Fish Is Not A Health Food: Here’s Why

Some who stop eating meat continue eating fish in the belief that it’s good for them and that fishing is less cruel and destructive than farming – nothing could be further from the truth
You don't need to eat fish to get your quota of essential fatty acids (Photo: Adobe. Do not use without permission)

You don’t need to eat fish to get your quota of essential fatty acids (Photo: Adobe. Do not use without permission)

We need fats called essential fatty acids for our cell membranes, brain and nervous system. They help regulate blood pressure, blood-clotting, immune and inflammatory responses and are called ‘essential’ because we can’t make them in our bodies, we must get them from food. ALA is an omega-3 essential fatty acid found in plant foods such as flaxseeds, rapeseeds, soya, walnuts and their oils.

We convert it, in our bodies, into the longer-chain omega-3s EPA and DHA. These are also found in oily fish, which they obtain from algae. Conversion rates in the body can be low, which is why some people insist that fish oils are essential for health. They are not, in fact, they could be doing more harm than good.

UK guidelines recommend that we should eat at least two 140g portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily. This contributes to the widespread belief that eating oily fish or taking omega‐3 fish oil supplements reduces our risk of heart disease, stroke and death. The research tells a different story.

Gold standard research

Cochrane reviews are regarded as the highest standard in evidence-based research. A 2018 review found that increasing EPA and DHA from oily fish or fish oil supplements had little or no effect on heart health.

These findings are consistent with many other high‐quality reviews. They also found that ALA from plant foods may slightly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm).

Another 2018 review, this time from the British Journal of Nutrition, found that higher ALA intakes from plant foods were linked to a reduced risk of heart disease. So it seems you’re better off with plant-based omega-3s. In fact, over the past two decades, many studies have shown a similar lack of effect from fish oils and a beneficial effect from consuming ALA directly from plant foods.

Mercury rising

Some studies show that oily fish, and particularly fish oil supplements, can actually have the opposite effect than that claimed and instead increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

The American Heart Association says this might be explained by the damaging effects of methylmercury, an environmental contaminant found in fish. A study of men in Eastern Finland, where mercury levels in fish are high, found that the level of mercury in their hair and the amount of fish they ate were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular death.

In other words, those eating the most fish also had the highest levels of mercury in their hair and the highest levels of cardiovascular death.

Some studies show that fish oil supplements can actually increase the risk of cardiovascular events (Photo: Adobe. Do not use without permission)

Some studies show that fish oil supplements can actually increase the risk of cardiovascular events (Photo: Adobe. Do not use without permission)

Toxic shocker

All the world’s oceans are contaminated with toxic pollutants such as methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins, and many act as damaging neurotoxins.

They can accumulate as you move up the food chain, especially in oily fish, cancelling out any supposed beneficial effects of omega-3s.

Conflicting advice

We have the extraordinary position in the UK, where women who are pregnant or breastfeeding are advised to eat oily fish because the omega-3s it contains can help a baby’s nervous system develop.

On the other hand, all girls and women who are breastfeeding, are pregnant or who are planning a pregnancy – and even those who may one day in the future want to have a child – are warned not to eat more than two portions of oily fish a week.

The reason for this advice is that pollutants in the fish may build up and seriously affect the baby’s development in the womb. And there are more warnings – children, pregnant women and women trying to get pregnant are also told to avoid eating shark, swordfish or marlin because they contain more mercury than other fish and this can damage a developing baby’s nervous system.

So, damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

Oily fish includes: herring, pilchards, salmon, sardines, sprats, trout and mackerel. However, the list of fish to limit or avoid has been extended to include some white fish which may also contain similar levels of pollutants – sea bream, sea bass, turbot, halibut and huss (dogfish). And this is supposed to be a health food.

Norovirus

Pollutants are not the only problem as filter-feeding shellfish, such as mussels and oysters, can accumulate bacteria and viruses from their environment and when eaten raw, can pose a direct threat to health. Norovirus is one of them and can cause fever, nausea, vomiting, cramping and diarrhoea.

It is one of the most common causes of food poisoning in the UK and is also called the winter vomiting bug because it’s more common in winter, although it can be caught at any time of year. Norovirus infections spread very easily from person-to-person contact or simply by touching surfaces that have been contaminated with the virus and then touching your mouth.

Outbreaks are common in hospitals, nursing homes, schools and cruise ships and can also occur in restaurants and hotels. The virus is usually mild and lasts for one to two days. Symptoms include vomiting, projectile vomiting, diarrhoea and fever. Most people make a full recovery within a couple of days but it can be dangerous for the very young and elderly people.

Many outbreaks are linked to shellfish contaminated by human faecal sources. Contamination of bivalve shellfish, particularly oysters, with norovirus is recognised as a food safety risk, one study found 69 percent of 630 oyster samples ordered from vendors across the UK were found to be contaminated with norovirus.

Those pregnant or breastfeeding are advised to eat oily fish - but those trying to get pregnant are warned not to eat more than two portions of oily fish a week (Photo: Adobe. Do not use without permission)

Those pregnant or breastfeeding are advised to eat oily fish – but those trying to get pregnant are warned not to eat more than two portions of oily fish a week (Photo: Adobe. Do not use without permission)

Hepatitis E

Hepatitis E is endemic in many developing countries where it is spread via a faecal-oral route. Outbreaks are relatively rare in developed countries due to better infrastructure, water supply and sanitation.

However, there have been clusters of infection in developed countries not associated with travel to areas where the virus is prevalent that are instead associated with zoonotic transmission. In the UK, there has been a steep rise in cases over the last decade.

Livestock, such as pigs, can act as reservoirs and high levels have been found in wastewater and manure from pig units, highlighting the potential for it to enter watercourses and then accumulate in shellfish. Infectious hepatitis E virus has been found in animal faeces, sewage water, inadequately-treated water, contaminated shellfish and animal meats.

Fish farms are not the answer

Fish farms now provide more than half of all fish consumed by humans but are certainly not the answer. These overcrowded, unnatural pens transmit disease and cause water pollution; choking marine life with persistent organic pollutants, antibiotics, chemicals from parasitical treatments, anaesthetics, disinfectants, feed additives, metals and antifoulants.

Farmed fish tend to contain less omega-3s as they are fed omega-6-rich vegetable oils in addition to fishmeal and fish oils. Yes, fish are being pulled out of the sea in order to feed farmed fish and livestock.

Our oceans are being decimated and ancient coral reefs destroyed at an unprecedented level by fishing on an industrial scale. Marine ecosystems are collapsing as bottom-trawlers plough through sea beds, with up to 90 per cent of some fish species having been depleted, decimating populations of large-bodied marine animals who depend upon them.

This domino effect could disrupt ocean ecosystems for millions of years to come. The nonsensical belief that fish cannot feel pain still prevails despite abundant scientific evidence showing that fish experience conscious pain in the same way as mammals and birds. Pain is an essential element of evolution, teaching creatures which things it is essential to avoid.

Fish in the U.K.

Surprisingly for an island nation, fish is not a popular food in the UK, with the average adult consuming just 54g of oily fish per week.

The good news is you don’t have to destroy the oceans, inflict pain or eat neurotoxins and carcinogens to get your essential omega-3s. Plant foods can provide more than enough to keep your heart healthy and combat inflammatory conditions such as arthritis.

Or, if you choose, you can take an algal-based vegan omega-3 supplement supplying EPA and DHA without the risk of contamination, and none of the ethical and environmental concerns of eating fish. Help our oceans become healthy again and leave fish alone.

Find out more about fish and health here

This article was first published by Viva!

‘Selling off the future’: Trump allows fishing in marine monument

Administration opening areas off New England coast up to commercial fishing, a move experts say will hurt the environment

Commercial fishing boats docked in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Commercial fishing boats docked in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Photograph: Wayne Parry/AP

Supported by

SEJAbout this content

Published onSat 6 Jun 2020 06.00 EDT
‘Selling off the future’: Trump allows fishing in marine monument

Donald Trump is easing protections for a large marine monument off the coast of New England, opening it to commercial fishing.

But ocean experts caution that the rollback to the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine national monument will hurt the environment and won’t help fishermen who are struggling during the Covid-19 pandemic and economic downturn to find buyers for what they already catch.

“This rollback essentially sells off the future of the ocean and the future of the ecosystem for almost no present economic benefit,” said Miriam Goldstein, the ocean policy director at the Center for American Progress (Cap). “[That’s] why it’s so puzzling to do it at all and even more puzzling that the president is doing it now, in the middle of the pandemic and with police riots going on around the country.”

Trump’s announcement follows several others by the administration to weaken environment rules during the pandemic, including an executive order he signed yesterday to bypass reviews of big infrastructure projects that could threaten public health.

The protected area is about 130 miles from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and it contains endangered right whales and sensitive deep sea corals. It is one of five marine monuments in the country. The other four are in the western Pacific Ocean. After this rollback, less than .1% of the US waters outside the western Pacific Ocean will be protected from commercial fishing, according to an analysis by Cap based on federal data.

“Even fishing done well still has an impact, so for that reason it’s important to have special areas of the ocean set aside. And this has been shown through a lot of science, that it is beneficial to ocean ecosystems, to biodiversity, to threatened and endangered species – and beneficial to those fisheries themselves,” Goldstein said.

Environment groups quickly responded that they plan to sue. The Natural Resources Defense Council is undertaking a similar lawsuit against the administration for opening up two Utah monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, to mining. The Utah monuments and the marine monument were established at the end of the Barack Obama administration.

Goldstein acknowledged that fishermen and aquaculture growers in coastal communities have been hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic and economic downturn, but she said there are other actions the administration could take that would help.

The US Regional Fishery Management Councils on 29 May sent a letter to the commerce department arguing that “the ban on commercial fishing within Marine national monument waters is a regulatory burden on domestic fisheries”. The group had been making that same argument since 2016.

Rip Cunningham, the conservation editor at Saltwater Sportsman and former chair of the New England Fishery Management Council, criticized the move.

“As a recreational fisherman, it troubles me to see the monument opened to commercial fishing,” Cunningham said. “These are fragile and vulnerable resources, and I am concerned for their future health.”

‘Selling off the future’: Trump allows fishing in marine monument

Administration opening areas off New England coast up to commercial fishing, a move experts say will hurt the environment

Commercial fishing boats docked in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Commercial fishing boats docked in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Photograph: Wayne Parry/AP

Supported by

SEJAbout this content

Published onSat 6 Jun 2020 06.00 EDT

Donald Trump is easing protections for a large marine monument off the coast of New England, opening it to commercial fishing.

But ocean experts caution that the rollback to the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine national monument will hurt the environment and won’t help fishermen who are struggling during the Covid-19 pandemic and economic downturn to find buyers for what they already catch.

“This rollback essentially sells off the future of the ocean and the future of the ecosystem for almost no present economic benefit,” said Miriam Goldstein, the ocean policy director at the Center for American Progress (Cap). “[That’s] why it’s so puzzling to do it at all and even more puzzling that the president is doing it now, in the middle of the pandemic and with police riots going on around the country.”

Trump’s announcement follows several others by the administration to weaken environment rules during the pandemic, including an executive order he signed yesterday to bypass reviews of big infrastructure projects that could threaten public health.

The president unveiled the decision in Bangor, Maine, at a roundtable discussion with commercial fisheries companies. The White House said Trump’s proclamation would allow commercial fishing within the monument but would not alter its boundaries.

The protected area is about 130 miles from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and it contains endangered right whales and sensitive deep sea corals. It is one of five marine monuments in the country. The other four are in the western Pacific Ocean. After this rollback, less than .1% of the US waters outside the western Pacific Ocean will be protected from commercial fishing, according to an analysis by Cap based on federal data.

“Even fishing done well still has an impact, so for that reason it’s important to have special areas of the ocean set aside. And this has been shown through a lot of science, that it is beneficial to ocean ecosystems, to biodiversity, to threatened and endangered species – and beneficial to those fisheries themselves,” Goldstein said.

Environment groups quickly responded that they plan to sue. The Natural Resources Defense Council is undertaking a similar lawsuit against the administration for opening up two Utah monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, to mining. The Utah monuments and the marine monument were established at the end of the Barack Obama administration.

Goldstein acknowledged that fishermen and aquaculture growers in coastal communities have been hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic and economic downturn, but she said there are other actions the administration could take that would help.

The US Regional Fishery Management Councils on 29 May sent a letter to the commerce department arguing that “the ban on commercial fishing within Marine national monument waters is a regulatory burden on domestic fisheries”. The group had been making that same argument since 2016.

Rip Cunningham, the conservation editor at Saltwater Sportsman and former chair of the New England Fishery Management Council, criticized the move.

“As a recreational fisherman, it troubles me to see the monument opened to commercial fishing,” Cunningham said. “These are fragile and vulnerable resources, and I am concerned for their future health.”

Scientists Discover 400-Year-Old Greenland Shark Likely Born Around 1620

Greenland sharks are now the longest-living vertebrates known on Earth, according to scientists.

Scientists Discover 400-Year-Old Greenland Shark Likely Born Around 1620

Image credit: Dive Magazine

Researchers used radiocarbon dating of eye proteins to determine the ages of 28 Greenland sharks, and estimated that one female was about 400 years old. The former vertebrate record-holder was a bowhead whale estimated to be 211 years old.

As lead author Julius Nielsen, a marine biologist from the University of Copenhagen, put it: “We had our expectations that we were dealing with an unusual animal, but I think everyone doing this research was very surprised to learn the sharks were as old as they were.”

Greenland sharks swim through the cold waters of the Arctic and the North Atlantic at such a sluggish pace that has earned them the nickname “sleeper sharks.” Image credit: Julius Nielsen

Greenland sharks are huge and can grow up to 5m in length. Yet, they grow at just 1cm a year. They can be found, swimming slowly, throughout the cold, deep waters of the North Atlantic.

The team believes the animals only reach sexual maturity when they are 4m-long. And with this new, very lengthy age-range, it suggests this does not occur until the animals are about 150 years old.

A newly tagged Greenland shark returns to the deep and cold waters of the Uummannaq Fjord in western Greenland. Image credit: Julius Nielsen

The research was made possible, in part, by the atmospheric thermonuclear weapons tests conducted during the 1960s, which released massive amounts of radiocarbon that were then absorbed by organisms in ocean ecosystems. Sharks that showed evidence of elevated radiocarbon in the nucleus of their eye tissue were therefore born after the so-called “bomb pulse,” and were younger than 50 years old, while sharks with lower radiocarbon levels were born prior to that, and were at least 50 years old or older, the study authors wrote.

The scientists then calculated an age range for the older sharks based on their size, and on prior data about Greenland sharks’ size at birth and growth rates in fish.

A Greenland shark near the ocean surface after its release from research vessel Sanna in northern Greenland. Image credit: Julius Nielsen

According to the results of the analysis – which has a probability rate of about 95 percent – the sharks were at least 272 years old, and could be as much as 512 years old (!) with 390 years as the most likely average life span, according to Nielsen.

But why do Greenland sharks live so long? Their longevity is actually attributed to their very slow metabolism and the cold waters that they inhabit. They swim through the cold waters of the Arctic and the North Atlantic at such a sluggish pace that has earned them the nickname “sleeper sharks.” Seal parts have been found in their bellies, but the sharks move so slowly that experts have suggested that the seals must have been asleep or already dead when the sharks ate them.

Sources: 12

Stop the salmon farm industry from breaking the rules

Wild salmon with sea lice infestation.

In a March 26 letter to federal Fisheries Minister Bernadette Jordan, the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance asked her for “regulatory flexibility” during the COVID-19 crisis so they could break the rules while the public is distracted. In their letter they ask for free rein regarding:

  • sea lice monitoring
  • environmental monitoring
  • deposition of organic waste and pesticides
  • reporting of mass die-offs

This deregulation would allow fish farm companies to go unchecked for the foreseeable future, increasing risk to threatened wild salmon and marine ecosystems.

Sign the petition: https://salmonpeople.ca/stop-covid-deregulation?fbclid=IwAR0M8wolQ3x9c9t-QS-ddypRrTM5bcXIN5KGTyalpqNSANlUv4m5qTbyiVY

How ‘dark fishing’ sails below the radar to plunder the oceans

Billions of dollars in illegal and unregulated fish supplies are mixed with legal catches and smuggled into the market.

by

In September last year, the Greenpeace campaign ship Arctic Sunrise was scanning the mid-Atlantic ocean, thousands of kilometres from anywhere. On board, investigators were looking for vessels that were doing their best not to be found.

One of them was Taiwanese fishing boat, the Hung Hwa – a longliner capable of running baited lines more than 100 kilometres (62 miles) in length, targeting mainly tuna species. It had turned off its satellite locator, the Automatic Identification System (AIS).

It had “gone dark”.

A fishing vessel might do that to avoid competition from other boats or to prevent attack by pirates. But often it coincides with a transhipment at sea – the offloading of a fishing boat’s catch onto what is known as a reefer, or a giant refrigerated cargo ship.

The transhipment loophole

Transhipping is the lifeblood of the distant water fishing industry. It allows fishing boats to stay at sea without returning to port for months because they can offload their catch on to what are effectively colossal floating freezers.

As part of the process, the fishing vessels are refuelled and resupplied by the reefers, allowing them to get straight back to doing what they do – catching fish relentlessly.

The problem is that transhipping fish mid-ocean presents a major loophole in monitoring fishing activities.

By offloading at sea, vessels are able to smuggle illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) catches into the market by mixing them with legal catches.

This makes it exceedingly difficult to detect fraud or trace a shipment back to the vessel that caught it. It also allows entire fleets to operate out of sight, where they can hide illegal catches and operate without returning to port.

Under the radar

On the bridge of the Arctic Sunrise, the Greenpeace investigators were scrutinising the navigation screens, following the satellite tracks of vessels in their sector of the ocean. Their suspicions were raised when a Taiwan-owned, Panama-registered reefer vessel called the Hsiang Hao, appeared to be sailing slowly in a loitering pattern – effectively circling for several hours.

There was no other vessel present, at least none displaying AIS.

But the next day the Arctic Sunrise intercepted the Hsiang Hao and there, alongside, was the Hung Hwa, still “dark” – not transmitting its satellite location.

If ships turn off their satellite tracking it means no one sees what’s happening out at sea and it makes the high seas a black hole of fishing activity.

SOPHIE COOKE, GREENPEACE

And from the Hung Hwa’s hold, dozens upon dozens of deep-frozen tuna and shark – frosted and steaming in the humid equatorial air – were being hoisted on to the reefer ship.

Greenpeace’s lead investigator, Sophie Cooke, said there are many reasons vessels may not want to appear on satellite.

“Some of them might be legitimate,” she said. “But a lot of the time, it’s because they want to avoid detection or want to go into areas they are not allowed. Or they want to meet up with another vessel at sea and do not want to be seen.”

“If ships turn off their satellite tracking it means no one sees what’s happening out at sea and it makes the high seas a black hole of fishing activity,” Cooke added.

Only for feature on Greenpeace © Tommy Trenchard / Greenpeace
Second mate Helena De Carlos Watts and lead investigator, Sophie Cooke, right, watch the radar screen as the Arctic Sunrise approaches a target vessel in the southern Atlantic ocean [Tommy Trenchard/Greenpeace]

The Investigation

In 2017, Greenpeace set out to understand the scale and misuse of AIS by the global reefer industry. They investigated the movements, behaviour and owner structures of more than 400 reefers identified as being capable of taking part in transhipments at sea.

In the resulting report just published, the investigating team said what was most striking was how much transhipment is happening between fishing vessels that have gone dark because of their involvement in illegal fishing.

“It’s very hard to know the exact amount of IUU fishing activity that’s going on,” said Will McCallum, Greenpeace’s head of oceans, “but what we do know is that transhipment allows vessels to stay far out at sea where they are out of scrutiny, out of mind and out of sight.”

McCallum said they can track exactly where the global fleet of refrigerated cargo vessels is operating.

“For example, we can see they’re in the southwest Atlantic, which is a part of the world where there is very little, to the point of almost no fisheries management for a lot of fishing vessels,” he said.

‘Flags of convenience’

The Greenpeace report highlights how the global fleet of reefers hides behind complex ownership structures and “flags of convenience” that reduce accountability and transparency.

The single most active fleet of reefers involved in transhipments on the high seas is owned by the Greek shipping magnate Thanasis Laskaridis, whose vessels ply the seas the world over, from the North Atlantic to the South Pacific.

Investigators also discovered that because transhipment allows fishing boats to spend months or even years at sea without returning to port, it leaves crews open to abuse. Being so far from scrutiny and the prying eyes of port inspectors for so long raises the possibility that boat owners can effectively enslave their crew.

Many cases have been documented, the report said, of fishermen being forced to work exhausting shifts in unsafe conditions, having their pay withheld and documents confiscated. There are even reports of crew being denied access to clean food and drinking water.

Only for feature on Greenpeace © Tommy Trenchard / Greenpeace
The Arctic Sunrise [Tommy Trenchard/Greenpeace]

Closing gaps in ocean governance

McCallum said the investigation demonstrates the urgent need for greater scrutiny.

“Reefers should have observers on board to track where the catch is coming from and make sure we are not muddying the global supply chains.” The ultimate goal would be for transhipment at sea to be phased out.

There is no question of the severity of the grave assault that is taking place on our oceans and everything that lives in it. Overfishing is wreaking havoc on marine life while threatening the food security and livelihoods of billions of people.

This year will be a significant one for the world – from the crucial climate conference in Glasgow in November to a landmark biodiversity summit in October in China. But, for the Greenpeace oceans team, all eyes right now are on New York in March when maximum effort is being focused on the implementation of a global ocean treaty at a vital UN conference.

“We need a strong ocean treaty,” said McCallum. “We need a single holistic way to manage these international waters, that are so far from land they’re very hard for a single country or group of countries to monitor and regulate. So a global ocean treaty would plug some of the governance gaps that we are seeing at the moment.”

The goal is to ensure 30 percent of the world’s oceans become off-limits to any kind of exploitation – from fishing to deep-sea mining. And that way those far-flung waters that are often home to pristine ecosystems, would be better protected from the fleet that goes dark to pursue and dispatch its catch.

“The biggest environmental story that no one knows about”: The recovery of groundfish off the West Coast

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-biggest-environmental-story-that-no-one-knows-about-the-recovery-of-groundfish-off-the-west-coast/

Warrenton, Oregon —  A rare environmental success story is unfolding in waters off the U.S. West Coast.

The ban devastated fishermen, but on January 1, regulators will reopen an area roughly three times the size of Rhode Island off Oregon and California to groundfish bottom trawling — all with the approval of environmental groups that were once the industry’s biggest foes.

Rockfish Rebound
This December 2019 photo shows an aurora rockfish at a processing facility in Warrenton, Oregon. GILLIAN FLACCUS / AP

The rapid turnaround is made even more unique by the collaboration between the fishermen and environmentalists who spent years refining a long-term fishing plan that will continue to resuscitate the groundfish industry while permanently protecting thousands of square miles of reefs and coral beds that benefit the overfished species.

Now, the fishermen who see their livelihood returning must solve another piece of the puzzle: drumming up consumer demand for fish that haven’t been in grocery stores or on menus for a generation.

“It’s really a conservation home run,” said Shems Jud, regional director for the Environmental Defense Fund’s ocean program. “The recovery is decades ahead of schedule. It’s the biggest environmental story that no one knows about.”

The process also netted a win for conservationists concerned about the future of extreme deepwater habitats where bottom trawlers currently don’t go. A tract of ocean the size of New Mexico with waters up to 2.1 miles deep will be off-limits to bottom-trawling to protect deep-sea corals and sponges just now being discovered.

“Not all fishermen are rapers of the environment. When you hear the word ‘trawler,’ very often that’s associated with destruction of the sea and pillaging,” said Kevin Dunn, whose trawler Iron Lady was featured in a Whole Foods television commercial about sustainable fishing.

A unique history

Groundfish is a catch-all term that refers to dozens of species that live or on, or near, the bottom of the Pacific off the West Coast. Trawling vessels drag weighted nets to scoop up as many fish as possible, but that can also damage critical rocky underwater habitat.

The groundfish fishery hasn’t always struggled. Starting in 1976, the federal government subsidized the construction of domestic fishing vessels to lock down U.S. interests in West Coast waters, and by the 1980s, that investment paid off. Bottom trawling was booming, with 500 vessels in California, Oregon and Washington hauling in 200 million pounds of non-whiting groundfish a year. Unlike Dungeness crab and salmon, groundfish could be harvested year-round, providing an economic backbone for ports.

But in the late 1990s, scientists began to sound the alarm about dwindling fish stocks.

Rockfish Rebound
A worker prepares to dump a bucket of fish onto a conveyor belt for sorting after the fish were unloaded from a bottom trawler containing rockfish and other groundfish species in Warrenton, Oregon.GILLIAN FLACCUS / AP

Just nine of the more than 90 groundfish species were in trouble, but because of the way bottom trawlers fished – indiscriminately hauling up millions of pounds of whatever their nets encountered – regulators began focus on bottom trawling. Multiple species of rockfish, slow-growing creatures with spiny fins and colorful names like canary, darksplotched and yellow eye, were the hardest hit.

“We really wiped out the industry for a number of years,” Pettinger said. “To get those things up and going again is not easy.”

In 2011, trawlers were assigned quotas for how many of each species they could catch. If they went over, they had to buy quota from other fishermen in a system reminiscent of a carbon cap-and-trade model. Mandatory independent observers, paid by the trawlers, accompanied the vessels and hand-counted their haul.

Fishermen quickly learned to avoid areas heavy in off-limits species and began innovating to net fewer banned fish.

Collaboration pays off

Surveys soon showed groundfish rebounding – in some cases, 50 years faster than predicted – and accidental trawling of overfished species fell by 80%. The Marine Stewardship Council certified 13 species in the fishery as sustainable in 2014, and five more followed last year.

As the quota system’s success became apparent, environmentalists and trawlers began to talk. Regulators would soon revisit the trawling rules, and the two sides wanted a voice.

They met more than 30 times, slowly building trust as they crafted a proposal. Trawlers brought maps developed over generations, alerted environmentalists to reefs they didn’t know about, and even shared proprietary tow paths.

Last year, regulators approved a plan to reopen the 17-year-old Rockfish Conservation Area off Oregon and California, while banning future trawling in extreme-depth waters and making off-limits some habitat dubbed essential to fish reproduction, including a large area off Southern California.

“A fair number of fishermen thought it was a good deal and if it was going to happen, it was better for them to participate than not,” said Tom Libby, a fish processor who was instrumental in crafting the agreement. “It’s right up there with the best and most rewarding things in my career — and I’ve been at it 50 years.”

Some groups, like Oceana, wanted even more protections from bottom trawling, which it calls the “most damaging fishing method to seafloor habitats off the West Coast.” In a news release, the group emphasized that the agreement it did get safeguards 90 percent of the seafloor in U.S. waters off the West Coast.

Now, efforts to revive demand

Even so, with fragile species rebounding, trawlers could harvest as much as 120 million pounds a year, but there’s only demand for about half that much. That’s because groundfish have been replaced in stores by farmed, foreign species like tilapia.

A trade association called Positively Groundfish is trying to change that by touring food festivals and culinary trade shows, evangelizing to chefs and seafood buyers about the industry’s rebound and newfound sustainability. They give out samples, too.

“We are treating this almost like a new product for which you have to build awareness — but we do have a great story,” said Jana Hennig, the association’s executive director. “People are so surprised to hear that not everything is lost, that not everything is doom and gloom, but that it’s possible that you can manage a fishery so well that it actually bounces back to abundance.

The Shameful Reality of Aquatic Torture and Death Pens

Underwater factory farms are condemning fish to live “on the edge of what they can tolerate”.
  • The Shameful Reality of Aquatic Torture and Death Pens

    Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

    One of the things that has troubled me for many years is the way that we treat the fishes of the sea.

    As a species we deny and ignore their sentience. We dismiss them as living beings and refuse to comprehend that these animals think, that they suffer, that they have emotions.

    We literally vacuum them from the sea using highly mechanized machinery to scour the bottom of the sea, to trap them in huge nets or to ensnare them in hooks on long lines that can stretch over a hundred miles across the waves. We suffocate them, we crush them, we tear open their mouth with savage hooks and mutilate their delicate gills in plastic curtains of death and destruction.

    For fish there are no safe places. We have invaded their homes and ravaged their lives, destroyed them by the billions and polluted their habitats.

    And to add insult to injury, not content to murder them in their homes we now breed them in massive confinement facilities that literally fill the air with the stench of decay and death as they spew toxins, parasites and viruses into once pristine eco-systems.

    A Haida elder once told me that salmon farms were a perversion of the spirit of the salmon.

    What we do to them by raising them in concentration camps is obscene.

    We abuse them, we assault them with chemicals, we force them to consume dye in the food pellets to actually dye the flesh pinkish while they are alive. We inject them with antibiotics and force them into toxic chemical baths. We scour the sea to catch millions of other fish from other species to render into cheap fish meal to feed them. We see hundreds of thousands of them die off as the farms collect insurance for the losses and then we send them to market after slicing off the cancerous growths so that humans can have cheap salmon.

    As a species, we cruelly accept that the viruses and parasites that these mass incarceration facilities produce gets transmitted to wild indigenous species of salmon and that the diminishment of wild salmon means the diminishment of food for Orcas, Eagles, Bears, Seals and so many other species of wild sentient creatures.

    These fish that are bred in these horrific facilities are living, self-aware sentient beings that we force into unbearably miserable confines and it takes a toll in suffering and death, pollution and ugliness.

    These shameful facilities degrade not just the salmon but also ourselves.

    They need to be shut down in every eco-system that these companies have invaded.

Farmed salmon laced with poisons, study finds

Farm-raised salmon contain substantially higher levels of PCBs and other potentially cancer-causing industrial pollutants than their wild counterparts, a new study has says.

Researchers at Indiana University measured the levels of 14 toxic compounds, called organochlorines, in about 700 North American, South American and European salmon and discovered that farm-raised Atlantic salmon had “significantly higher levels of 13 toxins compared with wild Pacific salmon.”

The researchers, whose findings are published in Friday’s journal Science, did not study farmed Pacific salmon or wild Atlantic salmon as fish from these groups are rare.

The average dioxin level in farm-raised salmon was 11 times higher than that in wild salmon – 1.88 parts per billion compared with 0.17 ppb. For PCBs, the average was 36.6 ppb in farm-raised salmon, compared with 4.75 in wild salmon.

Overall, salmon farmed in Europe had significantly higher levels of toxicity than salmon farmed in North America or South America, the study said.

Farmed salmon from Scotland and Denmark’s Faroe Islands registered the highest levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin — the four toxins thought to have the greatest impact on human health. Farmed salmon from Chile and Washington state registered the lowest levels of these four toxins.

The researchers point to “salmon chow” – a mix of ground up fish and oil fed to farm-raised salmon – as a likely cause of toxicity.

Farmed salmon eat lots of fish oil and meal made from just a few species of ocean fish, which concentrates the contaminants they are exposed to, while wild salmon eat a greater variety, David Carpenter, one of the researchers told the Associated Press.

But several farmers in the United States, Canada and Chile are beginning to replace the fish oil in the feed with soybean and canola oil.

Based on their findings, the researchers recommend that farmed salmon bought in Toronto supermarkets (as well as those in San Francisco, Boston, London, Oslo London, Paris, Edinburgh and Frankfurt) not be consumed in quantities of more than one half to one meal a month. Eight ounces of uncooked fish constitutes one meal.

Farmed salmon bought in Vancouver supermarkets (along with those in London, Washington D.C., Seattle, Chicago and New York) should not be eaten in more than two meals per month.

People who can consume more than the recommended amounts, which are based on strict guidelines established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, could slightly increase their risk of developing cancer later in life. The same guidelines allow wild salmon to be consumed in quantities of up to eight meals per month.

Purdue University researcher and nutritionist Dr. Charles Santerre says he agrees with the overall findings of the study, but disagrees with its conclusion that consumers should limit their intake of farmed salmon because of increased cancer risk, noting the heart benefits of the fish, which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids.

“The study shows that the cancer risk from eating large amounts of salmon is significantly lower than the risk of developing heart disease from not eating generous amounts of the fish,” Dr. Santerre said.

He also recommends farm-raised or wild salmon for pregnant and nursing mothers as an ideal source of nutrients for a developing fetus and infant and says salmon it is one of the safest fish on the market.

.

2.6 million farmed salmon dead on south coast of Newfoundland, company says

David Maher

Published: 11 hours ago

Updated: 11 hours ago

Google BookmarkFacebookMore

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. —

A massive salmon die-off on Newfoundland’s south coast has led to the suspension of licences for Northern Harvest Sea Farms in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The die-off first occurred on Sept. 3, but information about the incident did not go public until weeks later.

No estimate for the amount of dead salmon in the Northern Harvest pens were disclosed until Friday, when the company announced 2.6 million salmon had died.

“As a result of the ongoing investigation and evidence of non-compliance, I am suspending all affected Northern Harvest Seafood Farms licences and issuing a directive that requires the company to continue the cleanup of the sites,” Fisheries and Land Resources Minister Gerry Byrne said in a statement.

“I will be amending licence conditions to all unaffected Northern Harvest Seafood Farms and other associated MOWI licence sites in the coming days.”

As of Friday, the company was not made aware of what needed to be done for its licences to be reinstated. Northern Harvest communications director Jason Card says the government is drafting a letter detailing what is needed.

“Surprised by the suspension? Yes. Warranted? I think the minister has an obligation to protect the public good, so he’s doing what he thinks is best,” Northern Harvest managing director Jamie Gaskill said.

An initial number provided to the government was that two million fish had died, but after an addition 600,000 fish were found dead, the company updated the figure, triggering the suspension of the licence.

The massive death was not accompanied by a massive escape of farmed salmon, Gaskill said.

“There are no fish that have escaped. I am very confident,” he said.

Provincial regulations dictate that companies must report the escape of even a single fish, and no such reports have yet been issued.

The 2.6 million salmon carcasses will be delivered to another company to be processed and turned largely into cat food and other animal feed.

The company says sustained southwestern winds in the area of the farm caused increased temperatures near the sea farms housing the salmon. The company says the surface water near the pens warmed up and maintained an increased temperature over the course of weeks.

Because water near the surface was warmer than water further below, Gaskill said, the salmon followed their instinct, toward their demise.

“These fish want to go where it’s good for them. So, what they do, they nose down — it’s called sounding. Anybody that is familiar with herring, mackerel, lots of fish do this,” he said.

“They put their nose down, they try to get down to where it’s cool, where conditions are better, and they smother themselves.”

As for why information was slow getting to the public, Gaskill said his company “misinterpreted” the reporting requirements for the second mass die-off of salmon.

“That is our fault,” he said.

Card says information about the mass die-off was reported locally, but not to the public.

“To be clear, we did disclose to local stakeholders, mayors, indigenous first leaders, the FFAW, to our own staff when we observed this event, that it happened. To be clear, we also disclosed to government that we had a mass mortality on September 3.”

According to the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources, new regulations were implemented on Thursday, enshrining for the first time a duty to publicly report mass deaths of farmed salmon.

Regulations wanting

Large deaths of farmed salmon are not rare within the aquaculture industry throughout the world.

According to the Ferret, a Scottish investigative news outlet, nine million farmed salmon have died in that country since 2016, between 760 reported mass deaths in the country. The mass salmon die-off in this province hit almost a third of that number in one incident.

Michael Montague, a specialist with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), says there are three separate entities that oversee differing aspects of the industry in that country.

SEPA oversees the concentration of fish in aquaculture pens and effluent coming from aquaculture projects, and determines how much chemicals and antibiotics are allowed to be used at any given time. SEPA has monthly monitoring programs for companies to comply with as part of their regulations.

“We don’t really look at the mortality aspect. The mortality aspect is covered by two legislative parts. There’s the Marine Scotland … they are very much focused on fish health. If there’s a certain percentage of fish lost, then they have to report that through Marine Scotland,” said Montague.

“Then, there’s also the Animal and Plant Health Agency. They have the regulations covered by animal byproducts regulations, and that looks at any kind of waste, from cattle to marine caged fish farms. They deal with those kinds of (mass death) incidents and how to deal with the waste coming from them and any concerns around that.”

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the aquaculture industry is largely regulated by the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). DFO declined an interview request from The Telegram.

Enforcement measures at the government’s disposal, according to the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources, include a formal warning, followed by tickets ranging between $100 and $500, administrative penalties. Those charged with an offence under the act will be charged between $5,000 and $20,000 for a first offence and/or face one to six months in prison for a second offence, and up to a $50,000 to $100,000 fine and/or three to six months in prison for third-time offenders.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is expected to make a statement Tuesday about the incident.

<mailto:david.maher@thetelegram.com> david.maher@thetelegram.com

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/26-million-farmed-salmon-dead-on-south-coast-of-newfoundland-company-says-363123/

Sharks and rays to be given new international protections

Guitarfish are one of the newly protected speciesImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionGuitarfish are one of the newly protected species

Countries have agreed to strengthen protections for 18 threatened species of sharks and rays, including those hunted for their meat and fins.

The proposal was passed at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) on Sunday.

The newly protected species include mako sharks, wedgefishes and guitarfishes.

A demand for shark fin soup is one of the driving factors in the depleting numbers of sharks in the ocean.

The proposal, which was tabled by Mexico and requires ratification this week, means that the species can no longer be traded unless it can be proven that their fishing will not impact the possibility of their survival.

The number of sharks killed each year in commercial fisheries is estimated at 100 million, with a range between 63 million and 273 million, according to The Pew Trust.

Makos, the fastest shark species, have almost disappeared completely from the Mediterranean and numbers are diminishing rapidly in the Atlantic, Northern Pacific and Indian oceans.

Although 102 countries voted in favour of the move, 40 – including China, Iceland, Japan, Malaysia and New Zealand – opposed it.

Some argued that there was not enough evidence to show that mako sharks were disappearing as a result of fishing.

Presentational white space

Sharks and rays: The facts on the “rhinos of the seas”

  • A group of 16 very unusual animals called wedgefish and guitarfish, together known as rhino rays
  • They are assessed as the most threatened family of marine fish – all bar one is critically endangered
  • Two of the wedgefish species may already have been driven to extinction by commercial fisheries
  • Wedgefish have two large dorsal fins and a large tail lobe, prized for use in soup.
Presentational white space

Ali Hood, director of conservation at Shark Trust, welcomed the move.

“Mako are highly valued for their meat and fins. Decades of unrestricted overfishing, particularly on the high seas, has led to significant population declines,” Ms Hood told the BBC.

The “listing would be critical for ensuring that international trade is held to sustainable levels, prompting urgently needed catch limits and improving traceability”, she added.

Media captionGreat white sharks filmed hunting in kelp forests for the first time