Monterey Bay Aquarium and its Seafood Watch Program have tried to position themselves as the source for seafood sustainability and marine conservation. They encourage consumers to “choose seafood that doesn’t harm the environment.” When there is scientific uncertainty, they recommend to “err on the side of conservation.”
Unless it involves their own interests. One would expect the Aquarium itself to lead by example but you’d be surprised.
Monterey Bay Aquarium houses domestic and exotic species in an “open” system – that means over 1,400 gallons of seawater per minute is pumped continuously from Monterey Bay and the waste is discharged, unfiltered, back into the Bay. If these marine species become sick, then pathogens are released into the water – or medication is administered to treat the disease.
The waters and habitat surrounding the Aquarium are designated as “Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS)”. This specific ASBS is known as “Pacific Grove”. Since 1983,
California’s Ocean Plan has prohibited waste discharges to ASBS, which includes Pacific Grove.
In a nutshell, it is prohibited for the Aquarium discharge waste into the Bay – unless it applies and receives and “exception”. The Aquarium applied for an exception to the Ocean Plan prohibition against waste discharge in 2006.
The application identifies parasites, pathogens, chemicals and medicines that are discharged from the facility such as; Chloroquine, Formalin, Furacin/Nitrofurazone, MS-222/Finquel, Praziquantel (biltricide), Tucoprim, Phenobarbitone, Enrofloxacin, Itraconazole, Household bleach, Betadine, Urea Hydochloride, Potassium peroxomonosulfate, Sodium Dodecylbenzene-sulphonate, Sulfamic Acid.
The application also recognizes the risk of exotic species and diseases to escape the facility into Pacific Grove.
Surprisingly, it also notes that 700 pounds of Mexican farmed shrimp are fed each month to Aquarium animals – Mexican shrimp are red listed by the Aquarium’s very own Seafood Watch Program!
As part of the decision making process, the Aquarium even has the gall to voice concerns that monitoring of waste impacts and sediment analysis would be ineffective and cumbersome, thus not required. So far, they have been denied that appeal.
Right now, our readers involved in commercial aquaculture are most certainly shaking their heads. After all, the Aquarium’ s very own “Criteria for Aquaculture” would most likely fail its own facility on criteria such as Effluent (Criterion 2), Habitat (Criterion 2), Chemical Use (Criterion 4), Feed (Criterion 5), Disease, pathogen and parasite interaction (Criterion 7).
Are we being too critical? Heck, the Seafood Watch Program has been very critical (arguably unfairly critical) of many farmed seafood products, based on the impacts listed above. It seems that many aquaculture producers are more advanced in understanding, monitoring and mitigating impacts than is Monterey Bay Aquarium.
It’s almost laughable. That is, if Monterey Bay Aquarium was selling its seafood stock for human consumption, it would receive a “red” rating by its very own standards.
We will continue to monitor the development and decision of this application.
The shrimp thing blows me away. Unbelievable hyprocricy!!
The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind….just saying.
Thank you for calling attention to this hypocricy. It is astounding that they are held to such high esteem.
Pingback: Hypocrites « protestingtheprotesters
Your blog post contains significant factual errors:
1. The chemicals and medicines listed in the application are discharged to the municipal sewer system, not to the ocean via the aquarium’s seawater system.
2. Exotic species are housed in exhibits with self-contained water systems that don’t mix with water from exhibits that house local and native species. Seawater from exhibits with exotic animals is sterilized to eliminate the possibility of non-native species being introduced to Monterey Bay. The process is reviewed and approved by California fish and game authorities.
3. The aquarium conducts 20,000 separate water quality tests each year, and contracts with state-certified water quality labs for tests we can’t conduct on site – all to ensure that the seawater passing from Monterey Bay through our exhibits and back to the bay meets all quality standards required by California’s State Water Resources Control Board. In addition to water quality monitoring and toxicity testing the aquarium will be conducting sediment analyses/toxicity and bioaccumulation studies at our seawater discharge site.
As for the shrimp we feed our sea otters, it comes from a specific farm that’s been vetted by our Seafood Watch research team using a process that lets us identify the farm as a sustainable producer despite an overall “avoid” ranking for Mexican shrimp farms in general.
Ken Peterson, Communications Director
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Thanks Ken for the further information – as always it’s good to have all opinions represented. Unlike most other websites that discuss seafood sustainability, we encourage dialogue!
In response to your statements, it raises a few additional questions/comments that perhaps you can answer;
1. As the chemicals, medicines and pathogens are discharged into the municipal sewer system, where does that sewer system get discharged? Can we assume the ocean?
2. It is good that your testing and monitoring meets the quality standards of regulators in your region. We would argue that your rating criteria doesn’t seem to offer the same to other fishers/farmers. That is, if they meet or exceed their regions regulations, this is not always reflected positively in the rating. Does the Seafood Watch team argue that regulations in other regions are not to acceptable standards?
3. We see that although your Seafood Watch program has “red listed” Mexican farmed shrimp, you’ve made an exception for a specific producer that you’ve researched. We’re not sure if this is noted anywhere for the public to see – transparency is important. However, this is a good example of how your rating cards, which generalize, might make it difficult for ‘good’ farmers/fishers to be rewarded for sustainability efforts. To paint a species “red” doesn’t encourage potential leaders to “raise the bar”. It should be based on the regions regulations and management of the issues. For example, if a species is closed to fishing due to biomass concerns, the species shouldn’t be red listed because the management of the concern is being addressed by closing the fishery for a season (or more). How is Seafood Watch going to address this issue?
4. Finally, can you please let us know the status of the application?
Thanks very much,
TTAAS
a. The regional sewage treatment facility does discharge to the ocean, subject to regulatory review. b. Seafood Watch science uses a suite of criteria to evaluate the environmental sustainability of fishing and fish-farming operations — including water quality and compliance with regulatory requirements. c. We recognize that our seafood recommendations are often at a country level, or at the method level; and that certification bodies play an important in assessing individual fisheries and fish farms to determine if they are sustainable or not. By the end of 2012, we hope to have completed an assessment of key certifying bodies. If their assessment methodology is deemed to be equivalent to a Seafood Watch “good alternative,” then we will recognize those as such. d. The State Water Resources Control Board has granted an exception so the aquarium can continue to operate its seawater system, taking water from Monterey Bay, circulating it through our exhibits for a few hours, and returning the seawater to the bay. It did so based on its assessment that this would have a negligible impact on the marine environment; and because the aquarium’s “beneficial uses” of the seawater include “extensive public outreach and education on the marine environment, basic water quality research, and research to determine the needs and improve the quality of existence for marine life.”
My experience of the monterey aquarium as a tourist and public visitor was not good. Of course I knew from my day job where they were coming from and how they were funded and all about the seafood watch nationalistic campaign they were involved in but I was not prepared for the virulent anti-aquaculture atmpsphere and attitude that I encountered. I left the place angry and confused as to why well-educated people could be roped into demonising an industry they had no first hand experience of. I hope this has changed with new management but it is a shame that from the exhibits, bookshelves and staff every opportunity was taken to blame every woe in the world on farming the seas and that such a biased viewpoint exists in an otherwise world class facility. I hope the Seafoodwatch programme is based on more scientific lines in future and that the relationship between monterey and the real seafood industry of aquaculture can be improved and that it will not just be a standard bearer for US products over imported species.
Thanks for you first hand input Richie. We can only hope, as you do, that ‘feelings’ are replaced with scientifically founded fact in the near future. If it wasn’t so annoying, as you experienced, it would be funny that an aquarium (breeding and showcasing captive animals for amusement and education) has adopted such an negative attitude toward ocean farming. Comes from the top down – and the Packards have made their ideology clear via their funding, as we all now know.