Harry Geels: Do you believe in Seaspiracies?

January 21, 2025

_{This column was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.}

By Harry Geels

The Netflix documentary Seaspiracy suggests that at least ten conspiracies exist around fishing. The documentary is an interesting learning case about the existence of conspiracies and the concept of factchecking. The documentary upset me, but my “paradox mindset” thankfully helped me get back on my feet.

As a true fish lover, I sat down to watch the much talked about Netflix documentary Seaspiracy. Already from 2021, but anyway, better late than never. We can, of course, discuss the documentary in different ways. My choice - with an oblique eye to the intriguing title - is to discuss what I think are the ten most salient claims made by the documentary filmmaker and the specific conspiracy suggested, and then make some comments about truth-telling and fact-checking.

Claim 1: Fishing is the greatest threat to marine life

First, Seaspiracy claims overfishing and destructive fishing practices such as trawling, line fishing with long lines (“longlining”) and drift netting (“gillnetting”). The conspiracy suggested with this claim is that the fishery generally claims not to employ harmful fishing practices and that any damage to the sea arises from, for example, pollution of the high seas or the plastic that enters the sea through production and consumption on Earth.

Claim 2: Bycatch is a very big problem

The second claim made is that there is an awful lot of ocean destructive bycatch, such as whales, dolphins and turtles, which leads to damage to biodiversity and ultimately to “dead seas”. The suggested conspiracy is that the fishing industry maintains the image of sustainable fishing and that bycatch is handled as cleanly as possible.

Claim 3: Sustainable fish is a myth

Third, it is claimed that the sustainable fishing designation is not easily verifiable. There are simply too many fishing boats to examine during the catch. Certificates, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label, are misleading and do not guarantee sustainable fish. The conspiracy is that label-issuing organizations, governments and fishing companies work together to create a sustainable image through the issuance of meaningless labels.

Claim 4: Fishing is modern slavery

Fourth, many fishing boats are said to employ forced labor, harsh working conditions and long working hours, especially in Southeast Asia. This would be necessary to keep the fish affordable, or maintain profits of large fishing companies. The plot then is that the fishing industry treats fishermen nicely.

Claim 5: Fishing nets are the biggest source of marine plastic pollution

The fifth claim states that fishing nets, not consumer plastic, account for the lion's share (46%) of plastic in the seas. The suggested plot is that environmental organizations do not focus on these fishing nets, but only on eliminating small plastic such as straws and forks, thus engaging in relatively useless micromanagement.

Claim 6: Whale and dolphin hunting is commercially driven

In various parts of the world, the killing of whales and dolphins is said to have not only cultural backgrounds, but also purely commercial ones. Indeed, whales and dolphins, by also eating fish themselves and reducing fish stocks, are in competition with fishermen. Possible conspiracy: cultural traditions are used by fisheries as a cover for purely economic activities.

Claim 7: Farmed fish is not a sustainable alternative

Seventh, it is claimed that farmed fish would not be sustainable, because they require partially recaptured wild fish for food. Moreover, farmed fish would not be healthy. Because fish live close together in fixed places, all kinds of diseases and stresses arise. Farmed fish are full of pesticides, antibiotics and chemical dyes. Possible plot: present farmed fish as healthy, safe and sustainable.

Claim 8: Consuming shark fins is pure luxury

The eighth claim is that there is deliberate commercial fishing for shark fins, which would be bought and consumed purely out of luxury. A possible conspiracy is that shark fins are only obtained from bycatch.

Claim 9: Protected fishing areas are ineffective

The documentary further claims that fishing in protected fishing areas is simply done because there would not be enough control. Moreover, large commercial fishing companies would catch fish there intended for residents of poorer parts of the world. Suggested plot: protected fishing areas are valuable for maintaining fish stocks.

Claim 10: The oceans are the main source of CO₂ storage

Perhaps the most important claim made in the context of the CO₂ debate is that oceans are said to be the largest absorbers of CO₂. Some 25 to 30% of all emissions on Earth are said to be absorbed via “phytoplankton”. Trapping dolphins and whales would be particularly disastrous for CO₂ uptake, as their excrement feeds plankton. Whales themselves would be large storage tanks of CO₂. Stopping eating fish would be much more important than stopping meat or reducing industrial CO₂ emissions. The suggested conspiracy is that governments, fishing industry and surveillance organizations are working together to present fish eating as something sustainable (thus actually frustrating the climate transition).

Factchecking

Seaspiracy teaches that eating fish is controversial. But also that there is no single truth. There is the truth of the fish industry and that of the climate lobby, and there is a “bloody truth”. It is good to have an open discussion about all ten 'seaspiracies' to get as close to the truth as possible. As far as I am concerned, one conclusion stands, the fishing industry, government and climate lobby all have their own interests that way. Factcheckers who claim to know THE truth are the most dangerous participants in this debate.

Adam Grant, in Think Again, argues that most participants in a debate are politicians, prosecutors or preachers, each with their own agenda, whereas each should be thinking as a critical scientist. Ali Tabrizi, the maker of the documentary, is undoubtedly a prosecutor. That said, there may be valid arguments in his documentary, which we should listen to with an open or 'paradox mindset'. After careful consideration, everyone should be able to make their own trade-offs.

PS: For supporters of (central) factchecking, perhaps we should not only focus our attention on social media, but also on Netflix documentaries, for example.

This article contains a personal opinion by Harry Geels

More columns by Harry Geels