civilization and are forced to share this world with selfish men and women who hate being troubled by facts and everything else that doesn’t legitimize that kind of short sightedness.

Simply put, David and Gavin are here to put forth agendas. They’re here to undermine any discussion at GreenPeace about sustainable fishing which they will continue to do in the guise of contributing to the dialogue. They are not here to contribute meaningfully.

There are real solutions and real consequences, however. We can cut back on where we fish. We can stop building super trawlers. We can stop breeding like bacteria. But…Jobs will be lost. There will be less fish to eat. And people around the globe will have to learn to moderate their personal lives and religious views to keep our population from expanding to the breaking point.

Hard to do? Yes. But it will much harder in the future if we do not move now to curb our wasteful fishing practices. In the meantime, let us hope that men like David and Gavin who are clearly not without skill and intelligence (just using it for the wrong reasons) will begin to add their voices to this discussion is a useful manner.

Disgusting!!!! the ignorance of this Americans is unbelievable!!! Well, what can you expect from a country who reelected Bush??? I guess as long as they have their E!, Britney and drugs everything is ok… no wonder with one of the lowest educational systems you can see this kind of comments… keep their ignorant irresponsible consumption without thinking that the problems are real…the sad part is that it seems like nobody realize that the rice is being rationalized in the super markets, the prices of gas have ridiculous prices, the dollar is weaker than ever, the unemployment is higher, and natural disaster are getting worse due to the rising sea levels and higher temperatures. This ignorant think that they can always go out and start another war??? Steal other countries natural resources while keep destroying the ecosystems??? Hahaha how long this people think this will last… your sons and daughters will thank you for all the screw ups in a few years, when their stupid cities go under water, and the contamination generated will exterminate them, while they starve in their own crap.

The National Geographic (April 2007 issue) had as it's cover story, "The Global Fisheries Crisis." It is shocking. It is disturbing. 75% of ocean fish are gone. Only 10% of large ocean fish/mammels remain. And, it is ultimately sad that most of the people who don't care about the future of the planet are the same people procreating. Leave the problem to your children and let them explain it to their children. However, I don't think they will have to explain, because within 2 more generations. It will be obvious and that applies to the whole global environmental problem. Goodbye polar ice caps, goodbye to the planet as we know it. The multiple problems are so serious, so expansive that every issue now covers some aspect of the degradation of the planet, by humans.

Wow..We will surely have a choice of what to eat if we eat it till its gone...I checked Wikipedia logs hoping to message Sir David o'r his ignorance but found endlessly bafoonish things of the man..if you arent aware of him you should read..surely he feels threatened by us and that is why he makes sure to get the first word in

Response to posting by David Martosko, Director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom:

Really, Greenpeace's intent is not to make foodsellers the sole responsible entity for sustainable fishing practices. The intent is to create awareness of the overconsumption of fish species and the blatantly destructive practices that many commercial fisheries use to collect the product.

Greenpeace is one of many advocates and creates awareness in the consumer , wholesaler / retailer , industry , and governmental sectors by campaigning to bring about changes in the proven harmful practices of bringing food to the world's tables.

As an intelligent and reasonably aware person, I do not think that Greenpeace is a hotheaded or self-deluded organization. I view Greenpeace issues as necessary actions that are required to get people to notice what is going on. What we do and how we do it affects the earth directly. Greenpeace realizes that people need to eat, but overconsumption and destructive fishing are real and urgent problems.

Nearly everyone needs to learn more about - and help implement the sensible moderation of - human activites. If we are to continue to increase in numbers, consume natural resources at a progressive rate and produce a substantial amount of pollution in the process, then we must protect the environment and all the creatures integral to the chain of life. Collectively, we can't just do what we feel like doing and expect there to be no consequences.

Dale Lampe
Sacramento, CA