Where did your shrimp dinner really come from? This reporter surfaces hard details.
Ian Urbina sitting in front of a passing Greko vessel. In 2017, Mr. Urbina wrote about his investigation into whether the vessel and a similar trawler were fishing illegally in Somali waters.
Fabio Nascimento/Courtesy of Outlaw Ocean Project
Award-winning journalist Ian Urbina has been writing about the largely hidden world of the oceans for a decade. He was originally drawn to the topic because he realized few other people were covering the two-thirds of Earth that鈥檚 covered in water. But he soon found a deeper mission: a desire to bring light to the life-or-death human and ecological struggles that have long been invisible to those of us on land.
This summer, his nonprofit journalism organization, the Outlaw Ocean Project, has released its podcast鈥檚 second season. Among other topics, these episodes detail the supply chain that underlies much of the world鈥檚 seafood 鈥� including the shrimp or ready-to-cook calamari sitting in the frozen section of the grocery store.
Those food items have stories that might involve everything from secret Chinese trawlers to captive labor to geopolitical deception.
Why We Wrote This
Many people have been learning about their food's 鈥渇arm to table鈥� story. But the journey from ocean to table is less known. Journalist Ian Urbina's work is shedding light on challenges in a largely unpoliced realm.
The Monitor talked recently with Mr. Urbina about the connections between our dinner plates and what happens in the remote, dangerous waters of the ocean 鈥� and how journalism can help. The interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Can we start with shrimp? I know a lot of people who go to the store, find a bag of frozen shrimp at a good price, and not think much about it. What鈥檚 important for them to know about that product?
Well, the first question would be, do we know anything about where it came from? If it鈥檚 foreign, which is the vast majority, the sky is the limit on concerns. The core principle is, the longer the supply chain, the more places there are for dark stuff to creep in. And so, if it鈥檚 something that鈥檚 coming from far, far away, and it鈥檚 trading hands 17 times before it ends up on your shelf, then that鈥檚 pretty worrisome. The climate impacts, the potential for forced labor, the potential use of antibiotics, the ocean health impacts 鈥� all those things are going to be much greater when you have a really long supply chain.
Your podcast delves into that supply chain 鈥� as it did during its first season. What surprised you from your reporting this time?
In 2015, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the Guardian were all over the issue of sea slavery, as the term was called. And it was really focused on Thailand and the South China Sea. So, what was surprising to me, jumping to 2024 with the India investigation [Episode 5], is that the very things that drove the shrimp industry out of Thailand 鈥� a lot of Western brands left because they were not happy about the bad press about forced labor 鈥� the very things same things that we reported in 2014 are happening in India in terms of the captive labor, the conditions, debt bondage, violence. So that surprised me. But in some ways, it didn鈥檛. Capital moves where it can do its thing.
But aren鈥檛 there seafood industry monitors, or certifications?
The Monterey Bay Aquarium in California has a ranking system, but historically, it is only worried about the environmental issues 鈥� is this species running out or not? They鈥檝e sort of looked over in the direction of labor issues, but not really, and even on the 鈥渋s this a safe species to be purchasing?鈥� question, they are not really able to check the supply chains.
The private industry certification thing is a sham. It鈥檚 fundamentally flawed because the people being policed are paying the police, so there鈥檚 already a conflict of interest. Much of what is used to prove that rules are being followed are self-reported. These auditors never get on the vessels.
What was new in the China investigation was China [Episodes 6 and 7]. China is a black box where, if you are a journalism outfit, or you鈥檙e an NGO, or you鈥檙e a company, and you agree to go in there, you鈥檙e going to go in there playing by their rules. And if you break their rules, you鈥檙e going to get kicked out of the country. One of the rules is, you don鈥檛 mention the Uyghurs. You don鈥檛 mention North Korea. You don鈥檛 talk about human rights violations. And you鈥檙e not doing unannounced spot checks.
Chinese dominance in this supply chain comes up repeatedly in your episodes this season.
It鈥檚 the reality, and it only becomes more so by the month and by the year. And it鈥檚 really China鈥檚 dominance on the water generally, whether it鈥檚 navies, coast guards, technology, research, Big Pharma, mining the sea floor, companies looking to go into seabed mining. If it鈥檚 on the water, China is crushing everyone else.
On fishing, think of it this way: You have near-shore fishing and distant-water fishing. Distant-water fishing refers to ships that go outside of your national waters, so into high seas or foreign waters. Those are the vessels that tend to be industrial scale, so 40 or more guys, huge ships. And they tend to stay offshore anywhere from 6 months to 3 years and never come to port. They go really, really far. Some of them traverse the entire planet before they come back to home port.
So, if you鈥檙e going to measure the world鈥檚 countries on the size just of their presence on the water when it comes to fishing, China鈥檚 distant-water fleet, if you ask the Chinese government: 2,700 vessels. If you ask a think tank here in DC: 17,000 vessels. You ask us, we put the number at 6,500.
Even if you use the Chinese conservative number of 2,700 vessels, it鈥檚 still five times bigger than the next largest fleet.
Now, let鈥檚 go on land. So, a French ship goes out to Togo, fishes tuna, brings it back, freezes it, and then sends it to China to be processed. They freeze it again, send it back. A Spanish ship does squid. A U.S. ship does whatever.
Most of the processing left the United States and Europe in the late 鈥�80s and early 鈥�90s, because it鈥檚 really labor-intensive, environmentally pretty complicated, and needs to be done on scale. And China became the sweatshop of the planet in the late 鈥�80s and early 鈥�90s. So now, there is no processing capacity, really, outside of China.
So, what that means is, not only are they pulling more marine life out of the water, but much of the marine life being pulled out of the water by other folks is being is sent 鈥� because it鈥檚 so much cheaper and faster 鈥� to China.
Given all this, what would you recommend an everyday consumer do?
I think the first step that we all should take when we鈥檙e trying to answer the question of, 鈥淲hat do I do about any of this,鈥� is step back and redefine who we are. Especially in the U.S., we think of ourselves as 鈥渃onsumers.鈥� Like, we鈥檙e even called that normally, more so than parents, siblings, lovers, taxpayers, voters, donors. We wear lots of hats, and our sole identity isn鈥檛 just what we buy.
So first, step back and realize you wear like 12 different hats in your daily life. And with each, you can do something little that might help shed light or move the needle. If you鈥檙e a voter, you can think, 鈥淚鈥檝e read about how bad this issue is 鈥� whatever the issue 鈥� and I kind of want to vote for this woman, or this guy, and but I want to see where they are on that. You鈥檝e also got 11 other categories. Every year, I send $20 to some NGO doing good stuff. Who should it be? You鈥檙e at Thanksgiving, and there鈥檚 that grumpy uncle, and you鈥檙e having a civil conversation of political differences, and you bring up this topic, and you go a couple of rounds, respectfully. You鈥檙e trying to move the needle in all these capacities.
And, yes, you can also buy differently. You can jump on the internet and say, I love shrimp. I鈥檓 not giving it up, but I kind of want shrimp that鈥檚 not as bad. Let me just Google and see what brands seem to be better. And you spend 20 minutes educating yourself, and then, at Walmart, you choose that brand instead of that one.
Don鈥檛 get cornered into thinking this is an answer to the question of, 鈥淗ow do we win the war?鈥� The war is unwinnable. You just fight battles every day and try to move in the right direction. Because if you don鈥檛 set that ground rule, you鈥檒l get a skeptic who鈥檚 eager to say to you, 鈥淥h, that doesn鈥檛 do anything.鈥� OK, it probably doesn鈥檛 do much. It鈥檚 not going to win the war. It鈥檚 not going to solve the problem. It鈥檚 not going to end climate change or slavery or whatever. But something is more than nothing. And personally, I think it鈥檚 ethical to be trying. Even if you鈥檙e aware it鈥檚 not perfect.
Throughout the podcast season, you find yourself in moments that are quite dangerous. You鈥檙e jumping from one ship to another in the middle of the ocean. In Libya, your team is kidnapped and held at gunpoint. It鈥檚 a lot. What keeps you doing this work?
I鈥檓 not an adrenaline junkie. I don鈥檛 like danger, but sometimes it鈥檚 there in those places.
For me, even I was even really young, I struggled with the disparity that exists between those who won the lottery of birth and those who didn鈥檛; how we might be right next to each other and how that just didn鈥檛 seem fair.
My parents kind of beat into me the idea of, 鈥淗ey, use your lottery to try to make things better. Choose what the things are and what you mean by better, but like, you got to do something.鈥�
So this is where I ended up doing something. 鈥� I don鈥檛 think I鈥檓 ever going to win the wars, but at least I鈥檓 fighting for something that feels worthy. And the fight for me is doing good journalism.
The Outlaw Ocean podcast, and other journalism from Mr. Urbina and his team, is available at聽.