Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
By Pietro Parravano, Molly Thomas and Zeke Grader
We’re in a food fight. And it’s not just fishermen, it’s farmers and ranchers, food manufacturers, government regulators, scientists and the public – just read the recent headlines. This past month there was this news: that at the behest of the sugar industry and refined food producers, the U.S. Government would block rules proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to fight obesity. The government wasn’t helping us any by siding with the sugar industry and refined food processors in blocking the WHO plan to tackle obesity, which presumably would have had folks eating lots of lean fish.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was trying to reassure everyone, particularly the Japanese and other foreign consumers, that American beef is safe following the discovery on December 23rd of a cow in Eastern Washington infected with BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), or “mad cow” disease. While the USDA was playing its version of “Blame Canada,” many Americans learned for the first time that our cattle had been transformed from grass and grain eaters to carnivores, even cannibals.
On the fish front, the prestigious journal Science published research finding levels of PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls], dioxin, toxaphene and dieldrin in farmed salmon to be 10 times that found in their wild counterparts, confirming the results of three previous studies. For salmon farmers this was even more damning news, following the publicity surrounding the lawsuit earlier in the year calling for labels informing consumers their product was “color-added,” along with a whole spate of articles about sea lice and net pen escapes. Now there’s a lawsuit in California, calling for consumer warning labels on farmed salmon, pursuant to the state’s toxic notification law, Proposition 65.
The pleasure felt by fishermen about the revelations of contaminated farmed salmon was short lived, however, with reports soon following of elevated levels of PCBs in some Puget Sound wild-caught fish. Although the levels fell within the government guidelines for being safe, this still wasn’t much comfort. Nor was it comforting to hear of a spill on the Columbia that came from a broken transformer at the Dalles Dam leaking 1,000 gallons of PCB-laden oil, killing fishing downstream. Were the PCBs impacting the health of the fish stocks? Then there was the question of human health; would the fish pick up this compound, a known carcinogen the U.S. government banned over 25 years ago, creating a concern for public health?
All of this, of course, hit after a steady drumbeat of news over the past two years about mercury compounds (specifically methylmercury) being found in some fish. Mercury is known to cause neurological damage. The questions included: In which fish were mercury levels high enough to be of concern? What is the real level of concern for mercury? To what extent do mercury levels vary between species of the same family (e.g., tunas) and among the various size fish of the same species? Where did the mercury come from; natural sources or human-caused pollution?
Finally there was the report released in mid-January by the National Research Council (NRC) warning of the difficulties in completely preventing genetically engineered (GE), or “transgenic,” plants and animals from having unintended environmental and public health effects. One concern, noted by the NRC, about these transgenic organisms is their potential to “drift” or escape with adverse consequences for native plants and animals.. Fast-growing fish (such as Aqua Bounty’s genetically modified Atlantic salmon, currently awaiting U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval) are likely to escape into the wild where they might beat out native salmon for food or mates, disrupting the ecological balance and diluting gene pools. Meanwhile all states except for California will soon be allowing a zebra fish, which have been genetically modified with the gene of an anemone to become luminescent, to be sold in pet stores for home aquariums as “GloFish,” with no regulatory oversight whatsoever, as the first transgenic animal marketed to the public. Aquariums are a leading source of exotic invasive species.
Official reactions were hardly surprising. William Steiger, the Special Assistant for International Affairs with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) denounced the science behind the WHO obesity policy recommendations (developed by international, including U.S., experts on obesity) and said the U.S. wants to see more emphasis on the role of “personal responsibility” for obesity, even though the public is picking up the tab for what is becoming the number one cause of death in our nation. The Administration had been heavily lobbied by U.S. sugar, fast food and refined food interests to scuttle the guidelines.
Over at the USDA, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman defended the inspection of meat by her agency and the safety of American beef with such enthusiasm you’d have thought she was on the Cattlemen’s Association’s payroll. There was a lot of circling of the wagons trying to dismiss the finding of BSE in the nation’s meat supply as just a stray cow from Canada (where was Homeland Security?). No one was suggesting that maybe it was time to review inspection practices, or more radical yet, review the way beef cattle are now being raised – in feedlots fed with animal parts along with antibiotics, hormones and steroids.
The fishing industry response to the mercury news has been somewhat more muted. True, there were a few who’d have liked to follow the tobacco industry playbook, which is to deny everything, impugn the science behind the studies (calling it “junk science”), impugn the motives of those doing or funding the research, call your “enemies” names, and when all else fails claim to have God and the Free Market on your side. But fishing groups, such as WFOA, mostly took the high road by calling for additional testing to get all the facts out before the public.
The response from the salmon farmers, however, to the PCB report was downright shrill. They attacked the peer-reviewed study published in the January 9 issue of Science (http://www.sciencemag.org), the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- a study that rigorously confirmed the findings in three earlier research pieces (a 2002 Scottish study, a 2002 Canadian study, and a 2003 Environmental Working Group study). Indeed, the study that appeared in Science answered criticism of the earlier research – that the sample size was “too small” – by testing and comparing over 2 tons of farmed and wild salmon taken from markets in Europe and North America. The fact the study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, however, provided considerable fodder for the aquafarmers, since Pew is regarded as the devil incarnate among most salmon aquaculturists (and some folks in the fishing industry as well). After all, why should you address findings in the report when you can just impugn the motives of the funder?
Then there was Joe McGonigle, vice president of Aqua Bounty, the company that wants to market its transgenic salmon as broodstock to salmon farmers, who claimed there were errors in the NRC report. “They clearly don't have a full grasp of both what we're proposing and how effective the technology is,” McGonigle told the New York Times. His faith in the infallibility of his technology is touching, but not very reassuring.
All of this news has left producers and consumers alike confused. The reassurances and denials haven’t done much to restore confidence in much of our food supply. Beef consumption in the U.S. has remained steady throughout the mad cow press coverage, but Japanese and European customers, after conducting their own surveys, have remained unconvinced of the safety of the U.S. product. We have no statistics about what impact the press reports on mercury have had on sales of fish such as tuna or swordfish, but it can’t have helped. The news about the toxins in farmed salmon has caused a dip in sales in an already glutted market where much of the fish is being hawked at rock-bottom prices.
The problem of consumer confusion is not being helped by many in government and industry. U.S. opposition to the WHO obesity initiative will act to stifle information that consumers should have about what is in their foods. Proposals recently passed in Congress, promoted by major U.S. food distributor and grocery lobbies with behind the scenes support from USDA officials, to delay country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) for meat and fish until 2006 (originally scheduled to take effect this September), part of their campaign to eliminate them entirely, will not help matters either, although the requirement to label fish as “wild” or “farmed” looks as if it will remain intact. Polls show that more than 80 percent of American want to know more about where their food comes from and what is in it, including whether it contains hormones, antibiotics, colorants or genetically modified organisms..
The news of recent months, however, is at least raising consumer awareness about the foods they eat. This presents an opportunity that could bode well for human and environmental health as well as fishermen here on the west coast. Let’s take a look at some of the major problems in the food fight, and consider what actions fishermen should take to provide consumers with better products, to better protect fish resources and foster our fisheries.
Mercury. The toxin most talked about in fish is mercury (anyone remember the old Bobby Bare song of 25 years ago or more, talking about “fish got mercury” and the problems with all other types of food, resigning himself to a diet of whisky?). “Mercury enters the environment naturally and through industrial pollution, mostly from coal-fired power plants. Scientists have estimated the amount of mercury in the atmosphere today is about two to three times what it was 150 years ago,” the journal Environmental Science & Technology reported in December on a study comparing mercury levels in the environment with that in fish. Natural sources of mercury include hydrothermal vents and deep-sea sediments. Human sources include, in addition to emissions from coal-fired plants, drill muds containing barite dumped from offshore oil rigs, mine tailings, and even fluorescent light bulbs in land fills. The question is not so much about mercury levels, but where methylmercury is coming from. Mercury concentrations in the air are of little concern, but when mercury enters water, microorganisms transform it into a highly toxic form -- methylmercury -- that builds up (“bioaccumulates”) in fish food chains.
Nearly all fish contain trace amounts of mercury, but longer-lived predators -- like tuna, swordfish and sharks -- generally have higher levels. Nearly two decades ago, the FDA revised its health guidelines on mercury from 2.0 ppm (parts-per-million) to 1.0 ppm and in 2001 issued a warning that pregnant women and children should avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish due to high mercury levels; in 2002 it issued a warning that pregnant women should also avoid similar consumption of tuna.
High levels of mercury in mothers can cause birth defects in babies, and mercury at lower levels can result in lower IQs and slower development of babies. High levels in some people can also collect in their liver and spleen, resulting in neurological damage. The levels of concern, however, have been thrown into doubt as a result of a recent study from the Seychelles, and this past August researchers at Stanford’s Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory found that mercury in fish is most likely methylmercury cysteine, less toxic than the methylmercury chloride which the health warnings are based on.
Although questions remain about what levels of mercury in fish raise health concerns, the FDA prepared a draft advisory late last year warning pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children about mercury exposure from albacore. Albacore, one of the smaller tunas (at least here on the west coast where the smaller fish are taken in the surface troll fishery) was generally thought to have less mercury than other tunas, but recent tests of canned albacore have shown higher levels than other canned tuna. In response to the press reports and the proposed FDA advisory, the Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) wrote FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan in December requesting immediate testing of WFOA members and families to determine if there were health impacts from eating the fish. “Our members and their physicians are particularly mystified by these developments since fishermen and their children seem to be very healthy despite regularly consuming unusually large quantities of albacore tuna,” said WFOA Executive Director Wayne Heikkila.
Representing U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Pacific Island albacore trollers, WFOA did not challenge previous scientific studies, or impugn the character of researchers or engage in any of the traditional responses of an industry under siege. Instead it sought independent testing (Oregon State University’s Seafood Lab) to determine if there really was a difference in mercury levels between the smaller, surface caught albacore taken by trollers and the larger deepwater albacore, favored by canners, that are taken in the longline fishery.
The preliminary results from OSU Seafood Lab, presented at an FDA/EPA Toxicology Conference late last month in San Diego, confirmed what many in the fleet believed to be the case for troll albacore. The range of mercury in the sample fish was .027 ppm to .26 ppm (with an average of .137 ppm), all well below FDA 1.0 ppm and Canadian 0.5 ppm health guidelines. The results showed that “Hg levels were low, far below accepted background levels (0.5 ppm), and are not a danger to health.” Information on these tests can be found on the WFOA website at: http://www.wfoa-tuna.org. The FDA, meanwhile, turned down the offer to test WFOA members and families, citing a lack of funding.
Additional testing can certainly help determine what level of mercury in fish presents a health concern and what levels of mercury are found in various species and sizes of fish from different areas. Steps taken to prevent mercury from entering the environment, such as placing controls on emissions from coal-fired generating plants, or cleaning up mercury sources in the environment such as tailings from old mining operations, can definitely have positive results. Mercury clean-up in the Everglades has resulted in lowering the amount of methylmercury found in fish there. Sharply reducing mercury levels in some of the highly pelagic ocean fishes such as tuna and swordfish, however, may not be possible according to the Environmental Science & Technology study. There, researchers found mercury levels in yellowfin tuna have remained relatively constant over the years, despite an overall increase of mercury in the environment.
The issue then becomes what to do about fish that have levels of mercury when there is no realistic hope of reducing those levels through mercury pollution prevention and clean-up programs. The answer may simply be to sit down with public health advocates and agencies and craft a proper warning and combine that with an education program. There are, after all, warning labels on wine -- particularly aimed at pregnant and nursing women -- yet we know wine in moderation can be good for most people’s health. There are also warnings on everything from vitamin supplements to medicines, which are good for you, but only in the correct dosage.
Advising certain at-risk members of the population to avoid eating a particular type of fish and encouraging everyone else to eat it in moderation is a helluva lot better than denying an obvious problem potentially affecting public health. Extremism may not have been a vice for Barry Goldwater (“in the defense of liberty”), but moderation is no sin when it comes to what we consume.
PCBs, Dioxin and Other Persistent Organic Pollutants. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are industrial chemicals that were used primarily for insulation in electrical transformers until the U.S. government banned their manufacturer in 1977. PCBs are a carcinogen, one of the chemicals classified as a persistent organic pollutant (POP), and are still found at high levels in some waterways. They are a serious threat in some rivers, bays and ocean waters, where they persist for decades, and to our fisheries – just ask fishermen on the Hudson whose commercial shad fishery was closed as a result of PCB pollution in that river.
One of the characteristics of POPs, of which the carcinogenic PCBs are some, is endocrine disruption or human hormone disruption. “By disrupting hormones, these chemicals break the communication channels of the body, sending mixed or incorrect signals that could result in cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems, and immune problems,” wrote Gloucester fisherman Niaz Dorry in her essay, “Are Pollutants Disrupting the Marine Ecosystem?” in the January issue of The Fisherman’s Voice (Atlantic Coast). “In 1998, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisory group suggested the review of some 80,000+ chemicals for their endocrine disruption potential. Early studies of POPs suggest that these chemicals impair the hormone and reproductive systems of wildlife.”
Although the U.S. has banned the manufacture of PCBs, dioxin, which became notorious as one of the components of Agent Orange, is still around in some products manufactured today. It is found in many pesticides and is a byproduct of a chlorine bleaching process used in the manufacture of paper. In the 1970’s PCFFA worked with the Sierra Club seeking to ban the aerial spraying of the dioxin-laden herbicides 2,4-D, Silvex, and 2,4,5-T on salmon watersheds in Northern California. Scientific studies had shown the harmful effects of dioxin on salmon reproduction and immune systems. The Sierra Club was also concerned with human health impacts from exposure to these industrial poisons. The campaign to stop the application failed at the state level. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently banned these herbicides.
The good news (if you can call it that) is that unlike mercury from natural sources, these are man-made substances and it is thus possible to prevent them from entering the aquatic environment and harming or contaminating fish. It is also possible in some instances to clean-up areas where the substances persist, although it can be very expensive, as General Electric has found following EPA’s PCB clean-up order for the Hudson River.
The Sciencestudy on contaminants in farmed salmon looked at 14 different compounds in all, focusing on PCB in particular. Although there was on average about a 10-fold increase in these contaminants in the farmed salmon over wild ones, the levels did not exceed the FDA guidelines for PCBs set in 1984. Nevertheless, many of the farmed fish samples did exceed EPA’s guidelines for sport-caught fish, standards that are 500 times more protective than FDA’s. “How can this be?” asked a recent Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial. “FDA is required, in setting its standards, to balance health risks against economic harm to producers; EPA looks strictly at health questions. Someday they may get around to agreeing on a single standard -- but not before next summer, when, by court order, they will finally issue one for mercury in fish.” The researchers in the Science study also pointed out that FDA tolerances do not take into account the health risks of exposure to more than one contaminant and fail to provide guidance on certain substances.
Feed has been pointed to as the source of contaminants in the farmed salmon. That would account for the disparity in the contaminant level between farmed fish from different areas: Scottish fish had the highest levels, Chilean the lowest. Much of the feed for salmon farms is made from small fish taken in the Baltic and North Sea, two of the most polluted marine areas on earth. Veterinarians have long warned against giving pets fish oil supplements made from North Sea fish because of PCB and dioxin contaminants. The question is why have salmon farmers continued to use feed from a contaminated source, since the problem of pollutants in the North Sea has been known for some time? Whether it was from sheer ignorance or reckless disregard for human health, these aquaculture operations could have escaped the recent pillorying in the press had they acted sooner to change their feed sources. Switching feed sources, however, will not solve the myriad of other problems with current salmon farming operations, ranging from pollution, to spread of disease to wild fish, to escapes.
The study “Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon” that appeared in the January 9 issue of Science, is available at: http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/salmon_study.pdf.
Genetically-Engineered Crops. Fishery concerns regarding genetic engineering (GE), or “transgenics” -- inserting the gene of one species into a different plant or animal -- have focused mainly on what’s been called “Frankenfish.” Currently there is an application before the FDA for approval of Aqua Bounty’s genetically engineered, fast growing Atlantic salmon, for use in fish farming. Others are in the development stage or nearly ready for the approval stage as biotech labs rush to create new variants of fish by mixing their genes with other critters. Yorktown Industry’s “GloFish” for home aquariums, has already gotten FDA approval. To date, only the California Fish & Game Commission has been willing to develop a regulatory structure around the use of these fish. The worry, as noted in the National Research Council (NRC) report, is that these fish will get loose, like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, and create havoc in the wild. An additional concern is the potential human health impact, such as reactions by people who are allergic to a particular plant or animal whose gene has been inserted into a fish, particularly if there are no labeling requirements to tell the public whether their foods, or the ingredients therein, have been genetically engineered. The NRC report is available on the web at: http://www.nationalacademies.org.
A further issue with transgenic foods we wish to raise here has to do with GE crops. The recent report by the Northwest Science & Environmental Policy Center, "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years," reported that the widespread use of GE crops engineered to tolerate broad spectrum herbicides, like Monsanto's Roundup, leads to weed herbicide resistance and increased use of the herbicide. The report found "herbicide tolerant crops have increased pesticide use an estimated 70 million pounds over the last eight years," and warns, "the efficacy of herbicide tolerant technology is now seriously threatened by weed shifts and resistance. Herbicide use and costs are bound to rise for the foreseeable future."
The problem of increased herbicide/pesticide application due to GE crop usage is not just one for farmers about higher costs. Agricultural poisons are already a major source of water pollution, affecting the health of fish and the safety of those who consume them. Additional pesticide/herbicide use that could result from widespread use of GE plants in agriculture will only exacerbate current pollution problems. The NSEPC report, drawing on official USDA data on pesticide use by crop and state, is the first comprehensive study of the impacts of all major commercial GE crops on pesticide use in the United States over the first eight years of commercial use from 1996-2003. The study is available on the web at: http://www.biotech-info.net/highlights.html#technical_papers.
Although GE crops, which now include corn, soy and wheat, are widely touted for the potential to increase nutritional values of the food produced and “feed the world,” the fact is that most of the modifications are being made to allow higher pesticide uses and make industrial farming easier. That’s not surprising, considering that many of the GE seed companies are also major pesticide manufacturers. The increased use of pesticides on GE crops is one of the reasons the authors here are lending their support to the ballot initiative in Northern California’s Mendocino County to ban the growing of GE crops. Measure H, which would make Mendocino the first county in the nation to enact such a prohibition, will be voted on next month.
Mad Cows and Feedlot Livestock.Okay, so what do mad cows have to do with fish? Is some mad scientist proposing to insert the gene of a cow into a salmon, making the fish susceptible to BSE? The issue here is not with the disease, but with what is going on with feedlot grown livestock that is the genesis of the mad cow problem and a problem for fish.
To reduce the time from birth to slaughter (in cattle reduced from 5 to 2 years), animals are being fed hormones and anabolic steroids. Likewise, to tolerate richer foods and treat for disease in the close confines of these disease prone industrial operations, the animals are often fed antibiotics. For example cattle, as one of the few animals that can convert grass to protein, are now instead being fed enriched corn and even other animal protein parts. But these richer foods, used to speed growth, can also create intestinal infections that create the need for more antibiotics. Estimates are that 80 percent of the hormones and antibiotics fed feedlot animals end up as waste, after which they enter waterways and affect fish.
A recent study, funded by the European Union (EU) and reported in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, examining minnows found in streams polluted by feedlot run-off, found that male fish had less testosterone and smaller testes than fish in the unpolluted parts of the same river; the females in the polluted sections had less estrogen and more testosterone than those in unpolluted waters. The study traced the problem back to the hormones and steroids coming from nearby feedlots.
This study was not groundbreaking, but just the latest or many looking at the impacts of feedlot wastes on streams and rivers and the impact of hormones and other chemicals, fed to livestock on aquatic animals, that get into the water. Advocating organic grass-fed beef or organic free-range chickens may not just be for human health, but for fish health as well.
Obesity Weighing on Healthy Fish Stocks. The issue of the U.S. interference with the implementation of the WHO’s anti-obesity policy and recommendations is not simply one of a taxpayer concerned with the public shouldering health costs resulting from obesity, now a major national killer. The issue, rather, is with our government siding with major food lobbying groups to the detriment of public health and, upon examination, the production of wild fish.
Addressing obesity means stressing lower fat, healthier foods. That translates into more fish consumption. But even more important is that stressing healthier foods in our diets means less of those foods whose production is harming or contaminating fish. The major food manufacturers and refiners are not interested in organically grown grains or produce, grass-fed beef, Pacific halibut, troll albacore or wild salmon. Kraft foods said as much when they stated that Americans won’t care if genetically-modified wheat is used in the manufacture of food products.
Part of their response to the press reports about PCBs in farmed salmon, other than the fact the aquacultured fish met FDA standards, was that wild salmon were “too expensive” (tell that to Alaska salmon fishermen). Yes, it does cost more to grow crops organically, to wait five years for a steer to eat enough grass to bring to market, to give chickens something healthy to eat and room to roam. It also costs more to produce wild salmon, because fishermen cannot externalize their costs like salmon farmers have been allowed to. But, if we’re targeting obesity, the message ought to be to eat less, but also to eat better.
Getting in the Face of Pollution.In her January essay, quoted above, Niaz Dorry went on to say, “as fishermen work to do their part in restoring fish populations, it's important to ensure that all other hurdles threatening marine wildlife are also identified and removed. Environmental pollutants comprise one of the major hurdles the marine food web is facing today. Some government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, regularly install fish advisories warning the public to limit their intake of certain fish because they contain high levels of certain chemicals. However, government agencies responsible for managing marine species have taken little to no action to protect the fish or other marine animals from pollutants exclusively to protect marine species. Considering the money and time invested in rebuilding fish, whale, dolphins, and other marine animal populations, ignoring the impact of toxicants on these animals seems a clear oversight to some.”
PCFFA has been involved in water quality issues since the 1970’s, but few other fishing organizations have taken part; most are unwilling to get in the face of a polluter or a government agency that refuses to look out for the public interest. But that’s just what’s needed.
PCFFA has sometimes been asked by other fishing groups why it is involved in this or that water quality issue; the response, to paraphrase Thoreau’s answer to Emerson, is “Why aren’t they involved?” Issues relating to the protection of water quality that affect the health or contamination of fish are too important to be left solely to conservation groups and the government. PCFFA has been fighting to protect salmon from pesticides and oceans from oil spills for nearly 30 years, and continues to do so today. It’s not just fishing regulations and the price of fish that fishermen need to be concerned about, its about what is in the fish they catch -- and ultimately whether there will be any fishery at all in the face of an ever increasing load of river, estuary and ocean pollutants.
In a letter to its members, WFOA said, it “will support efforts to identify and reduce man-made sources of mercury that pose a risk to future seafood safety. Mercury pollution is a concern for all of us, but we can only solve it by addressing sources, not by food scares and hysteia.” This approach is the right one, and the only one that ultimately makes sense.
Isn’t it time now for all fishermen’s groups to begin working -- whether in legislatures, courts or just getting in the face of polluters and government bureaucrats -- to prevent water pollution and get it cleaned up and abated wherever it exists?
Telling the Truth to the Public. The second thing that fishing groups ought to be doing in addressing the whole issue of seafood safety is to begin calling for analysis of what levels of contaminants are in the fish we’re catching. Chances are good that most of our fish are going to come out pretty clean, especially compared to most other food sources, but we ought to be able to speak with authority when we talk to the public. There have been tests on a lot of fish already but, following the lead of WFOA, let’s find out about those that haven’t been tested. If some are found to have levels of concern of one contaminant or another, let’s be frank with the public about it, as we simultaneously work to get the source closed off and the pollution cleaned up if possible. It’s a lot better if we tell the public about fish they may need to eat in moderation, or the fish some of them should even avoid, than eventually reading it in the headlines. It’s a duty we owe the public, and in the long term it’s good public relations as well. Fishermen should be the public’s champions for the healthiest seafood possible.
It’s also important that we not let government get in the way of initiatives aimed at providing consumers information, as long as it’s truthful. It strikes us as outrageous that our government is blocking initiatives to fight obesity, trying to foist genetically engineered crops on the rest of the world and refusing to tell consumers where their food came from or what is in it.
Demanding Labeling. Finally, fishermen need to get behind stronger seafood labeling initiatives. PCFFA began working on this issue in 1981 when it sponsored the first state legislation aimed at requiring fish to be labeled by country of origin, method of take and whether the fish was farmed or wild. The restaurant and grocery associations, along with fish importers, worked to defeat that measure. Since that time, however, public interest in the issue has grown. Alaska fishermen, working through Senator Stevens’ office, were instrumental in getting language added to the 2002 Farm Bill’s COOL provision to require fish to be labeled as “wild” or “farmed.”
It’s going to be critical now for fishermen to work to preserve this statutory language and ensure that USDA implements it; it’s important that fishermen join with family farm groups to reinstate country-of-origin-labeling; and it’s incumbent on fishermen to begin pushing for additional labeling requirements (including the presence of antibiotics, hormones and artificial colorants)especially those to require the labeling of genetically-engineered foods.
Above are some of our thoughts on fighting the food wars. What do you see as the problems? What strategies, responses, would you propose? Let us know.
Pietro Parravano is a commercial fisherman from Half Moon Bay, California and President of both the Institute for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. He formerly served on the Pew Oceans Commission and is a U.S. delegate to the World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers. Molly Thomas is a former Administrator for the Institute for Fisheries Resources and now resides in Denver where she is studying eastern medicine. Zeke Grader is the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. PCFFA can be reached at: Southwest Regional Office: PO Box 29370, SF, CA USA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080; Northwest Regional Office: PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR USA 97440-3370, (541)689-2000; or by email to: fish1ifr@aol.com.
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive