Carlos Duarte: "It is not said enough that pregnant women should eat fish"

Puerto de la Cruz (Tenerife)Carlos Duarte (Lisbon, 1960) is one of the most prestigious oceanographers in the world. He now resides in Mallorca, but has lived in Catalonia, Canada, Australia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia. His lectures always provide revealing, sometimes alarming, data about the sea. But he always tries to find an optimistic approach in turbulent times. Duarte is also the scientific advisor for the congress The Meeting of the Seas, held in Tenerife, where the scientific community, fishermen, and chefs gather for four days to exchange knowledge.

Fish consumption is decreasing.

— Yes, and it's an important problem. There is very important evidence of the dependence we have on seafood. And it translates into many dimensions, but I would highlight two. One is mental health, both from the perspective of early life development and mental well-being, which depends on components that come from marine food, such as omega-3, but also selenium and iodine. Problems like depression or bipolar disorder are treated with a marine-based diet. The other is reproductive health. It is not said enough that pregnant women should eat fish. The essential nutrients that will be the way by which the developing embryo will acquire them are fundamental for the quality of life of this baby to be born.

What type of fish should a pregnant woman consume?

— All food of marine origin has its benefits. But it is important that, for example, when we develop marine food through aquaculture, we do so without breaking the marine food chain. In many cases, they are feeding fish with feeds formulated with soy and other land-based foods that do not have these properties. We must maintain the custody of the marine chain throughout the entire production process, even if it is aquaculture. Currently, it is not done properly, but it is easy to solve this problem with a little research.

Some people consider eating fish to be expensive.

— These health benefits are not particularly associated with high-value seafood. Sardines and oily fish in general have high contents of omega-3 and healthy nutrients, but also other more modest marine animals, such as mussels. And algae are also important sources of omega-3 and essential nutrients. A diverse marine diet, and the diversity of seafood is much superior to the diversity of land-based foods, ensures very important human health. To the point that in the European Union it has been calculated that for every kilogram of seafood consumed, two euros are saved by the public health system.

The sector is asking for a super-reduced VAT for fish. Going from 10 to 4%.

— From an economic point of view, it makes sense to subsidize seafood, but also from an environmental point of view. It has a much lower carbon footprint than any land-based food, it doesn't consume pesticides or fungicides, it doesn't consume water. Many people who are considering having a diet that is responsible towards the planet and who opt for vegetarian or vegan diets for this reason, could perfectly incorporate seafood because it would help them, on the one hand, to further decrease their impact and ecological footprint and at the same time would make them healthier. It's not just an economic issue, it's about a healthier population, it's also a happier population and if you want, also a more productive one.

What should we do to save traditional fishermen?

— To traditional fishermen we must return what has always been theirs, which is space in the sea, which is increasingly reduced by declarations of marine protected areas or even polygons for wind energy and other appropriations of space at sea. We must also return to them their role in society, investing in them, investing in this social capital of knowledge that is artisanal fishing and then economically valuing the products they generate from the sea, which have a care and commitment to the environment very different from that of industrial fishing.

You have given a presentation trying to delimit marine capital. Whose is the sea?

— The sea is a heritage of nature and in fact shared with the beings that inhabit it, not only with people. Among humans, I believe it should at least be a heritage of humanity; the genetic resources of the ocean, which are difficult to distribute, should be a heritage of humanity because they have enormous potential to generate wealth through biotechnology applications.

The Roman Empire decreed that the sea belonged to no one.

— The Romans declared in the Justinian Code, from which all legal codes of Western countries emanate, that the sea was terra nullius, meaning no man's land. And then it stated that all organisms and marine living beings were res nullius, meaning they belonged to no one. Simply, the first one to appropriate it was the possessor, and this thought has led, contrary to the concept of private property on land, to the sea being abused beyond measure. When it stops being nobody's and rights are granted, then those who hold these rights take care of the sea.

Do you want to sell the sea?

— For example, you were asking about the future of artisanal fishing. Right now, the dominant thinking is to declare protected marine areas where these fishermen are excluded. However, the models that really work are those that grant concessions to these fishermen. These fishermen know the sea better than anyone, better than national park managers. In countries that have implemented these co-management models, the results in terms of marine conservation are superior to those of protected marine areas. So, the ownership vacuum in the ocean is what has led to its abuse.

Do you consider that we have legislated in a too strict manner without knowing the reality of these fishermen?

— Absolutely, I believe that these fishermen are not a problem for the conservation of the marine environment, but rather an opportunity due to the knowledge they have accumulated over many generations dedicated to fishing in this territory, and that this knowledge and capacity to understand the marine environment has been ignored due to a haughty behavior where science prevails. Science should be a part of the solution, but it should not impose solutions.

Many restaurants depend on what their fisherman provides them.

— There are fishermen and cooks who have been working together for decades and have developed a trust regarding the quality and traceability of products that is normally lost when we go to buy them at the supermarket. Because unfortunately, fishmongers are also disappearing. And fish is consumed in large supermarkets already packaged in the form of fillets.

A well-known supermarket has dispensed with the traditional fishmonger format to present it directly, already packaged and cut.

— This new ready-to-eat concept has the negative dimension of the waste of all the parts of the fish that are discarded. And, on the other hand, we also take away the fish wrapped in plastic. And this also has implications for consumer health because these plastics end up being part of our diet too.

In fact, there are people who are wary of eating fish because of the issue of microplastics.

— It is true that many fish have microplastics, but almost all of them are in the digestive system, not in the muscle, which is what we eat. But salt also has plastic. After a day, we can have ingested two to six microplastic particles just from salt. There are also some in the water we drink at home. But it is the air we breathe that accounts for 90% of the plastic we ingest, especially in urban areas. And these are no longer microplastics, they are nanoplastics, even smaller, which are produced by the abrasion of tires.

And what about mercury in large fish?

— The mercury load in fish such as tuna is offset by the selenium that the same fish has. Selenium has an opposite effect to mercury. And this is also not communicated to the consumer.

What amount of seafood should we consume?

— Authorities recommend consuming at least two servings per week. And they only recommend pregnant women, for example, to try to consume less tuna and large fish during this gestation period and consume more sardines, squid, and other equally healthy marine products, but which have less of a load of these metals. But only as a precautionary measure in these delicate times where it is also particularly important to consume food of marine origin. Food of marine origin should not be abandoned.

Seaweed is not part of our usual diet.

— It's one of my personal battles, as I believe that in the future, seaweed cultivation is imperative. Seaweed is a regenerative crop. Right now, there are 2,000 square kilometers of seaweed cultivation in the world. If we compare this to land-based vegetable crops, we have transformed 50 million square kilometers there. And the ocean is much larger. In the European Union, there are no more than 5 hectares. Seaweed cultivation can grow up to at least 3 million square kilometers without any negative effects, only benefits for the ocean. We must learn to use the sea intelligently. In the future, the capture of wild ocean species will be a small part, almost, if you will, a boutique part of the ocean's food supply, and most of our food will come from controlled aquaculture with a significant base of seaweed.

You explain that throughout its life, species have been reduced by 56%.

— Since I was born in 1960 until now, 50% of all greenhouse gases accumulated in the atmosphere have been emitted, more or less half of all documented species extinctions during my lifetime have occurred, and we have also lost 50% of the abundance of populations of animals and plants on land and in the ocean. For me, it is impossible to look you in the eye and tell you that we have been sustainable. The commitment cannot be sustainability, it must be regeneration. Last year I was in Canada, where I did my thesis in the 80s. Back then, if I drove for two hours, I had to stop to clean the windshield because it was full of insects and I couldn't see anything. Now I drove for 12 days and I didn't have to clean the windshield once, and this is dramatic, you realize the enormous loss of biomass.

You defend the role of private companies in this fight.

— We cannot think that private companies exist and us, but we are part of this ecosystem as consumers. Not only for an ethical reason, but also because it is very well documented that companies with solid commitments to the environment have better long-term results. And there is a concept that I consider very negative and paralyzing, which is greenwashing. Because many companies hesitate to implement positive policies or investments because they fear they will be seen as mere appearances. There is an expression in English that says that when you go towards a rainbow, you never reach the end. The path towards a responsible attitude towards the environment and our planet is a path towards the end of the rainbow. You will never be perfect, you can always do better, but you have to take steps and we must always encourage those who take steps and decide to embark on this path.