DaleTheEndofTheLine

Jacob Dale Annotation #5, 11/04/10 The End of the Line

1. Title, director and release year?

The film __The End of the Line__ was released in 2009 and was directed by Rupert Murray.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The film opens up with powerful music and an opening scene of light and dark contrasts. In this we see the expansive ocean waters. To us the sea is beautiful and a source of endless food. The film conveys the idea that we are overfishing our waters. We have seen a 90% decline in large fish in the United States alone. The situation is continuing to grow worse as the world population grows and the demand for fish grows. Large corporations are continuing their practice of stocking up on fish, and this is resulting in a dissemination of a species in order to score large profits. The movie shows us this from the accounts of scientists and several fishermen.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The movie draws out overpopulation, corporate greed, and overfishing as problems that are intertwined. Other problems add into this vast matrix. Our population is growing at an alarming rate which means a greater demand for food. This is straining our ocean. Corporations like Mitsubishi are in control, and Mitsubishi controls 60% of the world’s Blue Fin Tuna production. Their greed for profits has turned them to catch fish rapidly and freeze them to build up reserves. Mitsubishi is on a race to catch the last of the Blue Fin Tuna since they are treated as a valuable commodity. Consumers are uninformed, and they continue to purchase endangered fish like the Blue Fin Tuna. The movie showcases the effects of overfishing not only in the sense of the elimination of fish species, but also on the way of life of those involved in the fishing industry.

Newfoundland, Canada has long been a major fishing city. It used to have a dominant cod population. Now, the way of life of the people of this city is suffering since a moratorium on cod fishing was enforced. Fishermen are unable to support their families because of the diminished cod. Besides the corporations involved, technological development has played a huge impact on overfishing. Years ago, we were limited to catching a few fish. Today, our largest nets could fit thirteen 747 airplanes. This leads to faster catching and species are unable to multiply in time. Governments in Europe have tried to enforce rules, but the fishing industry has ignored them. Even so, the guidelines set by European ministers were 3 times over what is needed to help certain species survive. The fishing industry has even ignored these guidelines and is currently fishing out species 6 times over what is needed for species to survive. Besides having a toll on fish, this is hurting our environment by filling up beaches and oceans with worms, plankton, and jelly fish. This means less food supplies, stability in the system, and of course less fresh water. Also, we have seen even more problems in this matrix.

What counts as a sustainable practice for fishing, and where in this do we include the environment? Our governments have encouraged these unsustainable practices by not enforcing regulatory measures. Accountability in the sea remains a huge problem. Consumers are unaware of these issues, and product labeling does not help. Most of the time consumers do not know what companies these products came from, what’s in them, and even if the fish in question is endangered. Several restaurants around the world continue to serve endangered species as we have seen in the film. So, the question remains on how we can fix this matrix.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

I found the Mitsubishi segment very compelling. I had no idea Mitsubishi was involved in fishing. They make cars, appliances, televisions, and so on. I am wondering now, what do they not make? This really gives the picture of a giant multinational corporation extending its greedy arms anywhere it can. The movie did a great job expressing the greed of Mitsubishi. The statistic that they control 60% of the Blue Fin production in North America is astounding. Despite the fish being endangered, they continue to catch and freeze the species to build up resources. This just shows pure greed. Combine this with my prior knowledge that Mitsubishi is involved in the car industry as well as other industries, and one can see that this company is purely motivated by profits. I don’t think this company can have any claim that it is trying to improve. Almost every facet of their business hurts the environment.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

The solutions portion of the film was lacking for me. The film kept mentioning how drastic the situation really is. It even specifically said that we need to find ways to turn back the clock 200 years and that disaster will loom within a half century if we do not change course. How are simple solutions enough? These statistics alone seem to undermine any simple solutions. Consumer demand is not instantaneous. I’m not sure our consumer demand would even change in 50 years. What we need is drastic policy changes of world governments. A strict and harsh set of regulations is needed to permanently change course.

6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

The film is most likely for the average consumer and fish eater. I was actually unaware of the gravity of the situation. Watching the film has made me think twice about buying just any fish. The manner of which the film turned a variety of different species of fish and took a worldwide perspective that informed the consumer on the gravity of the situation makes me believe it was to educate the consumer. After all, a solution listed to this problem was consumer demand. The imagery in the film showed fish being slaughtered, so I do not think it would be appropriate for younger viewers.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

Overall, the film was full of statistics and showed how bad our fishing situation is. I feel as if it needs only a handful of things to add. I would have added more information about how the problem is specifically affecting our ecosystem. Sure we are running out of fresh water due to fish species running out, but explain more for non-scientific viewers. I would have also talked about the exact number of fish we need to bring back to restore full capacity to further bring home the message.

8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.

The film talks about many possible courses of action. The overall theme toward the end of the movie is that although our situation with globally fisheries is bleak, there is still hope and time to change course. The film looks at Alaska and their strict fishing limits as an example of what other states and countries could do. Alaska matches the fleet size to the capacity of the fishing resource and has restricted the number of fishing boats. This is the policy fix it idea. Another idea thrown out was consumers and the power of their demand. Eating only big fish is a problem since 1 kilo of Salmon requires 5 kilos of anchovies as feed. This also means we do not have enough fish to feed other fish. Consumers can choose the restaurants they eat at and what they buy. Consumers can turn their attention to more viable fish species particularly smaller fish. This has effects. This could lead to labels certifying sustainability, and it has led to Wal-Mart only selling fresh MSC fish. These are great solutions, but I feel as if we need to know more about the actual numbers of fish we need to restore. These solutions seem rather simple for such a big problem. We need the government and corporations to work with each other as well.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

This documentary made me want to look into if any restaurants in the United States are taking action against selling Blue Fin Tuna or other species and if there has been any new headway in saving the Blue Fin Tuna. It turns out that this last September; the very popular Sushi Samba restaurant in Las Vegas took Blue Fin Tuna off the menu. This was after the restaurant learned the fish was dying out. It followed the example of chef Rock Moonen, a sustainability leader in seafood cooking. Public reception of this has been great. However, several other restaurants such as Nobu and Koi continue to serve the fish in Last Vegas.

[]

It appears as of last year, a new development has taken place. The Allotuna and Selfdott Northern bluefin-breeding programs have discovered hormone treatments that can make the fish spawn while being in coastal pens. This hasn’t been done before. While this is rather significant, it appears that Japanese researchers have tried to breed the fish species for the last 30 years with little luck. I guess we will have to see if these new breeding programs will ultimately be successful.

[]