There are plenty of fish in the sea. Should we eat them?

Berkeley students, for the most part, are exposed to a plethora of dietary preferences every day. Restaurants boast of “plant-based” menus or “meat alternatives” and campus dining halls are decorated with symbols to indicate ingredient restrictions. The contributing factors to this systematic food labeling, such as animal rights, health concerns or religious beliefs, are common topics of conversation both on and off campus, but oftentimes people fail to recognize the ways that different diets directly impact the environment. 

Two diets that are often referenced as being environmentally conscious are pescetarianism (plant-based and fish) and veganism (entirely plant-based). The differences in environmental impacts between the two diets, though, tend to be discounted when people quickly commit to one of them based on convenience rather than scientific support. Weighing the pros and cons of both with a level of skepticism is essential before making a strong commitment to one or the other. 

Although pescetarianism includes the consumption of animal products, some researchers have concluded that the diet has a relatively low carbon footprint, contributing to the common understanding that it’s a good alternative for veganism. In a study conducted at the University of Washington, researchers found that diets that incorporate seafood can actually have a lower environmental impact than entirely plant-based diets. 

However, two major flaws undermine the findings of this study. The first is that researchers measured the greenhouse gas emissions required to produce a serving of food versus its protein content, which wrongfully implies that people require protein above other nutrients like carbohydrates and fats that popular diets wrongfully target as unhealthy. In fact, diets with balanced levels of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates seem to be healthier and support longevity, as made observable in research on global zones that have unusually high proportions of healthy elderly people. 

The second problem with this finding is that it takes for granted the amount of consumer research that is required in order to make smart seafood decisions that limit environmental impacts. Realistically, most people who go to the market consider prices and taste preferences before sustainability or sources. The extent to which buying seafood can be environmentally sustainable is dependent on how seafood gets from the ocean to the grocery store, which, in most cases, is not as faultless as one might guess. 

Unlike the meat industry, which is easily shaped by national legislation, fishing cannot be regulated by any given government since it typically occurs in international territories. Instead, fisheries are governed by organizations that often fail to enforce regulations because they have limited political power and tend to employ outdated scientific research.

Matters that fall within federal jurisdiction are typically delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has also been unsuccessful in its attempts to implement effective standards for US fisheries. Findings from the NOAA indicate that the US imports over 80 percent of fish consumed from international markets, thus indicating the demand for stricter international fishing laws.

Oftentimes, the means used to acquire fish abroad have severe consequences that never get reported. According to PETA, poor fishing practices not only kill innocent animals, but they also ruin ocean ecosystems. The act of scraping the ocean floor with a cage, commonly referred to as bottom trawling, is considered one of the most harmful fishing practices due to its destruction of the environment and high yields of bycatch. University of Hawaii Professor Les Watling criticizes the method and believes it to be one of the biggest issues within the fishing industry.

“[Bottom trawling is] the most destructive of any actions that humans conduct in the ocean,” said Watling. 

And while national fisheries are required to maintain a certain level of transparency, imported product does not. The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary legislation under which NOAA functions, lacks the authority required to guarantee educated and ethical consumption. 

Of course, there are some positive practices within the seafood industry, and these should not be discredited. One of the most important ways in which seafood can be produced sustainably is through aquaculture, or fish farming. The Ocean Foundation reports that 42% of the fish market is farmed, and suggests that an investment in sustainable aquaculture practices and technology could greatly improve the efficiency of the seafood industry. Because aquaculture isolates fish into a specific geographic location, it limits the amount of fuel required for fishing ships. It also makes it easier to observe the exact intake of resources and output of wastes that fishing accumulates. Aquaculture is nowhere near perfect, but it offers an example of ways in which the seafood industry could be made to follow a more environmentally-friendly model. 

In the meantime, plant-based diets are the best options for people who do not want to contribute to the imperfect seafood system. As far as nutrition goes, veganism can easily provide consumers with all of the nutrients necessary to lead healthy lifestyles, provided that they opt for whole foods like grains, vegetables, and fruits before snacks like vegan chips or cookies. 

The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program creates science-based recommendations that help consumers and businesses make ocean-friendly seafood choices. (Source: Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch)

The process by which produce makes it from the farm to the table is much easier to follow than that of fish. Since the US is one of the top agricultural countries in the world, it is relatively easy to source local produce. This means less fuel required in food transportation, and therefore less fuel emission. A Marine Policy study showed that fishing ships released 207 million tons of CO2 in 2016, compared to roughly 241 million tons of CO2 attributed to livestock in the US. The numbers are too similar to not be dealt with in the same way. A strictly numerical analysis supports that veganism is the best way to make the biggest contribution to the overall health of the environment.

That said, there are certain setbacks to veganism that cannot be overlooked. For one, the ease with which a person can go vegan largely depends on social factors including location, economic status and education. While finding nutrient-dense plant-based meals might be simple in the Bay Area, it is certainly more difficult in places with harsh weather conditions or limited dining options. In addition, veganism requires a certain level of selectivity that might not be available to all people given certain health conditions, allergies or financial circumstances, and it definitely is not the only way that somebody to whom any of these conditions apply can limit their environmental impact. Leading a sustainable lifestyle looks different for different people, but a strong understanding of the environmental impacts of different diets is a great place to begin considering dietary shifts for sustainability.

Although pescetarianism might not be as directly impactful as veganism, it is a great option for those who might not feel capable of being entirely plant-based, but still want to make a difference. People who opt for pescetarianism should do their best to research how their seafood is sourced and pay attention to sustainability reports of various types of fish. Seafoodwatch.org offers a great resource that allows consumers to see which seafood has the least detrimental impact in their state and even provides recipes to further encourage conscious cooking. For all the stress that comes with being a college student, preparing a healthy, eco-friendly dinner might just be the best way to destress, refuel, and have a conversation about eating for the environment.