Hey, there! Log in / Register
Trusting Roger Berkowitz
By adamg on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 8:36am
Richard Auffrey partook of Legal Seafood's "banned" dinner last night, explains that he came to trust Legal's Roger Berkowitz on why Legal isn't destroying the world's fishing stocks:
So, at this dinner, one of the most important questions to me was: Can Roger Berkowitz be trusted? Roger is intelligent, personable, witty and charismatic so it is very easy to like him. Yet he also had plenty of answers concerning sustainable seafood issues and they sounded reassuring. He comes across as sincere in his advocacy of sustainable seafood, desirous of promoting the best scientific evidence. Sure, he is also a savvy businessman, but falsity on this issue could easily backfire on him and tarnish his reputation. It seems to make much better sense for him to truly be a proponent of sustainable seafood.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Splitting, uh, scales?
Eating a plant-based diet is best for people and the planet. And the animals. Then you don't need to worry about which species might be OK to kill this week.
I'll stop eating animals when
I'll stop eating animals when animals stop eating animals.
I'll stop stealing cars
when other people stop stealing cars.
(How do you like your logic NOW?! ;o) )
Nonsense
If a plant-based diet were best for people, Taco Bell would be considered a health food store.
mmmmmm, meat like food paste
mmmmmm, meat like food paste
Plastic
is not a plant
If god didn't want us to eat
If god didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of delicious meat! hahaha
So long as we're not citing sources...
Agriculture is second only to the use of fossil fuels as the most ecologically damaging human activity. Plant-based diets are an unnatural abomination and raising free-range grass-fed livestock would be far better for humanity and the environment than poisoning perfectly good land with chemical fertilizer for the mutant weed known as "corn" to feed to our factory-farmed livestock, or for that matter to turn into plastics (good for the environment?), fuel (good for the environment?), and more fat asses for our midwestern corn-fed fatties (our most precious natural resource).
I was a vegetarian from 1996-2000 and I respect your vegetarianism, but I'm going to have to jump in and defend protein-based diets from PETA talking points.
Human = homnivore
I was going to make a similar point, but figured she or anybody else who moralizes about vegetarianism won't acknowledge this argument. Just the same, kudos for standing up and saying it. And grass fed beef is yummy!
Grass fed beef might taste
Grass fed beef might taste yummy, but if you look further into it, grass fed beef is still raised inhumanely, killed inhumanely and unhealthy for you in large quantities. Businesses are out for the buck, not for being good people, no matter their marketing strategy.
If by suffering, you mean they are killed, well duh.
Ultimately, our diet involves the killing of animals. It is natural and proper for an omnivore to do so. We are only responsible to see that suffering is kept to a minimum. We should not feel an obligation to stop eating meat.
As for fish, I just had sushi for lunch, and it was delicious!
Whoops, correction
Just wanted to clarify that should say "I was a vegetarian from 1996-2010", not 2000. Half my life.
To eat fish is to damage the ocean
Indeed. We may all be hypocrites - calling ourselves green even though we refuse to bike to work in the winter - but the truth is eating fish hurts the oceans, and therefore our planet. We're just not far enough along in time to have really started to feel the ramifications.
Read up on fishing practices, "bycatch," and think about how much fish is served in restaurants these days and you'll start to get an idea of how, no matter how nice someone is, or how many answers they have for you (especially nice answers about the meat and fish industry), the reality of the matter is not so pretty.
I'd suggest a read of "Eating Animals" for anyone who is interested in knowing more about the practices surrounding meat and fish - good and bad.
Eyes in the front of our head
Canines for tearing meat, humans sure have the markings of a predator.
Humans are clearly not herbivores.
Ha!
This comment about our two pointy teeth always makes me laugh. When I start seeing humans kill animals with their bare hands and eat the raw carcass with those two canine teeth, I'll believe we're meant to be meat eaters.
All publicity is good publicity
This is not an original thought, but good enough to repeat.
Since his last stunt didn't really blow up in his face,
http://www.universalhub.com/node/14918
He might have decided to try again.
Big tobacco spent years producing "scientific evidence" that smoking was not harmful. While this may not be the case here, you have to see the evidence not trust a corporation.
Show us your homework, Mr. Berkowitz
I'm sure Roger Berkowitz is a delightful human being in person, but the real issue with this "blacklisted" stunt is that he has cast aspersions of the work of many worthy sustainability organizations without making his own scientific case for taking the brakes off of fishing of what we otherwise must still consider overfished species.
I'm perfectly happy to be convinced that this is so: it's good for my table and good for local fishermen. But the proper way to do it is with good science, not by questioning the methods and motives of sustainability scientists in the field. That's the tactic that makes you wonder whether Berkowitz is in earnest, just playing for publicity, or telling a whopper so his corporation can reap profits selling popular but endangered seafood.
The fact that he isn't perfectly forthright on some issues (claiming that Vietnamese farmed shrimp is sustainable when most advocates argue otherwise) lends further credence to the suspicion that greed, not altruism, is behind this particular push. Some transparency on the science behind his opinions would do a lot to clear the air here. In the meantime, all I can think of is the Tobacco Institute, Detroit resisting auto safety measures, and agribusiness saying a little cow feces in your burger is perfectly harmless. If you have the potential to profit from a controversial policy position like this, you have to take extra steps to convince people that your motives are pure.
Science
Hi MC Slim JB:
There is no question that the initial PR release and subsequent sound bites were controversial and provided little factual data. But, at the dinner, Berkowitz laid out his case, describing exactly the science issues that are involved. I go into more detail on that in my full post, and anyone can now follow up on that information to determine whether Berkowitz is telling the truth or not. I have plans myself to follow up on the OAWRS sonar system, as well as other issues. Being at the dinner made a bigger impact than simply relying on the pre-dinner sound bites.
Take care,
Richard
Exactly
He's no different than any other science denier. See also global warming deniers, people who think vaccines cause autism, and those who think the world is 6,000 years old.
I think it's reprehensible and I will be putting Legal on my "never go to" restuarant list.
False conjecture
I haven't completely researched what Berkowitz is claiming in terms of what is sustainable and what isn't. However, my concern is that people will misuse claims of sustainability given by Legal's position. Specifically, if it's sustainable to catch cod in the Gulf of Maine by long-lining, I guarantee this will simply be reduced to cod fishing is ok. There is a big difference in the volume of fish and by-catch caught between trawling and long lining. In a politically charged debate like fisheries management, any nuance will quickly be exploited to paint a fishery with a broad brush.
Complex thinking hurt brain.
Complex thinking hurt brain. You stop now!
1) Nothing is "sustainable"
1) Nothing is "sustainable" when there are way too many people in way too little space, which is the present human condition. Nor is anything "sustainable" under consumer capitalism, the main principle of which is maximum exploitation of resources.
2) If the scientific evidence were against fishing, would Roger Berkowitz shutter his business and go do something else? I think not. Science is rarely so black-and-white anyway; but money in a businessman's pocket is always black-and-white. Like nearly everyone in American society, Roger Berkowitz is offering a service of dubious need and morality out of a me-first mindset, and is desperately searching for a way to feel good about it.
3) A seafood restaurant is not a necessity of life, nor a necessity of eating fish. Put aside the question of particular species; how much of Legal Seafood fish goes straight into the garbage when people eating for reasons more social than biological choose to leave food on the plate? Fish would go a lot farther if people did not eat out and instead bought in small, useful portions from local markets. I know this point will be rejected because Americans have an irrational obsession with being wasteful and luxurious to demonstrate supposed freedom. See point 2 above.
Garbage
"Nor is anything "sustainable" under consumer capitalism, the main principle of which is maximum exploitation of resources."
Dead wrong. It pays to maintain a supply of anything that people wish to buy. No supply = no sales. It makes no sense whatsoever, in a long term financial sense, to completely deplete a valuable renewable resource. And the more demand there is for an item, the harder the folks who wish to profit from that item will work to maintain it.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I think that the recent
I think that the recent problems with the US economy have shown that today's "capitalists" are really mostly concerned with short term gain rather than long term financial sense. If they can fuck shit up in order to make five million dollars this year and be done and move on to the next thing, or be fiscally sound and make double that but with harder work and a longer time frame, they will probably choose the former.
Short term greed is the name of the game these days, it seems.
True
Many who are labeled as "capitalists" have shown an utter disregard for the economic theories that make capitalism work. For anyone to label such jerks as "capitalists" makes as little sense as labeling someone "communist" who gives public lip service to Marx and then draws double shares for himself. No economic system can long survive dishonesty.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I don't know
Consumers have gotten it into their thick skulls that "prices going up" = bad. Part of that is because their purchasing power has stagnated since the 70's (a fault of deregulation, technology outpacing education, and the death of the American Middle Class). So, if the price can't rise, then the cost can't rise because any good capitalist will tell you it's not what you're doing TODAY that derives value for your company...it's how much more or better you'll do it tomorrow.
Well, "better" for the same cost is pretty much a dead duck (literally?) when it comes to food. So, you have to do more. More means leaving sustainability in the dust because you can't increase cost to make it more sustainable because you can't increase price. So, capitalism is pretty much the antithesis of sustainability. Nobody invests in your company if it has zero growth. If you're selling the same 2000 fish a week every week but at least your supply isn't going away, nobody cares about you. You're not going to "go anywhere". Besides, all you'd have to do is drop the sustainability and suddenly next quarter's profits are higher than last because the cost goes away! You win at capitalism! Of course, next quarter you'll have to replace your workers with robots or outsource it all to SE Asia, but that's for next quarter. Buy yourself a new car today!
What? Your supply is all gone? So what. You made your millions/billions/trillions. Sell the next thing. If you were smart, you already cornered that market and its technology as a way of extending your winning streak already. That's capitalism!
Anyone see "The Freshman"?
This is remarkably similar...all you need is Roger Berkowitz serenading the crowd as they eat their decadent meal.
"There he is, your Kimodo Draaaagon!"