Are Marine Stewardship Council-certified fish really not contributing to the desertification of the seas?

Four years ago I wrote a case study on the MSC. It was subsequently revised before it was published, but you might find it of interest.

The short answer is: MSC-certified fish really are not contributing to the desertification of the seas. To earn the right to use an MSC label, the fishery has to be managed according to a number of criteria, one of which is that the catch does not exceed maximum sustainable yield. I believe there are also criteria relating to bycatch.

And second, what about domestic farmed, vegetarian-type fish such as tilapia and catfish?

Well, you nailed it: because they are vegetarian, they don't require catching other fish to feed them. Some of that feed ends up as fish poop, however, and can create a waste-disposal problem.

These are only my personal opinions.

I can say that the BBC documentary makes several points:

1) Fish farms use bulk protein from low-value fish to fatten up high value fish; they showed a bluefin tuna farm operation in Japan and a prawn farm in the Philippines; the ratio for the latter was 2 kg of fish protein per kg of harvested prawn.

This makes sense; generally, every level of the food chain imposes a steep cost in terms of energy pass-through.  (If the predator fish were hunting in the wild instead of having their prey caught and delivered to them, the ratio of prey weight to predator weight would probably be more like 10-1.)

2) Aquaculture is to coastlines what corn monocropping is to farmlands; Fromartz's good book "Organic Inc" discusses the environmental costs of fish farming (off Chile, if I recall correctly).  Mangroves, e.g., are felled to make space for the fish farms, and so whole diverse ecosystems are destroyed so that they can be replaced by monoculture fish farms.  And the mangroves play a huge role in coastal protection from storms as well.

(Aside:  I seem to recall reading that farmed catfish are fed with corn and soy --- in which case, it seems to me, they're just wet beef cows, inefficiently turning grain protein into fish protein.  So just another way to use cropland in the least effective way.)

The 5% Project

I mean, the MSC practices may not be quite as devastating to the seas as modern factory wasteland-maker-ships, but if slow-recovering resources are being drastically overharvested, what's the "sustainable take"?  Unless the MSC ships come equipped with Mk 48 torpedoes (like the sub photo in the other thread suggested), they have no way to stop other from overfishing; in which case, they're still just another stress on the resource, yes?

The 5% Project

I won't buy farmed shrimp from Southeast Asia (OK, once in a while I slip), because of the mangrove issue, although I believe wild caught shrimp from the US don't have that same problem.  I believe the mangrove situation is also bad in Mexico.  Tilapia and catfish are freshwater though, so there shouldn't be an ecosystem problem there -- although I think you have to be careful not to let tilapia escape into lakes, they can take them over.  And as in everything else, you have to be careful with/avoid aquaculture from China.

Fish does not protect the heart, researchers say:
http://www.pcrm.org/cgi-bin/lists/mail.cgi?flavor=archive ... ...

10 Questions for Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3747

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ~
http://www.seashepherd.org

Only individual "fisheries" -- i.e., a particular species within a particular area -- are certified. The MSC looks at the entire management of the fishery, including enforcement. Most of the complaints I have read are that their criteria are too stringent (especially for fisheries in developing countries), not that they are too lax.

In any case, at the end of the day, most fishing communities WANT very much to fish in a sustainable manner.

These are only my personal opinions.

But I was just reading an old New Yorker (1/22/07) about vegetarianism that casts doubt that a moral approach to diet would have much of an effect in the  real world, even as the number of vegetarians increases. Here's a few stats I wanted to save on per capita meat consumption in pounds:

 World meat consumption:  62  (1981)   87 (2002)
 US      "    "            238          275    
 India   "    "              8           11      
 China   "    "             33          115      

The real issue I think is corporate-driven globalization, and the opening up of world markets to industrial agricultural corporations (through the WTO, etc.). In other words, factory farms (and trawlers) may save a few pennies on the price of meat and make it more affordable, but it is an economic model that could drive a few billion farmers off their lands into the overcrowded cities.

I think the real political battles will be over "free trade" and allowing the developing nations to chose their own paths to sustainability, not the ethics of boycotting meat/fish.

Nevertheless, the knowledge that people can get all their protein and nutrients from a balanced vegetarian diet could prove invaluable on an over-stressed planet.

No single approach is good or bad, it's just not diverse.  I wish people wouldn't pontificate like their food is a holier diet than anybody else.  You have your preferences, please keep them to yourself. To bring fake voodoo science to the table to defend your moral argument is a horrendous fallacy.  
Thanks!
Sam

Onward through the fog