Meat and Seafood:The Global Diet's Most Costly Ingredients

T H E W O R L D W AT C H I N S T I T U T ET H E W O R L D W AT C H I N S T I T U T E

STATE OF TH E WOR LDSTATE OF TH E WOR LD2 0 0 82 0 0 8

Innovations for aSustainable EconomyInnovations for aSustainable Economy

2 5 t h A n n i ve r s a r y E d i t i o n2 5 t h A n n i ve r s a r y E d i t i o n

WWW.WORLDWATCH.ORG 61

Walk into any kitchen around the world andthere’s a good chance that meat or seafoodsit neatly at the center of the meal. This isespecially true at any top restaurant in NewYork, Rio, or Beijing. But billions of peopleall over the world have hamburgers or porkchops or fish fingers with their families athome every night. Even the poorest peopleoften spend their extra income on some oddcuts of meat or fish bones for soup. In fact,meat and seafood are the two most rapidlygrowing ingredients in the global diet. Yet interms of resource use, these are also two ofthe most costly.

In 2006 farmers produced an estimated276 million tons of chicken, pork, beef, andother meat—four times as much as in 1961.On average, each person eats twice as muchmeat as back then, about 43 kilograms. Andthe fishing industry harvested about 141million tons of seafood globally in 2005,the last year for which data are available.That was eight times as much as in 1950,with each person on average eating fourtimes as much seafood as before. (See Fig-

ure 5–1 and Table 5–1.)1

For people living in wealthy nations,seafood is an increasingly popular healthfood option; with its high levels of fatty acidsand trace minerals, nutritionists recognizeseafood as essential to the development andmaintenance of good neurological function,not to mention a reduced risk of cancer,heart disease, and other debilitating condi-tions. In poorer nations in Asia, Africa, andLatin America, people are also eating morefish if they can afford it. And Chinese con-sumers now eat roughly five times as muchseafood per person as they did in 1961, whiletotal fish consumption in China has increasedmore than 10-fold. For more than a billionpeople, mostly in Asia, fish now supply 30percent of their protein, versus just 6 percentworldwide.2

The good news is that there are methodsof raising beef, pork, and chicken that do notcreate mountains of toxic manure and con-sume huge amounts of grain and water, as wellas techniques for catching fish that do not endup destroying coral reefs and ensnaring

C H A P T E R 5

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg

Meat and Seafood:The Global Diet’s Most

Costly Ingredients

seabirds and turtles. These innovations will bemuch cheaper in terms of energy and resourceuse as well as health impacts. But the price thatconsumers pay at the store or market willlikely rise. Rethinking how fish and meat areproduced will mean that consumers in indus-trial countries will have to eat fewer of theseproducts—surf-and-turf dinners for execu-tives may become a thing of the past, as willcheap fast-food meals of fried fish and ham-burgers that have become a dinnertime staplefor busy families. Eating less of these foodsnow, however, is a sort of investment in thefuture, since it will mean saving family farms,improving rangeland, reducing water pollu-tion, and—in the case of wild fish—preserv-ing a catch that is increasingly scarce.

Changing Production MethodsHow did the meat and seafood that people eatchange so dramatically? Industrial meat pro-duction took off in the early twentieth cen-tury with a series of changes in animal

breeding and farmstructure and with therise of corporateagribusiness. BeforeWorld War II, cattlewere raised on the openrange, eating a grass-based diet. Chickens—raised mostly for theireggs, not meat—wereallowed to forage out-doors for grass andinsects. Pigs, while usu-ally enclosed in openair pens, were given suf-ficient space to nest androot, as well as accessto fresh air and sun-light. And the manurethese animals produced

was used efficiently to fertilize crops.3But starting in the 1930s farmers began

raising chickens for meat as well as eggs.Researchers developed new, higher-efficiencyfeed for these meat chickens, now called broil-ers. Then scientists discovered that addingantibiotics to feed caused these birds—andother farm animals—to gain weight quicker.Since the 1950s, the time it takes to raisebroiler chickens decreased by half, from 84 to45 days. Today broilers eat less than half asmuch feed and reach a weight of 2 kilogramsin about one third as much time. By the1960s, pigs and cows were also being raisedin feedlots and confined animal feeding oper-ations—indoor enclosures that can hold thou-sands of animals.4

In the case of fishing, the technologieswere different but the broad changes in theindustry were largely the same. Fishing fleetsbecame larger, more powerful, and better atextracting fish from ever more remote cornersof the ocean. Boats now depend on devicessuch as sonar technology, satellite navigation

62 WWW.WORLDWATCH.ORG

STATE OF THE WORLD 2008

Meat and Seafood:The Global Diet’s Most Costly Ingredients

1950 1960 19801970 1990 2000 2010

Mill

ion

Ton

s

Seafood

Meat

Source: FAO

Figure 5–1. World Meat Production and Seafood Harvest, 1950–2006

0

50

100

150

200

300

250

systems, depth sensors, and detailed maps ofthe ocean floor. Enormous nets made out ofsynthetic fibers and huge winches give boatsaccess to previously unreachable deep-seaareas where fish gather and spawn. Somefishing boats in the Atlantic Ocean use spot-ter planes, while in the Pacific fishers use heli-copters to seek out schools of prized fish andscoop them up in huge quantities. Thesetechnologies are part of the reason that thewild fish catch holds steady at about 70 mil-lion tons even though scientists estimate thatthe fishing industry has eliminated 90 percentof the large fish in the ocean.5

When these practices first emerged in fish-ing ports and rural farming areas, they mighthave seemed like a good idea—more seafoodharvested by bigger boats and fewer fishers;more meat on a more reliable schedule at alower price. Agribusiness executives saw prof-its jump. Politicians supported the shift in theinterest of competing better with othernations, having more abundant food sup-plies, and in some cases lowering food prices.

But these lower prices were an illusion. Byraising meat in factory farms and grabbing fishand other seafood from the ocean with huge

trawlers and other industrial fish-ing techniques, current produc-tion methods are endangeringpeople’s health while also threat-ening the long-term stability ofthe land, oceans, and genetic diver-sity that sustain production itself.

In one particularly ironic case,producing meat in midwesternfactory farms may actually bereducing the fish harvest from oneof the most productive U.S. fish-eries. The fertilizers used to growcorn for animal feed run off intosurface water and eventually maketheir way down into the Gulf ofMexico, where they have created

a “dead zone” the size of New Jersey. Thenitrogen-based fertilizers encourage algaeblooms that rob other ocean life of oxygen.This area produces some $662 million worthof seafood each year, nearly one fifth of theentire fishing yield from the United States.And although there is only anecdotal evi-dence of a decline in fisheries harvests in theGulf, experience from other less severe deadzones around the world shows that catchescan drop precipitously.6

Emerging concerns about these two foodsources—including avian flu and other newdiseases in the case of meat and outrightdepletion and contamination in the case ofseafood—are prompting consumers, fishers,farmers, and agribusiness to search for bet-ter alternatives.

Going Back to NaturePart of the reason that livestock and fishfarms have become ecological disasters is thatthey have moved away from mimicking theenvironment in which animals exist naturally.Decades ago, before the big jump in pro-duction, livestock played a symbiotic role on




Country Meat Seafood

(kilograms (percent (kilograms (percent per increase per increase

person) since 1961) person) since 1961)

China 55.5 14.6 25.8 5.4Japan 91.0 1.7 66.5 1.4European Union 44.3 5.9 26.5 1.5United States 123.5 1.4 23.2 1.8India 6.0 1.6 4.9 2.6

World 42 1.8 23.5 1.8

Source: See endnote 1.

Table 5–1. Meat and Seafood Consumption in Top Five Countries or Regions, 2005,

and Increase since 1961

most farms—grazing on cropland before orafter production and providing essential fer-tilizer in the form of manure. Fish pondsoccupied a similar place on most farms, feed-ing off of agricultural waste and helping toenrich soil. But once farmers removed live-stock and fish production from the land, theneed for inputs jumped and the manure beganto pile up.7

In places as diverse as the Philippines andIowa, some farmers are going back to moretraditional methods of farm animal produc-tion. Outside Manila, for example, innovativefarmers have learned from the centuries-longpractice of raising livestock and fish together.By rearing hogs, chickens, and tilapia and bygrowing rice, these farmers have created a self-sustaining system: the manure from the hogsand chickens fertilizes the algae in pondsneeded for both tilapia and rice to grow. Andin central Iowa, pig farmers are remodeling“conventional” concrete sheds for raisingpigs into open areas with deep bedding andoutdoor access and raising heritage pig breeds,like Berkshires and Tamworths. These breedsare more used to living outdoors, and becausethey are allowed to forage, their meat is tastierand healthier than factory-farmed pork.8

These farms produce very little waste, pro-vide a diversity of food, and give farmers amuch needed sense of both food and eco-nomic security if prices for meat or fish fluc-tuate. The farms also cut down on veterinarycosts: Animals that are raised outdoors rarelysuffer from the respiratory ailments and otherillnesses common in factory farms. Andbecause farmers raising grass-fed animals havefewer of them than factory farms do, they are

much better at spotting and treating sick andinjured animals and at preventing potentialpandemics like avian flu.9

Of course, going back to a more tradi-tional way of raising meat and fish is notcompletely practical. Many people who usedto farm have moved away from the country-side, and farms are bigger and more concen-trated than they once were, all of which makesit hard to return to a more integrated formof production. But meat and seafood farmersaround the world are mixing a dose of old-time practices with certain lessons from mod-ern ecology and showing that they can raisejust as much food, while greatly reducingthe harm caused by their farms.

For years, for example, the pig industryhas said that gestation crates—concrete stallsthat do not allow pigs to move much, turnaround, or act in other natural ways—are themost economical way of meeting demand forpork products. But recent Iowa State Uni-versity research that compared the costs of rais-ing sows (female pigs) in gestation crates andalternative structures found otherwise. Insteadof confining pigs in crowded factory farms, theresearchers reared sows in group hoophouses—pens that allow the animals to nest instraw and walk around freely. A two-year studyfound that sows in hoop houses had more livebirths than those in confinement facilities.Researchers also found that group housingcould reduce production costs by as much as11 percent compared with gestation crates.Pigs are not only very social creatures, butwhen allowed to nest together they can bet-ter control their own temperatures, whichcan improve overall health and performance,the researchers claimed.10

This type of mangement-intensive farmingwill also create more jobs. According to agri-cultural economist William Weida, one reasonfactory farms claim that they are profitable isthat they need fewer people to take care of the




Outside Manila, innovative farmers havelearned from the centuries-long practiceof raising livestock and fish together.

animals. But recent evidence indicates thatwhen animals are well cared for they per-form better. Smithfield, for example, theworld’s largest pork producer, found at oneof its hog farms in Mexico that productivityincreased when they had more people tend-ing the pigs. These practices are part of amuch wider movement toward humanelyraised and environmentally sustainable prod-ucts from animals that were raised on grass.11

Raising cattle, cows, pigs, and chickens—and raising fewer of them—in more naturalenvironments also has some significant ben-efits for what is likely the most pressing envi-ronmental issue today: climate change.Researchers at the University of Wales arelooking at how introducing differentgrasses—which are what ruminants are meantto eat—into cattle diets can help reduce themethane emissions from belching, flatulentcows. While the diet fed to cattle and dairycows on factory farms encourages them togain weight quickly, it also leads to a varietyof digestive problems. Scientists believe thatmore-digestible feed will reduce these prob-lems and thus help curb methane emissions.Not surprisingly, some of the grasses foundcommonly in U.K. pastures and meadows—including white clover, rye, and a flowercalled bird’s foot trefoil—are highlydigestible. And a Swedish study in 2003found that beef cattle raised organically ongrass emit 40 percent less greenhouse gasesand use 85 percent less energy making beefthan cattle raised on grain.12

While improving meat farming largelymeans moving animals out of grain-focusedfeedlots and back onto the land, the simplestway to reform fish farming is by moving backdown the food chain toward species that donot require as much fish feed. As seafoodproducers have begun farming fish to com-pensate for the depletion of wild fish stocks,farmed fish have grown to account for 40 per-

cent of all seafood eaten around the world.Industry analysts suspect this share will be wellabove half in the next few years. But much likethe move to concentrated factory farms formeat, fish farming has been transformed fromits ancient roots of efficiently reusing veg-etable scrapes, weeds, and manure to raise afew carp or catfish.13

The closely confined fish on industrialfarms require massive inputs of feed, energy,and biocides to control disease, while alsogenerating large amounts of manure. Today,fish farmers raising tuna, salmon, striped bass,shrimp, and other carnivores consume con-siderably more fish—anchovy, herring,capelin, and whiting—in the form of feedthan they produce. In 1948, only 7.7 percentof total marine catch was reduced to fish-meal and fish oil. Now about 37 percent ofglobal landings are reduced to feed, elimi-nating an important historical and futuresource of human sustenance.14

Understandably, farmers raise carnivorousfish like salmon, tuna, and cod in large open-ocean pens because of the high prices thesefish command. Only a shift in taste by con-sumers will help push farmers toward raisingmore-efficient species like carp and catfish aswell as shellfish. In the short term, however,fish farmers are at least starting to move—inline with the urgings of various concerned cit-izens’ groups—in a better direction.15

Consider salmon, the first species to beraised in fish farms on a large scale. Severaldecades of production in nations like Chile,Norway, and the United States have shownthat such farms also lead to large amounts ofcoastal pollution from waste and excess feed,the use of antibiotics and other chemicalsto control disease, and the occasional escapeof millions of salmon into nearby waters,where they often spread disease to remainingwild salmon.16

In response, the National Environmental




Trust and other conservation groups, fishingorganizations, and marine scientists launchedthe Pure Salmon Campaign. The group haseight primary areas—such as waste, disease,and escapes—that they encourage salmonfarms to address. In particular, the campaignhas been lobbying for a move toward closed-container farms, so that water can be reusedand any pollution from the fish can be treatedand kept out of the surrounding waters. Andthey have started lobbying the world’s largestsalmon farming companies—includingMarine Harvest, which controls more than 20percent of global production—with a com-bination of shareholder resolutions and directnegotiations with corporate boards. Mostrecently, they helped convince Marine Har-vest’s largest shareholder (an avid angler forwild salmon) of the importance of closed-con-tainer farms.17

But what about the high feed require-ments in salmon, shrimp, and other carnivo-rous fish farms? Borrowing principles fromancient fish farms that raised several species ofcarp that each fed on a different plant or thatcombined ducks, fish, snails, and other organ-isms that fed off each other, integrated farmscan reduce feed requirements and waste whilegenerating more edible seafood than a fishmonoculture does. While large-scale appli-cations are still relatively few and far between,raising salmon with bottom-feeding fish, mus-sels, sea urchins, or algae can help eliminatemost nitrogen “leakage” from the salmon,while also producing other harvestable crops.(Mussels actually grow 50 percent faster nearsalmon pens.)18

In Norway, several large farms have foundthat introducing cleaner fish—a species thatcleans parasites and leftover food off otherfish—into salmon pens dramatically reduceslice (the major disease of farmed salmon,which also has been spreading to and deci-mating wild salmon throughout the world)and feed wastage (as the cleaner fish scavengewhat the salmon miss) and that the cleanerfish can later be harvested to turn into fish-meal. Salmon production remains the samewhile waste drops by more than half, theincidence of disease drops, and the farm har-vests two or three additional crops.19

Because oysters, clams, scallops, mussels,and other shellfish eat algae and can help fil-ter and reduce excess nutrients that run intothe water and promote algae blooms, coastalcommunities around the world are usingshellfish farms to remove nutrients from bays,rivers, and coastal waterways. Studies haveshown that enhancing shellfish beds is acheaper way to remove nitrogen from thewater than sewage treatment plants. Thisallows sunlight to reach the bay bottom sothat grasses and the other bases of the foodchain thrive. “By providing these three ser-vices—filtration, stabilization and habita-tion—oysters engineered the ecosystem,”wrote shellfish expert Rowan Jacobsen in AGeography of Oysters when describing the his-toric role of oysters in places like the Chesa-peake Bay on the east coast or Puget Soundin the west.20

A return to oyster farming could not onlyresult in lots of new jobs and shellfish to eat.It might actually be the best way to restoreinland estuaries, coral reefs, and coastal ecosys-tems damaged by pollution, including themore than 200 large dead zones that havebeen caused by excess nutrient runoff. More-over, the metal cages that hold the shellfishin these operations function as artificial reefs.Fishers have learned that striped bass, shad,




In many densely populated Asian nations,where demand for seafood is growingfastest, fish farming is a natural additionto existing rice farming operations.

and other species congregate around them.21

In many densely populated Asian nations,where demand for seafood is growing fastest,fish farming is a natural addition to existingrice farming operations. This isn’t new. Arche-ological evidence shows that Chinese farmershave been raising fish in rice paddies for nearly3,000 years. Vegetable scraps and cropresidues are fed to fish, which in turn producewaste that is used to fertilize the fields. Farm-ers can also use fewer pesticides and herbi-cides, since fish help control pests byconsuming the larvae and eating weeds andalgae that compete with rice for nutrients.(Fish farming also helps to control malaria,since fish eat mosquito larvae.)

Farmers practicing rice-field culture inBangladesh have managed to reduce pro-duction costs by 10 percent, and the averagefarm income has increased by 16 percent injust three years, buoyed by sales of fish fry andfingerlings as well as of fish that farmers donot eat. One hectare of rice field typically pro-duces between 250 and 1,500 kilograms offish. Thousands of rural Bangladeshis havealready adopted this form of affordable aqua-culture. And researchers suggest that farm-ers could quickly adapt this integrated systemon about 40,000 hectares, generating10,000–60,000 tons of fish, worth roughly$40 million a year.22

Such benefits are not restricted to Asia. Arecent project that focused on increasing pro-duction at several hundred small-scale fishfarms in Cameroon found that basic techni-cal assistance—including regularity of feeding,proper stocking densities, and a harvest sched-ule—boosted production from 498 kilogramsto 2,525 kilograms of fish per hectare andincreased cash returns 16-fold. Theresearchers estimated that in areas with goodmarket access, similar investments could add5,300 tons of fresh fish to the food supply, putan additional $50 million into the local econ-

omy, and produce profits for each farm in therange of $2,000 a year—twice the averageincome per person.23

A Change in IncentivesFor governments interested in being ahead ofthe pack in promoting ecological meat andseafood farms, the biggest priority is chang-ing the major financial incentives they give tofarmers and fishers. Right now, most subsidieskeep farming and fishing mired in the statusquo of destructive production. For instance,governments give farmers nearly $300 billioneach year to grow a handful of commoditieslike corn and soybeans, which not onlyencourages chemical use and discouragesdiversity on the farm—since farms get paidbased on how much of these crops they har-vest—it also brings down the prices of thesecrops and turns corn and soybeans into avery cheap way to fatten animals.24

The Washington-based EnvironmentalWorking Group reports that direct subsidiesfor livestock between 1995 and 2005 totaled$2.9 billion in the United States alone. Dur-ing the same time, corn and soybean pro-ducers—who provide, in effect, the fuel forconfined animal feeding operations—receivedapproximately $50 billion and $13 billionrespectively.25

The estimated $30–40 billion in fisheriessubsidies each year goes mainly to low-inter-est loans to replace old boats with more pow-erful, newer ones, to fishing port development,and to payoffs from wealthy nations that wishto gain access to the fishing grounds of poorercountries. As one historic analysis of fisheriessubsidies noted, “in the 1950s and 1960s,the more boat-building subsidies you gave, themore fish you got.” But since more than twothirds of ocean fisheries are now fullyexploited, continued subsidies mean that toomany fishers are going after too few fish.26




As Daniel Pauly of the Sea Around UsProject at the University of British Columbianotes, the public pays for these subsidies withtax dollars and is rewarded with cheaper fishonly in the short term. As in agriculture, thewealthiest nations and the largest boats reapmost of the benefits: the United States, theEuropean Union, and Japan account for75–85 percent of fisheries subsidies.27

Because this support structure favors larger,less diverse, more capital-intensive opera-tions, the prevailing policy actually discour-ages more diverse and humane livestock farmsand less destructive fishing operations.

Subsidies have proved particularly resis-tant to reform as the recipients have amassedpolitical clout on a par with the payouts theyreceive. But a first approach would be to goafter the most egregious subsidies, includ-ing fuel subsidies for fishing fleets. Ships thathave to travel farther to find fish gobble uptremendous amounts of energy keeping thefish cool on the long trips back to shore. In2000, fisheries around the world burnedabout 13 billion gallons of fuel to catch 80million tons of fish. In other words, theworld’s fleets use about 12.5 times as muchenergy to catch fish as the fish provide tothose who eat them.28

Consider bottom trawling. Dragging anet across the ocean bottom has been likenedto clearcutting a forest in search of squirrelsand chipmunks. Such fishing is energy-inten-sive and destroys habitat, including sensitivedeep-sea areas that can harbor future popu-lations of fish. Governments still give bottomtrawlers about $152 million in subsidies. Thatis about 25 percent of the total value of theboats’ catch, even though this fleet only yields

about 10 percent of the catch in profits. Inother words, the subsidies are the only reasonfishers are still using the technique.29

Or consider subsidies in many develop-ing nations that either directly or indirectlyfavor raising exotic breeds of animals. TheFarm Animal Genetic Resources Division ofthe U.N. Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion reports that subsidies for veterinary drugscan encourage raising animals that are notsuited to particular climates or that have resis-tance to certain pests. But if these subsidieswere removed and replaced with compensa-tion for farmers who raised their animals out-doors on grass or who worked to conserverare breeds, the environmental and publichealth benefits could be wide-ranging.30

In both farming and fishing, subsidyreform does not have to mean fewer jobsand less food. Redirecting subsidies that goto the largest operations can actually createmore jobs, since small livestock farms andfishing vessels both employ more people perunit of food harvested. A study in Norwayfound that small-scale fisheries generate fivetimes as many jobs per unit of landed valueas large-scale ones. Small-scale fishers are alsolikely to use more selective and less destruc-tive fishing practices—catching tuna withhandlines, for instance, instead of long linesthat snag sharks and seabirds or using passivetraps to only catch certain fish instead ofdragging, which kills everything in the net.31

And despite the fears of farmers and gov-ernments that eliminating subsidies woulddestroy agriculture, farmers and agribusinesscan actually thrive with zero subsidies. InNew Zealand, in 1984 a newly elected gov-ernment stopped paying farmers for growingcrops and raising animals. It was a shock torural communities. But instead of destroyingthem, production of milk quadrupled.32

Without subsidies for fuel and grain, NewZealand dairy farms have turned to nurturing




In both farming and fishing, subsidyreform does not have to mean fewerjobs and less food.

the nation’s abundant pasture. Farmers shiftedaway from Jersey cows, with milk rich in but-terfat, to larger Friesians, which provide moreprotein-rich milk. A “Kiwi cross” of the twobreeds resulted in a higher-protein milk in amore compact, hardier animal. Today, cowsin New Zealand cost less to feed and yieldmore milk solids, making them more prof-itable. Sheep farmers also responded, reduc-ing their huge herds of mostly small and fattylambs, importing breeds from Finland andDenmark to improve the fertility of theirewes, and producing larger, leaner lambs thatwere both less expensive to raise and moreappealing to health-conscious consumers.33

In other cases, subsidies can help jumpstarta completely different regulation of theoceans. Some maritime nations, includingBelgium, Canada, China, Germany, NewZealand, and the United Kingdom, are begin-ning to shift their fisheries subsidies towardestablishing marine reserves in which a swathof ocean is made off-limits to any fishing.34

In contrast to the current system, whichregulates fish species by species and which setssometimes controversial limits on how muchof each can be caught in a given time, marinereserves do not require expensive data col-lection programs in order to gain a detailedunderstanding of the fish stock. Nature man-ages itself; the entire ecosystem gets protec-tion rather than just one species, and fishhave a safe place to get big, spawn, and pro-duce young fish that migrate out of the pre-serve. Evidence shows that fish populationsrecover rapidly in such reserves and thatnearby fish catches and sizes increase dra-matically after a reserve is set up.35

A recent study estimated that establish-ing reserves for all the world’s major fish-eries would cost $5–19 billion each year andcreate about 1 million jobs. Beyond increas-ing the fish catch, these reserves make idealcenters for tourism and help restore coral

reefs, mangroves, and other ocean ecosys-tems, yielding other benefits to society. Del-egates at the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development and the 2003 WorldParks Congress called for the establishmentof a global system of marine protected areas,and scientists estimate that making just 20percent of the oceans off-limits to fishingwould be sufficient. Today only 1 percent ofthe world’s ocean area is currently protected.36

Embracing the Ethical Governments and policymakers can shift pol-icy and enact regulations on food, but it isconsumers and big buyers who can rapidlyreshape the market and make the most impactby voting with their food dollars. From farm-friendly companies like Niman Ranch andHeritage Foods U.S.A. to major corpora-tions like Whole Foods, and even SmithfieldFoods, business is starting to meet consumerdemand for safe, humane, and sustainablemeat production. The same is happening inthe seafood supply chain—from fishing coop-eratives whose members are returning to lessdestructive artisanal methods to large super-market chains that are marketing sustainableseafood as the healthier choice.

There are two sides to this innovation—amove by the food industry to embrace eco-logically sustainable food and label it as suchand a reciprocal response from shoppers whoseek out this choice. In some cases consumershelp set the relationship in motion. Heritageand rare breeds of livestock are coming backin vogue because of their unique qualities:healthier meat, milk, and eggs and better fla-vor. More sustainable fish also are often theones that have a lower risk of mercury cont-amination, because they tend to be lower onthe marine food chain.

These markets for ethical meat and seafoodcannot grow without clear labels and certifi-




cation programs that ensure that one farmeror fisher is different from another—and thatconsumers are really getting what they pay for.In the case of seafood, the impetus for suchcertification actually came from Unilever, theDutch food and consumer products giant. Inthe 1990s, Unilever—then the world’s largestseafood buyer—faced considerable pressurefrom its customers and from environmentalgroups to rethink its seafood purchases. Butthe company needed some guidance on whichspecies to avoid and which to favor.37

Working with WWF, Unilever helped cre-ate the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)in 1997 to certify fish populations as sus-tainable and to provide direction for thenascent sustainable seafood market. TheMSC is now supported by at least 100 cor-porate, environmental, and consumer orga-nizations in more than 20 nations, all ofwhom have a stake in the future of the globalseafood supply. Certified fisheries can usethe group’s “Fish Forever” ecolabel, signi-fying that their product was caught usingenvironmentally sound, economical, andsocially responsible management practices.More than 300 seafood products bearingthe MSC blue ecolabel are available in super-markets in nearly 30 nations.38

Certain seafood companies are beginningto base their entire business on “the storybehind the fish”—how it was raised, caught,and processed—just as many supermarketsand agribusinesses now capitalize on risingglobal interest in organic produce, grass-fedbeef, and other “environmentally friendly”food choices. Consider EcoFish, a distributorbased in the state of New Hampshire.Founded in 1999 as the only company inthe world whose sole mission was to identifyand market seafood originating from envi-ronmentally sustainable fisheries, EcoFish’sproducts are now found in more than 1,000stores and 150 restaurants throughout the

United States. Another U.S. firm, CleanFish,specializes in finding a market for seafoodcaught by smaller-scale fishers around theworld, whose artisanal techniques are lesslikely than large-scale fishing fleets to harm themarine environment (and the quality of thefish flesh).39

In contrast to certification through theMSC, an expensive process that can takesome time and begins in response to requestsfrom fisheries, EcoFish and CleanFish seekout seafood supplies from around the worldand then assess whether they meet certainstandards. This has allowed the two firms tooffer a wider range of seafood—includingfarmed seafood—and to offer products yearsbefore they receive MSC certification.EcoFish recently received an investment grantthat it hopes will allow its sales to grow five-fold in the next three years, to $15–20 mil-lion. EcoFish products are now available in243 branches of Loblaws, Canada’s largestseafood retailer.40

These innovations in sales pitch have away of being contagious, particularly whenthey involve big players in the market. InJune 2007 Tyson Foods—one of the largestmeat processors in the world—decided toquit doing something that has been a hallmarkof industrial animal agriculture since the1950s. The company announced that thebirds it sells to grocery stores and restaurantsall over the country would no longer betreated with antibiotics. This move was notaltogether altruistic or even based on healthconcerns about antibiotics resistance. Instead,Tyson was reacting to consumer demand forantibiotic-free meat products.41

Once one major industry player makesthe shift, its competitors often must do thesame or risk losing business. In early 2006,Darden Restaurants—parent company ofRed Lobster, the top seafood restaurant chainin the United States, with 1,300 locations—




announced plans to certify all its farm-raisedshrimp “to ensure it is grown in a sustainableway, with minimal impacts on the environ-ment.” And Wal-Mart, the world’s largestretail store and the largest food seller in theUnited States, announced that within threeto five years it would be certifying that all itsseafood for the North American market wasraised sustainably. Critics suggest the stan-dards could be stiffer, and implementation isfar from assured.42

Other big companies are also jumping onthe natural, organic, or humanely raised band-wagon, partly for economic reasons. Smith-field announced in 2005 that it would onlybuy from suppliers who did not use antibioticson their animals. Burger King—the secondlargest fast-food company—has said that it willtry to buy animals that are given more livingspace. Natural foods giant Whole Foods willintroduce labeling criteria in 2008 that giveconsumers detailed information about howthe meat on their plates was raised, treated,and slaughtered.43

Consumers are also looking to connectdirectly with livestock producers. A few yearsago it was hard for consumers to find farmswhere they could buy grass-fed and pasture-raised eggs, meat, and milk. Today there aremore than 800 U.S. and Canadian farms listedon the Web site Eatwild.com, an organizationthat promotes grass-raised animal products.44

Fishing communities are a growing allyin this movement. Fishers are often the firstto know that a given fish supply is endan-gered. So it is not surprising that fishers areusing the newfound consumer awarenessabout the state of the world’s fisheries toredefine their own role. In some cases thismeans returning to older fishing techniquesthat are less destructive and that help preservethe quality of the seafood. The Cape CodCommercial Hook Fishermen’s Association,faced with depletion of the cod stock that his-

torically sustained its members, decided topromote “old fashioned” hook lines thatmean considerably less bycatch and fish thatare less likely to get damaged, so that theirtexture and taste are usually superior.45

In other cases, like Alaska’s wild salmonfishery or wild shrimp harvesters off VietNam’s coast, fishers are forming coopera-tives to manage a given fishery collectively andperhaps even to cut down on the total catch.When it is their own survival at stake, they areproving to be quite innovative. And just asseafood companies are beginning to see fishas a form of wildlife rather than just a com-modity, fishers are making a similar shift inmindset, adopting a marketing strategy thattreats the fish as a higher-value product ratherthan a low-cost raw material for processing.46

Moving Down the Industrial Food Chain

For the poor, whose diets might be confinedto starchy staple crops, meat and seafoodbring both increased status and added nutri-tion. For the wealthy, a meal is not completeunless it includes chicken, pork, or beef, whilehealth-conscious consumers often replace thetraditional meat serving with tuna, sword-fish, or some other seafood. But consumersneed to rethink their relationship with allthese foods in order to keep them on themenus in fine restaurants as well as on theplates of people in the developing world.

Under this new food paradigm, peoplewill need to reconsider the place of meat intheir diets. Raising animals outdoors on grasswill necessarily mean that there are fewer ofthem to eat, and higher prices for sustainablyand humanely raised meat will mean shiftingthis from the center of each meal. The sameis true for seafood. Fish, especially the big,carnivorous species, will not be as readilyavailable, and consumers will have to eat




fewer of them and more of certain otherfish. Chefs, large food buyers, and consumerswill need to explore less well known fishspecies and choose seafood that is lower onthe marine food chain.

Many consumers are giving up meat alto-gether as the health and environmental ben-efits of doing so become clearer. And it isbecoming easier to obtain meat alternatives.Researchers at the Vrije University of Ams-terdam, for example, are developing alterna-tive meats based on peas and other legumesthat are highly nutritious, extremely eco-nomical, easy to prepare, and—perhaps mostimportant—tasty. And consumer perceptionof these products has been positive, espe-cially when people learn more about howtheir meat is raised and the ecological impactof raising animals in a densely populatednation like the Netherlands.47

While the growth of industrial meat andseafood production is likely inevitable in thedeveloping world, livestock producers andfishers everywhere have an opportunity toimprove meat and seafood. When it comes toproducing meat, eggs, milk, and seafood,bigger does not necessarily mean better—oreven more profitable.

For both meat and seafood, eating lower onthe food chain generally reduces the harmdone by these products. In the case of fish, thesmaller, herbivorous species (shellfish,anchovies, catfish, and tilapia) are less endan-gered and fished in a less destructive way thanthe larger, carnivorous species (tuna, sword-fish, and shark). For meat, eating fewer animalproducts in general and eating eggs, beef,

pork, and chicken from animals raised on anatural diet of grass is healthier for people, forthe animals, and for the environment.

Many of the innovations that will reducethe ecological burden of meat and seafood canalso help make these foods more available topoorer communities. Adding fish ponds torice paddies and coastal agriculture is an easyway to boost a farmer’s income and dietaryoptions. Setting up no-fish zones aroundcoral reefs and spawning grounds boosts thefish catch for both rich and poor fishers. Andwhile cows or pigs bred for industrial-scaleproduction may not thrive in poor areaswhere farmers cannot provide feed and vet-erinary inputs, hardier, indigenous breedsmay be the best hope for adding milk andeggs to the local diet.

Rather than burden consumers withlengthy lists of “good” and “bad” food, agroup called Slow Food International hastried to give seafood lovers, as a start, somebasic rules of thumb that depend on a moreholistic understanding of what is happeningin the oceans. With a membership thatincludes 100,000 people in more than 80nations, Slow Food offers an alternative tofast-food culture by celebrating regionalcuisines, distinct crop varieties, and forgottenfood traditions.48

The organization held a meeting in 2007called Slow Fish that brought together small-scale fishers, chefs, and seafood companies tosuggest how people could continue enjoyingseafood without compromising responsibility.Participants called for support of “small-scaleinshore fishing and ancient methods of fish-ing, processing and preserving which are sus-tainable and produce outstanding productsthat form part of our cultural identity.” Theyurged people to eat fish lower on the foodchain—such as the smaller, spinier fish thathave long been part of Mediterranean cui-sine—and to support traditional, low-impact




Slow Food offers an alternative to fast-food culture by celebrating regionalcuisines, distinct crop varieties, and forgotten food traditions.

types of fish farming, such as oyster farmingand low-density freshwater pool systems.49

In Peru, several marine scientists havetaken this message to heart and have launcheda campaign to change the image of theanchoveta from something that only poorpeople eat to a fish that could be turned intoa gourmet item consumed by connoisseurs.The Peruvian anchovy accounts for aboutone tenth of the wild fish netted around theglobe each year. And yet nearly all of thesesmall fish—chock full of the same beneficialfatty acids found in tuna, salmon and otherbig fish—get ground into fish meal and fishoil that will be used to fatten pigs and chick-ens in factory farms in North America,Europe, Japan, and other areas.50

As part of Discover the Anchovy Week in2006, some 18,000 people tasted anchoviesat 30 restaurants in Lima. Fresh anchovies arenow available in many of the nation’s markets,and the government is supplying the fish aspart of its hunger programs. Researchers esti-mate that Peru could employ many morepeople and generate 10 times the revenues ifthe high-volume, low-value fishmeal industrywere retooled to carefully package theanchovy as a fresh fish for local consump-tion and export.51

Part of the global impact of this gastro-nomic shift is that it would make much bet-ter use of beleaguered fish populations. “Wecan still savor seared ahi and grilled swordfishsteaks—they have the best meat and fewbones, after all—but we must reserve them asa luxury product,” notes Martin Hall, chiefscientist of the Dolphin Tuna Program atthe Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commis-sion. He explains that “it takes close to 60 mil-lion metric tons of potentially edible fish peryear to feed the three million metric tons ofthe three major tropical tuna species we har-vest annually. If we could replace some ofour tuna sandwiches with the anchovies, sar-

dines, squids, and other species the tuna eat,we would open up a substantial supply ofprotein that could feed millions more.”52

In Japan, recent reductions in tuna catchquotas and soaring prices have promptedsushi chefs and home cooks in this fish-lov-ing nation to search for substitutes. TheJapanese consume about three quarters ofthe world’s annual tuna catch. As the NewYork Times reported in the summer of 2007,Tadashi Yamagata, vice chairman of Japan’snational union of sushi chefs, has been exper-imenting with tuna alternatives atMiyakozushi, his family’s busy lunchtimerestaurant in Tokyo. His most successful sub-stitutes were ideas he “reverse imported”from American sushi bars, like “smoked duckwith mayonnaise and crushed daikon withsea urchin.”53

Other groups, like Heritage Foods USA,encourage customers to eat antique or her-itage breeds of cows, pigs, chickens, andother foods in order to save them from extinc-tion. The most well-known example is theturkey variety known as Bourbon Reds. Thesebirds were almost extinct because of industrialfarming practices that favor fast-growing butflavorless, big-breasted birds. Such birds areraised on factory farms, are never allowed tomate (they reproduce by artificial insemina-tion), and are pumped full of antibiotics. Butthanks to a consumer awareness campaignpromoting the hearty, distinctive flavor ofBourbon Reds, these birds are in highdemand—last year Heritage Foods sold 3,000Bourbon Reds in the United States forThanksgiving—and more and more farmersare raising them.54

In the developing world, groups such asGRAIN and the League for Pastoral Peoplesare working hard to ensure that livestockgenetic diversity is on the agenda of policy-makers worldwide. Corporate agribusinesses,says GRAIN, have “dramatically increased




their control over the livestock industry inrecent years,” and this makes the food system“dangerously dependent on a few corpora-tions and a vulnerable, narrowing geneticbase.” The group also warns that the vastknowledge attained by livestock keepers overmillennia is quickly disappearing and thatthere is an urgent need for pastoralists andlivestock keepers to “reclaim their rights.”55

Such a historical view is useful. Meat andseafood have long been a part of the humandiet, but the form they take has changed aswild populations of fish have waxed andwaned, as hunted game gave way to domes-ticated livestock, and as human desires andculinary fads shifted and spread. The meat ofsharks was not in wide demand until recently,for example, when shark fin soup—an ancientChinese dish that can cost $200 a bowl andwas once reserved for the kitchens of thewealthy—became a more common menu itemin economically booming China. The roaringmarket in these fins, which can fetch $700 akilogram and entice shark hunters from as faraway as Ecuador, is driving the killing ofroughly 100 million sharks each year and theextinction of most major shark species.56

As part of a recent shark awareness cam-paign, the conservation group WildAidreleased several graphic videos of sharks being“finned” that were later aired on television inTaipei, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The

group also features Asian celebrities like filmdirector Ang Lee and Taiwan’s PresidentChen Shui-bian in public service announce-ments asking people not to eat shark fin soup.These efforts seem to be paying off. BothThai Airways and Singapore Airlines pulledshark fin soup from their first-class services in2000, for instance. And in late 2005, severalhigh-profile institutions in Hong Kong,including Disneyland and Hong Kong Uni-versity, stopped serving shark fin soup fol-lowing protests by animal rights and marineconservation groups.57

Following their lead would mean breakingwith long-standing tradition, but it is notunprecedented. Stark white veal flesh hasbecome a symbol of cruel caging techniques,while “rosey veal” from calves allowed towalk with their mothers is now showing upon menus. Savvy seafood processors are start-ing to favor wild harvested shrimp overshrimp raised on patches of deforested man-groves. Shark fins, like so many ecologicallytaxing food items that the planet can tolerateonly on a small scale, are something peoplewill need to give up.58

But we know that not all meat and seafoodis created equal. And innovative farmers, fish-ers, and food companies have already shownthat providing safe, tasty, and humane fooddoes not have to cost our health and theenvironment so much.




term costs from Nicholas Stern, The Economics ofClimate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2007); materials sig-naling status from Juliet B. Schor, The OverspentAmerican (New York: Basic Books, 1998);National Consumer Council, Shopping Genera-tion (London: 2006).

47. Avner Offer, The Challenge of Affluence(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

48. Parenthood from ibid., Chapter 14; savingsrates from Norman Loayza et al., Saving in theWorld: The Stylized Facts (Washington DC: WorldBank, 1998); consumer debt from Ben Woolsey,“Credit Card Industry Facts and Personal DebtStatistics (2006–2007),” at Creditcards.com, andfrom William Branigin, “Consumer Debt Growsat Alarming Pace, at msnbc.msn.com, 12 January2004.

49. Quote from Rio Rivas and David H. Gobeli,“Accelerating the Rate of Innovation at HewlettPackard,” Industrial Research Institute, undated.

50. “Iron cage” was first applied to capitalism byMax Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit ofCapitalism, tr. Talcott Parsons (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1958); application to consumerismin George Ritzer, The McDonaldization of Society(New York: Pine Forge Press, 2004).

51. U.N. Population Division, op. cit. note 5.

52. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, I WillIf You Will: Towards Sustainable Consumption(London: Sustainable Development Commission,2006).

53. Role of policy from ibid.; Tim Jackson,“Challenges for Sustainable Consumption Pol-icy,” in Tim Jackson, Earthscan Reader in Sus-tainable Consumption (London: Earthscan/Jamesand James, 2006); sustainable consumption pol-icy from Defra, Securing the Future: ImplementingUK Sustainable Development Strategy (London:Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2005), Chapters2 and 3.

54. Stern, op. cit. note 46.

55. Darren Murph, “Australia to Phase OutIncandescent Bulbs by 2010,” Engadget.com, 20February 2007; Conrad Quilty-Harper, “All ofEU to Switch Off Energy Inefficient Lights WithinThree Years,” Engadget.com, 10 March 2007;Sustainable Development Commission, LookingBack, Looking Forward (London: 2006).

56. Defra, “Wellbeing and Sustainable Develop-ment,” at www.sustainable-development.gov.uk ,updated 6 June 2007; Canada from Andrew C.Revkin, “A New Measure of Wellbeing from aHappy Little Kingdom,” New York Times, 4 Octo-ber 2005; State Environmental Protection Agency,China Green National Accounting Study Report2004 (Beijing: 2006).

57. “Global Ad Spending Expected to Grow6%,” Brandweek, 6 December 2005; “InternetAdvertising Nears £1 Billion for First Six Monthsof 2006,” Internet Advertising Bureau, 4 October2006.

58. Proceedings and publications from the WHOconference available at www.euro.who.int/obesity/conference2006; Ministry of Children andEquality, “The Norwegian Action Plan to ReduceCommercial Pressure on Children and YoungPeople,” at www.regjeringen.no/en; ban on adver-tising green cars reported in Edmonton Journal, 7September 2007; David Evan Harris, “São Paulo:A City Without Ads,” Adbusters, September-Octo-ber 2007.

59. Local Development Institute, A Model ofLocal Economy in 200 Districts Based on Suffi-ciency Economy: An Action Research Project(Bangkok, Office of Village Fund National Com-mittee, 2002–03); Yuwanan Santitaweeroek,“Thailand’s Silk Microenterprises and the Suffi-ciency Economy,” PhD Dissertation (Guildford,U.K.: University of Surrey, forthcoming); Bhutanfrom Revkin, op. cit. note 56.

Chapter 5. Meat and Seafood:The Global Diet’s Most Costly Ingredients

1. Meat and seafood production, Figure 5–1,and Table 5–1 from U.N. Food and Agriculture



Notes

Organization (FAO), FAOSTAT Statistical Data-base, at faostat.fao.org, updated 30 June 2007, andfrom FAO, Yearbook of Fishery Statistics (Rome:2006). The United Nations recently revised theway it totals seafood, so data in this chapter do notmatch earlier Worldwatch publications. Sinceseafood is generally consumed fresh or within a fewmonths of being caught, statistics on consumptionand production are nearly identical.

2. Nanna Roos et al., “Fish and Health,” inCorinna Hawkes and Marie T. Ruel, eds., Under-standing the Links Between Agriculture and Healthfor Food, Agriculture, and the Environment, 2020Focus No. 13 (Washington, DC: InternationalFood Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), May2006); seafood data from FAO, FAOSTAT, op. cit.note 1; supply of protein from Meryl Williams,“The Transition in the Contribution of LivingAquatic Resources to Food Security,” Food, Agri-culture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 13(Washington, DC: IFPRI, 1996).

3. For more on factory farming, see DanielleNierenberg, Happier Meals: Rethinking the GlobalMeat Industry (Washington, DC: WorldwatchInstitute, September 2005), and Michael Pollan,The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History ofFour Meals (New York: Penquin Press, 2006).

4. Humane Society of the United States, “AnHSUS Report: Welfare Issues with Selective Breed-ing for Rapid Growth in Broiler Chickens andTurkeys,” Washington, DC, February 2006.

5. For the history of fishing technology, seeDietrich Sahrhage and Johannes Lundbeck, AHistory of Fishing (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992);70 million tons from FAO, FAOSTAT, op. cit.note 1; 90 percent from Ransom A. Myers andBoris Worm, “Rapid Worldwide Depletion ofPredatory Fish Communities,” Nature, 15 May2003, pp. 280–83.

6. National Science and Technology Council,Committee on Environment and NaturalResources, Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia inthe Northern Gulf of Mexico (Washington, DC:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), May 2000); Amy Wold, “‘Dead Zone’

Threatens Fisheries,” The Advocate, 10 September2007; National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,Fisheries of the United States 2006 (Silver Spring,MD: July 2007).

7. Symbiotic role of fish farms from B. A. Costa-Pierce, ed., Ecological Aquaculture: The Evolutionof the Blue Revolution (Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell,2002); symbiotic role of livestock from Pollan, op.cit. note 3, p. 210.

8. Danielle Nierenberg, “Factory Farming in theDeveloping World,” World Watch, May/June2003; “Meet Niman Ranch Family Farmer TimRoseland,” Niman Ranch Web site, at www.niman-ranch.com, viewed August 2007.

9. FAO, Mixed Crop-Livestock Farming: AReview of Traditional Technologies Based on Lit-erature and Field Experience (Rome: 2001);Michael Greger, Bird Flu: A Virus of Our OwnHatching (New York: Lantern Books, 2006).

10. Iowa State University, “Alternatives to Ges-tation Stalls Reviewed at Iowa State,” press release(Ames, IA: 19 April 2007).

11. Dr. William Weida, Executive Director ofthe GRACE Factory Farm Project, discussion withDanielle Nierenberg, July 2007.

12. Henning Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s LongShadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Rome:FAO, 2006); Daniele Finelli, “Meat is Murderon the Environment,” New Scientist, 18 July 2007;C. Cederberg and M. Stadig, “System Expansionand Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment of Milkand Beef Production,” International Journal ofLife Cycle Assessment, vol. 8, no. 6 (2003), pp.350–56.

13. Farmed fish from FAO, FAOSTAT, op. cit.note 1; growth from Christopher L. Delgado et al.,Outlook for Fish to 2020: Meeting Global Demand(Washington, DC, and Penang, Malaysia: IFPRIand WorldFish Center, October 2003).

14. Rosamond Naylor and Marshall Burke,“Aquaculture and Ocean Resources: Raising Tigersof the Sea,” Annual Reviews in Environmental



Notes

Resources, vol. 30 (2005), pp. 185–218; JackieAlder and Daniel Pauly, On the Multiple Uses of For-age Fish: From Ecosystems to Markets, FisheriesCentre Research Report (Vancouver, BC: SeaAround Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University ofBritish Columbia, 2006), pp. vii, 3.

15. Naylor and Burke, op. cit. note 14.

16. Ibid.

17. Campaign from Don Staniford, Pure SalmonCampaign, discussion with Brian Halweil, 16 July2007; world’s largest salmon farming companyfrom Marine Harvest, “Pan Fish Aquires MarineHarvest to Form the World’s Largest Fish Farm-ing Company,” press release (Oslo, Norway: 6March 2006).

18. Costa-Pierce, op. cit. note 7; Maeve Kelly etal., “Nutrient Re-cycling or Utilising ‘Waste’ inOpen Water Aquaculture,” Scottish Association forMarine Science, presentation at Soil Associationconference, Stirling, U.K., March 2006; syner-gies and 50 percent from Shawn Robinson,research scientist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,Aquaculture Division, St Andrews Biological Sta-tion, St Andrews, NB, discussion with Brian Hal-weil, 19 September 2007.

19. Cleaner fish from Per Gunnar Kvenseth, VillaSalmon, Vikebukt, Norway, discussion with BrianHalweil, 31 August 2007; “Lice from Fish FarmsCalled Threat,” Associated Press, 20 September2007; benefits of integrated system from Costa-Pierce, op. cit. note 7.

20. Cost of removing nitrogen from the waterfrom Bob Rheault, Moonstone Oysters and EastCoast Shellfish Growers Association, discussionwith Brian Halweil; Rowan Jacobsen, A Geogra-phy of Oysters (New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007);M. A. Rice, “Environmental Impacts of ShellfishAquaculture: Filter Feeding to Control Eutroph-ication,” in M. Tlusty et al., eds., Marine Aqua-culture and the Environment: A Meeting forStakeholders in the Northeast (Falmouth, MA: CapeCod Press), pp. 77–84.

21. Rowan Jacobsen, “Restoration on the Half

Shell,” New York Times, 9 April 2007; dead zonesfrom J. Michael Beman, Kevin R. Arrigo, andPamela A. Matson, “Agricultural Runoff FuelsLarge Phytoplankton Blooms in Vulnerable Areasof the Ocean,” Nature, 10 March 2005, pp.211–14.

22. WorldFish Center, “Rice-Fish Culture: ARecipe for Higher Production,” at www.worldfishcenter.org, viewed 4 September 2006; projec-tions are Worldwatch estimates based on ibid.

23. Randall E. Brummett et al., “Targeting Aqua-culture Development in Africa: A Case Study fromCameroon,” Humid Forest Ecoregional Center,Yaoundé, Cameroon, unpublished report; RandallE. Brummett, WorldFish, Humid Forest Ecore-gional Center, Yaoundé, Cameroon, e-mail toBrian Halweil, 17 September 2007.

24. Environmental Working Group (EWG),Corn Subsidies in the United States 1995–2005and Soybean Subsidies in the United States1995–2005, Farm Subsidy Database, atfarm.ewg.org/farm, 12 June 2007; Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), Agricultural Policies in OECD, Moni-toring and Evaluation 2006 (Paris: 2006).

25. EWG, op. cit. note 24; EWG, Livestock Sub-sidies in the United States 1995–2005, Farm Sub-sidy Database, at farm.ewg.org/farm, 12 June2007.

26. Ussif Rashid Sumaila and Daniel Pauly,Catching More Bait: A Bottom-up Re-estimation ofGlobal Fisheries Subsidies, Fisheries Centre ResearchReport (Vancouver, BC: Sea Around Us Project,Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,2006).

27. Daniel Pauly and Jay Maclean, In a PerfectOcean (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), p.68; OECD, op. cit. note 24.

28. Fleet fuel use from Cornelia Dean, “FishingIndustry’s Fuel Efficiency Gets Worse as OceanStocks Get Thinner,” New York Times, 20 Decem-ber 2005; energy provided by fish from Peter H.Tyedmers et al., “Fueling Global Fishing Fleets,”



Notes

Ambio, December 2005, pp. 635–38.

29. Ussif Rashid Sumaila, “Running on Empty,”from “10 Solutions to Save the Ocean,” Conser-vation, July-September 2007; University of BritishColumbia, “Gov’t Subsidies Make Ocean ‘Strip-mining’ Economically Viable: UBC Researchers,”press release (Vancouver, BC: 17 November 2006).

30. FAO, “Loss of Biodiversity in Livestock—Policy Options,” at virtualcentre.org.

31. Pauly and Maclean, op. cit. note 27, p. 72.

32. Wayne Arnold, “Surviving Without Subsi-dies,” New York Times, 2 August 2007.

33. Ibid.

34. Tundi Agardy, “A Separate Peace,” from “10Solutions to Save the Ocean,” Conservation, July-September 2007.

35. James A. Bohnsack, Southeast Fisheries Sci-ence Center, University of Miami, FL, discussionwith Brian Halweil, 15 May 2006; James A. Bohn-sack, “Marine Reserves: They Enhance Fisheries,Reduce Conflicts, and Protect Resources,”Oceanus, vol. 36, no. 3 (1993).

36. Andrew Balmford et al., “The WorldwideCosts of Marine Protected Areas,” Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, 29 June 2004,pp. 9694–97; D. Zeller, “From Mare Liberum toMare Reservarum: Canada’s Opportunity forGlobal Leadership in Ocean Resource Gover-nance,” in A. Chircop and M. McConnell, eds.,Ocean Yearbook (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 2005), pp. 1–18.

37. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), “History of MSC” and “About MSC,” atwww.msc.org, updated 14 September 2006.

38. MSC membership from www.msc.org andfrom Jessica Wenban-Smith, communications man-ager, MSC, London, e-mail to Brian Halweil, 12January 2005.

39. Kate Moser, “Sustainable Seafood Casts a

Wider Net,” Christian Science Monitor, 3 April2006; Henry Lovejoy, president and founder,EcoFish, Dover, NH, discussion with Brian Hal-weil, 21 August 2006; Tim O’Shea, chairman andCEO, CleanFish, San Francisco, discussion withBrian Halweil, 4 September 2006.

40. Lovejoy, op. cit. note 39.

41. Jerry Hirsch, “Animal Welfare Issue Boil-ing,” Los Angeles Times, 2 July 2007.

42. “Buyers Navigate Sustainable Seafood,”SeaFood Business, October 2004, pp. 22–23;Moser, op. cit. note 39; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,“Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Introduces New Label toDistinguish Sustainable Seafood,” press release(Bentonville, AR: 31 August 2006); Carol Ness,“Wal-Mart to Push Sustainable Shrimp,” SanFrancisco Chronicle, 23 May 2007.

43. Hirsch, op. cit. note 41; Whole Foods, “FarmAnimal and Meat Quality Standard,” at www.wholefoodsmarket.com, viewed August2007.

44. Eat Wild, Directory of Pasture-raised Farm-ers, at www.eatwild.com, viewed August 2007.

45. Cape Code Commercial Hook Fishermen’sAssociation, at www.ccchfa.org; Eric Hesse, CapeBluefin and Cape Code Commercial Hook Fish-ermen’s Association, discussion with Brian Halweil,30 January 2006.

46. Doug Woodby et al., Commercial Fisheries ofAlaska, Special Publication No. 05–09 (Anchor-age, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game,June 2005); Nick Joy, managing director, LochDuart Ltd., Scotland, presentation at SeafoodSummit 2006: Sustainability and the Future ofSeafood, Seattle, WA, 29–31 January 2006; shiftin fishers’ mindset from Rod Fujita, scientist,Environmental Defense, Oakland, CA, discus-sion with Brian Halweil, 24 July 2006; Hesse, op.cit. note 45.

47. Harry Aiking, Joop de Boer, and JohanVereijken, eds., Sustainable Protein Productionand Consumption: Pigs or Peas? (Berlin: Springer,



Notes

2006); C. T. Hoogland et al., “Spoiling theAppetite? Changing Patterns of Meat and FishConsumption and the Role of Knowledge aboutProduction—A Qualitative Investigation,” pre-sentation at the 6th Biennial Conference on Envi-ronmental Psychology, Bochum, 19–21 September2005; Carolien T. Hoogland, Joop de Boer, andJan J. Boersema, “Transparency of the Meat Chainin the Light of Food Culture and History,”Appetite, August 2005, pp. 15–23.

48. Slow Food International, at www.slowfood.com; Slow Fish, “The Return of Slow Fish:Sustainable Seafood Salone Back in Genoa,” pressrelease (Bra, Italy: Slow Food International, 2005);see also Slow Fish Web site, at www.slowfish.it.

49. Sarah Weiner, “Slow Food and Fishing,” inThe Slow Food Companion (Bra, Italy: 2005), p. 33.

50. Daniel Pauly, “Babette’s Feast in Lima,” SeaAround Us Project Newsletter, November/Decem-ber 2006; Patricia Majluf, Center for Environ-mental Sustainability, Cayetano Heredia University,Lima, Peru, e-mail to Brian Halweil, 20 August2007.

51. Pauly, op. cit. note 50; Majluf, op. cit. note50.

52. Martin Hall, “Eat More Anchovies,” from“10 Solutions to Save the Ocean,” Conservation,July-September 2007.

53. Martin Fackler, “Waiter, There’s Deer in MySushi,” New York Times, 25 June 2007.

54. Marion Burros, “The Hunt for a Truly GrandTurkey, One that Nature Built,” New York Times,21 November 2001; “Poultry,” Heritage FoodsUSA, at www.heritagefoodsusa.com, viewedAugust 2007; Heritage Foods customer servicerepresentative, discussion with Danielle Nieren-berg.

55. Patrick Mulvany and Susanne Gura,“Reclaiming Livestock Keepers’ Rights,” Seedling,January 2007.

56. Increased demand from Hank Pellissier,

“Shark Fin Soup: An Eco-Catastrophe?” San Fran-cisco Chronicle, 20 January 2003; $200 a bowl,$700 per kilogram, and Ecuador from Juan Foreroand Alyssa Lau, “Hidden Cost of Shark Fin Soup:Its Source May Vanish,” New York Times, 5 Jan-uary 2006; roughly 100 million shark deaths fromIUCN–World Conservation Union, “ThreatenedShark Species Receive International Focus,” pressrelease (Queensland, Australia: 6 March 2003).

57. Active Conservation Awareness Program,WildAid, at wildaid.org; Thai Airways Interna-tional Public Company Limited, “THAI CancelsShark Fin Soup Service on Board,” press release(Bangkok: 2000); Maria Cheng, “More Than WeCan Chew: Environment Groups Are Trying toChange Hong Kong’s Destructive Eating Habits.Can They Pull It Off?” Asiaweek, 27 October2000; The Walt Disney Company, Enviroport2005 (Burbank, CA: 2005); Doug Crets and MimiLau, “HKU Bans Shark Fin Dishes,” The Standard(Hong Kong), 3 November 2005.

58. Ayrshire Farm Veal Flyer, at www.ayrshirefarm.com, viewed August 2007.

Chapter 6.Building a Low-Carbon Economy

1. “Summary for Policymakers,” in Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cli-mate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 2.

2. Figure 6–1 from the following: K. W. Thon-ing et al., Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry AirMole Fractions from quasi-continuous measure-ments at Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii;American Samoa; and South Pole, 1973–2006(Boulder, CO: Earth System Research Labora-tory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration, October 2007); C. D. Keeling and T. P.Whorf, “Atmospheric CO2 Records from Sites inthe SIO Air Sampling Network,” and A. Neftel etal., “Historical CO2 Record from the Siple StationIce Core,” both in Carbon Dioxide InformationAnalysis Center (CDIAC), Trends: A Compendiumof Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak



Notes

Documents

Meat and Seafood:The Global Diet's Most Costly Ingredients