The good thing is Environmental Defense never lets facts get in the way of a good blog posting… or in this case an erroneous, misleading one.

Today’s sustainablog is riddled with errors including this one; “barely one-quarter of U.S. fisheries are known to be sustainably fished.”

What? Where did they get this number?

Perhaps they just made it up, because NOAA (the organization in charge of monitoring and managing those fisheries) reports that “the majority of our domestic assessed fish stocks are either not overfished (76%) or not subject to overfishing (83%).” But don’t believe me, take a look at the most recent status of the stocks report found here.

Sustainamisinformation then makes up its own definitions for terms that are clearly defined in the very report it cites; “the United Nations reports that 80 percent of the world’s fisheries are now either fully fished (i.e. incapable of providing more) or overexploited.”

What?

Here’s what the United Nations report says about “fully fished”– “It should be noted that the status of fully exploited is not undesirable provided it is the result of an effective and precautionary management approach,” Again, you don’t have to believe me you can just turn to page 34 of the report and read it yourself.

Sustainaconfusedaboutmyownargument then writes “Aquaculture or fish farming can help meet additional seafood demand, if done right.” But keep in mind this is a blog post that is lauding the findings of a Canadian report that finds, “Fish farming is mainly a distraction in this context, since it is unlikely to resolve the problem.”

Environmental Defense (with an “s”) is usually pretty slick. It contradicts the Environmental Defence (with a “c”) every once in a while and makes for international confusion but it’s not usually this sloppy.