4 ms·

Yeah, that's why I don't buy fish.

by mkl 7y ago

jrochkind1 7y ago
You're ahead of the curve, soon nobody will be able to.
- ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
  Lobster population is actually exploding as a result of global warming. Real beef hamburgers are the food we will probably have to say goodbye to first.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    Where is lobster population increasing due to warming?
    - peterwwillis 7y ago
      Where they catch them? https://qz.com/506376/lobsters-2/ https://qz.com/506376/lobsters-2/
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        Thanks, it makes sense... I remembered some recent alarmists headlines about how lobsters will decline in the area due to warming but forgot that it was warming in the first place that made it the sweet spot it's currently. Edit: anyway, production in the US has doubled in the last 20 years but the increase in global production is less than 50%. So it has not "exploded" in all the places where they catch them.
buildzr 7y ago
Even the farmed ones? Do you eat meat at all?
- mkl 7y ago
  Unfortunately, fish farming is currently not generally sustainable either, for other reasons, e.g. https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/dear-modern-farmer-is-fish-farming-sustainable/ https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/dear-modern-farmer-is-fish-... Yes, I eat some meat, but fish is a special case as it's the only major source of meat that's from wild sources, and those sources are being exploited beyond sustainable limits much of the time: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing Farmed meat on land can have major environmental costs in terms of resources, but at least we can see what those costs are. With fish, we're destroying ecosystems we don't even understand.
  - buildzr 7y ago
    That fish farming sustainability article seems highly suspect to say the least, they're complaining about GMOs and such being "unsustainable" which is ridiculous. If anything GMOs are more sustainable in many ways, higher yield for less land, better targeted pesticides, etc. I'll have to look into it more, there's a few different agencies certifying "sustainably farmed" fish at the moment which seem to be readily available around here at least.
    - diablerouge 7y ago
      I think you may be incorrect about GMOs actually being more sustainable, as they have a pretty major effect on biodiversity by encouraging higher use of pesticides and insecticides[0]. A great example is the effect they have had on the population of monarch butterflies, mentioned in the linked source. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Environment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_co...
      - icebraining 7y ago
        From that link: "A 2014 meta-analysis covering 147 original studies of farm surveys and field trials, and 15 studies from the researchers conducting the study, concluded that adoption of GM technology had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%". Scrolling further down shows more citations showing lower use of pesticides, insecticides and herbicides. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Chemical_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_co...
opportune 7y ago
Maybe I'm just falling victim to corporate propaganda, but I'm pretty sure wild (Alaskan) salmon is truly sustainably fished, as are sardines and anchovies
- ljcn 7y ago
  There are good ways to check: US: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/ https://www.seafoodwatch.org/ UK: https://www.mcsuk.org/goodfishguide/search https://www.mcsuk.org/goodfishguide/search Both have mobile apps I believe.
- steve_adams_86 7y ago
  The Alaskan fishery is much like the fishery south of it in BC, where 'sustainable' is a bit of a joke - I think that term is based on taking a 'sustainable' number of the estimated population returning to spawn in rivers. Alaskan rivers are doing better than BC's, but returns are dwindling and both governments are consistently shifting baselines on a yearly basis. Every year quotas are smaller, but so are the populations. This is something I follow constantly and the numbers are actually terrifying. Some rivers have okay returns of some species of salmon, but some like sockeye are at incredibly low numbers. They are by some measures on the brink of extinction, and many spawning runs are extinct already. In BC, sockeye returns are currently being tracked daily and the result so far is that less are returning than ever before, and the amount returning is far less than the department of fisheries and oceans' lowest estimates. It's an emergency in my opinion. People shouldn't be eating sockeye. I'm not sure about sardines and anchovies. I know herring have been seriously overfished, so I have doubts that anything we fish is sustainable at the moment. I hope it is.
  - hammock 7y ago
    I thought there was a glut of sockeye a year or two ago? I remember seeing it everywhere.
    - steve_adams_86 7y ago
      Every now and then there are bumps in the size of the return (typically every 4 years, which is why the 4 year average is more meaningful to determine population health), but with salmon it isn't a very strong indicator of anything other than that spawning was more successful than usual or disease and predation were reduced while the salmon were maturing in the ocean. It has very little long-term bearing on population growth or stability, unfortunately. I'm not sure but I suspect a couple years ago was probably a normal, predictable spike. People get excited about it nonetheless. Another thing to consider is that what we call a glut of sockeye these days is still a paltry return compared to what was once possible. 100 years ago, before a certain landslide occurred in one of BC's major rivers, our largest returns were estimated to be almost 40,000,000 fish. This year, we're seeing around 600,000 fish. We were expecting 4,800,000.

Yeah, that's why I don't buy fish.

by mkl 7y ago

Yeah, that's why I don't buy fish.

jrochkind1 7y ago

You're ahead of the curve, soon nobody will be able to.

ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
Lobster population is actually exploding as a result of global warming. Real beef hamburgers are the food we will probably have to say goodbye to first.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  Where is lobster population increasing due to warming?
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    Where they catch them? https://qz.com/506376/lobsters-2/ https://qz.com/506376/lobsters-2/
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      Thanks, it makes sense... I remembered some recent alarmists headlines about how lobsters will decline in the area due to warming but forgot that it was warming in the first place that made it the sweet spot it's currently. Edit: anyway, production in the US has doubled in the last 20 years but the increase in global production is less than 50%. So it has not "exploded" in all the places where they catch them.

buildzr 7y ago

Even the farmed ones? Do you eat meat at all?

mkl 7y ago
Unfortunately, fish farming is currently not generally sustainable either, for other reasons, e.g. https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/dear-modern-farmer-is-fish-farming-sustainable/ https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/dear-modern-farmer-is-fish-... Yes, I eat some meat, but fish is a special case as it's the only major source of meat that's from wild sources, and those sources are being exploited beyond sustainable limits much of the time: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing Farmed meat on land can have major environmental costs in terms of resources, but at least we can see what those costs are. With fish, we're destroying ecosystems we don't even understand.
- buildzr 7y ago
  That fish farming sustainability article seems highly suspect to say the least, they're complaining about GMOs and such being "unsustainable" which is ridiculous. If anything GMOs are more sustainable in many ways, higher yield for less land, better targeted pesticides, etc. I'll have to look into it more, there's a few different agencies certifying "sustainably farmed" fish at the moment which seem to be readily available around here at least.
  - diablerouge 7y ago
    I think you may be incorrect about GMOs actually being more sustainable, as they have a pretty major effect on biodiversity by encouraging higher use of pesticides and insecticides[0]. A great example is the effect they have had on the population of monarch butterflies, mentioned in the linked source. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Environment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_co...
    - icebraining 7y ago
      From that link: "A 2014 meta-analysis covering 147 original studies of farm surveys and field trials, and 15 studies from the researchers conducting the study, concluded that adoption of GM technology had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%". Scrolling further down shows more citations showing lower use of pesticides, insecticides and herbicides. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Chemical_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_co...

opportune 7y ago

Maybe I'm just falling victim to corporate propaganda, but I'm pretty sure wild (Alaskan) salmon is truly sustainably fished, as are sardines and anchovies

ljcn 7y ago
There are good ways to check: US: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/ https://www.seafoodwatch.org/ UK: https://www.mcsuk.org/goodfishguide/search https://www.mcsuk.org/goodfishguide/search Both have mobile apps I believe.
steve_adams_86 7y ago
The Alaskan fishery is much like the fishery south of it in BC, where 'sustainable' is a bit of a joke - I think that term is based on taking a 'sustainable' number of the estimated population returning to spawn in rivers. Alaskan rivers are doing better than BC's, but returns are dwindling and both governments are consistently shifting baselines on a yearly basis. Every year quotas are smaller, but so are the populations. This is something I follow constantly and the numbers are actually terrifying. Some rivers have okay returns of some species of salmon, but some like sockeye are at incredibly low numbers. They are by some measures on the brink of extinction, and many spawning runs are extinct already. In BC, sockeye returns are currently being tracked daily and the result so far is that less are returning than ever before, and the amount returning is far less than the department of fisheries and oceans' lowest estimates. It's an emergency in my opinion. People shouldn't be eating sockeye. I'm not sure about sardines and anchovies. I know herring have been seriously overfished, so I have doubts that anything we fish is sustainable at the moment. I hope it is.
- hammock 7y ago
  I thought there was a glut of sockeye a year or two ago? I remember seeing it everywhere.
  - steve_adams_86 7y ago
    Every now and then there are bumps in the size of the return (typically every 4 years, which is why the 4 year average is more meaningful to determine population health), but with salmon it isn't a very strong indicator of anything other than that spawning was more successful than usual or disease and predation were reduced while the salmon were maturing in the ocean. It has very little long-term bearing on population growth or stability, unfortunately. I'm not sure but I suspect a couple years ago was probably a normal, predictable spike. People get excited about it nonetheless. Another thing to consider is that what we call a glut of sockeye these days is still a paltry return compared to what was once possible. 100 years ago, before a certain landslide occurred in one of BC's major rivers, our largest returns were estimated to be almost 40,000,000 fish. This year, we're seeing around 600,000 fish. We were expecting 4,800,000.