TUNA WARS, Book now released

BOOK Pic Blog.png

TUNA WARS, the book of everything you wanted to know about Tuna, is now available…. As e-book and in hardcover. You can buy Tuna Wars using this link.

Tuna Wars is published amidst eye-catching developments in some of the ongoing epic tuna wars that figure in the book. The Dolphin Safe certification as well as the presumed price fixing conspiracy are the central issues to be judged in the current US court in cases against the Big Three American tuna canners, Bumble Bee, Starkist and Chicken of the Sea.

These wars will shake up the Tuna World. The federal judge ordered Starkist to pay a criminal fine of $100 million. More civil claims will add to the burden. ‘Charlie the Tuna’  Bumble Bee, the brand that has supplied tuna for generations of Americans, is about to collapse under the weight of the depending massive claims of retailers. Sorry Charlie! 

The Big Three are also being sued by consumers alleging that the Dolphin Safe label, probably the most widely used sustainability label on canned tuna worldwide, has been used in a way that very much resembles consumer fraud. Tuna Wars readers will come to understand the background of these battles and the impact and role that sustainability claims have in the wicked world of tuna. 

Meanwhile in Madrid, the Climate top is heading for a bumpy road towards goals that seem difficult to be accomplished. This poses new challenges for managing our global fish stocks, not in the least the tuna populations. Tuna Wars will provide the reader with updates on how we try govern our global stocks. Sometimes with remarkable success like in the case of bluefin tuna. But with policies and instruments that still need a lot of care and future development to become effective.  

Wherever tuna is hauled ashore, the sound of battles is never far away. Read more in Tuna Wars.

Tuna Wars: published by Springer editorial.

 

A plague of Giant Tuna?

Almadraba S.Adolf.jpg

Two recent statements on tuna made to me recently, on different occasions.  ‘I don’t think I will ever again eat tuna. I don’t want to be co-responsible for wiping out a species.’ One week later: ‘Tuna is becoming a plague. It is robbing all our fish!’. First statement is from a troubled consumer in Amsterdam. The second of a troubled fisherman at Spain’s southern coastal town of Barbate.

Welcome in the crazy world of tuna.

It was, again, all about bluefin. These weeks the bluefin tuna fishing campaign in the Mediterranean and the Street of Gibraltar comes to an end. ‘There is more bluefin tuna than even old fishermen can remember having seen with their own eyes’, says my friend Diego Crespo from the south Spanish port of Barbate. I know Diego for over twenty years from the times I first went with the almadraba, the classical trap net fisheries that one can still find here next to beautiful coasts of Cádiz. It has been there since the times of the Phoenicians. The Crespo family runs one the almadrabas from the port of Barbate, a fishery community at the Atlantic side of the Street of Gibraltar.

If there exist such a thing as a list of the most influential fish, bluefin would be without any doubt the number one star. Of all the tuna species this majestic impressive tuna giant, has been a source of power and conflict, as I describe in my book Tuna Wars. It is not only our most ancient fish conserve on an industrial scale, with an history that goes way back 3000 years. Iconic as it is, blue fin tuna is the driving force behind the idea of many fish loving consumers, that eating tuna actually has to be situated somewhere in between a secret pleasure and a criminal act of whipping out an entire species. Was tuna (without distinction) not on the boarder of extinction? And if so, are we all in fact bad, bad tuna-eaters?

The reality of blue fin tuna, tuna in general, is slightly different, as is illustrated right now at the end of the bluefin tuna season. The freezing facility in the port of Barbate is working on maximum capacity to deep freeze the tons of caught bluefin. The 175 kilograms bluefin tuna are shot in the closed chamber of the trap net, taken to port, cleaned and cut into loins and deep frozen. Diego Crespo is waiting to buy some additional quota of his fellow handline fishers from the Canary Island and after using that, the blue fin fisheries will close for another year. It went fast, like everywhere around the Mediterranean. So abundant was the bluefin tuna that the colleagues at the Spanish East Coast fished their quota in just one week.

So now the complaints start that there is too much bluefin tuna. The tuna-fisheries of course want to have higher quota. But other coastal fisheries in the area here _ like anchovies, sardines and other local fish_ even start to complain that the huge schools of blue fin are plundering their stocks. ‘It is almost a plague’, Diego Crespo said. As a describe in my book Tuna Wars this is not new. In the second half of last century fishermen at the coast of Northern France and Norway started to chase bluefin tuna in their waters, not so much to eat it, as well as to kill that huge predator that was eating their catches.

This is a whole kind of different story than Diego used to tell me in the first decade of the century. Year after year he complained, like many other bluefin fishers, that the catch was dropping. Bluefin was being overfished due to the explosive demand of the Japanese sushi-market. Massive illegal, unregistered and unregulated fishery ruled the market. Fraud reigned in bluefin tuna. But that was the situation a decade ago. Fortunately, the management of the fisheries, in this case by the regional tuna authority ICCAT, kicked in.  And Bluefin proved to be a stronger stock than many feared. The Eastern Atlantic population bounced back and the quota are now gradually set higher from 22.700 ton in 2017 to 36.000 ton in 2020.

You might discuss if the quota are on the safe side or not (NGOs like PEW do not think so). But it is a fact that bluefin is moving away from the abyss of extinction. What stays is the strong impact of the campaigns of the leading NGOs to save bluefin tuna. Even after ten years part of the general public _ in particular consumers in the western markets _ is still haunted by this uncomfortable feeling that ‘something is wrong’ eating tuna. Even now most consumers do not realize that it was bluefin that planted the seed of guilt in their brain anyway.

What lessons can we learn from the blue fin tuna? First and foremost: pressure from the consumers and NGOs can change the management of stocks for the better. Management of stocks can work. But also: there is still a lot work to do when it comes to informing the public on what stocks of tuna we can eat without a bad conscious. And on what other tuna is still under pressure or has other sustainability issues that make the consumption undesirable.

Last question: Do you eat bluefin tuna? Yes, I do. Not a lot, but incidentally, like tasting a good wine. And only when I am sure it is sourced from the traditional almadraba, which I consider a very sustainable way to fish, with hardly any bycatch and an important social and economic benefits for the local fisheries communities of the south of Spain. It is an amazing fish to eat. Go to the El Campero restaurant in Barbate, or one of the local tuna festivals and you understand what I mean.  Let us hope not everybody falls massively for the charms of the bluefin, because than we might run into a repetition of problems. The future will learn if the management is able to resist the market pressure and keep a healthy stock.

The end of Dolphin Safe in Tuna Wars?

Flipper.jpg

It may have taken several decades, but we now might be looking at the beginning of the wreckage of the Dolphin Safe label. This week American consumers started a class-action lawsuit for fraud and racketeering against the Big Three US tuna brands, Bumble Bee, Starkist and Chicken of the Sea. (http://disq.us/t/3epuvpx) The consumers feel deceived, we read in the complaint.  ‘The “Dolphin-Safe” label signifies that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured as a result of the catching of the tuna contained in their products. But the suppliers’ tuna fishing practices “kill or harm substantial numbers of dolphins each year.”  

Many in the tuna industry and the sustainable seafood movement with some knowledge about sustainable fisheries have been waiting for this moment. The Dolphin Safe label is already for years the elephant in the room of sustainable fisheries that most people prefer to deny. From a well-respected, successful certification in the nineties, that helped to eradicate the massive Dolphin slaughter in the Yellowfin tuna fisheries in the Eastern Pacific, the Dolphin Safe label evolved into a practically useless tool in making look all tuna fisheries more sustainable. It even is far from robust enough to guarantee its own claims for a totally dolphin harmless tuna fisheries.

This is serious business. The Dolphin Safe label can be found on tuna cans all over the world. It is probably the most widespread label, used by all the big tuna industry that is united in the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). If a court decides that Dolphin Safe proves to be a kind of compulsory greenwashing scheme, a tool mainly supporting market interests, this would have devastating effects on the credibility of sustainability certification in general. Why, the public will rightly ask, was this label allowed for such a long time on so many cans? How can we trust that other certifications are any better?

The success for using ‘Dolphin Safe’ comes to no surprise: it hardly cost any effort for the big brands, fisheries and traders in terms of measures to make their tuna business look more sustainable. The history of Dolphin Safe has its murky sides too: who did not want to ‘collaborate’ with the label and its organisation (Earth Island Institute) could face problems in the tuna business. So, it was better to let yourself squeezed into the scheme instead of making life difficult. Meanwhile the strong ‘Flipper’ related Dolphin Safe image managed to survive with fluffy journalism that supported its noble cause but was not able to unravel the powerplay behind the screens. Notable exceptions, like the 2015 K. William Watson article in Forbes (‘Dolphin Safe’ labels on Canned Tuna are a Fraud’) never got the attention they deserved.

In my book ‘Tuna Wars’, that will be published soon by Springer Nature, I write about the three ‘Flipper Wars’ that have raged in the tuna world. The Dolphin Safe label was an effective weapon for the tuna industry in these wars. The Big Three effectively used the label as a barrier for competitive Mexican imports entering their home market. Meanwhile, Dolphin Safe expanded from its origins in the Eastern Pacific to the Western and Central Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic, where the setting of nets on Dolphins never was an issue as such and the claims of the scheme (not one single dolphin killed or harmed!) where practically impossible and unmonitored. Meanwhile the big players used Dolphin Safe to hinder the entrance in the tuna fisheries of the much more robust certification of the MSC.  

Fraud and racketeering have still to be proved in court for sure. The case is messy. The consumer plaintiffs are very much underlining the objective of no harm to any dolphins whatever as the highest standard for sustainable tuna fisheries. They are right that the Big Three created a false representation of such a full proof dolphin safe fishery with the Dolphin Safe label. But they are wrong in suggesting that the MSC certification is also making a false statement when it comes to dolphins that are caught in tuna fisheries. This is missing the point: MSC is about sustainable tuna fisheries, not sustainable dolphin fisheries. It works with multiple standards that go far beyond the single issue of dolphin safety. From this point of view, also the idea that pole and line and handline are the only sustainable gears (as the plaintiffs argue) is far away from reality and practically useless.

It is now for the court to decide. Let us hope that at least its verdict facilitates a start to mop up the mess, and open ways for further development of credible sustainable tuna certification.