Something A Bit Fishy Here

Following on quite neatly from my last posting is fishing. I am not talking about the supposedly 'most popular sport in the country' of grabbing a fishing rod and heading towards your nearest river or lake and in a sporting-like manner sitting motionless, staring at the ripples in the water for hours on end without so much as a nibble on your extravagantly decorated hook. I am yet to meet anyone who takes part in this 'most popular sport', maybe its one of those things that blokes don't tend to admit to each other or maybe its just an excuse blokes give to their wives as they head off tackle in hand to meet their girlfriends. I suppose that explains why there is such a successful fishing tackle shop close to me in South Kensington, far away from any self respecting swimming fish.  The Thames is close by but has anyone ever seen anyone fishing there apart from the police boats fishing out bodies? No, my point is made then.

A fisherman's wife

The type of fishing I was thinking about is sea fishing with nets where everything that doesn't get out of the way fast enough within a few miles of the back of the trawler gets dragged aboard and dies. The issue here is that half of this dead catch gets thrown back into the sea. Why? Its not because the fish aren't edible, they are. Its not because the fish are deformed or rotten, they aren't. It is because either the tasty fish are not what some customers would recognise as they aren't cod or and this is the really foolish bit, its because the EU says the fish caught are too young to be sold. Did you know that half of all fish caught in the North Sea gets thrown back in the water dead!

Catch of the day

Now lets focus firstly on the EU rule that tells our good hard working fisherman to discard the younger fish. There were probably very well intentioned reasons why these rules were put together in the first place. It appears to be just the implementation of those rules that haven't really addressed the issue that the rule was created for. 

A good reason for the rule, one assumes, is to try and stop fisherman from catching fish that are not old enough to breed and so give every fish a chance to have baby fish and so keep the fish levels fully stocked. Trying to get sustainable fishing is a good idea. Well I am not a marine biologist but throwing a dead immature fish back into the sea does not  do anything for this noble cause. All it does is hide the evidence of the damage we are doing. This is a good example of a well intentioned change that hasn't been followed up to see if it is delivering its objective. How long is the EU going to wait to see if its policy is working? Is it going to wait until all the fish have all gone? 

The golden rules that I always employ when putting changes in place in any organisation is to trial the change in a sample area, closely follow up to see if the change achieves its objective and apply any corrective measures. When it is proved to work and only then, roll it out to the wider area and then continuously follow up and monitor to see if the objectives are being met. It seems to me that the EU doesn't follow up their implementations but also they don't appear  to remember the reason behind the change in the first place. We need to remind them.

To help us remind the EU of how foolish some of the fishing rules are there are some people who have heroically taken on the challenge. The person I am thinking of is Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall of River Cottage fame. His recent television programmes called the 'Fish Fight' highlight many of the issues involved  with the fishing industry that we can help stop. Please have a good look at his website and get stuck in. http://www.fishfight.net

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall and a sustainably caught fish. Please ignore the way it appears he is drop kicking the fish.

The good work by Hugh also highlights the other main reason why mature fish are being discarded needlessly. The market is limited because essentially people don't recognise the name or look of a fish. In the UK most people have heard of cod, tuna, haddock or prawns and so only choose them in the supermarkets. Its a marketing issue. People tend , given the choice, to go for a name or brand that they have heard of rather than take the risk of trying something new. Lets try and change that, let us persuade the supermarkets  and fish & chip shops and anywhere else that sells fish to market the fish in a different way by highlighting similarities with the fish that we know and how better some of the alternatives are. We need to start the re-education now to ensure that we get sustainability of all the household name fish but also let us enjoy the delicious alternatives which will also help save our seas.

Fisherman need to land everything that they catch instead of hiding the evidence of ditching the discard in the sea. This will show the full scale of the foolishness being practiced. We need to create a market for this alternative fish which would ease the pressure on the levels of  household name fish .  Fishermen need to start using nets that allow the immature fish to escape without having to kill them first.  I know such nets are being trialed successfully, how long do we have to wait until they are implemented on a wide-scale basis, 5 years, 10 years. I am not sure whether some of the stocks will last that long. Also trawling the sea bed  for catch is like catching butterflies with a plough with a net attached on top going through a meadow. You may catch what you want amongst other things but you also destroy the environment where further catches can develop from,  this method should really be outlawed. If as consumers we want to eat fish in the future we really need to ensure that proper rules get put in place to protect this valuable resource. If the EU cannot think for themselves let us educate them and anyone else who doesn't understand. 

Fruit Cases

In theory rules are put in place to to be useful to some party involved, whether this is to maintain order, morality, standards etc. If these rules are only useful to a tiny minority whilst the greater majority suffer from it then generally speaking the rule is a bad one. These rules should reflect what is reasonable. When a rule is deemed reasonable then the greater majority should in theory be happy to comply with it without too much complaint. Nod if you agree.

Why is it then that a huge percentage of the food that our farmers grow gets thrown away before it gets to our supermarkets? Let me clarify this. The food that is dumped is perfectly good to eat, the problem is that rules have been put in place either by the EU or by the supermarkets themselves on the size and shape of the items themselves. For example if a delicious apple is deemed slightly too big, even though it is still delicious and in perfect condtion it cannot get on the lorry and so will not be offered for sale making it a redundandant apple. Hands up anyone who, given a choice of eating a larger delicious apple and a smaller delicious apple would go for the former (assuming that no-one is watching as I don't want politeness to be a factor on this). So I am not the only one then. You can put your hands down now.

Obviously the production cost of the good food that gets thrown away unecessarily gets added to the cost that we pay for the standard size food that appears on the supermarket shelves. Imagine what would happen to the prices if supermarkets also sold the rejected good food at a reduced price as a choice for the customer. All the prices will be lowered because less wastage cost will need to be offset. Why not give customers the choice? If a standard large potato sells for 30p but on another shelf there are similarly tasty potatoes of the same variety from the same farm selling for 10p only because they are sub-standard because they are shaped like a bottom, why not give us the choice?

Bottom shelf potato

Now I am not one of those politically correct activist type do-gooders but I do get a bit annoyed when organisations throw money away unecessarily, which is why I like my day job so much because I get the opportunity to fix things. The issue with this dilemma is that there are many, many organisations involved that  appear to have all just given up and have accepted things as the way things are. It doesn't have to be this way.

So what can we do? 

As voters we could influence the EU, this is unfortunately a little slow.

As customers we do have the power to influence the supermarkets which can be a little quicker. By asking for changes and having a choice of both standard and cheaper non standard items all costs will be lowered, the farmer's, the supermarket's and the customer's. 

If the supermarkets don't want to do it then if you are a farmer that is tired of having to throw away good stock and production time whether it is because it is the wrong size, shape or variety for this season, then get in touch. I am sure if we can get enough suppliers interested we can set up a consortia run Odd Shape Food Company Shops in every town to sell this good quality food at the right price that customers will want. It will not involve very much investment from those taking part either, especially as you the farmer will be offsetting this against the cost of production that would have been lost. It doesn't have to be limited to fruit and veg either, what happens to the cuts of beef that aren't sirloin or rump? Bring it on.