Thriving Oceans

Humuhumunukunukuapua’a (or reef triggerfish) shows me who’s the ocean boss in just 10 seconds.  Well, boss over this section of a reef in Maui at any rate.  After 10 seconds I decided to leave him in peace to guard his territory.

I’ve been a bit distracted in the last couple of weeks and hence a lackluster post performance.  So time to get back to the ocean nitty gritty…

And what better way to start anew than with something to ease our appetites.  As I glance over the virtual menu I decide what the hell, “Waiter, I’ll take the tuna.”  I know I railed against overfishing, reported on the decreasing numbers of tuna, and have heard conservation organizations ask me to stay away from bluefin but no worries as the menu indicates nothing about item #13 being southern bluefin.  Oops, I guess he didn’t hear me, “WAITER, I’LL TAKE #13, THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED TUNA…PLEASE.”

Yep, you heard it right that time.  A new study published Wednesday (Nov. 18) in PLoS has found that piece of tuna you just ordered and most likely eaten was potentially an endangered species.  And if I actually ate tuna sushi, that would be enough to make me sicker than ingesting a helping of week old sashimi leftovers.

Now that we know I’m safe from feelings of guilt and a potential bout of food poisoning, I’ll move on with the findings.  With a background in molecular biology, I love it when genetics rears its head in the world of conservation.  In this particular case, the researchers collected tuna samples from restaurants over a 7 month period in 2008 and, for the sake of brevity, used the obtained DNA to identify the species.  Here is a summary of their results:

-A piece of tuna sushi has the potential to be an endangered species, a fraud, or a health hazard. All three of these cases were uncovered in this study. Nineteen (out of 31) restaurant establishments were unable to clarify or misrepresented what species they sold.

-Twenty-two of 68 samples were sold as species that were contradicted by molecular identification, while six samples were sold as ‘‘tuna’’ or ‘‘red tuna.’’ 

-Five out of nine samples sold as a variant of ‘‘white tuna’’ were not albacore (T. alalunga), but escolar (Lepidocybium flavorunneum), a gempylid species banned for sale in Italy and Japan due to health concerns.

-Nineteen samples were northern bluefin tuna (T. thynnus) or the critically endangered southern bluefin tuna (T. maccoyii), though nine restaurants that sold these species did not state these species on their menus.

The high stakes, money making tuna market has effectively become a game of chance for the consumer. And when you can’t trust the restaurant, the menu, or the staff, perhaps it is better to err on the side of caution.  Just something to think about the next time you pick up your chop sticks.

Lowenstein, J., Amato, G., & Kolokotronis, S. (2009). The Real maccoyii: Identifying Tuna Sushi with DNA Barcodes – Contrasting Characteristic Attributes and Genetic Distances PLoS ONE, 4 (11) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007866

Incredible footage from the brief glimpse we’ve been given so far.  Looking forward to exploring Oceans with Disneynature on Earth Day!

Press Release from Sea Turtle Restoration Project  (Nov. 5, 2009)-

Sea turtle advocates in California and family shrimp fishers from Florida filed a federal lawsuit today against the U. S. State Department for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for allowing shrimp caught in ways that are deadly to sea turtles to be sold in the United States  The lawsuit filed by the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School (Palo Alto, CA) on behalf of Turtle Island Restoration Network (Forest Knolls, CA) and the Mayport Village Association (Mayport, FL) claims that the U. S. State Department has failed to properly evaluate and prevent harm to sea turtles from overseas shrimp fleets that sell shrimp to the United States under the ESA’s Turtle-Shrimp Law (Pub. L. 101-162 § 609). It was filed in the U. S. District Court, Northern District of California. See the complaint.

“This is not only a tragedy for sea turtles, which die by the tens of thousands in shrimp nets every year, but is unfair to the U.S. fishers who obey the law and must compete in the U.S. marketplace with shrimp imports,” said Todd Steiner, biologist and executive director of Turtle Island Restoration Network a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of sea turtles and their habitat.

“Our Mayport shrimpers are struggling to survive, while foreign fleets get a free pass on the law and flood the market with cheap shrimp,” said Al Millar, representing Mayport Village Civic Association and its small fleet of family shrimpers based in the historic village of Mayport, FL. See www.SaveMayportVillage.net. “We work hard to fish and protect sea turtles but don’t get a break from our own government.”

The lawsuit claims that the State Department has not properly enforced requirements for foreign shrimp vessels to use nets with Turtle Excluder Devices as U. S. fishers are required to do. The lawsuit asks that the foreign shrimp certification process be given additional environmental oversight and review. Recently, shrimp imports from Costa Rica were banned due to failure to protect sea turtles after environmentalists’ complaints, but 15 other nations were certified with little, if any, scrutiny.

“There is a simple, inexpensive, and elegant solution that allows sea turtles to escape drowning in shrimp nets, called a turtle excluder device or TED” said Deborah Sivas, Stanford Law professor, and director of the Environmental Law Clinic, who filed the lawsuit.  “If the State Department can create a reasonable certification program, we can save the lives of thousands of endangered sea turtles while allowing shrimp harvesting to continue.”

Americans consume over 500,000 tons of shrimp annually, and is the top fishery import of the United States, valued at over $3.9 billion last year, according to government figures. This includes trawl-caught wild shrimp and farmed shrimp (which does not capture sea turtles but is environmentally harmful due to pollution of fish ponds and land clearing). About 90 percent of shrimp eaten in the U. S. is imported. See latest U. S. shrimp import data.

Background:
The U. S. Turtle-Shrimp Law was challenged by nations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming to be a violation of the “free-trade” agreement, leading to the famous “Battle of Seattle” protests in 1999 where thousands marched peacefully to protest weak environmental protections in the global trade treaty.  The U.S. Turtle-Shrimp Law was eventually found to comply with the WTO, but poor enforcement has allowed sea turtles around the world to drown in shrimp nets and slide toward extinction. (The movie Battle of Seattle starring Woody Harrelson that dramatized the protests was released in 2008). Read more .

On May 1, 2009, the Department of State certified, pursuant to Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 (”Section 609”), that 15 nations have adopted programs to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in their shrimp fisheries comparable to the program in effect in the United States. Belize, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Suriname, and Venezuela. The Department also certified that the fishing environments in 24 other countries and one economy, Hong Kong, do not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles protected under Section 609. Read more.