Creating True Industry Reform Via MAC- Cyanide Testing

[MaryHM]

This thread is locked and will only be updated with information from MAC concerning the topic. Discussion of this topic can occur in any of the current threads or start your own!

The "We" is referring to myself, Peter Rubec, and several other people on this board who have been working toward this goal. You can read the other threads to see exactly who everyone is.

THE ISSUE
We are currently trying to get MAC to implement and require random cyanide testing for fish in the Philippines. They are currently certifying fish coming out of the Phiilppines with absolutely no testing in place to verify that the fish were net caught. Knowing that the Philippines is notorious for cyanide use, it is impossible to certify without testing. Any consumer seeing a MAC certified sticker on an animal will assume that the animal was collected and handled in an environmentally sustainable manner. We feel that by certifying fish without a valid CDT (cyanide detection test) being in place that a fraud is being perpetrated against consumers- whether they be importers, LFS, or hobbyists. Even worse, destruction of the reefs will continue under the guise of MAC certification. Remember, you can have a healthy cyanide caught fish, but you cannot have a healthy reef where cyanide fishing is occuring.

MAC'S RESPONSE
Due to constant publicity about this issue MAC has concluded that putting a CDT in place must be a top priority in order to create a stronger certification process. I have been informed by Paul Holthus, MAC executive director, that they are working on the issue and hope to have some news within the next few months. When I receive updates from Paul, I will post them here.

 

[MaryHM]

Update from MAC. I wish the PTFEA would have addressed the issue of paying divers more for net caught...



DATE: 9 February 2003

TO: MAC Board Members

FROM: Paul Holthus, Director, MAC

SUBJECT: Philippines Update and PTFEA Statement


Dear MAC Board Members;

We have had a very busy and productive 10 days in the Philippines, including meetings with representatives of all of the MAC Certified exporters and all but one of the MAC Certified collectors associations.

This included individual MAC meetings with representatives of the MAC Certified exporters and collectors associations to allow each to voice their concerns and issues. We also held the first every MAC Certified Collectors and Exporters Group Consultation (MAC-CCEG 1). The representatives of most of the MAC Certified exporters and all but one of the MAC Certified collectors associations were able to resolve several issues of concern. This was followed by visits to exporters facilities by the collector's representatives where there was much progress in reaching agreement on screening processes.

We assisted the MAC Certified Collectors and Exporters Group in drafting an agreement on these issues and best practices that are being reviewed and we will reports on this soon.

MAC also met, as we always do when I am in the Philippines, with the entire Philippines Tropical Fish Export Association membership. The frank and detailed discussion resulted in, among other things, the formation of a PTFEA committee to work specifically w MAC on increasing the amount of MAC Certified supplies.

In the meantime, the PTFEA has developed the attached Statement to clearly indicate its position in relation to:
- Supply Development
- Standardized Screening
- Cooperate With Cyanide Detection Testing
- Jointly Answer To Negative Statements

This PTFEA Statement will be posted on the PTFEA website and the MAC website. We would encourage you to circulate it and post among your constituents and networks, especially in the US and Europe.

Sincerely,

Paul


Philippines Tropical Fish Export Association (PTFEA) STATEMENT
7th of February, 2003

The members of the PTFEA wish to clarify and reiterate the following:

SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT:
PTFEA members will coordinate with MAC to ensure there is a growing supply
of MAC Certified organisms available to its members.

STANDARDIZED SCREENING:
PTFEA members will coordinate with MAC certified collectors to produce and
adhere to a common organism selection and screening procedure and agree on
selection and screening practices and acceptable quality and size
parameters for all organisms.

COOPERATE WITH CYANIDE DETECTION TESTING:
PTFEA members understand and support the development and implementation of
valid and effective cyanide detection testing, and that the test results
will only be used properly and ethically with full respects to the rights
of each member. That all PTFEA operations and facilities will be open to
random announced and unannounced monitoring and sampling of stock for
cyanide detection, provided that the testing be done at approved
laboratories, and that the tests be conducted by officially authorized persons.

JOINTLY ANSWER TO NEGATIVE STATEMENTS:
In the event there are any negative opinions and responses concerning PTFEA
that includes reference or relation to MAC, it shall be addressed through
factual information provided by the PTFEA and MAC.

Agreed:

"unanimously approved by the PTFEA members"

7th of February, 2003

 

[jamesw]

Unstickied.

Cheers
James

 

[Ad van Tage]

The message below was posted almost a year ago. What is the status now? Any news on cyanide testing by PFTEA members??? Is any being done at all?

Update from MAC. I wish the PTFEA would have addressed the issue of paying divers more for net caught...

DATE: 9 February 2003
TO: MAC Board Members
FROM Paul Holthus, Director, MAC
SUBJECT: Philippines Update and PTFEA Statement


Dear MAC Board Members;

We have had a very busy and productive 10 days in the Philippines, ..........................

COOPERATE WITH CYANIDE DETECTION TESTING:
PTFEA members understand and support the development and implementation of
valid and effective cyanide detection testing, and that the test results
will only be used properly and ethically with full respects to the rights
of each member. That all PTFEA operations and facilities will be open to
random announced and unannounced monitoring and sampling of stock for
cyanide detection, provided that the testing be done at approved
laboratories, and that the tests be conducted by officially authorized persons.

.........................................

Agreed:

"unanimously approved by the PTFEA members"

7th of February, 2003

Of course an update on the other items that were mentioned would be useful too!

In the meantime, the PTFEA has developed the attached Statement to clearly indicate its position in relation to:
- Supply Development
- Standardized Screening
- Jointly Answer To Negative Statements

E.g. what "negative statements" were "jointly" answered in 2003?

 

[MaryHM]

MAC and the PTFEA are very good at writing up little memos, Advantage. It's the follow through that kills them everytime. And unfortunately they have us pesky people that point it out. MAC absolutely refuses to address the issue of the CDT now for some reason- although they were the ones that sent out a release stating that it was a high priority and they are the ones that set up a timeline for themselves to implement it (for those who are confused, they did that just to shut everyone up because we were yapping about why they didn't have a cyanide test in place. I don't think they ever intended to have one).

The PTFEA is the same organization that states there is NO CYANIDE PROBLEM IN THE PHILIPPINES. How do they know? Well, a group of their exporters and wholesalers declared it so. I sleep much more comfortably knowing they did such a thorough fact finding mission and it came up negative. Don't believe me? Go to www.ptfea.org and click "About our Association". For those who are click-challenged, here's the quote from the website:

Past Activities

In the mid-1980s, Mr. George Blasiola, then PIJAC president, headed a cyanide fact finding mission in the Philippines. The mission was composed of several wholesalers and dealers. They were assisted by Richard Ty, the first PTFEA president. The mission found that there were generally no cyanide use in the Philippines. Although, there were isolated cases of cyanide users who were either food fish fishermen or fish suppliers to non-member exporters.

Now tell me, why would the PTFEA support an organization such as MAC? Why would they support the implementation of a test for something they claim doesn't exist? Shouldn't they be telling MAC not to worry about the cyanide problem since it doesn't exist? Yet the PTFEA clings to MAC and vice-versa. Why? All of these little inconsistencies that tie up the MAC bundle are coming unraveled. I don't hold out much hope for the future of MAC, which is really a shame. They could have truly promoted industry reform- they had the chance to do it- but covering up everything with lies, mistakes, and deceit is catching up to them. MAC needs a complete rehaul from the top down. That's the only thing that can save it at this point.

 

[naesco]

Yes, a progress report on the implementation of MAC's cyanide testing programme is overdue.

 

[clarionreef]

Guys,
If they had a viable CDT to implement now it would be the kiss of death for them and the certified dealer or two actually getting a clownfish or two.
With the failure of the training of fisherman followed naturally and predictably the failure to come up with fish supply. This has forced the dealers to remain with the 'conventional fish supply' to conduct business and that fish supply must be kept away from a CDT test at all costs.
Kinda like asking an alcoholic where his breathylizer tests results are.

Time to sound retreat to Fiji. The Philippine and Indonesian failures are too dangerous to continue to bank on. Funders want certifications...and they want em more quickly... Fiji is the only way now to buffalo the funders and to keep this charade going.

Meanwhile, those of us who actually import fish and especially netcaught fish must struggle on alone. Thanks MAC...for nothing, absolutely nothing.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

Yes, a progress report on the implementation of MAC's cyanide testing programme is overdue.

And while we're waiting for MAC to respond, perhaps Wayne can give us an update on the progress of Reeform.

 

[Ad van Tage]

And while we're waiting for MAC to respond, perhaps Wayne can give us an update on the progress of Reeform.

Not so fast please Dizzy; or we are all gonna be "spinning" here.

Please note, the reason I "re-opened" this thread was that ALMOST A YEAR AGO the opening message on this MAC related topic - posted by MaryHM - contained the following:

MAC'S RESPONSE
Due to constant publicity about this issue MAC has concluded that putting a CDT in place must be a top priority in order to create a stronger certification process. I have been informed by Paul Holthus, MAC executive director, that they are working on the issue and hope to have some news within the next few months. When I receive updates from Paul, I will post them here.

We are now almost 12 months later; and I had so looked forward to an update from the MAC.

Again, somewhere in some other thread I enquired whether there was a spokesposter for the MAC... So far I see NO recent INFORMATION from the MAC on issues relating to the MAC.

Asking others - non-MAC groups or persons - in the interim to fill the ethervoid with their reports, will not really help us get a better understanding of what is going on with the MAC.
Or have I been missing something here about the MAC?

What is Mr. Paul Holthus up to for the MAC?


PS I have absolutely no objection to an update from "naesco"; but perhaps Wayne(?) would like to do that in a seperate thread, so we can stay focussed here.

 

[Ad van Tage]

Guys,
........................
Steve

Steve, take a leaf out of "Moon Over Bognor", see http://members.tripod.com/~bognor/mob.html
where we can read:

Stand by, you guys and gals !

After all I am sure you wanted to share your post with the Jills as well as all the Jacks here!

 

[dizzy]

Mr. Advantage you really are a puzzle. I personally think the type of questions you are asking would best be asked by people who are willing to reveal their identity. Otherwise it just seems like you are trying to stir the pot. That's not to say the questions don't have relevance.

You seem witty and intelligent, and you have mentioned to kalk that you have been lurking for a pretty good while. If true, then a wise guy like you should realize that neither MAC nor Wayne are going to tell us what they're up too. Your fears that my question will cause Wayne to jump in and hijack this thread by telling us about Reeform, are completely unfounded.

If I was you I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for MAC to respond either. While I do agree that MAC should be more transparent, I can also understand why they choose not to get drawn into these discussions. If everyone here would ask MAC questions in a little nicer manner they might be willing to share more information. We certainly do have the right to ask them tough questions, but we should all treat MAC like we would want to be treated if we were in their shoes.

 

[Ad van Tage]

Mr. Advantage you really are a puzzle. ..............
If I was you I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for MAC to respond either. While I do agree that MAC should be more transparent, I can also understand why they choose not to get drawn into these discussions. If everyone here would ask MAC questions in a little nicer manner they might be willing to share more information. We certainly do have the right to ask them tough questions, but we should all treat MAC like we would want to be treated if we were in their shoes.

Mr/Ms dizzy, when I saw your response to "naesco" (perhaps Wayne(?) ; how would i know !) , I had a sense that you were not really interested in a post from that source.

Why would that be? Could it be that his factual comment about MAC: "Yes, a progress report on the implementation of MAC's cyanide testing programme is overdue." was not appreciated?

I personally saw and see no reason to deviate, or better yet to "counter-attack" (something that is quite prevalent here). 8O

The subject at hand was and is MAC, and it is a deja vu of Kalkbreath-style to try and divert attention to another area.
That's why I will not ask questions like "Are you a dizzy blond, or a bald dizzy?" Nor elaborate on "a puzzle". Not relevant to the matter at hand. Sorry if that bothers you.

And of course I plan to keep breathing, been doing that for a long time, and it has always been to my advantage.

But thank you for your insights. Quite enlightning actually.

HAPPY NEW YEAR dizzy!

 

[Kalkbreath]

I will keep out of this thread......other then to ask what happened to Naesco ?

 

[JennM]

It is not likely that we will ever hear a response from MAC, in particular because they consider us to be a bunch of "loony radicals", and our interests aren't worth the bother of typing a reply, to them.

We've been told this numerous times, both directly and indirectly, by various MAC personnel.

It is my opinion, that no matter what MAC would respond, it would be dissected (and rightly so, IMO for what they are charging patrons for "certifications") so rather than face scrutiny, OR rather than doing it right and giving certified dealers their money's worth, they simply refuse to answer.

I see many heads buried in the sand.

And so another year passes, and all MAC has to show for it is a slick ad campaign and a few more certified dealers stateside. Big deal. :roll:

Glad they aren't managing *my* business ... I'd have gone belly up by now.

I'll just keep doing what I've been doing -- supporting what I truly believe are net-caught sources (and have as much proof as any MAC fishes - without the expensive certificate), and carry on...

Jenn

 

[MaryHM]

I don't ever expect to see a representative from MAC post anything of substance in here. Frankly, none of them have the conviction to do it. If they all believed so strongly in their "cause" and we are really a bunch of "loonies" like they think, then coming in here and discrediting all of us shouldn't be a very difficult task....

That said, when MAC puts out a statement like the one they did about CDT testing, they should back it up. I'm positive that it wasn't just this board that saw that memo. It went out to numerous people. Seems like an update is in order- not just for this bunch of "loonies", but for everyone else that received that letter of intent.

 

[JennM]

Indeed, but I don't recall seeing anything in MAC's last quarterly newsletter about any update. Of course I didn't read the whole thing, I just skimmed it, looking for any hint about CDT.

Last I read, they had extended the May deadline to August or something like that. Well it's 5 months past August... any word?

Nevermind - I know the answer

Jenn

 

[clarionreef]

so,
the choices have become that you're either ...
"a looney for reform
or a mooney for the norm?"

 

[JennM]

Geez Steve,

You're a poet and you don't even know it.

 

[Anonymous]

I am new to this forum...does MAC have a website so I can read up on their organization? It appears to me from what I have read in this thread (and I understand that this is a very little part of the whole picture), that the only way to change their philosophy is to remove people from their organization, via elections and such. Is this possible, or is this a private company?

I know I am very naive atm, but you gotta start somewhere.

Chris

 

[JennM]

www.aquariumcouncil.org

I appreciate your interest in the subject

Jenn