A TOOTHFISH BY ANY OTHER NAME........
American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies (Attention EU Visitors , possible "cookie" encounter ahead)
Dissostichus mawsoni the Antarctic toothfish (Image : Photograph by Paul Cziko, supported by US-NSF through the DeVries-Cheng Lab at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Chamnpaign. License: GNU Free Documentation License. Recently we researched and published our opinion on the U.S. Chef's boycott of "Chilean Sea Bass". Many U.S. Chefs have taken a pledge to not buy or serve fish labeled "Chilean Sea Bass". The fish is actually the Antarctic Toothfish (Dissosticus mawsoni) and near relatives. They have taken this action due to a belief that the U.S. supply of the fish has been coming from endangered populations. We reviewed the situation and published our opinion, which was to support the U.S. Chef Boycott in the recent post "Save The Antarctic Toothfish." Our recommendation to our readers was solidly based on independent science. But as usual we simply presented it in our usual breezy, pithy, fashion without endless footnotes. As we have so often stated the blog posts are about "infotainment" not long boring scientific papers with all the trimmings. But we think our regular readers know that we are maritime experts and carefully research any position we announce. or book or video we recommend. After publication of our first post on Toothfish we were immediately contacted via the comments section by the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators Inc. PO Box 42, Mt Hawthorn, Western Australia 6915, Australia , AKA COLTO.
We were told in no uncertain terms that we were "seriously incorrect" and offered "correct information". In fact what was offered was the usual PR from a fishing industry association watching out for its bottom line, which is a perfectly legitimate activity for such an association but being a party at interest, hardly automatically qualifies their pronouncements "correct information" or makes them qualified to pronounce us "seriously incorrect'.
None the less we examined what they had to say seriously and found it missed the sniff test of good forensic practice, specificity, and statistical analysis. In short it wasn't on point and simply established that by regulatory agency and industry association standards somewhere between 63% and 78% of the World's Toothfish catch comes from fisheries that these interests deem "sustainable and well managed". That of course gave us no assurance that the recent U.S. supply marketed as "Chilean Sea Bass" wasn't from the less than half of the global catch that is judged as neither sustainable or well managed. COLTO simply never got "on point". We asked them who their "organized opposition" was and offered to subject the boycott's organized proponents to the same scrutiny that we put COLTO to. When we didn't receive a response we did a little research and found that Green Peace has all of the world's tooth fish fisheries on on their "Red List" .
We researched the Green Peace Red List and found it to have an adversarial slant simply in the opposite direction of COLTO. Green peace simply doesn't want to acknowledge the regulatory and fishery management progress that has been made. We discount party at interest data but we are fairly well convinced that at least half of world's tooth fish fisheries are well managed. We had to reject the Green Peace recommendation of a total ban and their picture of the global fishery as one in disarray. We do see progress in the regulation and management of the global multi- species resource, progress that is still inadequate, and a picture not nearly as rosy as COLTO would have us "believe" ( yes they did ask us to make a leap of faith), but not nearly as bad as Green Peace would have us believe. So we have now examined the basic data provided by two "parties at interest" in the case of the U.S. Chef boycott of the "Chilean Sea Bass." Our original recommendation to our readers to back the Chef's boycott by not ordering, buying or consuming any fish labeled "Chilean Sea Bass" stands. It stands because the boycott is based on indications that the recent sources of the U.S. supply of the relevant fish came from two studied populations that in fact are in decline. The regulators might not think so, the industry is on record in these pages as not thinking so, but the independent scientific information fully supports the U.S. Chef's conclusion that recent U.S. supplies of "Chilean Sea Bass" have originated from declining fish populations.
Green Peace attacks the entire global fishery. COLTO cites global statistics to convince us that fish from declining populations could not have gotten into the U.S. supply, but none of their data so far has directly refuted any of the claims made in the Chef's boycott. So if we didn't listen to the parties at interest who did we rely on for our original decision which we are confirming here in? We relied on our own research into scientific studies by scientist who mostly didn't work for the industry, some who did work for the regulators, and others we considered "neutral". The list below is partial, but we think a sufficient comprehensive sample of the range of papers to assure our regular readers that we don't run off half cocked or publish things that are "seriously incorrect". With this we will close the debate in these pages on the Chilean Sea Bass boycott. But we invite comment again the moment COLTO feels that they and the international regulators have taken sufficient action to assure that future U.S. stocks don't come from declining populations, unsustainable or ill managed fisheries, or illegal sources. We know they have already argued that. Their arguments have failed our investigative, forensic and statistical analytic standards. So COLTO come back when new corrective measures have been applied. The relationship between industry advocacy groups and regulators has a way of becoming too cozy. No matter how well intended, industry associations must be concerned with the quarterly bottom line of their companies. Regulators have a history of responding to that. Fish have no representative unless you count organizations like Green Peace, and we think most of our readers know that we look at them with jaundiced eye. The fish consumer wants the fish to come from sustainable fisheries on a regular basis and at reasonable prices, hopefully not over contaminated with mercury and the like. The fish consumer generally has no seat at the regulatory table, but in this case the U.S. Chefs cut through the bureaucratic fog and stood up for the consumer, and the fish. Well, if you can't trust the guy who grilled your grouper, who can you trust?
The following Scientific references form part of our basis for support of the U.S. Chef's boycott of the "Chilean Sea Bass" and the basis for our rejection of certain findings by various fishing industry associations and international regulatory bodies that claim that the supply of the fish marketed as "Chilean Sea Bass" is in fact from sustainable populations of the fish and that the Antarctic environment is not being harmed by over fishing of this species this is only a partial list we are willing to accept and respond to comments in the comment section of this post. But we warn all interested parties that it will take more than stilted statistics from off point or dubious or advocate sources to change our position. We want to see two things before we will pull our recommendation. First show us that the Legal operators and the international regulators have seriously addressed the issue and that "hook weight" in the two populations is actually increasing. Show us some science that the two relevant populations are recovering. Show us that new catch regulations and enforcement programs are adequate to ensure that reopening the two fish population areas will not endanger recovery.
SOME GENERAL READING FOR THOSE INTERESTED
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIEW OF THE CHEF'S BOYCOTT l
NEW YORK TIMES Editor's note: This article indicates that the boycott is being coordinated by the National Environmental Trust, a private lobbying group in Washington. We back the Chef's Boycott of fish labeled "Chilean Sea Bass", not the National Environmental Trust generally nor have we reviewed their other positions on Atlantic fisheries. We disagree with those critics of the boycott who say it is ineffective or only hurts legal operators. It has gotten the attention of both the industry and the regulators when nothing else did. However, we stated our position on the conditions we think necessary to lift the boycott. Our support should not be construed as support generally for total fishing bans except as temporary recovery measures for fisheries that have reached doubtful sustainability. We are for well regulated, well managed sustainable commercial fishing. People have a right to be on the planet and they should be able to eat fish.
NEW YORK TIMES: Editor's Note: This article cites the U.S. Commerce Department's estimate of the percentage of illegal fishing which is much higher than that cited by Industry association COLTO and credited to various associations and international regulators in their response to our first article.
The above and foregoing and our previous post and swapped comments are certainly not the totality of the information that is available or even the full extent of our own research. We are confident in our recommendation. We hope that we have provided enough information to jump start the research of anyone who is interested enough to research the subject. When we research, as demonstrated in our earlier comments to COLTO we also test the data found against good forensic practice, generalized and broadly applicable rules of evidence, and source considerations. Trust your Chef, pass on the Chilean Sea Bass for now.
We researched the Green Peace Red List and found it to have an adversarial slant simply in the opposite direction of COLTO. Green peace simply doesn't want to acknowledge the regulatory and fishery management progress that has been made. We discount party at interest data but we are fairly well convinced that at least half of world's tooth fish fisheries are well managed. We had to reject the Green Peace recommendation of a total ban and their picture of the global fishery as one in disarray. We do see progress in the regulation and management of the global multi- species resource, progress that is still inadequate, and a picture not nearly as rosy as COLTO would have us "believe" ( yes they did ask us to make a leap of faith), but not nearly as bad as Green Peace would have us believe. So we have now examined the basic data provided by two "parties at interest" in the case of the U.S. Chef boycott of the "Chilean Sea Bass." Our original recommendation to our readers to back the Chef's boycott by not ordering, buying or consuming any fish labeled "Chilean Sea Bass" stands. It stands because the boycott is based on indications that the recent sources of the U.S. supply of the relevant fish came from two studied populations that in fact are in decline. The regulators might not think so, the industry is on record in these pages as not thinking so, but the independent scientific information fully supports the U.S. Chef's conclusion that recent U.S. supplies of "Chilean Sea Bass" have originated from declining fish populations.
Green Peace attacks the entire global fishery. COLTO cites global statistics to convince us that fish from declining populations could not have gotten into the U.S. supply, but none of their data so far has directly refuted any of the claims made in the Chef's boycott. So if we didn't listen to the parties at interest who did we rely on for our original decision which we are confirming here in? We relied on our own research into scientific studies by scientist who mostly didn't work for the industry, some who did work for the regulators, and others we considered "neutral". The list below is partial, but we think a sufficient comprehensive sample of the range of papers to assure our regular readers that we don't run off half cocked or publish things that are "seriously incorrect". With this we will close the debate in these pages on the Chilean Sea Bass boycott. But we invite comment again the moment COLTO feels that they and the international regulators have taken sufficient action to assure that future U.S. stocks don't come from declining populations, unsustainable or ill managed fisheries, or illegal sources. We know they have already argued that. Their arguments have failed our investigative, forensic and statistical analytic standards. So COLTO come back when new corrective measures have been applied. The relationship between industry advocacy groups and regulators has a way of becoming too cozy. No matter how well intended, industry associations must be concerned with the quarterly bottom line of their companies. Regulators have a history of responding to that. Fish have no representative unless you count organizations like Green Peace, and we think most of our readers know that we look at them with jaundiced eye. The fish consumer wants the fish to come from sustainable fisheries on a regular basis and at reasonable prices, hopefully not over contaminated with mercury and the like. The fish consumer generally has no seat at the regulatory table, but in this case the U.S. Chefs cut through the bureaucratic fog and stood up for the consumer, and the fish. Well, if you can't trust the guy who grilled your grouper, who can you trust?
The following Scientific references form part of our basis for support of the U.S. Chef's boycott of the "Chilean Sea Bass" and the basis for our rejection of certain findings by various fishing industry associations and international regulatory bodies that claim that the supply of the fish marketed as "Chilean Sea Bass" is in fact from sustainable populations of the fish and that the Antarctic environment is not being harmed by over fishing of this species this is only a partial list we are willing to accept and respond to comments in the comment section of this post. But we warn all interested parties that it will take more than stilted statistics from off point or dubious or advocate sources to change our position. We want to see two things before we will pull our recommendation. First show us that the Legal operators and the international regulators have seriously addressed the issue and that "hook weight" in the two populations is actually increasing. Show us some science that the two relevant populations are recovering. Show us that new catch regulations and enforcement programs are adequate to ensure that reopening the two fish population areas will not endanger recovery.
- The Antarctic Toothfish is thought to play, in the Antarctic Ocean a role similar to sharks in other oceans. Its general range and role in the what is known of the Antarctic ecosystem. Its food sources and species it feeds.
- Andriashev, A.P. (1962). On the systematic position of the giant nototheniid fish (Pisces, Nototheniidae) from the McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Zool. Zhur. 41:1048–1050 (in Russian; English translation available from National Institute of Oceanography, Wormley, Godalming, Surrey, UK, No. NIOT/1132, June 1970).
- DeVries, A.L.; and Eastman JT (1998) Brief review of the biology ofDissostichus mawsoni. CCAMLR Document WG-FSA-98/49, Hobart, Australia.
- Life cycle, growth patterns, unique anatomy features range reproduction:^
- Eastman, J.T. (1993) Antarctic fish biology. Academic Press, San Diego.
- Eastman, J.T.; and DeVries, A.L. (1981). Buoyancy adaptations in a swim-bladderless Antarctic fish. Journal of Morphology 167:91–102.
- Eastman, J.T.; and DeVries, A.L. (1982). Buoyancy studies of notothenioid fishes in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Copeia 2:385–393.
- Near, T.J.; Russo, S.E.; Jones, C.D.; and DeVries, A.L. (2003) Ontogenetic shift in buoyancy and habitat in the Antarctic toothfish,Dissostichus mawsoni (Perciformes: Nototheniidae). Polar Biol. 26:124–128.
- Yukhov, V.L. (1971). The range of Dissostichus mawsoni Norman and some features of its biology. Journal of Ichthyology 11: 8–18.
- Fuiman, L.A.; Davis, R.W.; and Williams, T.M. (2002). Behaviour of midwater fishes under the Antarctic ice: observations by a predator. Marine Biology 140:815–822.
- Eastman, J.T.; and Barry, J.P. (2002) Underwater video observation of the Antarctic toothfish Dissostichus mawsoni (Perciformes: Nototheniidae) in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Polar Biology 25: 391–395
- Eastman, J.T. (1985) Pleuragramma antarcticum (Pisces, Nototheniidae) as food for other fishes in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Polar Biology 4:155–160.
- La Mesa, M.; Eastman, J.T.; and Vacchi, M. (2004) The role of notothenioid fish in the food web of the Ross Sea shelf waters: a review. Polar Biology 27:321–338.
Anatomy and Physiology , Cold Adaptation:
- Brooks, C.M.; Ashford, J.R. (2008) Spatial distribution and age structure of the Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. CCAMLR WG-FSA-08-18. Hobart, Australia.
- Ashford, J.; Dinniman, M.; Brooks, C.; Andrews, A.H.; Hofmann, E.; Cailliet, G.; Jones, C.; and Ramanna, N. (2012). Does large-scale ocean circulation structure life history connectivity in Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni)? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69: doi:10.1139/f2012-111.
- Fenaughty, J.M.; Eastman, J.T.; and Sidell, B.D. (2008). Biological implications of low condition factor “axe handle” specimens of the Antarctic toothfish, Dissostichus mawsoni, from the Ross Sea. Antarctic Science 20:537–551.
The Fisheries Critical Analysis:
- Brooks, C.M.; Ashford, J.R. (2008) Spatial distribution and age structure of the Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. CCAMLR WG-FSA-08-18. Hobart, Australia.
- Ashford, J.; Dinniman, M.; Brooks, C.; Andrews, A.H.; Hofmann, E.; Cailliet, G.; Jones, C.; and Ramanna, N. (2012). Does large-scale ocean circulation structure life history connectivity in Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni)? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69: doi:10.1139/f2012-111.
- Fenaughty, J.M.; Eastman, J.T.; and Sidell, B.D. (2008). Biological implications of low condition factor “axe handle” specimens of the Antarctic toothfish, Dissostichus mawsoni, from the Ross Sea. Antarctic Science 20:537–551.
- Prut’ko, V. G.; and Chmilevskii, D. A. (2011) On the Pattern of Oogenesis, Type of Spawning, and Fecundity of Moray Cod Muraenolepis evseenkoi (Muraenolepidae: Gadiformes). Journal of Ichthyology 51:404-407.
- CCAMLR System of Inspection,http://www.ccamlr.org/en/document/publications/inspectors-manual
- CCAMLR CM 10-02, http://www.ccamlr.org/en/measure-10-02-2011
- CCAMLR CM 10-03, http://www.ccamlr.org/en/measure-10-03-2009
- CCAMLR CM 10-04, http://www.ccamlr.org/en/measure-10-04-2010
- CCAMLR CM 10-05, http://www.ccamlr.org/en/measure-10-05-2009
- "Ross Sea Toothfish Fishery". Retrieved 26 September 2012.
- Christian, C.; Ainley, D.; Bailey, M.; Dayton, P.; Hocevar, J.; LeVine, M.; Nikoloyuk, J.; Nouvian, C.; Velarde, E.; Werner, R.; and Jacquet, J. (2012). Questionable stewardship: A review of formal objections to MSC fisheries certifications. Biological Conservation, in press.
- CCAMLR (2012). Statistical Bulletin, Vol. 24. Hobart, Australia.
- Knecht, G.B. (2006). Hooked: Pirates, Poaching and the Perfect Fish. Rodale, Inc.
Fishery Regulatory Compliance Structure estimated compliance levels as presented by the regulators
- Marko, P.B.; Nance, H.A.; and Guynn, K.D. (2011) Genetic detection of mislabeled fish from a certified sustainable fishery. Current Biology 21: R621-R622.
- http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/update-lack-of-evidence-blocks-msc-investigation-into-toothfish-mislabelling-claims
- Seafood Watch (2012).http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_recommendations.aspx?c=ln
The Sustainability Debate:
- "Chilean Seabass Seafood Watch Report". April 2013. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
- http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/southern-ocean/ross-sea-toothfish-longline
- Christian, C.; Ainley, D.; Bailey, M.; Dayton, P.; Hocear, J.; LeVine, M.; Nikoloyuk, J.; Nouvian, C.; Velarde, E.; Werner, R.; and Jacquet, J. (2012). Questionable stewardship: A review of formal objections to MSC fisheries certifications. Biological Conservation, in press.
- Knecht, G.B. (2006). Hooked: Pirates, Poaching and the Perfect Fish. Rodale, Inc.
- Marko, P.B.; Nance, H.A.; and Guynn, K.D. (2011) Genetic detection of mislabeled fish from a certified sustainable fishery. Current Biology 21: R621-R622..
SOME GENERAL READING FOR THOSE INTERESTED
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIEW OF THE CHEF'S BOYCOTT l
NEW YORK TIMES Editor's note: This article indicates that the boycott is being coordinated by the National Environmental Trust, a private lobbying group in Washington. We back the Chef's Boycott of fish labeled "Chilean Sea Bass", not the National Environmental Trust generally nor have we reviewed their other positions on Atlantic fisheries. We disagree with those critics of the boycott who say it is ineffective or only hurts legal operators. It has gotten the attention of both the industry and the regulators when nothing else did. However, we stated our position on the conditions we think necessary to lift the boycott. Our support should not be construed as support generally for total fishing bans except as temporary recovery measures for fisheries that have reached doubtful sustainability. We are for well regulated, well managed sustainable commercial fishing. People have a right to be on the planet and they should be able to eat fish.
NEW YORK TIMES: Editor's Note: This article cites the U.S. Commerce Department's estimate of the percentage of illegal fishing which is much higher than that cited by Industry association COLTO and credited to various associations and international regulators in their response to our first article.
The above and foregoing and our previous post and swapped comments are certainly not the totality of the information that is available or even the full extent of our own research. We are confident in our recommendation. We hope that we have provided enough information to jump start the research of anyone who is interested enough to research the subject. When we research, as demonstrated in our earlier comments to COLTO we also test the data found against good forensic practice, generalized and broadly applicable rules of evidence, and source considerations. Trust your Chef, pass on the Chilean Sea Bass for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment