Fish consumption drops : a reply
(Fish consumption decline: hypotheses.)
GC Matchaya, PhD
This note is in response to the article ‘Fish consumption drops’ that appeared in the nation paper of Friday, 18 June 2010 published online at http://www.mwnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1206:fish-consumption-drops&catid=66:business-news&Itemid=64
The said article is interesting and tackles an issue of importance for health and general societal welfare. The annual fish catch figures it presents are enlightening and helps readers to understand the fish availability problem in Malawi in a proper context.
Nevertheless the article seems to present otherwise simple facts in a manner that may get the readers confused. Firstly the characters mentioned in the article seem to insinuate that the decline in fish per capita consumption is due to general disinterest in fish consumption by consumers, so that there should be policies that seek to encourage fish consumption as perhaps in fish importance awareness! This may not really be correct because the reasons behind per capita fish consumption decline most likely include
1. The increase in population at a rate higher than the rate of fish production means that per capita values will go down. This should hold regardless of how the population structure has changed because we know for one thing that population of fish eaters must also have increased.
2. The rate at which fish production has grown is likely very low, either because fish harvesting and rearing technologies have not progressed fast enough or perhaps because the regeneration rate has gone down over time perhaps due to unsustainable harvesting.
In fact the article only gives one data point for the nationwide fish quantity. For the picture to be clear there was need to give data points for past production. These would show whether production levels have been constant, increasing or decreasing over time This would in turn show us whether the declining consumption was due to disinterest or the reasons above, allowing for population growth too.
In short I agree that per capita fish consumption has dwindled over time but not due to consumer apathy, but due to a differential between the rate of population growth and the rate of fish production, of which the latter may be related to general fish scarcity resulting from unsustainable fish harvesting. It is also possible that the differential might result solely from the rate of technological progress in fish farming and harvesting being surpassed by the rate of population growth.
The policies that should be touted relate to unsustainable fish harvesting, introduction/enhancement of inland fishing, control of population growth, diversification of the sources of protein. Encouraging fish intake is always important, but is unrelated to the present issue discussed in the nation article.
Cheers
GC Matchaya, PhD
This note is in response to the article ‘Fish consumption drops’ that appeared in the nation paper of Friday, 18 June 2010 published online at http://www.mwnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1206:fish-consumption-drops&catid=66:business-news&Itemid=64
The said article is interesting and tackles an issue of importance for health and general societal welfare. The annual fish catch figures it presents are enlightening and helps readers to understand the fish availability problem in Malawi in a proper context.
Nevertheless the article seems to present otherwise simple facts in a manner that may get the readers confused. Firstly the characters mentioned in the article seem to insinuate that the decline in fish per capita consumption is due to general disinterest in fish consumption by consumers, so that there should be policies that seek to encourage fish consumption as perhaps in fish importance awareness! This may not really be correct because the reasons behind per capita fish consumption decline most likely include
1. The increase in population at a rate higher than the rate of fish production means that per capita values will go down. This should hold regardless of how the population structure has changed because we know for one thing that population of fish eaters must also have increased.
2. The rate at which fish production has grown is likely very low, either because fish harvesting and rearing technologies have not progressed fast enough or perhaps because the regeneration rate has gone down over time perhaps due to unsustainable harvesting.
In fact the article only gives one data point for the nationwide fish quantity. For the picture to be clear there was need to give data points for past production. These would show whether production levels have been constant, increasing or decreasing over time This would in turn show us whether the declining consumption was due to disinterest or the reasons above, allowing for population growth too.
In short I agree that per capita fish consumption has dwindled over time but not due to consumer apathy, but due to a differential between the rate of population growth and the rate of fish production, of which the latter may be related to general fish scarcity resulting from unsustainable fish harvesting. It is also possible that the differential might result solely from the rate of technological progress in fish farming and harvesting being surpassed by the rate of population growth.
The policies that should be touted relate to unsustainable fish harvesting, introduction/enhancement of inland fishing, control of population growth, diversification of the sources of protein. Encouraging fish intake is always important, but is unrelated to the present issue discussed in the nation article.
Cheers
Comments
Post a Comment