Green Seafood

Some may assume that farming fish, rather than over-fishing wild stocks, would be the most environmentally friendly option, but as with many things “Green”, sustainable seafood choices are not so black or white. In some cases the eco-option is a sustainable wild catch, in others, fish farming as practiced in Canada, US, or Australia may be best. To help us make green choices at the fish counter, many environmental organizations offer lists of what species, fishing practices, or geographic origins to avoid. See the pocket sized Sea Choice Alert Card, Greenpeace Canada’s Redlist, or Seafood Watch which even has a downloadable app for your iPhone[i]!

Aquaculture, or fish farming, can be a sustainable option depending on the species and country of production. The Sea Choice’s Alert Card include farmed species such as Tilapia and Trout, of US origins, as well as clams, mussels, and oysters, as a Best Choice[ii]. However, when it comes to salmon, one of the most popular fish choices in Canada, aquaculture has spawned a new breed of environmental hazards. With salmon aquaculture dominating Canadian production and Canada being the fourth largest producer of Atlantic salmon in the world, this is a home-grown issue[iii].

Commercial salmon farms are not self-contained ecosystems; they are often floating, open-net cage pens in the ocean. Therefore, the effects of farming, such as waste matter, uneaten feed, and dead fish, are felt in the open ocean; oxygen-deprived environments, or dead-zones, can extend up to 200 metres beyond the limits of the salmon nets. The long list of the negative impacts of salmon farming include pollution of chemicals, escape of farmed fish into the wild population, marine mammal deaths, waste-build up on the ocean floor, algae blooms, over use of anti-biotics, and the spread of disease and parasites[iv]. To make matters worse, the location of these farms along shore and coastlines corresponds to some of the most delicate and bio-diverse marine environments, including mangroves, coral reefs, and wetlands, which are destroyed in the process[v]. Finally, salmon are carnivorous, and are fed wild-caught fish, a practice which merely depletes the wild stock of other species in order to create salmon protein[vi].
One of the most devastating effects of salmon farming has been the transmission of parasites, predominantly sea lice, from the adult farmed population to the juvenile wild population, which encounter the open nets as they leave their home rivers and enter the ocean for the first time. According to the David Suzuki Foundation, sea lice has killed more than 98 percent of the wild pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, in British Columbia as the result of nearby salmon farms. Needless to say, wild salmon populations along the coast may be wiped out if these rates of disease transmission continue[vii]. Globally, salmon farming has reduced wild salmon and trout populations by up to 70 percent in several areas, threatening the endangered populations farming was designed to protect[viii].

There are sustainable aquaculture solutions which don’t place the burdens of production, such as waste disposal and chemical pollution, on the open environment. Primarily, these methods involve a shift to closed production systems. Closed containment saltwater aquaculture systems can grow salmon with little or no interaction with the surrounding marine environment[ix]. Other closed system options include multi-tropic aquaculture, aquaponics or integrated rice-fish cultures, all of which derive ways to channel waste products into plant cultivation without contaminating the local environment, thus producing a healthy and sustainable food production system[x].

Of those species on Greenpeace Canada’s Redlist, farmed Atlantic salmon is among the five species consumed in the highest quantity (the others being shrimp, scallops, tuna, and Atlantic Cod [xi]. Since Canadian shoppers are buying so much salmon, making the decision to buy wild over farmed salmon can have a significant impact on the demand for sustainably harvested seafood. Demanding clear and detailed labelling at the fish counter is enables a sustainable choice. Customers need the common and scientific names of fish species, the catch area, fish stock status (over-fished, threatened, depleted), type of aquaculture used (open-net vs. closed containment), fishing method used (trawl or long line), and date of catch.

Environmentalists have been heralding the collapse of wild fish populations for decades but the rise in misguided farming techniques make matters worse. From land, the vast oceans can appear lifeless and fish are generally not considered cuddly, so activists struggle to bring marine issues to the fore and convince the public that the fish, the oceans, and all life within it are in crisis. Send a message to those over-exploiting and harming the world’s marine environments and choose wild salmon and other sustainable fish and seafood products at the grocery store and ask for a comprehensive labelling system to help you make those sustainable choices.

[i] Seafood Watch iPhone App http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_iPhone.aspx); Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR) Image farmed and danergous.org
[ii] SeaChoice Alert Card http://www.seachoice.org/profile/result?rating=1
[iii] Greenpeace Canada “Out-of-Stock” page 12 http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/out-of-stock-the-report
[iv] CAAR http://farmedanddangerous.org/
[v] “Out-of-Stock” page 10
[vi] “Out-of-Stock” page 10; “Fish Farms” Creative Commons Licence Flickr by Voux
[vii] David Suzuki Foundation “Closing in on Environmentally Sound Aquaculture” page 5 http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Publications/Closing_in_aquaculture.asp
[viii] “Out-of-Stock” page 10
[ix] “Out-of-Stock” page 13
[x] Greenpeace Canada “Challenging the Aquaculture Industry on Sustainability” page 16 http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/challenging-aquaculture
[xi]“Out-of-Stock” 19

How green are your foods?

The following is piece I wrote for Earth Day Canada - link to come soon!


Organic vs. Local Foods

We all know people who eat organic or shop at farmers’ markets who might not necessarily have the environment at the forefront of their mind. They are chasing crisp produce or rare home-made cheeses, but such a passion for food can be a great asset to the environmental movement.

This growing interest in where our food comes from and how it’s grown is going mainstream. Whether you strive to be a green gastronome, or are strong enough to be able to put planet ahead of palate, you may be wondering which is better, buying organic or local?

According to the Canadian Organic Growers (www.cog.ca), organic agriculture is a “production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people”[i]. Organics are not just meant to taste better or make you feel healthy, they are meant to sustainably work with, not against, the environment.

That means that genetically engineered organisms, synthetic fertilizers, and the pesticides of “conventional” modern agriculture are not permitted in organic production. Organic farms aren’t leeching pesticides, nutrients, manure, and antibiotics into our soils, ground water, rivers, lakes, and ultimately into the organisms supported by the local environment[ii]. In a world where hundreds of new chemicals are created every year, anything that can reduce toxin levels in our atmosphere and water systems is great news.

Furthermore, the Rodale Institute, a leader in organics education in the U.S., has reported that organic farming systems use 30% less fossil fuels than other farming systems[iii]. This decrease is predominantly attributed to the lack of nitrogen fertilizers in organic farming, as the synthesis of nitrogen requires substantial energy.

Finally, organic farming directly reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as it fixes more carbon in the soil than conventional agricultural practice[iv].

Whether it’s organic or factory farmed, locally grown food travels fewer kilometres to reach your plate, and less fossil fuel consumption reduces our greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing our carbon footprint is perhaps the most tangible and recognizable environmental benefit of buying local, but there are other benefits such as supporting your local economy and providing farmers with a stable consumer-base.

By choosing local and sustainably grown foods, you are supporting a production system that reduces or eliminates synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, avoids use of hormones, antibiotics, and genetic engineering, and conserves soil and water. Because the local food movement is also intrinsically linked with farmers’ rights and labour issues, a sustainable food system must also provide safe and fair working conditions for on-farm labour, ensure healthy and humane care for livestock, protect and enhance wildlife habitat and biodiversity within farmland, and reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions[v].


Local Food Plus (LFP) (www.localfoodplus.ca) is a non-profit organization connecting consumers and farmers to share in the benefits of environmentally and socially responsible food production. Although arguably more lenient on chemical use than organic governing bodies, the LFP philosophy promotes a total food system movement; it’s the culmination of all green-minded food production, with economic and social responsibility all rolled in[vi]. The LFP logo on products and in restaurants identifies the sale of sustainable, in-province foods, and although only in use in Ontario, will soon be found across the country.

Local foods have a light carbon footprint, but in Canada a locally grown banana, organic or otherwise, is impossible to find. Making a green grocery list in the dead of winter is a challenge, so until spring arrives and we’re able to buy much more local produce, seek out sustainable foods where you can.

Failing that, choose organic products over those grown without chemical and genetic assistance.


__________________________________________

[i] The details of what can or cannot be done or used in the production of an organic product in Canada, identified as the Canadian Organic Standards, can be found online at the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada: Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada January 30th, 2009. http://www.organicagcentre.ca/std_canadian.asp
[ii] Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada , Greenpeace Canada: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge
[iii] Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada; Rodale Institute: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/
[iv] Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada; Rodale Institute: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/
[v] Local Foods Plus http://www.localfoodplus.ca/why_local_sustainable_food.htm
[vi] Local Foods Plus
Photo by Kristin Slota

Earth Day Eco-Kids Project

Some of you may recall that sometime in December I was compiling a list of 365+ eco-facts to be used for the Earth Day Canada Eco-Kids website. The project idea was to amass a kid-friendly Canadian environmental fact for every day of the year. I learned alot of porcupines in that time!

Since January '09 these facts have been rotating through the Eco-Kids website. Check 'em out at: http://www.ecokids.ca/pub/kids_home.cfm

(Photo credit flickr member Enoch Ross Creative Common licence).

Corn Facts

The first invaluable thing I have learned from the first chapter of Omnivore’s Dilemma is: Corn is everywhere. Of the 45,000 items present in the average grocery store, one quarter contain corn (p. 18). The combination of modern chemicals and decades of corn surplus have produced a miraculously homogenous list of food products and ingredients.

In his first chapter, Pollan presents a historically and socially informed explanation of how and why there is so much corn. His investigation covers the plight of the modern farmer, the role of government subsidies, the capitalization of agriculture, and the desires of the modern corn consumer. But what stuck with me, is the unnatural accident of corn’s oligarchy. From the haphazard mutation which created the first kernels, from the characteristics which made it attractive to and simultaneously dependent on man, to its too-good-to-be-true genetic engineering potential, corn’s international success does not originate from the wheel of genetic fortune, but from its symbiotic interaction with earth’s dominant species, man.

Corn, or Zea mays, is the result of a mutation of an origin species, believed to be the teosinte plant. This mutation resulted in the large cobs with large kernels that provide storable nutrients but which require our attention to husk and distribute the seeds (p. 27). At the same time, the distance from the pollen producing tassel to the pollen receiving corn silk just invites interference from us, something Native Americans started doing to produce hybrids with desired features. Fast-forward to the early twentieth century, when corn breeders figured out how to cross two, inbred strains of corn to create the seeds of the so-called the F-1 Generation. Fortuitously, the F-1 plant produces identical plants and higher yields, but also, creates a F-2 generation seeds which produces less than one third the yield of their parents. Therefore, in order to produce competitive yields, F-1 corn seed must be bought each year from a breeder. This discovery represents a significant turning point in the history of corn agriculture and its intersection with capitalism; by producing a seed which cannot reproduce itself, agri-breeding companies’ transformed corn from an agricultural product into a commodity and ultimately, intellectual property. As Pollan states, this was the “biological equivalent to a patent” (p 31). What has become clear to me was that corn's rise to dominance in our fields and our diets was anything but natural.

About a decade ago, during three weeks of early, damp, and hot summer mornings, I unknowingly participated in this corporate creation of corn. As a corn detasseler, I was paid to walk up and down every-other row in a corn field, removing the tassels of the ‘female’ plant in order that the pollen from the ‘male’ plants would fertilize the whole field, producing an F-1 generation of hybrid corn seeds. At the time, I understood the simple science behind hybridization, but not how I was part of the vast industrial corn-chain. Standing in dark pre-dawn field, dwarfed by the corn stalks and soaked by dew, I felt close to nature, part of the ancient practice of agriculture, and I felt surrounded by food. However, it seems that a simple food chain no longer exists. That corn field was not full of food, but full of potential, somewhat absurdly, it was full of the potential to make more corn. The kernels I helped produce that summer must have had enough potential yield, and critically, enough potential profit to warrant two growing seasons of effort and time, rather than one. It is at this point, when Mother-nature is no longer ruler of that field, that the farm becomes factory.

While tracing the origins of corn to farmer in Iowa, Pollan experiences a similar disillusionment. There, the average farmer keeps 129 Americans in corn and soy beans, but they cannot survive as a family of four (p. 34). When we think of the Canadian Prairies and the American Mid-West we think of pioneers and rolling fields of wheat waving in the wind, and we think of that as a natural landscape, worked by people of the earth. Standing in corn fields, an activity now part of my day-job (see profile pic), used to make me feel connected to the cycle of life between sun, soil, and sustenance, but that is an outsider’s antiquated understanding of agriculture. Today, corn fields are mechanically and chemically managed factories, the same as any plastics or carpet works. The green leaves and dark soils of rural North America are just a facade, because those waxy leaves are coated in pesticides, some derived from their corn ancestors, and the dirt is black with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, not the organic leavings of plants gone before.

We must put aside our pastoral delusion of the family farmer coaxing life and sustenance from the land and open our eyes to the reality of industrialized agriculture. Agri-business has superseded the relationship between man and nature in favour of cross-continental consistency and even higher yields at lower cost and, of course, more profit. If over the last one hundred years the countryside had been walled in, and roofed over to create manufacturing floors and warehouses, would we have been so complacent in the Factorization of our food chain? I don't think so.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

One of the most championed pieces of literature linking our current food culture to the reality of our environment and our health is "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. I'm reading it upon strong recommendations and no doubt some of this dilemma will inform my own choices in consumption.

Although having only completed the introduction, one poignant quote has stuck with me: "Daily, our eating turns nature into culture, transforming the body of the world into our bodies and minds" (p. 10).

To me this sentence synthesizes much of the allure and power of cuisine has over us; culture is the pivot point that all our food choices hinges on, going back and forth between the nodes of pleasure, convenience, nutrition, and emotion. We all struggle to find the balance and this enculturation of food is a trait unique to the human. Although primatologists have proven to us that chimpanzees cracking nuts for food is a learned behavior passed down through generations, the nutcracker chimp's experience cannot compare to what it means for a Neapolitan to prepare a hierloom spaghetti, or to drink Champagne direct from France, or even what it means to impulsively wheel into a McDonald's drive-through. Food, and the preparation, serving, eating, and presentation of it, is a most ritualized realm. We are what we eat, not just in terms of molecules and vitamins, but also in identity.

Pollan poses that the current North American pathological obsession with eating is bred of a lack of strong food culture. Without rooted traditions holding us to tried and true recipes for proper nutrition coupled with soul-soothing family favourites that cater to our physical and sentimental needs, we North Americans were left wide open to the influx of a modern express culture of take-out and frozen entrees, a culture impoverished in nutrients and narrative.

This explains a universal reluctance to reject our long-time touch-stone staples such as pot-pie or cupcakes in favour of a low-fat, low-culture diet. Even our fast-food nation has infused food with meaning, and we desire the consumption of that meaning daily, sometimes hourly, to reinforce our place and persona within the world. This addiction has created an American-sized portion of health problems and environmental strain. It's time for us to start counting calories and redefine our consumption culture, to satisfy and nourish both body and soul.