Jonathan Gold: Ban Shark Fin Soup

By Elina Shatkin Mon., Aug. 8 2011 at 2:16 PM

A model of a hammerhead shark hangs above the bar at Maui & Sons in Hollywood.

Like Tracy Morgan on "30 Rock," we try to live every week like it's Shark Week. We don't, however, live every week like it's Shark Fin Soup Week.

In today's Los Angeles Times, Jonathan Gold pens an op-ed supporting the passage of the California Shark Protection Act, which would prohibit the sale, consumption and trade of shark's fin. The bill passed easily in the Assembly (65-8) but faces stiff opposition in the state Senate, where it pits environmental activists against cultural preservationists. Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) believes such a ban would discriminate against Chinese Americans.

Shark's fin, which Gold describes as "bland to the point of nonexistence," is a delicacy in Chinese cuisine, prized for its "ethereal, gelatinous texture." The craze for it has helped reduce some shark populations to 10% of historical levels, while nearly a third of shark species are approaching extinction.

In support of the bill's passage, Gold argues:

"It's true: The ban would affect mostly Chinese Americans, who make up almost all of the market for fins... But Chinese culinary culture has proved resilient over the centuries, as able to absorb such foreign ingredients as chiles and squashes as it has been to withstand the absence of sea turtle skirt and bear paw, whose preparation obsessed the earliest Chinese gourmets. There is no third way with shark's fin -- we either stop eating it because we choose to preserve the species, or we stop eating it because soon there will be none left to eat."

Tags:

California Shark Protection Act, Chinese, Elina Shatkin, Environmental Protection, Jonathan Gold, Seafood, Shark Fin Soup, Shark Week, Ted Lieu

We Recommend

Savvysearch

The cruelty claim is absurd. A shark's brain is small and relatively unimportant to the overall function of sharks. Much like killing any other fish, or a species like a lobsters or a worm, there's no cruelty involved for the simple fact that their brains are much too simple to contain any distinct consciousness where pain is be comprehended. Jonathan Gold is right about saving sharks for purposes of future generations, or simply for reasons of so much waste. He's off the mark when he claims it as "barbaric," which would require one to suffer. Sharks lack that ability.

Patvolk

And have you ever experienced drowning ?What is your source? How do you know?Descartes used to think the same about dogs. Sentient or not death by drowning is not at all nice or pleasane, which is wha the sharks do.Did you miss that point?Lobsters faint when thrown into the pot.

Patvolk

To compare the desire for such a 'delicacy" with the death by drowning of a sentient creature is absurd.Mankind??It is comparable to the production and sale of foie gras.The morals ( and ethics) of a nation are judged by the way it treats animals. ()Ghandi)

Savvysearch

A shark is not a sentient creature. That's pure fiction and has no basis in any common scientific understanding of their neurological system.

Val

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I personally don't eat shark's fin soup for a variety of reasons, including the fact that discarding the rest of the animal to save space on the ship is ludicrous at best and cruel at worst. However, I find the idea of a shark steak marinated with tequila, lime juice and spices searing on the grill mouth-watering. If shark's fin soup is outlawed, what will the penalty be for someone who legally catches a shark for food who happens to eat the fin as well? Are they supposed to present it at the dock to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be removed and destroyed? Finning sharks is not the cause of endangerment of the species - over-fishing is. To properly preserve the species we simply need to limit the catch as we do with multiple other species and allow the consumption of the entire animal. Banning shark's fin soup will not stop the practice - it will drive it underground and create a booming black market in a spectacular failure similar to that of the 18th Amendment to the Unites States Constitution. Will there be anything is the proposed legislation to eliminate sport/trophy fishing of sharks? If finning is the issue at hand, outlaw the practice and strictly enforce it; if it's the cultural experience of eating the soup, boycott it. If you simply ban the soup but still allow Aunt Millie to pick up a few pounds of thresher steaks at the neighborhood Stop and Shop, then it truly does look like you're targeting a particular culture. My two cents...

Marta Evry

Actually finning is exactly why sharks or so endangered, and not overfishing in general. In the most comprehensive study of the shark fin trade (Clarke, et al, 2006), estimates of the total number of sharks traded for their fins worldwide ranged from 26 to 73 million a year with a median of 38 million. The median figure is about four times the total shark catch worldwide that nations’ fisheries report to the United Nations FAO. This suggests that most sharks are being killed just for their fins, with their carcasses never making it to shore to be included in fishery reports......In other words, take away the market for shark fins, and you could potentially reduce most of the overfishing (won't help with shark by-catch - sharks caught accidentally while fishing for other species - but that's another issue)

Val

What you say is true, but the suggestion raised is to ban shark fin soup. Whether or not it is the prime contributing factor towards a dwindling shark population, finning is a senseless and barbaric practice that needs to be outlawed with strict enforcement. But banning the soup without regulating or banning shark fishing makes no sense, as you're essentially saying that it's OK to fish for shark and sell the meat at market, but must either dispose of or surrender the fin. It would seem to me that if you are going to allow shark fishing based on your statement that there's no reason to ban shark fin soup, but to demand certification that the fin used was collected from a shark that was otherwise totally consumed. It's like banning pork tenderloin but allowing you to eat the rest of the pig...