‘Bluewashing’ Seafood Can’t Make the World Green
Marine wildlife is in a state of global emergency. Ninety percent of fish populations are at or below half of their historical levels, and many fish species are found in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of endangered species than any other species of animals. Since the 1970s alone, the world’s shark and ray populations have declined by more than 70 percent. the little cow The porpoise will disappear in many years, with the Māui dolphin and North Atlantic right whale likely following behind. The main driver of this water extinction crisis is not climate change or plastic pollution but fishing, and conservation biologists around the world Warned that resolving this crisis requires a change in traditional fisheries management ideas and the implementation of significant restrictions on catch limits.
Just now, though, there have been calls not for less fishing, however labi pa, under the banner of a new term covering all marine and aquaculture products: “blue food.” The Blue Food Alliance, launched before the UN Food Systems Summit, brought together academics, made policy, and corporate donors focused on increasing consumption of sustainable seafood. The project was recognized with numerous accolades, including a series of journal papers Food in Nature, usa editorial in its parent journal NATURE, a number of good stuff op-eds of key academics and industry members, and even a promotional video. According to the group’s report titled “The Blue Food Assessment,” seafood and aquaculture consistently have a lower impact on the environment and provide greater nutritional benefit than terrestrial foods while contributing to food security, it was made economically and ecologically sustainable.
But this blue food account relies on ingredients and non -concealers that cover up the facts about the effects of seafood. Like harmful industries like Lots of Oil and Lots of Livestock emphasizes the superficiality make the tweak and embraced the language of sustainability, as did the seafood industry. While the Blue Food Alliance boasts membership of sustainable nonprofits like EAT, it also accompanied by titans from the sea such as the Walton Family Foundation. As countless unsolved industries claim to be green, the public message of blue food bears all the hallmarks of a major brand – it’s called a “bluewash.”
Not that the message of this campaign and others like it rely on bad science, they choose it as a selective claim to science. In doing so, “The Blue Food Assessment” took many of the harms of fishing and fishing for fish, and made them more sustainable than they actually are. Consider that the consumption of seafood is largely more environmentally friendly than eating land -based meat. To prove this, the authors use continuity criteria from previous studies to capture greenhouse gas, nitrogen, and phosphorus emissions, as well as use soil and fresh water, of various marine products and aquaculture. This leads to the conclusion that the environmental effects of foods lower than many agricultural products, especially poultry, the least environmental impact is raised by meat. The problem is this is an apple-to-orange comparison-it applies standards designed for terrestrial marine agriculture, while eliminating environmental impacts specific to marine life. Eating wild fish can use almost no soil or fresh water, but it can too consumed population of marine life, maim food webs, dredges up reefs and algal beds, and wastes the ocean with ghost nets. The report is equally selective in its discussion of the health benefits of seafood. Fish can be made of a variety of dietary vitamins and minerals, but it can also be replenished. microplastics and bioacumumative toxins such as The PCBs, The PBDEs, ug mercury. While these various shortcomings are recognized by some in the blue diet manuscripts, they are not all promotional materials, exaggerated the benefits of blue food while emphasizing the disadvantages.
Of the specific claims, the nomenclature of this campaign is also part. While linking all seafood to the new “blue food” category does little to facilitate comparison with other food groups, it does little to compare species-specific impact assessments and region. For example, while defenders brag that “the BFA assessment emphasizes a wide variety of blue foods,” the data are clearly ambiguous, with a number of inaccuracies and broad categorization such as “different marine fish.” Even more problematic, this tactic also covers the various makers and processes of creating the interior of the marine industry. For one thing, even if it doesn’t explicitly promote the expansion of industrial fishing, it is effective in regards to growing industrialized forms of fish production such as aquaculture. Even aquaculture doesn’t force wild fishing as much complements they, who often need hundreds of wild-caught bait fish to feed a farm salmon or tuna. It also carries a variety of hazards and injuries, including dirty pollution, deforestation, ug the spread of viral within aquaculture fields and the spread of wild fish. Even “The Blue Food Assessment” recommends expanding aquaculture despite these risks.