Major US Grocery Chain Urged to Stop Selling Endangered Shark Falls on Deaf Ears

Southern California - After weeks of failed attempts to have Supervalu/Albertson's recognize the err in their environmental ways, we are now forced to publicize their lack of global eco-awareness regarding the plight of sharks. As we launch our campaign the company continues to drag its heels as shark populations teeter closer to extinction.

Ignorance is no longer a defense:
We are in a time where we must think on a global scale in regards to the impact we have on our environment. We must not be oblivious to what happens outside our own backyard. Everything we do as individuals, consumers and decision makers has far reaching global implications. Our failure to act once supplied with facts is by far the largest immoral act against nature.

Failed attempts
After initially contacting Albertson's we were referred to Stephanie Martin, the director of communications for parent company Supervalu. We supplied the information she would require to make a swift executive decision, to immediately remove all shark products from their sea food counters - Facts including: 60 times more mercury than is recommended by the FDA. The fact that shark populations on a global scale are close to 90% extinct. Ms. Martin replied to our urging with a form letter that did not even touch on nor seem to grasp the urgency of their actions.

In a follow-up email to Supervalu, Ms Martin briefly responded, ensuring us that our inquiries were escalated to a higher department and that we would receive a response shortly. We never heard from Ms. Martin nor Supervalu again despite several attempts. Their silence speaks volumes to the environmental urgency we face as shark populations continue to be decimated. Supervalu/Albertson's is clearly more interested in selling a product which no doubt accounts for minimal profits rather than remove a product with devastating global implications. Or, is it that they still do not see their local involvement as a problematic contribution from a global perspective.

In thier own words
The following screen shot from their website outlines the company's stance of environmental stewardship. Although their printed message is encouraging their actions regarding the sale of shark completely unravels any positive environmental progression as an organization.


(excerpt from Supervalu website professing global awareness)

Why selling shark is wrong
The Environmental Defense Fund and the IUCN lists Thresher Shark as an ECO-WORST choice due to dangerous levels of mercury and the fact that all shark species are under threat of global collapse. Sharks are typically caught using equipment called longlines. These are fishing lines usually miles long with thousands of baited hooks. The impact from this type of fishing is really recognized with the amount of bycatch which includes sea turtles, sea birds and any other animal that gets close to the floating mass of hooks.

Sharks suffer from bad PR
Why are sharks so endangered yet so unprotected? Simply because of the media and our opinions of these magnificent creatures. Sharks are often portrayed as voracious eating machines with gaping bloody jaws lunging out of the water at their prey. Yet the fact is these animal are some of the most misunderstood species in the world. To see them in their natural habitat is truly a life changing experience. You find that they have no interest in hurting you, they are calm timid creatures that are more inquisitive and shy than aggressive and predatory.

Think of sharks as the elephants of southern California
We know it's wrong to kill an elephant for its tusks or to use it for bush meat right? We know that there is a movement that we all support to stop the pouching of these beautiful gentle giants. We do not have an elephant pouching problem here in the US. It is not a local issue yet we would be outraged if we heard of such a violent act being carried out in our own backyard. So why should it be any different for the shark?

We will loose many shark species in our life time
Many shark species have been driven close to 90% extinct but there is still a large Asian shark fin industry and sharks continue to be killed in American waters everyday. Why don't we care about them? Simple. We fear what we do not understand. If sharks are wiped out as the top apex predator it will have far reaching and devastating effects here on land. We have already seen other fisheries collapse because sharks have been removed from the food chain on the east coast. Mollusk fisheries are now under attack by the Atlantic Cow nose bat rays whose populations where once controlled by sharks.

What the experts say:
"The experts found that the sharks and rays, including the Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus), the Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) and the Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) are at risk of extinction due to targeted fishing for valuable fins and meat, as well as indirect bycatch in other fisheries. In most cases, these catches are unregulated and unsustainable."

The International Union for Conservation of Nature warns against the consumption of shark
Supervalu's own website professes global awareness yet continues to participate in the selling of a product known by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to be not only seriously depleted but extremely dangerous to consume. Women; both pregnant or otherwise and children should NEVER eat shark according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. (IUCN)



What the Environmental Defense Fund says about Albertson's product
The following screen shot from the EDF website illustrates the product Albertson's/Supervalu continues to sell to its customers:

(from the Environmental Defense Fund website: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=15755)

Ask them why
It's time to ask Alberton's/Supervalu why they continue to sell endangered shark even after being supplied with endless facts and figures. It's time to demand that, as consumers we will no longer patronize a store with such little regard for our environment on a global scale.

Have your say
We are asking the public to contact the following Supervalu executives and tell them that we will no longer shop in their stores until endangered sharks are removed permanently from their sea food counters.

Please contact the following:

Stephanie Martin
Director of Communications
Stephanie.Martin@supervalu.com

Supervalu Corporate contact:
http://www.supervalu.com/sv-webapp/contact/contact.jsp

Albertson's contact:
https://shop.albertsons.com/eCommerceWeb/Comments.do?action=viewComments


---------------------------------------------
Sources:
The International Union for Conservation of Nature: http://www.iucn.org/
IUCN Redlist: http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Environmental Defense Fund: http://www.edf.org
EDF ECO-watch: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=16301

---------------------------------------------
Join our Aquatic Army: http://www.facebook.com/OceanicDefense

Court OKs Aquatic Ecosystem Destruction

WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court recently upheld a federal permit to dump waste from an Alaskan gold mine into a nearby lake, even though all its fish would be killed. Environmentalists feared the ruling could weaken protection of other lakes, streams and waterways from mining waste.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices said a federal appeals court wrongly blocked on environmental grounds the Army Corps of Engineers waste disposal permit for the Kensington gold mine 45 miles north of Juneau. The mine, which had been closed since 1928, has been awaiting a resumption of operation, pending approval of the waste disposal issue.

The court ruling clears the way for as much as 4.5 million tons of mine tailings - waste left after metals are extracted from the ore - to be dumped into Lower Slate Lake in the Tongass National Forest and about 3 miles from the mine, instead of being disposed of in a special tailings pond.

The court, in its majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said that the Army Corps was correct in agreeing with the mining company that the waste should be considered "fill material" and not subject to more stringent Environmental Protection Agency standards under the federal Clean Water Act.

The Army Corps issued the permit in 2005, three years after the Bush administration broadened the definition of fill material so that waste, including some contaminated materials, can be dumped into waterways.

Kennedy cited an EPA memorandum of understanding that the EPA acknowledged agreement with the Army Corps that its more stringent requirements do not cover fill material. He wrote that the court should "accord deference to the agencies' reasonable decision" that such fill material be regulated by the Army Corps, and not the EPA.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it is "neither necessary or proper" to interpret the waterway protection law "as allowing mines to bypass EPA's zero-discharge standard by classifying slurry as fill material." She argued the lower court had been correct in concluding that the use of waters as "settling ponds for harmful mining waste" was contrary to the federal Clean Water Act.

Environmentalists, who had sued to halt the mining company's waste disposal plan, said dumping 200,000 gallons a day of mining waste water - containing aluminum, copper, lead, mercury and other metals - has dire implications not only for the Alaska lake, but possibly other lakes and waterways.

"If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless waste dump, other polluters with solids in their water can potentially do the same to any water body in America," said Trip Van Noppen, president of EarthJustice, which had participated in the litigation.

Rob Cadmus of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council said there were better ways to dispose of the mine waste such as dry land storage. But the mining company argued that the alternative would have been to put the material into nearby wetlands, which it maintained was more environmentally harmful.

Officials of the Idaho-based Coeur d'Alene Mine Co., owner of the Alaska mine, said the decision was the last hurdle to building the tailings facility so that mining activities can begin.

The court ruling "confirms that this thoroughly studied permit and plan is the best environmental choice" for disposal of the mine's waste, said Tony Ebersole, the company's director of corporate communications. Company lawyers said in court arguments that after mining activities are halted the lake will be restocked.

The lake will be as good or better as a fishery than it is today," Ebersole said. He said the mine will have "huge future economic impact" creating 300 construction jobs and 370 direct and indirect jobs linked to operations.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, welcomed the court ruling and said it "resolved the most significant obstacle to the creation of hundreds of direct and indirect jobs and a major boost for the economy of Juneau and Southeast Alaska."

The disposal plan had been approved by various state agencies and a federal district court. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in 2007 blocked the permit, saying the dumping violated EPA requirements, prompting the mining company and the state of Alaska to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

Joining Kennedy in approving the disposal plan were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr.

In addition to Ginsburg, dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

----

On the Net:

U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: http://www.seacc.org

Coeur Alaska Inc.: http://www.kensingtongold.com

Reefs could perish by end of century, experts warn

LONDON (Reuters) - Increasingly acidic oceans and warming water temperatures due to carbon dioxide emissions could kill off the world's ocean reefs by the end of this century, scientists warned on Monday.

The experts told a meeting in London the predicted pace of emissions means a level of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will be reached by 2050, putting corals on a path to extinction in the following decades.

The two dozen coral reef specialists and climate change exerts represented universities, government research offices and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"The kitchen is on fire and it's spreading around the house," Alex Rogers of the Zoological Society of London and the International Program on the State of the Ocean, said in a statement.

"If we act quickly and decisively we may be able to put it out before the damage becomes irreversible."

Oceans absorb large amounts of CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. But scientists say the oceans are acidifying as they absorb more carbon, disrupting the process of calcification used by sea creatures to build shells as well as coral reefs.

Researchers around the world have been urging governments to take more account of such threats to the oceans in a new U.N. treaty on fighting global warming due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December.

Coral reefs -- delicate undersea structures resembling rocky gardens made by tiny animals called coral polyps -- are important nurseries and shelters for fish and other sea life.

They also protect coastlines, provide a critical source of food for millions of people, attract tourists and are potential storehouse of medicines for cancer and other diseases.

PATH TO MAJOR DEGRADATION

"If CO2 is allowed to reach 450 ppm, as is currently widely regarded as being the most optimistic threshold target for world leaders to agree at Copenhagen, we will have put the world's reefs on a path to major degradation and ultimate extinction," John Veron, the former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, told the meeting.

"Such a catastrophe poses a dire threat to the future wellbeing of all humanity."

The scientists agreed that governments should strive for a level of 320 parts per million of carbon dioxide, saying 360 was a breaking point for reefs to survive.

At the current level of 387 parts per million of carbon dioxide, reefs are in serious decline, they said. This will have a future knock-effect that threatens other marine and coastal ecosystems.

Coral covers about 400,000 square km of tropical ocean floor, but needs sustained sunlight, warmer waters and high levels of carbonate to flourish.

The biggest is the Great Barrier Reef, a collection of 2,900 reefs along 2,100 km of Australia's north east coast in a marine park the size of Germany.

(Reporting by Michael Kahn; editing by Anthony Barker)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5654JY20090706?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0