Bay Becomes Culinary Cause

[MountainLaurel]

The television ad begins with water disappearing into a storm drain as a voice warns that fertilizer put on lawns in the spring can wind up in the bay. The ad next shows a blue crab lying lifeless in the surf. "No crab should die like this," the solemn announcer says.

Then the announcer appears on-screen, carrying a small tub in one hand and what appears to be backfin lump in the other. "They should perish in some hot, tasty melted butter," he exclaims.

The federal Chesapeake Bay Program, trading its appeals to the conscience for a startling message aimed at the stomach, has launched a series of TV spots, newspaper ads and billboards in the Washington region that casts the bay first and foremost as a source of seafood.

With the slogan "Save the Crabs . . . Then Eat 'Em," the campaign aims to make residents see pollution as the equivalent of sneezing on the buffet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2718-2005Mar2.html

So what does the Peanut Gallery think about such ads as a tool for getting people aware of pollution?

[Viking12]

1. Sounds like a winner to me.

Too often environmental appeals are too abstract and appeal to a difficult-to-grasp intrinsic value. I believe that utilitarian appeals are rhetorical winners. People need to be made aware of the consequences of their actions and the things they'll lose if such action continues. I strongly beleive the future depends upon making environmentalism a bread-and-butter issue -- showing the relationships between health, jobs, and the environment.

[htuttle]

2. They should tell people about fish in the Great Lakes region, too

You can't eat 'em anymore.

Think of all those tasty fish in Lake Michigan. Your body can handle about one per year, last I checked. That is thanks to mercury, PCBs, and other industrial waste polluting the entire food chain.

Even in the smaller lakes like the ones around Madison -- you aren't supposed to eat more than a few fish (every few months or so).

I think ads like this are fine. It's about time people woke up to the connection between their own food supply and the environment. We gotta stop pissing in the pool!

on edit:
(I mention this because your post seems to raise this question)
One last thing: while I have tremendous compassion for most animals, I have no problem eating them when necessary (or available) -- just as I will be 'eaten' after I'm dead and gone. That's how Mom moves the energy around the planet, you know.

[Kolesar]

3. The seafood restaurants led on mercury reduction in FL trash burners

Trash burning plants were a huge source of mercury pollution. The food industry realized they would lose business because people knew the fish had mercury, so they led in getting the trash burners shut down.

[BeFree]

4. Good thinking

Once upon a time I was fortunate enough to attend a meeting on the conservation of Manatees.

At the table seated next to me were a couple of crusty old fisherman who crabbed, and netted mullet for a living.

They were not for protecting the Manatee.

I told the meeting that I loved Manatee, and thought they should be allowed, even encouraged to become more numerous, indeed, that we should do everything we possibly could to bring their numbers up.

The fisherman looked at me as if I were some kind of tree-hugger, which I am.

But their faces took on a different look when I told them why I wanted more Manatee. Ya see, they had knowledge of what I was about to say, as they had either likewise partaken or heard the stories from their Papas.

I leaned over and whispered: "I want there to be more Manatee so that one day, once again, they can be harvested and eaten. I've heard they taste like chicken."

At least for the rest of that meeting, they began going along with saving those critters. Later, a scientist asked me what I said to those guys; he said they used to argue about everything pro-Manatee the scientists brought up.