In Checkout Line, Lou Bendrick cooks up answers to reader questions about how to green their food choices and other diet-related quandaries. Lettuce know what food worries keep you up at night.
Hello Grist,
The food worry that keeps me up at night is how best to buy fish. Should I buy "wild caught," with the world's fishing fleets using giant nets that scoop up all sorts of sea wildlife in one fell swoop, drowning the fish they wanted to collect along with many varieties that they will just dump back in the water dead? Or "farm raised," with the many antibiotics that are required to keep the fish alive in close quarters, other injections, the waste that is often times released (either on purpose or accidentally) into the waterways, polluting them so the wild fish and other wildlife do not survive?
Any advice on which is better would be appreciated.
Thank you for starting a column just focusing on food, as this is a big issue for sustainability.
Karen Bograd
Raleigh, N.C.
Dear Karen:
The next time you are up at night fretting, please know that you are in good company! At about 3 a.m., you are likely to find me staring at the ceiling, worrying about upcoming presidential elections, my sump pump, or if I'm getting enough fatty acids -- and how the heck acids can be fatty in the first place. (Tell me honestly now: Does this acid make me look fatty?)
In all seriousness, questions around eating fish are a legitimate source of angst. Not only are our oceans in peril from pollution and irresponsible harvesting (according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, more than 75 percent of the world's fisheries are either fully fished or over-fished), but you also could endanger your health by choosing the wrong sea critter. And I hate to tell you this, but the cheap popcorn shrimp and Cajun-grilled Atlantic salmon that we all love to order when we eat out? Ixnay on those.
In scientific terms, Karen, your question is known as a "tuffy." The problem with fish-harvesting methods are many, including their definitions.
"Wild-caught" casts a wide net and can mean that your fish were caught using highly destructive (read: downright demonic) fishing methods such as dynamiting reefs, high-seas bottom-trawling, and drift nets. But the term wild-caught can also encompass more desirable lower-impact techniques, such as hand-lines, divers, or the use of pots or traps.
Farmed fish (the product of aquaculture), as you have pointed out, also have their fair share of problems. As most of us now know, certain kinds of farmed salmon can, quite literally, be a lousy option. But aquaculture products are hard to avoid, given that nearly half of all the fish we eat now comes from farms. Though the farmed stuff should be avoided in some instances, you don't have to eschew it entirely. Certain kinds, especially herbivorous species, raised domestically in well-contained ponds, can be a healthy and eco-conscious option.
So rather than choosing between farmed and wild-caught fish, I propose that you choose sustainable fish. What does that mean? For Cindy Walter, co-owner of the Pacific Grove, Calif.-based sustainable seafood restaurant Passionfish, it means this: "We purchase only fish that are harvested or farmed in a way that doesn't impact the environment, other species, or their habitats."
How do you identify and get your hands on such fish? The first step is to get a "watch list" of sustainable seafood choices that you can tuck into your wallet (I also keep one on the fridge and one in the car). The Monterey Bay Aquarium offers regional pocket guides that you can download, and guides that can be accessed from a mobile device. Their website is also a great to place to educate yourself about the various types of fish-harvesting and farming methods. If texting is your thing, also try the Blue Ocean Institute's FishPhone. Simply text 30644 with the message "fish" and the name of the fish in question, and you'll get a text back with an environmental assessment. (Standard text messaging rates apply.)
Whether you are techie or not, curl up with a good book to learn more. I highly recommend Bottom Feeder: How to Eat Ethically in World of Vanishing Seafood by Taras Grescoe. It's a riveting exposé on seafood from hook to table. Is it disturbing? Yes, but its also brainy, funny, and ultimately heartening. Grescoe eats lots of sustainable seafood, feels great, and offers plenty of solutions for saving the seas. Cindy Walter, who works to educate all of the customers at Passionfish about sustainable seafood, also recommends Song for the Blue Ocean by Blue Ocean Institute founder Dr. Carl Safina. "You should see my copy," she says. "It's so tattered. I recommend it to everyone. "
But Karen, no matter what you read or who you call, bear in mind the following tips and you'll have an easier time choosing sustainable fish:
* Eat as locally as possible. Fish that have traveled far are not only less likely to be fresh and tasty; getting them to your plate has meant burning a lot of fossil fuels. Also, imported fish may come from places such as China that have less stringent safety and environmental standards. If you catch your own fish, good for you, but check out the EPA's fish advisories for your state to make sure that your haul is free of pollutants.
* Ask questions. At the fishmonger's, do as you would at the farmers market and start a conversation. Is the fish wild-caught? How was it harvested? Where was it caught? (Which ocean? Atlantic cod stocks are in terrible shape; Pacific cod are a bit better.) If it is farmed, is it imported?
* Read labels. At present, there are no federal organic standards for fish, even farmed fish. But one label I look for is the Marine Stewardship Council's "eco-label" for wild-caught fish from sustainable fisheries. If you can't discern anything about the fish from the label, take a pass. Don't hesitate to call the phone numbers posted on labels or contact a company through its website if you have further questions.
* Choose wisely at restaurants. Almost 70 percent of all of the seafood we consume comes from restaurants, so be choosy when you eat out and ask your server the same questions you would ask your fishmonger. "If they can't answer the questions, don't buy the fish," says Passionfish's Walter, noting that asking such questions and creating pressure for the restaurant to serve sustainable fish is the most important thing you can do. Oh, and be sure to send your regards, or disregards, to the chef! Chefs have enormous power to influence public tastes when it comes to fish. Walter, whose husband Ted is the chef at Passionfish, says chefs are the "guardians of the oceans."
* Eat lower on the food chain. "We eat the wrong fish," Grescoe explained to me. "We tend to eat predators and they contain toxins in their flesh -- dioxins, PCBs, and mercury."
After Grescoe traveled the world to research his book, he became a "bottomfeeder" and discovered that eating fish lower on the food chain was better for the health of the oceans and our bodies. Among his favorites are mackerel, herring, and sardines, which are chock-full of brain-nourishing omega-3 fatty acids. When it comes to farmed fish, Grescoe suggests eating lower on the food chain by opting for herbivorous species such as catfish, rather than predators. To find out what Grescoe will and won't eat, go here. Personally, I adore canned smoked oysters in olive oil and eat embarrassing amounts of them.
* Have standbys. Before you head out the door to the store, fish market, or restaurant, have a few tried-and-true sustainable favorites. "Pick out a few of your favorite fish that are in great shape and stick with them," advises Grescoe, who looks for sablefish and arctic char when he eats out. At restaurants, I eat a lot of calamari.
* Be careful with the Big Two. "The two big species of concern are shrimp and salmon," says Grescoe. "Be careful of those two." Shrimp and farmed salmon, two predators that are popular seafood choices, have lots of problems that make them unsustainable and unhealthy for you. Choose wild Alaskan salmon and sustainable shrimp. Better yet, give our oceans a break and try a sustainable fish that's new to you. I recently discovered barramundi and love it.
Phew! Karen, I know this is a lot to digest, but I hope it helps from you casting about when it comes to choosing sustainable fish. Thank you for sending this terrific question. If you can't sleep, try warm milk, Sudoku, or send me an email. I'll be up, checking my sump pump and reading the Wiki on fatty acids.
Kindest regards,
Lou
Tweet for the bees
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Ask Umbra on Halloween treats and costumes
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:20 am
14 Aug 2008
Also, a note on MSC: the Marine Stewardship Council is now certifying some 'chilean sea bass' as sustainable, but this is bunk. No one should eat this fish for at least 2 dozen years as far as I understand it. Their stocks are super low and they reproduce very slowly.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
twilight Posted 4:15 am
14 Aug 2008
I just want to second the recommendation of Grescoe's book. It brings all these issues alive in a very palpable, engaging way. (I'd call it the Omnivore's Dilemma of this issue).
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:48 am
14 Aug 2008
Permalink
Ian Hanington Posted 9:27 am
14 Aug 2008
http://www.seachoice.org
Like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, SeaChoice also offers downloadable cards with best and worst seafood choices.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 9:59 am
14 Aug 2008
have lots of vegan stuff for those who want to go the next step
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Head Coach Posted 3:17 am
15 Aug 2008
My best,
Mark Walker
Head Coach
Marketing Whisperers, Ltd.
http://www.marketingwhisperers.com
(425) 327-5548
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:35 am
15 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Alfredo Posted 5:02 am
15 Aug 2008
MAP's blog site is: http://www.shrimpless.wordpress.com
Also, MAP's website contains a wealth of information about mangroves and shrimp farm issues.Pleae visit at http://www.mangroveactionproject.org
Alfredo Quarto,
Mangrove Action PToject
Permalink
kyotousa Posted 5:47 am
15 Aug 2008
Tom Kelly
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:55 am
15 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Mfox Posted 7:07 am
15 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:01 am
15 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:37 pm
15 Aug 2008
there is NO humane death for fish, so far as they are caught and dragged to death nowadays, most of them allowed simply to panic and suffocate;
there is no responsible application of "sustainable" to any fishery; some fisheries are much better than others, right now; but nobody knows enough to tell you anything reliable about the way things will look in five years.
So: Let us all knock the seafood habit as quickly as possible.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:44 am
16 Aug 2008
I'm shocked! I was a long distance trucker for five years when I was a vegetarian. It was rough, but if you make some effort, you can eat without patronizing evil companies like Bugger King, which is still buying imported beef that was grazed on former tropical rainforest land cut down for the grazing. I realize you're not buying beef, but any money you spend there supports whatever Bugger King does.
When you travel, keep these ideas in mind:
The best places to eat are big cities, with a few very rare exceptions. They have the most choices, and not only have strictly veggie restaurants, but also Asian food and pizza that you can eat without eating domesticated meat or unsustainable fish/seafood. In small towns, you're far more likely to be forced into eating things you don't want from big corporate chains.
There were, and I assume still are, books that tell you where the veggie restaurants around the country are and give brief descriptions of them. Buy a new one, because the info changes quickly. Even with a new one, you'll find that some of the restaurants have been closed, so call ahead if you're counting on one.
You can always order eggs if you can't get veggie protein, which is what I used to do. Don't know whether eggs are veggie for you, they were for me.
Carry some protein with you, like nuts and legumes (peanuts, cashews, etc.). That way, if you can't get veggie protein from a restaurant because you're stuck in, say, the middle of nowhere in Wyoming and there's no city within 200 miles at which to eat, you don't have to eat meat.
Don't eat at McDeathalds or Bugger King under any circumstances. These evil corporate giants create much ecological destruction and use virtual slave labor.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:42 am
16 Aug 2008
You are absolutely right. But in my case, we are talking about a once-a-year thing, max.
The real issue is not eating, so much as peeing. And making sure Little Dog has enough water.
As an ex-trucker, you have terrific experience, which we lack. Meanwhile, it is indeed true that whenever we pull into a McDonald's or Burger King lot, I fantasize a colossal Max von Sydow, in a black floor-length cowl, holding a scythe.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:20 am
16 Aug 2008
Permalink
mckittre Posted 4:16 am
18 Aug 2008
However, it's really important for everyone to actually pay attention to those sustainability guides, rather than to avoid fish as a blanket rule.
For instance, in the wild Alaskan salmon fishery:
Wild salmon depend on both healthy oceans and healthy watersheds. Fishermen have a lot of clout to try and keep them that way - if and only if people recognize that their product is better and friendlier than farmed salmon and will pay the price for it.
Alaska is also stuffed full of metals, coal, gas, and oil underneath some of these currently pristine watersheds. There is a huge push to explore these, and the more a mining company can make the point that the economic future of fishing is crap, the more they convince locals that open pit gold/copper mining is the way to go.
One of the largest open pit mines in North America might go in at the headwaters of Bristol Bay (one of the world's largest salmon runs and pristine ecosystems). See Pebble Mine. The fishermen are the only hope of stopping it. Bristol Bay had record salmon runs this year - the competition with farmed salmon is the main thing driving their prices and livelihoods down.
This is just one example I happen to know well. I'm sure if you look into other sustainable fisheries, you'll find similar stories.
We don't need to just avoid bad industries, we need to support the good ones. More than just fish populations are at stake.
-Erin
http://www.GroundTruthTrekking.org
Permalink
mckittre Posted 4:20 am
18 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:32 am
18 Aug 2008
How strong in terms of munbers and political influence are environmentalists in Alaska?
Lately I have the impression that oil revenue payouts to citizens, industry employment, very high Alaskan living expenses, and the winnowing out of the job base and government of those opposed to unbridled industry exploitation has rendered environmentalism in Alaska dead.
In short, virtually all working people who care about mother earth have been forced to move elsewhere. Is this the case?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 5:13 am
18 Aug 2008
US based tilapia farms do not use preservatives, according to their industry lobby group.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
mckittre Posted 5:18 am
18 Aug 2008
Overall, the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game does quite a good job managing the salmon runs sustainably. Alaska still has, on average, about 100% of its historic runs of salmon, compared to 36% in BC, and 2% in Washington. This is probably because when we shifted to more sensible management strategies, there were still a lot of fish here and not too many people, so it was a more tractable problem.
Your question about environmentalism is a little more complicated. Few Alaskans would be caught dead calling themselves environmentalists. However if you talk to them about specific issues (I just walked about 3000 miles through the state and talked to a lot of folks) - nearly all Alaskans have strong environmental values.
More so than other places I've lived, Alaskans have a strong connection to the natural world around them. The proportion of outdoorspeople, hunters, fishermen, gatherers, gardeners... is very high. And they really do care about maintaining these resources. Salmon, particularly, are a bit of a sacred cow. Given that people have more of a personal connection to the issues, their views tend to be a bit more complicated (e.g. someone who is worried about oil drilling, but all for predator control, someone who is trying to start a local organic farm in their village but thinks more oil drilling is a great idea, someone who is pushing for local wind power, but supports mining development, etc...)
As far as living expenses go, Alaska actually has a lot of people (myself among them) who manage to live very cheaply here. You can build your own small house, salvage materials, heat with wood, grow/fish/hunt/gather a good chunk of food...
And the intra-Alaska environmental debate is quite lively. Currently, there's a huge battle over a Clean Water Initiative targeted at the mining industry on the upcoming primary ballot. The Pebble Mine I mentioned in the previous post is on state land, and it's up in the air what will happen, despite the huge amount of money the mining industry's throwing at it.
I would say that Alaskans, on average, resent people from 'Outside' telling them what to do with their land, more than being anti-environmental per se. Alaskans also are more convinced by global warming than the population of other 'red state', given that its effects are more obvious here.
I see the future of environmental issues here as pretty hopeful, actually. And don't the rest of you give up on us! Alaska is an important battle ground for all sorts of things (we might have 10% of the world's coal, for one), and I think things can be solved better by working with Alaskans, rather than just at the federal level.
Long answer. Hope it helps.
-Erin
http://www.GroundTruthTrekking.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:34 am
18 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:00 am
18 Aug 2008
That is the impression I got too. They tend to despise environmentalism. Anyone that sees a spiritual value in nature is not only seen as a kook, but someone to be aggresively (violently?) opposed.
One can only express that sort of feeling in private, especially not in the workplace or in public where it will get back to supervosots or employers.
"Alaskans, on average, resent people from 'Outside' telling them what to do with their land,"
That resentment is frequently expressed in terms of "he got what he deserved" about people like the "Grizzly Man" or the "Into The Wild" guy who died in that bus.
I am familiar with this attitude around here with "No Wolves" bumperstickers on a few trucks. The old attitudes are falling away here though. Will that ever happen in Alaska?
The "from outside" and "their land" attitude is problematic too. Are federal or state lands "theirs" to exploit in whatever fashion their employer wants too?
My impression is that game laws are largely ignored in Alaska. Wealthy tourists are flown in to bag trophies regardless of any game laws as a routine activity.
Good comments Erin! here's hoping your poineering environmental effots take hold someday. Thanks.
Now just hope no one from your town reads Gristmill, yikes!
ps. Congrats on your lifestyle. That would go a long way towards saving the planet if it becomes more widespread.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:06 am
18 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mckittre Posted 6:45 am
18 Aug 2008
Change is also in the air for Alaskan politics. People here understand that all our local politicians have been horribly corrupt for a long time, and we're working on getting rid of them. Ted Stevens next?
"Our land" Alaska has always resented being 3/4 owned by the federal government. Which is a problem. In many ways, I think it's a great help in saving us from our 'frontier mentality'. On the other hand, when you're talking to someone in a village entirely surrounded by federal land, owned by people who've never been there and don't understand local issues, it's easy to understand how they might chafe at that.
Game laws: In general, wealthy tourists are the ones who do stick to the rules. They pay a lot of money to bag their trophies, and Fish and Game wants to make sure we get it. Game laws are routinely flouted by subsistence hunters in rural villages, who think that hunting seasons are a bureaucratic stupidity, or kids in those same villages who think killing bears for no good reason is fun. Enforcement is hard in such a huge geographic area. Another issue is that Fish and Game has a mandate to make sure there are enough moose and caribou for all the folks who want to eat them - which can lead to controversial 'predator management' programs (shooting wolves), especially in the more populous areas of the state.
Alaskans do place spiritual value on the wilderness. However, they have a 'frontier mentality' - a belief that we live within a limitless and infinite expanse of wild nature. A belief that has been proven wrong in every other part of the world - but people aren't always great at learning from the mistakes of others. We don't need to convince them of the value of the land - just that the land here is also vulnerable.
I just finished my big trek. Now I'm working on compiling all the information to go on the website and working on a book, while trying to live with as little a footprint as I can manage up here.
-Erin
http://www.GroundTruthTrekking.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:54 am
18 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/12/18 ...
You have a great blog, everyone should check it out.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:00 am
18 Aug 2008
Bad link on my site.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:25 am
18 Aug 2008
As for the "sustainable" salmon fishery off southern Alaska: Sure, that fishery is better managed than many others. But given the uncertainty and agnosticism of marine ecosystems, we are irresponsibly optimistic to say that Alaskan wild salmon is "sustainable."
Nobody knows, really. And those who know the most, cannot predict beyond five or ten years.
And that is typical of what led to the global biodiversity crisis in the first place: "We can get as rich as we possibly can, exploiting this resource [i.e. living sentient creatures, their painful deaths going without comment], for maybe five, ten years; and everybody will believe we are acting responsibly."
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:40 am
18 Aug 2008
The Great Lakes fishery is at dire risk from invasive species. And even in Lake Superior, industrial pollution.
Over fishing maybe under control for now. These DNR people watching over Lake Superior are fierce in their defense of the resource, facing down commercial and political power with dedication.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mckittre Posted 7:44 am
19 Aug 2008
Folks here are, on average, no more or less heroic, no more or less smart, and no more or less responsible than people anywhere else.
Settlement by exploitative Europeans is a sad part of the history of Alaska as well as the history of the rest of the US, much of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and many other parts of the world. It's unfortunate, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion.
Neither is Alaska's pork-barrel politics. We don't need the subsidies, we just have greedy and powerful politicians who grab whatever they can for Alaska. I don't support it either, but it's irrelevant to the question of eating salmon.
As for sustainability?
Do we know for sure that eating wild Alaskan salmon is completely sustainable as currently managed?
No.
Do we know that anything we might eat, animal or vegetable, is completely sustainable as currently managed?
No.
And if we wish to put a value on wild ecosystems, a lot of farming is already a notch or two down by virtue of having destroyed whatever ecosystem was there before the farmland.
People have always needed to eat something. Salmon have been harvested here for probably 10,000 years, and I don't see it as impossible to regulate the fishery such that they can be harvested for 10,000 more. But you seem to think it's not worth even trying?
Perhaps it is irresponsibly optimistic for us to eat at all.
-Erin
http://www.GroundTruthTrekking.org
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 8:16 am
19 Aug 2008
The most sustainable and most healthy way---for you, the fish, and our environment---is no fish. Seaweed is clearly the best seafood in this regard.
Check out
http://www.fishinghurts.com
and
http://www.brook.com/veg
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters at
http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
Cinnamonia Posted 12:38 am
20 Aug 2008
Fisheries can be quite efficient in energy (if done close shore), don't have to be fertilized, it ensures valuable phosphorous and other nutrients is retreived from the sea back to terrestrial environments, and has some pretty healthful properties. It isn't always sustainable, and yes, it does kill.
Don't misunderstand me, I am very vegan-friendly, and eat very little animal products myself, but I see no reason that it is impossible to discuss degrees of sustainability even if one wouldn't eat fish from moral reasons.
Permalink
oliverl2004 Posted 10:24 am
26 Aug 2008
Permalink