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

National Trust members to vote on making cafe food 50% plant-based

Jacob Rees-Mogg criticises plans for 2.6m members to decide on increasing share of vegan and vegetarian optionsNational Trust members are being invited to vote on a plan to make 50% of the food in its cafes vegan and vegetarian as part of the charity’s commitment to reach net zero by 2030.Cafe menus at the trust’s 280 historic sites are already 40% plant-based. Now, the trust’s 2.6 million members will get to vote on whether the charity should gradually increase this figure to 50% over the next two years. Continue reading...

National Trust members are being invited to vote on a plan to make 50% of the food in its cafes vegan and vegetarian as part of the charity’s commitment to reach net zero by 2030.Cafe menus at the trust’s 280 historic sites are already 40% plant-based. Now, the trust’s 2.6 million members will get to vote on whether the charity should gradually increase this figure to 50% over the next two years.The resolution, which was brought by a member and is being supported by the charity, will be voted on at the trust’s annual general meeting on 2 November, with online votes due in by 25 October.However, the plan has drawn criticism, , with the former Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg calling the resolution “a silly, attention-seeking proposal that won’t have any effect unless the National Trust decides to ration meat” while the TV farmer Gareth Wyn Jones described the charity’s aspiration to provide more plant-based food choices as “absolutely ridiculous from a massive landowner with so many livestock farming families living off these farms”.The National Farmers’ Union president Tom Bradshaw suggested National Trust visitors should not have culinary decisions “imposed” on them and that there were benefits to eating meat and dairy: “What we eat is a personal choice and not something which is imposed. Decisions should be made in an informed way taking into consideration the nutritional, environmental and biodiversity benefits that eating a balanced diet including meat and dairy provide.”Earlier this year, the charity was forced to defend its vegan scone recipe after it was accused of “wokery”.The Mail on Sunday suggested the trust had “secretly” made all its scones vegan, with critics condemning the decision to use vegetable spread over butter.However, the charity said its fruit and plain scones in its cafes had actually been dairy free for years, to accommodate the different dietary needs and allergies of its customers, but they could still be enjoyed with lashings of butter, cream and jam.In response to the growing furore around its latest proposal to offer more plant-based food, a National Trust spokesperson emphasised that the charity was “keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu, and continuing to work closely with farmers”.She added: “We want our cafes to be more sustainable and we want to keep serving a great variety of food while meeting the changing preferences of our visitors. We estimate two-fifths of our menu is currently plant-based and we can move to half being so in the next two years.”In its AGM booklet, the trust cited David Attenborough when explaining its reasons for the proposal: “The planet can’t sustain billions of meat-eaters.skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy 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“Moving towards a majority plant-based food system would allow more than 70% of farmland to be freed for nature restoration, a change that would capture massive amounts of carbon and increase biodiversity while still providing enough nutritious food for our growing population.”Scientists say avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, and a recent survey of 7,500 people in 10 European countries found that nearly half of British adults (48%) were cutting down on the amount of meat they eat.Last year students at Cambridge University voted to support a transition to a 100% vegan menu across the institution’s catering services, while students at Warwick and Newcastle have voted for their universities to provide 50% plant-based catering.Earlier this year, the founder of the world’s largest vegan charity, Viva!, said all restaurants should offer at least 50% plant-based menus by the end of next year.

California extends its food additives ban with new bill targeting foods served in local schools

The newly passed bill will ban artificial dyes, which are linked to various behavioral issues in children

California is continuing its ban on various food additives, this time with a new bill that targets specific chemicals served in school lunches throughout the state. The California School Food Safety Act (Assembly Bill 2316) will ban artificial dyes, which California lawmakers believe are linked to behavioral issues in children.  The bill prohibits state school districts and charter schools from serving foods or drinks that contain red dye No. 40, yellow dyes Nos. 5 and 6, blue dyes Nos. 1 and 2, and green dye No. 3 to children in kindergarten through 12th grade. These dyes are commonly found in ice creams, fruit snacks, drinks (like Gatorade and SunnyD), cereals, candy and flavored chips. Although research into the neurological effects of artificial food dyes is still ongoing, such dyes have been shown to have negative impacts on children’s attention span. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) research into the link between food dyes and child behavior found that the levels (or doses) of dyes deemed “safe” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “do not adequately take neurobehavioral effects into account.” That’s because the animal studies that the FDA conducted to determine an acceptable exposure level “are many decades old and were not capable of detecting the types of neurobehavioral outcomes measured in later studies, or for which there is concern in children consuming synthetic dyes,” per OEHHA.   The recent School Food Safety Act comes after Governor Gavin Newsom signed the California Food Safety Act, which prohibits the sale of foods containing brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, or red dye 3 in the state.

Tackling food insecurity needs more than charity — governments must also act

What it means to move "beyond charity" when it comes to battling food insecurity

Researchers and food-centered organizations have had long-standing concerns that food charity alone cannot effectively respond to this growing demand. Community food groups across Canada have been advocating for a more systemic, structural approach to addressing food insecurity, rather than relying on reactive, short-term solutions like food banks. For example, Food First NL and Community Food Centres Canada are pushing for income-based solutions; the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec is working on a framework bill legislating the right to food; and the Maskwacîs Education Schools Commission in Alberta has developed and implemented a Universal School Food Strategy called Nanâtohk Mîciwin. These groups draw on decades of research on food insecurity, as well as their on-the-ground observations, to develop solutions that address food insecurity more fairly and effectively. Along with colleagues, we recently organized the event Food insecurity: Let's move beyond charity!, focused on how efforts to address food insecurity can move beyond charity. Academic research and the collective efforts of non-profit organizations highlight the urgent need to move beyond short-term fixes and adopt long-term, equitable strategies that address the root causes of food insecurity.   The limits of charity Decades of research, exemplified by PROOF, the food insecurity research group at the University of Toronto, make it clear that food insecurity cannot be solved by relying on charity alone. Charity is important for helping vulnerable people. However, the root causes of food insecurity are systemic issues like inadequate income, social inequalities and insufficient social support; food donations alone fail to tackle these underlying problems. Not everyone is equally at risk of food insecurity. The latest data from Statistics Canada confirms that, as of 2022, Indigenous and Black households, lone-parent families (women-headed families, in particular) and people living with disabilities are disproportionately affected by food insecurity. Researchers argue that food charity may even reinforce the problem by giving the impression that food insecurity is being addressed, and dulling the political imperative to seek lasting solutions. Indeed, since the 1980s, governments have persistently favoured the charity model to address hunger over developing adequate social policies and welfare programs. Only a fraction of those who experience food insecurity use food banks, often due to stigma associated with poverty, the insufficient quality, quantity or appropriateness of donated food, or the absence of food banks in their communities. Meanwhile, community food programs struggle to meet the increasing demand from those who do use them. A recent Food First NL report documents the community food programs' many challenges, including limited resources (funding, food, volunteers). The report highlights the inherent limitations of a model dependent on donations and scarce resources; it is unable to effectively and sustainably meet people's specific and household needs, such as dietary restrictions.   What are the proposed alternatives? Food First NL and Community Food Centres Canada are two non-profit organizations pushing for income-based solutions. In Newfoundland and Labrador, Food First NL advocates for a basic income program to provide unconditional financial support. This is a proposed solution that has garnered significant attention in the province. At the national level, Community Food Centres Canada advocates for federal income and social policy changes, including targeted income programs with revised benefit thresholds, to ensure adequate financial assistance for those most at risk. These income-based solutions resonate with the income- and policy-based approach favoured by PROOF. Research has identified inadequate income as the key cause leading to food insecurity. The Maskwacîs Education Schools Commission showcases an inspiring model that the federal government, having recently announced a new national school food program, should pay attention to. Nanâtohk Mîciwin, the commission's Indigenous-led Universal School Food Strategy, goes beyond offering free, nutritious and culturally appropriate breakfast, lunch and snacks for all students and staff in 10 schools. The commission has created a collection and distribution system to supply traditional foods to schools, built partnerships with producers and harvesters strengthening the local food system, and enhanced connections to traditional foods and practices. Students learn about food in their Cree classes and participate in land-based food activities and harvests. The program is an approach to food provisioning that considers cultural and environmental dimensions of food security. Based on Cree values and a commitment to Indigenous food sovereignty, it provides a rich example of a systemic and structural solution to addressing food insecurity at a more local level. For its part, the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec's is proposing a provincial framework bill on the right to food, based on the work of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Such efforts are vital. They drive home the point that addressing food insecurity is the government's responsibility, and food security as a fundamental human right. They also approach food insecurity as a food-systems issue as much as a social inequality one, taking into account the sustainability of food production, processing and distribution. This is all the more relevant in light of the detrimental impacts of climate change on food production and access, which predominantly affect marginalized communities.   Moving forward Systemic approaches to food insecurity must be focused on giving back agency and dignity to individuals and communities. Such initiatives develop long-term solutions informed by both research and the lived experiences of people struggling with food insecurity. Food charity may still play some role in those solutions, but it must not be the main response to the challenge of food insecurity. It's time for all levels of government to move beyond food charity, heed the advice of those working on the front lines of this crisis, and respond with fair and sustainable social policies and programs. This piece benefited from the support of UBC assistant professor Tabitha Robin, co-lead of the Food insecurity: Let's move beyond charity! research initiative, and Alannah Exelby, a research assistant on the project and health science undergraduate student at Carleton University. Myriam Durocher, Postdoctoral Researcher in Food, Health and Inequities, Carleton University; Annika Walsh, Master's Student, Research Assistant, University of British Columbia; Irena Knezevic, Associate Professor in Communication, Culture, and Health, Carleton University, and Madison Hynes, Program Assistant, Food First NL; PhD candidate in social psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland   This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How food banks prevented 1.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions last year

Redistributing food before it’s tossed or wasted doesn’t just fight hunger — it also fights climate change.

The latest annual impact report from the Global Foodbanking Network — a nonprofit that works with regional food banks in more than 50 countries to fight hunger — found that its member organizations provided 1.7 billion meals to more than 40 million people in 2023. According to the nonprofit, this redistribution of food, much of which was recovered from farms or wholesale produce markets, mitigated an estimated 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. These numbers reflect an ongoing, high demand for food banks. Last year, the Global Foodbanking Network, or GFN, served almost as many people as it did in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sent food insecurity soaring. In order to respond to this pressing need in their communities, many of GFN’s member organizations have invested in agricultural recovery, working to rescue food from farmers before it gets thrown out.  Their efforts show how food banks can serve the dual purpose of addressing hunger and protecting the environment. By intercepting perfectly good, edible food before it winds up in the landfill, food banks help mitigate harmful greenhouse gas emissions created by food loss and waste. “There is always food that is unnecessarily wasted,” said Emily Broad Leib, the founding director of the Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, who has worked with GFN before but was not involved in the recent study. All that unnecessary waste means “there is ongoing need for scaling up food banks and food recovery operations,” Broad Leib added. Read Next One in 11 people went hungry last year. Climate change is a big reason why. Ayurella Horn-Muller A recent analysis from the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that 13 percent of food was lost while it was making its way from producers to retailers in 2022. Subsequently, 19 percent was wasted by retailers, restaurants, and households. The world’s households alone let 1 billion meals go to waste each day. The scope of food wasted around the world has been shockingly high for years: In 2011, the Food and Agricultural Organization, or FAO, of the United Nations released a study that suggested roughly one-third of food produced globally is never eaten.  Food waste at this scale comes with massive planetary impacts. When food goes uneaten, all of the emissions associated with growing, transporting, and processing it are rendered unnecessary. Furthermore, when food rots in landfills, it emits methane, a greenhouse gas that is roughly 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that 58 percent of methane emissions from U.S. landfills come from food waste. Globally, food loss and waste have been estimated to be responsible for 8 to 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing them is essential for achieving climate targets.  Food banks can play a special role in that reduction by rescuing more food before it’s lost and redirecting it to people in need.  10 February 2024, Berlin: Vegetables at the Berliner Tafel food bank on the Berlin wholesale market site, which were collected at the Fruit Logistica trade fair. The food bank distributes the food to people affected by poverty. Photo: Christoph Soeder/dpa (Photo by Christoph Soeder/picture alliance via Getty Images) Christoph Soeder / picture alliance via Getty Images “Our members have been building out their redistribution capacity,” said Lisa Moon, the president and CEO of GFN. “I think that was our first challenge in the face of this rising need: How do we as an organization capture more supply?” In order to do this, food banks within GFN member organizations have been coordinating more closely with farmers to redirect surplus food from landfills. GFN defines surplus food as food from commercial streams that was grown for human consumption but that, for some reason or another, cannot be sold. So-called “ugly” produce — misshapen food that never makes it to the grocery store because of its looks — falls into this category. Some of this redirection actually looks like cutting out food banks as the middleman. Moon gives the example of a food bank that receives a call from a farmer with excess green beans. Instead of traveling to the farm to pick them up, traveling back to the food bank’s distribution hub, storing the green beans, and having folks wait for the next distribution day to collect them, the food bank in question might simply reach out to beneficiaries in the area (think: soup kitchens) to inform them of how many green beans are available and where so they can pick them up. GFN refers to this as “virtual food banking” because of how members are using tech platforms to match farmers with beneficiaries, rather than physically moving the produce themselves. Read Next The people who feed America are going hungry Ayurella Horn-Muller The result of this emphasis on agricultural recovery is that fruit and vegetables now make up the largest portion — 40 percent — of food redistributed by GFN members by volume. Moon says the organization is “just only scratching the surface” of possibilities for recovering fresh produce.  In order to calculate that 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent was mitigated by these efforts, GFN utilized the Food Loss and Waste Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute. This framework takes a number of things into account, including where recovered food would have ended up had it not been intercepted from the waste stream. These waste destinations can be landfills but also include animal feed, compost, and anaerobic digesters (a waste management technology that converts organic waste into biogas — but that can come with its own emissions problems). Moon acknowledged that GFN does not know in every case what would happen to the surplus food if it were not rescued by a food bank — but pointed out that most of the places where the network operates do not have a robust circular economy for food. Broad Leib, the Harvard Law food policy expert, described GFN’s estimate of carbon dioxide equivalent mitigated as “a good proxy for impact.” While other waste destinations are possible, “we also know that the large majority of wasted food globally goes to landfill,” she said. “I think their estimate is likely not far off from actual emissions avoided.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How food banks prevented 1.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions last year on Aug 14, 2024.

Wild genes in domestic species: how we can supercharge our crops using their distant relatives

For millennia, we’ve selectively bred our crop species to make the plants stronger and better yielding. But we’ll need a different approach to help our food plants weather the changes to come.

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Author providedFood security is shaping up as one of the biggest challenges we face globally. In some places, access to food has steadily deteriorated in recent years, due to wars, inflation and climate-driven extreme weather. The cost of basic foods such as eggs and vegetables has made news worldwide. Food price inflation is now ahead of overall inflation in over half the world’s nations. The obvious answer is to grow more crops, especially the energy-dense top six – rice, wheat, corn, potatoes, soybeans and sugarcane. Unfortunately, it’s getting harder to produce food due to conflict, more extreme weather such as flash droughts and floods and a surge in plant diseases and pests. For farmers to keep producing in an uncertain future, we need better crops. But much cutting edge agricultural research focuses on improving specific aspects of a plant – better drought resistance, or a better ability to tolerate salt in the soil. This may not be enough to cope with future shocks. Our research suggests a way to accelerate the creation of stronger crops by drawing on the full genetic strength of crop species. Crops that don’t stop Humans have greatly modified the plants which give us the lion’s share of our food, using tools such as selective breeding and genetic manipulation. But much agricultural research is done in isolation. Researchers dive deep into solving specific problems – how to make wheat resilient against a specific fungus, for example. The growing challenges to food security across many fronts means a new approach is needed. The changing climate will throw many different threats at our crops. Parts of the world might endure flash droughts while extreme rain floods others. Some pests and diseases will thrive in a hotter world. That’s why we’re looking to another approach – pangenomics, which attempts to capture every gene a species has access to. You might think a species has a unified set of genes, but this is not true. Yes, all rice plants have a set of shared genetic sequences. But individual plants and strains have distinct genetic differences too. The pangenome covers all of these. The idea of a pangenome only emerged in 2005, when microbiologist Hervé Tettelin and his collaborators were looking for a vaccine against the streptococcus bacteria. As they examined different strains, they realised how much additional genetic information was held in them. It was a breakthrough, and showed how much we missed by focusing closely on a single isolate of a species. Before their discovery, we had assumed an individual of a species carried enough information to accurately represent the genomic content of that species. But this isn’t correct. This realisation has changed how we see our crops. Rather than trying to perfect a single cultivar (cultivated variety) using only its own genetic package, the pangenome offers a way to reinfuse lost vigour from the wider gene pool. In 2019, we took the pangenome approach further by considering the entire gene pool of a crop, including its domestic cultivars – and their wild relatives. Many wild relatives of domesticated crops still exist. These plants have huge genetic diversity, and often harbour superior genes or gene variants (alleles) lost to crop plants through domestication and breeding. We dubbed this approach the “super-pangenome” to recognise the capture of domesticated and wild gene pools. How can this help shore up food supplies? For more than 10,000 years, humans have domesticated and selectively bred crops. But wild relatives have thrived over the same timeframe. There are good reasons these wild relatives have not been domesticated, from poor taste to difficulty of storage to low yields. But what they do have are desirable traits in their genetic code we can identify, isolate and infuse back into the domesticated species. Once we have genetic data from across a species and its wild relatives, we can begin looking for particularly useful genes. What we’re after are the ones responsible for adapting to or surviving environmental stresses likely to get worse in the future, such as drought, saline soils and extreme temperatures. We can identify genes responsible for disease resistance and determine why certain varieties offer other desirable traits such as better taste or higher yields. Around the world, a number of promising research projects use this approach, from American researchers using the genes of wild grapes to boost the yield of domesticated grapes to Chinese researchers doing similar work on tomatoes. How can we make crops more resilient to heat, drought and pests? KPixMining/Shutterstock We and our colleagues are focused on the humble chickpea, a highly nutritious legume of particular importance to India’s 1.4 billion people. Chickpeas, like other legume crops, take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil, which improves fertility and helps offset emissions of nitrous oxide, a lesser-known greenhouse gas. But chickpeas lack of genetic diversity due to several evolutionary bottlenecks, domestication and selective breeding. This is already causing problems, because low genetic diversity makes species more vulnerable to pests and disease. Chickpea farmers in Western Australia still remember the outbreak of a fungal blight which almost wiped out production in the late 1990s and left the crop unpopular – even while other states expanded exports. The solution: look to the wild relatives. In the genomes of relatives such as Cicer echinospermum, we found several promising genes which helped resist this fungus. These genes can now be incorporated into domesticated species through modern approaches – such as genomics-assisted breeding and gene editing – to develop disease-resistant and high-yielding chickpea varieties. Once we seek out and capture the full gene stock of our most important crops, both wild and domesticated, it will become easier and faster to supercharge these essential plants – and equip them with the genes they need to survive the uncertainties the future holds. Rajeev Varshney receives funding from the Grains Research & Development Corporation, Australia, for pulses research at Murdoch University. Vanika Garg receives funding from the Grains Research & Development Corporation, Australia for pulses research at Murdoch University.

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.