So, the report is out and folks have had a few days to digest it. From the media and blog coverage there appears to be a genuine sense of… huh?
One blog, Chew Wise, that is “devoted to digesting the sustainable food chain” reviewed the report and said it “only leads consumers to throw up their hands in confusion.”
The Settle Post Intelligencer’s Devouring sEATtle Blog noted that, “By the criteria the report used, even the fishmongers of Pike Place Market would have fared poorly.”
The LA Times Daily Dish took a look at the report and concluded it was “admirable in intent” but had some “drawbacks” and “even more problematic is the emphasis on Greenpeace's Seafood Red List of fish that should be avoided. The catch is that the list paints with a very broad brush, and in the confusing world of seafood that can lead to some serious oversimplifications.”
The Washington Post’s A Mighty Appetite found the report as confusing and contradictory as most and at one point even asked, “why did GP bother to rate supermarket seafood in the first place?” And concluded with a question, “Anyone else scratching their heads?”
And then there’s an article this morning in the Seattle Times that says regulators at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “scratched their heads” over some of the species targeted by Greenpeace.
Seafood News does a nice job of analyzing Greenpeace’s multiple “Red Lists” and notes that the list of species Greenpeace is calling on supermarkets to boycott is not uniform across countries even when the same species is widely sold in all countries. So, if you’re eating Alaska Pollock in the U.S. it's bad but if you’re eating it in Canada it's okay--same fish different dinner table.
