To Eat, Or Not To Eat

The "Give a Swordfish a Break" campaign that is asking chefs to remove the popular seafood from their menus voluntarily has depressed the fishery, but it is not enough to speed the recovery of the North Atlantic population.

That is because if the United States were to ban swordfishing tomorrow, its share of the species would be reallocated among other fishing nations that are members of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

The management of highly migratory species such as swordfish and tuna is a complex international affair. Thinking globally and acting locally, as the aphorism goes, is a good concept except if you're talking about the management of a species shared by the harvesters of many nations.

Without a strong swordfish fishery, the United States might lack the political leverage to force other nations to comply with the strict ICCAT regulations. Since 1989, harvesters of North Atlantic swordfish have cut their production by 50 percent, with the United States responsible for a major share of the reduction via quotas and minimum size limits.Two years ago, ICCAT nations voted to force irresponsible nations into compliance, a move our representatives have long demanded.

Nevertheless, the common goal of improving the threatened swordfish population would be better attained if chefs, seafood markets, and home cooks refused under-sized fish and rejected substandard imports. But at least the recent campaign, by SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council, has placed the issue on the nation's table.