https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/ocean-plastic-made-disca...
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/great-pacific-ga...
Getting ocean based fishing to not use plastics will be very difficult but moving the majority of fishing into farms by making it more profitable could very well make that problem go away by reducing ocean fishing in general.
Make trade restrictions on non-farmed fish and the demand for ocean fish from nations fishing with plastic would hopefully go down. If fish from the ocean now contains plastic it would probably be a health boon to only accept farm fish anyway.
You might create a new problem of corporate fish farms decimating local fishermans livelihoods, which sucks. But at this rate they will overfish and pollute their own jobs away anyway.
Whether your concerns are environmental, for health reasons, or about the ethical treatment of animals, you can adjust your diet as much or as little as you want and still have some sort of impact. Just like you don't have to sell your car and bike to work every day in order to cut down on your footprint by, say, biking to the nearby stores instead of driving.
We used to give cigarettes out in Red Cross parcels. https://www.loc.gov/resource/anrc.08956/
It did? Where? In what world?
Here in America, which has much lower smoking rates than many other developed nations and has indeed lowered the smoking rate a lot since ~50 years ago, there's tons of young people taking up smoking and "vaping". A bunch of my tech coworkers do.
It’s also a huge part of family life. These dishes have been passed down through the generations and it’s actually moderately offensive to suggest that it’s not socially acceptable to eat what my family has been eating for as far back as anyone can remember. I know my children are growing up learning to love all of the dishes their family cooks and enjoys together.
But red meat doesn't cause very much cancer. There's a low risk of colorectal cancer, and red meat (even processed red meat) increases that risk by a small amount.
To prevent one case of cancer from red meat a large number of people have to give it up.
I disagree with parent poster. If people can assess risk they'll see a small increase of a low risk, and decide there are other things to worry about. If people can't assess risk (the vast majority of people) they'll decide if they like bacon enough to keep eating it, just as they do with alcohol or anything else.
I don't trust anything that comes from these people. They don't have the ability to properly test their hypotheses.
And honestly it seems a bit selfish to not at least try the less environmentally damaging option.
* all cuts of steak
* chicken
* pork
* salmon, tuna, mackerel, eel, sea urchin, shrimp...
Ground beef seems like low hanging fruit, making convincing sushi seems more difficult.
> And honestly it seems a bit selfish to not at least try the less environmentally damaging option.
I can think of several reasons people may not want artificial meat. Maybe they think it's gross (test tube meat) or it goes against tradition and culture. I don't think the "shaming" angle works well to get people to change their diet. I know I immediately tune out or get defensive when people tell me what I should do with my personal life. Especially since almost everything is "bad" for the environment. So unless someone lives in a dirt hut, eating veggies they grow themselves, wearing clothes made from their own hemp and never traveling, I really don't take what they have to say about the environment into consideration.
Other people's opinion about my diet isn't one of those factors. You can't shame someone out of doing something they enjoy.
> Maybe you enjoy meat, but if you also enjoy many non-meat foods, you can eat those and still fulfill the need to eat and the need to enjoy food
But I like eating meat so I will continue to do that in addition to eating other foods I also enjoy.
>We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy
Is still heavily disputed in nutrition circles.
I really don’t think any nutritional scientist would claim it’s impossible to be healthy as a vegetarian. Whether it’s easier with meat or feasible for all people is something else
It is impossible for some people. Nutrition claims should always be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, the advice surrounding cholesterol over the past 30 years.
For example, the following highly processed and sugary foods are considered vegan/vegetarian-friendly: French fries from most fast-food chains, Oreo cookies, Fritos corn chips, Lays potato chips, unfrosted Pop-Tarts, Nature Valley Granola Bars, Graham Crackers.
I would not trust an endorsement of a diet from a health organization. Over the past 30-40 years most modern countries have been experiencing a surge in chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and strokes. If you look at the places around the globe where Western diets have been introduced (e.g., Hawaii and Polynesia, Aboriginal tribes of Australia, Inuit in polar regions etc.), you see wrecked health markers for those populations after abandoning their local indiginous diets. Health organizations have done a disservice in the realm of nutrition and health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
There's currently quite a bit of debate over whether or not plant-based diets are better than other diets, but not over whether or not they are healthy.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
[2] https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltex...
https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-p...
>POSITION STATEMENT It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.
And it was never actually a big deal in the first place, because they have maintained more-or-less the same position for several decades, and the removal didn't actually change their position in a significant way.
https://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/16/inaccuracies-and-omis...
>Following the release of the “Vegetarian Diets” position paper, the Academy Positions Committee received correspondence from respected experts in the area of vegetarian nutrition, including Academy members, expressing concern about what they cited as inaccuracies in the paper. Upon receipt of the memoranda, the APC sent the paper out for a secondary external blind, unbiased review. Based on the result of these reviews, as well as the received correspondence from experts in the field, the APC voted to remove the paper from the Journal with the goal to revise and publish at a future date. Until then, individuals should refer to the “Vegetarian Diets” position paper published in the July 2009 Journal (Volume 109, Issue 7, pages 1266-1282).
This is the 2009 version:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/
>It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
Furthermore, most similar organizations take similar positions
https://www.livekindly.co/myth-buster-vegan-diets-are-unheal...
Even for babies?
From an economic/environmental perspective, severely limiting your intake of animal products is nearly as good as avoiding them completely, and nutritionally you're on much more solid ground.
>[Vegetarian and vegan] diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.
I was vegan for 5 years and about 6 months ago started eating meat and dairy again for reasons unrelated to food. I was raised in a household that ate meat with almost every meal. I have personally experienced pros and cons to both lifestyles, but would argue that in practice, a vegan diet is healthier for most people due to the nature of food options available to them.
Thanks for sharing & best wishes for your family's health. I hope you have allowed for proper vaccinations.
As I continued being vegan, I realized that the spectrum which is actually important is raw vs. processed foods, and less so meat vs plants. I think a lot of people who "do vegan right" end up just eat less processed crap in general and end up being healthy, not necessarily because of eating less/no meat. However, there are vegans that get on the "oreo diet" and just eat junk food 24/7 - those are not healthy vegans.
Thank you for the kind words, and likewise.
I agree 100%. Some of the biggest benefits of any diet are obtained by getting back to simple foods and away from highly processed foods/carbs mixed with seed oils and sugars. Ditch that stuff and you'll likely do well on just about any diet.
I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. I for one am certainly not going to stop eating fish and meat, I have been a vegetarian for over a year and I did not fancy it.
This is such a mainstream statement that it seems to me entirely reasonable to omit a source. You can find dozens of them by looking up "vegetarianism" on wikipedia and navigating to the "health effects" section.
Only in circles where alternative medicine is practiced, health-advice taken from unscholared internet-blogs and science is generally shunned.
This very extreme claim certainly needs a source to have any sort of credibility.
More than a third of East Asians have a deficiency in one of the enzymes involved in the breakdown of alcohol (aldehyde dehydrogenase). They cannot properly metabolize it.
Inuits have mutations in genes that code for enzymes that desaturate carbon-carbon bonds in fatty acids. This means they can handle diets that are very high in certain types of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids.
A mutation of the melanocortin-4-receptor (MC4R) leads to a markedly increased preference for high fat, but a significantly reduced preference for high sucrose food.
So what I'm saying is that blanket statements like "well if I/those guys can do it then everybody should be able to" have no real value. Diets are strongly influenced by and relying on genetics. Since we don't have the same genes we won't handle the same diet in the same way. Linking to statements that have since been withdrawn due to omissions also doesn't help.
Edit. Huh... getting downvoted for saying diet and genetics go hand in hand, with evidence that hasn't been retracted. If anybody was wondering why some people are never taken seriously, it's because they reject reality thinking this will change it.
> appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets
Most people's diets are not "appropriately" planned because most people never actually consult a nutritionist. This means most of those diets miss their mark and since that diet narrows the alternatives it's far easier to lose those benefits.
And can't see anything about any disbenefits of introducing animal products in that diet in "appropriately planned" quantities. Would introducing certain amounts of animal products in your diet affect in in any direction? So would adding a moderate amount of fish in your vegad diet sabotge or improve it? Or no difference?
Not just genetics, but a lifetime of bacterial and other environmental exposures that defines your microbiome, which is obviously essential to processing all food. An environment with a long history of vegetarians will be well suited to vegetarians. Not so much if that hasn't been the case.
Completely false. Also, unscholared isn't a word
https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=unscholared&s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unscholared
https://www.onelook.com/?w=unscholared&ls=a
>This very extreme claim
It isn't
It also makes me believe less in the statements, since there is not apparently any sources that can be used to back the statements up.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
[2] https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltex...
There are other real problems than plant-based diets.
My muscles were literally blocked to make that movement of my arms, swiping a plate of meal to the bin. Around ~25 other people did not have any problems with it, so I guess the problem is in me.
We should buy and cook less food, or maybe have a quick way of sharing left-over food with people who are hungry.
It looks like the number of obese [1] and undernourished [2] humans are both currently 700-800+ million.
(Yes, take less on your plate, save leftovers for future meals, etc.)
For example I rarely have meat-based food waste, however, I have all kinds of Fruit, and veg food waste do to spoilage.
Meat is easy to freeze and preserve, it is hard to freeze a salad ;)
- I started eating animal products again for health reason; I believe many people can thrive on a vegetarian or vegan diet, but I couldn't. It makes me unhappy, but there I am.
- Similarly vegetarian and vegan for a long time, my wife started craving animal products the minute she got pregnant. And after birth she became very ill, and survived on chicken broth. In short, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
- There is no reason for anyone to eat meat twice a day; and above all there is no reason for heavy subsidies so that everyone can eat meat cheaply twice a day.
So my preferred solution: animals raised humanely and sustainably to allow for healthy, limited consumption of animal products, with products priced at actual cost in order to eliminate over-consumption.
It would be more impactful get three people to reduce meat by 50% than to get one to reduce by 100%. Unfortunately, "meals that don't have a chunk of meat as their centerpiece but that are still far from vegetarian" does not have the same ideological zeal as veganism (speaking in the context of a western industrial background).
When eating out (again: western cuisine), the meat-free choices are getting better and better and I applaud that, but it seems to just get more polarized. In aggregate, either vegan or an ever bigger focus on a meat centerpiece is hardly an improvement. Low meat dishes seem to have a serious branding problem.
When eating out, I still eat vegetarian unless I know where the restaurant got its meat from. Increasing numbers of restaurants in Amsterdam do care where their meat comes from, fortunately.
Farming animals for meat has its problems but it does impose much stricter controls on the inputs. No farmer raising livestock for human consumption is feeding their animals contaminated food and water if there are other options available. If DuPont is upstream of your farm you're probably SOL but that's the exception not the rule.
[0] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-03-09/un-report-supp...
It means exactly what you heard. The USDA Organic label doesn't mean that organic crops are sustainable. The organic label doesn't address problems associated with commercial agriculture: monocultures, wide-spread use of pesticides, fertilizer run-off into streams/rivers/ponds/lakes causing them to become hypoxic, destruction of wetlands to create arable land etc.
I think the way you make this work is using meat for flavor rather than as a centerpiece- a lot of noodle dishes from China do this (e.g. https://thewoksoflife.com/2014/11/dan-dan-noodles/).
(I say "diaspora Asian" because I can only talk about what we get under the Asian brand in Europe, which for all I know might be completely unrelated to what actually happens in the namesake regions. But that's completely unrelated to the point we are making here: meat for flavor instead of for status, kudos to them)
So, work to get people to try a different appreciate meatless options; as you note, they are getting better. You can reduce meat consumption by eating meat-centered meals less frequently as well as eating some-but-less meat in each meal.
It's not like meat is a natural part of every dish that must be eradicated at some kind of effort to produce a meatless dish, though I'd agree that dishes they start with a meat dish and take that approach are often among the worst of meatless dishes.
Yea, this is pretty common (as many comments above yours will also attest to). “Vegetarian” and “vegan” are awful diet plans, in that they only tell you what not to eat. People coming from a standard diets based around meat/cheese/eggs undoubtedly have a hard time, and often become sick.
Fortunately, you don’t need that much knowledge. This stuff has been figured out by dietitians. If you’re interested in what a plant-based diet could look like, check out nutritionfacts.org. Dr. Greger has a “daily dozen” checklist that will pretty easily get you to a very healthy diet. It includes: cruciferous vegetables, other vegetables, whole grains, flax, berries, other fruits, spices (turmeric, cinnamon, garlic, etc), greens, nuts/seeds, beans/legumes, water, and exercise. If you consistently knock all 12 of those out, you’ll be healthy as a horse.
it's a christian cultural thing, mostly catholic. because the church decided fish aren't meat.
Take a multi-vitamin supplement, some linseed oil for the essential fatty acids and maybe some mineral supplement if appropriate according to the blood test.
You should do that anyway no matter your diet.
Dr Garth Davis: Americans have become obsessed with Protein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQCt3IhaUtU&feature=youtu.be...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/supplements-are-a-30...
From the linked article:
> Overall, multivitamins are not recommended for the generally healthy. There’s just no clear evidence to prove that they have any benefit. A 2013 analysis of 27 trials involving more than 400,000 people concluded that there was no clear evidence that they reduce cardiovascular disease, cancer risks, or reduce all-cause mortality.
This makes no sense.
You have a vegan diet to reduce cardiovascular disease, cancer risks, or reduce all-cause mortality.
You take vitamin supplements to prevent potential deficiencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1Ca6SsKfE
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21139125/
The need for vitamins and essential fatty acids is scientifically proven.
Better safe than sorry. Multi-vitamin supplements are cheap enough.
So it is possible.
All experts recommend vitamin B12 supplements for vegans, vegetarians and older people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4042564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17959839
https://www.b12-vitamin.com/algae/
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_deficiency:
> Vitamin B12 deficiency in the US and the UK is estimated to occur in about 6 percent of those under the age of 60, and 20 percent of those over the age of 60.[1] In Latin America rates are estimated at 40 percent and they may be as high as 80 per cent in parts of Africa and Asia.[1]
We should be calling for people _limiting_ their meat consumption in a way that works for them. It's far more effective to have 50% of the population limit their meat consumption than 5% eschew meat all together.
I personally eat meat about once a week, and that's something that's worked for me. I also try to source my meat and dairy from humane sources. And it's been a minimal effort. I don't feel that I've been denied meat. I can still have it once in a while, and it does not affect me in my daily life whatsoever.
The environmental footprint of a vegan diet is way lower than even that of a pescavore.
Edit: and you need look no further than Harvard's explanation of how to become a vegetarian and choose your foods to ensure a healthy diet: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-ve...
How many ordinary people do you think have sufficient understanding of these factors to become healthy vegetarians?
I'll admit it's currently not that easy to follow a strictly plant based diet if you mostly eat in restaurants and don't live in a first tier Western city.
If you're willing to do your own shopping and mostly eat at home it's actually not only easy but really enjoyable to take back control of your health and what you eat.
I'm asserting that it's harder to be nutrient deficient given a meat/fish-based diet. The only "work" in this diet is not eating too much.
> western diet is strongly linked to all of our most deadly diseases
Mostly due to overconsumption, not due to the composition of the diet. Controlling for caloric intake eliminates most differences in health outcomes between the various diets, assuming no nutrient deficiencies are present.
The standard American diet is composed of 70% plant-based foods, which is the same ratio found in the Mediterranean diet which is lauded as one of the most healthful.
It's not the meat that's causing the issues, it's the processed plant foods and plant-derived oils that destroy one's health on a western diet. Or in other words, the horrible food quality. Any diet that doesn't include processed plant foods and oils will be an improvement from one that does, regardless of whether it includes meat.
Supplements have challenges too (and in fact many studies show supplements to be of little value). In order to attain sufficient B12 via supplements, a person needs to consume many times the RDA value. For example, only 10 mcg of a 500 mcg oral supplement is absorbed by healthy people.
So while technically you may need minimal amounts of B12, it remains an essential vitamin. Getting it in a format which is both absorbable and bioavailable is not trivial and serves as a clue that human physiology evolved in an ecosystem which, to varying degrees, involved eating animals.
Note: For now I'll set aside probable/common deficiencies among vegans/vegetarians in B6, heme iron, the vitamins A, D3, K2, micronutrients and fatty acids DHA, CLA, Carnatine, Carnosine, Taurine, Creatine and others. In fairness, a western/standard american diet can also score poorly in many nutrients.
I can't find much support for B12 in these foods in online databases.
If these must be home-made or of similar quality, supplementation of B12 is still going to be important.
In terms of CO2, chicken is about as environmentally friendly as animal proteins get. Chickens also don’t really require any special diet and grow quickly. Dealing with chicken waste is a problem, but if you live in the US, chicken “litter” is fed to cows.
Sadly, growing cattle costs enormous amounts of food that could also feed people. And they seem to contribute quite a bit to greenhouse gasses. So eating beef may be better than eating chicken when it comes to animal welfare, but worse when it comes to the environment.
Best just eat less meat in general.
That depends. Sometimes it is true, sometimes it isn't. People can't eat grass, for instance.
://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714
Claims that on average it's about 20% worse than farmed fish, and about 1/6 of the impact of beef.
I've not read the study to back it, but the article doesn't differentiate between sources of poultry. The environmental impact of factory farmed vs organic free range corn fed chicken may be vastly different
Quota systems and controls keep fisheries from immediately collapsing, but there is a real difference between "won't collapse in 3 seasons" and "sustainabe over generations." The wider ecosystem effects are not really known. Big ocean, millions of species, lots of side effects.. bycatch, pollution. There are species we don't know exist going extinct, almost certainly, because of commercial fishing.
Commercial fishing is something we need to grow out of. On land, hunting is rarely a conservation issue today. Habitat is the problem. In the ocean, there is no reason (besides fishing) why we can't have mostly undisturbed ecosystems.
Agriculture replaced market hunting. Sustainable agriculture can replace market fishing. It's the responsible choice to make as a society.
Tree farms seem to work, iirc the amount of forested land in the US actually started increasing in the past few years.
http://www.alexandramorton.ca/salmon-confidential-booklet/
Tree farms are also not a forest. There's no real ecosystem there. They're just rows of commercially viable trees planted and left until they're old enough to harvest.
Note: I am not a ecogeek, I just have a brother in law who is a wildlife biologist and works at a firm that does this stuff for the state, and, I regularly recreate (dirt bike, mountain bike, deer hunt) in a few different "working forests" here in oregon. These working forests aren't pristine old growth, but then again I wouldn't dirt bike etc in a virgin forest either.
Two points though.
(1) Even some of the worst practices are at least relatively localized. For a given tonage of fish, commercial fishing fleets affect far larger areas, with the most productive areas usually most affected. I think practices need to improve a lot, but even with the current below-par methods... Imagine a ranch with terrible environmental practices. They indiscriminately poison predators, overgraze, use bad fertilizers, run effluent into streams... That 1,000 acre ranch is surrounded by 100,000 acres of wilderness (or good tree farms). The ranch is bad, but enough wilderness can dilute its effects.
(2) A lot depends on the species of fish. With land agriculture, we tend to farm a handful of species that lend well to farming. Before farming, people ate different species. Still, agriculture didn't produce bear meat, otter or some other hard-to-raise species to suit the preferences of hunter-gatherers. With aquaculture, we're still often trying to farm otter and bear.
Tilapia & carp (for example) have a long history of aquaculture. It's cheap and efficient and can be done in environmentally sound ways. The problem is that salmon (raised in environmentally unsound oceanic pens) sells for 5X per kg.
To me that means regulation can be sharp. If salmon, cod or tuna are replaced by more agriculturally enclined species... that's a reasonable compromise, IMO. We can have fish, just not any fish.
> The wider ecosystem effects are not really known.
that's not really true. it is pretty well known that there are major detrimental effects of fish farms. of course we are still learning more and more, but we know at least something. salmon farms tend to take out good stuff from the ocean (fish) and return bad stuff (disease, waste, genetic changes, etc.).
> There are species we don't know exist going extinct, almost certainly, because of commercial fishing.
there are species we know about going extinct due in part to commercial fishing. for example, the southern resident orcas have been struggling heavily due to commercial fishing, pollution, poisoning, capture, river damns, salmon farms, and more. there are very clear actionable things that can be done to save them, but none are even close to being acted upon. it is possible the population there has passed a point of no return such that that particular population will go extinct. they have struggled to even birth new orcas, and due to captures 30-50 years ago, they don't have the leadership they are used to. their behavior has already began to showcase how hard it is for them to even find salmon, as the normally tight knit pods have been seen breaking up to find salmon. there was a month in 2018 where almost none of the pod was seen for an entire month by whale watchers and scientists, an event that hasn't happened in decades or ever since they've started being observed.
Of course the fact that fish is such a relatively efficient source of food is also a good reason why we should take better care of the oceans. We can't eat fish if they die to our pollution. We also can't eat them if we hunt them to extinction. Sustainable fishing and cutting back on our pollution are vital to our food supply.
For anyone not aware yet, MSC is a certification for sustainable fishing and ASC for sustainable farmed fish. I eat no fish anymore that doesn't have either of those two certifications. But that does nothing to stop this kind of pollution.
Sadly, this is an illusion. All agriculture is based on killing animals and distroying biodiversity, and if scaling to cover all population, would lead us to a world plenty of Fabian Tomasi.
Many vegetarians just take the choice to be blind to the huge problems with soy culture (for example), but those problems are not trivial at all.
I suspect "premium" practices and standards might help here
Or else you get more trash laws like making it illegal to serve water without asking in San Francisco.
Environmental protection is a better casus belli than most wars get.
Your solution needs to be extremely incentivized and also easy to enforce in those places of the world. “Banning” something will have a laughable impact and only affect people who never created the waste in the first place.
That also requires the government rather than industry to pay the cost of its regulations, and explicitly choose how to raise the money rather than implicitly taxing fishermen (and fish) without ever evaluating whether that is the optimal funding source.
Suppose they use plastic nets and that makes fishing less expensive, but they all do that and it's a commodity market so they don't get to keep any of that money, it just means that it reduces the price of fish.
Now we need them to use more expensive nets. If we put the cost of them on the fisherman, it raises the price of fish, a healthier source of protein than many of the alternatives (e.g. red meat), and raises the price of food in general. Not super great as an outcome.
If we put the cost of them on coal companies, it raises the price of coal. Coal has nothing to do with fishing net, but we're actually trying to discourage coal, so since taxing coal burning is better than taxing fish eating, that may be a better choice.
The other side of it is that people are extremely poor. Possibly negative net value, lots of debts and no other way to pay next months bills. These people are going to use whatever it takes to live, and authorities who try to enforce it will look like villains.
It's like how in my town there's a stretch of road that is really shitty. All potholes and uneven road. Almost all drivers I've seen go over it way too fast and often damage their vehicles. Sure, I can blame each individual driver for not being 100% attentive, but when they all fuck up in the same way, some blame must be placed on the conditions that allowed them to all make the same error.
Now if by "my town" you really mean a city, then I might be expecting too much of the drivers.
That said, there are two large areas that contribute to ghost fishing. The fishing industry is getting centralized into fewer entities, and those might find it cheaper to discard nets rather than use costly manual labor to repair them or pay the cost of proper disposal. The second area is theft. A fishing net is basically an unguarded month of wages marked out with a bright buoy. I know fishermen that once they have a net stolen they will start removing the buoy for a while and simply drag for the net, which naturally increase the risk of loosing the net. If they can't find the net they don't even know if it is because they can't locate it or if it is because of more theft.
Good one. :)
https://facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=26893462877586...
But it is futile.
Next high tide and more washes in. It's all along the coast. Every tiny bay, every rocky outcrop, the sea floor, in the waves, tangled in seaweed out to sea.
It's crazy. Madness. And more boats go out and more nets are produced and more dolphins wash up dead and more seals wash up dead and more birds wash up dead.
https://qz.com/730794/the-future-is-here-people-are-now-eati...
It's the same issue as "normal" poultry vs "aviary" poultry.
I personally prefer to eat less fish and meat than eating animals that are bred and raised in awful conditions that optimize for revenue; the quality of the output speaks for itself.
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farm-raised-fish-...
- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/01/is-farmi...
- https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-fa...
- http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1663604,0...
- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/10/scottish...
Please don't spread fake ideas created for propaganda purposes without a minimum of critical thinking. This is false.
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the water in marine aquaculture tanks is replaced constantly by fresh, clean water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If the pumps stop the fishes would die in hours. Not to mention that many, many species of fishes love to school and feel much better when are crowded. Specially when they are young.
Some fishes just do not care about being kept in water of lower quality. Carps for example work tirelessly to mudd its tank stirring sediments from the bottom. Are brain-wired to do this. Aquaculture of marine fishes is a totally different world than Pangasius or Tilapia aquaculture.
I had personally get some kg of plastic from stomachs of the same species named in the article. I remember a sac (from manure I think), and a lot of the same plastic bags that you can find in the supermarket. I remember also a small commotion in the faculty by, uh, a lot of diluted blood that ended in the wrong pipeline slowly leaking just in front of the main entrance but this is a different history... don't make me talk about it :-)
It's not clear that this goes for all garbage in the oceans.
Still very surprising though, seems like something that could be regulated.
FTA: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."
79,000 tons < 8 million tons.
"Cutting down on the amount of plastics we buy and learning to use this tricky material sensibly is still one of the most effective things we can do to live responsibly, help the planet, and inspire others to do the same. To find out how you can help make a change, check out One Green Planet’s #CrushPlastic campaign!"
Please don't distract by blaming fishing. And please read your own links. Fishing nets are a huge problem no doubt, but looking at numbers, we need to stop single-use plastics.
The fact is that we need to address both fishing and consumer use. Over-focusing on either one could be seen as distracting from the other, but it's not particularly helpful to bash other environmentally aware people over it. The problem is the people who don't even know or care.