This text was produced for the science outreach blog Bate-Papo com Netuno (Chat with Neptune), where it was published on April 17, 2021. Some information and links have been updated for this new version, but I recommend that you explore other texts at https://www.batepapocomnetuno.com/
Seaspiracy and the Half-Truth Trap
By Cintia Miyaji
Ever since it was announced, the Netflix documentary Seaspiracy has been popping up incessantly in my emails, social media, and elsewhere. I had huge expectations and, as soon as I could, I sat on the couch with my husband (who, by the way, is a fisheries researcher, and one of the best!) and we watched it together. We exchanged some glances, I closed my eyes during some scenes, I got angry at some parts, but perplexed at others. In the end, I was left with an immense feeling of frustration, a terrible discomfort that I couldn't define.
I started my research career studying animal communities that inhabit the ocean floor, but job and career opportunities led me down other paths. And I sincerely and passionately dedicated myself to all these opportunities. About fifteen years ago, together with an interdisciplinary group of ocean-loving professionals, we created the country's first Responsible Seafood Consumption Guide to guide people in their purchases and restaurant choices. Long before that, I was already dedicated to training human resources in Marine Sciences, proudly contributing to the creation of the Forum of Oceanography Course Coordinators of Brazil. So, when I manage to combine communication about the ocean, based on science and in favor of the conservation of fishery resources, I feel fulfilled! You know that intersection between passion, mission, profession, and vocation? The Japanese call it ikigai.
For all these reasons, I thought Seaspiracy could fulfill my oldest and deepest desires for a truly effective “weapon,” capable of delivering to the mass consumer public the message that we need to take care of the ocean, its resources and ecosystems, and that all of us, without exception, have an important role to play. Of course, I knew who the message would be aimed at, just as I am clear that the director, producers, sponsors, and Netflix knew exactly to whom and how to convey their message, and I must admit that they were exceptionally successful!
So, what bothered me so much?
The fact is that, although the problems presented by the documentary are exactly those that bother me every day, such as stock depletion and overfishing, illegal fishing, the impact on endangered species, ghost gear, discards and waste, poorly managed aquaculture, human rights violations, among many others, Seaspiracy encourages the public to believe that they have the power to change these horror scenarios through a simplistic solution... stopping eating fish. And the most explored argument is that there is no reliable way to define fishing as sustainable.
For five years, from 2016 to 2021, I worked with an incredible group of people who, even though distributed among 13 different organizations in 11 countries, met monthly to collectively discuss and list a set of minimum criteria that would characterize and allow the evaluation of fisheries and aquaculture as environmentally sustainable, so that we could develop seafood consumption recommendations worldwide. We do not certify or grant environmental labels to any person, fishery, or company. We also worked together to define communication strategies, sharing experiences and mutually supporting actions. In addition to virtual meetings, we met in person at five annual gatherings, so countless hours of work and people were involved. Despite so much effort, we could not reach a single definition for sustainable fishing and aquaculture. There are no criteria that can be used homogeneously in all fisheries and cultures, much less in the different realities of each country or region. We don't always know how to deal with the absence of data. We don't know exactly how to weigh the different impact measures of artisanal fishing versus industrial fishing. Thus, perhaps we are left with more doubts than certainties, but we are clear that sustainable fishing and aquaculture are possible, and although complex to define individually, they tend to grow and increase their global and local representation as a consequence of our work.
I will not meticulously and point by point deconstruct all the numerical information presented in the documentary with the clear intention of shocking. Many researchers, infinitely more qualified on the subject than I, have already gathered their bibliographical references to show that the documentary used outdated, misinterpreted, distorted, and biased data. In this regard, Seaspiracy achieved a success that no other scientific event has: it brought together the two greatest global authorities in the study of fisheries management and population dynamics to agree that the documentary was wrong, and terribly wrong, in many aspects. Ray Hilborn spoke out in a video and Daniel Pauly in an outreach article, while Boris Worm, the first author of the much-cited article that "predicted the collapse of fisheries in 2048," supported Pauly's article through a social media message.
Of course, the criticisms will never reach even a small fraction of those who watched the documentary, but they will find an echo and repercussion in the circles involved with research and the fishing chain. So, in times of so many criticisms and platforms specializing in debunking fake news from politicians, public figures, and the press, why do I still see so many influencers and activists who prefer to ignore the flaws and accept the information in the documentary, praising and promoting it worldwide?
In my view, this happens because Seaspiracy uses a very well-thought-out and designed strategy to empower the viewer (that specific Netflix subscriber profile) and give them the feeling that at the end of the film, an action resulting from their conscious and legitimate decision will contribute to changing the situations that made them feel so bad during the documentary. So, in the end, you have to be convinced that not eating fish is the solution, because it is the only one available to you individually.
To build an argument that sustainable fishing or aquaculture are just invented narratives, the documentary creates situations and edits interviews to cast doubt on the integrity of some certification schemes, environmental labels, and NGOs. Without judging the isolated cases presented, none of this is fair and honest to a legion of professionals who work hard and tirelessly to promote transformations in fishing and aquaculture, economic activities that are extremely important for the well-being of people, ecosystems, the ocean, and the entire planet.
Yes, millions of people depend on fishing activity as a way to nourish themselves and earn income. Ensuring food security and a dignified life for millions of people in vulnerable situations as a consequence of the impacts caused by climate change or pollution involves promoting adaptation in their fishing practices or encouraging the cultivation of marine organisms in coastal areas. Strengthening fishing traditions and the culture of coastal communities makes them settle in these regions, preserving their way of life and the environment on which they depend.
Yes, promoting a well-managed, organized, handled, and supervised fishing activity brings benefits to ecosystems. Creating exclusion zones, guiding and establishing prohibited periods and sizes of capture, defining quotas, limiting licenses, regulating lower-impact fishing and cultivation practices and methods, among many other initiatives, when based on quality science, allow stocks to recover and grow. In addition to providing sustainable fisheries, adequate management measures can ensure the regeneration of degraded areas and ecosystems.
How to do all this is a great and complex challenge! And it is a challenge that depends on cooperative, collaborative, and collective impact work. It depends on organized action on countless fronts and intelligently orchestrated. For some years now, I have been trying to build the foundations of the Brazilian Alliance for Sustainable Fisheries. We brought together people and institutions, shared our experiences, built a broad outline of what we wanted as a group, but without well-defined governance and financial support... we still wander only in the dimension of dreams.
Therefore, I cannot accept that with all the potential and reach it has in its hands, Netflix chose such a questionable path to draw people's attention to the problems of fishing and the ocean. In the way it did (and no one will convince me that it was out of ignorance and naivety), Seaspiracy has increased the distance and heated up discussions in an environment of polarization between science and activism, "good" NGOs and "bad" NGOs, vegans and non-vegans, fishermen and aquaculturists, artisanal and industrial fishing, certifications and recommendations, and so many others that only human creativity can explain!
Seaspiracy also missed the chance to engage constructively with consumers from a socioeconomic elite who, unquestionably, have the power to change reality through their consumption habits and political choices. Giving up fish and still maintaining a healthy and balanced diet requires purchasing power that is far removed from the average global population. Giving up fish without being prepared and informed to question the origin, composition, preparation, and healthiness of the foods that will replace it can be as dangerous, or even more dangerous, for the planet's health. And for those who were shocked by the atrocities of fishing and cannot afford an adequate protein substitute in their diet, nor have access to the guidance of a nutritionist, will they be left with part of the "blame for the ocean's destruction" or will they renounce their health? These are impossible choices, but there are possible choices!
There are choices based on "the science we need, for the ocean we want." There are choices based on inclusive, equitable, and collaborative discussions. There are individual choices and there are collective choices. There are choices that impact only your life and there are choices that impact the lives of many others. There are not always easy choices, just as there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
We are not in a position to deepen differences and increase distances. Our joint action is necessary and urgent. The planet, the ocean, and humanity need actions that preserve them. Help us improve communication among people, in your social circle, in your network of contacts, in your area of influence, guiding and disseminating information from safe and reliable sources, nurturing, training, and even challenging the critical thinking of these people. Read, share, and support initiatives like Fish Code and Bate-Papo com Netuno!
PS: As I was trying to finalize the review of this text, a publication caught my attention and I went to read it... the discussion about the developments and consequences of Seaspiracy ended up in the dark depths of the deep sea mud! Scientists and researchers are accused of being funded, and thus corrupted, by the fishing industry to present conclusions in their scientific work that are different and much more positive than those in the documentary, to justify the continuation of the activity. If so, I want to get off! So please help us bring the discussion to the euphotic zone!
