Story Line :- Several individuals and organisations featured in the movie have criticised it or disputed statements made by the filmmakers.[18][19] The Marine Stewardship Council disputed the characterisation of the organisation and suggested the film had several inaccuracies in its framing of sustainable fishing.[11] The Plastic Pollution Coalition accused filmmakers of "cherry-[picking] seconds of our comments to support their own narrative".[18] Oceana also criticised the film, accusing the director of selectively editing an interview with a representative, disputing the statement that they receive funding from the seafood industry, and arguing that abstaining from seafood as the film recommends is not feasible for many people, particularly vulnerable coastal communities.[20][21] The International Marine Mammal Project and the Earth Island Institute have disputed the film's depiction of dolphin safe labels,[22] and the project's associate director Mark Palmer, who was interviewed in the film, accused it of taking him out of context.[23]
Christina Hicks, an academic at Lancaster University and James Cook University who appeared in the film, also did not endorse it. She said she committed her career to the fishing industry in which "there are issues but also progress and fish remain critical to food and nutrition security in many vulnerable geographies".[2][4][24] However, marine conservation biologist Callum Roberts from the University of Exeter defended the film from its critics. He said "my colleagues may rue the statistics, but the basic thrust of it is we are doing a huge amount of damage to the ocean and that’s true. At some point you run out. Whether it’s 2048 or 2079, the question is: 'Is the trajectory in the wrong direction or the right direction?'"[4]
The Guardian columnist George Monbiot also expressed his support for the film and its message. While acknowledging the film does contain some inaccuracies, Monbiot says that the main point of the film is correct: the fishing industry is the greatest cause of the ecological destruction of the oceans, and he cites the 2019 IPBES report as evidence to back this assertion.[25]
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society expressed support for the film[2] and Paul Watson defended the film from criticism in a Facebook post, saying "corporate industrialized fishing interests as expected are working overtime in their attempts to discredit Seaspiracy." He accused critics of "cherry picking the science and trying to suggest that industrial fishing is both sustainable and necessary. It's not.
0 comments: