Sorry, Charlie

[Lucky]

The owners of the three major tuna canneries are unhappy with Greenpeace for taking them on. We have Mr. Lischeski at Bumble Bee, Mr. Chan at Chicken of the Sea, and Mr. Cho at Starkist. Yes, I realize that 2/3ds of tuna management is Asian. After all, they will soon control the world's food supply.

But as of now they are unhappy with Greenpeace for a video it created and is promulgating. The video shows one of their "brand icons" being stabbed in the eye. The tuna trio call it "baffling" as , they say, it does not lead anyone to come away "more knowledgeable about tuna and sustainable fishing."

The opinion piece can be found on the op-ed page of today's Wall Street Journal. It's not exactly "op" to the Journal's editorial slant though. But the authors claim that tuna is one of the cheapest sources of Omega-3 oils, and that Greenpeace is trying to "sabotage a serious sustainability partnership between dedicated conservationists and the fishing community." That's what mass fishing is now- the "fishing community."

Greenpeace also had the nerve to dress in "funny" Halloween costumes that helped "rake in the donations."

So why would people donate to Greenpeace when we know how valuable Omega- 3 oils are to human health?

I went to the Greenpeace site, where I first encountered an endangered polar bear who needed my money to stay alive. After telling him to get lost, I searched for the tuna action.

Hopefully, Greenpeace won't mind my posting this blurb directly from their site. After all, they want to get the message out. What you find out here is what isn't mentioned in that op-ed piece in the Journal. The Tuna Trio has threatened to sue Greenpeace! Read on, and watch that harmful video (it's really a cute little cartoon) if you can stomach a tuna icon taking it in the eye!

From Greenpeace.org:

All three of America’s leading tuna brands have made legal threats against Greenpeace in an effort to hide the truth behind the destructive methods of fishing used to bring tuna to the table.

Law firms representing Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea and Starkist have issued cease and desist letters, claiming defamation and trademark infringement, to censor a new two-minute animation that deals with the enormous problem of bycatch, or unintentional catch, created by the fishing methods used by the biggest US tuna companies.

Greenpeace is declining to remove the video. “We believe the American public has a right to know how their tuna is caught, and of the swathe of dead marine creatures, from turtles and sharks to marlin, seabirds, and future breeding stock that lie behind so many of their favorite tuna products,” said Senior Campaigner Casson Trenor.

“In their clumsy and litigious attempt to hide their dirty little secret, the industry has illustrated the lengths to which they will go to keep their methods in the shadows.

“A simpler and more sustainable approach would be to stop using destructive fishing methods and switch to sustainable fishing, such as pole and line or FAD free fishing.

“Every major tuna brand in the United Kingdom has made a commitment to do just that. The real scandal here is that Bumble Bee and Starkist would rather threaten an environmental organization with attorneys letters than consider the same approach,” Mr Trenor said.

The video can be viewed here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/tuna_secret/

More information about tuna fishing is available here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/oceans/seafood/tuna/

[RA1]

I am all for sea food sustainability but I am also for being able to afford to eat. There are points of view and things to be done by both sides of these issues.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

When you come down in the middle like that, I think, geez, it's a politics forum, put something fiery out there. On the other hand, I wish people in Congress could see both sides of the issues. So I vote for you as my congressman.

[RA1]

I think a lot of people either do or wish to see the world as black or white. I easily see it as all but entirely gray. I do not consider that the "same" as being able to take either side of an argument. Confused now?

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

No, I know you like to obfuscate, but being a good congressman is not the same as being able to take both sides of an argument. It is being able to see the merit in the opposing side. Are you saying you can't do that, cuz you just did with your tuna comment.

[RA1]

Now, I am confused. I thought what I said was I could see the merit of both or however many sides there are, but, that was different from being willing to take any position as attorneys claim to do.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

Just don't want to be my congressman, do you?

[RA1]

Do I have to move to CA? Or, are you willing to move to TN?

Best regards,

RA1