Values, Ignorance, and Seafood: Some Quick Thoughts
A special treat today--a guest post by the husband, JH:
When
non-vegetarians ask me about my (almost) vegetarianism, I brace
myself for one of two responses. First, there is what I like to
call “the Oklahoma response.” This typically involves one form or
another of deliberate crassness: either a reminder that meat tastes
good, or a suggestion that caring about the well-being of non-human
animals is naïvely soft-hearted. (My father's comments usually fall
into this category, as when he gleefully tells people that my
vegetarianism is merely “a fad” that the kids are following these
days.) The second response is what I call “the Madison response.”
The Madison response usually involves a lot of vigorous nodding,
perhaps followed by an admission that my interlocutor is sympathetic
to vegetarianism—maybe she/he even tried it once!—but an explanation that for one reason or another, she/he still eats meat, often with some degree of guilt. My
mother exemplifies one strain of this response. On those
occasions when I've mentioned some difficult-to-stomach aspect of
industrial animal agriculture to her, her response is nearly always
the same: “I don't want to know about it!”
I can
relate to this response. Modern industrial agriculture is an ugly
thing, filled with harrowing tales of tiny cages, unanesthetized
mutilations, giant manure pits that seep into the water supply, and
much more. It is a system with enormous environmental consequences,
and where the lives of animals are often nasty, brutish, and short.
For a lot of people, a long hard look at the system would probably
not allow them to continue their usual way of eating with equanimity. It's all much easier if we just fail to learn
about the problems involved, lest they trouble our consciences.
I
don't mean for this to sound belittling. As I said, I can certainly
relate to such a frame of mind. Despite having read my fair share of
PeterSinger's work on global poverty, AZ and I just took a vacation to Puerto
Rico, just to get away from the Madison winters and get a little R&R.
The money we spent in doing so could obviously have alleviated much more suffering had
it been put to an alternate use. But if you'd mentioned that fact to
me while I was lying on the beach, I probably would have told you
that I didn't care to reflect on that fact at the moment.
Less
dramatically, I admit that I practice a kind of willful ignorance
about aspects of my diet as well. Unlike AZ, I'm not a strict
vegetarian, but a pescatarian: I eat fish or crustaceans about once a
week. I do this in part for variety and in part for the nutritional
value, but mostly I eat fish just because I like it. For me, there's
nothing like a delicious Wisconsin Fish Fry on a Friday night to cap
off a long week.
While
I think some types of seafood consumption are not ruled out by any of
my reasons for being a vegetarian,
I sometimes find myself slipping into the “I don't want to know” mindset, especially when it comes to eating species that are overfished,
or for which the methods of harvest are deeply environmentally
destructive. I carry the Monterey Bay guide in my wallet, but
sometimes I don't look at it, for fear that it won't give me the
answer I desire.
All
of this is a recipe for cognitive dissonance. But this might be
about to change. For I'm finally reading a book that Anna
got me for my birthday a few years ago, Bottomfeeder by Taras Grescoe. (The other book I'm reading
right now is Moby Dick. I must be in an aquatic phase.) I'm only a
couple of chapters into the book right now, but it's exactly the kind of
resource that someone like me could use to bring my eating habits
more into alignment with my values. The author reviews the different
methods of commercial fishing and some of their less savory effects--environmental destruction, large levels of bycatch, depleted stocks. Each chapter deals with a different species of fish, and some of the costs and benefits involved in the process that takes the fish from ocean to plate. You also get some amusing anecdotes wherein the
author grills 4-star chefs about the ethics of their seafood choices.
At the end, he gives a list of fish to eat and those to avoid. For
those interested, here they are:
AVOID:
Bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, Atlantic Halibut, Chilean Sea Bass,
Grouper, Monkfish, Orange Roughy, Dogfish Shark, Skate, Atlantic
Sole, Tilefish.
EAT:
Arctic Char, Pacific Halibut, Herring, Jellyfish, Mackerel, Mullet,
Oysters/Mussels, Pollock, Sablefish, Sardines, Squid, Trout, Whiting.
Of
course, such a one-size-fits-all list is bound to gloss over a number
of differences within species concerning where and how they are
raised/caught. But for those looking to exercise a little more
thought in their seafood choices, books like this one, or even just
the above list, might provide a good place to start.
Thanks for this! As a pescatarian and Monteray Bay card-carrier, I will have to check out that book. Luckily, my favorites are on the "good" list (Oysters! Trout! Sardines! Mullet!--though you don't see that much up north). But its not always easy to know if you're doing the right thing. Even trying to follow the Monteray Bay guidelines can be difficult, and I've read some critiques of it--at the Guilty Planet blog, I think. Jennifer Jacquet (Guilty Planet is her blog) has made some strong arguments against eating seafood at all, given scientific uncertainty about sustainable harvests. I still think limited consumption is OK, but I take her point--that fish should be treated as wildlife--seriously. I try to err on the side of the less controversial species. The best part about the Monteray Bay guide, though, is that it gives you an entry point with people (like my parents) who would never have even thought about trying to make an ecological choice before.
ReplyDeletePhew, sorry for such a long comment!
(Thanks for your long comment. You're always such a thoughtful commenter and add so much to the conversation that takes place on this blog, and I'm SO grateful for it!).
ReplyDeleteOh and this: Sustainable Seafood Swims To A Big-Box Store Near You
Deletehttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/19/145474067/sustainable-seafood-swims-to-a-big-box-store-near-you
I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. Great post, Justin! I've long been remiss about educating myself on what sort of seafood eating is consistent with my values. I should really check out that book (but also appreciate the quick-reference list of fishes to avoid/eat!). Thanks for the link, Anna!
ReplyDeleteNot sure if I told you (two) this, but over Thanksgiving I read an article on MotherJones that kind of changed my stance on pescetarianism. In addition to thinking about animal suffering, fertilizer use, seasonality, and other things that we "ethical eaters" (I know you don't like the term, JH, but I also know you know why I use it) feel we ought to consider, the article discusses caloric and nutritional efficiency: given a certain amount of space to dedicate to production, how much nourishment can we get out of any given food? It turns out that, at some times and places, small fish are among the best things we can eat. They're low on the food chain and have to consume relatively few calories - of stuff that we wouldn't be eating anyway - in order to provide us with a whole host of nutrients. The article recommended anchovies, sardines, mackerel, and a few other varieties. Looks like it lines up fairly well with your list above!
ReplyDeleteHey Mike,
ReplyDeleteYes! I failed to mention one of the central contentions of the book. The book is called "bottomfeeder" for two reasons. The superficial reason is that, well, some seafood are bottomfeeders, in the sense that live on the seafloor. But one of the main theses of the books is that we should be "bottomfeeders" by eating low on the food chain when it comes to choosing which seafood to eat. This has several advantages, including the reasons of efficiency that you mention. It also helps to minimize concerns about pollutants, since toxins like mercury accumulate as you move up the food chain.
Thanks for the comment. Anna sent me this link today (http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/food_and_gardening/1248977/shrimp_luxury_food_with_a_hidden_environmental_price_tag.html) and the waves of cognitive dissonance just came rushing back. I should probably cut it out with the shrimp eating, or at least stop eating shrimp from my favorite fast-food Chinese restaurant....