On World Tuna Day, 2 May, we recognize the food security and economic benefits of these species. But we also must recognize the importance of keeping thriving tuna populations in the ocean, where they perform vital services.
In the dark days of 2020, as masked shoppers loaded up on staples to weather pandemic lockdowns, two items flew off the shelves: tuna and toilet paper. All of a sudden, the humble can of tuna was a buffer against uncertainty.
While we haven’t seen the last of COVID-19, most shoppers have stopped panic buying. Across much of the world, people feel free to take or leave that can of tuna. But in many other places — particularly coastal communities and islands — tuna is a staple every day. It is an essential component of food security and nutrition, a driver of employment and economic development, a source of recreation and cultural identity. It is therefore unacceptable that the tuna industry — worth tens of billions of dollars — is driven by incomplete data that could result in stocks collapsing.
How much of the tuna we consume is from healthy stocks? Quite simply, we don’t know. Most data used to understand the health of tuna stocks comes from what individual countries provide to regional management organizations (RFMOs). The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation provides guidance based on three categories: overexploited, fully exploited and non-fully exploited. These categories do not explicitly affirm that a stock is healthy; rather they assess whether fishing impacts are causing the stock to be overexploited, which would be “unhealthy.” What comes out is a fairly positive picture: 87.6% of the catch comes from stocks at healthy levels. So a stock could be called “healthy” right up until it crosses the threshold of overfished. It’s like thinking your petrol tank is full, when really you’re running on fumes.
The World Needs a New Approach to Tuna
In the dark days of 2020, as masked shoppers loaded up on staples to weather pandemic lockdowns, two items flew off the shelves: tuna and toilet paper. All of a sudden, the humble can of tuna was a buffer against uncertainty.
While we haven’t seen the last of COVID-19, most shoppers have stopped panic buying. Across much of the world, people feel free to take or leave that can of tuna. But in many other places — particularly coastal communities and islands — tuna is a staple every day. It is an essential component of food security and nutrition, a driver of employment and economic development, a source of recreation and cultural identity. It is therefore unacceptable that the tuna industry — worth tens of billions of dollars — is driven by incomplete data that could result in stocks collapsing.
How much of the tuna we consume is from healthy stocks? Quite simply, we don’t know. Most data used to understand the health of tuna stocks comes from what individual countries provide to regional management organizations (RFMOs). The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation provides guidance based on three categories: overexploited, fully exploited and non-fully exploited. These categories do not explicitly affirm that a stock is healthy; rather they assess whether fishing impacts are causing the stock to be overexploited, which would be “unhealthy.” What comes out is a fairly positive picture: 87.6% of the catch comes from stocks at healthy levels. So a stock could be called “healthy” right up until it crosses the threshold of overfished. It’s like thinking your petrol tank is full, when really you’re running on fumes.
The World Needs a New Approach to Tuna