ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
California Green Chemistry rules should be withdrawn
Don't Let Toxic Toys Grinch Your Holiday!
Your Green Holiday Kitchen in 3 Easy Steps
A cookbook for everyone on EWG's list
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Want some mercury with that? | Main | Suffolk County leads the nation with BPA ban »
Support for overfishing?
Special to Enviroblog by Renee Sharp, Director, EWG California Office
This week, EWG published a peer-reviewed paper on fishing subsidies that was almost four years in the making. Sound boring? Think again.
First, there is the plain fact that the world's oceans are in serious peril. If the overload of press recent press stories weren't enough to convince you, then these stark numbers should: in 2007 the National Marine Fishery Service determined that a 24 percent of the nation's 530 monitored stocks were overfished and 17 percent were experiencing overfishing. The international Food and Agriculture Organization has come up with similar estimates for the depletion of global fish stocks.
Second, the numbers are so dang big: the U.S. government doled out more than $6.4 billion from 1996 to 2004, or an average of $713 million per year.
No one is suggesting that all of these subsidies are harmful or contributing to overfishing. But it is likely that many of them do encourage fishing operations to harvest more fish than can be naturally replaced.
Bottom line: it is clear that the U.S. and the world are going to have to shift subsidies to forms that enhance fishery conservation rather than depletion.
Third, EWG was honored to collaborate with the renown fisheries economist Ussif Rashid Sumaila on the study and to have the academic work supported by the fabulous folks at the Lenfest Ocean Program.
To read EWG's summary and analysis of the study, or to download the academic paper, click here.
Congratulations for the report.
What I found really strange is the deafening silence on this report of two prominent NGOs (WWF and OCEANA) that have been lobbying the US government on the stance to take at WTO Doha negotiations on fish subsidies.
I have posted a link to your report in my blog. I have also highlighted the "silence" of these two NGOs.