Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior III. (Photo Credit: Greenpeace)
NFI asks reporters to request Greenpeace's replies
Friday, April 19, 2013, 05:40 (GMT + 9)
The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is accusing Greenpeace of lying about US retailers' seafood sustainability practices, and thus challenging reporters to interview Greenpeace before "regurgitating" the information in its press releases.
"The unscientific survey and report has become the embodiment of media groundhog day and white noise for those involved in real sustainability efforts," the NFI wrote.
Reporters are being called on to ask Greenpeace questions if they receive a press release pertaining to this issue.
The first question is regarding one of Greenpeace's reports, which according to NFI encourages US consumers to "eat less fish" to "help lessen the pressure on our oceans." The NFI claims that seafood consumption can prevent deaths and wants reporters to ask Greenpeace whether it knows about this and cares at all about the health of US consumers.
Another question is related to the green group's unwillingness to reveal the methodology used in its grocers survey.
The NFI also recommends asking the group how it would ensure there is enough affordable pole and line tuna to meet consumer demand and what kind of environmental impact studies the group has done on its recommended sourcing methods and how they would affect the cost of canned tuna.
Besides, the NFI suggests Greenpeace is trying to scare the public by lying about the health of tuna stocks to raise funds and wonders how much of its budget goes to research versus publicity.
Furthermore, it questions the fact that a big amount of money from its Rainbow Warrior III donor money should have been used and wonders if it would not have been better to use those resources on research and sustainability efforts.
Why has Greenpeace refused to participate in collaborative efforts with the largest US canned tuna brands, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF)? asks the NFI and, why does it not recognize the works of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)?
Finally, the NFI says it is difficult to understand whether the group expects that experts in sustainability of the public should take Greenpeace seriously if its activists wear costumes at demonstrations.
NFI's complaints follow an education initiative launched last March, allegedly documenting "ongoing manipulation of facts, self-serving tactics and ulterior financial motives behind Greenpeace's annual seafood sustainability survey and ranking of US grocers."
The NFI claims that Greenpeace is a "science-averse" organisation that only cares about fundraising.
By Natalia Real