skip to main |
skip to sidebar
We have all heard of the benefits of seafood; in particular the omega-3 fatty acids that are found in oily fish like salmon, mackerel, and sardines. In fact, according to a recent article in TIME magazine, the market for omega-3 supplements has doubled since 2006, reaching $1 billion in sales.
One fish in particular, the menhaden, plays an important role in the production of omega-3. But its popularity has equated to overfishing and that has produced some definite negative consequences on water quality and other industrial fish populations.
Not a typical fish for the dinner table, the menhaden is a filter feeder and acquires its omega-3 potential by feeding on omega-3-rich algae. In addition to a general filtering of the water (up to 7 gallons per minute!), the menhaden helps to keep the level of algae in check. Algal blooms deplete oxygen, adding to the production of "dead zones" in the ocean. While the populations of menhaden being fished within its Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico range, have not necessarily reached a critical status, their reduced numbers have produced impacts that have been felt in other fisheries, like the Chesapeake Bay which wrestles with declining commercial fish populations due to dead zones.
But are there alternatives? One possible alternative being developed is the industrial production of the omega-3-rich algae on which menhaden feeds. Makes sense - just go to the source. As part of the emerging field of algae production (also an alternative to corn-based ethanol), it's been shown that omega-3 can be derived from algae in addition to flax seed and canola oils.
For fishermen who have been bringing in menhaden for years (it's also used for fishmeal for feeding poultry and farmed-raised salmon), a shift from commercial fishing boats to high-tech algae farms is not an easy or likely transition. This is part of the economic dilemma that we face when we consider what steps are necessary to protect species or the environment. As has been experienced in the automotive industry and other collapsed fisheries, important as these changes are, they are not without their major hurdles.
Click here to read the TIME magazine article by Tim Padgett.
At last month's BLUE Ocean Film Festival, I had the opportunity to videotape an interview with Dr. Sylvia Earle on behalf of planSEA.com, an organization dedicated to teaching ocean conservation to the next generation: the children.
Dr. Earle is one of the leading figures of ocean exploration and conservation and we touched on a great many subjects in our interview. Here is a segment that addressed the need for education and also an important perspective regarding the taking of seafood.
I found her viewpoint in comparing seafood to "bushmeat" very enlightening. I've always said we rely on raising cattle and poultry as a way to feed the masses and Sylvia backs that up with the idea that we long ago realized that simply taking wild terrestrial animals (bushmeat) would not work, that it could not be sustained.
But that is exactly what we do with the ocean's bounty - and it is a very limited bounty, limited in the sense that it was never meant to feed the human population. That is why I have always been a supporter of aquaculture or aquafarming, recognizing that there are significant challenges that need to be addressed regarding the practice but convinced that the ultimate future of seafood harvesting will need to come from these controlled methods.
I have had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Earle and her staff on several occasions and let me tell you, she is one busy person. As explorer-in-residence with the National Geographic Society, she works 24/7 with major ocean conservation organizations and with the prominent decision-makers to help shape the future of our oceans.
It must be frustrating at times because the bureaucratic wheels can seem to turn so slowly. But I take heart in something I read recently in TIME magazine regarding political decision-making and the control of power. In an article about FDR, David Kennedy wrote,
"As the historian Henry Adams wrote, the greatest fear 'was power; not merely power in the hands of a president or a prince, of one assembly or several, of many citizens or a few, but power in the abstract, wherever it existed and under whatever form it was known.' That's why the framers of the Constitution constructed a political order based on 'checks and balances.' That arrangement has conspicuous virtues, but it also designs a measure of paralysis into the American political system. It impedes swift adjustment to changing economic and social realities. It sustains a chronic deadlock in which trauma and shock become necessary preconditions for effective political action. To a degree not found in other political cultures, it forges a perverse partnership between danger and opportunity."
Okay, in essence, it is saying that our political bureaucracy is structured to prevent the concentration of power and avoid knee-jerk reactions. And that's a good thing. Maddening, but a good thing. Particularly if we wait for environmental "trauma and shock" to elicit a political response, we know that it won't be an isolated event but a harbinger of many more, catastrophic events.
That's why we must persevere with both generating broader public awareness and motivating our leaders to act. Enough "events" have already occurred, there is enough evidence, enough data needed to act; we don't need to wait for the roof to cave in on us.
Which do you think is the more common behavior: To want to be the first one on the block to install fluorescent light bulbs or to want to avoid being the last one?I was reading an interesting article by Michael Grunwald in the April 13th issue of TIME about the current administration's use of scientific behavioral research in facilitating societal change - a key component of President Obama's campaign. As I read, it struck me as to how this approach could be used in the conservation movement (nature, ocean, sharks, etc). One paragraph in particular summed up what could be another strategic arrow in our quiver:
"Which message would persuade homeowners to save electricity: a call to their environmental conscience, or an appeal to their wallet? [Psychologist Robert] Cialdini tested those approaches in a San Diego experiment, and the answer was neither. What worked was an appeal to conformity. Residents used less power when they were told their neighbors were using less power. We're a herdlike species, more likely to be obese if our peers are."
So, the rational arguments failed and what worked was the need to conform, to belong to a majority. Now can this be applied to many of the environmental and ecological causes we are so passionate about? Definitely yes - with a measure of subtlety, but yes.
Take shark conservation for instance. We would still want to cite all the facts and figures regarding declining populations of sharks, the cruelty of shark finning, and even the potential harm of mercury poisoning from shark meat. But we also need to add one more important element: that it's a growing movement. Although shark conservation springs from a strong negative base, we must accentuate the positives by mentioning organizations, governments, restaurants, and celebrities that support the cause, listing statistics that show growth in the movement, and anything else that subtly says to the individual: you will not be alone if you join us.
Sometimes this is what weakens the effectiveness of some of the more strident conservation groups. Despite the validity of their positions, they often are marginalized and perceived as a fringe group. And this impacts their broad acceptance by the general public.
Does this mean we soft soap the issues, that we water down the harsh realities? Absolutely not! Does this mean we profess a level of support that does not exist? Again, no! What it does say is that we need to find a balance between using empirical facts and understanding the behavioral response of those whose support we seek. Part of the public relations strategy of any successful movement is in making the participants feel that they are not alone in their support, that they are part of a greater whole for the common good. It's a subtle psychological nudge, but a very powerful one.
Read the entire article in Time.
About a year ago, TIME magazine issued a terrific book on Global Warming in both soft and hard cover. It was both very thorough and readable - providing readers with the issues, causes and solutions surrounding one of the most critical issues facing mankind today.
To balance that somber subject, they have just released a new volume: Living Wonders, The marvels and mysteries of life on Earth. 
Currently available in soft cover (I picked up a copy today at my local supermarket for $12.00) and soon to be available in hard cover at Amazon and perhaps other retail book outlets.
This publication is a delight to read, as it lectures or admonishes not, but instead simply presents many of the incredible forms and adaptions of life on Earth, above and below the waves - from whales to desert cactus, from eagles to bioluminescent deep sea fish, and much more. Pick up a copy for yourself or make it a gift to someone who may be inclined to view Nature with an indifferent eye.
You'll go "oooh" and "aaah."
I recently posted a story about Tuna in the Mediterranean. Here's an interesting follow up in this week's TIME magazine. There is an article about the Bluefin Tuna found in the Indian Ocean between Australia and Indonesia (Click here to read article.). The tuna migrate through these waters to breed and because their migratory paths are predictable, their populations have been severely hunted, reduced to 10% of what they were in the 60s - all to meet the demands of the Japanese sushi/sashimi market. Okay, that's the bad news.
The good news is that one company, Clean Seas Tuna, lead by Hagen Stehr, is making progress in developing aquaculture techniques for tricking confined tuna into thinking they are in their happy mating grounds, enabling Clean Seas Tuna to gather fertile eggs for farming. The developed offspring could add to the levels of tuna currently being farmed in open water pens.
While Stehr has his skeptics, it is encouraging to see work continue in improving aquafarming techniques. To meet growing demand, advances will need to be made. Otherwise, many commercial species will continue to head towards eventual depletion.
P.S. - I'm always interested in what pops up in the general media, like TIME. It's an indication of what issues are being disseminated to the public at large. While we marine conservation advocates peruse our various web sites, blogs, and scientific sources, I also make a point of checking on publications as diverse as TIME and Fortune.
On 06/07/08, RTSea wrote: In the June 9th issue of TIME magazine there is a great article, “We Need a Power Surge”, about the need to focus some of the same energy and commitment we harnessed to put a man on the moon and direct it towards the issue of alternative energy. As the author, Jeffrey Sachs, says, we citizens and consumers can all do our part but changing to fluorescent light bulbs and driving less won’t do it all. Government needs to show true leadership and initiative.
Priorities are askew – supporting short-term goals and status quo business models. As an example, according to the International Energy Agency, in 2006 the U.S. spent $3.2 billion for all energy research – including nuclear, wind, coal, solar and biofuels. The Pentagon spends that much in about 40 hours.
We need to make changes in our daily lives and we need to exercise our ability to influence our leaders to move this nation, citizens, government, and business, in the right direction. Act by example, vote by choice, influence by action.
Upcoming screenings of Island of the Great White Shark:
June 18th – National Aquarium, Baltimore, MD w/Richard Theiss
July 17th – Harvard Museum of Natural History, Cambridge, MA w/Dr. John Mandelman
We have all heard of the benefits of seafood; in particular the omega-3 fatty acids that are found in oily fish like salmon, mackerel, and sardines. In fact, according to a recent article in TIME magazine, the market for omega-3 supplements has doubled since 2006, reaching $1 billion in sales.
But are there alternatives? One possible alternative being developed is the industrial production of the omega-3-rich algae on which menhaden feeds. Makes sense - just go to the source. As part of the emerging field of algae production (also an alternative to corn-based ethanol), it's been shown that omega-3 can be derived from algae in addition to flax seed and canola oils.
