Food

Eat Seafood. A Little Bit. And Mostly Plants.

By Bryan Walsh | @bryanrwalsh | April 14, 2011 | +

I met Barton Seaver about a year ago, on a TED expedition to the Galapagos Islands. We were there as part of oceanographer Sylvia Earle’s TED wish—she had brought scientists, celebrities, financiers and a few writers on board a National Geographic ship to talk about the best ways to protect the world’s oceans. During the day passengers would give TED-style presentations on their area of expertise, in between scuba diving and snorkeling around the Galapagos. Ocean scientist Jeremy Jackson talked about the sheer amount of destruction we’ve wrought on the ocean, while National Geographic photographer Brian Skerry described his work shooting the depths. I know—it’s a difficult life.

Seaver, though, probably had the hardest task. A Washington-based chef, Seaver was going to address sustainable seafood—how to eat fish without emptying the oceans. The only problem is that Earle—the host of the voyage and the doyenne of ocean explorers—is of the opinion that the oceans are in such bad shape that people should eat essentially no seafood whatsoever. (As Earle told me last year, when I was writing about her work, “I don’t eat my diving buddies.) But Seaver pressed on, telling the TED audience that we should be eating seafood—but that it should complement, not overwhelm, vegetables. (It’s a bit like Michael Pollan’s dictum that we should: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”) Here’s video of Seaver’s talk:

I think Seaver is onto something with his seafood philosophy, which he expounds in a new cookbook called For Cod and Country. Our seafood crisis is partially due to the fact that Americans especially tend to eat only a few kinds of fish: cod, salmon, tuna and shrimp, especially. So Seaver wants us to broaden our aquatic palettes, eating lesser-known seafood that’s tasty and less threatened. Think sardines and anchovies—small, oily fish that are good for you, and which can be harvested from the ocean sustainably. “Eating smaller on the food chain in terms of marine life is a great way to participate sustainably in seafood,” Seaver told me.

Seaver also suggests putting seafood—or any protein on the plate—in its right place. Instead of making meat or fish the focal point of a dish, with veggies on the side, he tries to swap the formula. (Given that barely a quarter of American adults eat vegetables three or more times a day—the minimum suggestion by the government—most of us could stand to make a change.) “What we could be doing is eating less seafood, but more often,” Seaver says. “Think four to five ounce servings, along with plenty of vegetables.” It’s about giving fish their proper place of respect on the plate—something chefs, fishermen, eaters and even Sylvia Earle should be able to agree on.

Seaver is part of a new generation of chefs who consider sustainability an ingredient that can’t be forgotten in their food. Check out For Cod and Country—and think about eating less seafood, more often.

More from TIME:

How My Mercury Level Hit Twice the Safety Limit

Related Topics: Barton Seaver, diet, fish, food, National Geographic, oceans, seafood, sustainability, Sylvia Earle, TED, Food

  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall
    Disasters February 22, 2012

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do
    Oil February 21, 2012

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images
    Oil February 20, 2012

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

  • vasumurti

    According to a national Vegetarian Resource Group Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly 15 percent of Americans say they never eat fish or seafood.

    The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be “commercially extinct.”

    Another species classified as “commercially extinct” is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

    Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

    Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

    Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

    The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

    It makes sense to eat lower on the food chain!

    Nor can fish provide any help in alleviating global hunger. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas.

    And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world’s inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

    In an online article appearing in the Guardian on 9/14/2010, entitled “Fish: the forgotten victims on our plate,” Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes:

    “Let’s assume that all this fishing is sustainable, though of course it is not. It would then be reassuring to believe that killing on such a vast scale does not matter, because fish do not feel pain. But the nervous systems of fish are sufficiently similar to those of birds and mammals to suggest that they do.

    “When fish experience something that would cause other animals physical pain, they behave in ways suggestive of pain, and the change in behaviour may last several hours. (It is a myth that fish have short memories.)

    “Fish learn to avoid unpleasant experiences, like electric shocks. And painkillers reduce the symptoms of pain that they would otherwise show.

    “Victoria Braithwaite, a professor of fisheries and biology at Pennsylvania State University, has probably spent more time investigating this issue than any other scientist. Her recent book Do Fish Feel Pain? shows that fish are not only capable of feeling pain, but also are a lot smarter than most people believe.

    “Last year, a scientific panel to the European Union concluded that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that fish do feel pain.

    “Why are fish the forgotten victims on our plate? Is it because they are cold-blooded and covered in scales? Is it because they cannot give voice to their pain?

    “Whatever the explanation, the evidence is now accumulating that commercial fishing inflicts an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering. We need to learn…to find…alternatives to eating them.”

    The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on “vegetarian or near vegetarian diets,” and meat has traditionally been a luxury.

    Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods–useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs.

    Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

    In A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), author Keith Akers observes:

    “Much has been made over the virtues of chicken and fish in comparison to red meats such as beef and pork. It has been said that eating chicken and fish will aid in the prevention of heart disease, because these meats are relatively lower in fat and contain more unsaturated than saturated fat, thus helping to lower cholesterol levels.

    “Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by the evidence. Studies in which human volunteers switched from diets including beef and eggs, to one including fish and chicken showed that serum cholesterol levels were not appreciably lowered by switching to chicken and fish.

    “And an examination of the nutritional data suggests an explanation: while it is true that chicken and fish contain less fat than beef, it is also true that chicken and fish contain about twice as much cholesterol per calorie as does beef. Indeed, some seafoods (such as crab, shrimp, and lobster) are exceptionally high in cholesterol content.

    “All of these diverse theories have roughly the same dietary implications. Meat is high in cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat. Plant foods, by contrast, are usually low in saturated fat and total fat, and contain zero cholesterol.

    “Vegetarians have lower levels of serum cholesterol than do meat-eaters, with total vegetarians (vegans) having the lowest levels of all.”

    Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today’s demand for meat–which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet?

    If the world population triples in the next one hundred years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

    But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already.

    Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc…modest increases in the world population during the next generation would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption.

    On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

    Les Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only ten percent per year, it would free at least twelve million tons of grain for human consumption–or enough to feed sixty million people.

blog comments powered by Disqus