Sustainably Caught? Chilean Sea Bass? Maybe Not.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Patagonian toothfish, aka Cliean sea bass. Credit: USFDA.Patagonian toothfish, aka Chilean sea bass. Credit: USFDA.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) just racked up another black eye from their sustainable seafood program. According to a new paper in Current Biology, nearly 1 of every 5 fillets of Chilean sea bass genetically sampled was either not Chilean sea bass or not from the only area deemed to have a sustainable fishery—the South Georgia Islands/Shag Rocks fishery.

I’ve written before—here at MoJo and at Deep Blue Home—about other problems emerging with the MSC, casting doubts on its stretchy definition of “sustainable.”

Here’s what the authors of the Current Biology paper have to say about the Chilean sea bass fishery:

The decline and collapse of many of the world’s fisheries has led to the implementation of social marketing that promotes the consumption of sustainably harvested seafood. Because the success of this strategy depends on supply chain integrity, we investigated the accuracy of eco-labels for Patagonian toothfish, marketed as ‘Chilean sea bass’ (Dissostichus eleginoides), by genetically analyzing retail fish bearing certification labels from the Marine Stewardship Council.  

They found:

  • 8 percent (3 of 36) of the fish labeled as MSC-certified Chilean sea bass were actually other species.
  • 15 percent (5 of 33 samples) that were Chilean sea bass were unlikely to have come from the South George Islands/Shag Rocks fishery.

 

Chilean sea bass mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotype frequencies. Pie diagrams (sample sizes within) show the frequencies of mtDNA haplotypes from locations marked by yellow stars and for the retail MSC sample which was ostensibly harvested from the SouthChilean sea bass mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotype frequencies. Credit: P.B. Marko, et al, Current Biology DOI:10.1017/j.cub.2011.07.006. (Further explanation here.)

 

Chilean sea bass are big (≥200 kilograms/440 pounds and up to 2.3-meters/7.5-feet long) and long lived (50 years, with sexual maturity as late as 20 years)—two guarantors of vulnerability to overfishing. Nature News reports:

Catching them “is not like fishing for fish—it’s almost like logging for trees”, says Stephen Palumbi, a marine population biologist at Stanford University in California, who was not involved with the study. “It takes that long for these fish to grow up and be ready for market. That’s why the fish got in trouble.”

Meanwhile Science Now reported the views of Lars Gulbrandsen at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Lysaker, Norway, who studies ecocertification:

“The high rate of mislabeling revealed in this study could potentially undermine MSC’s reputation as the gold standard for environmentally friendly fishing.”

The study authors concluded:

Although social marketing has the potential to positively impact threatened species by guiding consumers towards sustainable fisheries, our study showed that retail labeling of MSC-certified Chilean sea bass was inaccurate and that country-of-origin labelling was highly misleading. With respect to certified sustainable fisheries, mislabeling ultimately results in misplaced consumer demand for uncertified fisheries, thereby undermining the most basic goal of this conservation strategy.

 

Credit: Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch.Credit: Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program (with cool app) lists Chilean sea bass as a fish to avoid due to high mercury and dodgy fishing methods:

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing has depleted some populations of Chilean seabass. In addition, some Chilean seabass is caught using unmodified bottom longlines, which hook and drown thousands of seabirds each year, most notably endangered albatross. A portion of the Chilean seabass fishery is certified as sustainable to the standard of the Marine Stewardship Council. These certified fisheries are not evaluated in the Seafood Watch report and are not covered under the general “Avoid” recommendation.

And now we know what to make of the “certified sustainable” fisheries.
 
The paper:

  • ♥ Peter B. Marko, Holly A. Nance, and Kimberly D. Guynn. Genetic detection of mislabeled fish from a certified sustainable fishery. Current Biology (2011). DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2011.07.006.

♥ Open-access papers.

 Cross-posted from Deep Blue Home.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate