I wonder if the Old Grey Lady rolled out of bed this morning and upon reading the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council's latest press release said, "dough!"
It would appear Greenpeace thinks its potential donors have been living under a rock or haven't read a newspaper since July. Just yesterday the once-proud activist group stooped to sullying its name, again (read ahhhh-gain), in order to scare supporters into coughing up their hard earned cash.
This time it let supporters know that, "In a paper published in the leading scientific journal Science, marine biologists projected that most commercial fisheries would collapse by 2048 if current trends continue."
The New Zealanders aren't backing down from their complaints about the New York Times reporting on Hoki. In fact they're expanding their effort to get multiple editors at the Times to review the reporting and weigh in.
I'm sure none of you missed the New York Time's attempt at covering seafood last week, a hack job that took aim at New Zealand Hoki.
Despite ebbs and flows in the available biomass this fishery has remained the picture of responsibility. Here's another picture to keep in mind when people suggest otherwise:
Alaska Pollock 1990-2009
Two weeks ago The Economist was taking unsubstantiated pot shots at seafood and ended up printing a letter from NFI after we exposed its shoddy reporting. This week it's back on the watery warpath taking Greenpeace talking points as fact and disparaging safe, healthy, sustainable Alaska pollock.
What gives Economist? Since when did this venerable publication become a distortion filled eco-activist rag?
In case you missed it, this morning the foodies over at the Washington Post posted this blog about "Spanish mackerel" that missed the mark and we let the editors know exactly where it went wrong. Interestingly the writer wrote back and let us know that she needed to do some more research and would get back to us-- interesting, perhaps that research should have been done before publishing. Response is below:
This morning the foodies over at the Washington Post posted this blog about "Spanish mackerel" that missed the mark. So we gave the editors a heads up. Have a look at our letter below:
September 9, 2009
Mr. Joe Yonan
Food Editor
Washington Post
Via Email
Dear Mr. Yonan,
A little more than a week ago we told you, in excruciating detail, how badly The Economist had botched its reporting on the USGS report on mercury in non-commercial recreational fish. Well, this week it chose to print our letter as part of its journalistic mea culpa for doing such a hatchet job.
It's time to add another activist group to the list of organizations that are trying to sensationalize the recent USGS report on sport-caught fish in order to scare the public out of buying seafood: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
