The Arguments made Against Seaspiracy and Why they are Fishy

Seaspiracy, a recently released documentary on Netflix, is an exposé on commercial fishing around the world. It reveals fishing’s deceitful companies, the humanitarian issues caught up in the industry, and the detrimental impact on the environment and sealife as a result of commercial fishing. It is a shocking and eye-opening documentary that has additionally caused outrage among companies exposed in the film and viewers who suggest that the information portrayed is false and misleading. 

1. “What about subsistence fishing? You can’t be so ignorant.”

One of the main arguments leveled against this film is that it is not right for the filmmakers to tell people to not eat fish because lots of people rely on fish for survival, or substances fishers - fishers who fish because they need to in order to survive.

However, this documentary is clearly not aimed at these people because the documentary criticizes the commercial fishing industry and people in western nations who are unnecessarily consuming their seafood. The documentary strongly makes the point that commercial fishing industries are negatively affecting people who are living in coastal regions in low-income nations and are thus even further not able to feed themselves adequately. This is a weak argument because if we actually do care about subsistence fishers living in low-income areas, the best thing to do is to stop eating fish because by doing so, it is having a negative impact on their ability to survive.

2. “Fishing gear as a form of pollution in the ocean is insignificant.”

The next argument is made by the Plastic Pollution Coalition, who were interviewed in the documentary and were unable to clearly make any statements about their own company and what they do when asked about the impact of plastic pollution in reference to the fishing industry. After the documentary’s release, they have stated that while 46% of fishing nets make up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP), it isn’t fair to pinpoint that being a particular problem because the GPGP is just one area of the ocean. To clarify, the GPGP is about 1.6 million square kilometers or about ⅙ the size of the US; this build of pollution is not an inconsequential area of the ocean. It is rather concerning that the Plastic Pollution Coalition would try to undermine the significance of the GPGP (because let’s be honest, if 46% of the pollution was plastic straws, it would be a different story.) Additionally, the Coalition tries to also undermine the role of fishing gear even more by citing a study that says that fishing gear makes up to 10% of total plastic pollution of the ocean. To understand the absurdity of this claim as an actual legitimate rebuttal against the film, let’s put it into perspective. If we were to take this study into consideration, the amount of fishing gear that makes up oceanic plastic is 333 times worse than plastic straws. (They also fail to mention that fishing gear pollution is the most destructive and damaging form of pollution to marine life.)

3. “Sustainability in regards to commercial fishing IS possible.”

Another argument about this film is that it is wrong for the filmmakers to suggest that commercial sustainable fishing doesn’t exist. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 87% of the world’s fisheries are overexploited or fully exploited. As an example to further help exemplify the significance of this number, imagine if we were to say that 87% of the Amazon Rainforest was deforested. Would we say that sustainable Amazonian deforestation is possible? The point the documentary is trying to make is that we have been killing and decimating our oceans and sustainable fishing doesn’t exist in decimated oceans.

And what does sustainability mean? Who says what is sustainable? The government - who own and license off areas of the ocean? Who can be lobbied off by special interest groups? Or is it the fisherman or supermarkets and retailers? 

With this, the argument about sustainability certifications arises. Most people would hope that these would help maintain and limit the amount of destruction that commercial fishing can do.

4. “Sustainability certifications are important and make a difference.” 

The Sustainable Seafood Coalition (SSC) was co-founded by Youngs, who were one of the biggest seafood companies in the world and the coalition is filled with businesses and brands that sell seafood. So by being a part of this coalition just means that the brands and supermarkets can say that they are a part of the SSC. However, is what the SSC says about their guidelines and codes that are supposed to promise humane and “sustainable” sourcing of seafood:

“This guidance is intended to help SSC members in the interpretation and implementation of the codes and includes best practice advice. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of individual businesses to ensure alignment with the Codes.”

These companies have created the codes of conduct for that certification and they have given themselves that certification so they can now tell people that they are a part of this sustainable coalition. Now, one would hope that there is some form of accountability to ensure that they are in alignment with their set codes of conduct. Again, from the SSC: “Auditws to a member’s own standard can be completed by first, second, or third party auditors.” Essentially, a company can set their own standard and then do the first-party audit and can pass their own standards; they can just call themselves “sustainable” because they said so.

Now, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is the biggest suitability certification when it comes to wild-caught fish. It was created in 1997 and not it generates its funds through the licensing of its logo who sells MSC-certified seafood. However, in its first year, it struggled to generate money and by 2006 they were almost bankrupt. At the same time, they created a deal with Walmart where Walmart declared that by 2012 they would only sell MSC-certified seafood.

After the release of Seaspiracy, the MSC released a statement about their use of licensing fees. They said that the fees are put back into programs such as the Ocean Stewardship Fund. However, on their own website, they say “we have committed 5% of all royalties from MSC certified product sales to the Ocean Stewardship fund.” They also claim that all the audits carried out on fisheries are done independently by third-party auditors, which therefore makes the whole process completely independent and impartial. Yet the problem is that the fisheries and companies pay the auditors themselves which creates a conflict of interest, especially when there are multiple auditing companies who are all vying for the same business; they are in competition with each other. All parties involved benefit from the MSC certification being passed; the MSC, the fishermen, markets and brands, and auditing companies; everyone wins when the certification is passed. It is painfully obvious that what is being told is not actually the truth of what is happening.

5. “The film is racist as it attacks Asian tradition and culture.”

An interesting argument targeted at the film is that it is strictly racists as it only focuses on Asian fishing methods and villainizes Asian culture and tradition. The documentary starts and primarily focuses on eastern cities, exemplifying horrific fishing practices and environmental detriments and people have taken this as an offense to as an attack on Asian culture. Yet it should be understood that these images portrayed in the documentary are supposed to be a representation of commercial fishing worldwide. The practices shown and filmed in the eastern countries are practices that are also done elsewhere and affect and are a byproduct of western countries buying and selling these seafood products. The documentary makes it clear that it is European and American companies that are supposedly maintaining ethical practices are falling short. The filmmakers went to Faroe Island and filmed the whale hunt that is, too, a tradition among the inhabitants. The film is not an attack on Asian people; it is criticizing those, all around the world, who are supporting and continue the awful and inhumane practices that are common across the board in international commercial fishing. Calling the film “racists” is a weak and disingenuous argument to something that something not strictly applicable to eastern countries.

6. “The film is just vegan propaganda.”

Ultimately, the film concludes that veganism, or at least stopping the consumption of fish, would alieve many of the problems that commercial fishing creates. However, critics use the former arguments against the film as a reason as to why this conclusion made by the documentary is pure vegan propaganda. Arguments like going vegan doesn’t stop pollution in the ocean, or slavery (as brought up in the film that fishing industries employ), or ending climate change. That wasn’t the point. One lifestyle change cannot solve all of the world’s problems, but going vegan can greatly reduce the impact an individual has on the problems. So to claim that by going vegan you can’t solve anything is cowardly. Of course an individual can’t, but that’s why the film was made; to reach the greater audience and that audience is made up of individuals. And so to say that you can’t go vegan won’t solve everything is so detrimental. You don’t have to do everything to do something to solve problems and issues you care about. 

Additionally, it is absolutely unacceptable to deem something as merely propaganda just because the truth is being exposed. It implies that vegans have an “agenda” by calling the film propaganda because it exposes the inhumane and unethical treatment of the earth, people, and animals; that’s not propaganda, it’s standing up for the vulnerable. It is incredibly telling of those who suggest that this film is therefore a means to seek some immoral and corrupt end. 

And so as this is a relatively new documentary, and with the outrage that has gone along with it, assumingly, more developments will be made in the Seaspiracy legacy. However, the bottom line is that commercial fishing is detrimental to all who inhabit the earth and the earth itself. The question of sustainable commercial fishing is irrelevant as the point is that an animal will die no matter, whether that be a shark or dolphin, or the actual seafood itself and that is something that can not be ethically justified.

Anderson, Kip. Seaspiracy. Netflix, 24 Mar. 2021, www.netflix.com/watch/81014008?trackId=13752289&tctx=0%2C0%2C767dd454a4bcf23b99989aaf6a91669cf6a7f607%3A466c47e8cf065f598f40160ca2480e3ed33bfbd4%2C767dd454a4bcf23b99989aaf6a91669cf6a7f607%3A466c47e8cf065f598f40160ca2480e3ed33bfbd4%2Cunknown%2C.

“Seaspiracy: Netflix Documentary Accused of Misrepresentation by Participants.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 31 Mar. 2021, www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/31/seaspiracy-netflix-documentary-accused-of-misrepresentation-by-participants.

Winters, Ed, director. Seaspiracy Debunked: A Vegan Indoctrination Movie? YouTube, YouTube, 10 Apr. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXhtI5MlXqc. 

images credited @selenemagnolia.photon and @weanimals