Once mercury gets into the marine food chain, mostly from human industrial sources such as coal-fired electricity generation, smelting and the incineration of waste, it “bioaccumulates” in the larger ocean predators. That’s why larger fish -- like the bluefin tuna pictured here -- are generally riskier to eat than smaller ones. (Thinkstock)

Mercury in the fish we like to eat is a big problem in the United States and increasingly around the world. Mercury itself is a naturally occurring element that is present throughout the environment and in plants and animals. But human industrial activity (such as coal-fired electricity generation, smelting and the incineration of waste) ratchets up the amount of airborne mercury which eventually finds its way into lakes, rivers and the ocean, where it is gobbled up by unsuspecting fish and other marine life.

Once this mercury gets into the marine food chain, it “bioaccumulates” in the larger predators. That’s why larger fish are generally riskier to eat than smaller ones. Those of us who eat too much mercury-laden fish can suffer from a range of health maladies including reproductive troubles and nervous system disorders. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that human fetuses exposed to mercury before birth “may be at an increased risk of poor performance on neurobehavioral tasks, such as those measuring attention, fine motor function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities and verbal memory.” Up to 10 percent of American women of childbearing age carry enough mercury in their bloodstreams to put their developing children at increased risk for developmental problems.

In partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the EPA issues determinations periodically in regard to how much mercury is safe for consumers to ingest from eating fish. State and tribal environmental authorities and/or health departments issue fish consumption advisories for water bodies in their respective jurisdictions based on federal guidelines. The EPA consolidates these local and regional advisories on its website, where concerned consumers and fisher folk can click on a map of the states to find out which advisories may be in effect in their area.

As for which fish to avoid, the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which runs the handy Seafood Selector website, reports that people with mercury concerns should steer clear of bluefin tuna, walleye, king mackerel and marlin. Bluefish, shark, swordfish, wild sturgeon, opah and bigeye tuna carry a proportionately large mercury burden as well. Also of concern, but to a slightly lesser extent, are orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, blue crab, lingcod, Spanish mackerel, spotted seatrout, wahoo, grouper, snapper, halibut, tile fish, rock fish and sable fish, as well as blackfin, albacore and yellowfin tuna.

Beyond what individuals can do to avoid mercury, the U.S. government and states have begun working together to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. Earlier this year the EPA proposed new “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” regulating mercury emissions from utilities across the country, with the goal of reducing the amount of mercury emitted by coal burning by 91 percent by 2016. Elsewhere, representatives from 140 countries signed on to reduce global mercury pollution at a 2009 United Nations Environment Program’s Governing Council meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. The agreement commits signatory countries—including the U.S.—to cutting back on the use and emission of mercury. A legally binding treaty mandating just how much each country will have to cut back mercury emissions takes hold in 2013.

CONTACTS: EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/; EDF Seafood Selector, apps.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1521.

The practice of shark finning to make shark fin soup, a delicacy mostly in Asian cultures, has taken a serious toll on shark populations worldwide. Besides being inhumane to sharks, consumption of shark fin poses a serious threat to human health since they contain an extremely high concentration of mercury and other toxins now omnipresent in our oceans. (Media credit/Nicholas Wang via Flickr)

Shark finning is the practice of catching sharks, hacking off their fins, and returning them to the ocean (maimed and unable to swim or circulate oxygen through their systems) where they starve to death, suffocate or get eaten by other predators. Fishermen sell the fins, typically on the black market, for use in shark fin soup, a delicacy throughout Asia and increasingly in other areas of the world with large Asian populations. Analysts value the worldwide market for shark fins at upwards of $1.2 billion annually.

“As a result of China’s expanding economy and rising affluence, an increasing number of people can now afford the soup, priced at up to $100 per bowl, and demand has risen dramatically,” reports the non-profit WildAid. “Though shark fin soup represents status in Asian culture, the fin itself adds no flavor, nutritional or medicinal value.” The group adds that the consumption of shark fin poses a serious threat to human health since they contain an extremely high concentration of mercury and other toxins now omnipresent in our oceans.

Besides being inhumane, shark finning is taking a heavy toll on shark populations. According to the non-profit Animal Welfare Institute, upwards of 73 million sharks are killed each year for their fins alone. Another 50 million die annually as “bycatch” when they become entwined in fishing nets targeting other seafood (some fishermen do make use of this bycatch by selling off what fins, cartilage, liver oil and meat they can). As a result of these multiple threats, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that a third of all shark species are nearing extinction, with some species declining by more than 80 percent in recent decades.

In October 2011, California became the fourth U.S. state (after Hawaii, Oregon and Washington) to ban shark finning and the importation of shark fins. Also in October, Toronto, Ontario, Canada’s largest shark fin market, became the fourth Canadian city to ban shark fins, joining Brantford, Oakville and Mississauga, all also in Ontario, that had bans in place already. Campaigns are underway in both the U.S. and Canada to ban shark fins and shark finning outright coast-to-coast. Mexico has had such a nationwide ban in place since 2007, although enforcement there has been weak. The European Union banned shark finning in 2003 and recently beefed up significantly its own enforcement.

Concerned consumers can be part of the solution by not eating shark fin soup, and by encouraging restaurants not to offer it. The Animal Welfare Institute regularly updates a list of restaurants in major metropolitan areas of the U.S. that still serve shark fin soup, and encourages consumers to contact them if they encounter a restaurant serving shark fin soup that is not yet on their list—and to stop dining there. Whether or not such personal actions, added to the various bans in place, will make a dent in the international shark fin trade remains to be seen, especially given the delicacy’s increasing popularity and affordability.

CONTACTS: Animal Welfare Institute, www.awionline.org; WildAid, www.wildaid.org; IUCN, www.iucn.org.

Cyanide fishing began in the 1960s in the Philippines as a way to capture live reef fish for sale primarily to aquarium owners, but is today also done to supply specialty restaurants in Hong Kong and other large Asian cities. Pictured: The ocellaris clownfish, a popular aquarium fish often captured after first being stunned by bursts of cyanide-laced seawater squirted from a plastic bottle. (Metatron)

Cyanide fishing, whereby divers crush cyanide tablets into plastic squirt bottles of sea water and puff the solution to stun and capture live coral reef fish, is widely practiced throughout Southeast Asia despite being illegal in most countries of the region. The practice began in the 1960s in the Philippines as a way to capture live reef fish for sale primarily to European and North American aquarium owners—a market now worth some $200 million a year.

But today the technique is also used to supply specialty restaurants in Hong Kong and other large Asian cities. There high roller customers can choose which live fish they want prepared on the spot for their dinner at a cost of up to $300 per plate in what the non-profit World Resources Institute (WRI) calls “an essential status symbol for major celebrations and business occasions.” WRI adds that as the East Asian economy has boomed in recent decades, live reef food fish has become a trade worth $1 billion annually.

Of course, the cyanide itself is no good for the fish that ingest it. Internet chat boards are rife with comments about cyanide-caught aquarium fish developing cancer within a year of being purchased. And many aquarium owners are willing to pay a premium for “net-caught” ornamental fish as they have a longer life expectancy.

But perhaps the greater damage inflicted by cyanide fishing is to the coral reefs where it is employed, as cyanide kills the reefs and also many of the life forms that rely on them. Researchers estimate that more than a million kilograms of cyanide have been squirted onto Philippine reefs alone over the last half century. These days the practice is much more widespread, with some of the world’s most productive reefs being decimated.

“Despite the fact that cyanide fishing is nominally illegal in virtually all Indo-Pacific countries, the high premium paid for live reef fish, weak enforcement capacities, and frequent corruption have spread the use of the poison across the entire region—home o the vast majority of the planet’s coral reefs,” reports WRI. “As stocks in one country are depleted, the trade moves on to new frontiers, and cyanide fishing is now confirmed or suspected in countries stretching from the central Pacific to the shores of East Africa. Sadly, the most pristine reefs, far from the usual threats of sedimentation, coral mining and coastal development, are the primary target for cyanide fishing operations.”

While there is not much evidence of cyanide-caught fish poisoning the people who eat it—the dose retained by a fish after being puffed is relatively small—the risk nevertheless remains, especially for those who ingest a lot of it. Nausea and gastritis are the typical symptoms of cyanide poisoning, and of course larger doses can cause death. WRI estimates that some 20 percent of the live fish for sale at markets across Southeast Asia are caught using cyanide. Children, the elderly and pregnant women should be especially careful to avoid cyanide-caught fish.

CONTACT: World Resources Institute, www.wri.org.

Farm-raised fish can still absorb mercury, since most fish farms are located in the ocean, close to or abutting the shoreline. They can also absorb PCBs and dioxins, as the near-shore waters they occupy are the first stop for run-off from land-based sources of pollution. Pictured: A fish farm in Shanghai. (Media credit/Ivan Walsh)

Mercury is a neurotoxin that settles into the ocean in large concentrations after we spew it out of industrial smokestacks when burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. It is then taken up by smaller sea life such as plankton and then spread up through the food chain as larger fish eat smaller ones. We humans then eat the mercury-laced seafood—wild salmon, tuna, swordfish and other fish—and breathe it in our air. Repeated exposure to mercury pollution can cause brain, kidney and developmental problems for people.

Farm-raised fish may have somewhat less exposure to mercury than their wild free-foraging cousins because they are usually fed a controlled diet, often consisting of more grains and soy, a cheaper and more abundant source of calories, than fishmeal. But they can still absorb mercury, since most fish farms are themselves located in the ocean, just close to or abutting the shoreline.

Farmed fish can also absorb PCBs and dioxins, as the near-shore waters they occupy are the first stop for run-off from land-based sources of pollution. And the fact that their primary feed source comes from conventionally grown terrestrial crops means that their diets can include trace amounts of pesticides and herbicides as well. Also, most farmed fish are exposed to dose after dose of antibiotics to keep diseases and pests at bay in their crowded underwater pens, much in the way “factory farmed” land animals are drugged to help them cope with cramped, unsanitary conditions. In fact, studies have shown that farm-raised fish have more toxins overall than their wild-caught cousins, though exceptions of course do exist.

The best way to know which fish are safe and which are not is to download a region-specific seafood buying guide from the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program. These guides aid the decision-making process when shopping for seafood in a store or ordering it at a restaurant by dividing the fish available in that part of the country into three categories: Best Choices, Good Alternatives and Avoid.

And bring your Seafood Watch guide to Trader Joe’s as well—at least for now. In 2010, after months of lobbying by Greenpeace and a growing number of concerned shoppers, Trader Joe’s agreed to offer only “sustainable” seafood in its stores by the end of 2012. To its credit, they already removed endangered Chilean Sea Bass from shelves in 2005, followed by Orange Roughy in 2009 and Red Snapper in 2010.

In the spirit of its recent pledge, however, Trader Joe’s is now working with third-party, science-based organizations to establish definitions and parameters for addressing customer concerns about overfishing, destructive catch or production methods, and the importance of marine reserves. Until 2013 at Trader Joe’s—and indefinitely at other stores that haven’t made specific commitments regarding the sustainability of their seafood—make sure to check that labels disclose the type of fish for sale and its source in regard to wild or farm-raised, and then check that info against the Seafood Watch list.

CONTACTS: Seafood Watch, www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx; Trader Joe’s “Note to Our Customers about Trader Joe’s Seafood,” www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates.asp.

Scientists speculate that some 10 million different species may inhabit the deep sea. Pictured: a ghostly grenadier on the Davidson Seamount, an undersea mountain 75 miles off the coast of Central California. The seamount is 7,480 feet tall, yet its summit is still 4,101 feet below the sea surface. (NOAA)

It may already be too late for some of the deep sea’s undiscovered life forms.

Advances in so-called “bottom trawling” technology in recent years has meant that fishing boats now have unprecedented access to deep ocean habitats and the sea floor itself where untold numbers of unknown species have been making a living for eons. Scientists speculate that upwards of 10 million different species may inhabit the deep sea. This is biodiversity comparable to the world’s richest tropical rainforests.

The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC), a group of more than 50 environmental and other groups dedicated to protecting cold-water corals and vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems, reports that trawlers today are capable of fishing deep sea canyons and rough seafloors that were once avoided for fear of damaging nets. “To capture one or two target commercial species, deep-sea bottom trawl fishing vessels drag huge nets armed with steel plates and heavy rollers across the seabed, plowing up and pulverizing everything in their path,” the coalition reports. In addition, adds DSCC, large quantities of coral and unwanted fish species are hauled up only to be thrown back dead or dying. Indeed, the result of a few hours of trawling can be the destruction of fragile deep-sea habitats, such as delicate coral and sponge communities, that may have taken centuries to grow and thrive.

Bottom trawling also stirs up the sediment at the bottom of the sea. The resulting undersea plumes of “suspended solids” can drift with the current for tens of miles from the source of the trawling, introducing turbidity throughout the water that inhibits the transfer of light down to the depths where it is needed for photosynthesis in plankton, sea kelp and other undersea plants that serve as the basis for the marine food chain. Also, ocean sediments serve as natural safe resting places for many persistent organic pollutants (such as DDT and PCBs). Dredging these sediments up effectively reintroduces such toxins into the water where they are unwittingly absorbed and consumed by the fish we eat and other marine life already trying to cope with otherwise compromised undersea habitats. The sediment plumes also reintroduce nutrient solids from agricultural and other practices, increasing demand for oxygen in the water (causing algae blooms) and contributing to the outbreak of ocean “dead zones” devoid of marine life.

What can be done? For its part, the United States has banned bottom trawling in its offshore jurisdictions, but the practice continues mostly unabated throughout Europe and out on the world’s high seas. DSCC has gotten upwards of 1,400 marine scientists from 69 different countries to sign onto a statement expressing profound concern “that human activities, particularly bottom trawling, are causing unprecedented damage to the deep-sea coral and sponge communities on continental plateaus and slopes, and on seamounts and mid-ocean ridges.” The statement calls on governments and the United Nations to adopt a short-term global moratorium on deep sea bottom trawling to try to provide immediate protection to the mostly undiscovered biodiversity of deep sea ecosystems while governments hash out longer term conservation and management regimes. In the meantime, bottom trawling continues unabated in sensitive areas of the North Atlantic and elsewhere, harvesting now for us what our grandchildren may never know.

Dear EarthTalk: What is being done to enable ocean fish populations to rebound after being so over-fished? Are nations coming together on this in any way? – Deborah Kay, Milford, CT

Although 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are now either overexploited, fully exploited, significantly depleted or recovering from overexploitation, many governments continue to provide huge subsidies -- about $20 billion annually --­ to their fishing sectors. Pictured: A fisherman hauls in a catch in the North Sea. (Thinkstock)

There is no overarching international agreement to limit overfishing globally, but a few governments have been able to implement and enforce restrictions at regional levels that have resulted in rebounding fish stocks. The success of these isolated examples gives environmentalists and marine biologists hope that protecting marine hotspots from overfishing can save the biodiversity of the world’s oceans.

The results of an extensive four-year study released in 2006 by leading fisheries expert Boris Worm of Canada’s Dalhousie University and colleagues showed that overfishing would put every single commercial fishery in the world out of business by 2048, with the oceans potentially never recovering. But University of Washington fisheries scientist Ray Hilborn challenged Worm’s frightening conclusion, offering evidence that several fisheries in parts of the U.S., Iceland and New Zealand were recovering. So the two men decided to team up on a new, even more comprehensive survey of fisheries around the world.

The results the second time around, published in 2010 in the peer-reviewed journal, Science, provided ocean advocates with somewhat more encouraging results. In half of the 10 fisheries studied by Worm, Hilborn and their researchers, closing some fisheries, creating protected areas, setting catch limits and modernizing equipment did result in lower exploitation rates and some fish are indeed on the rebound.

“This is a watershed,” Worm told reporters. The new study “shows clearly what can be done not only to avoid further fisheries collapse but to actually rebuild fish stocks” and provides a baseline which scientists and managers can use to gauge progress. “It’s only a start, but it gives me hope that we have the ability to bring overfishing under control,” he added.

Of course, a little bit of good news hardly means we’ve solved the overfishing problem. Environmentalists were particularly disappointed last year when the European Union (EU) announced it would set quotas for deep-sea fisheries even higher than expected. According to Uta Bellion, director of the European Marine Programme for the non-profit Pew Environment Group, the EU’s decision “will give fleets from France, Spain and Portugal the opportunity to continue plundering these stocks.” She adds that the new quotas go against a 2009 United Nations General Assembly resolution that commits the EU to implement a set of measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish and the rebuilding of depleted stocks.

Meanwhile, some groups are trying to end the government subsidies that effectively bankroll overfishing, legal or otherwise. The nonprofit Oceana, for instance, led an ill-fated 2010 effort to persuade the World Trade Organization to ban subsidies that encourage the depletion of fish and other marine resources. “Although 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are now either overexploited, fully exploited, significantly depleted or recovering from overexploitation, many governments continue to provide huge subsidies—about $20 billion annually—to their fishing sectors,” says Andy Sharpless, Oceana’s CEO. “The fleets are fishing at a level that’s as much as 2.5 times more than what’s required for sustainable catch levels.”

CONTACTS: Pew Environment Group, www.pewtrusts.org; Oceana, www.oceana.org; Boris Worm’s Lab, wormlab.biology.dal.ca; Ray Hilborn, www.fish.washington.edu/people/rayh.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s being done to “green up” professional sports? I know that the last two Olympic Games both made some effort, but are there others? — Rob Avandic, Chicago, IL

The last two Olympics were indeed greener than any before, but environmental awareness isn’t limited to the realm of international amateur competition. In fact, in just the last few years all of the major professional North American sports leagues have made strides in greening their operations.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has helped blaze the trail through its “Greening the Games” initiative. Since 2003, when the National Football League’s (NFL) Philadelphia Eagles turned to NRDC for help saving energy and reducing waste, NRDC has helped dozens of pro teams evaluate their environmental impacts and make changes. Today the Eagles obtain all of their energy at Lincoln Field from wind power, pour fans’ beverages in biodegradable corn-based plastic cups, power their scoreboard with solar panels and have reduced electricity use overall by a third. The NFL itself has also jumped on the bandwagon, implementing various green initiatives at the Super Bowl, the Pro Bowl and other big events.
In 2008, NRDC teamed up with Major League Baseball (MLB) to first green the All Star Game and, the following year, the World Series. Subsequently, NRDC assessed each team’s environmental footprint and made recommendations for improving it. Several teams have gone on to build or refurbish their stadiums with sustainability in mind. Boston’s Fenway Park, Atlanta’s Turner Field, Washington, DC’s Nationals Park, and San Francisco’s AT&T Park all get high marks for pro-environment features and operations.

In 2008, NRDC began working with the U.S. Tennis Association (USTA) to green its signature event, the U.S. Open. For one, this led to a move to 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper for tournament programs. And an environmental review of all operations at the National Tennis Center in Queens, New York led to a number of green improvements, including the switch to 90 percent post-consumer recycled paper for some 2.4 million napkins and a move to wind turbines for the tournament’s electricity.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) jumped on the NRDC sports bandwagon in 2009, working with the group to organize its first annual Green Week in early April whereby the entire league works in concert to generate environmental awareness and funding for related causes. As part of the festivities, which took place in 2010 as well and will happen again in April 2011, each NBA team hosted community service events including tree plantings, recycling drives and park clean-up days.

NRDC got the National Hockey League (NHL) in on the act as well, helping to green the Stanley Cup Finals and working with individual teams as it did with baseball and football. In announcing the launch of the NHL Green program, league commissioner Gary Bettman commented that it’s only fitting for professional ice hockey to care about staving off global warming: “Most of our players learned to skate on outdoor rinks. For that magnificent tradition to continue through future generations we need winter weather—and as a league we are uniquely positioned to promote that message.”

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org/greenbusiness/guides/sports/; MLB Team Greening Program, mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/community/team_greening.jsp; NBA Green, www.nba.com/green; NHL Green, www.nhl.com/ice/eventhome.htm?location=/nhlgreen; USTA, www.usta.com.

On Monday, Jan. 24, Legal Sea Foods, partnered with the Culinary Guild of New England, will host an informational four-course dinner focused on dispelling rumors about sustainable fishing. President and CEO of Legal Sea Foods Roger Berkowitz will be on hand to educate the audience about fish commonly believed to be outlawed or “blacklisted.”

Guests will be served dishes made with “forbidden” fish. The mouth-watering menu will include black tiger shrimp fritters with duck cracklings, cod cheeks with toasted pecans, prosciutto-wrapped hake and citrus almond cake with a yuzu semi freddo and candied kumquats. After the meal, Berkowitz will be speaking about the influence of the outdated scientific data that pervade the media, offering his own perspective on sustainable fishing practices and advice on how to order fish in restaurants or from your local fishmonger.

Details

When: Monday, Jan. 24 from 7 to 10 p.m.

Where: Legal Sea Foods Restaurant at Park Square, 26 Park Plaza, Boston

Tickets: $90 for Culinary Guild of New England members; $110 for non-members. Tickets are available for purchase here.

Ocean advocates would like to end fish farming and instead put resources into reviving wild fish populations. Pictured: a salmon farming operation in Chile (Media credit/Sam Beebe, EcoTrust)

Dear EarthTalk: What are the differences between farmed versus wild salmon when it comes to human and environmental health? – Greg Diamond, Nashville, TN

Salmon farming, which involves raising salmon in containers placed under water near shore, began in Norway about 50 years ago and has since caught on in the U.S., Ireland, Canada, Chile and the United Kingdom. Due to the large decline in wild fish from overfishing, many experts see the farming of salmon and other fish as the future of the industry. On the flip side, many marine biologists and ocean advocates fear such a future, citing serious health and ecological implications with so-called "aquaculture."

George Mateljan, founder of Health Valley Foods, says that farmed fish are "far inferior" to their wild counterparts. "Despite being much fattier, farmed fish provide less usable beneficial omega 3 fats than wild fish," he says. Indeed, U.S. Department of Agriculture research bears out that the fat content of farmed salmon is 30-35 percent by weight while wild salmons’ fat content is some 20 percent lower, though with a protein content about 20 percent higher. And farm-raised fish contain higher amounts of pro-inflammatory omega 6 fats instead of the preponderance of healthier omega 3s found in wild fish.

"Due to the feedlot conditions of aquafarming, farm-raised fish are doused with antibiotics and exposed to more concentrated pesticides than their wild kin," reports Mateljan. He adds that farmed salmon are given a salmon-colored dye in their feed "without which their flesh would be an unappetizing grey color."

Some aquaculture proponents claim that fish farming eases pressure on wild fish populations, but most ocean advocates disagree. To wit, one National Academy of Sciences study found that sea lice from fish farming operations killed up to 95 percent of juvenile wild salmon migrating past them. And two other studies—one in western Canada and the other in England—found that farmed salmon accumulate more cancer-causing PCBs and dioxins than wild salmon due to pesticides circulating in the ocean that get absorbed by the sardines, anchovies and other fish that are ground up as feed for the fish farms. A recent survey of U.S. grocery stores found that farmed salmon typically contains 16 times the PCBs found in wild salmon; other studies in Canada, Ireland and Great Britain reached similar conclusions.

Another problem with fish farms is the liberal use of drugs and antibiotics to control bacterial outbreaks and parasites. These primarily synthetic chemicals spread out into marine ecosystems just from drifting in the water column as well as from fish feces. In addition, millions of farmed fish escape fish farms every year around the world and mix into wild populations, spreading contaminants and disease accordingly.

Ocean advocates would like to end fish farming and instead put resources into reviving wild fish populations. But given the size of the industry, improving conditions would be a start. Noted Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki says that aquaculture operations could use fully enclosed systems that trap waste and do not allow farmed fish to escape into the wild ocean. As for what consumers can do, Suzuki recommends buying only wild-caught salmon and other fish. Whole Foods and other natural foods and high end grocers, as well as concerned restaurants, will stock wild salmon from Alaska and elsewhere.

CONTACTS: Health Valley Foods, www.healthvalley.com; USDA, www.usda.gov; David Suzuki Foundation, www.davidsuzuki.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve been hearing about the great gas mileage for Volkswagens that use diesel fuel. But is it better for the environment to use diesel or unleaded gasoline? – K. Cronk, Bay City, MI

In the past, diesel fuel was always considered dirtier than gasoline. But newer standards regulating sulfur content and improved technology in diesel engines have made diesel somewhat kinder to the environment. Many eco-advocates now tout diesel as a viable and preferable alternative to regular unleaded gasoline.

Where diesel fuel really shines over gasoline is improved fuel economy thanks to its higher "energy density": Diesel contains more power per liter than gasoline. Today’s diesel engines have 20-40 percent better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts, which some say more than makes up for the fact that they also produce about 15 percent more greenhouse gases. This greater efficiency means that diesel engines emit less carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and fewer hydrocarbons than gasoline engines.

Diesel’s downside is that it emits larger amounts of nitrogen compounds and particulate matter (soot) that can cause respiratory problems and even cancer. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) attributes 70 percent of that state’s cancer risk from airborne toxins to soot from diesel cars and trucks. Nationwide, studies have shown a 26 percent mortality increase for those living in soot-polluted areas.

But diesel’s dark side is getting a little brighter, thanks to new technologies such as Mercedes-Benz’ BlueTEC system (now used in many VW, Audi and Chrysler diesel models) that filters particulates while improving overall engine performance. The Diesel Technology Forum (DTF), a trade association of carmakers, engine builders and petroleum distributors, reports that technologies now commonplace in new diesel engines reduce the tailpipe output of particulate matter by as much as 90 percent and nitrogen oxides by some 50 percent compared to diesel engines on the road just a decade ago.

"The industry has made significant strides in recent years to develop diesel systems that are cleaner and more efficient than ever before," reports DTF. "Thanks to state-of-the-art engines, cleaner-burning fuels, effective emissions-control systems, and advancements in the fuel injection system, it would take 60 trucks sold today to equal the soot emissions of one 1988 truck." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data shows that airborne diesel particulate levels fell by more than 37 percent during the 1990s.

Meanwhile, continually improving fuel efficiency standards in the European Union (where the majority of new cars purchased in many member countries use diesel fuel) are forcing carmakers to design more fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles around the world. After all, there’s no sense in designing better engines for one region with high standards and another for areas with less stringent rules. Another green benefit of diesel-powered engines is their ability to run on plant-derived biodiesel instead of petroleum-based diesel. And in the near future consumers may be able to shop for new diesel-electric hybrid cars now on the drawing boards of major automakers around the world. For now, consumers looking to buy a new or used car—diesel or otherwise—can see how different models stack up in regard to efficiency and emissions via the FuelEconomy.gov website, a joint effort of the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy.

CONTACTS: CARB, www.arb.ca.gov; Mercedes-Benz’ BlueTEC, www.mbusa.com/bluetec; Diesel Technology Forum, www.dieselforum.org; FuelEconomy.gov, www.fueleconomy.gov.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: I always thought eating fish was healthy, but now I’m concerned about mercury in tuna and other fish. Are there any fish that are still safe to eat? – Brit Brundage, Fairfield, CT

The Environmental Defense Fund recommends minimizing consumption of albacore (white) tuna, a large fish that accumulates moderate amounts of mercury in its fatty tissue. But other kinds of (smaller) tuna, such as skipjack (usually canned as "light"), which accumulates a third the amount of mercury as albacore, are OK to eat in moderation, though consumption by those under age seven should be limited. (Media credit/Mark H. Anbinder, courtesy Flickr)

To further complicate the issue, some canned light tuna may contain yellowfin tuna, which has mercury levels similar to those of albacore; these products are sometimes but not always labeled as "gourmet" or "tonno"—and their consumption should be limited, even by adults.

Mercury, a known "neurotoxin" (a poison that affects the nervous system), is particularly insidious because it is widespread in our oceans, primarily due to emissions from coal-burning power plants. These smokestacks deposit mercury into waterways, which carry it to the ocean where bacteria convert it into methylmercury. Fish then ingest it with their food and from water passing over their gills.

Generally speaking, bigger, older and large predatory fish (such as sharks, swordfish, tilefish, king mackerel and some tuna) near the top of marine food chains are more likely to have high levels of mercury than fish lower in the marine food chain. People exposed to high levels or frequent doses of mercury can suffer nervous system disorders, impaired mental development and other health problems.

An April 2003 study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that 89 percent of study subjects, chosen because they ate a significant amount of fish, had blood mercury levels above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safety threshold of five micrograms per liter. Even though there are health benefits to eating fish (including the intake of healthy omega-3 fatty acids), the EPA advises that young children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and women of childbearing age limit their intake of high-mercury fish to one serving per week at most, while limiting their overall intake of any fish or shellfish to no more than two to three servings, or 12 ounces total, per week.

Mercury isn’t the only harsh pollutant lurking in the ocean. Industrial chemicals like PCBs and pesticides like DDT are awash in marine food chains around the world. According to EDF, it can take five years or more for women of childbearing age to rid their bodies of PCBs, and 12-18 months to appreciably reduce their mercury levels. EDF adds that moms who eat toxic fish before becoming pregnant may have children who are slower to develop and learn because fetuses are exposed to stored toxins through the placenta.

To learn more, visit the EPA’s Fish Advisories website. It includes links to individual state advisories, which have details on what fish should or shouldn’t be eaten from nearby lakes or coastal areas. Catfish, Pollock, salmon, shrimp and canned light tuna are currently on the EPA’s safe list, as they feed toward the bottom of the food chain and thus have less opportunity to accumulate mercury and other contaminants.

CONTACTS: EDF, www.edf.org; EPA Fish Advisories, www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish.

Dear EarthTalk: What does it mean when one uses the phrase, "building a green economy?" I’ve heard it repeated a few times lately and would like to have a better understanding of the concept. – Rosie Chang, Islip, NY

The phrase "building a green economy" means different things to different people, but in general it refers to encouraging economic development that prioritizes sustainability—that is, working with nature and not against it in the quest to meet peoples’ needs and wants—instead of disregarding environmental concerns in the process of growing the economy. The primary way governments around the world are trying to "green" their own economies today is by increasing investment in—and, by extension, creating jobs in—industries on the cutting edge of non-polluting renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power.

President Obama has repeatedly invoked his vision of a green economy as a tool for helping the U.S. lift itself out of recession and position itself as an economic powerhouse in a carbon-constrained future. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the $787.2 billion stimulus package that Congress signed into law in 2009, was chock full of provisions to boost renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental restoration initiatives. Examples include $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings, $8.4 billion for investments in public transportation, and tens of billions of dollars more for research into new technologies to amplify existing efforts. ARRA also earmark $11 billion for the implementation of the "smart grid," a new approach to power distribution that will bring more clean energy sources into the mix and promote energy efficiency.

Infusing such huge amounts of cash into sustainability-oriented projects is one way the Obama administration hopes to "green" the U.S. economy while simultaneously pulling the country out of recession. "To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy," Obama told Congress a few months ago.

Of course, Americans aren’t the only ones bent on building a green economy. During the 1980s and 1990s, while the American government was largely asleep at the wheel on environmental issues, countries such as Denmark, Germany, Spain and Japan were already busy investing in wind and solar research and implementation. And while these nations’ ongoing efforts are nothing to sneeze at, economists point out that what is most needed is action on the part of the world’s fastest growing economies—China and India.

A recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company found that China—which surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest generator of greenhouse gases three years ago—has great potential for building a green economy over the coming decades. According to McKinsey, by 2030 China could reduce its oil and coal imports by up to 40 percent and its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by investing upwards of 1.5 trillion yuan ($220 billion in U.S. dollars) per year in both existing and new green technologies. China has begun to see the light with regard to reducing emissions, increasing energy efficiency and embracing renewable alternative energy, but it has yet to make significant financial commitments, which will be key to both warding off catastrophic climate change and building a truly global green economy.

CONTACTS: ARRA, www.recovery.gov; McKinsey & Company, www.McKinsey.com.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

SAN JUAN — Aquamarine seas, palm trees and sunshine; it doesn’t really get any better, in my book, at least. There’s something intoxicating about the tropics, like the way a banana becomes part of a savory meal, the way the salt air and humidity make a beer taste that much better, the way a straw makes drinking out of a coconut seem civilized. Puerto Rico did not disappoint on those fronts.

We did a lot some days and a whole lot of nothing on others. Still, I left feeling that I must return to Puerto Rico. I have a feeling there’s a lot that I still need to see.

A few thoughts: While Old San Juan is charming, I got the distinct feeling that the city in general is trying mighty hard to become South Beach. Places push their prices sky high, blare house music, drape everything in white and compare themselves to The Delano. To fall into this would be a shame. While I love South Beach, Puerto Rico is no South Beach and I wish they’d try to forge their own identity rather than become copycats. The result ends up looking like a fake Louis Vitton bag: kind of desperate and cheap.

I’m also at a loss when it comes to the service in Puerto Rico. Whether at a restaurant serving comida tipica or an upscale place with menus in English, the waiters were the same: they’d come and take your order, bring your food and then disappear. Getting a check or paying a bill were nearly impossible and probably doubled the amount of time I would have spent in any establishment. This wouldn’t have been nearly as bad if I’d had some kind of drink in front of me, but sitting at an empty table, with an empty glass, trying to flag down a waiter is simply no fun. It also makes the dine and dash a tempting prospect”

Notables: Eating well in Puerto Rico is easy. Eating healthily, not so much. It seems the Puerto Ricans like to fry everything- fish, tacos, plantains. You name it, you can probably find it fried. Even seemingly good foods like rice and beans are cooked in ways to increase their calorie content- a technique that harks back to the days when people had to subsist on the basics. Rice is typically cooked with lard, while beans come stewed with some kind of pork fat.

We ended up at a strip of food stalls in Loquillo one day, about an hour east of San Juan, but I was so hungry I forgot to take pictures. There must have been 50 places, all lined up on the beach, all selling chicharron, mofongo, fried fish and yellow rice. While the comida tipica was tasty, I can’t figure out how these places survive when they seem to all sell the same thing.

The Surprise: San Juan Water & Beach Club in Isla Verde. Yes, this place falls into the category of establishments trying too hard to be South Beach. But the lovely ocean views, waterfalls in the elevator and not too pretentious service made it work: this place is chic, fun and definitely worth a visit. We started our evening at Wet, the rooftop bar which afforded a lovely 360-degree view and a too-cool-for-school atmosphere. This would be a great place to come on a date, or to start a rowdy evening with friends. (One complaint: they don’t have a cocktail menu. What upscale nightlife establishment doesn’t have its own cocktail menu?)

We then had dinner at Tangerine, the restaurant downstairs that emphasized ambiance with blue lights, a waterfall behind the bar and white everything. While appearance is good, what sets this place apart is the fact that the food was tasty and original.

We started with a trio of ceviches: ginger tuna, topped with candied ginger; coconut snapper; and tangerine salmon. Each was distinct and unlike any ceviche I’ve ever had: the snapper was subtly sweet, the tuna had a bit of bite and the salmon emphasized sour.

Next, we had a paella with red snapper. It was a lovely execution, not at all greasy, which can be the case with paella. The rice was accented generously with carrot, zucchini and red pepper, as well as large, gorgeous chunks of snapper.

The highlight of the evening, however, was the steak with green chile sauce. To be frank, I didn’t have high hopes for this one, but we didn’t think two tapas-sized dishes would be enough to eat (though in the end, two would have been fine). Chunks of tender beef sauteed in a red-wine, chile and caper sauce, and served with house fried plantain chips, this dish was succulent, savory and impossible not to love. While our previous two dishes had been good, this one set the bar even higher.

The Regret: Driving back to San Juan from Loquillo on Saturday I passed a sign for chicharron de conejo. I was intrigued. Chicharron are typically fried pieces of pork skin and conejo is rabbit”¦ fried rabbit skin? Alas, I kept driving, and now I haven’t been able to stop wondering what I missed out on.

While I mostly have great things to say about Puerto Rico, there was one place that annoyed me so much, I feel compelled to warn others to stay away, especially because it’s supposed to be one of the best places on the island.

The Disappointment: Budatai in Condado. Frommer’s led me astray with this one, naming it one of the 10-Best Dining Bets in Puerto Rico. Perhaps the good people at Frommer’s only ate at 10 places in Puerto Rico? Executive Chef/Owner Roberto Treviƒ±o is a contestant on Iron Chef America this season, and if this cuisine is any indication of Treviƒ±o’s talents I’d avoid putting any money on him winning.

Located across from La Ventana al Mar Park, the terrace area where we ate did have lovely views of the sea and surrounding area. However, that did little to make up for the limited menu or poor execution. My first beef with Budatai came with the menu, which boasted “Wild Salmon” but which our server then informed us was actually farm-raised. My sense of distrust raised immediately. Why would you put “wild” on the menu if it isn’t? What other fabrications are included? Is the vegetarian cuisine truly vegetarian? Is the duck really duck?

We started with some vegetarian egg rolls, which interestingly enough had cheese in them. Yes, cheese, which in my book is the ultimate faux-pas when it comes to Asian-fusion cooking. Worse, the cheese was gooey and tasteless, adding nothing but calories and a strange mouth feel.

My companion, who keeps kosher and hence had little to choose from on the shell-fish and pork heavy menu, reluctantly opted for the salmon, which came with vegetables and a Bearnaise sauce- again, a strange offering at what is supposedly an Asian restaurant. It was forgettable at best. I opted for the pork dumplings (billed as the house specialty) and a side of duck fried rice.

In his last column as The New York Times’ dining critic, Frank Bruni suggested that one way to safely navigate a restaurant’s menu was to “scratch off anything that mentions truffle oil.” I wish I’d listened. As a rule, pork dumplings are usually a safe standby in Asian places. Budatai’s started off promisingly enough with some well-flavored pork wrapped inside a doughy wrapper. Then things got a bit”¦ well, crazy. The dumplings looked like they’d been grilled, but they were about as crispy as chewing gum. Then, they were topped with what looked like any and everything the chef had within reach: some strange brown sauce, caviar, truffles, truffle oil, garlic, sesame seeds, watercress”¦ and those are just the things I could identify in the terrace’s half-light. It was a cacophony of flavors, so busy I wondered if I’d even notice if half the ingredients were missing.

The duck fried rice was similarly busy. Greasy, with only a trace of duck, this dish came laden with sweet plantains, which were just weird. Just say it: rice, banana and duck”¦ it even sounds weird, doesn’t it? This dish would have been saved with more duck and perhaps the inclusion of some complimentary ingredients: think scallion or bean sprout. Banana? Not so much.

The Delight: Mirƒ³, also in Condado. This place obviously caters to tourists, but had a few hard to find dishes, like grilled baby octopus and arroz negro — rice cooked with squid ink and then mixed with a variety of shellfish. In addition, the sangria was pretty amazing. Made to order with red wine, brandy, triple sec, pineapple juice and a squirt of sprite, it was refreshing, but not too sweet.

Here in New England, we’re a fishing people, and nothing epitomizes that more than the sight of lobsters coming up in the traps set by so many big and small fishing outfits.

One of those outfits is the father/son combo of Wayne and Mike Marshall out of the village Brant Rock, which opens up into Cape Cod Bay from Marshfield.

Wayne and Mike were pulling traps on Thursday when they caught glimpse of something very special — a rare blue lobster.

“I have heard of blue lobsters but never caught one. It was quite a surprise to see it,” Wayne said.

As you can see above, the lobster only has one claw, which is not too uncommon. But it’s color is. One one in every two million lobsters is blue. The coloring is caused by a genetic mutation that makes the lobster produce an excessive amount of a certain protein.

There are other rare colored lobsters out there. On August 1, 2006, a Maine lobsterman caught a yellow lobster near the mouth of the Kennebec River. The odds of finding a yellow one are about 1 in 30 million. Also in 2006, another Maine fisherman caught a half and half lobster — with two colors perfectly covering the halves of the lobster’s shell. The odds of finding one of those are one in 50 million.

Wayne said he’s been fishing out of Brant Rock for more than 30 years, mostly catching lobsters. Him and his son operate the 30-foot wooden, Maine-built lobster boat “The Necessity.” They usually haul traps four times a week and sell the catch on the pier.

A couple years ago, the Marshalls caught a rare half yellow lobster.

Their blue lobster is currently being held at the Brand Rock Fish Market, but don’t worry, it’s not destined to become a meal. The Marshalls are looking for a home for it and will be contacting the New England Acquarium this week.

Wayne and Mike also run a t-shirt printing business called Brant Rock Ink, where they print up themed t-shirts for the local fishermen and some fire departments.

If you haven’t checked out one of Blast’s new friend blogs, The Musing Bouche, you’re missing out!

Blast author John M. Guilfoil (left) enjoys Fish Tuesday.

The Boston-based food blog is a newcomer, and it mixes restaurant experiences with New England home cooking.

Blast got to enjoy exactly what Tania and Nicole deLuzuriaga means by home cooking by attending a special Musing Bouche event called “Fish Tuesday,” where an unbelievably assortment of fresh codfish, (filleted from the WHOLE fish) corn pudding, tomato and avocado bread salad and more. They fed 11 people to the brim.

The blog is great, the food was amazing and you need to see what all the buzz is about.

If you think rock and roll and cuddly animals have nothing to do with each other, think again. In bizarre news, PETA has asked the band Phish to change its name to … wait for it … Sea Kittens.

Ashley Byrne, PETA’S Sea Kitten campaign coordinator, said in a press release, “If Phish became Sea Kittens and the band’s legions of fans started calling fish ‘sea kittens,’ fewer of these gentle animals would be violently killed for food, painfully hooked for ‘sport,’ or cruelly confined to aquariums.”

We wonder what frontman Trey Anastasio thinks, but we’re betting he’s not having “Sea Kittens” tattooed on his shoulder anytime soon.

In a letter to the band, PETA requested that the name be changed for their June 20 visit to East Troy, Wis.‚  in the hopes that it will stick.

PETA said that “sea kittens” not only feel pain, but are affectionate, intelligent animals who communicate with each other.

Their Sea Kitten campaign is aimed at changing the animals’ name for good.

Check out their website and let us know if you’ll be swearing off the eating of sea kittens for good, or if you’re just as ready as ever to tuck into that smoked salmon.

You’ve head of fish tacos, right? Here’s a quesadilla made with spinach, shrimp and codfish that’s simply to die for:

Seafood Spinach Quesadilla’s

1 bag frozen shrimp (51-60 count)

3 oz. Cod

Fresh spinach

Shredded Monterey Jack Cheese

Wheat tortillas

Olive Oil

Ripe Avocado

Salsa

Directions:

• Heat oven to 400 degrees
• Spray skillet with cooking spray and add cod
• When cod is just about cooked put cod shrimp and spinach into one pan and cook until spinach is wilted and seafood is cooked.
• Spray round baking pan with cooking spray.
• Brush olive oil onto one side of tortilla and place into round baking pan
• Spread shredded Monterey Jack cheese on tortilla.
• Add spinach and seafood mixture to tortilla.
• Place second tortilla on top and spread olive oil over top half of tortilla.
• Place in oven until tortillas are crisp.
• After removing sprinkling cheese on top of finished product and cover until cheese melts (1 minute at most).
• Slice with large knife or pizza cutter.
• In a bowl mash half ripe avocado.
• Mix in salsa of choice and enjoy guacamole and salsa on the side of your quesadillas!

If you’re looking for that gift with a “wow!” factor keep reading this article. Amongst the many things businesses pull together for the holiday season- Christmas albums, special edition DVDs, all-inclusive travel deals- it seems amazing that a new company from Maine is outdoing them all.

Catch a Piece of Maine was founded by two brothers,‚ Brendan and‚ John Ready,‚ who after being raised in the lobstering community decided to get their own boat and start catching lobsters‚ after high school. Fortunately for them, their parents encouraged a higher education. After going to universities in Boston and getting degrees in business, they put their newfound knowledge to work.‚ 

They founded a company, Ready Inc., and created a new way to sell lobsters by offering ownership of a lobsterman’s trap to get 13 lobster baskets direct from the fisher for a year.‚ 

“We are a community supported fishing model that is relevant for the Maine lobster industry. In the past 50 years there has been very little change and what we can offer is the quality product with the experiential value,” explained John Ready.

Each basket includes four pound-and-a half lobsters, pound of steamer clams, pound of mussels and four servings of typical Maine desserts like blueberry brownies or whoopee-pies. ‚ The shipments also bring a photo and story of the lobsterman who works the trap; a map of where the trap is located; a personalized note from the lobsterman telling how the fishing went; next day delivery, classic lobster-printed white bibs and, last but not least, a call form the lobsterman himself the night of delivery to ensure costumers are happy with their bounty.‚ 

‚ Aside from canceling third parties, trap holders establish a relationship with those who run their trap and learn what the real lobstering life is about.‚ It may sound like too much razzle-dazzle but this personal treatment is what sets the Ready brothers apart, selling more than two million pounds of lobster annually.

“We have customers who really look forward to receiving their call the night of their delivery. They have dinners on that day and its not strange to be put on speakerphone to join the party, people love being involved, they like to know they form a part of what we do,” said Ready.

Their business model has helped create a feeling of togetherness amongst the lobstermen, something that Ready said is not often found. Not only that, it is creating jobs in an ailing industry and encouraging consumers to continue buying the clawed crustacean. The yearlong share costs $3,000 but there are other options that have become as big sellers as the yearly “subscription.”

“We are here to please you, I just had a call from a woman who said, “ËœI love lobster tails, send me 20 by this date’ and we did. Our consumers like experiential gifts so we have an array of smaller custom made options to never say “Ëœno’ and give them the same experience,” Ready said.

One of those options is the $250 “Lobster Share” pack. ‚ It includes the same four hard shell lobsters, steamer clams, ‚ mussels and Maine made desserts and personalized messages as the shareholders monthly basket does. It also comes with the popular call from the lobsterman‚ who caught your delicious dinner.‚ 

If you don’ know whether or not a person likes lobsters, the business on-line store also offers Catch a Piece of Maine gear gift certificates and a colorful 2009 calendar filed with Maine scenery and lobstermen’s photos.

In a time when the lobster industry is in decline this company has grown at an amazing rate. The difference being in that the brothers use their salesman skills effectively to help revitalize the lobstering community and make a profit along the way.‚ 

“We grew up in this lifestyle, because catching and selling lobsters really is a lifestyle. When we see the men that we looked up to as children struggling to pay bills or make things work we’re not only concerned with making a business successful, we’re concerned for our family,” Ready shared.‚  “This is what other people see too and by getting even a small piece of it they know their gift will be unique and that our community will keep going.”

Whether your holiday list is on a budget or not, the custom packages and apparel from these Mainers are special options to consider. Because, if you think about it, who else can boast after New Years that the “lobsterman called, wanting to make sure you got your lobsters alright” at the office?

Get your own piece of Main by sending an email to Giveaways@BlastMagazine.com with your contact information by January 1st to win the lobstermen’s 2009 calendar!

Dear EarthTalk: How can I find out which seafood to avoid if I am concerned about lessening my impact on the environment and avoiding consuming unhealthy pollutants? – Pat Kelly, Seattle, WA 

Several decades ago a fish-centric diet was considered to be not only healthy but also environmentally friendly. But today those of us who eat a lot of fish may not be doing ourselves or the environment any favor. The two major concerns are overfishing and pollution. 

Demand for low-calorie, protein-rich fish has grown tremendously alongside increases in world population. At the same time, the technologies employed for catching seafood have improved to the point that the commercial fishing industry has essentially stripped the ocean of its once teeming fish populations. One recent analysis concluded that only 10 percent of the large predatory fish that once roamed the world’s oceans are left, due to overzealous sport and commercial fishing. Another study concluded that three-quarters of the world’s fisheries are either fully fished or overfished. 

Pollution from industrial, agricultural and other everyday activities like electricity generation and automobile driving has also taken a serious toll on the health of the remaining fish species. Scientists routinely find unsafe levels of mercury, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides and other harsh toxins in the fat, internal organs and even muscle tissue of many different kinds of fish. These contaminants are then passed on up the food chain to our dinner plates. 

According to Seafood Watch, a project of the Monterey Bay Aquarium that works to educate the public about the seafood crisis, consumers can make a difference by getting educated so as to make smart choices about what seafood to avoid. Consumers can download and print out free Seafood Watch pocket guides to the “best choices” across six different regions of the U.S.-after all, what’s abundant and sustainably harvested in your area may not be the same for someone across the country. 

Another convenient way to get the low-down on the fish you may be contemplating buying at the grocer or a restaurant is to text “30644″ with the message “FISH,” followed by the name of the specific fish in question. In a few seconds, an automated response will come back from the non-profit Blue Ocean Network’s FishPhone service with information on the status of the fish in question-and alternatives, should Blue Ocean consider the fish an undesirable choice. 

The basic skinny on fish consumption is that if you like it, you should eat it, but responsibly-that means in moderation and armed with the proper knowledge of which types of fish to buy and which to avoid. 

For those looking to cut down on or eliminate seafood from their diets but still gain the health benefits of eating fish, plenty of alternatives exist. As most vegetarians know, beans, tofu and many nuts can be significant alternative sources of protein. And walnuts, flaxseed and hemp oil/seeds are all rich in the Omega-3 fatty acids common in many fish and thought to help ward off heart disease, cancer, macular degeneration (age-related blindness), arthritis and inflammatory disorders. 

CONTACTS: Seafood Watch, www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp; FishPhone, www.fishphone.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: What makes those so-called “new urbanism” housing developments popping up around the U.S. more environmentally friendly than regular old suburban neighborhoods? – Rusty Spinoza, Galveston, TX 

The husband-and-wife team of town planners Andr©s Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk are typically credited as the founders of new urbanism, a style of community design that embraces mixed use (commercial and residential) development in pedestrian-friendly and green space-rich neighborhoods-much like the old neighborhoods many baby-boomers remember before suburban sprawl made us all slaves to our cars. 

Duany and Plater-Zyberk formulated their new urbanism principles while living in one of the Victorian neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut while they attended graduate school in architecture at Yale. Their neighborhood included corner shops, front porches and a variety of attractive and well-designed housing and commercial structures-planting the seed of an idea that has now swept the U.S. and beyond. 

The prototypical new urbanist community is Florida’s Seaside, which Duany and Plater-Zyberk began designing in 1979 for the 80-acre coastal parcel’s developer, Robert S. Davis. Their plan took the best elements of a handful of graceful southern cities like Key West, Charleston and Savannah to create a community based on the tried-and-true concept of walkable, self-contained neighborhoods. Besides 300 homes, Seaside contains a school, a town hall, an open-air market, a tennis club, a tented amphitheater and a post office-everything anyone could ever need in a town, and all within a five minute walk. 

According to the non-profit Smart Communities Network, Seaside works as a community because of its design: “Mandatory porches are set close enough to walkways to enable porch sitters and passersby to communicate without raising their voices…. The streets are all interconnected; creating a network that eliminates ‘collector’ routes and reduces congestion. Walkways crisscross the development to encourage walking and biking, while narrow streets serve to reduce traffic speed.” Building fronts are a uniform distance from the curb and all streets are tree-lined to further the community’s “sense of place.” 

Other examples of new urbanist communities include: Stapleton on the outskirts of Denver, Colorado; Seabrook on the southern coast of Washington State; Melrose Arch in Johannesburg, South Africa; Alta de Lisboa near Lisbon, Portugal; and Jakriborg in southern Sweden. Meanwhile, the idea has caught on in New Orleans, where developers are styling new communities in the wake of Hurricane Katrina based in part on the principles of new urbanism. 

According to the website NewUrbanism.org, being green is central to the concept of new urbanism, where houses tend to be compact and on small lots. And many developers are incorporating green building design and alternative energy generation into their plans for these communities. Furthermore, proponents say that building densely settled, walkable communities instead of road-intensive suburban developments cuts down on the need to drive, thus further reducing the carbon footprint. 

CONTACTS: Seaside, www.seasidefl.com; Smart Communities Network, www.smartcommunities.ncat.org; NewUrbanism.org, www.newurbanism.org. 

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

I never liked fish growing up. I was a (very, very) picky child who loved his chicken nuggets. So on Fridays of Lent, it was usually peanut butter saltine sandwiches packed away in my lunch box, while pizza was a good bet at night. But my family loves fish.

We have a seafood feast on major holidays, especially Christmas and New Year’s, with fillet, fried shrimp, calamari, stuffed clams, lobster or crab sauce and plenty of claws to crack and pass around.

Now that I’ve opened my eating horizons, fish is a distinctive option, not only for the holidays and Friday nights, but for a healthy, refreshing alternative to chicken, steak and pork.

I want to show off a family-inspired recipe that illustrates clearly that the Italians don’t just batter and deep fry their fish. Today is Good Friday, so I bought a beautiful, large cut of cod fillet, and I’m going to bake it and serve the fish with some saut©ed vegetables.

By the way, a single serving is only six Weight Watchers points.

Kicked up traditional codfish

Preheat the oven to 350.

First, I take my cod and soak it in water with a light squeeze of lemon for five minutes. Take it out, and let the water drain off. Lightly coat both sides in salt and pepper. I use coarse, kosher salt, but anything works.

Take a deep baking pan and cover it in aluminum foil. Coat the foil in non-stick cooking spray.

Take 2-3 pieces of lemon and one diced plum (or any…) tomato and lay them down across where you’re going to put the fish. Dash on a little salt, pepper, basil, oregano, parsley, whatever you want. Drizzle some olive oil.

Take a small handful of Italian breadcrumbs and sprinkle the bank of the fillet. Lay it down over the lemon wedges and tomato. sprinkle a few more crumbs over the top — just a bit. Then take 4-6 Ritz crackers and crush them, two at a time, with your hands, letting the crumbs fall over the top of the cod.

Then dice one or two more small tomatoes, and cover the crumbs. Coat with some more salt, pepper, cayenne pepper and whatever spices you like best. Drizzle some more olive oil on top.

I like to leave some onion pieces in the corners, and you can add any vegetables you want to the pan. I didn’t in this case, because I’m serving other veggies with the fish. Don’t cover the cod, but crinkle the sides of the foil up just a bit on each side.

Bake for 30-40 minutes or until it cleanly flakes with a fork. You may need less time if you use a smaller piece.

Now, take out your favorite chef’s knife, and cut up some veggies.

I stress that you can use whatever vegetables you want, but I chose some red and green peppers, a white onion and a yellow squash. It’s a colorful mix; it’s beautiful; it tastes unbelieveable.

Cut some narrow strips or slices of your favorites and shake them up with salt, pepper, Adobo spice, parsley, garlic powder, etc. This is not an exact science, but DON’T OVER SEASON your veggies. Too much, and they’ll be saltier than McDonald’s French Fries and it will ruin the dish.

Lightly coat a nonstick frying pan or wok with olive oil and warm over medium-high heat. Add the vegetables, and continuously stir then for about five minutes or until you can easily break one with the spatula.

Invest in a $1 wooden spatula. It cleans in the dishwasher and won’t rust or scratch your pans.

After about 5-7 minutes, cover the pan for 2-3 minutes. You don’t want to steam the vegetables, but you want to force them to hold in some moisture. Then uncover the pan and drizzle about a tablespoon or two of soy sauce. This departs from tradition just a bit, but trust me. Stir it in, and turn off the heat.

You want to start cooking the vegetables about 2/3 though the cod’s cooking cycle.

When the fish is done — depending on the size and number of people — spread some vegetables over the center of each plate. With a a spatula, cut even pieces of fish. Discard the cooked lemon wedges (the fish tastes lemony enough) and serve with the tomatoes and whatever else is in the pan.

One good-sized fillet serves two.

This is a very filling, very, very healthy dish. The kicked-up veggies replace the need for rice or potatoes or French fries.

Enjoy with a glass of white wine, and have a Happy Easter!

See Blast’s new Food Page for more great ideas!

For some reason, I resisted Deadliest Catch for the first two seasons. I was always tuning to the Discovery Channel for Mythbusters or the odd documentary.

Then one night last year, Mythbusters was over and this Bon Jovi song comes on, and I decide to watch an episode of “the fishing show.” Now I’m hooked.

What really strikes me about Deadliest Catch is that the Discovery folks put in cameras and producers, documentary style, and ended up with better characters and dramatic plots than most of the striking writers could put out.

From Sig Hansen, the third generation Norwegian to salty Alaskan Phil Harris on his boat, the Cornelia Marie, Deadliest Catch is no small achievement.

Watching these fishermen haul 700-pound crab pots from the bottom of the Bering Sea over and over again and watching them deal with everything from legal problems to winter storms, it’s often easy to forget that Deadliest Catch is unscripted. Moreover, it’s easy to forget that any of these people can die — fishermen and producers — at any time.

The reminders come from the solemn episodes where the boats break away from fishing to search for survivors from a vessel sunk by a rogue wave or storm. They rarely find many alive in the frigid waters. This came to life in the first season especially, when one of the featured boats, Big Valley, sunk early on, killing all but one aboard.

The third season starts off with the beginning of the Red King Crab season and disaster as the fishing vessel Ocean Challenger sinks, taking three men with it and showing a dramatic Coast Guard helicopter rescue where one of the crew members is saved.

Season three is contained on five DVD’s with nearly nine hours of footage. I was disappointed by the lack of special features — Discovery did a really good special called “After the Catch” where narrator Mike Rowe shared stories and beers with the captains and crew. That was another amazing part of deadliest catch, bringing narrator and subjects together.

Either way, the DVD set is an excellent gift and a great way to relive Deadliest Catch.

Episodes:

A Tragic Beginning
Journey back to Dutch Harbor, Alaska — the largest fishing port in the United States. The 2006 Red King Crab season kicks off as 81 fishing vessels eagerly return to stake their claim in the million dollar jackpot.

The Unforgiving Sea
After the Ocean Challenger fishing boat sinks, a Coast Guard helicopter rescues the only known survivor. Meanwhile, two bodies are pulled from the water and another man remains lost at sea.

Pain and Paybacks
After a deadly start to the season, the Bering Sea claims more victims. Deckhand Lenny Lakanoff of the Wizard suffers a crippling injury, leaving Captain Keith scrambling to shore.

Cheating Death
Halfway through the season the grind is on with crews working throughout the nights. Equipment failures, fatigue and bad weather make fishing even more dangerous.

Bering Sea Salvation
Experience the heart-wrenching tales of the Bering Sea as Captain Johnathan Hillstrand of the Time Bandit recounts a rescue attempt he made nine years ago that ended in tragedy.

The Last Lap
The grinding 2006 Red King Crab fishing marathon comes to a close as holds fill with King gold. With money in their pockets, the fishermen return home for a short rest before returning to the 2007 Opilio Crab Season.

New Beginnings
All aboard as the January Opilio crab season opens. Several greenhorns are about to experience the subfreezing temperatures and icy winter waters of the Bering Sea for the first time.

Caught in the Storm
Only days into the Opilio season, a major storm system hits the fishing grounds causing Captain Andy of the Time Bandit to call his men off deck.

Crossing the Line
A monster storm blows through the Time Bandit and Cornelia Marie grounds, and a double change of guard takes place on the Wizard as Captain Keith Colburn and greenhorn Nick both head south.

Trials of the Greenhorns
The harsh winter weather puts the greenhorns to the test, but the Northwestern and Cornelia Marie greenhorns step up to prove their worth by working through broken bones and icy decks without complaint.

Ice and Open Water
The promise of a great catch outweighs the dangerous risks faced by the Opilio Crab fishing vessels. The Far West Leader attempts to survive the loss of one engine, while the Time Bandit enjoys unseasonable weather and unprecedented catches.

A Frozen Finish
The 2007 Opilio crab tally is in and a winner is declared. After a long and difficult crab fishing season, the Northwestern enjoys a sweet homecoming with friends and family back in Seattle.