Fresh Fish Anyone?

updated artcles here

Have you watched the streaming Seaspiracy documentary about the global fishing industries yet? Having fact-checked Ali Tabrizi’s Netflix documentary you may want to fact-check the label on your Friday fish this week …


nytimes.com 24/3/2021 ‘Seaspiracy’ Review: Got Any Scandals? Go Fish. – A Netflix documentary takes viewers on a voyage around the world rooting out the many causes of ocean life decimation, but its rhetorical methods distract from its revelations. By Natalia Winkelman

The turbulent documentary “Seaspiracy,” streaming on Netflix, takes the form of an intercontinental odyssey filled with discoveries. The director Ali Tabrizi serves as our guide and impassioned narrator, and as he voyages from Asia to Europe and back, he strives to frame each revelation as more shocking than the last. What begins as a study of ocean debris becomes a tour of the numerous agents of marine destruction and corruption, from the millions of sharks killed as incidental catch to the conservation organizations that Tabrizi suggests are motivated by profits. But the film’s rhetorical style often feels like a cheap imitation of hard-hitting investigative journalism. “My only option was to follow the money,” Tabrizi declares, after successfully entrapping one organization’s representatives with leading questions.


greenpeace.org 1/4/2021 Seaspiracy the movie was chilling – but what can I do now? Ellie Hooper


bt.com.tv 1/4/2021 Seaspiracy: Why the Netflix documentary everyone is talking about will change the way you think about eating fish for ever – Its message is making people give up eating fish, but critics argue that Netflix hit Seaspiracy doesn’t stand up to a fact check. Is the documentary worth watching – and is it accurate?  By Alex Fletcher


theguardian.com 31/3/2021 Seaspiracy: Netflix documentary accused of misrepresentation by participants
NGOs and experts quoted in film say it contains ‘misleading’ claims, erroneous statistics and out-of-context interviews.
Ali Tabrizi, the director of Seaspiracy, defended the film and denied claims participants’ comments were taken out of context. – A Netflix documentary about the impact of commercial fishing has attracted celebrity endorsements and plaudits from fans with its damning picture of the harm the industry does to ocean life. But NGOs, sustainability labels and experts quoted in Seaspiracy have accused the film-makers of making “misleading claims”, using out-of-context interviews and erroneous statistics.


sustainablefisheries.uw.org 2/4/2021 The science of Seaspiracy by Emily De Sousa

The talk of the ocean world is Seaspiracy, a Netflix Original film produced by the same team responsible for Cowspiracy and What the Health. Like those two previous films, Seaspiracy is full of misinformation and has been panned by actual experts. Others have already addressed the racist and xenophobic undertones of the film, the egregious amount of time spent trying to weasel non-profit organizations into “gotcha” moments, the misrepresentation of their interview guests, and the general lack of integrity by the filmmakers to telling true stories.

This post will focus on addressing the misinformation presented in the film. Though I share the filmmaker’s passion for the oceans, our integrity and commitment to telling the truth are very different.


independent.co.uk 2/4/2021 If Seaspiracy persuades you to stop eating fish in order to save the environment, you are completely missing the point – Going plant-based only because you’ve realised it will benefit you is not veganism – it’s speciesism by Chas Newkey-Burden

For so long, the fishing industry has been overlooked in discussions about cruelty to animals. We hear more about the seven billion land animals killed for food each year. But now Seaspiracy has put fishing and seafood directly on the frontline. The Netflix documentary has blown the lid off the environmental impact of commercial fishing. The issues it raises with this cruel, predatory racket echo what we see in the farming and slaughter of land animals.

It shows that labels such as “dolphin-safe” tuna are meaningless because, as the very organisation that manages this authentication admits, people can be bribed into turning a blind eye to what really happens at sea. …

Seaspiracy also showed that parts of the fishing industry are using slave labour to catch shrimps and prawns. Again, this is mirrored on land. Studies show that workers in meat slaughterhouses often live in desperate circumstances and criminal groups have been trafficking foreign nationals to work in UK slaughterhouses.

As George Monbiot points out in Seaspiracy, we have an image of the fishing industry “deeply implanted in our minds from childhood” of a “little red boat, chugging along across a sparkling sea with Captain Birdseye at the wheel, with his white beard and his twinkly blue eyes”. …

Some viewers are saying they will go vegan after watching Seaspiracy and realising how environmentally damaging commercial fishing is. As a vegan, I’m pleased. But the argument that we should stop eating fish for the sake of the environment is a human-centric one that ignores the true victims here – the fish themselves.

Fishermen will merrily tell you that fish don’t feel pain but this has been disproved. Professor Donald Broom, a scientific advisor to the government, said: “The scientific literature is quite clear. Anatomically, physiologically and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals.” A European Union scientific panel has also found that fish do experience pain and fear.

So imagine the pain and fear fish suffer when they get caught in trawl nets and are slowly crushed to death under the weight of other fish, their eyes ballooning out in their final hours. If they survive that, they are either left to slowly suffocate or they are disemboweled with a gutting knife while still conscious.

Fish on factory farms are cut across the gills and left to bleed to death, electrocuted in a water bath, or smashed over the head with a blunt instrument. The fish industry’s twinkly-eyed marketing doesn’t show you things like that.

At the heart of all animal suffering is speciesism: the idea that some species have more moral rights than others. Fish are generally at the bottom of this scale because small creatures that live in the water somehow seem less important than big creatures that live on the land, like we do.

Morally, what is the difference between killing a dolphin or a tuna? Why do people campaign on behalf of the dolphins and whales at Seaworld but continue to eat cod and chips? Why boast that you’ve stopped using plastic straws to save fish when you won’t stop eating fish to save fish?

In Seaspiracy, presenter Ali Tabrizi says: “If dolphins and whales die, the ocean dies. If the oceans die, so do we.” If Seaspiracy makes people go plant-based, that’s great. But going plant-based only because you’ve realised it will benefit you is not veganism – it’s speciesism. … “


Dr Gil Carvalho factchecking Seaspiracy

Seaspiracy debunked. Let’s fact-check the new Netflix documentary Seaspiracy. The controversies and evidence surrounding Netflix’s Seapiracy. …

The 1st big question seaspiracy raises is about single-use plastics. Straws, plastic bags, packaging. Main source of plastic pollution is the fishing industry with discarded nets? so the solution is to just eat less fish? Is fishing the main source of plastic, not straws? 80% of plastic in the ocean is from land source e.g. plastic bags. in the remaining 20%, commercial fishing is the major contributor. So the fishing industry does not cause most of the plastic pollution in the ocean but does cause a significant chunk. seaspiracy oversimplifies things a bit but they have a point that fishing is a significant source of plastic

seaspiracy tells us shark populations have sharply declined. shark finning + bycatch. the movie is right about the alarming decline in sharks. Seaspiracy tells us its not just sharks. bycatch affects Porpoises, dolphins, whales, seals, seabirds – trawling. next seaspiracy introduces us to Sea-sheppard. later seaspiracy circles back for more on Sea-sheppard – seaspiracy uncomfortable interviews with organization reps – next seaspiracy touches on farmed fish. which avoids bycatch maybe they can innovate and farms can become ‘greener’? – seaspiracy talks about “sustainable” fishing – finally, seaspiracy looks at the health effects of eating fish. pollutants etc. mercury, heavy metals fish and health. fish consumption largely linked to health benefits – eating fish a couple times a week (or not) are both compatible with health – for those who don’t eat fish: omega3s? EPA and DHA? Seaspiracy explains algae are effective. supplements as effective as fish oil or fish itself, any of the 3 will get you those omega3s – seaspiracy shines a light on problems with the fishing industry e.g. overfishing


planetrehab.org   8/01/2021 SEASPIRACY – A DOCUMENTARY FILM LOOKING AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING – by Sebastian Rotter


fishing – articles updated 2-2022

theconversation.com 15-2-2022 African countries must protect their fish stocks from the European Union – by Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood

Fisheries serve as a source of employment for millions of people in the small scale sector on the coastline of Africa. Their fishing activities, in turn, provide food security to over 200 million Africans. To regulate the fishing industry, African countries have signed numerous agreements with trading blocs such as the European Union (EU). The EU has two forms of Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements with African states: the tuna agreement and the mixed agreement. The tuna agreement allows EU vessels to pursue migrating tuna stocks as they move along the shores of Africa and through the Indian ocean. The mixed agreement allows EU vessels access to a wide range of fish stocks in the coastal state’s exclusive economic zones.

There are currently 11 agreements in force –- seven tuna and four mixed agreements. Ten of these agreements are with countries in Africa, six of which are in West Africa. While these agreements contribute revenue to coastal states, who cannot extract the resources themselves, they are not all that they seem.

Exploitative agreements : First, the value negotiated for these agreements does not commensurate with the value of species removed, as such favours the EU economically than African states.

For example, when looking at the access fees paid versus what’s extracted, the access value of catches by EU fleets in Senegal (between 2000 and 2010) was US$11.9 million, while the value of reported catch in the same period was US$19.2 million. In Guinea-Bissau, the access value of catches by EU fleets in the same period was US$5.7 million, while the value of the reported catch was US$8.6 million.

Second, depleted or overexploited species – such as bigeye and yellowfin tuna, hake and sardinella – are targeted. This exacerbates the rate of depletion and undermines food and economic security for local fishers. Local fishers can’t compete with the speed at which European vessels catch fish.

Third, some vessels that benefit from these agreements use the access to then engage in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activities. For instance, the landed value of the legal catches caught by EU fleet in Senegal was US$50.9 million between 2000 and 2010, while the landed value of illegal catch was US$10 million…”…

Read more: EU targets fragile West African fish stocks, despite protection laws

European Union (EU)SpainFisheriesTunaOverfishingAfrican UnionSenegalFishery


Leave a Reply