Like most controversial documentaries, Seaspiracy generated news and opinion pieces worldwide. With millions of views, the response essentially falls into two approaches: on one hand, those who question industry practices and argue that we should stop consuming fish, and on the other, those who warn “stop, listen, look” – the story told is incomplete and, in some cases, presents incorrect data.

While commendable for its defense of the ocean and the need to rethink various processes and strategies (on the part of the industry), stopping the consumption of fish, particularly farmed fish, has the disastrous result of exponentially increasing pressure on other forms of protein-rich food production (animal or plant-based).

We will be almost 10 billion humans by 2050, and without consuming fish or meat (hello, Cowspiracy!), can you imagine how many kilograms of plants will be needed to feed us and the volume of natural resources (land, water, agrochemicals, even in organic production some are allowed) required for this production?

So, what do we suggest after watching the documentary? (available here).

STOP – Before jumping on the bandwagon and following the idea that stopping the consumption of fish is the solution.

LISTEN – To the pros and cons, including scientific data from reliable and independent sources.

Some examples that we consider extremely relevant are available in the article by Pedro Carvalho, nutritionist, in Público, and from which we highlight:

“Aquaculture is not the solution, but an even bigger problem.”

False. Did you know that aquaculture already supplies more than half of the fish consumed worldwide? This means it is essential to reduce pressure on wild fisheries, allowing for the maintenance and/or recovery of stocks.

“The oceans will be without fish by 2048.”

False. What if we told you that thanks to the joint work of science, fisheries, and industry organizations, monitored fish stocks have been increasing?

At the same time, it is urgent that we rethink our actual needs and redirect demand, a power that we all, as consumers, possess. This can involve investing in aquaculture and fisheries products, with certification and of local or national origin.

On the other hand, for those of us (a non-profit association for the promotion of the blue bioeconomy), who work in the field and have a vision in the area of ​​Ocean Literacy, it is unanimous that an opportunity was lost to show what is already underway and what can be done. Beyond certification and product origin, legislation and regulations for animal welfare, food safety, a focus on innovation, among other aspects, make all the difference. And it is in this crucial aspect that the documentary fails.

Origin matters – the blue economy in Portugal

Like Priscila Silva, a biologist, saw in *Seaspiracy. And now?* (also in Público), within fishing, the secret is diversification: “look for species caught off our coast, by our fishermen. Explore recipes and let yourselves be amazed by the attributes of our fresh fish. After all, we don’t need (as much) salmon, cod or hake as we think.”

Despite being considered small in size and population, Portugal is a significant player in the blue bioeconomy, as we are the largest consumer of fish in Europe and the third largest in the world, with almost 60 kg per capita. Fishing is a traditional activity that “contributes directly and indirectly to the employment and income of these communities where job opportunities are more limited. There are approximately 160 fishing ports throughout the country, where catches from 3,902 vessels are landed. Of these vessels, about 90% are less than 12 meters in length, considered small-scale or artisanal fishing.”

However, we import a large part of the fish we consume. This is partly because we choose to bring to our table more traditional species such as cod, tuna, hake, among others. This, despite catching about 200 different species. “In short,” as Priscila Silva says, “we consume very little of what our sea gives us, and what we fish is not enough for us, which has environmental consequences (such as overfishing) and economic consequences (imports).”

In addition to these articles, we suggest, for example:

Without a face or voice: Seaspiracy dehumanizes the aquaculture sector

Seaspiracy. I’m not going to stop eating fish

The solutions that “Seaspiracy” missed

LOOK – Finally, analyze all the information collected, what experts in the sector defend, from scientists to official entities or independent NGOs, as well as doctors or nutritionists. You will then be ready to make your choices in an informed, thoughtful way, following the criteria that make sense to you, including the rational ones – which involve knowledge and budget, and the emotional ones – which involve values, taste and gastronomic preferences.