Bluewashing ‘Foods’ Won’t Make The World Green

Marine and in a global emergency. Ninety percent the abundance of fish is at or below half of their former levels, and many species of fish are found in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s. red list endangered species. Since 1970 alone, the number of sharks and rays worldwide has dropped by 70 percent. The a little cow the species will be extinct in years, and the Māui dolphin and the North Atlantic right whale are likely to follow closely. The cause of the problem of drowning is not climate change or plastic damage but fishing, and scientists from around the world have done just that he warned that to deal with this problem They want to change the traditional view of fishery management and establish restrictions on fishing.

Recently, the call has come out not just for a few fish, but More, under the banner of a new word for all marine and marine fish: “blue food.” The Blue Food Alliance, formed before the UN Food Systems Summit, has brought together academic experts, policy makers, and corporate providers directly on increase the intake of regular fish. The work was initiated by many, including magazine articles Natural Foods, and editor in his parent magazine Nature, most well placed updates and educated professionals and company members, and even a video advertising. According to a report by the group, entitled “The Blue Food Assessment,” Seafood and marine organisms often have less environmental impact and provide better health than global food while contributing to food security, economic growth and nature.

But the story of this blue diet depends on the additions and omissions that hide the realities of fish exposure. Dangerous companies such as High Fat and Large Pets he encouraged hypocrisy and tweaks opanga and adopted a formal language, as did the fish companies. While the Blue Food Alliance prides itself on a non-profit membership like EAT, too includes titans fish such as the Walton Family Foundation. As many unreliable industries claim to be green, texting in the blue food industry is known as the “bluewash”.

That’s not it the message of this campaign and others like it has been predicted on evil science, and that they send scientific claims indiscriminately. In doing so, the “Blue Food Assessment” leaves behind many of the challenges of fishing and aquaculture, and makes them appear more sustainable than they really are. Take into account the fact that eating fish is often more illegal than eating ground meat. To prove this, the authors use a standard flow from previous studies recording greenhouse gas, nitrogen, and phosphorus, as well as the use of water and water, of various freshwater and aquatic fish. This makes these foods more environmentally friendly and low than for most agricultural products, especially poultry, a lesser ecosystem. The problem is that I am comparing apples to oranges – it uses the same methods that make up the world’s agricultural in the oceans, leaving out the ones that affect the environment. Eating wild fish will not use the land or fresh water, either it’s over the abundance of aquatic life, disruption leaves for food, dredges lifting rocks and beds algal, and they disappear the sea and the nets of spirits. The report also makes similar decisions when discussing the health benefits of marine fish. Fish can be rich in vitamins and minerals, but it can also be filling microplastics and bioaccumulative toxins such as PCBs, PBDE images, and mercury. Even various errors are admitted in some blue foods scrolls, they all have none promotional materials, exaggerating the advantages of blue food while pointing out its flaws.

Special ideas aside, the names included in this campaign are also relevant. While incorporating all seafood into this new “cloud-based diet” group may not really help in comparison to other food groups, it does help a little to disrupt the analysis of species- and regions. For example, when they encourage boasting that the “BFA analysis emphasizes the diversity of cloud diets,” the descriptions being ambiguous, with many misconceptions and various categories such as “different marine fish.” More importantly, this approach also hinders a wide range of manufacturers as well as marine production methods. First of all, while it does not encourage the commercialization of commercial fish, it is useful for growing fish species such as aquaculture. But freshwater fish do not cause wild fish to be oppressed as they usually are extra They often needed hundreds of fish caught in the wild to feed the farmer Salmon or tuna. It also comes with a wide range dangerous and harmful, including smoke pollution, cutting down mangrove trees, and the prevalence of viruses on aquaculture farms and the spread of wild fish. However “The Blue Food Assessment” recommends growing fish even at this risk.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *