Seaspiracy: Should You Take It With a Pinch of Salt?
THIS JOURNAL BELONGS TO
SCOTT STANILAND
The Netflix docu-film is really making waves in social commentary.
However, much like the content we see online today, can we trust everything in the show? Will shocking people into sustainability work?
4 MINS READ TIME
You may have seen many shared posts over the past week attempting to dissolve the need to eat fish, likely fueled by Seaspiracy, a Netflix original documentary from the same team that brought us Cowspiracy, with backing from Leonardo DiCaprio.
As before, the team travels to great lengths, and depths, to uncover some dirty truths about the fishing industry and shock the audience with harrowing numbers and facts.
‘Up to 10,000 dolphins are killed per year as bycatch off the coast of France’.
‘Over 300,000 whales and dolphins are killed per year as bycatch at the hands of commercial fishing’.
‘One tuna boat had slaughtered 45 dolphins, to catch 8 tuna fish… working for ‘Dolphin Safe’ canned tuna’.
Transitioning through alarming scenes and prevalent police sirens in Japan detailing whaling and overfishing, a lot of it was overwhelming and sometimes difficult to even put into perspective. One example is the film’s focus to plastic pollution, shedding light on that viral Sea Turtle - plastic straw video and the abundance of fishing nets in the ocean as a result of commercial fishing.
It’s noted that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, estimated to be 3 x the size of France and weighing 80,000 tonnes, is actually 46% fishing nets, and that this type of sea pollutant is ripping the eco systems apart at a far greater rate than anything consumer plastic related, particularly straws. Digging into this issue is where the documentary starts drifting into murky waters.
Since Seaspiracy has aired, there has been much backlash from the organisations interviewed in the film, suggesting misinformation and many out of context quotes. Subsequently, this has led to The Earth Island Institute, in particular the IMMP’s (International Marine Mammal Project) David Phillips issuing a statement, “While covering critical topics, Seaspiracy unfortunately does a disservice to a number of organizations that are doing critical work to protect oceans and marine life.” He continues on to defend the Dolphin Safe Tuna program stating it’s actually responsible for the largest decline in dolphin deaths, with kill levels diminishing by more than 95%, equating to the preservation of over 100,000 dolphins per year.
Photo: Netflix/Seaspiracy
Photo: Netflix/Seaspiracy
Whilst the film does draw attention to many ‘known problems’ in the fishing industry, it does fail to call out a few other areas.
Most notably to me was the lack of documentation around the local, indigenous communities that heavily rely on fishing for food and business, which was being illegally taken from them by the larger commercial ships. Thus, pertaining to the question of, is giving up fish completely realistic and just how much do the illegal trawlers affect the communities it is stealing from in West Africa? There’s a phenomenal piece of research touched upon in the documentary, that due to illegal fishing, local communities have had to search elsewhere for food. Most prominently, wild animals which has had a direct impact on the bushmeat trade, responsible for the outbreaks of Ebola virus.
Seaspiracy’s shock factor may have raised more questions than it answered and caused some intense conversations around the organisations involved.
In the past, similar environmental documentaries like ‘Blue Planet’ and ‘Africa’ have been criticised for being “too nice”, using sympathy to invoke action into people. In this case, Seaspiracy leaves the viewer feeling angry, upset and empowered to make change but ultimately, we must question what the overall objective of this film is.
The question goes: Is its primary intention for us to question certification on tinned fish and go on a witch hunt for those funding ocean conservations and charities? Perhaps not, given this seemed to be an accidental discovery with a questionable interview approach.
Shocking people into sustainability might scare some people off, but will likely invoke more action than the tactics used previously. The sad, sympathetic tone of past documentaries hasn’t worked. They left a hopeless, helpless aftertaste with no call to action for the masses. The shock factor has an empowerment behind it, something we can all do that is attainable, realistic and makes a difference.
More than likely, the intention was to inform on why we need to reduce the amount of fish we consume as a race while also thinking meticulously about the impact we have on the ocean.
Weeks have passed and references are still transpiring. Instagram stories are still being posted on marine life, ocean plastic is again at the forefront of sustainability conversations and most importantly, my grandparents have asked if they should throw away the tuna in the cupboard.