Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Goodbye cod, hello herring: why putting a different fish on your dish will help the planet

News Feed
Thursday, April 18, 2024

Perched on a quay in the Cornish port of Falmouth is Pysk fishmongers, where Giles and Sarah Gilbert started out with a dream to supply locally caught seafood to the town. Their catch comes mainly from small boats that deliver a glittering array of local fish: gleaming red mullets, iridescent mackerels, spotted dabs and bright white scallops, still snapping in their shells.Occasionally, they will get a treasured haul of local common prawns – stripy, smaller and sweeter than the frozen, imported varieties in UK supermarkets. So, when customers come into the shop asking for prawns, Giles Gilbert presents “these bouncing jack-in-a-boxes” with a flourish, hoping to tempt buyers with the fresh, live shellfish.“I think most people are absolutely fascinated,” he says. “But they’ll say, ‘Have you got anything a bit bigger than that?’ or, ‘I wanted something that was already cooked.’”People are looking for cod or salmon when there’s this immaculate fish that’s been caught maybe an hour agoGiles Gilbert, fishmongerTime and again, Gilbert finds himself rummaging around in the freezer to retrieve an emergency bag of imported shellfish, lest he lose a loyal customer.It’s not just prawns. “We have access to some incredible fish, but it stays on the counter because what people are looking for is cod or salmon, when there’s this immaculate fish that’s been caught maybe an hour ago,” he says.“It’s frustrating when we’ve developed relationships with fishermen and we can’t take their entire catch.”The UK is perhaps unfairly stereotyped as a nation with an unadventurous palate. But where seafood is concerned, that’s backed up by the data. There are more than 300 species in the UK’s coastal waters, and British people eat strikingly little of it.According to Seafish, the UK public body supporting the industry, the UK’s “big five” – cod, pollack, salmon, tuna and prawns – comprise 62% of seafood consumed in Britain (though the Marine Stewardship Council names the big five as cod, haddock, salmon, tuna and prawns, and reckons they make up 80% of fish and seafood eaten in the UK when consumption outside the home, in restaurants and in fish ‘n’ chip shops is included).Most of what is eaten in the UK is imported, while the majority of what is fished in British waters is sent elsewhere.Giles and Sarah Gilbert at Pysk. ‘We seem to have more and more interest in what we’re doing here,’ he says. Photograph: Emli Bendixen/The GuardianIt’s not just the UK. In the European Union, cod, pollack, salmon, tuna and prawns account for 44% of consumption. In the US, as well as these five, the 10 most popular species include tilapia, clams and catfish, accounting for 76% of seafood.Our global eating patterns increasingly tend towards fewer and larger species, consumed further from where they are caught.Those dietary choices fuel problems such as overfishing, resource-intensive fish farms, higher greenhouse-gas emissions, and tonnes of fish waste. The percentage of populations fished at biologically unsustainable levels is increasing worldwide, according to a recent UN report, while our appetite for seafood is also likely to grow.We import a lot of the seafood we consume, including those ‘big five’ species, and we export most of what we landThe picture appears bleak – and yet, if selected and consumed carefully, seafood provides a powerful opportunity to improve the environmental impact of our diets overall.“Seafood can be, and in some situations is being, produced very sustainably, especially when compared to other terrestrial animal-source foods,” says Jessica Gephart, an expert in the globalisation of aquatic food at the University of Washington.What’s on our plates – and why?So, can we shift our diehard eating habits towards new fish? And why do we prefer cod over cockles, and salmon rather than sole? It’s a complex global picture, starting with the UK, where people once ate a wider variety of seafood, including an abundance of sprats, herring and whelks. Essex University led research published last year that offered clues about why these patterns have changed.From the early 1900s, industrialised fishing fuelled the expansion of British boats beyond inshore waters into plentiful northern seas, where they began scooping up several hundreds of thousands tonnes of haddock and cod. Cue the spread of fish ’n’ chip shops, which found a convenient vehicle for their batter in these large, filleted and less bony fish.Yarmouth harbour in 1933. Although it has never been easier to eat a wide range of fish in the UK, the variety in our diet has shrunk since fishing became industrialised. Photograph: Fox/GettyAfter 1973, when the UK joined the European Economic Community, British boats lost access to more distant fishing grounds and became confined to inshore waters, where those big white fish were less abundant. But by this point, the national preference for haddock and cod was entrenched, and the UK began importing these species to fill the deficit.“So the situation we’re in today is that we import a lot of the seafood that we consume, including those ‘big five’ species, and we export most of what we land,” says Luke Harrison, who led the Essex University study. In fact, between 1975 and 2019, the share of British fish consumed by the UK public dropped from 89% to 40%, his research showed.Our palates have also been dulled by how we shop. Jack Clarke, seafood engagement manager at the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), says: “The homogenisation of our diet, especially around seafood, is probably due to our over-reliance on supermarkets.”Big chains need to secure large and consistent supplies of easily processable seafood, which usually creates a bias towards a smaller number of fish from bigger species that are caught by larger fisheries, he says. This could increase pressure on wild stocks or push retailers towards species raised in fish farms.The simplifying effect of our globalised food system is most obvious in wealthy countries. Anna Sturrock, an aquatic ecologist at Essex University, and a co-author of the study, says: “We can afford these imports. That’s probably the main reason it hasn’t changed: we’ve got a taste for it, and it’s always been available to us.”That is echoed in the US, where prawns make up more than 30% of Americans’ annual consumption of seafood. About 90% are imported from countries such as Indonesia and India, where the farming of prawns has been implicated in labour abuses and the destruction of mangroves. Yet US-caught prawns met half of the national demand in the 1980s.A prawn farm in Bali, Indonesia. Most seafood consumed in the UK is imported as the country appears to have lost its taste for local products, such as kippers. Photograph: Cavan Images/AlamyEven as one of the top six seafood producers worldwide, the US imports about 65% of what it consumes. “US seafood consumption is dominated by a few species,” says Gephart. “A significant share of that also comes from canned and processed forms, like frozen breaded patties.”Research by Seafish shows that convenience is a key driver of consumer choices in Britain, and our impoverished palates as a result may help explain why we have lost our taste for kippers and turn up our noses at the mussels that are abundant off UK shores.David Willer, at Cambridge University, has researched underexploited seafood, such as mussels. “We’ve done lots of research on that, and it’s mostly down to convenience and ease of preparation, and a kind of ‘yuck’ factor,” he says.In India, another top global producer of fish, tropical waters support a great diversity of species, but in lower quantities. As Divya Karnad, a marine geographer and conservationist at Ashoka University, near Delhi, explains, that means a fisher who catches 100 local fish is likely to have several dozen species in his net.skip past newsletter promotionRecipes from all our star cooks, seasonal eating ideas and restaurant reviews. Get our best food writing every weekPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion It’s mostly down to convenience, ease of preparation, and a kind of ‘yuck’ factorDavid Willer, Cambridge researcher“Historically, coastal India had ways of dealing with this, either by having recipes specifically for different fish, or having a generic recipe in which they could add many species,” she says.But with an increasingly urbanised population in India, she adds: “People don’t have enough time to handle their food. So instead of cleaning hundreds of small fish, if you can get a fillet then you will choose that.”Karnad’s research has drawn a link between this more selective diet and overfishing. Picture that fisherman hauling in his catch of 100 diverse fish, she says. “But now, he’s able to sell only 15. So he has to go out that many more times to actually make up the cost.”She also believes there is an aspirational quality attached to some fish species, such as Norwegian salmon, which is now in demand among wealthy people. This fish is now ubiquitous globally, says Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted, global lead for nutrition and public health at WorldFish, which aims to reduce hunger, malnutrition and poverty across Africa, Asia and the Pacific through sustainable aquaculture.Before the 1980s salmon was not used in sushi in Japan but, as the fish has come to be seen as more desirable, tastes have changed and the fish is now ubiquitous. Photograph: OceanProd/GettyThilsted, the 2021 recipient of the World Food Prize, found salmon on sale even in the diverse seafood markets of Thailand. Japan did not use salmon in sushi a few decades ago but now it’s everywhere, she says, swaddled in blankets of sticky rice.“That has something to do with the power of the private market – that foods that are considered desirable, aspirational, have moved across borders,” Thilsted says.What should be on our plates?How do we begin to disentangle these patterns to eat more sustainably? There is no magic bullet for something as complicated as seafood, says Sturrock at Essex University, adding: “When we think about sustainability, it’s not just about overfishing, it’s also about how far we bring it from different places, and the impact of that fishery, or the aquaculture type, on the local environment.”If we make room for diverse foods on the plate, then we will be getting closer to the goals we aspire to There is also the issue of fish waste as well as social factors – labour rights, fishers’ livelihoods – embedded in our choice of fish.And there are trade-offs. A local, small-scale fishery may still be putting pressure on a delicate population, while a more distant fishery might have higher carbon emissions but be exploiting a more stable population.Even farmed salmon, with all its problems, is not so clearcut when emissions from its production are lower than those associated with chicken, and improvements in breeding and feed are bringing those emissions down further, says Gephart, at the University of Washington. This can make sustainable eating feel like a game of Whac-A-Mole. “It is really hard and unreasonable to put that on consumers,” she says.Governments do need to make better decisions about where and what is fished, and how to support fishers to work more sustainably in a difficult industry. However, “that doesn’t mean that we should throw up our hands and say that ‘seafood is bad, it’s all too complicated’,” Gephart says.“It’s about how we signal our values for sustainable production, so that we can lean on industry and governments.”A dish of chargrilled ling with carrot puree, smoked garlic and prawn butter from The Shed, Falmouth, an acclaimed restaurant next door to Pysk. Photograph: Emli Bendixen/The GuardianClarke, at the MCS, suggests getting guidance on what populations are green-rated, or to find alternatives, from sources such as its own Good Fish Guide or Seafood Watch, produced by the US not-for-profit organisation Monterey Bay Aquarium.For instance, for those wanting a change from salmon, which makes up almost a third of all fish eaten in the UK, farmed trout has fewer pollution issues and also uses less fish in the feed, Clarke says. “And they’re really tasty, with a similar flavour profile to salmon, and just as simple to cook.”If you live close to a fishmonger, tap into their knowledge too, he adds. They will also have a more diverse array of fish than most supermarkets.“If we make room for diverse foods on the plate, then we will be getting closer to the goals we aspire to,” says Thilsted. Eating a wider variety of fish takes pressure off certain populations, and shift our diets towards smaller species that are green-rated, such as herrings and sardines, which can be eaten whole, thereby helping tackle fish waste.In culinary institutes in India, chefs were not being trained with indigenous ingredients – they were learning about French cuisineIt also shifts the spotlight on to shellfish and bivalves such as mussels. If there is one seafood with almost universal environmental credibility, this is it, says Gephart, whose research shows that of all aquatic foods, farmed mussels and seaweeds have the lowest environmental impact. Together, they can create refuges for ocean species, while mussels also have protein levels similar to beef.The challenge now is increasing consumer demand, says Willer, at Cambridge University. He is working with the food industry on innovative projects to make mussels, for instance, more palatable to the British public.Others are taking the more futuristic leap into lab-grown seafood to relieve pressure on overfished populations. Meanwhile, others are working to build sustainability across the wider industry. In India, Karnad set up InSeason Fish, which works with restaurants to raise awareness of fish to avoid and to promote alternatives, depending on the region and month.“We realised that in culinary institutes in India, chefs were not being trained with indigenous ingredients. They were instead learning about French cuisine,” says Karnad, whose organisation trains chefs in how to prepare India’s diverse fish. It has also brought in local fishers directly to advise chefs on the incoming catch and procure what they need.Some companies are looking at laboratory-grown seafood, made from fish cells, as a way of addressing sustainability issues. Photograph: BlueNaluIn another attempt to diversify menus, a British company called CH&Co, which caters for venues including schools, hospitals, and offices, is focused on reducing the use of the big five. They provide their clients with data about the proportion of big five species that they are buying, and then take steps to educate and challenge their culinary teams to reduce the use of these fish.As a result, “chefs are putting more diverse species at the centre of menus and working to change customer attitudes to what fish species should appear on a plate”, says Clare Clark, the head of sustainability at CH&Co.The changing face of sustainable seafood has provided new ways to “vote with your wallet”, says Jack Clarke, adding: “It really does have an effect.”In Cornwall, Gilbert is seeing people doing exactly that. In a recent experiment, he displayed three types of scallops on his fish counter, each with the catch method and sustainability information supplied alongside the price. To his surprise, he found customers preferred the most expensive but sustainable hand-dived scallops.He may not have won them over on the local prawns yet. But he senses that the tide is turning: “We just seem to have more and more interest in what we’re doing here.”

In the first of a new series, we look at why people reject so much of the bountiful catches from our seas in favour of the same few species, mostly imported – and how to change thatPerched on a quay in the Cornish port of Falmouth is Pysk fishmongers, where Giles and Sarah Gilbert started out with a dream to supply locally caught seafood to the town. Their catch comes mainly from small boats that deliver a glittering array of local fish: gleaming red mullets, iridescent mackerels, spotted dabs and bright white scallops, still snapping in their shells.Occasionally, they will get a treasured haul of local common prawns – stripy, smaller and sweeter than the frozen, imported varieties in UK supermarkets. So, when customers come into the shop asking for prawns, Giles Gilbert presents “these bouncing jack-in-a-boxes” with a flourish, hoping to tempt buyers with the fresh, live shellfish. Continue reading...

Perched on a quay in the Cornish port of Falmouth is Pysk fishmongers, where Giles and Sarah Gilbert started out with a dream to supply locally caught seafood to the town. Their catch comes mainly from small boats that deliver a glittering array of local fish: gleaming red mullets, iridescent mackerels, spotted dabs and bright white scallops, still snapping in their shells.

Occasionally, they will get a treasured haul of local common prawns – stripy, smaller and sweeter than the frozen, imported varieties in UK supermarkets. So, when customers come into the shop asking for prawns, Giles Gilbert presents “these bouncing jack-in-a-boxes” with a flourish, hoping to tempt buyers with the fresh, live shellfish.

“I think most people are absolutely fascinated,” he says. “But they’ll say, ‘Have you got anything a bit bigger than that?’ or, ‘I wanted something that was already cooked.’”

Time and again, Gilbert finds himself rummaging around in the freezer to retrieve an emergency bag of imported shellfish, lest he lose a loyal customer.

It’s not just prawns. “We have access to some incredible fish, but it stays on the counter because what people are looking for is cod or salmon, when there’s this immaculate fish that’s been caught maybe an hour ago,” he says.

“It’s frustrating when we’ve developed relationships with fishermen and we can’t take their entire catch.”

The UK is perhaps unfairly stereotyped as a nation with an unadventurous palate. But where seafood is concerned, that’s backed up by the data. There are more than 300 species in the UK’s coastal waters, and British people eat strikingly little of it.

According to Seafish, the UK public body supporting the industry, the UK’s “big five” – cod, pollack, salmon, tuna and prawns – comprise 62% of seafood consumed in Britain (though the Marine Stewardship Council names the big five as cod, haddock, salmon, tuna and prawns, and reckons they make up 80% of fish and seafood eaten in the UK when consumption outside the home, in restaurants and in fish ‘n’ chip shops is included).

Most of what is eaten in the UK is imported, while the majority of what is fished in British waters is sent elsewhere.

Giles and Sarah Gilbert at Pysk. ‘We seem to have more and more interest in what we’re doing here,’ he says. Photograph: Emli Bendixen/The Guardian

It’s not just the UK. In the European Union, cod, pollack, salmon, tuna and prawns account for 44% of consumption. In the US, as well as these five, the 10 most popular species include tilapia, clams and catfish, accounting for 76% of seafood.

Our global eating patterns increasingly tend towards fewer and larger species, consumed further from where they are caught.

Those dietary choices fuel problems such as overfishing, resource-intensive fish farms, higher greenhouse-gas emissions, and tonnes of fish waste. The percentage of populations fished at biologically unsustainable levels is increasing worldwide, according to a recent UN report, while our appetite for seafood is also likely to grow.

The picture appears bleak – and yet, if selected and consumed carefully, seafood provides a powerful opportunity to improve the environmental impact of our diets overall.

“Seafood can be, and in some situations is being, produced very sustainably, especially when compared to other terrestrial animal-source foods,” says Jessica Gephart, an expert in the globalisation of aquatic food at the University of Washington.

What’s on our plates – and why?

So, can we shift our diehard eating habits towards new fish? And why do we prefer cod over cockles, and salmon rather than sole? It’s a complex global picture, starting with the UK, where people once ate a wider variety of seafood, including an abundance of sprats, herring and whelks. Essex University led research published last year that offered clues about why these patterns have changed.

From the early 1900s, industrialised fishing fuelled the expansion of British boats beyond inshore waters into plentiful northern seas, where they began scooping up several hundreds of thousands tonnes of haddock and cod. Cue the spread of fish ’n’ chip shops, which found a convenient vehicle for their batter in these large, filleted and less bony fish.

Yarmouth harbour in 1933. Although it has never been easier to eat a wide range of fish in the UK, the variety in our diet has shrunk since fishing became industrialised. Photograph: Fox/Getty

After 1973, when the UK joined the European Economic Community, British boats lost access to more distant fishing grounds and became confined to inshore waters, where those big white fish were less abundant. But by this point, the national preference for haddock and cod was entrenched, and the UK began importing these species to fill the deficit.

“So the situation we’re in today is that we import a lot of the seafood that we consume, including those ‘big five’ species, and we export most of what we land,” says Luke Harrison, who led the Essex University study. In fact, between 1975 and 2019, the share of British fish consumed by the UK public dropped from 89% to 40%, his research showed.

Our palates have also been dulled by how we shop. Jack Clarke, seafood engagement manager at the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), says: “The homogenisation of our diet, especially around seafood, is probably due to our over-reliance on supermarkets.”

Big chains need to secure large and consistent supplies of easily processable seafood, which usually creates a bias towards a smaller number of fish from bigger species that are caught by larger fisheries, he says. This could increase pressure on wild stocks or push retailers towards species raised in fish farms.

The simplifying effect of our globalised food system is most obvious in wealthy countries. Anna Sturrock, an aquatic ecologist at Essex University, and a co-author of the study, says: “We can afford these imports. That’s probably the main reason it hasn’t changed: we’ve got a taste for it, and it’s always been available to us.”

That is echoed in the US, where prawns make up more than 30% of Americans’ annual consumption of seafood. About 90% are imported from countries such as Indonesia and India, where the farming of prawns has been implicated in labour abuses and the destruction of mangroves. Yet US-caught prawns met half of the national demand in the 1980s.

A prawn farm in Bali, Indonesia. Most seafood consumed in the UK is imported as the country appears to have lost its taste for local products, such as kippers. Photograph: Cavan Images/Alamy

Even as one of the top six seafood producers worldwide, the US imports about 65% of what it consumes. “US seafood consumption is dominated by a few species,” says Gephart. “A significant share of that also comes from canned and processed forms, like frozen breaded patties.”

Research by Seafish shows that convenience is a key driver of consumer choices in Britain, and our impoverished palates as a result may help explain why we have lost our taste for kippers and turn up our noses at the mussels that are abundant off UK shores.

David Willer, at Cambridge University, has researched underexploited seafood, such as mussels. “We’ve done lots of research on that, and it’s mostly down to convenience and ease of preparation, and a kind of ‘yuck’ factor,” he says.

In India, another top global producer of fish, tropical waters support a great diversity of species, but in lower quantities. As Divya Karnad, a marine geographer and conservationist at Ashoka University, near Delhi, explains, that means a fisher who catches 100 local fish is likely to have several dozen species in his net.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“Historically, coastal India had ways of dealing with this, either by having recipes specifically for different fish, or having a generic recipe in which they could add many species,” she says.

But with an increasingly urbanised population in India, she adds: “People don’t have enough time to handle their food. So instead of cleaning hundreds of small fish, if you can get a fillet then you will choose that.”

Karnad’s research has drawn a link between this more selective diet and overfishing. Picture that fisherman hauling in his catch of 100 diverse fish, she says. “But now, he’s able to sell only 15. So he has to go out that many more times to actually make up the cost.”

She also believes there is an aspirational quality attached to some fish species, such as Norwegian salmon, which is now in demand among wealthy people. This fish is now ubiquitous globally, says Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted, global lead for nutrition and public health at WorldFish, which aims to reduce hunger, malnutrition and poverty across Africa, Asia and the Pacific through sustainable aquaculture.

Before the 1980s salmon was not used in sushi in Japan but, as the fish has come to be seen as more desirable, tastes have changed and the fish is now ubiquitous. Photograph: OceanProd/Getty

Thilsted, the 2021 recipient of the World Food Prize, found salmon on sale even in the diverse seafood markets of Thailand. Japan did not use salmon in sushi a few decades ago but now it’s everywhere, she says, swaddled in blankets of sticky rice.

“That has something to do with the power of the private market – that foods that are considered desirable, aspirational, have moved across borders,” Thilsted says.

What should be on our plates?

How do we begin to disentangle these patterns to eat more sustainably? There is no magic bullet for something as complicated as seafood, says Sturrock at Essex University, adding: “When we think about sustainability, it’s not just about overfishing, it’s also about how far we bring it from different places, and the impact of that fishery, or the aquaculture type, on the local environment.”

There is also the issue of fish waste as well as social factors – labour rights, fishers’ livelihoods – embedded in our choice of fish.

And there are trade-offs. A local, small-scale fishery may still be putting pressure on a delicate population, while a more distant fishery might have higher carbon emissions but be exploiting a more stable population.

Even farmed salmon, with all its problems, is not so clearcut when emissions from its production are lower than those associated with chicken, and improvements in breeding and feed are bringing those emissions down further, says Gephart, at the University of Washington. This can make sustainable eating feel like a game of Whac-A-Mole. “It is really hard and unreasonable to put that on consumers,” she says.

Governments do need to make better decisions about where and what is fished, and how to support fishers to work more sustainably in a difficult industry. However, “that doesn’t mean that we should throw up our hands and say that ‘seafood is bad, it’s all too complicated’,” Gephart says.

“It’s about how we signal our values for sustainable production, so that we can lean on industry and governments.”

A dish of chargrilled ling with carrot puree, smoked garlic and prawn butter from The Shed, Falmouth, an acclaimed restaurant next door to Pysk. Photograph: Emli Bendixen/The Guardian

Clarke, at the MCS, suggests getting guidance on what populations are green-rated, or to find alternatives, from sources such as its own Good Fish Guide or Seafood Watch, produced by the US not-for-profit organisation Monterey Bay Aquarium.

For instance, for those wanting a change from salmon, which makes up almost a third of all fish eaten in the UK, farmed trout has fewer pollution issues and also uses less fish in the feed, Clarke says. “And they’re really tasty, with a similar flavour profile to salmon, and just as simple to cook.”

If you live close to a fishmonger, tap into their knowledge too, he adds. They will also have a more diverse array of fish than most supermarkets.

“If we make room for diverse foods on the plate, then we will be getting closer to the goals we aspire to,” says Thilsted. Eating a wider variety of fish takes pressure off certain populations, and shift our diets towards smaller species that are green-rated, such as herrings and sardines, which can be eaten whole, thereby helping tackle fish waste.

It also shifts the spotlight on to shellfish and bivalves such as mussels. If there is one seafood with almost universal environmental credibility, this is it, says Gephart, whose research shows that of all aquatic foods, farmed mussels and seaweeds have the lowest environmental impact. Together, they can create refuges for ocean species, while mussels also have protein levels similar to beef.

The challenge now is increasing consumer demand, says Willer, at Cambridge University. He is working with the food industry on innovative projects to make mussels, for instance, more palatable to the British public.

Others are taking the more futuristic leap into lab-grown seafood to relieve pressure on overfished populations. Meanwhile, others are working to build sustainability across the wider industry. In India, Karnad set up InSeason Fish, which works with restaurants to raise awareness of fish to avoid and to promote alternatives, depending on the region and month.

“We realised that in culinary institutes in India, chefs were not being trained with indigenous ingredients. They were instead learning about French cuisine,” says Karnad, whose organisation trains chefs in how to prepare India’s diverse fish. It has also brought in local fishers directly to advise chefs on the incoming catch and procure what they need.

Some companies are looking at laboratory-grown seafood, made from fish cells, as a way of addressing sustainability issues. Photograph: BlueNalu

In another attempt to diversify menus, a British company called CH&Co, which caters for venues including schools, hospitals, and offices, is focused on reducing the use of the big five. They provide their clients with data about the proportion of big five species that they are buying, and then take steps to educate and challenge their culinary teams to reduce the use of these fish.

As a result, “chefs are putting more diverse species at the centre of menus and working to change customer attitudes to what fish species should appear on a plate”, says Clare Clark, the head of sustainability at CH&Co.

The changing face of sustainable seafood has provided new ways to “vote with your wallet”, says Jack Clarke, adding: “It really does have an effect.”

In Cornwall, Gilbert is seeing people doing exactly that. In a recent experiment, he displayed three types of scallops on his fish counter, each with the catch method and sustainability information supplied alongside the price. To his surprise, he found customers preferred the most expensive but sustainable hand-dived scallops.

He may not have won them over on the local prawns yet. But he senses that the tide is turning: “We just seem to have more and more interest in what we’re doing here.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Amid state inaction, California chef sues to block sales of foam food containers

The suit claims Atlanta-based WinCup continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1.

Redwood City — Fed up with the state’s refusal to enforce a law banning the sale of polystyrene foam cups, plates and bowls, a San Diego County resident has taken matters into his own hands.Jeffrey Heavey, a chef and owner of Convivial Catering, a San Diego-area catering service, is suing WinCup, an Atlanta-based foam foodware product manufacturing company, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. He is suing on behalf of himself, not his business.The suit, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court in March, seeks class action status on behalf of all Californians. Heavey’s attorney, William Sullivan of the Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, said his client is seeking an injunction to stop WinCup from selling these banned products in California and to remove the products’ “chasing arrows” recycling label, which Heavey and his attorney describe as false and deceptive advertising.They are also seeking damages for every California-based customer who paid the company for these products in the last three years, and $5,000 to every senior citizen or “disabled” person who may have purchased the products during this time period.WinCup didn’t respond to requests for comments, but in a court filing described the allegations as vague, unspecific and without merit, according to the company’s attorney, Nathan Dooley. Jeffrey Heavey is suing foodware maker WinCup, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. (Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times) At issue is a California ban on the environmentally destructive plastic material, which went into effect on Jan. 1, as well as the definition of “recyclable” and the use of such a label on products sold in the state.Senate Bill 54, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, targeted single-use plastic in the state’s waste stream. The law included a provision that banned the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene food service ware — such as foam cups, plates and takeout containers — on Jan. 1, unless producers could show they had achieved a 25% recycling rate.“I’m glad a person in my district has taken this up and is holding these companies accountable,” said Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas). “But CalRecycle is the enforcement authority for this legislation, and they should be the ones doing this.”The intent of the law was to put the financial onus of responsible waste management onto the producers of these products, and away from California’s taxpayers and cities that would otherwise have to dispose of these products or deal with their waste on beaches, in rivers and on roadways.Expanded polystyrene is a particularly pernicious form of plastic pollution that does not biodegrade, has a tendency to break down into microplastics, leaches toxic chemicals and persists in the environment.There are no expanded polystyrene recycling plants in California, and recycling rates nationally for the material hover around 1%. A Mallard duck swims in water with Styrofoam polluting the beach on Lake Washington, Kirkland, Wash. (Wolfgang Kaehler / LightRocket via Getty Images) However, despite CalRecycle’s delayed announcement of the ban, companies such as WinCup not only continue to sell these banned products in California, but Heavey and his lawyers allege the products are deceptively labeled as “recyclable.” In his suit, Heavey includes a March 15 receipt from a Smart & Final store in the San Diego County town of National City, indicating a purchase of “WinCup 16 oz. Foam” cups. Similar polystyrene foam products could be seen on the shelves this week at a Redwood City Smart & Final, including a 1,000-count box of 12-ounce WinCup foam cups selling for $36.99. Across the aisle, the shelves were packed with bags of Simply Value and First Street (both Smart & Final brands) foam plates and bowls.There were “chasing arrow” recycling labels on the boxes containing cup lids. The symbol included a No. 6 in the center, indicating the material is polystyrene. There were none on the cardboard boxes containing cups, and it couldn’t be determined if the individual foam products were tagged with recycling labels. They were either obstructed from view inside cardboard boxes or stacked in bags which obscured observation.Smart & Final, which is owned by Chedraui USA, a subsidiary of Mexico City-based Grupo Comercial Chedraui, didn’t respond to requests for comment.Heavey’s suit alleges the plastic product manufacturer is “greenwashing” its products by labeling them as recyclable and in so doing, trying to skirt the law.According to the suit, recycling claims are widely disseminated on products and via other written publications. The company’s website includes an “Environmental” tab, which includes a page entitled: “Foam versus Paper Disposable Cups: A closer look.”The page includes a one-sentence argument highlighting the environmental superiority of foam over paper, noting that “foam products have a reputation for environmental harm, but if we examine the scientific research, in many ways Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam is greener than paper.”Heavey’s suit claims that he believed he was purchasing recyclable materials based on the products’ labeling, and he would not have bought the items had they not been advertised as such. WinCup, which is owned by Atar Capital, a Los Angeles-based global private investment firm sought to have the case moved to the U.S. District Court in San Diego, but a judge there remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court or jurisdiction grounds. Susan Keefe, the Southern California Director of Beyond Plastics, an anti-plastic environmental group based in Bennington, Vt., said that as of June, the agency had not yet enforced the ban, despite news stories and evidence that the product was still being sold in the state.“It’s really frustrating. CalRecycle’s disregard for enforcement just permits a lack of respect for our laws. It results in these violators who think they can freely pollute in our state with no trepidation that California will exercise its right to penalize them,” she said. Melanie Turner, a spokesoman for CalRecycle, said in a statement that expanded polystyrene producers “should no longer be selling or distributing expanded polystyrene food service ware to California businesses.” “CalRecycle has been identifying and notifying businesses that may be impacted by SB 54, including expanded polystyrene requirements, and communicating their responsibilities with mailed notices, emailed announcements, public meetings, and workshops,” she said. The waste agency “is prioritizing compliance assistance for producers regulated by this law, prior to potential enforcement action,” she said.Keefe filed a public records request with the agency regarding communications with companies selling the banned material and said she found the agency had not made any attempts to warn or stop the violators from selling banned products.Blakespear said it’s concerning the law has been in effect for more than six months and CalRecycle has yet to clamp down on violators. Enforcement is critical, she said, for setting the tone as SB 54 is implemented.According to Senate Bill 54, companies that produce banned products that are then sold in California can be fined up to $50,000 per day, per violation.According to a report issued by the waste agency last week, approximately 47,000 tons of expanded polystyrene foam was disposed in California landfills last year.

Microwaves produce radiation. Is that bad for me?

A Vox reader asks: Are microwaves actually bad for you, your health, and the food you eat? I think anybody who’s ever “nuked” some leftovers or a ready-made meal has pondered the same question. Nuke? As in the same nuclear radiation that causes deformities and mutations in my favorite science fiction? What exactly am I […]

Your microwave is not going to kill you. | Santiago Barrio/Cover/Getty Images A Vox reader asks: Are microwaves actually bad for you, your health, and the food you eat? I think anybody who’s ever “nuked” some leftovers or a ready-made meal has pondered the same question. Nuke? As in the same nuclear radiation that causes deformities and mutations in my favorite science fiction? What exactly am I doing to my body? It’s an understandable concern. It seems like so much of what we eat is bad for us, and US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. constantly warns Americans that modern conveniences could be allowing invisible particles into our bodies that damage our health. It made sense then, that some staffers on his presidential campaign were reportedly fearful of radiation from kitchen microwaves. But here is the good news: You are not ingesting toxic nuclear radiation. Microwaves are in fact quite safe — but there are a few precautions you should be aware of, if only to avoid that tinge of anxiety the next time you hit start on your instant oatmeal. Let’s start here: Microwaves produce a very different kind of radiation than a nuclear reaction. A nuclear bomb’s detonation will emit ionizing radiation. That stuff carries so much energy it can actually strip electrons out of individual atoms, which can damage your body at the cellular level and potentially lead to cancer and other illnesses. A microwave will not. The radiation produced by your kitchen microwave, on the other hand, is “non-ionizing.” These are electromagnetic waves that are similar to radio and light waves. Non-ionizing radiation is much, much less powerful than the other kind, which means it does not possess the necessary energy to alter your DNA at the molecular level.  While prolonged, direct and intense exposure could lead to tissue damage, we are exposed to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation all the time with no significant health harms, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Visible light — literally the light waves from the sun or a light bulb that our eyes pick up and our brains turn to images — is even a low-grade form of it. Plus, microwaves are appliances that the FDA strictly regulates to reduce any potential risk of radiation leakage; the agency says radiation injury from microwaves is “very rare” and associated with extremely unusual circumstances or the microwave being in poor condition. Okay, we’re not radiating ourselves when we nuke a slice of pizza. That’s good. But you may still be wondering: Am I ruining the food somehow? While I personally hate the way a piece of pizza tastes after being microwaved, when considering the nutritional value (of pizza or anything else), heating your food in the microwave isn’t going to hurt it. “The non-ionizing radiation used by a microwave does not make the food radioactive,” according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. And it won’t deplete your food of its nutritional value either:  As Harvard Medical School’s Anthony Komaroff wrote in 2019, “microwave cooking is actually one of the least likely forms of cooking to damage nutrients.” The reason is simple: time. We invented microwaves to have a quicker way to heat up food and, as it turns out, that also confers some nutritional benefits. Foods leach nutrients when they are under more heat for a longer period of time. By shortening the amount of time that your food is being heated, microwaves allow it to retain more of its vitamins and minerals. It’s unambiguously better than boiling, for example, during which the hot water removes many of the nutrients. How microwaving compares to roasting, sauteeing, or air-frying depends on the vegetable, but in general, microwaves are no worse for your food — from a nutritional point of view — than other forms of cooking. Alright, microwaves aren’t slowly poisoning you, nor are they robbing your food of its health benefits. Are there any catches? Sort of.  There are at least two precautions to take when using your microwave. First, make sure you are using a safe container. Never, ever put metal in the microwave. And don’t put plastic bowls or containers in there either: Everybody is freaking out about microplastics, BPAs, and PFAS these days — and for good reason: When it comes to microwaves, you do have some reason to worry. Studies have indicated that chemicals can leach into your food if you heat your food in them using a microwave. Once they enter your body, microplastics could damage your heart and other organs, disrupt your digestion, and affect your mental sharpness. You may be better off with glass or ceramic containers. At the very least, check that the plates or bowls you’re using in a microwave have been labeled safe for that use. You may want to consider replacing containers after a lot of microwave use because the risk of leaching harmful chemicals increases with time or if they have been damaged in some way. And then there is one other kind of harm from microwaves that health officials worry about: burns. Anybody who has grabbed a plate out of their microwave as soon as the buzzer sounds knows they can produce intense heat that can burn your body when you grab your food or your tongue and mouth when you ingest it. That is what the FDA is warning consumers to be mindful of, rather than nuclear mutations. The fear of turning into an extra from the Mad Max post-apocalypse should not dissuade you from using your kitchen’s microwave — so long as you are also using an appropriate container and you handle it with care. Instead, focus on what preparation will be the most satisfying to you, and some people may want to consider what will provide the most nutritional value.  Me? I can’t stand microwaved pizza anyway. It’s always going in the oven: 325 degrees, for 10 minutes.

Nanoplastics Make Up Most of the Ocean’s Plastic Pollution

Nanoplastics—particles smaller than a human hair—can pass through cell walls and enter the food web. New research suggest 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics are spread across just the top layer of the North Atlantic

Most Plastic in the Ocean Is Invisible—And DeadlyNanoplastics—particles smaller than a human hair—can pass through cell walls and enter the food web. New research suggest 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics are spread across just the top layer of the North AtlanticBy Katharine Sanderson & Nature magazine Sergi Escribano/Getty ImagesMarine plastic litter tends to grab headlines, with images of suffocating seabirds or bottles washing up along coastlines. Increasingly, researchers have been finding tiny microplastic fragments across all environments, from the most densely populated cities to pristine mountaintops, as well as in human tissue including the brain and placenta. A study published today reveals yet another hidden source of this deadly waste: nanometre-scale particles are literally everywhere, says co-author Dušan Materić, an environmental analytical chemist at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.Materić and his colleagues sampled water at three depths representative of different environments in the North Atlantic Ocean. Throughout the water column, they found three types of nanoplastic: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS) and polyvinylchloride (PVC). These were present at average concentrations of 18 milligrams per metre cubed, which translates to 27 million tonnes of nanoplastics spread across just the top layer of the temperate to subtropical North Atlantic. “Nanoplastics make up the dominant fraction of marine plastic pollution,” Materić says. In the entire world’s oceans, it is estimated that there are around 3 million tonnes of floating plastic pollution — excluding nanoplastics.What are plastic nanoparticles and how different are they from microplastics?On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The tiniest of pieces of plastic, nanoplastics are defined by the researchers as having a diameter of less than one micrometre (one one-thousandth of a metre). Microplastics are between one micrometre and 5 millimetres across. At the smaller scale of nanoplastics, materials behave differently. Materić and his colleagues found that the particles were distributed throughout the water column, rather than settling to the bottom. The movement of the nanoplastic particles was dominated not by gravity, but by the random movement called Brownian motion, and by collisions with water molecules.How did the team find the nanoplastics?The scientists took water samples during a November 2020 cruise on research vessel Pelagia, which is owned by the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research in Texel. They sampled at 12 locations: 5 in the system of circular currents called the North Atlantic subtropical gyre; 4 in the open ocean; and 3 from coastal areas on the European continental shelf. At each location, they gathered samples at depths of 10 metres and 1,000 metres below the surface, and then 30 metres off the ocean bottom.The nanoplastics were detected using a technology called thermal-desorption proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry. “We faced multiple challenges,” says Materić, including the need to remove contaminants other than nanoplastics. Each 10-millilitre sample was run through a filter with micrometre pores to clear out microplastics. Samples were then slowly heated, releasing any organic matter and allowing the remaining plastics to be identified.Not all was as expected. “We faced a big mystery,” says Materić. One major class of plastics, polyethylene (PE), was missing from the data, even though fragments almost certainly enter the ocean. The fragments probably transform into something else, or might fall to the sea bed, says Materić. “This suggests that PE nanoplastic cycling in the ocean environment follows some unusual pathway — either rapid chemical alteration or mineralization, or fast sinking.”Should we be surprised that nanoplastics are an overlooked source of plastics pollution? Should we be worried?“This does not come as a surprise to me, as I have been aware of the extent and magnitude of the problem for some time,” says Tony Walker, an environmental scientist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. “Nanoplastics, unlike microplastics, are able to pass through cell walls, meaning that they are already incorporated into the ocean phytoplankton which serve as the base of the marine food web and are able to be transferred through the marine food web,” he explains.The ubiquitousness of nanoplastics means they should be taken seriously, says Materić. “Given their toxicological potential, they may represent the most problematic plastic size fraction for ocean life,” he says. Walker agrees: “This should be a wake-up call to all of us,” he says. “The extent to which nanoplastics can infiltrate every ecosystem and living cell on the planet is even far worse than what we already know about microplastics and larger plastic pollution.”What can be done to mitigate the pollution?The next and likely final round of negotiations for a legally binding United Nations treaty on plastics pollution will kick off in August in Geneva, Switzerland. On the table is a limit on future plastic manufacture, but this is being resisted by some countries, including those that rely on oil and gas exports to power their economies.“One of the best strategies to mitigate future nanoplastics pollution or release into the environment is to cap plastic production,” says Walker. “Turn off the tap.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on July 9, 2025.

Dear Doctor: Sun exposure is the primary cause of thinning skin

"Could I take vitamin K or increase my platelets to limit this happening?"

DEAR DR. ROACH: I thought you could help with a stubborn problem. I am a healthy and active 78-year-old woman who, I admit, likes to look younger than my age. The problem is my skin, especially on my hands and arms; I get these bruises that look unsightly and take a while to resolve. I hear it is from age-related thin skin. My friends of this generation also complain about these red spots or bruises. They don’t hurt.Could I take vitamin K or increase my platelets so as to limit their happening? I’ve read not to take aspirin or any pain reliever. Is there any medicine to take to help my blood coagulate better or make my skin thicker? -- S.M.ANSWER: This common problem is called solar purpura, and it is largely the sun causing the damage to the skin, thinning it with age. Avoiding the sun and moisturizing your skin diligently can reduce the risk of this happening. Once it’s happened, these measures are still important for preventing it from getting worse.You should still avoid the sun and moisturize to prevent the condition from worsening. One study showed that bioflavinoid supplements helped reduce new bruises. These aren’t particularly expensive, but you can also get them through food, specifically citrus and other fruits.Vitamin K deficiency causes clotting problems, but taking more vitamin K doesn’t help. Aspirin does reduce the effectiveness of platelets, but if you are prescribed it (for blockages in the heart, for example), you should definitely keep taking it. Occasional ibuprofen has little effect on platelets, and acetaminophen (Tylenol) has none.DEAR DR. ROACH: For years, I have been plagued by a chronic nasal drip. It’s usually most present in the mornings, though it seems to be intermittent during the day. I frequently have to wipe or blow my nose. I thought it might be due to allergies, so I have been taking a Zyrtec tablet every morning. But it doesn’t seem to have any effect.I talked with my primary care physician about this, but he didn’t have any recommendations. I don’t know what is going on or how to stop this. Do you have any recommendations? -- R.M.ANSWER: An antihistamine like Zyrtec is a reasonable thing to try as allergic rhinitis often responds to antihistamines. (We just love our Latin and Greek names, and “rhinitis” comes from the Greek roots for “inflammation of the nose.”) Since an antihistamine didn’t work, it seems likely that you might have nonallergic rhinitis, and a nasal spray like ipratropium is usually effective for this.I also recommend azelastine nasal spray, which is now available over the counter as “Astepro.” There are some steps you can do to help your environmental risk, such as reducing dust and avoiding excess dryness.I warn people against the habitual use of nasal decongestants like Afrin, which should only be used for a day or two -- never more than three. Once the body gets used to it, nasal congestion will worsen every time a person tries to go without it.If the nasal spray doesn’t do the job, I’d recommend an evaluation by an expert, such as an otorhinolaryngologist, who may need to look for nasal polyps, laryngopharyngeal reflux, and other less-common causes.Dr. Roach regrets that he is unable to answer individual letters, but will incorporate them in the column whenever possible. Readers may email questions to ToYourGoodHealth@med.cornell.edu or send mail to 628 Virginia Dr., Orlando, FL 32803.(c) 2022 North America Syndicate Inc.All Rights Reserved

Ashland Earth Day celebrants find ways to help the planet, say ‘hang in there’

Ashland is a year-round Earth Day with "people who are creating organic, local, sustainable food, drink and music," said A Street Block Party participant Emily Simon.

Joe Bianculli participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, and 55 years later, he was handing out environmental-action information to throngs of people attending Ashland’s first Earth Day A Street Block Party. Biancelli, who lives in Ashland and volunteers for Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands (“KS Wild”), said on Tuesday, “We had high hopes for saving the planet and we still have high hopes. It’s getting tougher and tougher every year, but we all have to hang in there.”The ecologically focused event in the historic Railroad District stretched for blocks along A Street, past the Ashland Food Co-op and Masala Bistro to the KS Wild open house, where Biancelli handed out stickers that read “Love where you live, defend what you love” in the front yard as the bluegrass band Eight Dollar Mountain performed in the backyard.About 1,000 people attended the free outdoor event organized by Karolina Lavagnino of Wild Thyme Productions.People chatted in line to order from the Tacos Libertad food truck in the parking lot used year round by customers of Get ‘N Gear second-hand outdoor equipment and clothing stores. Near an outdoor display of used kayaks and bikes for sale, volunteers of Ashland Devo explained the group’s mission: to cultivate grit, resilience and camaraderie in youth through the sport of mountain biking. Board member Moneeka Settles said Earth Day is simple: It’s a chance to “gather together and celebrate Earth.”Across A Street, in a lot next to the Ashland Yoga Center, Suzee Grilley was leading Elbow Room Taiko drummers, who captivated a large crowd with their rhythmic sound and dramatic movements around barrel-shaped drums.“We always celebrate Earth Day,” said Grilley. “We feel a lot of our music expresses a communing with nature, and the sprits that animate nature, from the trees, to the sky, to the water, to the earth itself, to human beings and animals.”She said the drums the group play reflect nature. “Every one of our drums is made of wood, skin and metal, and crafted with love and prayer by an artisan,” she said.Vince DiFrancesco of the Siskiyou Mountain Club, which works to maintain more than 400 miles of backcountry trails, welcomed people to his booth set up between the Grange Co-op and Ace Hardware.DiFrancesco sees Earth Day as a time for public service. “It’s about getting out and doing work on public lands to keep them open for recreation for everybody,” he said. Nearby, musician Gatore Mukarhinda drummed a heartbeat and sang a love song to Mother Earth. “She says, ‘take care of me,’” he said.Aubrey Laughlin of Talent, who had recently volunteered for Siskiyou Mountain Club trail work, said the idea for Earth Day was about “looking out for the next generation and connecting with each other, the place we live and our community.” Marie DeGregorio of Medford, who also attended the street party, said the day reminds people that “the planet needs help and we are stewards.”Party goer Susan Cox of Ashland agreed. To her, the day means “taking care of the planet, and each one of us doing our part as best we can and keeping it happy.” Yu Kuwabara of Ashland, who rode his bike to the event, said “Earth Day is a celebration of getting outside and enjoying the community.” Plenty of people rolled into the event on bikes, and Piccadilly Cycles provided free bike valet parking in front of its store.People gathered around booths displaying handmade jewelry and vendors selling treats like vegan- and gluten-free Plant Baked cookies, donuts, blueberry limoncello squares and cinnamon swirl loaves.Bloomsbury Books, a landmark independent bookstore on Ashland’s East Main Street, had a pop-up shop with nature-focused books. Earth Day is a day to learn about the environment, said bookstore co-owner Megan Isser. “Come read,” she said, gesturing to a table with copies of books, including “Garden Guide for the Rogue Valley,” published by the Jackson County Master Gardener Association with support from the Oregon State University Extension Service. Adults tasted small-batch wines from Circadian Cellars at the Ashland Recycled Furniture store, and mocktails by Hummingbird Heart Co. in a lot near Fourth Street.Creekside Strings fiddlers kicked off the event around 4 p.m. with traditional tunes in front of La Baguette Music Cafe, well known for its weekly jazz sessions. The event ended there too at 7:30 p.m. after a performance by folk duo Jenika Smith and Simon Chrisman.To block party participant Emily Simon, the best place to be on Earth Day was in Ashland, where she lives and supports sustainable businesses year round. “It’s such a wonderful event to be out here with our neighbors,” she said, “and celebrating the Earth with people who are creating organic, local, sustainable food, drink and music.”Upcoming Earth Day events:ScienceWorks Hands-on Museum hosts its annual Earth Day celebration 3:30-7 p.m. Friday, April 25, with activities highlighting the science of sustainability at 1500 E. Main St. in Ashland (541-482-6767). Parking is limited and people are encouraged to walk, bike, carpool or use public transit.Pollinator Project Rogue Valley holds its spring native plant sale 10 a.m.-2 p.m. Sunday, April 27, with five growers offering a large selection of plants (listed here) native to the southern Oregon bioregion in the parking lot behind The Pollination Place at 312 N. Main St., Phoenix.See more events statewide at oregonlive.com.Here is Oregon: Southern Oregon— Janet Eastman covers design and trends. Reach her at 503-294-4072, jeastman@oregonian.com and follow her on X @janeteastman.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.