A "Blacklisted" Fish Dinner

by Clare Leschin-Hoar, Posted Jan 4th 2011 @ 11:00AM

Legal Sea Foods restaurant Boston Photo: Randy Son of Robert, Flickr

While it's not exactly Matthew Broderick, Marlon Brando and some tasty Komodo dragon, a "Dinner of Supposed 'Blacklisted' Fish" is being sponsored by the Culinary Guild of New England and Legal Sea Foods.

According to the press release, widespread discussion on sustainable fish "is flawed by outdated scientific findings that unfairly turn the public against certain species of fish. In a direct effort to counter existing misinformation about sustainability, the menu for this event is deliberately designed to serve what is commonly believed to be outlawed or blacklisted fish."

The dinner, scheduled for January 24, in Boston, will feature black tiger shrimp, cod cheeks and prosciutto-wrapped hake. And while all three species are indeed listed in Seafood Watch's red "Avoid" column for reasons that include pollution, loss of habitat, use of trawls, overfishing and depleted populations; we're still trying to figure out what exactly blacklisted means (is it the McCarthy era for fish?), and which specific scientific reports are "outdated." What we do know is the dinner will be led by Legal Sea Foods' president and CEO Roger Berkowtiz, who says he's trying to create more dialogue and push the accuracy of assessments of fisheries.

"I always found it curious that chefs and restaurateurs were the last to get information about sustainable seafood. Oftentimes it was from Monterey [Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch Program] that blacklisted everything, or a group like Chefs Collaborative -- you get a group of people that work off a particular science, and I would argue that science isn't necessarily balanced," Berkowitz told Slashfood in a telephone interview.

Berkowitz says he sources the black tiger shrimp from a farm in Vietnam that meets with Legal Sea Foods guidelines. The cod come from day-boat Gloucester fishermen who are using hook and line methods, rather than more damaging trawlers (although it was unclear if the cod were being fished from the Gulf of Maine or Georges Bank areas -- which are managed separately). Atlantic hake, he says, are still an underutilized fishery.

Ken Peterson, spokesman for the Monterey Bay Aquarium says it's important to have some objective basis for analyzing a fishery.

"If they're going to sell tiger shrimp, are they working with the World Wildlife Fund's Aquaculture Dialogues? There's a broad process out there trying to come up with universally acceptable guidelines for what aquaculture looks like using assessments and protocols that are transparent. Are they participating in the forums that exist rather than going it on their own with less transparency? Transparency is how consumers gain confidence," he said.

Peterson does agree that a chef or restaurateur could have detailed information on a specific fishery that supports its claims of sustainability, despite a red listing by Seafood Watch or other similar guides, but says that list is narrow.

"The challenge for consumers is how do you know what you're dealing with when you're in a restaurant. For the individual who is walking into any old restaurant, they're not going to have that information, and their purveyor won't have that level of information. With Seafood Watch, you have the best available science updated twice a year."

Will black tiger shrimp, cod or hake move off the group's red list? Maybe. The new guides are scheduled to be released January 11. In the meantime, while we're all-for more dialogue, we're glad the Culinary Guild of New England and Legal Sea Foods didn't try to make their point by dishing even more high-profile species like bluefin tuna or Caspian Sea beluga caviar.

Filed Under: Food Politics
Tags: cod, event, Legal Sea Foods, Seafood Watch, sustainable seafood

Chew on This

Royal Wedding Cake Details Revealed! - YumSugar

Make Your Own Pop Tarts - CHOW
Denny's Introduces a Maple Bacon Sundae - Eater
Whole Foods Opening Bars in Stores - USA Today
Rules Of Bar Etiquette -- For The Bartender - HuffPost Food

Reader comments (Page 1 of 1)

1-04-2011 @7:23PM janice said... Interesting. Being involved with the seafood industry via my job, I find Legal Seafood's position both refreshing and misplaced. Refreshing because they are pointing out that not all fishing of a certain species is bad (the cod fisherman.) Misplaced because they think the existing science is bad. Most consumers buy based on price and emotion. It is emotion (doing the right thing for the planet) that encourages them to buy a "green" fish rather than a "red" fish. Maybe Legal Seafood found some small suppliers that actually care, but most of the red-listed seafood is there for a reason, and that reason is the majority of the harvesting/growing practices are unsustainable. Monterrey Bay's website explains the issues with each fishery fairly well.

I admit I have my questions on the rating system. Example, the money going into promoting Alaska salmon over any other salmon is astonishing. And the sources of that money are equally astonishing Talk about politicking! As my Dad always said, if you want to get to the heart of a matter, follow the money. It would be interesting to discover Legal Seafood's true motivation.
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-05-2011 @1:08PM Dave said... This cute marketing effort by an important part of the fishing industry is not harmful or helpful in and of itself. However, the use of attacks on science and consumer advisories by a prominent restaurant chain owner undercuts and diminishes the great value that has been generated by the Monterrey Bay's staff and independent scientists in developing useful information for consumers. As you note, there are explanations of the basis for recommendations on line and in the literature.

The concept and the execution of this event appear to be a promotion for ignoring good, sound advice on sustainability in favor of just "trusting the corporation". But isn't that what got us into the contaminated spinach, tomato and egg problems as well as the disappearing cod, shrinking swordfish and overfished bluefin tuna in the first place? There is simply no good reason for going backwards in food safety or marine conservation. This dinner is just a very bad idea.

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @4:24PM cgw said... so when they buy tiger shrimp from a fish farm in Vietnam that is polluting the shores of the area they are in because there is no oversight, I guess that's ok? They confine farm raised fish to a specific area until it becomes too polluted then they move it down a few miles? All it seems to take is one idiot with a byline to dispute scientific studies so that some restaurant can make a few bucks. Give me a break.
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @5:19PM Carlos said... Uh... you have no idea if the guidelines that the Vietnamese fish farmer is in xcompliance with leave that loophole open or not, do you? Fanatasicm is not good for your mental health, nor for your ability to really make a difference. Nor is exagerated cynasism. Your reply seems to indicate one or the other.

Vote upVote downReport

1-06-2011 @3:48PM Kathleen said... Not to mention that the people live on stick huts over the top of these "fish farms' and releive themselves through the floors of the huts into the water. Saw the undervcover vidio of this.
Same thing goes on at the "fish farms in Thialand. YuK!!

And by BTW, are you intererested in eating "wild caught" from the stinking polluted waters of China? All "wild caight is not alike either. The grocery stores and big chains, such as Krogers, carry all "Wild caught" from China. They had only one brand that was fished in America for shrimp and they want twice the price for it. I get it anyway. Would not touch anything fished or raised in these countries. Hell! they don't care if they kill their own people. Do you really think they care who they kill or injure here? NOT!!!

And OMG!! heaven forbid if they don't let me have my Caspian Sea beluga caviar. Smells (stinks) and tastes like cod liver oil/ week old stinky fish. Pretentious people are so bourish!!!!

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @5:07PM John F.C. Taylor said... The reasoning behind this story reads kind of fishy to me.
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @5:31PM Angiebaby said... Amen! i only wish I could be there to dine on the fish mentioned. I swear. The BIGGEST hoax ever perpetrated against the American people is TALAPIA. A cheap, sustainable, flavorless replacement shoved down our throats by government panels and the "sustainable fish" Gestapo! Nobody likes it. The rest of the modern world laughs their ass off at the damn fish. People who eat it buy it after dark and only admit to eating to online support groups. I say DOWN WITH TALAPIA! Oh, welcome, welcome sweet 2011! Bring on the black tiger shrimp, cod cheeks and prosciutto-wrapped hake 'cause it's a fish pirate's life for me!!!

Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @11:32PM steve said... Please... it's called tilapia. With two i's. And if it wasn't palatable, it wouldn't sell at any price. I've had it - it's okay. Like any food, season to taste!!

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @7:42PM Leigh Belanger said... Thanks Claire for reporting on this pot-boiler. I'm the program director at Chefs Collaborative, a national network of culinary professionals who are building a more sustainable food supply. Our seafood work includes translating issues in marine conservation for chefs who buy seafood on a regular basis. Seafood sustainability is a complicated subject, as many chefs will attest.

But the more businesses like Legal's are transparent about what they do and why they do it, and the more scientists, NGO's, and business can work together to find common solutions to sustaining our seafood supply, the better shot we have at maintaining it. I look forward to a productive discussion at the dinner later this month.

-Leigh
chefscollaborative.org
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @5:46PM caren said... Iam a marine biologist turned commercial fisherman so I have been privy to working with government agencies on both sides of the coin so to speak and I can definately tell you as an educated scientist that there is little if no science used to make up these lists. It is mostly politcally motivated. I am not blaming one party in particular as they are both to blame for allowing big business to rule over true science. One example is a scallop ground near Georges Banks was tested to see if it had rebounded. They estimated the scallops were to the point of overpopulation which is not good for any species as it can cause too much stress and could trigger a major die off. These grounds were not allowed to be opened even though it would have been healthier to have it sustainably harvested.
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @10:02PM Sarah said... Caren, so true! I know commercial fishermen in Florida who cannot fish in their own waters teeming with the fish the government is 'protecting' but importers from other countries can bring in their catches which, by the way, are apparently not subject to the same rigorous rules and regs about icing down fish, how long the boats can be out, etc. I don't understand what or who the heck is behind this, but an entire industry of American fishermen are being wiped out or crippled by overzealous legislation. If you like your fish, and you want it caught under sanitary conditions from our oceans and not some stinking farm in China, you better let our government hear you.

Vote upVote downReport

1-04-2011 @11:39PM steve said... Sarah - good points. You have to admit that there are some species that are being over-exploited, many shark species I've heard. In many areas, shark populations are down 90%, (sorry I don't have the source for this #), and for top-of-the-food-chain type animals, they reproduce slowly. Before it's too late, the entire planet has to get together and sensibly manage it's resources - especially those from the oceans!
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-05-2011 @12:34AM sondra peckinpaugh said... Has anyone watched " The Dirtiest Jobs"? At a fish farm it was his job to help move all the fish in one tank to another. Then they added Tilapia, he asked why Tilapia? and was told that they are bottom feeders and they use them to clean out all the excrement from the other fish. In other words..THEY EAT THE POOP of the other fish. Not long after we watched the show, we found Tilapia on the menu at a very well known restraunt. We laughed and said "no way" Perhaps people don't know a lot about the fish they eat, I like to check out any new entry before I order it.
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-06-2011 @11:35AM Andrew Spurgin said... Truth, seemingly, is, as always, found somewhere in the middle of the road. Making sweeping observations about specifics almost never is correct.

For instance, is eating Atlantic Cod bad? It depends on a multitude of elements to correctly surmise this. Yes, some IS bad, and yes some IS good, most of it is somewhere in between. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for instance certified Norwegian Cod last April http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/norwegian-cod-and-haddock-fisheries-obtain-msc-certification. Consider Blackburn's Day Boat Cod Hook and Line taken Cod for instance, a fine choice. You support sound capture technique of artisan roots (plus the quality is considerably better than trawled product). And, you are voting with your dollar for responsibly captured fish for the future.

I am sure you can find similar observations, as above, about the other fish mentioned in Ms. Leschin–Hoar's article, it's a question of sourcing.

Perhaps the observation is that "Seafood Lists" are just a tool in a toolbox, one to be observed and acknowledged, but not always the right tool for the job. Understanding the idiosyncrasies of the various species, capture techniques, bycatch and host of other anthropological and cultural concerns requires an onus of personal responsibility. Unless one makes the effort to embrace this commitment of time, then one will be forced to look for easy quick answers (something our society requests and requires).

Bottom Line: Question, Research, Be Involved, Be Proactive, Tell Two Friends. Until we ALL work together for sound responsible sea change that involves dialogue of all stakeholders of this issue we will continue to down a path of conflict and confusion.

Andrew Spurgin
Director of Seafood Education & Events – Passionfish.org
Co-Founder – Cooks Confab
Executive Chef/Director – Waters Fine Catering
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-06-2011 @3:41PM Jacqueline Church said... I first posted about this story on December 21.
http://jacquelinechurch.com/pig-tales-a-fish-friends/2009-legal-seafoods-qpromotingq-sustainability

I've been emailing w/Legal's Marketing Director Ida Faber and have been invited to bring my questions to the dinner.
http://jacquelinechurch.com/pig-tales-a-fish-friends/2012-berkowitz-does-disservice-to-gloucester-fishermen-and-sustainable-seafood-dialog

Ad hominem attacks on good organizations and smear tactics like throwing the word "Blacklist" out there show the true nature of this (naked) emperor of seafood.
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

1-11-2011 @1:34AM bryanjohnszeliga said... Fact, shrimp is the number 1 seafood consumed in America. It is over 25% of the total seafood weight consumed per capita! Shrimp "continues to be the largest single commodity in value terms, accounting for 17 percent of the total value of internationally-traded fishery products" (data from United Nations seafood report).
Mr. Berkowitz, why is it so important for American's to eat more shrimp?

Fact, in 1883 Thomas Huxley "I still believe the cod fishery...and all the great fisheries are inexhaustible" (data from The Empty Oceans by Richard Ellis 2003). Currently cod is depleted in the North Sea and in the Faeroes (data from United Nations seafood report). Also, please keep in mind that only 5-7% of the roughly 200,000 lbs of cod and haddock landed in Gloucester each week is caught by hook and line.
Mr. Berkowitz, are you saying that 5-7% caught in a responsible way constitutes a sustainable fishery? Should this low percent justify a 'best choice' by Seafood Watch?

Fact, for Hake "The status of the coastal fishes remains fully exploited or depleted." "The important hake resources remain fully exploited to overexploited although there are signs of some recovery in the deepwater hake stock off South Africa." (data from United Nations seafood report).
Mr. Berkowitz, how is hake underutilized if the fisheries are fully exploited?

Fact, Due to over overexploitation, pollution, and habitat destruction in the United Sates, approximately 1,375 of the nearly 2,000 species on endangered species list are found in part or entirely in the U.S. and its waters. (data from NOAA)

I am a chef, fly fisherman, and salmon conservationist. Therefore, Similar to Mr. Berkowitz, I to have a vested financial interest in eating seafood. However, unlike Mr. Berkowitz I want future generations to have the opportunity to eat seafood.

Mr. Berkowitz can you please share your marine biologist contacts who are showing there are more fish in the sea then conventional seafood conservation organizations report? As a chef and conservationist I would really like to learn more about where you are getting your data. Please do tell, where we can find this accurate science you are talking about! Are you aware that among others, social impact, economic impact, environmental impact, consumer health, animal welfare are all part of the equation? It is a very complex process. Yes, some fisherman are responsible and do fish sustainably in 'blacklist' fisheries. However, just because one or even several shrimp farms in Vietnam are responsible it does not mean that black tiger shrimp should be removed from the 'avoid' category. Also, I would gladly welcome the debate on the state of seafood! I kick off the debate by saying, "I do agree that there there are some fisheries, fisherman, and seafood species that are classified as 'avoid' which are in-fact responsible. However, denouncing the organizations that are working hard to preserve some form of integrity in sustainable seafood is not the right way to go about sharing information on sustainable seafood."

Fisherman are not loosing jobs because of the MSC or Seafood Watch. The real reason those fisherman are out of business is because there are not enough fish in the ocean to support their harvest! Between 1995 and 2003 the US government paid New England fisherman $60 million in subsidies and the Canadian Government provided its fisherman over $600 million in subsidies to off set loss of jobs due to depressed cod stocks. (data from The Empty Oceans by Richard Ellis 2003)

I do agree the MSC and Seafood Watch list do need improved. However, I believe the opposite of Mr. Berkowitz. The list are too loose in allowing fisheries to claim sustainability. Example the Alaska salmon fishery is MSC certified sustainable when over 32% of the fish harvest is hatchery produced. My data is backed by scientific based evidence. I am not against serving a responsible sources shrimp, hake, or cod, however, our oceans are in a state of crisis and a 'blacklist' dinner is not the answer to preserving them for generations to come.
Reply