There’s been a closely watched experiment floating and bobbing in the eddies off the Big Island of Hawaii. Since July, an unanchored pen stocked with 2,000 hatchery-born fish known as kampachi (related to the more familiar yellowtail) has been drifting in the open ocean, tended by marine biologists from the aquaculture company Kampachi Farms. Led by industry pioneer Neil Sims, it’s been dubbed the Velella Project, and it is the first and most important attempt at commercializing offshore aquaculture in the U.S.

Most of today’s marine fish farming takes place close to shore, but many in the industry believe that in order to expand, they need to look further out to the open ocean. And they’re not alone. Aquaculturists in countries like Norway, Ireland, Canada, and Chile are also beginning to explore offshore options, though the technology to accomplish this remains in its infancy.

Critics of aquaculture often point to problems of pollution, inefficient feed ratios, particularly for carnivorous fish, and worries of escapement. But in the case of the Velella Project, those concerns seemingly have been addressed.

To hold the fish, Sims used a specially designed structure called the Aquapod. Its unusual sphere-shaped design helps reduce fish escapes — called “leakage” by the industry — and can withstand tough ocean conditions. The kampachi are native to Hawaiian waters, and travel in schools by nature. If fish escape, they tend to cluster near the pen, and avoid the open blue water. A native species also eliminates the risk of cross-breeding.

While the project hasn’t been without its difficulties — two early trial pens were lost, and unexpected La Niña conditions have made predicting and tracking eddy patterns difficult — initial results look promising. That’s good news for those in the aquaculture industry who are hoping to overcome the technical and regulatory challenges of expanding into federal waters, 3-200 miles from shore.

“The Velella beta test showed us that the biological performance of fish in a drifter cage system is astonishing,” says Sims.

Indeed, the fish used in the Velella Project grew to harvest size in half the time; survival rate inside the Aquapod was high; and because Sims used a high protein soy feed, instead of one that relies heavily on fish meal, the ratio of fish in to fish out reached a more sustainable level than many other more traditional farm-raised fish. As for pollution concerns, the pen was located in ocean water up to 12,000 feet deep, and according to Sims, there was no measurable impact on water quality, coral reefs, or marine mammals — concerns that have had some environmental groups deeply worried.

So why exactly does this seemingly futuristic project matter to eaters? By 2015, the world will be consuming more farm-raised fish than wild caught. According to a report released last summer by the WorldFish Center and Conservation International, aquaculture may be one of the most efficient methods of producing protein for the world’s burgeoning population, with potentially less environmental impacts than cattle, poultry, or pigs.

Photo by Bryce Groark.

But access to coastal sites for fish farming has its limitations. In order to meet some of that growth, we must either bring aquaculture onto land, or overcome the challenges of pushing it further out into federal waters. What you’re witnessing in the Velella Project is the first substantial push into deeper U.S. waters.

“If we’re going to feed the world protein, aquaculture is the best way to do it, and someplace we ought to be looking is offshore,” says Michael Rubino, director of NOAA Fisheries’ Aquaculture Program.

That may be easier said than done. In addition to challenges like nearly constant battering by ocean waves, high fuel costs for ships that maintain the pens (in the case of the Velella Project, a manned boat remained tethered to the pod at all times, to ensure it doesn’t float too far off course, and to house the staff monitoring the project), and an array of other technical obstacles, there’s the fact that no regulations have been put in place.

Rubino would also like to see a set of laws that are specific to open water aquaculture. “Under current fisheries laws, aquaculture has been interpreted as fishing. We need new legislation,” he says.

NOAA is interested in the progress being made by the Velella Project, but stresses the importance of gradual, step-by-step development of this technology. “If we can solve these regulatory issues, we’ll issue a certain number of permits, and if those work, then in the second 10 years, we’ll issue more. [NOAA] has a stewardship mission. This has to be done in the context of healthy oceans,” says Rubino.

Neil Sims on a boat near the submerged Aquapod. (Photo by Bryce Groark.)

The other way that offshore aquaculture might expand, says Rubino, is if each regional fisheries management council (there are eight around the country) devises its own management plan for aquaculture. That’s something the Gulf of Mexico Council [PDF] has already done, putting the area first in line for commercial offshore aquaculture.

Chris Mann, director of Pew Environment Group’s Aquaculture Standards Project, says that while the Velella Project does seem to have good results so far, the conversation really needs to be about scale.

“We appreciate someone like Neil thinking about aquaculture in a different way. What we’re not crazy about is taking the CAFO model of livestock and putting it in the ocean. Fish poop in the water; if you have a massive industry, you get a lot of pollution and problems. If you have small scale, [like the Velella Project] with a lot of water flowing through it, you have fewer problems,” says Mann.

Sims says he recognizes the need for scale, and the fact that offshore aquaculture means making use of a common resource.

He’s recently applied for permits for the next step, Velella Gamma, which will involve mooring the pod to a single point on the ocean floor and may require less staff monitoring. This stage will also involve placing the pod closer, into water depths of 6,000 feet. And the goal will be to move toward more automation. “Machines can work better in rough sea than people,” he adds.

In the end, economics will likely dictate whether or not offshore aquaculture truly takes off in the next decade.

“The great promise of aquaculture – the ‘Blue Revolution’ – is that it can produce a healthy and abundant supply of protein for a world that’s going to need a lot more of it, but you can only do that if you make the right choices of species,” says Mann. He worries that producers of larger fish are more motivated by the marketplace, than by a drive to feed the world sustainably.

“You feed the world with shellfish and tilapia,” he says. “Not salmon or shrimp for $15 a pound.”

Either way, Sims will continue to push the envelope. As he sees it, there’s been a lot of fear-mongering about aquaculture. And, like all food production, he stresses the how in the equation.

“There’s a ground swell of recognition that this is a direction we have to go,” he says. “Let’s just do it right.”

While there’s been some confusion over when exactly the world will be eating more farm-raised seafood than wild caught — what’s not disputable is that our trajectory is pointed straight in that direction. (The Food and Agriculture Organization first predicted the milestone in 2009 [PDF], but has since revised it to 2015 [PDF].) Since then, the aquaculture industry has been in a race to develop more sustainable and efficient feed for all types of farm-raised fish with wildly varying nutritional needs — after all, a vegetarian tilapia has different requirements than a carnivorous salmon. The trend, however, is to move toward more plant-based options, in part as a way to put less burden on the sea.

Why turn to vegetarian feed?

Until recently, the industry relied heavily on low-on-the-food-chain “forage fish” (also called reduction fish by the industry) like herring, menhaden, and anchovy. They’re caught by commercial fishing fleets and rendered into fishmeal or fish oil, then used to feed everything from farmed salmon to cod. (It’s also used in feed for hogs and chickens.) But the amount of forage fish required to grow a pound of farm-raised fish has often been at an unsustainable ratio. At the same time, the global price of fishmeal and fish oil began to rise.

“The price of fishmeal is up to almost $1,500 a ton. Ten or 15-years ago, it was $500,” says Anthonie Schuur, an aquaculture consultant and board member of the California Aquaculture Association.

Worldwide, the aquaculture industry is expected to grow from 65.8 million tons in 2008 to a whopping 100 million tons by 2030, with no end in sight. According to the USDA, “Over the next 20 years, aquaculture production must increase by 500 percent.” Just like dominoes, that growth spurs a greater demand for nutrient rich feed, which can translate into further global pressure on forage fish — a prospect that worries environmentalists. According to a report by Oceana, aquaculture consumes more than 81 percent of the forage fish captured and “reduced” to fish oil, and approximately half of those captured for fishmeal.

But the tide is turning.

Protein by any other name will fatten a fish

“Five years ago, the farmed-salmon diet was 40-50 percent fish meal. Today, it’s in the teens somewhere,” says Rick Barrows, lead scientist and nutritionist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service. “There are a lot of different groups out there — the giant salmon industry, the shrimp industry — that want to get away from fishmeal and fish oil for ethical [and financial] reasons.”

Those alternative feeds include a range of solutions — everything from fishmeal derived from fish processing scraps, to algae-based feeds, spent distillers grains, and feeds produced from ingredients like barley, flax, and even insects.

The variables are mind-boggling. A trout, a sea bass, and a yellowtail fed the same algae-based diet will all perform differently, in part because of their own nutritional requirements, but also because of variations in the algae itself. Even fishmeal derived from forage fish like sardines or menhaden can have inconsistent nutritional values depending on the species, or even on the time of year they’re harvested from the ocean. For the increasingly industrial aquaculture industry, reliability of supply is crucial.

Which explains why soybeans seem to be the current industry darling, in part because of their consistency, availability, and affordability in comparison to fishmeal.

“Every aquaculture entity in the world is shifting their operations to more soybeans and less fishmeal,” says Schuur.

There are drawbacks to using conventional commodity soybeans. Besides the fact that 94 percent of soybeans are genetically modified and off limits to many European countries, many also contain undesirable anti-nutritionals, and ounce per ounce they provide less protein than traditional fishmeal.

High-tech soy

Meanwhile, a non-GMO soybean designed specifically for use in aquaculture feed is being developed by a surprising source — geneticist John Schillinger, founder of eMerge Genetics. Schillinger is frequently referred to as the “father of GMO soybeans” for his previous work at Monsanto. But when he launched Schillinger Genetics, Monsanto denied his request to use their patented soybean. Instead, he developed his current line of soybeans through breeding techniques, rather than genetic manipulation. He has also become at least somewhat critical of genetically engineered food.

“I made trips around the world, and there is a very strong preference for non-GMO — the extent of it was surprising,” he says.

Schillinger says aquaculture is his No. 1 business target, and he’s redesigned the soybean so it can be better utilized by fish.

“We’ve bred out some of the anti-nutritionals that make fish sick, with things like enteritis. We’ve redesigned the composition of the soybean to be higher in protein, which is important in fish diets. Fishmeal is 65 percent protein. Normal [commodity] soybeans would be at 48 percent. We’re selling ours in the high 50s and making strides to reach the 60 percent protein range,” says Schillinger.

Barrows says the aquaculture industry has indeed reached a point where they’re able to feed a carnivorous fish a seafood-free diet. And that’s exactly what’s happening in a 60,000-square-foot warehouse in southwest Virginia. Cobia, a carnivorous fish, is being grown by Virginia Cobia Farms without the use of fishmeal.

“We’ve eliminated fishmeal from the diet completely, and lowered our use of fish oils down to 4 percent,” says senior research scientist Steven Craig. “And we’re developing a patented technology to eliminate fish oil as well.”

The cobia are thriving on a diet void of fishmeal, and Craig says the company is on the verge of doubling their capacity, with a goal of producing 4.5 million pounds of fish by the 2013. The company also was given a “best choice” nod by the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program.

The amount of fishmeal and fish oil used to grow farm-raised fish has been one of the criteria used by environmental groups that rate fish for sustainability. “Using less wild caught fish to grow fish for human consumption is a good thing, and is a factor considered in the Seafood Watch guidelines,” says Ken Peterson, spokesman for the aquarium.

A small piece of a complex puzzle

Of course, all this brings us to the question: Should we be forcing a carnivorous fish to subsist on a plant-based diet? After all, pushing the feed envelope on land-based animals has resulted in unintended consequences. Is it unethical to take this approach with fish?

“It depends,” says bioethicist Bernie Rollin. “If the fish thrive on this diet, don’t get sick, haven’t experienced a shortened life span or problems in reproduction, then I don’t see it as an issue. With cattle, a certain percentage develop abscesses that involved suffering and condemnation of the carcass, so you might ask yourself, if it causes that, why do people do it? Because it’s only one in 10,000. I have no idea about the health of a [carnivorous] fish [on a plant-based diet], but if there is a negative effect, even if it’s justified by economic activity, then it’s a moral issue.”

So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case, which is good news. On the other hand, the practice hasn’t been around long, and there are bound to be unintended consequences.

And here’s the bad news for oceans advocates: Whether or not it’s fed to farmed fish, fishmeal is a valuable commodity, and will likely be allocated to other uses, such as feed for livestock, as world meat demand continues to rise.

Soy-based feeds will “permit expansion of the [farmed] fish supply that is already limited by a fully exploited fishery,” says Schuur. But, “whether or not using soy relieves pressure on natural fisheries is another question. Even if aquaculture drastically curtailed its utilization of fishmeal, fishmeal prices will remain high and fishing will continue as it has before.”

In other words, converting farmed carnivorous fish into herbivores may not make the tiniest fish in this food chain any less vulnerable. Nor does it replace the need for policy measures that manage forage fisheries.

According to a study published in November’s Environmental Science and Technology, nearly 2,000 polyester fibers can shake loose from a single piece of clothing in the wash and, unfortunately, those tiny plastic bits are making their way into the ocean.

Ecologist Mark Browne, University College Dublin, and several colleagues gathered sand samples from 18 beaches on six continents for analysis. It turns out that every beach tested contained microplastics (particles about the size of a piece of long grain of rice or smaller). Of the samples collected, nearly 80 percent were polyester or acrylic, though without further research, it’s impossible to know exactly which type of clothing — whether it’s your stretchy yoga pants or that super-soft fleece blanket — is causing the most problems. Currently, textile manufacturers are not required to test their fabrics for shedding.

According to Science, “Not a single beach was free of the colorful synthetic lint. Each cup of sand contained at least two fibers and as many as 31. The most contaminated samples came from areas with the highest population density, suggesting cities were an important source of the lint.”

Charles Moore, founder of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which focuses on plastics in the marine system, says he’s been concerned about microplastics from all sources, including those body scrub microbeads that are as ubiquitous as the multi-blade holiday Remington razor this time of year. What worries Moore most is where those microparticles may ultimately end up.

Along with all the plastic debris that’s big enough to spot on the beach, there’s new concern that fleece sheds tiny particles into the ocean via washing machines.Photo: epSos.de“Polyester is heavier than water and pollutes bottom sediments where most marine life lives,” he says. Once in the marine system, they get taken up by filter feeders like clams, mussels, and small fish like anchovies, sardines, etc., which are then eaten by larger fish.

That concerns Browne too. His work with shellfish has shown that once ingested by animals, microplastic can be taken up and stored by tissues and cells. This bioaccumulation of pollutants can have negative consequences for wildlife and humans.

Courtney Arthur, research coordinator with NOAA Marine Debris Program, says the issue is on NOAA’s radar, and expects research on microplastics and the effects on marine life to be a hot topic among scientists over the next few years. But for now, she says, the bottom line is still unclear.

“We don’t know the extent of injury at this point. We do know some marine animals ingest plastics, even down to mollusks like mussels and clams. We know it’s possible they could be accumulating in the food chain,” says Arthur. “All spectrum of marine life has the potential to take in these small particles, but at this point, it’s hard to say how much harm is being done.”

Although Browne and Arthur are cautious about making a direct link between microplastics and harm to marine life, there’s little disagreement that the recent increase in plastics pollution in the oceans is alarming. Several years ago, scientists discovered that plastics could break down at lower temperatures, leaking chemicals like Bisphenol A into the water. 

So just how do we prevent the problem from getting worse? Moore says the place to filter the microfibers out is at the washing machine, well before particles move through the wastewater system and eventually into the ocean. So we contacted the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers to see if the industry had the capability of filtering microparticles before they reach the wastewater stream. Although their spokesperson did speak with Grist, they did not get back to us with a statement.

While Browne’s study focuses on the washing machine, Arthur also points out that simply wearing synthetic garments can also cause shedding.

He hopes designers of clothing and washing machines will focus on ways to reduce the release of fibers, and says further research is needed to develop methods for removing microplastic from sewage.

“Both government and industry need to work with us to determine the hazards natural and synthetic fibers pose for the health of humans and wildlife, so we can choose fibers that pose less of a risk,” says Browne.

So with months of bone chilling weather ahead, are you willing to swap your super soft fleece for something more sustainable? We asked both Browne and Arthur if they still own synthetics, and both said yes.

“I have some fleece, but with this type of research on our radar, I think twice before wearing it,” said Arthur.

Related:

• Advice on natural fabrics vs. polyester

Photo: Eric Ch

And by forage fish we don’t mean you’ll find them while walking in the woods. They are small fish — sardines, anchovy, mackerel, menhaden, squid — that serve as food to larger carnivorous fish. They’re the base of the food web, and are extremely important. When they start to disappear, then fish like salmon, halibut, etc. can suffer from malnutrition. In other words, without the strong presence of forage fish, the entire food chain is weakened. On the other hand, when forage fish populations are strong and vibrant, the same food chain can better withstand pressure from factors like climate change and ocean acidification.

That’s why, earlier this week, ocean conservation group Oceana sounded the alarm in a new report that points to gaps in the management of federal and state-level fisheries that have left important forage fish like Pacific sardines, hake, herring, market squid, and mackerel vulnerable to overharvesting.

Campbell and Alder 2008“The story is the same as the menhaden’s,” says Geoff Shester, California program director for Oceana. “These are the critical forage species that provide the basis and foundation for the coastal economy. Given the huge demand for aquaculture feed, it’s only a matter of time before these fish become exploited as well.”

The Oceana report presents evidence suggesting that fisheries managers have not looked closely enough at how many forage fish need to be left in the ocean to ensure a healthy ecosystem. They add that aggressive harvesting rates (particularly for uses in aquaculture), have meant that species like Pacific sardines have been below sustainable levels for the past decade.

While squid, sardines, and other low-on-the-food chain seafood options are seen as a sustainable choice for consumers, they still need to be managed closely. And besides, says Shester, “Very few of the Pacific sardines are going to feed people directly, despite the fact that they’re extremely healthy, high in Omega-3s and are a low-contaminant seafood.” Instead, they’re being sold as bait for Japanese long-line fishing, or are being used as food in bluefin tuna ranches off the coasts of Mexico, Australia, and Japan. 

Oceana timed the report to coincide with the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (PFMC) meeting currently underway in Southern California. The conservation group is requesting the PFMC to revise sardine catch levels; and to prevent new commercial fisheries from developing that target unprotected forage fish like whitebait smelt, Pacific sandlance, and lanternfish. These last few are species you’ve probably never heard of, but like sardine sand menhaden, they play an important role in the marine ecosystem.

“A major [fish oil/meal-producing company] could come in today and start fishing them industrially because they’re not under a federal fishery management plan,” warns Shester.

And that’s not an empty threat. According to the Oceana report, aquaculture’s share of global fishmeal and fish oil consumption has more than doubled over the past decade. In 2008, 20.8 million tons of wild fish went into fishmeal and fish oil. While the feed ratio (the amount of ground up wild fish used to feed farmed fish) has improved, the fact is, the aquaculture sector is in rapid growth-mode, maintaining pressure on forage fish for the foreseeable future. Throw in the amount of fish meal used to feed pigs and poultry, and the harvest figures are daunting. 

There’s also concern over the well-being of larger Pacific species — like Chinook salmon, albacore tuna, blue whales, sea lions, and California brown pelicans — which rely on foraged fish for their own nutrition. 

Graphic: courstey of MFCNAsking for protection for a lesser-known fish population that’s yet to be commercialized — such as the Pacific lanternfish — is unusual, but it’s not unheard of. The PFMC implemented a coast-wide ban on the direct harvest of krill in 2006.  

As for the Pacific sardine population, PMFC chairman Dan Wolford says a preliminary assessment report showed the number of Pacific sardines have actually increased since last year. Exactly why it has increased or how much is still unclear, and will be examined by the committee.

“We’ll look not only at the biomass, but we’ll be looking at how much to set aside as the minimum threshold. It’s important to protect the ability of the fish to propagate successfully,” says Wolford. “I want to make sure everyone understand that forage [fish] is what makes the whole ecosystem work. It’s that portion of the food chain that changes plankton into food for major predators like salmon, groundfish, and tuna.”

But unlike the tussle over the future of the menhaden fishery on the East Coast (a conversation that can still be shaped by public comment until Nov. 9), there doesn’t seem to be much controversy over whether or not to protect Pacific forage fish. This fact might just be a sign that these important fish have begun earning some respect — and it’s point of pride for Wolford.

“The Pacific Council has a very good relationship with our fishermen. They’re involved in all the committees, and we listen to what they have to say. It’s part of our culture here.”

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which manages the menhaden, discovered a technical error in how they had been measuring the stocks of the forage fish that showed overfishing had occured in two of the last ten years. In fact, a longer view of the Atlantic menhaden stocks indicated that the small fry had, in fact, been overfished for more than half of the fishing seasons over the last 54 years. (Whoops!)

The ASMFC has been gathering comments through public hearings in preparation for a November meeting in Boston where they could adjust future harvest limits, and ultimately determine the fate of Atlantic menhaden stocks.

Why are menhaden important? They’re filter feeders that swim together in large schools, and it’s believed that each tiny fish can filter phytoplankton from four to six gallons of water per minute. But heavy exploitation of the fishery has meant declining numbers. That’s important when you consider the water quality in areas like the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound, where shrinking numbers of menhaden have coincided with algae blooms, pollution, and dead zones.

Menhaden are also an extraordinarily important link in the food chain. They are feeder fish for larger predatory fish, including sea trout, bluefish, wreckfish, tuna, and most especially, striped bass, whose stocks are suffering from disease (mycobacteriosis) and malnourishment.

So just where have all the menhaden gone?

A whopping 80 percent of the harvest is being taken by Houston-based Omega Protein, which targets the fish for its abundance of oil. Menhaden are literally vacuumed up at sea, ground up and reduced to fish meal and fish oil, much of which is then used in dietary supplements or as feed in aquaculture, dairy cow, and hog operations.

We’re talking about vast quantities of these small, silvery fish. In 2010, the reduction fishery landed 183,085 [PDF] metric tons of menhaden, followed by the commercial bait fishery, which landed 44,000 metric tons.

The majority of the menhaden harvest is taking place in the state waters off Virginia and a small section of North Carolina — the only Atlantic states that haven’t outright banned menhaden fishing by those looking to produce fish oil. But menhaden are also being harvested in federal waters, three to 200 miles offshore, from New Jersey to North Carolina.

That’s why the upcoming the decision by the ASMFC (and the hearings leading up to it) is so important. It’s possible that board members may consider setting new harvest limits designed to preserve a significantly larger portion of the menhaden spawning stock (i.e. wild fish that are left alone to reproduce).

Scientists and advocates have their eyes are on the hearings, as concern over the menhaden population grows. A few days ago, for example, a group of 75 scientists sent a letter [PDF] in support of new measurement tools that ensure more menhaden are kept in coastal waters.

Surprisingly, there are no federal regulations in place for the menhaden fishery. According to Christine Patrick, spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission can ask NOAA to protect menhaden in federal waters. But to date, that has not happened.

“They have made these kinds of requests before,” said Patrick in an email to Grist. “For instance … they asked us to close the striped bass fishery in the federal waters, and we did. We are supportive of the commission — and of their process to solicit the input from the public on managing menhaden — and we will be responsive to their request on this issue.”

Toni Kearns, senior fisheries management plan coordinator for ASMFC, says that while the hearings have indeed been civil, much of the finger-pointing is aimed in one specific direction.

“There’s the perception that you have one major harvester [Omega Protein] taking what many consider to be a public resource, and there are some emotional feelings about that,” says Tina Berger, spokesperson for ASMFC. “We’re just trying to manage the stock in a way that keeps it in a healthy position. The tricky part is the reference points we’ve been using to manage them may not have been the best tools.” 

According to Berger, the ASMFC had been looking at the number of eggs to determine the health of the menhaden stock, but in reality, that number didn’t always translate to actual fish in the water. In other words, the way the menhaden were being managed wasn’t working.  The addendum is looking at raising the amount of fish kept in the water, and their ability them to reproduce.

Alison Fairbrother, director of The Public Trust Project, says, in fact, that the stock has been managed right to its overfishing threshold — a dangerous place to be.

The AFMSC could vote to double the current threshold and increase maximum spawning potential, according Fairbrother. (The threshold is one part of a complex math equation that scientists use to judge the health of a fishery. It’s only one of several measurement tools, including abundance, target rates, growth rate, and mortality.) She adds that “The AFMSC [also] has the option of maintaining the status quo, but it’s unlikely that will happen.”

Ben Landry, spokesman for Omega Protein, says they are cooperating with the ASMFC, but he thinks more measured steps could do the job of increasing the population.

“The numbers being thrown out are like killing a mosquito with a jackhammer. It’s overkill … there’s more than enough to replenish itself,” he told Grist in recent a telephone interview. “There’s no agency, no advocacy group that has more at stake here than Omega Protein.”

Tom Rudolph, policy and research manager for Pew Environmental Group (which has launched an action campaign to organize the public and educate them on the importance of menhaden), disagrees. He says Pew supports conservation figures that are even higher than what the AFMSC have proposed.

Like in most government oversight, change happens slowly when it comes to protecting fisheries. Even if AMFSC adjusts to the amount of menhaden fishermen are allowed to harvest, it’s unlikely those adjustments will be in place before 2013. Additionally, many concerned with the direction of this critical fishery say that what’s at stake is more about the region’s marine ecosystem, and n
ot simply the amounts being hauled ashore.

“For most of menhaden’s history, people have been trying to figure out how to make a buck off of something that was once pretty useless, but very abundant,” says Paul Greenberg, author of Four Fish. “But by restricting quotas on forage fish like menhaden, and trying to value them as much more ecologically expensive, we would hopefully drive the market toward more sustainable [feed] alternatives such as brewery sludge, algae-based feeds, or possibly feeds derived from barley or yeast.”

 Note: An earlier version of this article mistakenly attributed Tina Berger’s quote to Toni Kearns.

Consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch (FWW) released a new report today criticizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for its aquaculture policy, which they say is promoting factory fish farming in offshore waters. It also raises a red flag about the future of genetically modified fish such as AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon — a particularly timely concern, given the recent news about its FDA approval.

Offshore aquaculture, is defined as fish farming done 3-200 miles offshore — in other words, outside of waters regulated by states.

The report comes after the agency released their final Marine Aquaculture Policy in June, which lays the U.S. framework for rules and regulations for all types of aquaculture.

More than half of the seafood consumed worldwide already comes from aquaculture. But domestic aquaculture provides only 5 percent of the seafood we consume; the rest of the farmed seafood we eat comes from parts of the world where there is little to no regulation. And, thanks to the 2010 federal dietary guidelines, which recommend Americans increase their seafood consumption twofold, the demand for farmed fish is likely to increase. But FWW’s report says building more fish farms offshore is not the answer. In fact, they believe doing so could have disastrous results.

“A leading argument used to promote factory fish farming is that we need it to offset the U.S. seafood trade deficit — that is, to import less seafood and produce more seafood,” says the report. But FWW points out that to counter that trade deficit, the U.S. would need to raise almost 200 million fish in ocean cages each year, using “41 percent of the entire global production of fishmeal” as feed. The result, they say, could produce “as much nitrogenous waste as the untreated sewage from a city nearly nine times more populous than Los Angeles and could lead to the escapement of as many as 34.8 million fish.”

NOAA officials told Grist that they’re promoting aquaculture across the board, and are not favoring offshore aquaculture — which, they clarify, is not limited to fin fish, but will likely include shellfish and seaweed farming. Their policy does include a substantial appendix focused on activity in federal waters, however.

“We believe aquaculture is a great technology for food production, especially when it’s done right,” says Dr. Lorenzo Juarez, deputy director of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Aquaculture. But in reality, offshore aquaculture is still extremely rare. “It’s just not done yet, and we don’t have any in the U.S., other than an experimental permit in Hawaii.”

FWW argues that many of the same issues plaguing the near-shore aquaculture industry would also be of concern if the farming were moved out to sea: pollution, disease, and more reason for small and less valuable fish like sardines, anchovies, and herring to be converted into fishmeal. But this would all happen in a more pristine area that has yet to be impacted.

FWW is especially concerned about offshore farms in the Gulf of Mexico, something that Zach Corrigan, FWW’s fish program director, thinks might be green-lighted by December. NOAA officials say the timeline is significantly further out, and will only happen after a 60-day public comment period, although they declined to provide an estimated deadline.

The Gulf of Mexico fishery plan concerns Corrigan because it would put the beginning of a regulatory structure in place. “Aquaculture is a very capital-intensive industry,” he says. “In order to raise money, the [farm] operators want clear, legal rights.”

Genetically engineered salmon eggs (mentioned in a recent Grist article) are not yet licensed to be sold to open-water systems in the U.S., but some experts worry it’ll only be a matter of time before that changes. (The fish are already being shipped for use in Panama and Canada’s Prince Edward Island.)

While NOAA’s policy doesn’t explicitly address genetically modified fish, it does say that they support “the use of only native or naturalized species in federal waters unless best available science demonstrates use of non-native or other species in federal waters would not cause undue harm to wild species, habitats, or ecosystems in the event of an escape.”

Does that mean the door has been left open?

“The answer is yes,” says Juarez. “When you look at all forms of food production, genetic modification, genetic improvement, or domestication is a keystone. We cannot just close the door to something that can have a huge effect.” Although he did add that genetic engineering is “a technology that has to be approached very carefully.”

George Leonard, Ocean Conservancy‘s director of aquaculture says it’s exactly this discretionary language embedded in NOAA’s policy that concerns him.

“I would ask: what is ‘undue harm?’ That suggests the agency is willing to accept some undefined level of harm in the quest for food production. Every thoughtful body that has approached this issue has said GE should only be grown in land-based, Fort Knox facilities. NOAA should follow suit,” says Leonard.

FWW is not alone in trying to slow the advance of offshore aquaculture. A bill introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) prohibits the permitting of commercial fin fish in federal waters until Congress provides specific approval. And a second bill, by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), establishes a regulatory system for sustainable offshore aquaculture. Both bills are currently in committee.

Dr. Mike Rust, chief scientist for NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Aquaculture, says demand is the 800-pound piranha in the room.

As he sees it, the federal guidelines dictate more seafood consumption, and that seafood will have to come from somewhere. “We have a choice among alternatives: We can do things like increase imports from fishing, where they’re more poorly managed than we want them to be; we can increase imports of foreign aquaculture, which is already happening and is an option; or we can take on some of that in the U.S.” Just how much of a mark this last option will inadvertently leave on our oceans, however, is yet to be seen.

AquaBounty Technology’s genetically modified salmon just got a hefty financial boost from the USDA: On Monday, the agency awarded the Massachusetts-based company $494,000 to study technologies that would render the genetically tweaked fish sterile. This would reduce the likelihood they could reproduce with wild salmon, should any escape into the wild — a scenario that has many environmentalists concerned.

The Atlantic salmon, which is branded with the name AquAdvantage, has been genetically altered with a growth-hormone gene from a Chinook salmon and a “genetic on-switch” gene from an ocean pout that will allow the fish to grow all year round, reaching market size much faster than traditional salmon.

In mid-2010, AquaBounty’s salmon appeared to be on the fast-track for approval by the FDA, which would have made it the first genetically modified animal approved for human consumption. But the process has since been stalled. Lawmakers in states like California and Alaska have been actively introducing legislation that requires the fish to be labeled as a GMO product or to prohibit its production entirely. Then, this June, the House of Representatives voted to prohibit the FDA from using funds for approval of the salmon.

The same bill the House voted on (an Agriculture Appropriations amendment) is currently stalled in the Senate. Now the USDA grant is raising eyebrows. Upon FDA approval, the company would sell salmon eggs to aquaculture operations looking to farm the fish.

AquaBounty points out that FDA approval requires that eggs only be sold to contained inland facilities that are approved and subject to subsequent inspection by the agency, and says there is no danger of escape. But industry watchers, like Ocean Conservancy’s aquaculture program director George Leonard are concerned nonetheless.

“They have done no quantitative risk and failure analysis,” says Leonard. “It is true that net pens aren’t in the immediate future, but clearly there will be pressure to farm them there. There is an entire industry infrastructure that could accommodate these fish. If eggs are sold to other countries, which must certainly be part of the business plan, there is no guarantee that they will follow the same guidelines as the FDA.”

In fact, the fish are already being shipped to Panama and Canada’s Prince Edward Island for grow out.

The majority of farmed salmon are raised in open-net ocean pens, a practice environmentalists have condemned for years because of escapement, pollution, and disease. So it’s no surprise that the issue of reproductive ability is being closely scrutinized.

The FDA released a Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee report in September 2010 saying, “we have reason to believe that the population of triploid, all-female AquAdvantage Salmon will be effectively sterile,” and AquaBounty’s own website promotes the sterility of the fish. In an email to Grist, however, Ronald L. Stotish, CEO and president of AquaBounty acknowledged that their technology is not yet 100-percent effective — thus the need for the FDA funding.

Stotish says AquAdvantage Salmon are currently rendered sterile by a “pressure treatment process that has been validated to 99.8-percent effectiveness.” The fish are also all female, and will be raised in physical containment. “Because the company realizes that our detractors do not respond to reason and science,” added Stotish, “we are developing a genetics-based process that will allow us to breed 100 percent sterile offspring. That is 100 percent sterile, guaranteed.”

That certainly sounds responsible, but GMO salmon fact sheet released in June by the advocacy group Food and Water Watch suggests that the numbers may not be so airtight. According to their research, which cites an environmental assessment from the FDA briefing packet on AquAdvantage salmon, “up to 5 percent of these fish may be fertile.”

But even Stotish’s .2 percent number worries Leonard, as a handful of escaped fish every year could make a big difference over time. “If AquaBounty hasn’t yet figured out how to make the salmon fully sterile, then they shouldn’t be applying to the FDA to deploy the fish,” he says. “Let’s fix the problem first, not after the salmon get out.”

Colin O’Neil, regulatory policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, an environmental advocacy group focused on genetic engineering, says this is the first time they’ve heard of the USDA being involved with the genetically engineered fish.

“If the FDA was so assured of the scientific merits of this application, they would have approved it by now,” he says. “The mere fact that it has taken this long tells me that the jury is still out.”

The grant comes on the heels of the company’s interim report released on Friday, which announced a net loss of $2.8 million, and a reduction of three board members. In other words, it’s clear that AquaBounty is under the gun to roll out their business and begin “literally own[ing] salmon farming,” as Paul Greenburg put it in a recent article.

Stotish says the delays in approval are because of groups who have “intimidated regulators with threats of lawsuits” and “misled the public ” He adds that the company remains optimistic that congress will will not shrink from what he calls “their commitment to science-based regulation,” and that it will “stand up to the pressure from the anti-technology groups.”

According to O’Neil, however, a great deal of the scientific community is actually weighing in on the side of caution. “It would be reckless for the FDA to approve genetically engineered salmon given the large number of environmental, human health, animal welfare and economic risks that have been raised by scientists, members of Congress and members of the FDA’s own Advisory Committee,” he says.

Note: This story was edited on Sept. 30 to more accurately reflect the proposed FDA regulations on containment of the salmon.

The FNCE show floor

Victor Fulgoni, a 15-year Kellogg’s veteran, who now runs a consulting firm called Nutrition Impact, asks the audience for help. “Rather than removing [processed foods] from the diet, let’s use the power in this room to get consumers to choose the best processed foods available,” he says.

Fulgoni and his co-presenters Connie Weaver and Lindsey Loving tell the audience that not all processed foods are created equally. Furthermore, they say advances like pasteurization have brought important gains in terms of food safety, while stealth nutrition tactics have successfully upped American’s intake of nutrients like vitamin D and folic acid.

It’s no secret that processed foods have taken a real beating in the eyes of the public — which makes the pleas from the panel all the more startling. “Processed foods have become the default for everything negative, and their benefits are often taken for granted,” says Ms. Loving, whose employer, the International Food Information Council, has a board of trustees that includes representatives from Dannon Co., General Mills, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, and Mars, Inc. Processed foods, she adds, “represent sources of important nutrients for consumers and should be eaten along with fresh fruits and veggies.”

Dr. Weaver concurs. She works for Purdue University, where her department has secured funding from the likes of Kraft, Nestle, and Monsanto. Repeatedly during the session, panelists urge the audience to “help get the word out” on just which processed foods are better choices, though exactly which ones they mean are never clearly pointed out.

The changing face of nutrition

High Fructose Corn Syrup in the house.This session is only one of several like it at this year’s FNCE, which is said to attract around  6,000 people. The ADA holds sway with approximately 72,000 members, most of which are registered dietitians. But the association, which is known for accrediting nutrition programs around the country, credentialing professionals in the field, publishing peer-reviewed science, and advocating for public policy, is also increasingly under fire for working with some of the nation’s largest industrial food producers. (Tom Philpott reported on the trend in 2007 for Grist.) Of course, not all registered dietitians are feeding from the corporate chuck wagon; in fact, many are outwardly critical, and some have left the association all together.

This year — as if to reiterate its influence over American’s dietary choices — the group announced it would soon be adding the word “nutrition” to its name (as of January 2012, the group will be called the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics). Meanwhile, the show floor was saturated with booths and displays from companies like Monsanto, Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Cargill, Yum! Brands, Nestle, ConAgra, Mars, Inc., Campbell’s, and General Mills.

The ADA’s guidelines for corporate sponsorship state:

[Our] procedures and formal agreements with external organizations are designed to prevent any undue corporate influence, particularly where there is a possibility that corporate self-interest might tend to conflict with sound science or ADA positions, policies and philosophies.

But just how they define “influence” is unclear.

Black sheep dietitians

ADA members are encouraged to join practice groups that focus on their area of specialty: elder care, diabetes, sports nutrition, etc. One of the youngest and fastest-growing groups, Hunger and Environmental Nutrition (HEN), sticks out from the rest.

Members look at issues like antibiotic use in animals, clean water issues, and social justice, often finding themselves uncomfortably at odds with some of the messages being promoted by the speakers and corporate sponsors at the FNCE conference. Some have even opted out entirely, giving up the networking, camaraderie, and learning opportunities offered by the conference altogether. Nearly 200 of HEN’s 1,400 members have recently joined a separate listserv, launched in April 2011, known as Progressive Nutritionists, where they hope to carve out a place where they can speak freely without the ADA listening in.

“Corporate sponsorship from Coca-Cola and Hershey’s broke the camel’s back for a lot of members,” says Ashley Colpaart, RD, a public policy committee member for HEN, and an instructor at Texas State University. She says part of the reason for creating the listserv was to capture those disenchanted with ADA policies towards corporate sponsorship.

Kelly Horton, RD, is a former HEN group chair; she had been an ADA member since 2004, but she has recently walked away from the organization.

“There are many of us who don’t want McDonald’s at our expo; we don’t want Hershey’s as a sponsor,” Horton says.”There [was] value to being part of HEN, but I didn’t want to be a member of HEN if it’s part of the ADA.”

Conagra, the brand that tried to trick food bloggers earlier this month had a big presence at the conference.Photos: Clare Leschin-HoarThe culinary disconnect

Corporate influence among RDs isn’t limited to the ADA. Bryan Roof is an RD and senior editor at Cooks Illustrated who also writes the monthly “Culinary Corner” column for Today’s Dietitian magazine. He says he’s recently had to defend using whole ingredients in his recipes, including foods like olive oil and kosher salt, after an RD reader wrote to complain.

On the other hand, flip to the back of the magazine and you’ll find a jaw-dropping Q&A interview with Kyle Shadix, a chef and RD who seems to have landed his “dream job” with PepsiCo. When asked what foods he craved, Shadix’s responded: “I crave KFC Original chicken thighs, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, and York Peppermint Patties with Pepsi Max.” (The latter is a sugar-free version of the popular soft drink that contains aspartame, Food ]]> ADA_showroom_cropped.jpg gristadmin showroom HFCS Cnagra http://grist.org/food/2011-09-15-fish-portions/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed:clareleschin-hoar http://grist.org/food/2011-09-15-fish-portions/#comments Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:00:16 +0000 http://www.grist.org/article/2011-09-15-fish-portions/ ]]> Photo: Prize PonyThere’s no question that animal protein is losing cultural prominence. It’s now common for high-profile chefs to embrace the notion that meat no longer needs to sit squarely in the center of a plate, flanked by a starch at ten o’clock, and a vegetable at six. High profile eaters like President Clinton and Mark Bittman have publicly embraced vegetable-centric diets, Meatless Monday has taken off around the nation, and when we do eat meat, more and more of us are getting comfortable eating “nose-to-tail.” This reconsideration of animal protein is starting to feel (almost) mainstream — which is why it’s so curious that seafood has largely been absent from the discussion.

When it comes to fish, smaller is better — but not just for the usual reasons. On top of general quantity control, new science backs up the sustainability of serving up smaller fillets. According to a recent paper by Dr. Michael Tlusty, director of research for the New England Aquarium in Boston, size matters when it comes to farmed fish.

According to the National Fisheries Institute’s top ten seafood list of farmed fish released last week, we remain a nation of shrimp and salmon eaters, while the rest of the world uses aquaculture to grow lower-on-the-chain foods like seaweed and carp, which Americans rarely think to eat. Steering eaters away from traditionally farmed (and resource-intensive) seafood, like shrimp and salmon, and towards options like trout and catfish, has long been seen as a move in the right direction. Now fillet size is also coming into focus as an important piece of the puzzle. 

The Tlusty study took a closer look at three species — catfish, rainbow trout and sablefish — and found that younger fish convert feed at a more efficient rate than older, larger fish. Harvesting them at a younger age produces smaller fillets for chefs to plate, but it also means that producers can push sustainability practices further by taking a farmed fish that’s already rated “green” by groups like the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program and making it even greener.

“If you look at a single catfish pond, for example, you can get 60 percent more biomass out of it if you grow small fish,” says Tlusty. In other words, the same amount of feed can result in a lot more fish. The hurdle, he adds, is getting chefs and retailers to embrace those smaller fillets.

Kelly McCown, executive chef at Ella Dining Room and Bar in Sacramento, is the rare chef who espouses this kind of thinking. He requested his supplier at Passmore Ranch to harvest trout at six ounces instead of the more market-ready eight-ounce size.

“You don’t need a gargantuan piece of fish on your plate to have a good meal,” says McCown. “I give guests enough to feel satisfied [it's a] good value. But to grow a bigger fish, and then put the whole portion on a plate just for someone to bring it home in a to-go box that gets forgotten in the back of the refrigerator? That doesn’t make sense.”

Dr. George Leonard, aquaculture program director at Ocean Conservancy, says he’s heartened by this application of new aquaculture knowledge into the way sustainability-conscious chefs cook. But he also sees the limits to the solution.

“While the proposal is a biological truism — that as fish get larger, they’re poorer feed converters — it’s only going to get us part way there. It’s an incremental improvement, but fundamentally, we need to figure out how to stop feeding wild fish to farmed fish,” says Leonard

There’s another important nuance: Tlusty’s premise does not apply to wild fish.

“In aquaculture, you’re not eating the brood stock; you never touch them,” he explains. In other words, there is one set of fish solely raised for breeding purposes while the others are harvested and eaten. Whereas, in the case of wild fish, he says, “eating juveniles isn’t sustainable. You need to wait for them to get to the size they need to be to reproduce,” says Tlusty.  

That’s an important point, but the fundamental idea of eating smaller portions can be applied to wild fish, too — if done carefully. Eaters need to be aware of the difference between sustainable small fish, like sardines, and juvenile versions of large fish harvested before reproductive maturity, like bluefin tuna or freshwater eel.

Other chefs, like Edward Lee of 610 Magnolia in Louisville, Kentucky, are already rethinking the way they plate seafood regardless of its farmed or wild-caught status.

“If we do this with pigs, cows and lambs — use all parts of the animal — why can’t we do the same thing with fish?” says Lee. “Think of salmon. You rarely see the collar, the tail meat, or the belly being widely utilized.”

What you won’t find at 610 Magnolia is an entrée where a slab of swordfish steak is the plated star: Lee cuts his portions smaller and pairs different species of fish together on one plate. Lee even went so far as to change his entire menu so no entrée features a single fish protein.

“Pairing different fish together gives guests a whole panorama of tastes. It’s more fun for them and more economical for us. The only downside is the plating is more complicated,” he said.

For chef Jeff Rossman at farm-to-table restaurant Terra in San Diego, preventing waste is a challenge when working with smaller fish.  

“If we’re looking at six-ounce portions, and the fillets come in at 16 ounces, or the tail portion is very thin, then we have to [consider] consistency in portioning and cooking times,” he says.

But Rossman believes the difference he’s making is worth the effort. And he’s not alone.

“To become global citizens, we need to eat smarter,” says Tlusty. “With aquaculture, we have control over how things are produced, and we can do that.” 

For fish, that starts with a less-heaping helping.

Photo: Robert Huffstutter

The gruesome practice of shark finning has made headlines for some time: Scientists estimate that 73 million sharks are caught a year. Their fins are then brutally sliced off and they are tossed back into the water to die. The results are catastrophic: Of 400 known shark species, over 100 of them have experienced steep population declines, and many are considered threatened or endangered.

The vast majority of shark-fin soup is eaten in Asia, where it serves as a symbol of wealth in Chinese culture. But a California ban could also make a real impact. California is home to two of the largest Asian food markets outside of Asia, and its residents consume more shark fin than any other state. That said, there is one obvious downside, laced with unintentional irony: Commercial fishermen in California — who catch sharks in a well-managed fishery and currently have a market for the whole animal — will now have to toss the fins. 

“The fishermen in California make money off the meat,” says Jonathan Hardy, a consultant working with California commercial fishermen. “Their ability to sell the fins is a way to fill a niche market, and it’s a way to use the entire shark.”

Should the ban be signed into law, this group of fishers will face a 10-20 percent cut in revenue, because legally harvested fins will now be required to go to waste.

“Because of the passing of the legislation, it’s implied that the California commercial fishermen participate in the wasteful practice of shark finning, but they don’t,” says Hardy. “The legislature and environmental community should recognize the efforts of the management agencies and fishermen to increase our shark stocks like the common thresher shark, which is a perfect example of a fishery done right.”

Hardy has a point. The California thresher shark fishery demonstrates how government agencies like the National Marine Fishery Service and the Pacific Fishery Marine Council have worked closely with fishers and environmental groups to establish catch levels, protect pupping grounds, and ensure the viability of the stock (in the thresher’s case, that stock is actually increasing).

Thresher sharks are one of the five most commonly targeted or incidentally caught species of sharks in California — along with mako, soupfin, Pacific angel, and spiny dogfish sharks.

Overall, shark fins caught this way make up a very small percentage of the fins eaten in California, where Hardy estimates that at least 95 percent of the fins come from abroad. And it’s probably a baby that’s worth tossing out with the bath water, if regulators can truly keep imported fins from being distributed and sold on the black market.

On a federal level, it’s important to note that an amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2000 already prohibited finning, and required any U.S. vessels in possession of shark fins to also be in possession of the carcasses. Earlier this year, President Obama signed H.R. 81 into law, which closed loopholes in the early legislation that unintentionally allowed vessels to transport illegally obtained fins.

But there’s still nothing stopping purveyors in landlocked states like Nevada and Arizona from importing shark fins. In the end, federal legislation on shark-fin imports from countries that support illegal finning would make a much stronger statement than restrictions that impact domestic fishing practices. Best of all would be a ban that recognized the complexities of shark finning and allowed for a place for sustainable, whole-animal fishing.