Do Not Set Me Loose on the Internet

Before the Internet, I had a few stable go-tos for my important information: a giant book-stand worthy Columbia desk encyclopedia (great for looking up Siam and Red Baiting, but not much use for anything within my actual century), a small desktop reference from Time-Life in 3 volumes (not much more than a dictionary, really, with a "pronouncing gazeteer,") and a World Almanac that was certain to be at least 10 years out of date, but could still tell me how old Debbie Reynolds was in the movie I was watching. 

After that, you were on your own, giving rise to games like name the Presidents and the countries of Africa. ("from 1920?"  "No, from now."  "Well, I haven't the foggiest.  Is Transjordan still something?")

Where I have always questioned the facts of things, I had a pretty short attention span for verifying them if one of those references didn't offer up any more information.  Nowadays, I feel like I have to get to the bottom of things, in case the fact-checkers are graying up the area between truth and not-truth.

Which is why I have been sitting here reacting to this throw-away statement in the June 12, Economist.  (Why I still have the June 12th Economist is Saturday's topic): "While 83% of seafood eaten in America is imported...."

83%?  the rest of the sentence was about how oysters are not -- more Gulf Coast disaster coverage -- I couldn't read past that.  eighty.  three.    huh.  Now, allowing for 2/3 of oysters consumed, which do come from the Gulf of Mexico, the article suggests that nearly all of the other seafood is coming from elsewhere.  Lobsta even?

I didn't buy it.

The trick to deconstructing these pearls (ha..ha..)  besides not have anyone else in the house or caring whether you shower before bed is in Knowing Your Terms.  And there are not many in this phrase to work with.  But the big reveal is bound to be in the definitions of "seafood" and "imported."  So let's go.

I can not find the official definition, but in usage on USDA and Game and Fishing documents, "seafood" appears to be the categorical tem for edible products from the oceans.  By the NOAA Fisheries Office, it also seems limited to edible-by-humans.  "Shellfish" seems to be a subset of "Seafood," so if we are talking about all edible items, including tuna, I might believe 75% but was still skeptical about 80%. 

Then I remembered our friendly Canadian neighbors, who control the Grand Banks... but even better I found a little search tool on the NOAA site.

And I learned we import an astonishing amount of Anchovies.

4M kilos in 2009.  I hope you ate yours.  They come from more than 20 countries (but not Canada). 

The Tuna (all-sorts) measures 143M Kilos, mostly from Thailand, though it no longer makes a stop in American Samoa before it gets here.

You want Dungeness Crab?  Don't go to Seattle -- take the slowboat to China, which shipped us $630,000 worth last year.

About those oysters: China grows them too, and other nations on the Pacific rim.  The Economist estimates those imports will increase, and soon, above the $17M we spent last year.  (NOAA is quick to explain this represents "the price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S. import duties, freight, insurance and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.)

Why, in the name of the deadliest catch, are we importing lobster?  We imported, in 2009, 44,989 metric tons of lobster.  I don't begin to understand what a metric ton is.  What I do understand is that we exported only 612 metric tons of it, which means we are keeping a lot of it here, or we didn't catch much.

I can get seriously lost in charts like this.  My reward to you for having stayed with me this long are these bits of water cooler currency:

• The US exports about 60 metric tons of reptile meat annually
• 17 tons frog meat
• About $43M worth of pearls
• and $31M of "fish and other products unfit for human consumption"

Let me know how they work out for you.