Greenpeace’s narrative prior to the WCPFC Guam meeting would have you believe that no group but theirs cares about tuna conservation issues in the Pacific (or anywhere, for that matter). But Greenpeace’s simultaneous release of its PR survey results in Canada, otherwise known as a retailer ranking shows literally no difference in the goals of Greenpeace and the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), well, except for one. ISSF and it’s members including the major US tuna brands, are actively doing something about it.
CBC News news in Canada writes that Canadian retailers were judged based on:
- Have a sustainability policy.
- Avoid using tuna from threatened stocks and those caught using “destructive” fishing methods.
- Are able to trace the tuna they use to its source.
- Promote marine reserves and domestic, coastal fisheries. More
Greenpeace thinks it can call the shots by issuing rankings, and unfortunately, the media lets it get away with nonsense. CBC News (Canada) called out 5 brands that “remained near the bottom of Greenpeace’s list because … they use tuna caught by fishing methods that Greenpeace Canada considers destructive…”
See it? Greenpeace’s list. Greenpeace’s rules. Greenpeace ranks. And Greenpeace spanks.
At least one of the brands “near the bottom” never completed the Greenpeace survey. Did that stop Greenpeace from ranking the brand? Of course not. Greenpeace’s “evaluation” of any brand (or grocery chain or electronics company) is completely subjective, with or without data.
Greenpeace reports, “Pastene did not respond to Greenpeace’s survey this year and continues to skirt any discussion on the sustainability of its tuna. The company’s lack of transparency should raise a red flag…” Such audacity coming from an organization that itself won’t reveal the criteria by which it judges each participating (or not participating) canned tuna brand or the scientific methodology of its survey instrument to give it a modicum of validity. Then again, Greenpeace wears its hypocrisy on its sleeve.
Greenpeace continues to demonstrate that it lacks the credibility necessary to be taken seriously. It judges companies’ sustainability efforts but won’t actually commit to partaking in serious dialogue on the issues at hand. It purports to work with tuna companies and sustainability advocates, yet it repeatedly refuses to collaborate with committed conservationists, marine environmentalists, governments, scientists and others under the umbrella of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation. Instead of ranking companies and pulling media stunts, it should join the ranks of dedicated stakeholders working towards long-lasting solutions.
We applaud Pastene and every other brand, company or store that refuses to acknowledge Greenpeace’s legitimacy to issue non-science based ultimatums.
Those who’ve read Greenpeace’s latest histrionics — Saving the oceans one tuna brand at a time — are surely stupefied and left to wonder, what are they talking about?
To save you the pain of trying to navigate Greenpeace’s largely incoherent blog post, we’ve untangled a handful of the most nonsensical
ramblings:
Greenpeace makes it official: Giving up. Moving on. More
via IntraFish
It would be easy to dismiss IntraFish’s take on Greenpeace’s campaign against canned tuna as merely an opinion, everyone is entitled to one. That particular opinion ultimately suggests the marginalized activist group is likely to “permanently change” how tuna is harvested and sold (Another Win For Greenpeace, March 7, 2012).
But rather than take the easy way, perhaps it is more appropriate to ask IntraFish to actually investigate the very real and negative impact Greenpeace’s demands would have on American families’ diets if they ever came to fruition, while probing the group’s goals for ulterior motives and unintended consequences.
IntraFish quotes hyperbolic Greenpeace campaigners lauding retailers, who are bullied into submission, as “progressive, comprehensive and visionary” but does not do the homework that would expose a campaign that is short on facts and long on fundraising. More
Earlier this month, Greenpeace sought to remind its supporters that Taiwan’s pledge to better manage Pacific fisheries was full of hot air. How did it plan to do that? By launching a hot air balloon of course. Comically, however, wind prevented the balloon from actually flying. Perhaps that’s a metaphor for Greenpeace’s failure to launch serious reforms.
Let’s juxtapose the latest Greenpeace campaign with efforts undertaken by members of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). Months earlier, the ISSF analyzed research compiled by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Scientific Committee. And based on that rigorous scientific evidence, the ISSF developed recommendations to better manage tuna stocks, minimize bycatch and protect endangered species, including:
- Complete closure of purse seine fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Oceans (WCPO);
- Stop all transactions with purse seine vessels that transship at-sea to minimize illegal, unreported and unauthorized (IUU) fishing activities;
- Adopt a limited entry, closed-vessel registry to reduce the number of fishing vessels to a level that is commensurate with the productivity of the WCPO fisheries; and
- Prohibit deliberate purse seine setting around whale sharks, as well as, adopt mitigation measures for oceanic white tip sharks and blue sharks. More
The Greenpeace Retailer Seafood Sustainability Survey and Ranking is a shopworn tactic meant to embarrass retailers and dictate their seafood sourcing practices while generating publicity and dollars for Greenpeace and establishing it as an arbiter of environmental virtue.
Surveys are a tried-and-true PR gimmick intended to capture media attention and Greenpeace’s annual “rank and spank” supermarket ranking and scorecard on seafood sustainability is no different.
The Greenpeace survey is not a measure of your commitment to sustainable seafood. It is merely a scorecard on how closely you align with Greenpeace’s own standards. Greenpeace does not recognize any other organization or certification standard.
You cannot win. Never in the survey’s five-year history has a retailer scored better than 65 points on a 100-point scale.
Retailers who complete the survey are privy to the results only when they’re published in Greenpeace’s annual publication: Carting Away the Oceans.
The latest edition of Carting Away the Oceans (CATO V) told consumers to “Eat less fish. Reducing seafood consumption now can help lessen the pressure on our oceans…” Greenpeace is telling your customers to buy less fresh, frozen and now shelf-stable seafood.
By completing Greenpeace’s survey, retailers simply open themselves up to the activists’ subjective, non-scientific evaluation of their business, while simultaneously helping Greenpeace raise dollars from old and new members.
There is no credible methodology behind the survey. More
No matter how often Greenpeace is invited to sit down with scientists, commercial fishermen, and even other ENGO’s like WWF, the world’s leading conservation organization, Greenpeace always finds a reason to decline the invitation.
Yet it has plenty of time to rally its members to harass tuna companies.
In one recent harassment ploy, Greenpeace directed its supporters to deluge American tuna companies with more than a hundred thousand similarly worded e-mail messages accusing them of “ripping up the sea,” among other things.
The tuna companies saw an opportunity for dialogue with these concerned supporters. If Greenpeace wouldn’t accept the tuna industry’s invitation to participate in an upcoming global meeting about tuna sustainability as they have done previously, perhaps they’d feel different if they knew their supporters wanted them to be part of the global dialogue and solution.
So the tuna companies appealed to the same Greenpeace supporters who wrote to their companies about their sustainability concerns and asked them to contact Greenpeace’s leadership about participating in the global conservation community at the next meeting of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) in Guam. More
