Bite-back campaign

[arfy]

Bite-back are a UK-based shark and marine conservation group, and seem to have been doing excellent work in getting supermarkets, restaurants etc from taking sharks off their shelves and menus. Their website is www.bite-back.com - please take a look.

One of their current campaigns is to get Holland & Barrett, a 'natural food store', to stop selling their shark cartilage capsules.

I sent an email to Holland & Barrett through bite-back's website as part of their campaign, and was pretty p*ssed off with their automatic reply - see below. The fact that they state that they'll continue to sell their cr@p until sharks are endangered is, to me, utterly irresponsible and arrogant.

I don't work for bite-back, but I'd encourage everyone to log on to their site and send Holland & Barrett an email.

Dear Ben,

Thank you for your email to us regarding your concerns on the Holland & Barrett product shark cartilage.

Holland & Barrett takes the threat and welfare to endangered species very seriously and would not be selling any product that contained a by product of an endangered species of shark.

Historically our product was a by product of the spiny dogfish which we understood not to be endangered and now is actually a by product of the blue shark which we are also assured is not an endangered species.

Shark cartilage is a hugely popular dietary supplement used by thousands of our customers. It is taken by customers who say that it benefits their health with ailments such as arthritis. There is also clinical evidence that back up such claims, which suggest that the shark cartilage product combats pain relief of debilitating conditions such as Osteoarthritis.

Holland & Barrett will continue to sell shark cartilage due to customer demand, until such time that the species is classed as an endangered species.

Regards

Customer Services

 

[Bubble Junky]

Historically our product was a by product of the spiny dogfish which we understood not to be endangered and now is actually a by product of the blue shark which we are also assured is not an endangered species.

.............yet !!!!!

Yeah, I got that e-mail back too !! Shocking !! I sent them one straight back. I too urge people to take a few moments and help the cause.

 

[letterboy]

 

[DennisS]

I like the slaughtered shark counter on the website.

 

[cdreamer]

Emails sent. Keep up the good work!!

Terri

 

[BeachJunkie]

Ok wait... They're not going to stop until its endanged. Pretty much saying "we'll continure slaughtering them to the brink of extinction thereby almost guaranteeing that they're whiped from the planet. Why stop in time to make a difference. There's money to be made!' That just might be the most assenine thing I've ever heard. I also like how it says "we're assured isn't endangered". Does this mean that you're not even doing research on the blue sharks and dogsharks that your killing? Just have someone kill them as long as someone ELSE says they're not endangered. Genious. Prepare for email bombardment!

 

[archman]

I would think that bovine cartilage would be a much better substitute for shark cartilage.

Assuming either one actually possesses any health benefits.:blinking:

 

[krystof]

I am a promoter of natural health supplements. I am glad at last to maybe be getting close to some serious information on this issue. I will be surfing the bite-back site. Unfortunately they do not have an online forum.

ARCHMAN is right, bovine cartilage is better than shark cartilage. But it doesn't sell because you can't say 'cows don't get cancer'. Then after the BSE scare that was it for high quality bovine cartilage. Bovine cartilage is pretty safe if it is organically grown and totally safe if each animal is inspected as in Europe. Pig cartilage, chicken cartilage, duck cartilage also works. Currently however I list Twinlab Advanced Shark Cartilage because there is no non-shark equivalent. I would suggest that for a fraction of the effort to persuade people not to buy shark cartilage, someone should produce a non-shark cartilage, analogous to the 'dolphin free tuna' products. I will be glad to promote it.

Meanwhile I am attempting to determine whether there is any validity to the claim by supplement manufacturers that shark supplements have no impact on the killing of sharks. I think it boils down to economics. If a fisherman receives $50 per carcass of which $25 is for cartilage then this would disprove that claim. If however only $5 is for cartilage this would support the claim.

In any case, we need limits on shark fishing. I do not understand why anybody would want to eat shark meat today, with the high mercury and all. Nonetheless thus far, I find no evidence that a boycott on supplements will reduce the number of sharks killed--probably they will still be killed for the meat value. Hopefully I can find some concrete facts at bite-back.com. Hopefully their boycott is based on facts and not on popular presumption. Anyone please alert me if you find such facts.

 

[xjeslesx]

Currently the population of spiny dog fish aka "sand shark" is incredibly healthy. The fact is that there are so many spiny dogs they are destroying whole ecosystems. Spiny dogs eat anything and everything including, shell fish and juvenile fish. In a recent trawl surveys conducted by NOAA, spiny dogs were found to be 30 times as numerous as ground fish (cod, haddock, flounder).
If the manufacturers of shark supplements were using a near endangered species such as the short fined mako I would understand your complaints. However, by harvesting spiny dog fish the ecosystem is actually being helped.
Please do your homework before you start ranting about things you do not know.

 

[ScubaSteve]

As an impartial observer, I would suggest that you are partly correct. However, not knowing the indiustry, how can you, the person telling them to research first, guarantee that 100% only spiny dog sharks are used as the company claims? My experience in business is that the company will do what they can and say what they have to to make more money. If you or the company can prove that only overpopulated shark species are used, then I side with you on the research topic.

"Cigarettes do not cause cancer!!!' How long ago was that? I am sure we all remember it. AND WOW did the cigarette companies ever make a boatload of money when the "getting was good".

Currently the population of spiny dog fish aka "sand shark" is incredibly healthy. The fact is that there are so many spiny dogs they are destroying whole ecosystems. Spiny dogs eat anything and everything including, shell fish and juvenile fish. In a recent trawl surveys conducted by NOAA, spiny dogs were found to be 30 times as numerous as ground fish (cod, haddock, flounder).
If the manufacturers of shark supplements were using a near endangered species such as the short fined mako I would understand your complaints. However, by harvesting spiny dog fish the ecosystem is actually being helped.
Please do your homework before you start ranting about things you do not know.