Trade and conservation

Fin times


See article

Readers' comments



The problem with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Marine Stewardship Council, etc. is no one gruop can agree on a stantard acceptable method of certifacation. Each group has their own agneda. Elimiate nets and the ocean would quickly recover from bad fishing practices.


TO MrSpears,

I agree with CarreyK's comment - try a marine specific org.
However, I found the WWF very helpful when I contacted them for similar information (in Norway) _ they do provide country specific guides, and well, perhaps being Norwegian, fish is a more important part of their lives (i can only assume the person who posted your reply was an uninformed intern during his first day on the job, or a vegetarian who wanted to be diplomatic and not tell you that eating this creature was barbarism in his book).

Check this link for the WWF country specific guides, tuna is always in the 'red list' of fish species to avoid eating:

In addition - perhaps someday we will successfully find a way to farm these fish (not "ranching" - but actually hatching them and farming through the their whole lifecycle) _ however, until the industry puts more r&d into developing this option (and less into r&d of pellets and different ways to increase $ returns on the "ranched" fish) _ the bluefin looks set to remain in decline.


To the commenter who contacted WWF about fishing practices. Maybe try a marine specific nonprofit. I use the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood guide whenever buying or eating fish. And I have found a great resource on marine policy through Oceana.


The Economist says

This IS the time of the last resort.

Both Recruitment and Growth Over-exploitation have reduced wild populations to the point of species extinction. The collection of pre-mature specimens for growing-on in 'ranches' - ie. cages at sea - depletes natural stocks further, bastardises the argument by confusing wild and farmed, confuses the data by using biomass rather than number of surviving live individuals of breeding size (& trawled fish-feed to sustain the corralled tuna depletes other stocks).

Yes, this is a journal on Economy, but surely some correspondents know some basic biology!



Really. Japan-bashing. Funny. This editorial barely mentioned the Japanese beyond a brief mention that, yes, most of the bluefish in the world is eaten by them. That's an accurate fact. The rest of the editorial? No, it mostly talks about why they're okay with a ban. So I don't know where on Earth the Japan-bashing you speak of can be found. Unless the issue of the ban is simply Japan-bashing in and of itself because Japan will be affected by it, in which case you sound more angry that The Economist isn't simply perfectly in line with the Japanese government.


Nothing regarding the depletion can be done without the Japanese , and looking at the state of Japan's own marine resources and current fishery policies I don't think we can expect much.
Even if it was acceptable, for the sake of a particular gastronomic taste of a population, to to hunt them down until officially endangered , the time for a trade ban would be now.
They are not endangered because the Japanese love them , they are endangered because they are are hunted with technological and industrial methods that don't give stocks the slightest chance of recovery.

lanius excubitor

All right, then, does the Economist the WWF that placed cod on the endangered species list in 2000, stating that global cod catch had suffered a 70 per cent drop over the last 30 years ?

Do editors/ writers with the Economist have confidence that haddock and plaice - with some help from Tanzanian Nile perch and Vietnamese catfish - can supplant cod species for fish and chips, fish fingers or fish burgers demanded in the UK and other nations enjoying the Anglo-Celtic traditional culinary delight in case cod supply from non-EU countries would stop, and would they be satisfied at all ?

Does the Economist also support Greenpeace International that has added the Atlantic cod to its 'seafood red list' ?

If you want to condemn someone who isn't likely to refute your opinion(s), I recommend you to think twice what if someone else did the same thing to you.


there was not enough support for a trade ban at the CITES meeting yesterday. Lots of political posturing but, as is so often the norm, NO political will to ACCOMPLISH anything anymore.


As a consumer I would like to do the right thing and avoid helping to kill off any species. The problem is that it is really hard to know what to eat and not eat. I tried to email the World Wild Life Fund in order to get some clarity about tuna. My question to them was if there is any kind of tuna that we can eat at the moment without threatening the species.

Before you read the answer from WWF you might want to keep in the back of your head that they have a whole section dedicated to the Bluefin tuna on the site (I therefore assumed that we should avoid eating bluefin tuna). The answer from WWF read:

"Dear X,

Thank you for your email to World Wildlife Fund.

I have attempted to research the answer to your question but was unable to find an appropriate response. If more information becomes available, we will post it to the WWF web site.

You may wish to research this issue further on

If you have additional questions or concerns please call 800-960-0993. Thank you for your commitment to global conservation. Together we can make a world of difference.

Best regards,

World Wildlife Fund"

How can I as a layman be expected to do the right thing if the environmental movement does not even know the answer?


More Japan-bashing from The Economist, no surprise here.

The Economist seems to despise Japanese culture.

Recently it has been a non-stop attack on Japan's marine diet, and

today I notice it is going after Japan's anime industry (though

The Economist is right to subject it to adversarial review where children are involved).



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

