Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

90% of all big fish have been taken from the oceans

Has the programme been academically dissected to reveal the untruths? Sorry if missed further up thread.
Not sure what you mean by academically, but parts of it are heavily refuted by many sources including some of the people whose research it's based on. See the article I linked to or Google "Seaspiracy misrepresentation" or similar.
 
The main problem is that once you've unpicked the mendacity of the presentation of the material and identified the motivation, the rest completely loses credibility unless you got far out of your way to defend it. Over-fishing is a problem in places but nothing like the problem the film pretends and stocks are recovering in others. Anyone coming away from that saying "I'm not going to eat fish anymore" has been duped.

Agree with you that The Telegraph piece is well balanced.

Depends what you mean 'duped' though? If someone has been told that giving up eating seafood is the answer and will sort the whole problem out, then yeah, maybe. Although I think there's a much stronger case that people being told that everything can just continue the way it is now and it'll all be OK are the subject of a bigger lie tbh. Same with the NGOs and labelling saying that'll sort it all out.

I mean I largely agree that personal choice and consumer pressure is not going to solve the problem, and the focus on it might actually make things worse by obscuring the bigger changes that actually need to happen. I guess there comes some point though where even if what people buy and eat makes no difference on any measurable level, some level of withdrawing from it as much as possible becomes an understandable position.
 
Is there a summary of the claims in the documentary, and which ones are contested and for what reasons?
 
The most controversial statistic in the film is the projection of global crashes in commercially exploited fish populations by 2048. What the industry doesn’t mention is that they generated the controversy. Since the 2006 publication of “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services” in Science magazine, industry groups have doggedly scolded media outletsfor citing it. Professor Ray Hilborn, who founded Sustainable Fisheries UW, emerged as this study’s most prominent critic. A decade later, he would be exposed for not only receiving millions of dollars in seafood industry funding but failing to disclose it as a conflict of interest. While he did work with the author of the 2048 projection on a subsequent paper, this research didn’t correct or disprove its conclusions but rather cited them.

 
I don’t like fish so I haven’t eaten it since I was about seven in the early 1970s. Just wanted to share. Does that make me a better person than I thought I was?
Have you drunk any Guinness since then or any other drink using finings or isinglass?
 
Read what I posted upthread, Bish. The Telegraph article is exactly what Nox is asking for and there’s tons of really well researched, credible, unbiased stuff just a short Google away.

Even that Jacobin piece that Psycho Jeff has just selectively edited and linked to, points out (rather too kindly) that much of Seaspiracy is discredited vegan-lefty bollocks, and Jacobin are a Trot-loon outfit that make The Guardian look Nazi!
 
Last edited:
Have you drunk any Guinness since then or any other drink using finings or isinglass?
Guinness is fish friendly- otherwise no, I only drink cheap booze in the provinces not like that posh fish bladder cleared stuff popular round your way.
 
I listened to this podcast from the Guardian this morning on the way to work about Seaspiracy and some of the dodgy claims.
 
"Vegan Propaganda

At the end of the day, Seaspiracy is nothing more than self indulgent, vegan propaganda. Its claims are unsupported by science and it does little to help the cause it wants to support."


Full article:

Response:



 
"Vegan Propaganda

At the end of the day, Seaspiracy is nothing more than self indulgent, vegan propaganda. Its claims are unsupported by science and it does little to help the cause it wants to support."


Full article:

Response:




FYI:

"The money comes from the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at UW, which oversees the project. Contributors to the project include... and some fishing companies and their affiliated NGOs."
 
"Vegan Propaganda

At the end of the day, Seaspiracy is nothing more than self indulgent, vegan propaganda. Its claims are unsupported by science and it does little to help the cause it wants to support."


Full article:

Response:





Very widely debunked now. Even The Guardian struggled with it.

Load of old cods.
 
Back
Top Bottom