This weeks specials: Royal Sea Bass, Open Blue Cobia & Alaska Wild King Salmon

To place an order or make an inquiry

Call (347) 590 8007

Tuesday, 16 May 2017

We are looking at a beautiful mix of sun and temp in the 60’s and 70’s all week.


Super Specials for this Week:

Royal Sea Bass

Royal Sea BassRoyal Seabass is a native Mediterranean member of the Corvina family. Farmed in the Aegean Sea off the coast of Turkey. They are harvested and flown direct non-stop twice weekly.

The quality of these fish is impeccable. The firm white flesh is suitable for all cooking applications. The skin crisps up very well and is delicious. 5.50/lb; 50% yield.

 

 

Open Blue Cobia

Blue CobiaA truly versatile fish, the texture makes it perfect to grill, broil, bake, or sear. Cobia has a
rich buttery flavor it is uniquely delicious any way you prepare it. The high quality sashimi
grade means you can enjoy it raw or cooked. Try it in sushi, tataki style or sashimi slices –
perfect for ceviche too! 9.95/lb; 68% yield.

 

Alaskan Wild King Salmon

Alaskan Wild King SalmonAlso known as Chinook, they are prized for their color, high oil content, firm texture and moist flesh. Great for grilling, broiling, sautéing, baking, poaching, steaming, and smoking.
18.25/lb; 70% yield

 

 

Greenpeace says the CFOOD project, which was launched last year, has received $30,000 from Arctic Storm (a fish processing company); $30,000 from Glacier Fish Co.; $10,000 from the International Coalition for Fisheries Association; and $210,000 from the seafood industry group, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI). As of publication time, no funding sources were disclosed on the CFOOD site — though a tweet Thursday afternoon said they are trying to update this "asap." Hilborn says CFOOD is an umbrella term for a broader project. "The website is a trivial part of that. There are three students working part-time to run it. They're all paid from the industry donation account," he says. "The 'C' is for collaborative. We're developing a network of people around the world knowledgeable in sustainable fishing." Gavin Gibbons, a spokesperson for NFI, says the group is pleased to have sponsored some of Hilborn's work, adding: "We do not encourage [our] members to rebut sound science. That said, correcting the record on misreporting on fisheries science could be a full-time job."

The money Greenpeace has called into question is only a small portion of the $16.1 million in research funding Hilborn has brought in since 2003. And industry groups are not the only ones interested in collaborating with him. Funding has also come from foundations, environmental and government groups, including the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation ($6.6 million); the National Science Foundation ($1.9 million); the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ($307,500); NOAA ($582,000) and more. And Hilborn has plenty of defenders among his fellow scientists. Douglas Rader, chief oceans scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, calls Hilborn an "accomplished, world-renowned scientist who has made important contributions to the field of fisheries science and conservation." In 2012, EDF donated $100,000 to fund analysis of fishing cooperatives.

"While we cannot speak to Dr. Hilborn's individual compliance with disclosure requirements across all of his publications, his partnerships with industry have always been well-known," Rader writes in an email. Hocevar acknowledges that Greenpeace is borrowing a page from the playbook of non-GMO activists. Over the past year, opponents of genetically modified foods have used freedom of information requests to target researchers at public universities, including Bruce Chassy, a professor at the University of Illinois, and Kevin Folta, a food and agriculture science professor at the University of Florida. In both cases, the emails revealed previously undisclosed ties to the biotech industry. In this case, however, Greenpeace did not seek access to Hilborn's emails, only funding disclosures.

And they're not done. On Friday, Greenpeace submitted a records request for Trevor Branch, a colleague of Hilborn and a professor at UW's School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. The request seeks funding documents stretching back to 1987. "I was 12 [years old] at the time," says Branch. "I don't have any money from the fishing industry, so
I'm not worried about their request. It's a fishing expedition looking for anything they can find to discredit you."

Branch says acknowledging funders is a standard part of science disclosures, but he says there's a limit to how long scientists need to disclose the information. He says the tactic used by Greenpeace will make researchers more wary of the funding they accept in the future. "Ray [Hilborn] has received funding from 50-100 sources. If he had to list all
of them every time, it would be longer than the paper. That's not what we do in science. There are no papers that require a list of funding from every source you've ever gotten money from," Branch says.

Hilborn has a simpler explanation for being in the line of fire. "Greenpeace can't attack the science because they don't do science. Instead they attack the messenger."