Guide to troubled waters

There may be no tougher puzzle for the conscientious consumer than trying to figure out where to buy sustainably caught fish. The environmental group Greenpeace is trying to make it a little easier with a website that ranks leading retailers according to the eco-friendliness of their seafood offerings. Searchable by state, the site ranks the stores in four categories and then comes up with a final score and a rating. Generally, the situation is quite gloomy.

In California, 17 chains are assessed; perhaps predictably, Whole Foods and its corporate sibling Wild Oats come out on top, though their ratings are hardly sparkling. Not so predictably, the third- and fourth-rated chains are Wal-Mart and partner Sam's Club. Some very highly thought-of markets, such as Bristol Farms and Trader Joe's, fare worse.

Dig a little deeper, though, and you find that the rankings, though admirable in intent, have some drawbacks. For example, among the criteria markets are judged on is whether they have established a seafood sustainability code. But is it fair to assume that the absence of a code is the same as endorsing bad practices?

Even more problematic is the emphasis on Greenpeace's "Seafood Red List" of fish that should be avoided. The catch is that the list paints with a very broad brush, and in the confusing world of seafood that can lead to some serious oversimplifications.

This is particularly noticeable when you compare it with the list produced by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program, which is generally acknowledged to be the gold standard. For example, Greenpeace red-lists albacore tuna (an obvious problem for grocery stores, because it makes up most of the canned tuna). But the Seafood Watch list specifies that albacore should be avoided only if it is long-line caught outside of the United States; in fact, domestically caught trolled or hand-lined albacore makes the tough "Best Choice" list. There are similar confusions with other seafood, including sea scallops, swordfish and yellowfin tuna.

Consider the Greenpeace list a good start, but one that still needs some refining.

-- Russ Parsons

Photo credit: Greenpeace.com

Comments

[John LaGrange]

There are a lot of problems with this Greenpeace campaign, some have been pointed out in previous comments. One big problem with all of these sea food sustainability ratings is that they do not compare seafood to other foods. We all have to eat something, is it worse to eat fish than soy beans that are grown on recently cleared land that used to be Amazon rain forest? How about crops that are being irrigated from unsustainable aquifers? Is it worse to eat fish whose production causes some damage to ocean ecosystems than to eat the products of industrial agriculture that has turned huge areas of the earth into pesticide laden monocultures? If we only allowed the production of organic produce and those few fish that Greenpeace approves of, what portion of the worlds population would quickly starve to death?

[sheila663]

With over 90% of the world's large fishes already having been fished out of the oceans and the global fleet capable of overfishing remaining stocks (many times over!), the situation in our oceans is dire. It's time for some tough decisions and it's hardy a surprise that the commercial fisheries folks above don't want to have a discussion about sustainability.

Rarely have we seen an industry so energetically and with such eloquence talk itself into its own demise.

[David Martosko]

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.

[Gavin]

Greenpeace’s non-science based seafood sustainability diatribe designed to pressure supermarkets into removing almost half of all seafood from sale is a deeply flawed campaign complete with misleading, erroneous, and alarmist rhetoric that undermines its own efforts. Russ is right the Red List is "problematic" and unrealistic. Greenpeace is demanding retailers remove 47% of all seafood from stores-- that's hardly the way to start a dialogue about sustainability. Check out the media blog on AboutSeafood.com to learn more about the Greenpeace report.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute