WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • JUNE 2015 19 farmed salmon. The research compared select farmed to select wild captured salmon filets. None of the concentrations detected in either wild or farmed salmon were of health concern but the implication was that farmed salmon was bad for you. Among many who condemned this particular report were notable medical authorities from the Harvard School of Public Health, who firmly declared the report irresponsible because seafood consumption declined. Those authorities knew about the substantial public health benefit gained from seafood consumption. Once the press, aided by the druids, picked up on the Science article, the damage was done. Not only did farmed salmon consumption decline but all seafood consumption declined. Some of the druids decided that all farmed seafood, regardless of where it came from, was bad. The legacy of that scientific report persists some 11 years later. What is doubly unfortunate, discouraging and a crying shame is that some poor aquaculture practices of the past, occurring in distant parts of the world and even still today, taint public perception. As we seek ways to grow the aquaculture movement, increase seafood consumption and to define for ourselves and the public why aquaculture is important, I would like to emphasize two particular concerns. The first is that the world is unequal and, as a consequence, the aquaculture movement itself is unequal. Globally we do not share a common understanding of our goal. We do not have a common perspective about food safety. We do not have a common perspective on the importance of environmental stewardship and sustainability. Part of the challenge is the great disparity in education, knowledge and governance among nations. The World Bank has estimated various levels of governance among nations. It will come as no surprise that developing countries pale in comparison to developed countries. This is important because governments often set the scientific foundations for public and environmental safety. They also establish and enforce standards of behavior. Seafood is a global commodity and, in the US, over 90 percent of all the seafood consumed here comes from other countries. How that 90 percent is grown or captured colors consumer perceptions. For most consumers in general, seafood is seafood regardless of where it comes from. That being the case, the negative aspects of capture fishing also impact perceptions. Over-fishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud at the retail or foodservice end color public perceptions. Regardless of where the seafood comes from, poor taste, quality, safety or environmental stewardship negatively impact consumer trust. If someone eats some poor-quality seafood or discovers they have been misled because of seafood fraud, they are unlikely to try seafood again. The consumer loses trust and, once trust is lost, it is very difficult to earn it back. Since inequality is a fact of life, we must continue our efforts to educate each other and to ensure we have a common goal. Over the past 30 years of trial and error, of scientific investigation and regulatory actions, we have generated an extensive knowledge base. We need to share that knowledge. The mistakes of the past, while they have left a legacy that we must work to address, must not be repeated for lack of knowledge. We must discipline ourselves to be ethically minded and use good farming practices. Increased seafood consumption the past 30 years, aquaculture production has grown globally from 5 million t to over 63 million t per year. That really is amazing. Why should seafood consumption be encouraged? How do we continue to grow seafood consumption and, in particular, how do we meet the needs of consumers? We must continually appeal to consumer hearts and minds as well as their palate. We must be concerned with their perceptions of value. How can we excite consumers about our products? Why should a consumer value our product so much that they are willing to invest or spend limited discretionary dollars on seafood? If they were dissatisfied with seafood before, how do we get them to try again? Consumer decision processes are varied and sometimes rather complex. Regardless, trust is fundamental to their decision. I recently reviewed a manuscript in which an attorney attempted to explain why aquaculture existed and what it needed to do to be successful over the next 50 years. After reading the paper a couple of times, I got angry. The attorney had relied on case law and regulations but what was most disturbing was that he relied on popular literature, internet drivel, and TV celebrities to support his arguments and educate himself about aquaculture. Then he had the nerve to pronounce the reason for aquaculture was clearly to take the place of capture fisheries. I tried to be objective and conceded that his conclusion was at least partially correct. Aquaculture does supplement wild capture fisheries and can in fact help save wild fish, but that is not the only reason for its value. Even in my agitated state, I could readily identify a host of additional values associated with farmed seafood. As I thought about it further, it occurred to me that perhaps we in the aquaculture movement itself forget or don’t know the fundamental reason why we farm seafood. As I look back over the last 30-40 years, I am impressed by the druids and their impact on our movement. A druid is an educated person or someone who likes to present themselves as educated, too often a spokesperson for an environmental group, sometimes an attorney or a TV celebrity. Alternative media refer to them as “truth warriors.” All too often they are opportunists who present themselves as an authority and someone that can be trusted. Druids are pseudoscientists that use vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims to argue their position. Their acceptance by some in the public appears to arise in part from distrust with national governments. In general, druids argue that we must slow down and reverse the damage and disruption wrought by the modern world. Relative to aquaculture, the druids argue for a return to the past, a return to hunter and gatherer practices. They have enlisted an unquestioning press, the internet and social media to disseminate their misinformed and misleading opinions. The druids have secured quite a following and they have created a perspective that somehow aquaculture is a bad thing. What is disconcerting is that druids have made people worry about the wrong things. They have harnessed the human capacity for superstition and fear to scare people into doing stupid things, such as avoiding seafood. The bigger question is who should be defining aquaculture to the public — the druids or us? Several years ago there was a concerted effort to discredit the food safety of farmed salmon. Research, funded by an eNGO, was published in a scientifically prestigious journal that identified measureable amounts of organochlorine compounds in (CONTINUED ON PAGE 20)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=