WEATHER »
Seafood for sale at the Santa Barbara Fish Market

Paul Wellman (file)

Seafood for sale at the Santa Barbara Fish Market


The Bait and Switch of Seafood Fraud

Dual Bills Look to Close Legal Loopholes, but Fishermen and Others Worry About More Red Tape and Higher Costs


Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

That red snapper you bought at the market: Is it actually rockfish? How about the pricey local halibut you ordered for dinner: Is it really a cheap, farm-raised whitefish from Asia? What about the tuna at your favorite sushi joint — really yellowfin, as labeled, or is it bigeye with dangerous amounts of mercury? And just how “fresh” can spiny lobster be when it’s sold in July, far after the season has ended?

To answer such buyer-beware questions, an ocean conservation group backed by celebrities but reviled among fishermen published a study last year on “seafood fraud” in the United States. The results were startling: Of 1,215 samples taken from 674 restaurants, grocery stores, and seafood markets, DNA testing revealed that one-third were mislabeled. Farm fish were sold as wild catch, vulnerable species mongered as sustainable, and watch-list items offered under different names. Some of it was criminal deception made in the name of profit. Other times, confusion came out of archaic slang names around the country or bad translations in overseas sales.

Of the 14 regions tested throughout the U.S., Southern California fared the worst with a 52 percent mislabeling rate. And of the retailers tested countrywide, seafood fraud was found most often at sushi venues, which clocked a 74 percent mislabeling rate. Careful not to single out specific locations, Oceana, the organization that commissioned the study, said it was impossible to tell when and where the mislabeling had taken place, if it were perpetrated by the fisher, buyer, distributor, shipper, or the grocer or restaurateur who actually sold the public the fish. Seafood’s chain of custody can be so long and complicated, the researchers argued, that more oversight is needed to make sure consumers eat what they pay for. The U.S. imports 90 percent of its seafood — as does Santa Barbara — but reportedly tests only one percent for fraud.

Pointing to that much-hyped study and a 2009 report by the federal government on similar issues, Congressmember Lois Capps and California State Senator Alex Padilla are now pushing two separate bills aimed at holes in the regulatory net. And they’re pushing hard, in part because election season is coming: Capps is running for reelection in November, and Padilla, currently representing California’s 20th Senate District in Los Angeles, is vying for Secretary of State.

Both lawmakers have support for their legislation from national trade groups, nature organizations, and big-name chefs, but a high number of Santa Barbara stakeholders are skeptical about what the bills hope to accomplish, how they’ll be enforced, and what more red tape may mean for the South Coast. They’re quick to note wholehearted support for accurate labeling, but they’ve also expressed distrust of Oceana’s data and motives, calling the proposed legislation hollow politicking around a nonissue.

Courtesy photo

Flanked by Oceana reps, Senator Alex Padilla holds a press conference at a Sacramento market to announce his bill to combat seafood fraud

Churning the Waters

Introduced in March 2013, the federal SAFE Seafood Act (SAFE stands for Safety And Fraud Enforcement) would increase the frequency of import inspections and, to better track the overseas supply chain, ratchet up coordination between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Capps is the legislation’s lead sponsor, and it enjoys bipartisan support — President Barack Obama himself pledged to tackle seafood fraud in a speech last month — but HR 1012 has not yet been vetted by committee. The bill would create a guide to acceptable market names and set packaging rules to ensure the end-of-the-line buyers know the scientific and market names of the species, method of harvest and gear type used, date of the catch, the weight or number for an individual fish or lot, if the catch was previously frozen or treated with a substance that might affect its weight, and if it was farm raised.

“This law does not ask fishers to report any information that they do not already collect,” Capps’s office recently told The Santa Barbara Independent, explaining that it’s “a great way to support the local fishing economy and promote sustainability.” It would level the playing field by targeting “bad actors” in the international market and add a needed level of consumer safety, her office said, also referencing a 2008 Stanford study that showed red snapper was often sold as rockfish in Santa Barbara.

Violators would be fined from $10,000-$30,000 per offense, could be responsible for any monetary loss incurred by mislabeling, and would be added to a public online database. A recent study estimated that 20-32 percent of U.S. seafood imports, worth between $1.3 billion and $2.1 billion, were caught through illegal or unreported methods.

To promote the bill, Capps toured Santa Barbara Harbor in April, but she may have harvested more anger than support. Gary Burke with the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara took the harbor tour with Capps, but he said he’s worried that more regulation will mean a higher cost for fish and that mislabeling is not as dire as lawmakers make it seem. “It’s a feel-good bill to make it look like they’re doing something,” he said. “It’s going to create jobs that aren’t needed and that taxpayers are going to have to pay for.”

Another tour participant, who asked not to be identified, said he walked away from the event with the feeling that it was a “publicity stunt” because Capps “needed some face time” in the harbor. “I know she’s from around here, but I was shocked at how little she knew about our seafood,” he said. “She had never heard of sea urchin before — that’s the jewel of Santa Barbara!”

Stephanie Mutz, an urchin diver and president of Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, said the best way to avoid seafood fraud is to buy straight from the source at the Saturday morning Fisherman’s Market
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman (file)

Stephanie Mutz, an urchin diver and president of Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, said the best way to avoid seafood fraud is to buy straight from the source at the Saturday morning Fisherman’s Market

Burke criticized Oceana for creating a false hysteria around seafood fraud to attract donors and said the organization is viewed with extreme distrust by many in his industry. “They needed a ‘crisis’ to raise money,” he said. Earlier this year, Oceana announced a $3 million grant from the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation and counts Ted Danson among its biggest supporters. Burke pointed out that an Oceana-backed California Assembly bill to ban controversial gill nets recently died because it relied on dubious claims of bycatch rates put forth by the organization.

On June 19, the U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils’ Coordination Committee publicly demanded Oceana retract the bycatch report, claiming it contained “a variety of substantial errors, omissions, and organizational approaches” that “may seriously miscommunicate bycatch information.” The committee said that while no laws require Oceana’s reports be peer reviewed, the organization should consider adopting “a standardized peer-review process to ensure that reports like this accurately and objectively represent the best available science.” Other fishermen worried that references to mercury poisoning in Oceana’s fraud study were veiled threats against the swordfish industry and that the supposed mislabeling issue is a smokescreen for continued attacks against gill nets.

Stephanie Mutz, president of Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, didn’t mince words: “I think Oceana lies through their teeth.” She said the proposed bills, while well intentioned, aren’t practical. “If we had a way to track seafood, I think we would have already done it,” said Mutz, who worries that new layers of bureaucracy will raise the price of an already expensive product. “Anytime you increase overhead, it all trickles down to the fishermen,” she said. “It makes it so people want to buy tilapia instead of local halibut.”

Sarah Rathbone of Community Seafood echoed similar concerns. “It’s problematic when there’s increased regulation on local fisheries that are already doing things right,” she said. Top-down, blanket laws often mean more fees and taxes that unfairly dock smaller operations and favor big players, and bills like Capps’s can “lack rationality and specificity of fisheries in order to properly manage certain species,” she said. Both Rathbone and Mutz recommended the Saturday morning Fishermen’s Market at the harbor as the surest way to buy fresh and local seafood straight from the source.

For its part, Oceana — which started in 2001 and is now the largest ocean-conservation nonprofit in the world — has unflinchingly stood by its research and often points to its many policy-level victories to curb pollution, protect vulnerable wildlife and habitats, and promote responsible fishing. In the last two months, it has touted its roles in National Marine Fisheries Service orders to protect sperm whales and rockfish, and last week it called on the World Trade Organization to eliminate fuel subsidies for high-seas fishing. In February, Oceana came out ahead in a battle with NOAA over shark-fin bans, and in January, Shell announced it wouldn’t pursue exploration drilling in the Arctic Ocean in 2014 after Oceana successfully sued the Department of the Interior over a leasing dispute.

By Paul Wellman (file)

Once a fish is filleted, it’s tough for the average consumer to identify the species. Complicated and outdated naming systems only add to the confusion.

Something Fishy This Way Comes

While the Capps bill is focused nationally and internationally, Padilla’s aims at commerce in California. The bill, modeled after similar legislation recently adopted in Washington state, was passed by the California Senate in May and will be voted on in the Assembly by August 31. After that, it goes to the governor’s desk. Padilla’s first bill as a state senator was the menu-labeling initiative that requires chain restaurants to post nutrition information, namely calorie counts.

Padilla’s concern is that, between 1950 and 2006, the world’s annual fishing haul more than quadrupled, from 19 million tons to 87 million tons, a rate that a 2006 Science Magazine study determined would spell worldwide fishery collapse by 2048. Padilla believes labeling fraud lets illegally caught fish and shellfish into the supply chain, which continues to harm an already hurting ocean. Part of the problem is that seafood naming conventions are historically confusing and unwieldy — sometimes dozens of species of fish are called a single name and, alternately, there can be many different names for the same fish — not to mention that average consumers would be hard-pressed to accurately name the fish on their plate or in their grocery bag, especially once filleted.

So Padilla’s state bill would require grocery stores and markets to label all seafood with the FDA-approved common name and note if it’s wild caught or farm raised, or harvested in U.S. waters or overseas. Restaurants would also need to provide common names, but has been allowed to skip the other information after the California Restaurant Association successfully lobbied it would be too cumbersome. Talks are now taking place to possibly include the other details on chalkboards or menu inserts. Violators would be fined $1,000 and face up to a year in jail.

Unique “common” names of seafood are often less appetizing than the publicly known “market” names. For instance, right now, slimehead can be sold as orange roughy, squat lobster as langostino, hogchoker as sole, machete as ladyfish, pompano dolphin as mahi-mahi, and warmouth as sunfish. The FDA manages a list of 1,825 common names, which is added to and removed from every year for financial, political, and environmental reasons. As of last year, Patagonian toothfish can now legally be called Chilean sea bass — though everywhere seemed to be doing so anyway — and Barcoo grunter can be sold as tiger perch. Common names are also more specific: the FDA, for example, recognizes 61 different common names for different species of rockfish, 41 common names for shrimp, and 38 for shark.

Despite the current ability of state retailers to rely on the more general market names, Oceana still found that rockfish was often mislabeled as snapper (a fairly well-known misnomer) and that escolar — a snake mackerel that can sometimes cause stomach problems — was routinely passed off as white tuna. Salmon fillets labeled as wild, king, and sockeye were actually Atlantic, and some halibut was found to be summer flounder or madai. Grouper were found under labels ranging from scamp to bream to perch.

During interviews with Santa Barbara fishermen, market owners, and restaurateurs — most of whom wished to remain anonymous for fear of losing business or alienating colleagues — opinions varied over how often consumers were duped. One market owner claimed he sees the issue every time he goes out to eat and pointed to specific instances when fish were sold as “fresh” and “local” when the species wasn’t even in season. A fisher claimed that some area restaurants secretly serve basa (a farm-raised catfish out of Asia) as halibut or cod or another type of whitefish, and that it’s not unusual for fluke from southern Mexico to be peddled as “local” catch. But other sources said they rarely if ever run into the problem, no matter if they’re in a high-scale eatery along State Street or a fish-and-chip grill on the wharf.

Definitions of “local” were all over the map. Some said local should mean the catch was made in the Santa Barbara Channel or was unloaded by area boats at the Santa Barbara or Ventura harbors. Others said 400 miles north or south of S.B. was fair game for the label, noting current laws don’t put any geographical constraints on the selling point. Whether to call a catch local or not comes down to the seller’s conscience, they said.

The Independent was able to verify a few instances of minor fraud in town, but we have decided not to publish the names of the offending locations as it’s unclear if it was the work of a devious chef or owner, or if the discrepancy simply came down to sloppy signage or an uneducated employee.

Courtesy photo

When Congressmember Lois Capps toured the Santa Barbara harbor in April to push her seafood fraud bill, many of those invited to the press event were dismayed at how little she seemed to know about the local fishing industry

On the Hook

Ashley Blacow of Oceana said the fraud study came out of the need for a broad appraisal of labeling accuracy. Some scientific literature existed on the issue, but nothing on a large scale. Blacow and others were surprised at the high amount of fraud they found and that, as a Southern California resident, she said she was particularly distressed by the area’s distinction as the worst offender in the country, the reasons for which remain unclear. While Santa Barbara wasn’t part of the study, “Northern California showed [a 38 percent mislabeling rate] and Southern California was 52 percent, so I think that definitely warrants concern for Santa Barbara consumers,” she declared.

Blacow said the goal of Padilla’s bill is not for local health departments — who will enforce the new law should it go into effect — to test every fillet in their jurisdictions, but to do random sampling and act as a deterrent. The samples could be DNA tested at county offices or sent off to a lab, and the extra cost of such work would be worth it to protect the ocean and support fishermen, Blacow stated. Included in the bill is a “safe harbor provision” that lets a restaurant accused of mislabeling deflect liability to their supplier if they can prove the restaurant was simply selling an item under a name provided by the supplier. “So it’s very important to maintain accurate paperwork,” said Blacow. She’s confused why fishermen would be so concerned over Padilla’s bill, explaining, “They would directly benefit from it.”

Larry Fay is director of Santa Barbara County’s Environmental Health Services at the Public Health Department, and he and his team of 10 inspectors regulate the county’s retail food establishments, of which there are around 2,000. Seafood fraud hasn’t been on their radar, and Fay was surprised to learn of the Padilla bill. Upon reading it, Fay believes his team would, if it passes, become responsible for making sure that the packing labels on seafood in a restaurant’s cooler or freezer match what it says on the menu. “If there was something on a menu or chalkboard, but we couldn’t find evidence that that’s what they had received, that would be a problem,” he explained.

Despite the bill’s “convoluted” wording — “It’s some of the most tortured language I’ve seen in awhile,” Fay noted — the upshot would be fairly straightforward. The county’s food inspectors try to make unannounced visits to locations at least twice a year to ensure handling and safety protocols are up to code, and they focus on anything “that appears to be an anomaly.” Though the drop-ins are mostly designed to “act as a deterrent,” Fay said customer complaints can also prompt a visit.

While checking seafood labels would become part of that routine, Fay explained, “It will be a challenge if they really want to be rigorous.” If passed, Fay said he would first make sure the food purveyors were aware of the new regulations. “We would be focusing much more on education at first,” he said. “We would take it slow. You wouldn’t bust someone on Day 1.”

But Justin West, head chef of Julienne restaurant who was also invited to Capps’s harbor visit, said he’s skeptical about Padilla’s bill and would not be in favor of it. “Speaking from a financial standpoint, it’s already hard enough for [the county] to keep up with food safety, let alone having to do label checks,” he said. “We’re not the only place that’s way over-restauranted and under-inspected. There’s just not enough humans, not enough money in the budget.”

West said he sees the fatigue on the face of his food inspector when she stops by Julienne and that more government intervention is not the answer to dealing with mislabeled meals. “It’d be nice if restaurant operators would do the right thing, because I wish the government would stay the hell away from our food,” he lamented. “It needs to come down to the ground level, and people asking questions and deciding with their wallets.”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

sounds like a good law but spot checking with genetics is needed not just reading labels. as usual, fishing interests respond with a knee-jerk "no more regulation" even though this would actually help them and they would not even have to do anything. Mislabeling lowers prices for premium species because it increases supply. Also it's not that surprising that Capps never heard of urchin, it all gets shipped away to asia like most of our seafood. The only people that think sea urchins are the "jewel" of SB are the handful of fishermen that made a mint off them.

kelpcrab (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All I can say is that Gary Burke and Stephanie Mutz know a whole lot more about this issue locally than anyone at Oceana or in Padilla or Capps' offices. They are both super knowledgeable, committed locals and I am going to believe them before anyone else.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We only need regulations because of a few people's dishonesty. If the fisherman and restauranteurs would police themselves this would not be a problem. Rest assured that the crew of a boat knows when the catch is different that what is sold. And any decent chef knows what they are cooking. Time for people to step up and tell the truth and stop cheating the public.

SBwalker (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People need to know that the best way to remove mercury, lead and other heavy metals from the body is with the natural mineral called zeolite that is proven to safely remove mercury and all heavy metals from the body! For more information on this detox do a simple search for the single word Zeolite.

ecoguy (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Go to the harbor on Saturday mornings, buy directly from the fishermen, get the freshest fish and shellfish, whole, and you won't need any government bureaucrats inspecting your plate.

blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not everybody can afford the time and money to go to the harbor for all their seafood. Seafood is a commodity like everything else and just like other meat safety and fraud needs regulation. If you think that what you are getting in restaurants is always what they claim, or that chefs know the difference between the flesh of one species and another, you are deluded. The vast majority of fish served in area restaurants (and consumed by locals in general) does not come from this area.

kelpcrab (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all, this can be considered fraud. Certainly not worth putting somebody in jail over, but damages, as small as they are (a couple dollars maybe) could be calculated from a meal.

I'm not sure why more regulations or laws are necessary, fraud is already illegal and we also have the first amendment which I believe would prove even more effective than the legal route. The point is there are ways of dealing with this without getting the government intimately involved in the industry. The government doesn't need to be involved in every aspect of every industry unless there is a specific complaint against a specific company with damages specified.

A great option would be The Independent paying an investigative reporter and scientist(s) to go to various fish restaurants and fish markets in SB and present a story about their findings. That would be much more helpful than all of this vague "40% of this" and "62% of that", how do we know that this is even widespread at all in SB? Do I need to worry when I go to some of my favorite SB Sushi joints, big chain grocery stores, high end health food stores? Who are the big offenders here?

If the restaurant is being duped by their supplier, then they can go after the supplier under existing fraud laws, or they can continue to buy the cheaper fish and customers can decide whether they want to keep going there now that more information has been made public.

The Independent doing an investigative piece and giving some initial data could cause enough interest within the community to allow a private seafood certification company to rise up and provide the service for companies that want to be involved. Maybe some consumers would rather go to Restaurant A that is not certified and buy Rock Fish labelled as Red Snapper for $8.99 than go to the certified restaurant down the street that serves the real thing, Red Snapper for $14.99. Maybe somebody else would rather go to the certified restaurant and pay $14.99 for the Red Snapper. More options are better, government is not free nor is it very effective at this kind of thing.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Local waters means Santa Barbara/Ventura, not the polluted waters off Santa Monica from which strangely enough fish are being trucked up everyday to stock a certain sea food store by the same name.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone should tell Stephanie Mutz and her local fisherman colleagues that denial of the problem in not in their best interests. Whether the fishermen or the many intermediaries in the food process are the bad actors, this problem of false identification of fish species will taint the market for her products. Other comments to the contrary, consumers who believe they're not getting what they're paying for will STOP PAYING! Step up and be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

bookman (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bait is always good to attract fish.

We like to eat fish from local waters because they are cleaner than the ones found off the Santa Monica pier.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"In 2012 Santa Monica Seafood acquired Central Coast Seafood, increasing our purchasing power with access to local fisheries along the central coast of California. We're now able to offer our extensive inventory and seafood expertise to customers as far north as the Monterey Peninsula..."

http://www.santamonicaseafood.com/

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether by mistake or intentionIndy readers deserve to know who was mislabeling fish. Investigative journalism, anyone?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The answer is so simple: War on Seafood. Works every time.

3domfighter (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

War ON Seafood??? War on dishonesty is more like it.
And why do we export over 50% of our seafod, only to import over %50 of our seafood? Do you know farm Talapia are fed sewage and that's why it's so cheap.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love the part about urchin being the "Jewel of Santa Barbara". HA! So funny!

The Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara and cohorts sure come off as nice folks in this story don't they? Glad they've found such sophisticated representation.

I'm still trying to figure out why the fishermen are so angry about the whole thing since it would only seem to benefit them in the long run. But I guess its hard to see reason when lost in a thick cloud of chronic denial, resentment, and knee-jerk outrage.

teriyakiguy (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I'm still trying to figure out why the fishermen are so angry about the whole thing"

I'm guessing because farmed fish are being passed off as something that they caught wild out in the ocean?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wild fish, for whatever scientific reason are richer in nutrients than farmed fish.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right, but then wouldn't it benefit fishermen to be able to differentiate farmed fish from their wild product?

It seemed to me that they more were just put off by the notion of 'regulation' in general, even though this is ultimately to their benefit. More of a gut reaction response rather than thinking it through.

teriyakiguy (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On June 19, the U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils’ Coordination Committee publicly demanded Oceana retract the bycatch report, claiming it contained “a variety of substantial errors, omissions, and organizational approaches” that “may seriously miscommunicate bycatch information.” The committee said that while no laws require Oceana’s reports be peer reviewed, the organization should consider adopting “a standardized peer-review process to ensure that reports like this accurately and objectively represent the best available science.”

Oceana and other engos should be held accountable for misrepresenting data to the general public.

The fishing community has had to endure plenty of this sort of misrepresentation of data thanks to a host of grant funding from anti fishing sources (PEW, Packard, Tides, list goes on…).

There is nothing wrong with good, honest environmentalism when it is based on facts and good science, and I support that. Water quality and sustainable fisheries are important issues. Unfortunately, most of the current marine ENGOs are funded organizations promoting agenda driven science, which in my opinion, is not science.

I am wholeheartedly against seafood fraud. I would gladly support OCEANA and Padilla's Bills if they included a clause that any engo caught misrepresenting data(by catch, overfishing, etc.), would be required by law to forfeit all grant funding for that fiscal year to a sustainable fisheries fund(NOT SustainableFisherieriesGroup), to be utilized in whatever region they were referring to. If OCEANA really wanted to help the fishing community…..Ha!

Charlie Graham, aka Corruptenviros...

corruptenviros (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This hasn't anything to do with environmentalism. It's about HONESTY in the marketplace.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You must be right. It's all a giant conspiracy against fishermen, because.... wait why again?
Oh and I still don't understand, why wouldn't this actually benefit fishermen in the long run?

Charlie, the letter you cite isn't related to the issue of seafood fraud. It's related to a separate issue - bycatch. Seafood fraud has been identified as a global problem in study after study, including our own federal government. Are you saying that you don't think seafood fraud is a problem? Because all I'm reading is conspiracy theory.

teriyakiguy (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did the Indy subheadline actually feature the phrase "red tape"?

That was passe before the writers and editors were even born.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When our livers and detox organs become overloaded with toxins they fail and we get sick! VERY SICK! The safest and best way to remove mercury and other heavy metals from our bodies is with the natural detox mineral called Zeolite! Zeolite attracts only heavy metals into its cage like structure and then the heavy metals are carried all the way out of the body without releasing any back in to be reabsorbed as other chelators do which make people feel Ill while trying to detox. Zeolite is by far your best choice in removing any and all heavy metals from the body! For more information do a simple search for the single word Zeolite.

ecoguy (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@bookman @teriyakiguy @Ken_Volok,
I imagine you are not commercial fishermen, and either am I. I'm just like you in the sense that we are just people who care about and are worried about our environment and want to help. Many folks like us look at groups such as Oceana and assume they are the good guys. And when fishermen don't agree with Oceana, folks assume they must be the bad guys. Well, as with any fisheries issue, it's just not that simple.

To help myself understand this situation, I try to imagine myself in the fishermens boots. Now what if you had one of the worlds most dangerous jobs and it's all you've ever known and all you ever wanted to do? What if you were an honest worker and were constantly, falsely accused of being a bad worker? What if you had to endure countless attacks from a group (Oceana) that wanted to take your livelihood away from you and food off your table? It's only when we begin to take into account Oceana's history of desperate and dishonest actions that we begin to understand why these fishermen must be so "angry" at them. There's no "conspiracy theories," just a lot of burned bridges.

Oceana has alienated themselves to the point that nobody wants to work with them and everyone is sick of hearing about them. A real shame if you ask me considering they are the worlds largest ocean conservation group.

EatUSseafood (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for your thoughtful letter, EatUSseafood (a sentiment I heartily concur with.)
I'm surprised to learn Oceana is the world's largest ocean conservation group, I'm not sure I'd heard of them until now.
I'm under the impression the dishonesty is coming from the retailers not the wholesalers (fishers).
I agree SB Fish Market is the best place to get fish.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2014 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chef Justin West says, "...I wish the government would stay the hell away from our food...It needs to come down to the ground level, and people asking questions and deciding with their wallets."

Is he just referring to the issue immediately at hand, or does he wish that the government would just go away completely, and quit testing for things like e. coli, salmonella, and campylobacter contamination? Are the victims of a caveat emptor business mindset supposed to vote with their wallets after they've lost a family member? Are they supposed to ask for answers from the businesses that were already completely willing to harm them in the name of commerce?

Whenever government protects the populace from the actions of unscrupulous and unethical business people, it's performing one of its core functions, just as it is when it protects the populace during time of war. I'm more than willing to give West the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply didn't want new regulations that would force him to do the right thing when he was already doing the right thing, but his comment nonetheless seems alarming at first glance.

sock_monkey (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2014 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: