Being interested in seafood sustainability and applying that interest to your work responsibly are two different things. Environmental lobbying organization Oceana is interested in seafood sustainability but does not go about promoting or executing that interest in a responsible way.
It's not really that hard to grasp the idea that the real stewards of sustainability are the conscientious members of the seafood community who deliver a healthy and nutritionally important product to Americans every day. Why would an industry built on harvesting fish want to destroy the resource at the center of its own livelihood? It's an argument that doesn't quite make sense. But a lot of what Oceana argues doesn't quite make sense.
The lobbying group's latest seafood sustainability report is unfortunately quintessential Oceana; a dash of outdated facts mixed with wild exaggerations. Oceana does touch on some serious and important sustainability stories in its report-like the plight of the bluefin tuna but its overstated tales of scrawny species and emaciated whales work to marginalize its efforts.
And even when it does touch on a fish stock with real sustainability challenges it never puts it in perspective. Oceana fails to mention that despite the commercial appeal of the bluefin's story, it makes up only about 2% of the more than 4 million metric tons of tuna caught each year, with 50% of that number coming from skipjack-a well maintained abundant fishery.
In following the-sky-is-falling script already written by other groups like Greenpeace, Oceana's report includes the typical rhetorical distortion we see from groups interested in making news or raising funds, rather than responsibly addressing issues. Oceana repeatedly highlight's fish stocks that are "fully exploited." Without definition this misleads the public. Real sustainability is based on real science and a desire to see seafood resources properly and fully exploited. To be sure, it is a curious term- but one that accurately reflects the goal of well-managed fisheries. An under exploited or moderately exploited stock can be a wasteful use of resource, while overexploited or depleted stocks can cause concerns about the future. "Fully" hits the sweet spot where sustainability and semantics converge. Oceana fails to explain this terminology, leaving readers with a misimpression about the true state of sustainability.
Oceana talks about managing and monitoring fish stocks in real time but its own report points to sources that are far from up to date, even citing a report from 2000 for some of its more sensational claims of "bottlenose dolphins visibly emaciated due to starvation and other causes."
Oceana has a track record of promoting scientifically flawed reports that eventually leave real researchers disappointed. And this one fits that mold.
For a well researched independent status of the stocks we suggest the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fish Watch.
