Germany’s development of krill fishing techonology 
in recent years may facilitate larger catches. 
Estimates of standing stocks and potential yield 
of krill vary greatly. The Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations has estimated 
the potential yield of stocks to be at least 100 million 
tonnes per year.** The Second Report of the United 
Kingdom Fisheries Research and Development 
Board suggests that an annual fishery of 50 million 
tonnes could be sustained.** 
The United States is participating in the negotia- 
tion of a treaty concerning living marine resources 
of the Antarctic. The U.S. objective is to ensure that 
conservation and management practices contained in 
the treaty will provide the maximum benefit to the 
participants while providing for the continuance and 
conservation of the resource. Regulation under the 
International Whaling Convention and the 1972 Con- 
vention on Antarctic Seals also must be considered 
in the formulation of a treaty. Whether these objec- 
tives can be made consistent with other nations’ 
interest in using the fishery resources remains to be 
seen. There is also a question as to the extent the 
United States can or should develop its own krill 
fishery. 
Food Policy 
If the Federal Government adopts a comprehen- 
sive and consistent food policy governing its multiple 
activities affecting what U.S. citizens eat, one ques- 
tion will be the role of fish in the diet. There is no 
question that fish already are important in the Amer- 
ican diet, although small compared with U.S. meat 
consumption and with fish consumption in other 
nations. Nonetheless, 10 percent of all frozen food 
products purchased in this country in 1974 were fish.”! 
Fish generally are an excellent source of protein 
and have a higher portion of polyunsaturated fats 
than meat. Most fish rank near the top of the list 
of foods with low amounts of calories and fat. On 
the other hand, hot dogs, hamburger, luncheon meat, 
and pork rank near the bottom. For persons requir- 
ing less fat, less cholesterol, and fewer calories in 
their diet, finfish such as haddock, halibut, perch, 
smelt, sole, and tuna (water pack) are recommended. 
Most shellfish, although low in fat and calories, are 
high in cholesterol. 
From a Federal policy standpoint, several ques- 
tions arise immediately. The foremost is how much 
the government should do in the way of telling 
people what they ought to eat? Is there more to be 
done than educational efforts, such as the December 
1977 report of the Senate’s Select Committee on 
Nutrition and Human Needs, Dietary Goals for the 
United States? This report spelled out what the Com- 
mittee saw as the realities of the American diet— 
too much sugar and salt, for example. The report 
justified its recommendation that less meat be con- 
sumed in favor of poultry and fish. Publications of 
the Department of Agriculture have given similar 
findings and recommendations. 
If the Federal Government decides to promote 
increased consumption of fish, what should be done 
to bring this about? The government, most especially 
the Defense Department, now purchases food di- 
Food and Agricultural Organization. Informal Consultation 
on Antarctic Krill, FAO Fisheries Reports No. 153, Rome, 1975. 
*) Fisheries Research and Development Board, Second Report 
1974/1975, Her Majestry’s Stationery Office, London. 
“U.S. Comptroller General, op. cit. note 4. 
rectly. But an effort to increase fish purchases at 
the expense of meat would not be well regarded by 
a cattle industry faced with rising costs of doing 
business. se 
Public education as noted above, is another 
method by which the Federal Government can at- 
tempt to change American eating habits. But just 
as the Senate report cited above was controversial, 
so too are many findings in the nutrition area. A 
recommendation for increased fish consumption, for 
example, will encounter resistance from some who 
question the safety of eating fish compared with 
meat, because of the difference in inspection sys- 
tems and perishability. 
There are suggestions that fishery matters be 
included in the vast programs of the Department 
of Agriculture, which touch on every aspect of food 
policy. These suggestions have been resisted vigor- 
ously by the fishing interests, because of fear that 
fishery matters would be subordinated to the inter- 
ests of more potent constituents of the Agriculture 
Department such as the dairy and meat industries. 
The current food policy review within the execu- 
tive branch may provide some guidance on how this 
Administration should address the relative balance 
between supporting a meat and poultry industry on 
the one hand and promoting fish consumption on 
the other. The question is raised directly with aqua- 
culture. To what extent should the Federal Govern- 
ment support efforts to raise fish? To the extent 
such efforts succeed, they can be seen as diverting 
American consumers away from other protein 
sources. 
What is needed, in short, is an overall food policy 
that will provide guidance and balance to the vast 
amounts of money spent each year in this area. 
An overall food policy should provide a framework 
in which to assess the relative value of fishery de- 
velopment and begin to provide answers to ques- 
tions raised by the Office of Management and 
Budget, among others, as to the justification of 
some of the support programs for commercial fishing. 
IIJ-—20 
