More MAC

[Anonymous]

John_Brandt:

i, and many other hobbyists like myself-are also watching YOU :wink:

(and all of the other org.s represented on these bb's-don't you ever forget that, either, for we truly decide, ultimately, what happens to the 'industry'-not the other way around)

btw,-get a new haircut, you look a bit peckish

sincerely yours

Alan J. Lavitsky

 

[Anonymous]

I have a question for John Brandt :

How can MAC certify cyanide-free fish if there's no cyanide test?

I'm interpreting the situation this way, so please correct me if my analogy seems wrong :

"Sir, here's the steak you ordered, well-done."

-- "Is there any poison in this steak?"

"No sir, there isn't. It's certified poison-free."

-- "Well, where are the test-results that certify it as being poison-free? I'd like to see them."

"We don't have any, because there isn't a test for the poison, but the guy we bought it from said it was poison-free."

-- "Oh, okay then."

Am I understanding the situation correctly? Again, I realize this isn't the only issue at 'steak' here (sorry, couldn't resist that one), but why not certify the corals and inverts first, as was suggested? This way they can start with something that they can actually do with 100% conviction and integrity.

Peace,

Chip

 

[MaryHM]

if stopping the widescale destruction of reef area from cyanide collection means i have to try and shut YOU down-i will-and i will sacrifice the hobby to do it, too.

Vitz, I'm going to assume that you are smart enough to know that shutting down the trade is not going to solve one single cyanide issue. In fact, it will make it worse. If we want true reform, we must reform the collectors. Not give them an incentive to start collecting for the much more destructive food fish industry. The picture is a LOT bigger than "Shut down the trade, save a reef".

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,

Regarding your previous posting;

my point is that mac, as an organization, recieves operational funding from u.s. based organizations.

it is against the policy of the uscrtf to collect using techniques that damage marine life and environments.

mac certifies cyanide collection operations

ergo: these funding agencies/orgs, along with mac, are funding the certification of cyanided fish collection.

I don't know a whole lot about MAC, but to the best of my understanding there have only been a few shipments of MAC certified fish to retailers. Two of the retailers I personaly know. Based on reports from the retailers the fish were "very healthy" with no DOA's (except for a jumper) during quarantine.

So I see NO evidence that MAC has certified any cyanide caught fish.

do me a favor, and call a cyanided fish certified with u.s. sourced dollars through the auspices of mac a travesty-and i'll leave you alone :wink:

until then-i will speak my mind, and oppose mac in any way i can

at least until it shows ME, that it stops the collection of cyanided fish collection, or it's veiled endorsement of said deplorable practice

Again, as far as I know there is no reason to believe that any cyanided fish have been MAC certified.

I believe that all of us here woud like to see MAC get a good, comprehensive cyanide testing program in place. But please remember that until every fish can be tested via a nondestructive method that there will always be a possibility of a cyanide caught fish getting certification. The very best that a destructive sampling/testing program can do is verify whether the sample contains cyanide and help calculate the statistical likelihood that a batch of animals does not contain cyanide, nothing more.

Sincerely,
-Lee Morey[/b]

 

[SPC]

Posted by Mary:

The picture is a LOT bigger than "Shut down the trade, save a reef".

-I agree.
Steve

 

[MaryHM]

Based on reports from the retailers the fish were "very healthy" with no DOA's (except for a jumper) during quarantine.

So I see NO evidence that MAC has certified any cyanide caught fish.

There is also no evidence that they HAVEN'T certified cyanide caught fish. Not all fish are caught with cyanide and not all cyanide caught fish die. Maybe the retailers you mention did not purchase cyanide target species. Maybe they purchased their fish through Aquarium Habitat in the Philippines- the exporter where we can be certain that net caught fish are being funneling to. They probably didn't buy from a large exporter that is mixing fish.

But please remember that until every fish can be tested via a nondestructive method that there will always be a possibility of a cyanide caught fish getting certification.

Of course! But having a solid, reliable test in place that is administered properly on a random basis sure does put the pressure on. Carry cyanide caught fish, lose your certification. That could be an incentive. Right now there is NO incentive to make sure you only buy from net caught collectors because no one can prove you're doing anything wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm interpreting the situation this way, so please correct me if my analogy seems wrong :

"Sir, here's the steak you ordered, well-done."

-- "Is there any poison in this steak?"

"No sir, there isn't. It's certified poison-free."

-- "Well, where are the test-results that certify it as being poison-free? I'd like to see them."

"We don't have any, because there isn't a test for the poison, but the guy we bought it from said it was poison-free."

-- "Oh, okay then."

I think you raise an excellent point. Everytime I eat a steak I have to trust that it isn't poisoned. I even have to trust that the steak is beef and not horsemeat.

Until a testing program, which can test every fish, is in place we'll always have to place a certain degree of trust in what others are saying. I do not see why a small supply chain using a select few collectors, wholesalers and retailers cannot be reasonably certain that they are selling cyanide free animals. It all comes down to selecting suppliers of integrety and deciding whether someone is worthy of trust or not.

If I understand correctly even Mary operates this way. She says that she is selling fish that are not caught with cyanide because she trusts those that are collecting her livestock not to use cyanide.

Until every fish can be tested there will always be a "human factor".

-Lee

 

[PeterIMA]

This is to clarify what MAC Certification means. It is not possible for the MAC to certify marine aquarium fish as being "cyanide-free"; since there is presently little or no cyanide testing being done by the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). The IMA did cyanide testing (on about 48,000 food fish and aquarium fish from 1993 to the end of September 2001 under contract to BFAR. The BFAR/IMA laboratories (six laboratories run by IMA) issued cyanide detection test (CDT) certificates. These certificates basically were certifying fish as being cyanide-free or not.

The MAC Certification (as it is presently being practiced) basically is certifying collection sites as being "Sustainable" (based on underwater assessment of fish diversity and abundance, and assessment of the coral reef "health") and the marine aquarium fish as being "Net-Caught". The IMA reached an agreement with the MAC that fish that are "cyanide-free" are not synonymous with "net-caught". Hence, the IMA supports MAC Certification of fish supplied by collectors that are "sustainably net-caught".

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

It is not possible for the MAC to certify marine aquarium fish as being "cyanide-free"; since there is presently little or no cyanide testing being done by the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR).

It is my understanding that MAC is furthering the public perception that the certification *is* for cyanide-free fish.

The MAC Certification (as it is presently being practiced)

Again, we all know that MAC is not practicing the same method it is reporting to the public-at-large. I don't think that's the issue here. They are misrepresenting what they're doing, and telling us to trust what they say.

Again, if I'm misinterpreting anything, please point it out to me.

Peace,

Chip

 

[Anonymous]

This is to clarify what MAC Certification means. It is not possible for the MAC to certify marine aquarium fish as being "cyanide-free"; since there is presently little or no cyanide testing being done by the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). The IMA did cyanide testing (on about 48,000 food fish and aquarium fish from 1993 to the end of September 2001 under contract to BFAR. The BFAR/IMA laboratories (six laboratories run by IMA) issued cyanide detection test (CDT) certificates. These certificates basically were certifying fish as being cyanide-free or not.

The MAC Certification (as it is presently being practiced) basically is certifying collection sites as being "Sustainable" (based on underwater assessment of fish diversity and abundance, and assessment of the coral reef "health") and the marine aquarium fish as being "Net-Caught". The IMA reached an agreement with the MAC that fish that are "cyanide-free" are not synonymous with "net-caught". Hence, the IMA supports MAC Certification of fish supplied by collectors that are "sustainably net-caught".

Peter Rubec

Peter:

i do understand the certification process :wink:

i also understand that under the present process-anyone can mix both cyanided/ and net caught fish in their facility without any exact verification done by an overseer to establish that a)this is not occuring withe the exporter, or b)which fish are from which source.

any supplier can swap fish between batch a & b with no problems whatsoever, and with no (reliable) method of knowing if this is being done

faking documents, and corruption are just too rampant in those areas, and the proposition that the 'random checking of documentation' will prevent that is too naive a proposition.

all the hobbyist will hear/see, is that the supplier has the certification, probably accompanied by a claim from the retailer that the fish they are purchasing is coming from a certified facility, so it must be cyanide free.

do you think that anyone involved in acquiring the sticker will offer the suggestion that the fish may be cyanided, since there is no testing presently involved?

i doubt it :wink:

this is why i keep saying that mac certifies cyanided fish-if not directly, then by allowing the collection industry to slip them in under mac's 'blanket'

aiding and abetting cyanide collection is the same as doing it yourself :wink:

completely unnacceptable.

 

[Anonymous]

one more question:

how can any region where cyanide is widely used be defined as 'sustainable'?

 

[Anonymous]

It is my understanding that MAC is furthering the public perception that the certification *is* for cyanide-free fish.

...Again, we all know that MAC is not practicing the same method it is reporting to the public-at-large. I don't think that's the issue here. They are misrepresenting what they're doing, and telling us to trust what they say.

Again, if I'm misinterpreting anything, please point it out to me.

Peace,

Chip

Respectfully, read the MAC website. I don't see any deception. Also looking at the MAC Certification and MAC Standard I do not even see a direct reference to cyanide.

http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/subpage.asp?section=13

http://macweb.inets.com/subpage.asp?section=19

Perhaps some of the public's understanding of the MAC process is wrong? But then again 100,000 lemmings can not be wrong.

-Lee

 

[PeterIMA]

Rather than my explaining what I think the MAC means (or wants consumers to think), I would like someone from the MAC to clarify the questions raised by Marillon in the last posting. I have added some questions of my own (below).

What exactly does MAC certify?
Are these tied to existing MAC standards?
Are the standards finalized or has the MAC been evaluating and changing the standards based on what it learned from the Feasability Studies and the Colletion Area Management Plans (CAMPs) conducted?
Is what is certified different at each step of the chain from collector to retailer, or is what is certified always the same?

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

SciGuy2 wrote:

Respectfully, read the MAC website. I don't see any deception. Also looking at the MAC Certification and MAC Standard I do not even see a direct reference to cyanide.

shouldn't there be?

please explain to me, based on your interpretation of the mac standard, how it actively prevents, verifiably, a holding facility from swapping fish from batch a to batch b, given the following scenario-and given the required holding time as proposed by the mac standards.

a is cyanided, b is not.

5 fish die in batch b

5 fish are transferred from a to b

doa's are listed as being from batch a

:wink:

 

[MaryHM]

Respectfully, read the MAC website. I don't see any deception. Also looking at the MAC Certification and MAC Standard I do not even see a direct reference to cyanide.

http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/subpage.asp?section=13

http://macweb.inets.com/subpage.asp?section=19

Perhaps some of the public's understanding of the MAC process is wrong? But then again 100,000 lemmings can not be wrong.

Lee, let me see if I understand what you're saying. You say MAC isn't deceiving anyone because you don't see a reference to cyanide on there site. Therefore a cyanide fish can be certified as a sustainably collected, handled, and harvested product by MAC even if it is cyanide caught because hey, MAC didn't specify that certified fish are cyanide free. Is it just me, or does that sound insane??

Well, luckily that isn't the case. In fact, MAC lists cyanide use at the top of their Marine Trade Concerns list http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/subpage.asp?page=114 You know, the concerns MAC is to be addressing...

And if that isn't good enough, cruise on over to the Standards themselves. http://macweb.inets.com/docs/1/pdf/04%2 ... RD%201.pdf On page 7 Management Principles 1.1.2 Destructive collection and fishing practices are prohibited And then on page 18 of that same document is says that they will have testing procedures in place. Now tell me, if there is NO testing procedure currently in place and MAC is certifying animals anyway, be it 1 animal or 1 million, doesn't that automatically make the certification a FRAUD?? The test must be in place PRIOR to certifications being issued. It's not complicated. Please answer to this Lee, I'm very interested in your take.

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz stated the following.
Aiding and abetting cyanide collection is the same as doing it yourself

completely unnacceptable.

I agree that the MAC needs to support cyanide testing. They had the opportunity to endorse the CDT testing done by IMA. They appointed a nine person committee in 1999 to review the Standard Operating Proceedures (SOP) for CDT conducted in the BFAR/IMA laboratories. The methods used for measuring cyanide ion concentrations by the BFAR/IMA CDT laboratories was that published in a book titled Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analyses published by the American PUblic Health Association. The same methods has been evaluated and also endorsed by the American Society of Testing and Materals (ASTM) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in their publications.

Holthus wrote an extremely biased report that concluded (falsely) that the CDT SOP was unreliable. The IMA provided a detailed (30 page rebuttal) demonstrating that the conclusions (largely reached by an independent consultant) were wrong. Despite this, the MAC has not acknowledged that their DRAFT report was biased, and did not follow up with IMA by asking IMA to revise its SOP to take into account the recommendations. On its own initiative, IMA (with my participation) revised the SOP (mostly by adding descriptions of QA/QC methods that IMA CDT lab staff were already doing). There are now four SOP manuals for: a) Sampling, b) Sample Preparation, c) Cyanide Detection Testing, and d) Use of the Ion Selectife Electrodes and ISE meter. These SOP manuals were provided to BFAR when IMA turned over mangement of the laboratories in September 2001.

The MAC has not publicly acknowledged anything about the CDT review. It maintains that there are no cyanide testing methods that would meet their requirement for an independent review and meet ISO standards (when in fact the IMA did everything that the committee recommended).
If now, the MAC endorses the same CDT procedures being used by BFAR, what are we to conclude?

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Can someone maybe put up a post that explains all the abbreviations? I've been following these threads since they started and I *still* don't know what they all mean. It gives me a headache.

I can't imagine someone reading this stuff for the first time...

Thanks in advance for that.

Peace,

Chip

 

[PeterIMA]

Marillion asked for some explanation of the abbreviations being used. I will only supply those pertaining to cyanide testing. CDT stands for Cyanide Detection Test. ISE stands for Ion Selective Electrode. BFAR stands for Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure.

I reiterate that the CDT testing conducted by IMA was accurate and reliable. If anyone want copies of the MAC CDT SOP document and the IMA rebuttal document email me at [email protected]. I can also supply copies of letters from Dr. Ellen Gonter (who helped develop the CDT procedure), Dr. Martin Frant (who developed the ISE), and Dr. George Dixon (Head, Dept. of Biology, University of Waterloo) who reviewed both documents and concluded that IMA's CDT procedures were accurate and reliable.

I should also add that Drs. Gonter and Frant were on the nine person committee created by the MAC. They were never given the opportunity to review the flawed report created by Paul Holthus. The members of the committee are listed at the end of the Holthus document implying that they endorsed the conclusions reached by the independent consultant (one of the committee) and Paul Holthus. Gonter and Frant (and possibly others on the committee) were not consulted by the MAC to determine whether they agreed with the final conclusions of the MAC CDT SOP review document.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary,

I’m a bit slow in replying to your post because I really wanted to closely read the links that you posted. Please understand that I do not have a past history with MAC like you and many of your readers apparently do. I only heard about MAC a few months ago. I consider myself as not having any particular preconceived notions about MAC either pro or con. My only conviction is that the hobby and it’s supply chain is in need of positive reform leading to improved stewardship of the environment and of our captive animals.

My answers to your questions are based on reading the materials on the MAC site and attempting to be as honest as I can.

Lee, let me see if I understand what you're saying. You say MAC isn't deceiving anyone because you don't see a reference to cyanide on there site. Therefore a cyanide fish can be certified as a sustainably collected, handled, and harvested product by MAC even if it is cyanide caught because hey, MAC didn't specify that certified fish are cyanide free. Is it just me, or does that sound insane??

Well, luckily that isn't the case. In fact, MAC lists cyanide use at the top of their Marine Trade Concerns list http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/subpage.asp?page=114 You know, the concerns MAC is to be addressing...

Since cyanide collection is, by MAC’s own admission, a “Concern of the Marine Aquarium Trade” I assume that they are using their best judgment to prohibit cyanide collected fish from getting certification. Again, this is could be done on a trust basis by certifying only collectors that have shown a high level of integrity. It would be insane for MAC to certify any fish that they suspect was collected using cyanide or certify any collector that they suspect might be using cyanide. Perhaps this is why there are very few MAC certified collectors currently.

And if that isn't good enough, cruise on over to the Standards themselves. http://macweb.inets.com/docs/1/pdf/04%2 ... RD%201.pdf On page 7 Management Principles 1.1.2 Destructive collection and fishing practices are prohibited And then on page 18 of that same document is says that they will have testing procedures in place. Now tell me, if there is NO testing procedure currently in place and MAC is certifying animals anyway, be it 1 animal or 1 million, doesn't that automatically make the certification a FRAUD?? The test must be in place PRIOR to certifications being issued. It's not complicated. Please answer to this Lee, I'm very interested in your take.

Thank you for the links. I read the documents. I will take the liberty of quoting portions of the MAC Core Standards.

page 7 reads in part –
…destructive collection and fishing practices are prohibited…

page 8 reads in part –
…a process for monitoring the collection area including the detection and reporting, to the appropriate legal authorities, of the use of destructive collection and fishing practices…

on page 13 the term “monitoring”is defined as:
(a) the intermittent (regular or irregular) surveillance to ascertain the extent of compliance with a predetermined standard or degree of deviation from an expected norm (CBD and GBA); and
(b) the collection of information for the purpose of assessing the progress and success of an area-use plan. Monitoring is used to assess performance of a management plan or compliance scheme in order to revise it or to gather experience for future plans. (Adapted from FAO)


page 18 reads in part - The MAC Chemical Detection Methods (CDM) Committee will identify, approve, and periodically revise a list of credible, accurate, and reliable test methods for detecting chemical suspected of being used in the collection and fishing of marine aquarium organisms

Based on these excerpts MAC must do the following to be in compliance to the Core Standards regarding cyanide: 1) prohibit destructive collection and fishing practices using cyanide, 2) have a monitoring process in place which includes chemical detection if there is a “credible, accurate, and reliable test method” as determined by the MAC CDM Committee. If there is no approved MAC CDM Committee approved test for cyanide, as I read the Core Standards, they are obligated to only have a surveillance program in place. I realize that there are many, many additional things that MAC needs to verify and do prior to certification beyond the cyanide issue. But based on the cyanide issue alone I do not see any “fraud” in certifying animals without a cyanide chemical testing program in place.

The big question as Peter points out is what is the hold up of getting a cyanide test that the MAC CDM Committee will accept so that it must be incorporated into the monitoring program?

I have asked MAC regarding what issues are holding up the approval of a MAC CDM Committee approved test for cyanide and what the implementation schedule is.

Sincerely,
-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

SciGuy2 wrote:

Since cyanide collection is, by MAC’s own admission, a “Concern of the Marine Aquarium Trade” I assume that they are using their best judgment to prohibit cyanide collected fish from getting certification

Please understand that I do not have a past history with MAC like you and many of your readers apparently do. I only heard about MAC a few months ago. I consider myself as not having any particular preconceived notions about MAC either pro or con

.

if your second quote is the case, then why do you assume anything?sounds like a preconception to me :wink:

this illustrates all too well, why i think the present certification process is dangerous.

many hobbyists will assume that the certification implies things that aren't there :wink:

certification, in and of itself, means nothing.

it is what's behind the certification that counts :wink:

creating a certification process, w/o taking into account the public perception of what that certification means, exactly, and not explaining it fully to the public, at the places where the certification is displayed-is highly irresponsible, imho.

so is the claim, that just because it doesn't say something, one doesn't need to specify what it doesn't say? :wink:

i could open a store, and put a big sticker on my storefront:

'all fish in this store are certified by the aspcswf'

where the acronym stands for american society for the protection of salt water fish.

after having created the org. :wink:

looks very impressive, doesn't it? - and yet it's meaningless.

it may help sell lots of fish, though :wink:

i'm not trying to attack you personally, just trying to understand your logic
:wink: