Seafood’s problems go beyond mercury

Skeptics derided actor Jeremy Piven when he gave up his Broadway gig in Speed-the-Plow, and blamed mercury toxicity from the large amounts of sushi he ate. This was among the most recent headlines of many through the years regarding the health risks—especially for women, moms-to-be, nursing mothers and young children—of eating certain kinds of fish. Trouble is, the headlines have rarely spurred the kind of regulatory reform, consumer guidance, or cohesive, standardized industry activities that would protect both the health of consumers and financial health of our domestic seafood industry. Too many politicized groups today issue conflicting messages about the measure of risk of eating specific seafood—and that only serves to mislead consumers and halt the real progress that needs to be taken. Saefood suppliers, food stores and regulators have much to address in a unified way, such as: How to rein in fishing practices that have gotten so out of hand that 40% of fish catch (including by-catch, the untargeted fish that get caught in nets and are thrown back, often injured, according to the World Wildlife Fund) is waste? Between overfishing, mercury toxicity and dirty salmon farms, the seafood supply chain is in shambles. That this massive inefficiency persists, when it seems obvious the oceans cannot sustain such recklessness, is absurd.

Skeptics derided actor Jeremy Piven when he gave up his Broadway gig in Speed-the-Plow, and blamed mercury toxicity from the large amounts of sushi he ate.

This was among the most recent headlines of many through the years regarding the health risks—especially for women, moms-to-be, nursing mothers and young children—of eating certain kinds of fish. Trouble is, the headlines have rarely spurred the kind of regulatory reform, consumer guidance, or cohesive, standardized industry activities that would protect both the health of consumers and financial health of our domestic seafood industry.

Too many politicized groups today issue conflicting messages about the measure of risk of eating specific seafood—and that only serves to mislead consumers and halt the real progress that needs to be taken. Saefood suppliers, food stores and regulators have much to address in a unified way, such as:

How to rein in fishing practices that have gotten so out of hand that 40% of fish catch (including by-catch, the untargeted fish that get caught in nets and are thrown back, often injured, according to the World Wildlife Fund) is waste? Between overfishing, mercury toxicity and dirty salmon farms, the seafood supply chain is in shambles. That this massive inefficiency persists, when it seems obvious the oceans cannot sustain such recklessness, is absurd.

SupermarketGuru.com proposes that governments, industry and scientists come together to collaborate on how to finally treat oceans and ocean life with long overdue respect. Just as much as the world has come around on global warming, a similarly intelligent, unemotional approach on seafood will help ensure the feeding of future generations. It will also reduce the industry’s excessive waste and moderate seafood’s prices, which reflect all that waste and keep many shoppers steering their carts into different aisles of the food store for their proteins.

Rare is the industry that could thrive with such incredible levels of product waste, practices that present health risks, or so many experts in disagreement over what is safe or unsafe to consume.

With World Oceans Day approaching on June 8, we feel this is an optimal time to infuse new action and new thinking into the seafood dilemma. Retailers can start by doing a better job of informing consumers about health risks.

Just 36% of major grocery stores nationwide post FDA advice about mercury in fish, according to a 2008 report by Oceana, an international ocean protection and restoration environmental advocacy group. The report applauds Kroger, Safeway, Costco and Whole Foods for their efforts, and calls out Publix, A&P and Giant Eagle for their closed-mouth approach.

Brochures, point-of-sale signs, website postings and staff training can help get the word out. Some chains might see this as dwelling on a negative that could hurt sales. We believe consumers would rather be able to make fact-based decisions about what to feed their families—and will trust the retailers more who inform them.