Sustainable Seafood: The Thread

Sustainable Seafood: The Thread

I remember sitting, a desultory youth, in the Elmhurst College cafeteria meeting with Alan Fenske and the local SDS chapter. The class society was coming to an end, and we planned to accelerate that process by any means necessary (though the means seemed pretty much limited to talking, smoking Luckies, drinking coffee). I asked Fenske if he believed in “progress,” and he looked at me as though I were crazy; in the Marxist worldview, history is a nightmare from which we’re trying to awake, and things are just getting worse all the time.

I stopped accepting that pessimistic view of history a long time ago. I think America is all about optimism: this is not a political statement on an apolitical forum; it’s inherent in the idea of pursuing happiness as a right; it’s sanctioned and enspirited by the saints of our national congregation: Thomas, Benjamin, John. We are encouraged, entitled to make things better…and we really should.

Driving to Des Moines last weekend, I saw mile after mile of windmills, and huge blades on flatbed trucks headed east to Chicago, laying down more alternative means of making the power we’re accustomed to having at our fingertips. That, it seemed, is progress, a sure step forward that will make the world better for me and my kids and their kids. No one is saying we humans shouldn’t make the the world ours, use it; we just have to use it smarter. We are not, after all, chimps.



Last year, I posted about my efforts to eat sustainable seafood at Sen Sushi in Oak Park. My experiences at Sen Sushi were also used in a segment I produced on Worldview, WBEZ, and at about the same time Mike Gebert turned out a beautiful two-part vid series that addressed the topic on Sky Full of Bacon.

I found Lisa Shames’s article about how Chicago chefs are focusing on sustainable seafood for their menus to be encouraging, enlivening, espiriting. Trader Joe’s, chefs like Nahabedian, Bayless, and even massive mega-companies like Wal-Mart, for goodness sake, are all saying hell no, we won’t let deliciousness go down the drain, sacrificed stupidly to thoughtless eating. We’re going to make the effort, take a stand to make sure the fish served and eaten are not just thoughtless steps toward to the extinction of species.

And it’s getting easier. Even easier than it was last year. It’s encouraging.

Doing a small thing -- like ordering mackerel instead of blue fin sushi – is a small step, and maybe it’s just a bourgeois fantasy that such a miniscule effort would make a difference, but if we refuse to eat fish that’s disappearing, if we ask our chefs whether what they’re serving us is an endangered species, if they even fucking know, which too many times they simply don’t, well, it’s a small thing, but small things are really all you and me can do, tiny creatures in a huge world that we are.

Anyway, I think the sustainable seafood “movement” is a very good thing. This isn’t about the nanny state dictating diets, or preachy pains-in-the-ass telling you about what you should or shouldn’t eat; it’s about making the little decisions in buying and eating habits that may have repercussive, rippling influences upon the chefs and fishmongers in Chicago – and it may generate a correspondingly massive and literally infinitely beneficial, future-changing tsunami of consequences for the seas from which we have all crawled.

Progress can be made. I’m in. More are flowing in everyday. Join us.

David Hammond wrote:Driving to Des Moines last weekend, I saw mile after mile of windmills, and huge blades on flatbed trucks headed east to Chicago, laying down more alternative means of making the power we’re accustomed to having at our fingertips. That, it seemed, is progress, a sure step forward that will make the world better for me and my kids and their kids.

Too bad that is not the case. Electicity is an on demand power requirement. People expect their lights to go on when they flip the switch, not when the wind picks up. There are a lot of these monstrosities in Europe, and they are roundly hated by the local populace for their ugliness, noise pollution, and lack of performance. Just another government ripoff and con job.

Cogito wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Driving to Des Moines last weekend, I saw mile after mile of windmills, and huge blades on flatbed trucks headed east to Chicago, laying down more alternative means of making the power we’re accustomed to having at our fingertips. That, it seemed, is progress, a sure step forward that will make the world better for me and my kids and their kids.

Too bad that is not the case. Electicity is an on demand power requirement. People expect their lights to go on when they flip the switch, not when the wind picks up. There are a lot of these monstrosities in Europe, and they are roundly hated by the local populace for their ugliness, noise pollution, and lack of performance. Just another government ripoff and con job.

Electricity cannot be stored or resold when plentiful? Really? Ugly? Or uglier than oil derricks? Matter of taste; I disagree.

David Hammond wrote:Electricity cannot be stored or resold when plentiful? Really? Ugly? Or uglier than oil derricks? Matter of taste; I disagree.

No, it cannot be stored, how would you store it? Ugly, yes, compared to nature. If you prefer the look of derricks, that is your right. I think both are ugly.

Cogito wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Electricity cannot be stored or resold when plentiful? Really? Ugly? Or uglier than oil derricks? Matter of taste; I disagree.

No, it cannot be stored, how would you store it? Ugly, yes, compared to nature. If you prefer the look of derricks, that is your right. I think both are ugly.

Okay, I'm not going to get into the technical considerations or different aesthetic values of windmills vs. oil derricks. That wasn't the point of the thread, which I realize I may have obscured with this analogy.

What are you thoughts on sustainable seafood?

Not sure if Florida stone crabs are sustainable(I really dont pay attention to the lists), but I think they are, so I am doing my part to save the world one claw at a time.


As for the windmills, I am in favor of them, there are over 60 of them on the other side of the river from where I live(as well as 3 or 4 nuclear plants, which I also fully support, that supply much of chicago's electricity). The farmers around me are split on them, some think they are eyesores, & dangerous to birds, etc. Most seem to stop complaining when they get the rent checks for the space they take up. Plus they like that they still get to farm the land around them, and keep Chicago & suburban yuppies from buying up the land to build condo's and strip malls.

jimswside wrote:Not sure if Florida stone crabs are sustainable(I really dont pay attention to the lists), but I think they are, so I am doing my part to save the world one claw at a time.

Florida stone crab claws may in many cases be sustainable; here's info, in non-list format for your reading pleasure ( ): http://gourmetfood.suite101.com/article ... rab_season

I appreciate that you've framed this discussion as one of personal responsibility. Perhaps that technique can cross political lines and do more to push consumers toward actions that will ensure healthy seas now and in the future.

And I love mackerel.

My go-to list for info on seafood sustainability is the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Stone crabs are, indeed, sustainable:

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/S ... aspx?gid=8

One day we will be able to use batteries to store electricity in large scale.

Darren72 wrote:
By the way, isn't there an inherent contradiction in yuppies buying farmland? The "u" in yuppies stands for "urban". But I get what you are saying: you only want certain types of people living near you.

Perhaps a farmers definition of what a yuppie is isnt the dictionaries..

As a side note there is lots of cheap/unfarmed land for interested individuals to come out west and set up their own organic farms. The Growing Home organization already runs a small organic farm a few miles from my house.

http://www.growinghomeinc.org

David Hammond wrote:

Cogito wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Electricity cannot be stored or resold when plentiful? Really? Ugly? Or uglier than oil derricks? Matter of taste; I disagree.

No, it cannot be stored, how would you store it? Ugly, yes, compared to nature. If you prefer the look of derricks, that is your right. I think both are ugly.

Okay, I'm not going to get into the technical considerations or different aesthetic values of windmills vs. oil derricks. That wasn't the point of the thread, which I realize I may have obscured with this analogy.

What are you thoughts on sustainable seafood?

I know a lot more about wind turbines than I do about sustainable seafood. I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, but a lot of folks have a positive impression of WT because they seem green, clean, nonpolluting, etc. But the bottom line is that they are a scam, spending tax monies on something with no return. But enough on that.

I like the idea of sustainable seafood, if done properly, and am going to read up on it so that I can have an informed opinion. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Darren72 wrote:My go-to list for info on seafood sustainability is the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Stone crabs are, indeed, sustainable:

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/S ... aspx?gid=8

Monterey Bay guide is excellent, very detailed and regularly updated.

No criticism intended, but I shy away from absolutes like "X is sustainable" because it always seems necessary to qualify that statement with reference to geographic region where X is harvested, how it's harvested, etc. For instance, Alaska Cod that's longline caught is a "Best choice," but Alaska Cod that's wild-caught is "Avoid."

It's not hard to see why some just throw up their hands and refuse to even consider sustainability when making buying decisions. It can be confusing.

I think stone crab, though, is a pretty easy call. I mean, they only take a claw (which grows back).

jesteinf wrote:I think stone crab, though, is a pretty easy call. I mean, they only take a claw (which grows back).

True, but my understanding is that a specific creature's sustainability "rating" is based not just on their numbers (i.e., stone crabs need not be killed to harvest claws so they seem eminently sustainable as a species) but that the rating also takes into account the amount of habitat destruction, bycatch, and other factors related to the harvesting of the creature.

David Hammond wrote:
No criticism intended, but I shy away from absolutes like "X is sustainable" because it always seems necessary to qualify that statement with reference to geographic region where X is harvested, how it's harvested, etc. For instance, Alaska Cod that's longline caught is a "Best choice," but Alaska Cod that's wild-caught is "Avoid."

It's not hard to see why some just throw up their hands and refuse to even consider sustainability when making buying decisions. It can be confusing.

Agreed. I didn't do the discussion of stone crabs justice. As you noted, the Monterey website actually classifies sea creatures by geography and harvesting methods. I just didn't bother to note these distinctions.

Actually, there *are* schemes to store electricity, other than batteries. One that I think is neat is a closed system which uses incoming power to pump water into an elevated reservoir, then lets gravity pull it through a generator on its way to a lower reservoir. Obviously some losses, but an interesting idea that is getting some development.

If wind power is a scam, it's news to the folks who live on Samsø.

Back on topic: We're lucky because at the Marché Jean-Talon here in Montréal a fishing family from the Gaspesie brings over every weekend in season their fresh caught snow crab, cod, haddock and moules—plus, of course, locally smoked wild-caught salmon. It's an entirely family enterprise, carried out by folks who are doing it right. Talk about fresh! Of course it costs more, but, as Hammond suggests, one has a moral choice.

Geo

Like many, I’ve been watching with horror the impending environmental disaster that threatens to slime the Gulf coast and populations of already unsustainable seafood species (e.g., bluefin tuna, shark).

It’s been said before, and a disaster like this makes it dramatically apparent, that the more we luxuriate in cheap nonlocal foods, brought to us in petro-fueled conveyances, the more we ourselves are to blame for disasters like this. Using petro-resources irresponsibly takes lots of forms, and having food shipped in from far away because the price seems relatively cheap is irresponsible. There are hidden costs, and the bill for those otherwise concealed costs is coming due off the coast of Louisiana at this moment.

I had lunch at Naha with an attorney friend a while back. He's been a buddy since college, and I find him a vastly amusing character, but his attitude is, basically, fuck the environment; I'm here for a little while and, as long as it's legal, I'm going to do and eat whatever the hell I please. There's no way to argue against the postion of I Just Don't Care. If, however, you do care, then trying to consume less gas for dinner is one of the small things we can do to help avert the kind of tragedy covering the Gulf.

Im worried about all the gulf coast oysters, shrimp and wildlife being threatened for sure, but I am also worried about having to pay $3.50/gallon+ for fuel, and what gas prices like that would do to the economy which is finally starting to sputter to life. its a catch 22.

David Hammond wrote:Like many, I’ve been watching with horror the impending environmental disaster that threatens to slime the Gulf coast and populations of already unsustainable seafood species (e.g., bluefin tuna, shark).

It’s been said before, and a disaster like this makes it dramatically apparent, that the more we luxuriate in cheap nonlocal foods, brought to us in petro-fueled conveyances, the more we ourselves are to blame for disasters like this. Using petro-resources irresponsibly takes lots of forms, and having food shipped in from far away because the price seems relatively cheap is irresponsible. There are hidden costs, and the bill for those otherwise concealed costs is coming due off the coast of Louisiana at this moment.

I had lunch at Naha with an attorney friend a while back. He's been a buddy since college, and I find him a vastly amusing character, but his attitude is, basically, fuck the environment; I'm here for a little while and, as long as it's legal, I'm going to do and eat whatever the hell I please. There's no way to argue against the postion of I Just Don't Care. If, however, you do care, then trying to consume less gas for dinner is one of the small things we can do to help avert the kind of tragedy covering the Gulf.

Well said David. I too have been following news of the sludge with a sense of shame and disgust. I don't know how much that off-shore platform contributed to our energy consumption, but I have a feeling that whatever the amount it wasn't worth the impending disaster.

As for the "fuck the environment" people, some of whom are close friends, all I can say is fuck them. They can continue living their living their lives in the moral abyss of indifference. I'd rather croak knowing that I used the brain god (or nature) gave me for critical-self reflection, and to try to alter my life to be more in harmony with others and the environment. That may sound smug to some, but that has more to do with the cynicism of our sensibilities than anything else.

jimswside wrote:Im worried about all the gulf coast oysters, shrimp and wildlife being threatened for sure, but I am also worried about having to pay $3.50/gallon+ for fuel, and what gas prices like that would do to the economy which is finally starting to sputter to life. its a catch 22.

We found that one way to get around high gas prices is, simply, to use less gas. I'm fortunate to live in an area that is criss-crossed with public transit options...and I like to ride my bike (for local jaunts, it's just about as fast as taking a car, less costly and healthier for me and the planet).

I sold my car last year and have not bought a new one. I have not seen any negative consequences of foregoing an automobile. Everytime I turn on the television, liklihood is high I'll see a car commercial; we've been tricked into thinking that an automobile is a birthright and that we must have one. Now, of course, many people do need cars every day, but I don't believe that any of us needs a car as much as we think we do and if enough people use their cars less, there will be less demand and, one hopes, less need to drill, baby, drill.

Boy, it sure is tough to figure out how to participate in this thread in a culinary rather than politically focused way. To me, if there was an over-politicization line it has already been crossed, so I might as well jump in.

The thread started out by claiming that the "movement" is not about nanny states, but about individual actions instead. I disagree. Large-scale government actions are responsible for our current state of fuel reliance, and it will take a reversal of those actions to make a difference. At the heart of the issue is free trade, including NAFTA and other large scale trade agreements. Want people to reply less on foreign foodstuff? Stop creating policies that practically mandate that we do so. We need a nanny state to tell us that we can no longer buy fish processed in countries with labor practices that most here find unethical. We need a nanny state to mandate that if you buy a Mexican tomato when tomatoes are available in your own backyard, you will pay a ridiculously high tariff which makes that tomato cost more, not less. “Free” trade has had a bigger price tag than most people realize.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say, David - is it seafood from, say, southeast Asia that you are talking about being the petro evil, or seafood from Louisiana?

'Cuz personally I don't see seafood consumption going away, and while I'm all for eating local, there's more to life than whitefish and catfish, so ... are you in favor of supporting the economy of the Gulf coast area and purchasing seafood from there rather than imported Asian seafood, or are you in favor of reducing consumption of any seafood from anywhere that has to travel by boat, train, and truck to get here?

I'm all for reducing gasoline consumption as well, but don't see a clear cause-and-effect argument in what you've said ... unless I missed it entirely ...? Is it the drilling for oil off the Louisiana coast that you're arguing against?

back on the real topic here.

I had some free time and took a good look @ the Monterey Bay Aquarium list, and I actually eat/cook alot of sustainable seafood at home as it is.. without knowing it. I think alot of us do because we take the time to search out the best ingredients when we cook at home & these tend to be on the recommended list. Among the items I found I already use/cook/eat are : crabs, clams, oysters, yellow perch, walleye, scallops, shrimp, crawfish.

Eating out... this may be a problem, I know I enjoy a grouper sandwich or 10 when I am in Florida, and it is listed as bad, same goes for some snapper.

Katie wrote:I'm all for reducing gasoline consumption

That's all I'm saying, and clearly much of what I eat comes to me on some gas-powered vehicle, but to whatever extent I can reduce that usage, well, that seems to me to be a good thing.

My larger point is that I'm not pointing a finger at BP -- any one who wastes precious petroleum, in their cars on on their dinner tables (and that's pretty much all of us), is culpable to some extent. No breast-beating here, but a recognition that, once again, we've seen the enemy and he is us.

jimswside wrote:back on the real topic here.

I had some free time and took a good look @ the Monterey Bay Aquarium list, and I actually eat/cook alot of sustainable seafood at home as it is.. without knowing it. I think alot of us do because we take the time to search out the best ingredients when we cook at home & these tend to be on the recommended list. Among the items I found I already use/cook/eat are : crabs, clams, oysters, yellow perch, walleye, scallops, shrimp, crawfish.

Eating out this may be a problem, I know I enjoy a grouper sandwich or 10 when I am in Florida, and it is listed as bad, same goes for some snapper.

I asked the fish buyer at Shaw's Crab House if he thought sustainable seafood actually tasted better (it seemed like a dense question, but the guy took it seriously). He thought for a moment and then said, yes, sustainable seafood may taste better because it's caught and handled so carefully, it's less beat up, and so a sustainable piece of fish is going to have better texture, better taste.

To allay any pangs of conscience re: grouper -- it's my understanding that a lot of fish sold as grouper is not (kind of like red snapper, which is a notoriously mislabeled fish).

David Hammond wrote:
I asked the fish buyer at Shaw's Crab House if he thought sustainable seafood actually tasted better (it seemed like a dense question, but the guy took it seriously). He thought for a moment and then said, yes, sustainable seafood may taste better because it's caught and handled so carefully, it's less beat up, and so a sustainable piece of fish is going to have better texture, better taste.

To allay any pangs of conscience re: grouper -- it's my understanding that a lot of fish sold as grouper is not (kind of like red snapper, which is a notoriously mislabeled fish).

thanks for the tip on the grouper & snapper having a history of being mislabeled,

The info from the fish buyer @ Shaws makes sense, the more things cost or can be sold for changes how they are handled, and perhaps how they are brought to market(never frozen, etc.) Perhaps because the folks who are the end consumer are more picky in a good way, and more knowledgeable about the food they are buying/eating.

I went to Whole Foods yesterday to grab some farmed trout and while I was at the fish counter, noticed all of their signs touting sustainable and environmentally-responsible seafood. Then I noticed the center display overflowing with scallops on super special. I looked a little closer at the label for the scallops and saw "Dredged" in small print.

I asked the fishmonger about the statement of sustainability and environmental responsibility given their hocking dredged scallops intead of diver scallops and he said "Well... we aim to be as sustainable as we can. Usually. But... these are a one-time special thing. We do as best as we can, but I guess we could be doing better"

I'm under the impression that dredging has gotten better, but is still a pretty destructive process.

I doubt many people look too closely at the labels or would even know what "dredged" means. Whole Foods certainly sells the environmentally-responsible image, if not always an environmentally-responsible product.

-Dan

dansch wrote:I went to Whole Foods yesterday to grab some farmed trout and while I was at the fish counter, noticed all of their signs touting sustainable and environmentally-responsible seafood. Then I noticed the center display overflowing with scallops on super special. I looked a little closer at the label for the scallops and saw "Dredged" in small print.

I asked the fishmonger about the statement of sustainability and environmental responsibility given their hocking dredged scallops intead of diver scallops and he said "Well... we aim to be as sustainable as we can. Usually. But... these are a one-time special thing. We do as best as we can, but I guess we could be doing better"

I'm under the impression that dredging has gotten better, but is still a pretty destructive process.

I doubt many people look too closely at the labels or would even know what "dredged" means. Whole Foods certainly sells the environmentally-responsible image, if not always an environmentally-responsible product.

-Dan

interesting Dan,

I know when I got to the WF near my work around 7:00 p.m last night those scallops were pretty much sold out just some scallop scraps laying about, maybe folks didnt read the display, or ask questions like you did.

A sustainable sushi joint in Seattle: http://www.sushiwhore.com/

Chicago needs a sustainable sushi bar. In the right neighborhood (Bucktown, Logan Square, you know what I'm talking about), a place like this would tap into people's love of sushi and their green concerns.

It would be excellent if someone with the capital and vision (Rich Melman? Kevin Boehm? Jerry Kleiner?) would take it upon themselves to be the first in Chicago (and among the first anywhere in the country and probably the modern world) to create a sushi restaurant that would serve only sustainable seafood.

I presume some of those following this topic saw recent Mark Bittman blog post on the four s's of sustainable sushi: small, seasonal, silver-skinned, and shellfish.