Save Eco Destinations

A study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego has found a 100-fold upsurge in human-produced plastic garbage in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch within the Pacific Ocean. Researchers found that the plastic debris is disrupting habitats in the ecosystem — but not in the ways you might imagine.

In 2009, a team of graduate students led the Scripps Environmental Accumulation of Plastic Expedition (SEAPLEX) to the North Pacific Ocean Subtropical Gyre aboard the Scripps research vessel New Horizon. The researchers, who focused their studies on an area 1,000 miles west of California, documented an immense amount of human-generated trash, mostly tiny broken down bits of plastic the size of a human fingernail floating across thousands of miles of open sea.

The new study published by a graduate student researcher in the latest issue of the journal Biology Letters reveals that plastic debris in the area popularly known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” has grown by 100 times over in the past 40 years, thereby altering the natural habitat of animals such as the marine insect Halobates sericeus.

“When you go out into the North Pacific, what you find can be highly variable. So, to find such a clear pattern and such a large increase was very surprising,” said graduate student and lead author of the study Miriam Goldstein.

These insects — known also as ”sea skaters” or “water striders” – inhabit water surfaces and lay their eggs on flotsam such as seashells, seabird feathers, tar lumps and pumice. Now, sea skaters have are using plastic garbage as new surfaces for their eggs, which is strongly increasing the insects’ egg densities in the gyre.

This increase, documented for the first time in a marine invertebrate in the open ocean, may affect animals across the marine food web, such as crabs that prey on sea skaters and their eggs.

“This paper shows a dramatic increase in plastic over a relatively short time period and the effect it’s having on a common North Pacific Gyre invertebrate,” said Goldstein, chief scientist of SEAPLEX, a UC Ship Funds-supported voyage. “We’re seeing changes in this marine insect that can be directly attributed to the plastic.”

The amount of plastic debris will influence the survival of species specifically adapted to life on or around objects floating in the water.

The new study follows a 2011 report by Scripps researchers showing that 9% of the fish collected during SEAPLEX had consumed plastic waste. That study estimated that such fish in the North Pacific Ocean ingest plastic at a rate of roughly 12,000-24,000 tons a year.

The new study compared changes in small plastic abundance between 1972-1987 and 1999-2010 through historical samples gathered from various sources. In April, researchers with the Instituto Oceanográfico in Brazil published a report that eggs of Halobates micans, another species of sea skater, appeared on many plastic bits floating in the South Atlantic off the Brazilian coast.

“Plastic only became widespread in late ’40s and early ’50s, but now everyone uses it and over a 40-year range we’ve seen a dramatic increase in ocean plastic,” said Goldstein. “Historically we have not been very good at stopping plastic from getting into the ocean so hopefully in the future we can do better.”

A team of scientists from various universities in Israel has been studying marine macroalgae, also known as common seaweed. The group has determined that these algae can be farmed more quickly than land-based crops used for bioethanol and harvested as fuel without taking up land that could be employed in more profitable or environmentally conscious ways.

In addition, although both seaweed biofuels and bioethanol from food crops are less environmentally destructive than burning fossil fuels, using seaweed to develop biofuels is much more environmentally beneficial than creating bioethanol from crops like corn and sugarcane, as applying such crops for this purpose instead of using them to feed people causes food prices to rocket and can lead to food shortages.

Avigdor Abelson, a professor of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Zoology and the new Renewable Energy Center, also believes that growing macroalgae for bioethanol production can take care of the problem of eutrophication along the country’s coasts.

Eutrophication is pollution in waterways caused by human waste, or sewage, and aquaculture or fish farming operations. The result is excessive amounts of nutrients including phosphates and nitrates as well as harmful algae, all elements that ultimately damage endangered coral reefs. Multiple coastal regions, such as the Red Sea in the south of Israel, have suffered from eutrophication.

The scientists created an artificial “ecosystem” which they call “Combined Aquaculture Multi-Use Systems” (CAMUS). It incorporates the effects of human activity and realistically mimics the marine environment.

According to the scientists, the excess nutrients that come from man-made fish feeders, which are considered contaminants due to their harmful effects on the marine ecosystem, could be utilised by filter feeders like oysters and other shellfish and thus turned into food by these animals to sustain the growth of more seaweed.

Moreover, the seaweed can be grown along the coast unobtrusively, Abelson said.

“By employing multiple species, CAMUS can turn waste into productive resources such as biofuel, at the same time reducing pollution’s impact on the local ecosystem,” he stated.

Another advantage is that seaweed could become a renewable energy source that does not jeopardize natural habitats, biodiversity or human food sources.

Now, the scientists are collaborating to boost the carbohydrate and sugar contents of seaweed so they can efficiently ferment it into bioethanol.

The team is confident that macroalgae will be a major source for biofuel in the future. Let’s hope so!

 

Japan has been facing widespread criticism since it said it will be using some of the public funds allocated for disaster reconstruction to buttress its whaling operations. Instead of going to help fishing communities and others devastated by the 11 March earthquake and tsunami, a portion of the funds will go to strengthen security for the country’s divisive annual whaling hunt. Classy.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and Greenpeace accused the Japanese Government of spending an extra USD 30 million on increased security for the whalers, whose efforts are regularly affronted by anti-whaling groups.

The awesome Paul Watson.

“I think that it’s totally disgraceful,” SSCS Captain Paul Watson stated. “People from around the world sending money to help the victims of the tsunami-earthquake were not expecting their money to be used to fund killing whales in the Southern Ocean.”

Before the Japanese fleet departed for Antarctica earlier this week, the coast guard informed it would be sending out guards to protect it from environmental activists, AFP reports.

Fisheries Agency official Tatsuya Nakaoku said the move would ultimately help people who depend on whaling and whose livelihoods were ruined by the tsunami.

“The government will support the reconstruction effort of a whaling town and nearby areas,” he said. “This programme can help it reconstruct food processing plants there…”

“Many people in the area eat whale meat, too. They are waiting for Japan’s commercial whaling to resume,” he retorted.

Last February, the defiant actions of Sea Shepherd prompted Japan to shorten its hunt for the 2010-11 season by a month — after catching only one-fifth of its planned bounty.

Japan intends to kill almost 1,000 whales this time around, The Guardian reports.

In November, the Japanese Government approved a USD 1.6 billion extra budget, the third of 2011, to fund reconstruction and boost the economy lagging from the impact of the March disaster. Of the USD 64.2 million designated for fisheries-related spending, USD 29.3 million were earmarked for “stabilising whaling research.”

“We will bolster measures against acts of sabotage by anti-whaling groups so as to stably carry out the Antarctic whaling research,” the fisheries department then said.

Sea Shepherd is ready to confront the Japanese fleet. Three of the green group’s ships will set sail next week, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

“We are hoping to deter their operations,” Watson said. “I assume the security vessels will try and dislodge us. I am assuming there will be some difficult confrontations.”

SSCS asked Australia to send a vessel down to keep the peace, but the country refused, he told.

Japan also approached Australia – asking to help protect it from groups like Sea Shepherd – to no avail. Apparently Australia doesn’t buy that Japan whales for scientific purposes, which is what Japan has claimed for a long time.

Australia does not “buy for one minute this argument,” said Australian Environment Minister Tony Burke.

“You don’t travel from one side of the globe to the other to harpoon whales and chop them up in the name of science,” he snapped.

Excellent.

Meanwhile, the clamor got louder this week when Latin American members of the International Whaling Commission urged Japan to halt its “scientific” whaling in Antarctica and respect sanctuaries.

Save the whales!

Climate change will bring a combination of rising temperatures and increased predation that will result in biodiversity loss – and it may be worse than currently predicted, claims a study by University of British Columbia (UBC) zoologist Christopher Harley.

“Global warming is already having significant ecological impacts and it’s only going to get more dramatic,” Harley warned.

The study

Published in the current issue of the journal Science, the study examines how rocky shore barnacles and mussels react to the combined effects of warming and predation by sea stars.

Harley looked at the upper and lower temperature limits of barnacles and mussels from the cool west coast of Vancouver Island to the warm shores of the San Juan Islands, where water temperature rose from relatively cool in the 1950s to the much warmer years of 2009 and 2010.

He found that in cooler locations, mussels and rocky shore barnacles could live high on the shore and be shielded from their predators. But as temperatures rose, barnacles and mussels had to move to lower shore levels — and be exposed to predatory sea stars, whose location has not shifted.

“Sea stars are the terrors of the intertidal zone,” said Harley, Vancouver Sun reports. “As it gets hotter you would expect [species] to just move down to lower positions on the shore where they wouldn’t be out of the water for so long. But things aren’t shifting in unison.”

As daily high temperatures during the summer have jumped by almost 3.5 degrees Celsius in the last 60 years, barnacle and mussels have moved 50 cm lower on the shore. However, the effects of predators, and therefore the position of the lower limit, have thus far remained unchanged.

“That loss represents 51% of the mussel bed. Some mussels have even gone extinct locally at three of the sites I surveyed,” said Harley.

He then found that when stress from sea star predation was reduced by using exclusion cages, mussels and other species were able to live in hotter sites where they usually can’t — and their populations there more than doubled.

“A mussel bed is kind of like an apartment complex – it provides critical habitat for a lot of little plants and animals,” said Harley. “The mussels make the habitat cooler and wetter, providing an environment for crabs and other small crustaceans, snails, worms and seaweed.”

In contrast with many previous studies on how species ranges will change due to global warming, this analysis does not assume that species will simply relocate to remain in their current temperature range.

As animals or plants are unable to change their habitat ranges, Harley told, the findings show that warming and predation together could spawn more widespread extinction than scientists currently anticipate.

“Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species,” Harley added. “This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity.”

The effect on fishers

Relatedly, UBC researchers have also determined how climate change can impact the economic viability of current fisheries practices. Fish stocks are already yielding fewer fish due to overfishing and environmental factors such as pollution.

“Climate change is likely to cause more losses unless we choose to act,” said Rashid Sumaila, principal investigator of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC and lead author of the study.

A collaboration between economists, biologists and climate-change scientists, the study gives a broad outlook of the effect of climate change on fisheries and their profitability; it was published online in the journal Nature Climate Change. It received the support of the Pew Charitable Trusts, National Geographic, the World Bank and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

As waters warm, species move to cooler waters

Warming ocean temperatures have led many species to move farther towards the poles and into deeper and cooler waters. This means that while fishers in a few regions, such as Scandinavia in the far north, may benefit because they will now have more fish to catch, many others, and particularly fishers in the tropics, will lose an important food source along with their livelihoods. (Many fishers in tropical regions are poor and fish to feed themselves and their families.)

Researchers examined regional phenomena to help them find out what could happen on a global scale. For instance, lower catches of pelagic fish (such as sardines and anchovies) in Peru resulting from warmer waters during the 1997-1998 El Niño event caused more than USD 26 million in losses.

“For example, if you think about sardines on the Pacific Coast here: Whenever the temperatures are a bit higher, we see more sardines moving from Mexico through the US to Canada,” Sumaila noted, CBC News reports.

Fish survival is compromised

William Cheung, a biologist at the UBC Fisheries Center, said changes in temperature and ocean chemistry directly and adversely affect the physiology, growth, reproduction and distribution of marine life.

“Fish in warmer waters will probably have a smaller body size, be smaller at first maturity, with higher mortality rates and be caught in different areas,” he explained.

NOAA scientist and co-author Sam Herrick is calling for ongoing studies on how climate change and related factors will shape marine ecosystems and the productivity of fish populations.

Richer fish stocks = better adaptation to change

It was found that the bigger populations are, the better fish can adjust to environmental shifts such as warming temperatures. Minimizing the combined strains from overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution runoff, land-use transformation, competing aquatic resource uses and other anthropogenic factors will also contribute to helping stocks cope with climate change.

“We have to remember that the effect of climate change on the marine environment will occur alongside the impacts on land,” said Daniel Pauly, a UBC fisheries biologist and co-author.  “It will not be easy to divert resources from one sector to help another sector. This is why a strong governance system is needed – to temper the losses on the sectors that are worst hit.”

In other words, government officials need to step up and work harder to stop overfishing and illegal fishing, reduce runoff from agriculture and other polluting sources, and fight habitat destruction, among taking other measures.

Take a small step to make a difference

In the meantime, if you eat fish, something you can do is commit to purchasing only sustainably caught seafood. Read more about how to do this here:

• Greenpeace reveals canned tuna guide
• Fish eaters beware – your “sustainable” fish may not be

Related blog posts on Save Eco Destinations:

• Marine experts spell doom for world’s oceans, Pt. 2
• Marine experts spell doom for world’s oceans, Pt. 1

 

 

(This is part two of a two-part series on a report regarding the dismal state of our oceans. Part 1 of the series discusses the report’s findings and the primary ocean stressors currently involved.)

Entire marine ecosystems could disappear within a generation — a phenomenon that would take a devastating toll on humans, not just marine animals, according to the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) report discussed in part one of this series.

You might be surprised to hear that shellfish and other marine animals comprise 15 per cent of animal protein for 3 billion people throughout the world, and another 1 billion people rely on fish stocks for their main source of protein. It’s important to remember that we need to preserve marine ecosystems, not only because they’re pretty to look at and something to explore when we’re taking a decadent beach vacation, but also because much of humanity’s food security is at stake here.

In fact, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) last December released a report called “Environmental Consequences of Ocean Acidification: A Threat to Food Security,” noting that burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions may have more widespread and complex effects on ocean health than previously anticipated, and that the chemistry of the globe’s oceans is being altered at a rate unseen for 65 million years.

The report confirms worries that corals, shellfish and other organisms may have an increasingly difficult time surviving due to weakening skeletons, and demonstrates that ocean acidification combined with ocean warming would lower the range of temperatures in which crabs and other animals can thrive.

This could powerfully affect, among other factors, catches of shellfish; species reliant on coral reefs and those such as salmon that feed on shell-building organisms lower down the food chain. – FIS

What’s more, climate change is predicted to cause big dents in coastal fisheries resources in the Pacific Islands region, potentially slashing production by as much as 50 per cent by 2100, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s Heads of Fisheries communicated in March. It is forecasted that higher sea temperatures, ocean acidification, and loss of important habitats like coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves will dramatically affect the inshore resources that provide myriad coastal communities in New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, and other impoverished countries with food and a livelihood. And let’s not forget that people who live off fisheries in various ways populate most countries on Earth, from the United States and Malta to Argentina and Pakistan.

Some 55 million years ago, 2.2 gigatonnes of CO2 were released annually for thousands of years and numerous species died out. Today, it is estimated that 2.2. gigatonnes of CO2 are shot into the atmosphere every year by deforestation alone.

“The rate of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere and the rate of change in the oceans is extraordinary — there is a very urgent need to get that under control,” stressed Alex Rogers, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Oxford and lead author of the study.

And now, the most important part of this series:

What YOU can do

To address the findings, the IPSO report gives several recommendations, such as the creation of “a global body empowered to ensure compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” and steps to improve the fish stock sustainability.

Rogers suggested that anything from choosing the right kind of fish to eat to lobbying politicians helps.

I suggest that fish eaters scan Greenpeace’s canned tuna guide to make sure they are choosing sustainably caught tuna whose harvesting is not wiping out turtles, dolphins, or other species. Also, California’s Monterey Bay Aquarium has a seafood guide that’s really nifty (available as pocket or mobile, too) and the website is rich with information on related issues. Check out their recommendations!

Support green organizations like Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace, who work to both spread awareness about vital issues and fight the “bad guys” (in this case, Sea Shepherd – very courageously – goes after poachers hands-on, while Greenpeace targets harvesters of destructively caught fish and the companies that sell them, fights companies that pollute egregiously, and so on).

Attend clean-up days at your local beach or park. Go to Hands Across the Sand each year. Consider volunteering and donating whatever resources you have to anyone working toward a worthy cause.

Whenever a petition appears that could help ocean health, sign it. Visit sites like Care2 and Change.org and sign up for their newsletters to stay informed on new developments, learn how to help, and to find likeminded friends.

Together, we will make a difference.

“If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will.” – Mother Theresa

(This is part one of a two-part series on a report regarding the dismal state of our oceans. Part two of the series tackles the situation’s repercussions on humans and what we can do to help our oceans recover.)

A team of marine experts announced this week a new summary report arguing that climate change and other man-made factors will spur colossal levels of extinction in the world’s oceans. The catastrophe is forecasted to be “unprecedented in human history.”

The proverbial excrement, it seems, is about to hit the fan.

Not surprisingly, it appears that changes in our atmosphere, ecosystems, and habitats across the planet are accelerating too quickly for many species to adapt and be able to survive.

“The speed of change, particularly related to climate change, is so great there simply isn’t time for marine life to adapt to these new conditions,” said Alex Rogers, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Oxford.

He explained that mass extinctions have been tied to considerable changes in the oceans’ carbon systems in the past.

“That’s what we’re bringing about through our own actions today,” he noted, reports ABC News.

Rogers and a team of 26 other researchers from various countries met earlier this year for a three-day workshop in England to study ocean stressors. Their full report is set to be published in the near future.

Ocean stressors at play

Ocean acidification is one key factor. Here’s what it’s about: carbon dioxide (CO2) (along with methane and other gasses) plays a huge role in heating up our planet and thereby causing climate change, which includes melting polar ice caps and rising ocean levels. Okay. What you might not know is that one-third of the planet’s CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, and that the more CO2 the ocean absorbs, the greater the waters’ acidity. This phenomenon is called ocean acidification and it’s noxious to our planet for many reasons. For example, rising acidity levels in our oceans have been found to:

• Impair fish hearing and smell, putting their survival in danger
• Kill off endangered species such as northern abalone
• Threaten the survival of krill, itself the basic food source of nearly all animals in the ocean

Apart from ocean acidification, rising water temperatures, overfishing, pollution, and even tourism are all exacerbating the rapid decline of species such as reef-forming coral. (Go here, here, and here for more on the state of coral reefs.)

Sharks and other species may be next, warned Rogers, lead author of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) report.

Further, he said that, in many cases, the impacts of ocean stressors were found to have a greater overall effect than any single effect when taken together. For example, the decline of coral reef ecosystems due to overfishing and reef bleaching, plus the acidification that causes bleaching, will eradicate “the most diverse marine ecosystems on the planet.”

Chilling.

“As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the ocean, the implications became far worse than we had individually realized,” Rogers said. “This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level.”

Stay tuned for part two of this 2-part series.

It’s summer and once again Hands Across the Sand is coming to your beach or city so you can gather with likeminded, environmentally oriented folk and peacefully show your opposition against offshore oil drilling and your support of clean energy solutions for a sustainable Earth. This Saturday will be the second annual Hands Across the Sand event held across the globe.

It goes like this: on June 25^th at 11am, wherever you are, go to the beach for 1 hour (rain or shine). Stand and hold hands with others while forming lines in the sand against oil drilling in your coastal waters. Remember to wear eco-friendly sunblock :)

According to the website, the movement is not about politics; instead, it is a push toward protecting coastal economies, oceans, marine wildlife, and fisheries from the menace of expanded offshore drilling and the accidents that can come with it, such as last year’s massively catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, whose calamitous effects are expected to be felt for decades to come.

More you can do:

• Florida residents can sign a petition to ban oil drilling (you have to download, print, sign, and mail it to officials in Tallahassee, FL).
• Donate $5 or more by clicking on the “donate” buttons on the website.
• Follow the movement on Facebook and Twitter.
• Spread the word.

See photos from last year’s event.

The history of Hands Across the Sand

Florida surfer and restaurateur Dave Rauschkolb founded the even in October 2009 after a bill was passed in the Florida House of Representatives to end the ban on nearshore drilling. Rauschkolb got the support of sponsor organizations and rallied over 10,000 Floridians to join hands on February 13, 2010 along the state’s coastlines, to show the extent of Floridians’ opposition to nearshore drilling.

Hands Across The Sand enjoys the support of national (U.S.) and international environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Oceana, Environment America, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Alaska Wilderness League, Ocean Conservancy, Friends of the Earth, 350, Center for Biological Diversity, Audubon, and CleanEnergy.org.

Have you heard about the “Frankenfish” that might soon hit US supermarket shelves?

Brace yourselves.

A  Massachusetts-based aquaculture company has genetically engineered (GE) a salmon that reaches maturity twice as fast as normal Atlantic salmon. AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., has accomplished this creepy feat by injecting the fish with the genes of Pacific salmon and an eel-like fish. Tests – run by AquaBounty, ahem — have shown the salmon’s meat is safe for human consumption, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has thus far unfortunately sided with it.

“There is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal,” said AquaBounty.

Wow, that’s reassuring!

Not only this, but the FDA has consequently determined that no label is needed to tell us whether the fish we’re buying is GE or not.

But there is hope for us yet

Alarmed, 24 members of Congress are urging the FDA to stop the approval process of AquaBounty’s GE salmon. They are asking the FDA to wait until it painstakingly analyses and addresses some serious flaws in its approval process and incorporates more public input and scientific data – which it hasn’t been doing because critical information has been kept hidden from the public, such that only the FDA and AquaBounty are aware of key details regarding the fish’s approval process.

“We don’t know if it’s safe for humans to eat and the only research that has been done was done by the company,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of consumer group Food & Water Watch in Washington, D.C. “The FDA is an under-resourced agency that has had so much trouble with the regulatory system for foods – we’ve had tainted eggs, poisonous peanuts and other contaminations – and is now taking on something in a very non-transparent way.”

A major problem is that the FDA has no idea how to go about the approval process because this is an unprecedented event.

“One of the most serious concerns regarding AquaBounty’s application is the FDA has no adequate process to review a GE animal intended as a human food product,” the letter reads.

US Senator Mark Begich, who signed the letter, said it is signed by another 10 senators and is supported by 52 environmental groups, consumer groups, retailers, food businesses and commercial and recreational fisheries associations, such as the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, the Alaska Marine Conservation Council and Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development, Medical News Today reports.

Congressman Mike Thompson, D-St Helena and the other members of the House of Representatives addressed a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg affirming that the Administration should not approve the first transgenic animal for human consumption because the review process is flawed. The government officials argue that genetically engineered (GE) fish put wild populations of fish in jeopardy, as millions of farmed fish have already escaped farms and made it into the wild.

The Consumers Union (CU) rightfully worries the salmon could prove dangerous to consumers.

“Consumers have a right to know that the FDA lacks the means to assess this fish as a genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption. If this product was approved, the resulting consumer health impact could be disastrous,” Food & Water Watch agreed.

A recent survey by consumer group Food & Water Watch showed that 78 per cent of Americans do not want the GM salmon to obtain approval. Not surprising.

Anything GE is unsafe and has the potential to be greatly disastrous to our entire planet – from the environment all the way to us, as we’re intrinsically connected! Anything that harms one part of our planet, of our ecosystem, will come bite us in the bum. You know it.

So the letter describes four grave concerns — that the review method employed is seriously deficient; a lack of data on whether the GE salmon is safe for human consumption; probable irreversible environmental impacts; and that the FDA is not fulfilling its responsibility to consumers by failing to demand a label that states the fish is GE, reports The Times-Standard.

”FDA’s move to approve GE salmon threatens fishing families across the country, native wild salmon, as well as the millions of federal and state dollars invested to restore salmon populations,” said Thompson. “Given the current lack of information, threats to human health, the environment and the livelihood of hard working fishing families, it would be irresponsible for the FDA to approve GE salmon.”

The letter continues spelling out ways in which the FDA has been irresponsibly handing the matter:

“While AquaBounty filed a New Animal Drug application for AquAdvantage salmon with FDA in 2001, the Environmental Assessment compiled by AquaBounty for the FDA is inherently flawed and does not take into account the full and broad range of impacts the approval of the GE salmon could have on the environment. The FDA should have initiated a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and consulted with other federal agencies responsible for managing federally listed Endangered Species,” the letter reads.

Take action

If you agree that this is totally nuts, go here to take action.

Let’s eat/pray/love that the FDA comes to its senses.

Following up on my recent post discussing unsustainable fish deceptively marketed as sustainably sourced, I’d like to share with you that Greenpeace has released its latest Canned Tuna Guide in its continued effort to fight overfishing across the world’s oceans. (I’ve already shared the news via Facebook and Twitter, but it’s important enough that I wanted to write about it on here, too!)

If you’re a tuna eater – whether you consume canned, fresh, or whatever kind of tuna – and you’re interested in the future of tuna stocks (which you should be if you plan to continue eating it!) check out Greenpeace’s new guide.

The guide is meant to both inform consumers – like you! — whose increasingly raised awareness on the issue is leading them to opt for sustainably sourced fish, and to hold tuna brands accountable for selling unsustainable tuna to the unsuspecting public.

Check your supermarket to see if they carry the highest ranking brands in the tuna guide, so you can support the companies that are progressing toward environmental responsibility through the sustainable sourcing of their products.

This is how Greenpeace explains their ranking, based on an international canned tuna ranking system:

• 70%+ Good
An acceptable sustainable and equitable tuna procurement policy has been
obtained. Maintaining and improving these standards is essential.

• 40% – 69% Must improve
Initial measures have been taken to source sustainable and equitable tuna.
More concrete steps are needed to reach an acceptable standard.

• Less than 40% Very Poor
Urgent action is required to improve tuna procurement.

Criteria for the canned tuna ranking:
• If the tuna comes from overfished stocks;
• If the tuna comes from illegal vessels or companies;
• If the tuna can is labelled correctly; and
• If the tuna was fished using methods that result in high levels of bycatch.

Brands were also ranked on their:
• Commitment to not source tuna from proposed marine reserves.
• Commitment to equitable sourcing policy for tuna.

I will now shamelessly quote an article on the guide, since I wrote it and all. Here we go:

Since the beginning of Greenpeace’s first tuna ranking four months ago, Australian tuna brands have started to make ecologically sound progress. For the first time, Australians can now purchase a sustainable canned tuna brand: Fish 4 Ever, which ranked highest on the tuna guide at 86 per cent.

Fish 4 Ever uses pole and line fishing to source its entire range of tuna. It still sells overfished yellowfin tuna for 25 per cent of its range, but has vowed to move to 100 per cent skipjack tuna, the sustainable alternative.

Aldi, with a 57 per cent ranking, is the first supermarket to tout a sustainable seafood policy available online and to show support for marine reserves by not sourcing its fish from proposed Pacific high seas marine reserves. It has also publicly committed to halting the use of destructive Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) fishing in its tuna range, which produces the bycatch of turtles, sharks and juveline tuna.

Independent retail supermarket group IGA got a 47 per cent ranking for also having introduced a sustainable seafood policy for its suppliers, while still catching its home brand Black and Gold tuna ranges with huge nets and FADs. The tuna used, however, is sustainable skipjack.

IGA has begun labelling its tuna cans to inform consumers which tuna species it sells and where it was fished.

“Before the guide came out, most people didn’t know where their tuna came from, or that turtles, sharks and juvenile tuna get killed in tuna nets,” said Greenpeace oceans campaigner Genevieve Quirk. “Since then, thousands of people have written outraged emails demanding that the tuna companies behind these brands clean up their act, and they’ve listened.”

IGA supermarkets and independent stores have also started stocking Fish 4 Ever.

“We became aware of the issues surrounding overfishing five years ago and wanted to offer Australians a sustainable option,” said Sandy Abram, Co-Founder of First Ray and distributor of Fish 4 Ever.

Last week I wrote about the efforts of certain companies to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing sustainably caught fish.

If you remember, I discussed the problematic Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which offers eco-certification to fisheries across the globe and has never refused the certification to any fishery that has completed the certification process. Ahem.

Well, it turns out that the independent adjudicator has ruled in favor of MSC last Monday, which means that the endangered Fraser sockeye salmon stocks have been ruled sustainable. Environmentalists are wailing and independent salmon trollers railing.

The certifier will now submit the Final Certification Report to MSC, recommending that the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery be certified as sustainable. The certifier may issue a certificate and MSC would announce certification after a final internal MSC review of the documents takes place.

So what’s the problem?

“This certification could actually result in well-intentioned consumers buying an endangered Fraser River sockeye with an eco-label on it,” explained Jeffrey Young, aquatic biologist with the David Suzuki Foundation, one of the groups who filed a notice of objection to the MSC’s intent to provide eco-certification to the stock.

I would like to reiterate that some Fraser River sockeye stocks harvested in the fishery that is getting certified by MSC are already classified as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and “critically endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, whose scientists consider overfishing a key threat to the stocks’ health.

Further, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) recently set up a commission to study the decline of the Fraser River salmon stock.

This is definitely bad timing for an eco-certification, don’t you think?

Next time you’re shopping for seafood, remember that MSC-certified seafood is probably not actually sustainably fished, and steer clear of Fraser River sockeye salmon.