There is a real dilemma when it comes to consuming fish. World stocks of wild fish are in serious decline to the point where some species are thought to have little chance of recovery. Eating farmed fish, however, is no better. Not only do they contain lower levels of the compounds thought to make consumption of fish beneficial in the first place, and often
very high levels of toxins (which are stored in the body fat of the fish), but for every kilogram of farmed fish produced, 3 kilograms of wild fish will have been used as feed to produce it. If the fish has been farmed outside of Australia, particularly in Asian countries, there is an extreme likelihood that huge quantities of antibiotics will have been used in its production.
In addition, the destructive practices used by the fishing industry in various countries, including
bottom trawling and long-line fishing, have devastating effects on wildlife. Long line fishing is responsible for the killing of
huge numbers of sea-birds and helping to drive numerous species of albatross toward extinction.
Aside from individual consumers taking the time to investigate where the fish come from and by what method they are usually caught, there is little we can do to make our consumption habits more responsible at a time when we are being urged to eat
more fish because of the health benefits of regularly including fish in our diets. Personally, I think there should be import restrictions on fish from nations known to use harmful fishing practices and fish-farming practices not at the very least in line with our own, if such restrictions are not already in place. There should also be a labelling system with all relevant information, such as country of origin, whether the fish is wild-caught or farmed, its diet if farmed and the method by which it is caught.
Contrary to a July
opinion piece published in the The Age, which proclaimed that country-of-origin labeling is 'emotional blackmail' and a form of protectionism, I believe that country-of-origin labeling enables consumers to make a better-informed choice about the product they buy, and avoid products from countries that have unsatisfactory standards with regard to sustainability and environmental practices, and not just take into account health and disease concerns to meet Australian quarantine requirements.
"The hip pocket speaks louder than patriotism on the supermarket shelves" says Greg Barns, former political advisor to Tasmanian Liberal Premier Ray Groom, while simultaneously claiming that labelling produce with its country of origin will somehow force consumers into buying Australian produce. Which is it, Greg? That "consumers will buy cheaper products and if they like the quality, pay little attention to where it is produced" or that "consumers can be emotionally blackmailed into supporting Australian produce rather than overseas competitors, even if it is more expensive"? The two claims are contradictory.
'Protectionism' is the reason that Californian, not Brazilian oranges are sold in our supermarkets here, and the reason why Australian sugar, not (for example) Cuban is the only sugar on the shelves. Country of origin labeling has nothing to do with it.
