- Is it possible to improve the environmental condition and the fish resources by putting certain demands on the fishery products? In that case what kind of demands should it be?

- Which criteria are to be the basis of organic fish?

In itself the fish must be organic - today it is possible to label vegetables and chicken as organic, if the producer lives up to certain specific criteria - but it is more difficult with fish. But isn't it possible for the fisheries (here defined as a total market with all the stations that are necessary before the fish can be served - catch, distribution, control, trade, preparation, politics) to define a criteria for sustain ability? With a total market as mentioned it might be possible and significant to define criteria for how much energy one kg of fish must contain from catch to dish. A criteria for sustain ability must also contain: catching methods, distribution, knowledge of and consideration of the fish seasons, preparation, fish from other countries, and the social relations that the life as a fisherman, the life of the smaller harbors and the fishing there, and lastly the present prices that people pay for fresh fish. These are important factors for a discussion and for the future work for a larger transparency in fish trading.

Principles for organic fish?

1. A wild fish is like all other freely living creatures in itself organic.

2. This organic quality can be taken from the fish by fishing or distributing it using methods that are not sustainable, including unnecessary use of energy or methods that harm the environment of the sea.

3. An organic fishery is a fishery that conserves the organic quality of the fish.

4. An organic net of distribution is a net that conserves the organic quality of the fish.

5. Like an organic farmer is not responsible for the airborne pollution from i.e. the industry that pollutes his fields, so the fisherman is not responsible for the water-led pollution from i.e. industry and farming that pollutes his fish.

To 1: A fish is an expression of a natural state. There hasn't been done anything to harm the environment when putting the fish in the sea; the fish is part of the environment of the sea. There hasn't been used any resources to produce the fish; the fish is the resource in itself. Therefore the fish is organic and it cannot be different.

To 5: If we focus more on the fish as food then we can hope that it will help in stopping the sea pollution. If the control of the food provisions was a God with global significance then it immediately would command that we end the crossing of waste and food that is taking place in the seas - if nothing else then of ethical reasons.

If we believe that catching and distributing organic fish might be a niche that could help conserving local fishing societies, then that is fine as a by-catch. Therefore we will have to defend ourselves against people who want to make organic fish a rationalized and large scale business.

If someone should get the idea to distribute organic fish by telling the consumer that he or she will be helping to improve both the sea and the land environment (the criteria for energy) and to improve the management of the fish stock, then the organic fish (as the un-organic) needs to be safe and healthy to eat under all circumstances. If we do not trust the authorities competence and control, then that will have to be improved. Neither the organic nor the un-organic fishermen can tell from the looks of it whether a fish is poisoned.

The criteria for an organic fish will necessarily have to include requirements for the hygiene of the food and for the gastronomic quality of the product. Not that the fish becomes more organic by being fresh or carefully handled but if it isn't, then it cannot compete with the fish caught and distributed in the traditional manner, and then the organic fishermen and distributors won't earn their living and then the expected effect on the environment and the resources will not happen.

The Danish Society for a Living Sea

1997