Seaspiracy: Viewer Reactions, Disputed Claims and Ocean Facts

Originally published 2021-04-06.

Seaspiracy, a Netflix documentary released in late March 2021, quickly became one of the most talked-about films of the year. Directed by British filmmaker Ali Tabrizi, it argues that industrial fishing is the biggest threat to the world's oceans and that the only real answer is to stop eating fish. Within days, viewers were posting pledges to give up seafood. At the same time, fisheries scientists and several people who appear in the film said that some of its most striking statistics were wrong or taken out of context. Both reactions are worth understanding.

What Seaspiracy is about

The film follows Tabrizi as he sets out to investigate plastic pollution and ends up focusing on commercial fishing. Along the way it covers whaling and dolphin hunts in Japan, shark finning, forced labour on fishing vessels, fish farming, bycatch (marine animals caught unintentionally) and the credibility of sustainability labels. It was produced by Kip Andersen, co-creator of the 2014 documentary Cowspiracy, which made a similar case about the environmental impact of livestock farming.

The style is personal and urgent, with hidden cameras, confrontational interviews and dramatic music. That is a big part of why it connected with so many viewers, and also why critics said it sometimes favoured impact over accuracy.

How viewers reacted

In the first weeks after release, social media filled with people saying the film had changed how they eat. The UK's Marine Conservation Society reported a 169% jump in traffic to its website, according to Wired UK, which interviewed viewers about their plans.

"Can you turn off the camera?" 😳#Seaspiracy is definitely not a waste of your time, If you care about animals, justice, our oceans, our planet & your health. pic.twitter.com/255eUem7Vn

— AnimalLeaks 🌐 (@animal_leaks) April 5, 2021

Among them was James Pearson, 42, from England, who said documentaries like this were "real eye-openers" that made him rethink his habits. Joseph Rojas, 24, from London, said the film had given him "a valid excuse" to turn down fish in future.

Whether those pledges last is a separate question. Researchers who study behaviour change note that strong emotional reactions to a film often fade, and that lasting shifts usually depend on habits, prices and availability as much as on information. Many commentators at the time argued that the bigger levers are government policy and fishing industry practices, not only individual diets.

The claims that drew criticism

Several of the film's best-known numbers were challenged by scientists:

• "Empty oceans by 2048." This comes from a 2006 study in the journal Science whose press coverage overstated its findings. A larger 2009 follow-up, which included the original lead author Boris Worm, found that many fisheries were being rebuilt. Worm later said the 2048 figure relied on data that was nearly 20 years old. Fisheries scientist Emily De Sousa wrote that the statistic "is not scientifically accepted and should stop being cited."
• Fishing nets and plastic. The film says fishing nets make up 46% of ocean plastic in a key location. That figure refers to the weight of floating debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, not to plastic across all oceans. Most plastic entering the sea sinks, and nets may be overrepresented among floating rubbish because many include floats. Abandoned fishing gear is still a serious and deadly problem.
• Sustainable fishing "does not exist." Most fisheries scientists reject this. Monitored fish stocks, which make up more than half of the global catch, are on average stable or increasing, although many unmonitored fisheries are in worse shape.
• Dolphin-safe labels. The film suggests the label guarantees nothing. Researchers note that dolphin deaths in the eastern Pacific tuna fishery fell from over 100,000 a year in the 1980s to under 1,000 in 2018, though monitoring at sea is far from perfect.

The film also cites an estimate that around 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die each year after being caught in fishing gear. Figures of that size are used by conservation groups and are based on scientific estimates, but they carry wide uncertainty.

What interviewees and experts said

Some people featured in the film distanced themselves from it. The Marine Stewardship Council, the Earth Island Institute and the Plastic Pollution Coalition said their comments were cherry-picked. Marine social scientist Christina Hicks, who appears on screen, said fish remain vital for food security and nutrition in many poorer coastal communities.

Expert opinion was split rather than dismissive. Fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly agreed industrial fishing is a major problem but said the film undermined its case with errors. Marine biologist Callum Roberts said its basic message, that humans are doing enormous damage to the ocean, is right. Greenpeace welcomed the attention to ocean issues but did not support the conclusion that everyone should stop eating fish. Researchers such as Dyhia Belhabib pointed out that most of the world's fishers are small-scale and coastal, and that a blanket boycott would hit them hardest.

What is actually known about ocean health

Setting aside the disputed numbers, the underlying concerns are real. Overfishing remains a serious problem in many regions, particularly where fisheries are poorly managed or monitored. Illegal and unreported fishing, harmful subsidies, bycatch of turtles, sharks and marine mammals, abandoned gear and human rights abuses at sea are all documented issues. At the same time, places with strong, science-based management have shown that depleted stocks can recover.

In other words, the picture is neither "the oceans will be empty in a few decades" nor "everything is fine". It varies enormously by species, region and fishing method.

Practical takeaways if the film moved you

• Choose carefully rather than guessing. Seafood guides from organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society or the Monterey Bay Aquarium rate species by region and method.
• Look at how fish are caught. Pole-and-line or well-managed small-scale fisheries usually have less bycatch than some industrial methods.
• Eat lower on the food chain or eat less. Some people cut back rather than quit entirely; others go fully plant-based. If you make a big diet change, especially for children or during pregnancy, talk to a doctor or dietitian about nutrients such as omega-3s, iodine and vitamin B12.
• Support policy change. Marine protected areas, catch limits based on science, and an end to harmful subsidies have broad expert support.

Seaspiracy succeeded in getting millions of people to think about where their food comes from. Its lasting value may depend on whether viewers follow that curiosity to the evidence, including the parts the film left out.

Sources: Wikipedia: Seaspiracy; Sustainable Fisheries UW, Emily De Sousa: The science of Seaspiracy (April 2021); viewer quotes and traffic figures as reported by Wired UK; embedded post by @animal_leaks; film by Ali Tabrizi, distributed by Netflix.