wet sugar medicine

andy sharpless: thanksvery much. so, thank you all for coming. i'm going to speak briefly. and then, i hope you'llask me questions. we can take advantage of thefact that we have a group small enough to do that. so, now, in my role as anauthor, for the first time, i get asked this question, whydid you write this book? it's like the startingquestion i get asked.

and i wanted to think, in agenuine way, about where the kernel for the bookreally comes. what was the experience thatstarted us down this path? and i think it's a moment ingeneva, about five or six years ago, when i was thereto talk to the world trade organization about helping tostop overfishing and stop ocean collapse. and we went to seethe chinese trade representative in geneva.

and it's quite interesting. in geneva, 150 countries of theworld represented there, for international discussionsabout managing the world's trade. the united states embassyis surrounded by perimeters of fences. and the chinese embassyis open. you walk in. you meet the chinese ambassador,then who was about

35 years old, very distinguishedyoung man, very well dressed. we sit down with him. and we said, we have a badhistory as a planet in managing the oceans. they are collapsing. and he said, we have a billionpeople in china. they're very hungry. we're going to feed them.

you guys have gottenyour chance. we need to make sure wecan feed our people. it was a very sincere and strongmessage on behalf of the food side of the equation. and i went away and thoughtabout it and said, ok. so there we have two verymorally compelling gulfs. protect life on the planet-- the traditional conservationagenda, protect biodiversity-- or feed people.

make sure peoplearen't hungry. make sure that in the year 2050,when there are 2 billion more people on the planet, wedon't have children waking up hungry everywhere. we have nearly a billion, 950million, people, now waking up hungry frequentlyon the planet. so this is not an imaginaryproblem. now, if you think about theorigin of the conservation movement, it goes back about100, 120 years ago.

and it starts on the land. and on the land, if you askthe question, what is the biggest driver of biodiversityloss on the planet, the answer is agriculture. this is the reason thatwe are losing species. it's the chief reason we arelosing species on the land. and so, the history of theconversation movement is-- because there's a fundamentalmoral kind of war between feeding people andprotecting life--

that you kind of choose sides. and the conservationists' sideis we're going to protect biodiversity. and if that means we have tostand against agriculture, we'll stand againstagriculture. because we don't see onthe land that you can simultaneously optimize forfood production and for biodiversity protection. so there's a kind of a war inpeople's heads that comes from

the land-based experienceof conservation. and when we went into the ocean,when the conservation movement went into the ocean,oh, about 30 years ago-- and your colleague jennifertherefore can date herself to being one of the early pioneersof thinking about the ocean, because it's reallyonly about 30 years old-- that mindset wastaken with us. so we went into the ocean,and we thought the job of optimizing food productionat the ocean cannot be

simultaneously optimized withthe job of biodiversity protection of the ocean. you have to make a choice justbecause we're used to making that choice on the land. that framework drove theconservation agenda in opposition to thefood production agenda in the ocean. now, we are right now on apath where we are getting fewer fish from the ocean everyyear despite increasing

efforts to catch them. despite using advancedtechnologies of all sorts to track down and catch fish, theworld's fishery catch, just in tonnage, peaked in thelate 1980s and has been coming down. you've heard of peak oil. well, we've crossed peakfish, wild fish. at a moment when we have allof these hungry people, you would want that to be goingthe other direction.

that opportunity turnsout to be real. and the message of the book isthat if we will manage our oceans well, we can have afuture, by 2050, that is different in this veryquantifiable way. we are on a path to be feedingabout 450 million seafood meals a day in the year2050 if we'll stay on the path we're on. if we manage the oceans better,we can do 800 million meals a day.

and if we stopped feeding fishto pigs and animals, it could be a billion people a dayforever being fed healthy seafood meal. so that's the order of magnitudeof the choice, 450 million versus on the order of1 billion people a day, a seafood meal every single day. now, how do we do that? how do we get there? now, the common idea--

now, in all of your heads,unless you're way more advanced than the typical groupthat i've talked about it, which you may be, sincewe are here at google-- is that you're thinking aboutthe map of the world. and you're thinking, you know,the map of the world's oceans looks like a prettyinternational place. it looks, to me, as a naiveobserver of the world's oceans, that we are only goingto manage the oceans well if we construct internationalcommittees to collaborate

around the rules and enforcethe rules for managing fishing, because that'sthe way the map looks. and if you are a practicalperson, you would be discouraged. because we don't do a very goodjob in the world, sadly, at doing internationalmanagement of anything. we don't do a very good job ofinternational management of stopping killing people,let alone too much killing of fish.

so how could you, as a practicalperson, get excited about the job of producingall of this seafood for the future? here's the very goodnews for you. it turns out that life inthe ocean is not equally distributed. seven out of eight pounds ofthe world's wild fish are caught in the coastalzones of the oceans. now, that is a surprisinginsight, because the most

charismatic fish in the oceanare, like the most charismatic creatures on the land, bigpredators, lions and tigers of the ocean. and like lions and tigers onthe land, they have big territories. and they have the tendency tospend a lot of their life out in the international zoneof the seas, which is called the high seas. and indeed, they do need to beprotected by international

cooperation. so the tunas, the sharks, thatwe think of and we love, are, in fact, extremely vulnerable. and the future will struggle tosee many of those, because they do require us to dowhat we don't do well, international agreements. but here's the good news fromthe point of view of food. the coastal zones of the world'soceans are controlled country by country, bythe adjacent country.

every coastal country, out to200 nautical miles, by itself sets the rules for what happensin that ocean with respect to fishing. nobody fishes within 200nautical miles of the united states coast without fishingunder the rules that the americans set. so they have to fish withour quota rules. they have to fish with ourhabitat protection rules. they have to comply withour bycatch rules.

you cannot overfish the americanocean because the spanish come in and decide theywant to fish our ocean. it's not a tragedy of thecommons, in that classic way, where nobody's in charge. the americans are in chargeof their ocean. the chileans are in chargeof their ocean. the europeans are in chargeof their ocean. and on and on and on. and, in fact, by the way,interesting fact, the country

in the world with the biggestcoastal territory, by square miles, is the unitedstates of america. so if you're an american, youcan think of yourself as having more opportunity thanthe average citizen of the world to influence the futureof this part of the world's nature, natural systems. from the point of view of food,though, we want to ask the question, how many countrieswould it take to do a good job managing their ocean,managing their ocean

fishery, to deliver the oceanintact and abundant to the year 2050, to feed all thesepeople, that are going to be here then, healthy seafoodmeals, delicious seafood meals like we had today in thegoogle cafeteria? so we, at oceana, made a list,with the countries with the biggest catch from their coastalzones at the top and the ones with the smallestcatch, by weight at the bottom. and we asked the question, ifthe top 10 countries on that

list, just the top 10 countrieson that list, were to do a good job managing theiroceans, what share of the world's wild fish catchcould we deliver in a healthy state to the future? and the answer is 2/3. nine countries and the europeanunion together control the catch of2/3 of the wild's fish catch by weight. the tunas and the swordfishare not.

you know, they're charismaticand they're important. but by weight, they don'tcontribute as much as you would think. and from the point of view offeeding people, weight is what we're concerned about, weightof healthy animal protein. yeah? audience: when you say weight,do you say weight that goes to human consumption or also,like, farms and pigs and everything?

andy sharpless: the questionis, when i say weight, am i talking about fish that getsfed directly to people or including stuff that getsfed to animals? and i'm talking about the catch,no matter where it gets delivered to. and so, that question points toanother interesting fact. and i mentioned it earlier. we have a big opportunity in thefuture to feed people by stopping or reducing thepractice of feeding fish to

fish or feeding fishto animals. let me just addressthat directly. very often, people will say,isn't the solution to overfishing of the oceansfarming of fish? and when i eat a farmed fish,aren't i doing something that's good for the ocean? and intuitively, it soundslike you are. in fact, you have to askthe following question. what does the fish that you areeating, that is farmed,

what does it eat? and the answer to that questioncreates three categories that are, basically,good, bad, and indifferent, depending uponwhat the fish eats. if the fish eats fish, that'sa problem category. if the fish eats grain, it's akind of a neutral category. if the farmed fish eats algae,like oysters, clams, mussels do, that's basically anunalloyed good thing. so what's a fish that eats a lotof fish, that's farmed a

lot, that we see a lot of? salmon. this is a carnivore. salmon eats other fish. and i've been to the salmonpens in chile. and they take wild fish, grindthem up into little pellets that look like dog foodbut smell like fish. and they feed them to thefarm salmon in the pens. and in the process, they convertfour or five pounds of

wild salmon into one poundof farmed fish. so it's a reduction activity. by contrast, by happy contrast,the farmer of mussels, the farmer of clams,the farmer of oysters, is creating a healthy and deliciousseafood out of something that eats algae. it's not something humanbeings eat or livestock generally eat. and, by the way, in so doingcleans the ocean, because it's

a filter feeder. and, by the way, it's evenbetter because it's that rarest of things in the world. it's a for profit company withemployees and with profits and with all of the connectionsthat profitable businesses have to the politicalestablishment, which must have a clean ocean. because if you're findingoysters in a polluted ocean, they don't taste goodor they die.

so we, as people who want thereto be an abundant ocean, encourage you to eat as manyfarmed mussels, clams, and oysters as you can stomach. go today, and eatmussels tonight. there's a recipe forthem in my book. and there were some today atthe cafeteria, one of those recipes, clams. so we talked about ninecountries plus the european union.

i want to address animportant fact. you're wondering if i slippedsomething tricky in there by saying the european union,because you will know that there are 27 countries inthe european union. so i didn't, like, finesse thisby getting 9 plus 27 to sound like 10. the european union manages itsfisheries on a continental basis out of brussels. the rules for all 27 memberstates on quotas, habitat and

bycatch, or on overfishing ornot are set in one place by one set of decision makersin brussels. so for purposes of fisherymanagement, it's authentic and legitimate to treat the europeanunion as one country. so nine countries plus theeuropean union, if they will stop overfishing, can manage, domanage, 2/3 of the world's fish by weight and can deliverthose in healthy state to the future. if you go to 25 countries,counting the european union as

a country, which is the correctway to count it for fisheries purposes, you get the90% of the world's wild fish by weight. so this is a verydoable thing. we can. it comes down to 10 decisionmakers doing basically one thing, stopping overfishing, tomake sure all this natural, healthy seafood is availablefor the future. now, i want to pointout one last thing.

in the forecasts for the planetbetween now and 2050, there is an optimistic plan thatthe middle classes are going to grow and that therewill be a big expansion in the middle class of china,brazil, india. this is devoutly tobe hoped for. this is a good thing. that means, among other things,that they will be eating a lot moreanimal protein. and if you face up to what theconsequences of expanded

livestock production will befor the planet, you will be very worried, because livestockproduction is one of the most intensive formsof agriculture. and remember, i talked aboutagriculture broadly being the enemy of biodiversity on theplanet on the land, while livestock production is areally tough problem for biodiversity on the land. it also is a big producer ofmethane and, therefore, climate forcing activityon the planet.

it also is a huge demanderof fresh water and aquifer depletion. so if you care aboutthose things-- climate change, aquiferdepletion, deforestation-- you need to care about makingthe ocean abundant. i assume all of us herecare about feeding poor and hungry people. but if you are so hardheartedthat that's not part of your agenda, and all you care aboutis these other things, you

also have a reason to fightfor an abundant ocean. i have had some peoplesay to me, i don't really like seafood. i don't even understand howsomebody in the middle of africa, who lives nowhere nearseafood, is going to benefit from an abundant ocean. tell me why i shouldcare about this. my answer is, seafood rightnow is equal to eggs as a source of animal proteinin the human diet--

a-- so it's bigger thanyou think it is. and b, if you're a personwho eats food-- let's imagine thatpossibility-- or you're a person in the middleof africa who is never going to see a fish but whois hungry, and that's your client-- in your head, you wantto help that person-- you can help them by makingthe oceans be abundant, because the price of grainin the year 2050 will be different if we have an abundantocean or not, because

livestock production is abig demander of grain. and so, the price of a taco, theprice of a loaf of bread, will be different in the year2050, and better and more affordable for that person inthe middle of africa, if we have an abundant ocean. so i really want the worldto see this opportunity. and i really want usto capture it. the last thing i want to say--and then i'll take questions-- when you think about nature,and you think about what it

takes to restore nature,consider that the oceans are one of the strongest and mostfertile and most robust parts of nature on the planet. fish, many of them, layeggs by the millions. you can, and it's proven inthe data, if you will stop overfishing and you will allowspawning stocks to rebuild, you can, in 5 or 10 years, 5or 10 years, see measurable increases in ocean abundance. you can get to a point where youcan have a bigger catch, a

sustainable bigger catch, verymuch in the lifetimes of everybody in this room. it's not like the longer-termtask of rebuilding a rain forest, which can take100 years, if that. this is something thatshort attention span theater rewards. we can get there. and we can get there in away that's measurable. we think the blunt estimateis that the world, if well

managed, if it managed itsoceans well, can increase the sustainable catch on the orderof 20% to 40% over the previous peak. so i talked at the beginningof my remarks about the world's fish catch peakingin the late 1980s. there is upside on top of thatpeak on the order of 20% to 40% if we can get these top 10countries to do a good job. and then, the fundamental pointhere is that the mindset that i talked about at thebeginning of my remarks, about

the war between agricultureand biodiversity, the war between feeding people andprotecting life that occurs on the land, is wrong whenit comes to the ocean. those two things areactually allies. those two enemiesare now allies. the task of feeding people wildseafood, we are eating a wild creature. so the things that we do tomake the wild creatures abundant benefit thebiodiversity of the ocean.

the way you have a reallyproductive ocean is you have a biodiverse ocean. so you do not have to choose, ifyou are managing them well. indeed, you are doing the thingsthat are achieving both goals at once. so thank you very much. that's my quick overviewof the book. i hope you will read the book. it's called "the perfectprotein."

president clinton was niceenough to write the forward for it, partly because hehelped, as jennifer explained, to sign the laws in place inthe united states that tightened our regulation of ouroceans and made us one of the better ocean managersin the world. we are seeing progressaround the world. and i think that this is oneof those problems that the world can actually fix. thank you very much.

[applause] so i am delighted to takequestions or comments. audience: so i've been toiceland, at the invitation of president grimsson, and seenhow they manage their fisheries successfully there. they're profitable. they're sustainable. they do sound science. so, certainly, when the will isthere to manage a fishery

effectively, it canbe managed. so what do you think the mostimportant thing that needs to happen, to inspire the will totackle the global issue both the united states and abroad,to actually do what iceland has done? andy sharpless: well, there'sgood ways for this to happen, and there's bad waysfor this to happen. very often, the way theworld does this is that it sees a collapse.

it lets things get to the pointof serious difficulty. chile, where we have workedvery, very successfully over the last 10 years, is anexample of the latter. they mismanaged theirindustrial fleet. they collapsed their threebiggest fisheries. the scientists would come inand recommend the quota. the fleet would say, wewant a bigger quota. the government would exceedto the fleet demands. and so, guess what?

they crashed their fisheries. after about 10 or 15 years ofinability to catch their permitted quotas, because theyhad overfished so badly, the fleet was pretty discredited. the government regulators werenow in a position to see that they needed to do somethingdifferent. and we were successful injanuary of this year in getting the law there changedfrom a discretionary regime to a mandatory regime.

and this is basically whatpresident clinton did in 1995. and this is what the europeanunion is on the verge of doing in the next few months. in every place in the world,where you have a law that says to the regulators, if youwould like, you can set scientific quotas, if you wouldlike, you can protect nursery habitat, you couldchoose, the law will allow you to manage bycatch, if that'sthe law, it doesn't work. and what we did in 1995, andwhat the chileans did in

january, and what the europeansare on the verge of doing, is making those threethings mandatory. and so, the law says you must,if you're the regulator and the manager of this fishery,set scientific quotas, you must protect nursery habitat,you must reduce bycatch. you can get there. chiefly, the way the world getsthere is by seeing in the numbers collapses andknowing that they need to make a change.

that's the bad path thechileans traveled. that's the bad path theeuropeans traveled. the americans didn't let ourpacific fishery collapse before we realized that weneeded to make a fix. the new england fishery gotpretty badly ruined here by overfishing. so we had examples ofmismanagement of our own. you cab also have an upsidestory, which is, of course, what the book is trying to say,which is that this is a

great opportunity. there's lots of upside herefrom good management-- people love seafood. they like to eat it. it tastes good. it's healthy for them. it's good for the planet. it's the perfect protein-- and to try to get people tofocus on the upside, but

history would suggest that moreoften people have to have a brush with disasterto get motivated to do the right thing. audience: can you speak, justbecause we're from the us now, a little more abouthow you would actually change our practices? so we have quota levels today. if we were to implement someof the restrictions you mentioned, how different arethey than today's quotas?

would we be changing the type offish we would be gathering? what other measures wouldyou put in place? is it the methodology? just speak to kind of where onthe food chain you'd want to select from, things like that? andy sharpless: so, in theunited states of america, the good news is, and since we'reon the pacific here, the pacific american fisheriesare pretty well managed. so we don't have big problemsin the pacific.

we've done a good job there. new england fishery is adisaster, as i mentioned. we need to allow the new englandfisheries to rebuild. so we need to set and enforcelower quotas there, protect some nursery habitat, especiallyfrom bottom trawling, reduce bycatch. audience: well, like, what'sa rough percentage? are we talking about, like,cut it by 20% or cut it by, like, 60%?

what does it take for it toget a chance to grow back? andy sharpless: it's hard forme to give you a summary answer, because as species byspecies, it's different. and i haven't calculated, butcould calculate, like, if you averaged together the newengland fisheries by weight and what the average changewould be there. and then, you have a decisionabout how fast you want the rebuild to occur. you know what i mean?

there's a trade-off. like, you can do the mathin your head, right? there's a trade-off between alower cut in current fishing pressure and then a fasterrebound versus a smaller cut and then a slower rebuild. and that's, in fact, thestruggle that is happening in new england right now. we would have a preference fora lower cut and a faster rebuild, because you getmore results and

more fish that way. reasonable questionyou're asking. i don't have the summary math inmy head for new england or the united states. i do want to shift to two otherthings that we ought to do that your questionasked about. as an individual, you ought toguide your fish consumption in the following way. eat wild.

eat small species. eat local. eat farmed shellfishwherever you can. and i'm sorry to say, don'teat any shrimp anymore. i can explain these fivesimple rules quickly. wild, we talked about, asbeing better than farmed already in my answers, inmy previous remarks. farmed shellfish, we alreadytalked about why that's good. local, the american fisheriesare generally better managed

than the foreign fisheries. we import 90% of our seafood. so if you're eating local,or domestic might be more precise, you're likely eatinga fish that's better managed than something coming fromthe rest of the world. so that's the reasonto do that. and then shrimp, whichis loved by america-- and i love shrimp-- effectively, there's no way tofeel good about eating shrimp.

if you're eating wild shrimp,you're eating something that has enormous amountsof bycatch. shrimp are appropriatelynamed. they're very small. so that means to catch shrimp,you have to have a small mesh net. you catch three, four, fivepounds of other creatures along with each poundof shrimp. i was on "cbs this morning" theweek before last, the day

we launched the book, and theactor who played bubba gump was following me. you will all recognizewho that was. i wanted to make this joke ontv, but i did not have time with tom hanks tomake that joke. so if you're eating wild shrimp,you have to picture that you're also eating threeor four or five pounds of other things, including, like,turtles that got caught in the shrimp nets.

if you're eating farmedshrimp, you're eating something that's importedtypically from the a tropical country, where a coastalpond was created. a shallow coastal pond wascreated, often in a mangrove forest, filled with shrimp,fed intensively, so intensively packed in there, soswimming in their own fecal matter that high levels ofpesticides and antibiotics are applied to keep them healthyuntil the point when that gets so contaminated that they haveto move to a new place and

create a new pond. you can fly over belize, as i'vedone, and see these kind of strange zones. and you don't knowwhat they are. they're former fish,shrimp ponds, unpleasant things to see. the last thing i want to sayabout what we could do in the united states of america-- and your question isa very good one--

we have an opportunity, becausewe import 90% of our seafood, to effect the conductof the world's fleets by our buying practices. and if we would pass laws, thathave now been introduced into both the senate and thehouse, to require that all seafood sold in the unitedstates is traceable, traceable to when it was caught, whereit was caught, how it was caught, we would make it veryhard for illegally-sourced fish to get into oursupply chain.

and illegally-sourced fish areon the order of 10% to 25% of the world's catch, fish caughtout of quota, in the wrong place, and so forth. if we had a strict traceabilityregime, those illegal fishermen would havetrouble documenting that their catches were legal. and they wouldn't be ableto sell them to us. and they would have aself-interested reason, because they want to sell us,to fix their practices.

senator begich from alaska hasintroduced a bill in the senate to do this. congressman markey hasintroduced a bill in the house to do this. they're called thesafe seafood act. we would like you to contactyour representatives or your senators and encourage them tocosponsor these bills to get them through congress. we've done more seafood testingthan any organization

in the country. we've tested 1,200-- more than the government-- 1,200 different samples ofseafood around the country and discovered that, on average,about 33% of the time, what you bought is not whatthey told you it was. now, sometimes, it's asmall mislabeling. sometimes, it's abig mislabeling. but there's a lot of seafoodfraud going on.

so the safe seafood fraud actwould also bring you benefits as a consumer. it would stop you from beingdefrauded while also delivering conservation benefitsto the planet. so, that's one of oceana'sbig priorities this year. and we'd love to haveyour help on that. but our fishery managementrules are in good shape. yes? audience: could you talk throughan example where a

fishery collapsed, goodpractices were put in place, and it actually recovered? andy sharpless: when i starteddeveloping the argument that is in the book, i would reviewthis with oceana's board of directors, the argument,as we were starting to figure it out. and they said just whatyou said, right here. they said, andy, could you giveus some case examples of fishery rebounds, please?

and a scientist on our board,who's a very distinguished scientist, said, you'reasking andy to prove that gravity works. and they said, yes, we are. please prove thatgravity works. so i went out, and i got somecase examples of fisheries that had been mismanagedand wrecked and had then rebounded. and there are many of them.

it's not hard to find them. there are four of them in thislittle pamphlet which we will hand out to you. and i can show you thesecharts here. we famously call these chartsu-charts, because they go down, and then they go up. and in each of these cases,which i can call out to you, there was, like, a 40 ora 50-year period of mismanagement.

the first one here is thenorwegian arctic cod, which was badly managed bythe norwegians. they drove the spawning stockway down and kept it down by and in the 1980s, they imposeda discard band. and it rebounded in5 or 10 years. this next example is the newzealand rock lobster. from '65 until about '90, badlymismanaged, catch limits imposed in the '90s. it comes back.

this next example is thenorwegian herring. fishing limits put on. after bad litmus mismanagement,it recovered. and this is us haddock, whichwas really, astoundingly mismanaged by the unitedstates, punished badly. and in about 1995-- 1995, remember that-- president clinton and senatorstevens get together in the days when bipartisan actionwas possible.

and that fishery rebounded. so 5 or 10 years, inthe scientific data, evidence of recovery. i love that question. i mean, this is not atheoretical exercise. this is in the data overand over again. now, there is of famouscounterexample. do you know what the famouscounterexample is? audience: canadian cod, maybe?

andy sharpless: yes,well done. the famous counterexample iscanadian cod, which were badly overfished by the canadians andby some european fleets. the canadians finally imposedtight restrictions on it. and it has not come back. and it is the classic nightmarescenario of a fishery that was oncehugely important. here's huge cod that were fiveor six feet long, so important to the early development ofthe united states that we

named a part of our countryafter them, cape cod. that fishery hasnot come back. nobody really knows why. you could speculate that someother creature came into the ecological niche that the codoccupied, and now the cod can't get going again. but that is the exception. it's like what i was talkingabout, tunas and swordfish, earlier.

please don't be misled by theexceptions to the rules. happily, this is anexception, because it's a nightmare story. audience: was this anexception because they waited too long? andy sharpless: nobody reallyknows why it's an exception. it could be that theywaited too long. but if you look at these otherexamples that i held up here, some of them are badlymismanaged over the course of

20, 30 years and, yet, theywere able to recover. it's probably that there wassome other phenomenon that people don't fully understand,like i said, that something moved in there and wasable to take root. it's also possible that theheavy trawling in that area, bottom trawling, had a reallyserious effect. nobody really knows, becauseit is a unusual counterexample. audience: so in your discussionhere, you're

talking about trying to feedthe global population. and you talk a lot about fish. is there a role for things likealgae and kelp and things like that in your vision offeeding the global population over the next century? andy sharpless: shortanswer would be yes. but the long answer is, i don'tknow a lot about that. i mean, from what little i know,i think that they can be sustainably and usefully, youknow, managed in a way that's

sensible and doesn't createhuge problems. you may know more aboutthat than i do. but we have to learn to like toeat algae, which i expect would be a difficultchallenge. i don't know about kelp. so, short answer is yes. i would be an optimiston that. but that's not based on aninformed study of it. so the question is-- justfor the microphone--

can i talk more about whatpeople should be eating and changes that arerequired there? so you anticipated the answer. eat lower down on the foodchain where you can, so smaller species fish,anchovies, sardines would be great. i talked about farmed mussels,oysters, clams. eat all those you can. don't eat big predatorfish, if you want a

simple rule of thumb. if you really have an appetitefor information, you can use these food guides. and the monterey aquarium andthe blue ocean institute have food guides which arequite helpful. there's applications you canget for your remote device that'll tell you, in the grocerystore, what to choose. many people don't havethe patience or the time to do that.

but if you're one of them,more power to you. that's a good thing to do. part of the idea of "the perfectprotein" was to give people these simple rules thatthey could kind of apply in a busy life, like eat smallfish, eat wild fish, eat farmed shellfish if you can. don't eat shrimp. we have 21 recipes in the bookthat show you how to prepare something you might notthink would be tasty.

and i encourage you to try themand learn, i hope, that you like these things thatyou might not have thought you'd like. sardines might be anexample of that. most people might not thinka sardine would be tasty, but it can be. when i was on this show-- i mentioned "cbsthis morning"-- eric ripert, the famous chef ofle bernardin, which is one

of the most prestigious frenchrestaurants in the country, manhattan, was on with me. he has a recipe in the book. and he was the poissonnier atthe tour d'argent, maybe the most famous french restaurantin the world, in paris. he knows a hell ofa lot about fish. and i said to him, eric, icooked your recipe on friday night, which i had done. i had gotten the clams andandouille sausage recipe out

of it, which is alsoserved today. and i prepared it at home,much to my wife's and my daughters' amazement, becausei'm really not very much of a cooking kind of guy. and except for the fact that ihadn't really scrubbed the clams to get all of the sandout, it was quite good. so the last thing on this pointis we live at a moment in time when there's a lotof foodieism abroad. chefs have become kindof heroes of the day.

they are celebritieson television. people are interestedin food preparation. the is an ongoing incentive inthat world for marketing innovation, for bringing topeople tastes that they haven't had before, thingsto eat that they haven't tried before. and so, i think we have the windat our back in terms of encouraging people to eat lowerdown on the food chain. because the food industrylikes to innovate.

so, when we come to them andsay, try out some of these unusual creatures thatare listed in the book, they say, great. and so we have 21 famouschefs, each offering a different recipe for thingsthat you might not have thought would taste good. audience: this is sort of apersonal challenge that i feel might get reflected globally. so, i'll tell my friends, hey,bluefin tuna, you should

really not be eating that,you know, running out, endangered, etc. and their response is, yeah, soit's all going to be gone. we better eat it while it'sstill here, right? and i hear rumors aboutoverfished quotas, in, say, asia, where you have fishermenstockpiling so that they can sell it when it's not available,literally, anymore. how do we deal with that? andy sharpless: the problem ofthe atlantic bluefin tuna is a

counterexample to everythingi've said here. it's a top predator fish. it has the misjudgment to swimacross national boundaries all of the time. maybe we could teach it, youknow, to, like, live its life inside national territory. it is a high-value fish. and financial incentives to gocatch it and sell it, as you mentioned in your question,are huge.

individual, high-qualityspecimens can sell for the cost of a house, not a housein palo alto, but a house somewhere else. they are very vulnerable. they are in a tough spot. and i'm worried about them. but i don't want the exception,which they are-- on a basis of the oceans byweight, the oceans as a source of animal protein by weight--they are an exception to the

general rule. and so the problems that we seewith atlantic bluefin tuna management and overfishing donot apply to most species. and so, be optimistic aboutso many other species. meanwhile, if you want to helpon atlantic bluefin tuna, there is an internationalcommittee that has all of the weaknesses that you suspect itwould have, called iccat-- the acronym, which setsthe quotas for atlantic bluefin catches--

the international commissionfor the conservation of atlantic tuna. the united states is a member ofthat body, along with about more than 20 other countries. and they tend to doa terrible job. they tend to have lowest commondenominator outcomes that they don't vigorouslyenforce. and they have allowed thisfishery to be badly managed. and the atlantic is at abouta 15% of an unfished ocean

number in terms of populationof atlantic bluefin. so they're at a dangerouspoint. i hope they come back. we, like many other conservationgroups, press the governments who are on iccatto lower quotas, to allow rebuilding. if you're a responsibleperson, you should be contacting your government andgetting them to do that. and i hope they will.

but that's a creaturein a tough spot. jennifer is suggesting that theus could ban imports of atlantic bluefin tunaas a contribution. there might be trade, wto,implications to that decision that would get theunited states in trouble with the wto. i don't know. there would be complexitythere. audience: we'd picket.

andy sharpless: yeah. since that's a globally-eatencommodity, that might not be enough, even that, because thequota that we didn't take would go somewhere else. thank you very much foryour attention. i hope this was interesting. and i hope you'll buy my book,our book, promote it. we would like lots of peopleto get the message. and i hope you'll enjoy someof the recipes in the back.

thanks very much.

wet sugar medicine 2017-02-28T03:09:00-08:00 Rating: 4.5 Diposkan Oleh: Ramdani Sanghiang Wibawa Tunggal