Facts? What Facts? Attacks on seafood industry often at odds with science, and facts on the ground

the following editorial comment was published on our subscription site, www.seafoodnews.com, today. Along with our video commentary   SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton - Nov. 22. 2010 - The seafood industry is on the losing end of a battle to shape the general public's attitudes towards seafood.  Three different stories have highlighted recently how vulnerable and ill-prepared the industry is to defend itself factually. First, the NBC news report defaming aquaculture in South East Asia last week was effective because it fit into a widely held narrative. The proximate cause was the catfish industry's campaign to discredit imported seafood, but the reason it was effective has been the narrative built up in the minds of most reporters that aquaculture is somehow more destructive than land based agriculture. In fact, as the University of Washington's Ray Hilborn has shown, the opposite is true.  Today, we run a story from Canada on the dangers of farmed shrimp. What is remarkable is that the story starts with warnings to consumers that they should not eat shrimp because of antibiotics, but then goes on to quote both environmentalists and certifiers about how the situation with use of antibiotics in shrimp farms has gotten much better. Even Corey Peet, formerly with the Monterey Bay Aquarium and now with WWF in Thailand, says he has seen 'positive impacts on the shrimp farming community, where a slow but steady shift to reform harmful practices is under way.' But the idea that there are improvements, and that major sellers like Walmart, Darden, or Loblaws are taking steps to guarantee the purity of their farmed shrimp, does not fit the narrative of the media, so facts go out the window in the face of repetition of old slanders. Secondly, we were struck by a very eloquent statement today from a fishing industry representative in the UK about Marine Protected Areas. He says the local industry is being destroyed by an environmental juggernaut. The drive to create marine protected areas is being done without regard to scientific studies, any clear understanding of benefits or what is being protected, and no analysis at all of what happens to unprotected areas when fishing effort is displaced. In short, the facts are not even being laid on the table, but the ideological drive is so strong that the fishing industry is being steamrolled out of existence for no tangible reason. Finally, to understand just how irrelevant science and facts are to the narrative of overfishing, simply look at cod. The resurgence of global cod stocks is remarkable. It is happening in the Barents Sea, Alaska, and the Northwest Atlantic. On Friday, we reported that George Rose - one of the foremost authorities on cod in Newfoundland, said the Northern cod stock are at a turning point, having increased 10 fold to 100,000 tons in an area he studies. In short, cod, one of the most prolific and high value fish, has made a global environmental comeback, yet for most environmentalists, Atlantic cod remains on the 'red' list, for example from Monterey Bay, and is on the avoid list for Greenpeace, with campaigners actually picketing supermarkets daring to continue to sell cod.  This is not science. It is self-justifying belief. The narrative of overfishing cannot be abandoned by environmental groups because it then devalues their role as public defenders. But the science is showing more and more that good fisheries management is the critical factor in the environmental health of fish stocks. Where it is present, stocks recover and undergo their natural cycles, and can be abundantly harvested. Where it is absent, overfishing continues. If the environmental movement at large truly was science based, they would admit that good management was in fact the key goal to preserving fisheries sustainability, and controls were in fact improving dramatically in aquaculture production. On wild fisheries, this is the position that is in fact taken by the MSC, the ISSF and in some cases, by the WWF.  Unfortunately, however, this approach is drowned out by the media narrative that has been built by an 'environmental jugguernaut' that has said for years food is dangerous, fishing is unsustainable, and anything shown to the contrary is not to be believed. John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441  Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com