Safeway, Vons top Greenpeace list for seafood sustainability

[XemaSab]

One of the nation's largest supermarket chains has claimed the top spot in the Greenpeace seafood sustainability report, released Tuesday. Safeway, which operates more than 1,700 stores under various names, including Vons, was praised for discontinuing sales of "red-list," or unsustainably caught, species, including orange roughy.

"Safeway broke new ground with this new report," said Casson Trenor, senior markets campaigner for Greenpeace.

Safeway's move into first place from its fourth-place ranking last year was due in part to the company's involvement in fishery improvement projects to rebuild fish stocks. Most significant, it's made a public statement calling on the governments that control fisheries in the Antarctic Ross Sea to designate it as a marine reserve.

The environmental activist group used four criteria to determine seafood retailer rankings in its fifth Carting Away the Oceans report: seafood purchasing policy, participation in political or conservation initiatives, transparency about what is being sold at the point of sale and how many types of red-list fish a retailer sells.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/04/safeway-fish.html

[xchrom]

1. A little surprising but a very nice headline.

I noticed some time back that I thought whole foods was changing the Safeway did some of their business.
And it was nice to give more of my business to a union place.

[tavalon]

2. Safeway is union?

if so, I will give them a second look. I think QFC/Fred Mayers is union - I think.

[xchrom]

3. yep -- i have dear friends who work there

and are union reps.

[tavalon]

4. Well, I'm not used to shopping there's with gluten issues but will teach this old dog

A new trick!

[kristopher]

5. I thought you rejected Greenpeace?

Whenever the topic of their rejection nuclear power arises, aren't you in the camp saying Greenpeace just takes their positions to shoehorn money out of gullible environmentalists?

It's good to see you've apparently come to a different conclusion.

[XemaSab]

6. I'd love to have a link for that

:D

[kristopher]

7. Do you support Greenpeace as a legitimate authoritative voice for environmental justice?

A simple yes of no will suffice.

[XemaSab]

8. I'm a skeptic by nature

I think Greenpeace, the American Bird Conservancy, the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, the National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, the Sea Shepherds, the Red Panda Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the Shasta Land Trust, PETA, Earth First!, ALF, ELF, and so forth are right probably 90% of the time.

It's the other 10% that I find interesting and worthy of discussion. :evilgrin:

[kristopher]

9. That doesn't pass the smell test when their motives are the basis for attacking ...

...them in the 10% you disagree with them on.

You cannot profess that they are a legitimate authoritative voice on 90% of social justice issues and scheming money-grubbers pandering to fools the other 10% of the time.

Well, then again, maybe you can since that is what you've just done. But to most of us, that indicates a problem with your outlook, not with Greenpeace and the 10% of the issues you don't like their stance on.

It is one thing to show with analysis that their position if flawed, it is quite another to base the criticism on their integrity.

[XemaSab]

10. You still haven't provided a link

:shrug:

[kristopher]

11. Are you clearly and deliberately denying that you have taken that stance?

[XemaSab]

12. I did some rummaging in the archives and all I found was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=180672&mesg_id=180686