Problem
Product/ Shrimp
In my family, shrimp and other shellfish are a holiday tradition.
Someone always generously accepts the responsibility of
negotiating the holiday seafood crowds, and pays the hefty
price required for the family shrimp cocktail; our sumptuous
prelude to Christmas Dinner. It is with sadness, then, that
I bring the bad news about shellfish. It
turns out that eating shrimp is one of the worst things
you can do for the world’s oceans.
The environmental costs of shrimp fishing and farming have
hovered at the edge of my peripheral vision for a long time,
but it wasn’t until recently that the issue was brought
home for me. I’ve been watching my way through the
astoundingly beautiful “Blue Planet” documentary
series about the world’s oceans, produced by BBC/Discovery
The footage of in the series is really a notch above: there
are incredible shots of giant whales scooping up shoals
of fish, exquisitely bizarre footage of deep sea animals
fluttering up to the surface to feed, scary images of tiny
snails chasing the trail of a dead fish. What’s interesting
about the series is that for all its amazing content and
beautifully shot images, it makes little mention of the
peril that faces many of the ecosystems and animals it features.
It was not until I got to the last DVD in the series and
started watching my way through the “Special Features”
section that I finally ran across a documentary that was
meant to run alongside the series, which discussed the environmental
threats facing the world’s oceans.
There was something incredibly compelling about watching
the conservation documentary at the end of the “Blue
Planet” series. As a consumer, I’ve overlooked
the issues surrounding seafood. I usually feel like I’m
overburdened by all of the other kinds of responsible-consumer
issues, and because the oceans are
“our of sight, out of mind,” I turn a blind
eye, and enjoy whatever seafood I want. Additionally,
seafood is an important local industry. I’ve worked
in a fish market, and I’ve known a number of people
both in Massachusetts and California who make their living
from the sea. In light of how hard it is to earn your living
as a fisherman, it has often seemed to me that they are
the last group of people who need a bunch of whiny tree
huggers on their backs.
After watching the Blue Planet series, though, I started
to feel like I needed to take my seafood consumption decisions
more seriously. After 7 hours of programming about the oceans,
I can hardly pretend ignorance about what’s going
on down there. Though my understanding only scratches the
surface, it is clear to me that the oceans are fabulously
beautiful and complex, and that they are at the same time
very deeply threatened by our fishing practices, and our
nonchalance about water pollution.
One of the forms of fishing that seemed most grotesquely
destructive and wasteful was the process by which we fish
for shrimp.
The footage of shrimp fishing on Blue Planet documentary
was very graphic. Large
trawl nets are sent over the back of fishing boats, which
then sieve through large areas of the ocean where shrimp
are known to live. When the nets are pulled up, the
problem with this method is immediately evident. Often,
for every pound of shrimp that is recovered from the nets,
ten or fourteen pounds of other ocean organisms are also
scooped up. The documentary showed the nets being dumped
out, and fisherman deftly extracting a few prawns, while
fish, crabs, sharks, rays, and whatever else happened to
be in the way of the net lay gasping for air, or already
lifeless. By the time the contents of the nets were sorted
and the shrimp were removed, almost all of the other organisms
had died.
There have been some innovations of late which are designed
to reduce the amount of other animals taken into shrimp
nets. One is a “bycatch reduction device” that
allows fish and other animals to escape the nets that trap
the shrimp. These devices can dramatically reduce the amount
of bycatch. Unfortunately, these devices are not yet widely
used worldwide. (Most of the shrimp we consume comes from
Southeast Asia and Mexico, where fishing regulations are
not yet strongly enforced.) As a result, if one is going
to buy shrimp, it is wise to try to purchase shrimp harvested
in U.S. coastal waters, where bycatch reduction devices
are generally utilized.
As is often the case with seafood, much of the shrimp now
on the market is farmed; and as with many other types of
organisms, farming shrimp is often
just as destructive as catching it in trawl nets.
Shrimp aquaculture was broadly established in the 80s and
90s throughout Southeast Asia: often with delicate mangrove
environments being cleared to make way for the shrimp farms.
Because shrimp was farmed very intensively, the farming
process had a “slash-and-burn”-type effect,
where high-intensity shrimp culture would rapidly decimate
the water and biodiversity in the segment of the coast where
it was being practiced to the point that the farm would
have to be relocated to fresh mangrove in order to stay
productive. This cycle of habitat destruction and farm relocation
greatly accelerated the destruction of the already-threatened
mangroves, which is in turn believed to be a reason why
the December 2004 tsunami in the region was so destructive.
(In the past, the mangroves acted
as a buffer and a sponge, helping to absorb the impact of
both storm surges, and tsunamis.)
Though most of the shrimp available on the U.S. market comes
at a very high ecological cost, there are a number of businesses
attempting to provide more environmentally-sound alternatives.
One such company is “Ecofish,” which sells frozen
shrimp raised in closed-system pools in the southern U.S.
These farms raise the shrimp in man made pools, and keeps
the density of shrimp raised low enough to prevent disease,
and reduce the need for antibiotics. The Monterrey Bay Aquarium
website also recommends Oregon Trawl-Caught Pink Shrimp,
which are fished sustainably with the use of a by-catch
reduction device. Though it can take
some time (and sometimes a special order) to find these
more ecologically-sound shrimp alternatives, until worldwide
fishing and farming methods improve, it is probably well
worth it.
By making careful decisions about where and how you buy
your shellfish, your holiday appetizers can be both responsible
and delicious, and you won’t have to feel guilty about
the thing you’re smothering in cocktail sauce.
C. Blackmar
Problem Product Investigator
Problem
Product/ Chistmas
Trees
Though
it seems awfully Grinchy to bring up the issue,
the question of the environmental cost of the christmas
tree tradition is impossible to avoid at this time of year.
Interestingly, of all the "problem products" out
there, there seem to be few that have been recognized to
be problematic by the public at large for so long as the
christmas tree. Since the trees are a lot bigger and more
visible than most of the problem products out there, this
isn't too surprising; the sight hundreds of crispy-dried
trees stacked in a vacant lot is sobering enough to make
an environmentalist out of almost anyone.
Possibly because the discarded trees have been a visible
issue for so long,
those who rely on christmas trees for their income have
developed a very
careful defense of their product. Online searches for
the "environmentally friendly christmas trees"
primarily bring back regurgitated bits of rhetoric from
the Christmas
Tree Association's ongoing media blitz. The Association
does a fairly savvy job of painting live cut christmas trees
as an ecologically friendly crop, and in some senses, they
are right to do so. It seems that many consumers' primary
concern is that the trees sold at Target might be harvested
from pre-existing forests. As a result, much of the "eco-friendly"
argument made by the Association centers around explaining
that christmas trees are a crop, just like corn, and are
therefore harvested without hurting "natural"
forests. Their press release on the subject makes the further
point that Christmas trees are even better than
your average crop because they take seven to ten years to
mature, during which time, they help fix carbon and provide
the atmosphere with oxygen.
More Eco-Friendly than Corn
So far, these seem to be rational arguments. To my reading,
however, they don't exactly get to the heart of the issue.
I'm not interested in whether christmas trees are a more
or less ecologically friendly crop than corn, but in whether
there is a cost to the large-scale farming, harvesting,
and discarding process we go through every year. Sadly,
I think the obvious answer to that question is "yes."
While the Association is right that trees are a more eco-friendly
crop than corn, they don't mention that almost all tree
farms use pesticides and fertilizers as they attempt to
grow picture-perfect trees. The association also makes a
lot of fuss about how the trees are grown on "marginal
land," and that the farms are therefore not taking
away valuable farmland from other industries. This argument
worries me the most. I wonder what the association
considers "marginal land." Would my local
coastal sage scrub be "marginal" in their book?
I worry that what they might consider to be "marginal"
might actually be of significant ecological value.
In addition to the problems surrounding growing and pesticide-use
are problems of transportation and disposal. Because most
municipalities have developed programs to recycle used christmas
trees into mulch, the problem of trees needlessly being
dumped into landfills has subsided. It is important that
people make sure to get their trees to recycling
centers, though, rather than leaving them in dumpsters
or taking them directly to the landfill. The problem of
transporting trees to and from retailers is one that won't
vanquished quite so easily, particularly as tree farms move
further and further outside of cities. As a result, it is
advisable to try to find out from your retailer where their
trees are grown, and to try to buy one that sells trees
that are grown as close to the market as possible.
Fake Trees?
Other propaganda on the part of the christmas tree growers
focuses on how live-cut trees are a better ecological alternative
than fake ones. Again, this is a more complicated issue
than one might at first expect. The Tree Grower Association
correctly makes the point that fake trees
are problematic because they are made of petrochemicals
and do not biodegrade. They also play the "Made
in America" card. Most fake trees are produced in China
under less-than-ideal work conditions and are then imported
and distributed at a high cost in oil. Also, as noted three
paragraphs down on the Earth
Day NY website, trees are made of PVC which is often
made more malleable by the addition of lead and other additives.
Obviously, it is not great to have a tree around that is
going to shed toxins in the house. Those who have analyzed
the issue suggest that while the average artificial tree
is thrown out after three years, that a family would need
to hang onto the same tree for at least twelve
years if it was going to start to be worth the ecological
cost of its production. In summary, if you already own an
artificial tree, the best thing to do is to hold onto it
and re-use it for as many years as possible. If you don't
own one, it's probably not a great idea to run out and buy
one unless you find it at a yard sale or some other second
hand venue.
The Best of All Possible Worlds
So far, the live-cut Christmas tree is looking like the
preferable alternative to the fake tree. Most websites that
deal with the subject, though, suggest that the
best option of them is to buy a truly live tree
which can be planted in the ground after Christmas. As always,
though, even this option is not without its problems. For
people who live in the frozen north, it is very hard to
work the ground after Christmas when frigid January temperatures
set in. The tree will not thrive, and could very well die
if left in the pot, so this means a live-tree owner must
spend the period after Christmas waiting around for a lucky
thaw in order to plant. Trees also tend to be traumatized
by the transition from being outdoors, to being in a dry,
heated home. If they are brought in, they should really
only stay inside for a week or so.
When planting trees outdoors, it should be noted that many
of them can become quite big over time (see
this link) so it makes sense to set aside a good chunk
of turf. (One possibility that is rarely mentioned is that
of harvesting the live trees of Christmases past out of
one's own yard... just think of all that exercise one could
get by playing lumberjack for the day.)
One innovative company in Portland has taken some of
the guesswork out of the live tree option by developing
a business that "rents" trees to consumers,
and then picks them up and plants either in the renter's
yard, or at a school, median strip, etc. that is open to
tree donations. Until this option becomes available to everyone,
the rest of us will have to plan ahead for the live tree
option.
In
Conclusion
If you must have a Christmas tree, it seems that it is better
to buy "live cut" than artificial, and that a
"live potted" tree which can be planted later
is the best option of all. Of course, it would also be possible
to make a christmas tree out of something that
you already had around the house; your jade plant, the coat
rack, a large dead tree branch, etc.
One possibility I particularly like is that of decorating
an outdoor tree instead of an indoor one, and celebrating
part of Christmas morning outside, maybe with some
nice mugs of cider and coffee, and with some bird-watching
binoculars. For more on communing with nature for winter
solstice, please see the review of Bill McKibben's "Hundred
Dollar Holiday."
Whichever way you choose to go, I hope that the holiday
brings you much joy and a beautiful tree.
C. Blackmar
Problem Product Investigator
Problem
Product/ Yogurt
Yogurt with fruit is the perfect hot-weather breakfast.
Since my first trip to Mexico, I have been on a mission
to replicate the “Energetico” fruit,
yogurt, honey and granola breakfasts that you can get there
for $3 or $4 dollars. Partway through the summer, though,
I realized that my quest was taking its toll on my Tupperware
shelf.
I counted them out, an discovered that
by July 1st I’d already accumulated eight “Stonyfield
Farm” yogurt containers, which, in addition
to the pre-existing stacks of hummus containers, the salsa
containers and miscellaneous Whole Foods Market containers
were threatening to overpower my meager collection of real
dishes, and I was running out of potential uses for them
all. Another container or two and
I would have to start recycling them.
What’s
wrong with that you might ask...
Well, in Cambridge, MA right now, less is wrong with that
than usual. According to the Director of Cambridge Recycling
Randi Mail, there is much more stable market for plastics
#3-7 this year than there has been in years. The company
that handles Cambridge’s recycling has been selling
the plastics to a plant in Canada with much more success
than usual, probably because high
oil prices have started to make the recycling of petroleum-based
plastics more cost effective.
Usually,
though, recycling plastics #3-7 (you can tell which number
your container is by looking at the bottom) is a hit-or-miss
proposition.
At best, your town and city might be using the revenue from
the recycling of bottles, cans, and plastics #1-2 to subsidize
the recycling of plastics 3-7. Just as likely, though, is
the chance that plastics #s 3-7 are winding up in the dump.
The smaller the town, the more likely the dump solution
is, as it takes a substantial volume of those plastics to
establish the town as a vendor.
According
to Randi Mail, you would probably be better off opting for
paper, carton, glass or metal containers over plastics 3-7
when purchasing products.
In response to this, Sparrowpost.net has provided a how-to
for making your
own yogurt using milk (which is almost always
sold in recyclable plastics 1-2 or paper cartons).
Of
course, the best solution to this problem product would
be a more widespread access to bulk-sale yogurt, wherein
you could bring your own container and have it filled at
the store. If it is possible to request or support this
concept at your local crunchy market, it would be a great
step towards to the elimination of this month’s problem
product.
How
to make your own yogurt >>
Problem
Product/ Broth
Consumers who shop frequently at Trader Joe's and Whole
Foods have probably noticed the rise of aseptic
packaging over the past few years.
These containers have quickly risen to replace cans and
cartons as the packaging of choice for organic soups, soy
milks, and broths. Unlike cans and cartons, though, aseptic
containers are composites of
plastics, paper and metal.
Though
these distinctive packages may help companies accentuate
the differences between their new, "organic" products
and older, conventional ones, the Ex-Consumer wanted to
know whether the composite packaging wasn't a huge step
backwards in terms of recyclibility.
The
answer seems to be that it depends
on the recycling program where you live. Due in part
to a huge campaign on the part of the Aseptic
Packaging Council (http://www.aseptic.org/)
to install recycling programs for aseptic products, many
parts of the U.S. now pick up the containers in curbside
recycling programs. (They should be put in with the paper,
not with metal or plastic containers). To
find out whether or not you have a program where you live,
call Clean Up.org at 1-800-253-2687 or check out
their website at http://www.earth911.org/usa/master.asp.
If
you have an aseptics recycling program in place where you
live, it might be a good idea to buy aseptically packaged
goods. Because they are light, and they can be very efficiently
packaged, it costs less to move these packages to the stores
where we buy them. Compared to tin cans, they also take
less energy to recycle. (Soup cans have to be heated up
to very high levels in order to be melted down for recycling.)
If
you
don't have an aseptic recycling program where you live,
stick with products sold in tin cans and paper cartons.
These materials tend to be recycled in places with more
rudimentary programs.
Ex-Consumer
Report/ links:
