The fish that’s supposed to feed the world’s hungry and thirsty, and help make us a cleaner planet, is also one of the most environmentally destructive.
The fish is being dumped into rivers, lakes and oceans, a trend that has been steadily increasing over the past decade.
The trend is even more worrying when you consider that, according to a new study, about half of all U.N. biodiversity reports are based on fish species that are the direct or indirect product of human activity.
For example, the study found that, while fish are the primary food source for 1.2 billion people in the world, they consume roughly 2.7 billion tons of fish products annually.
And it’s not just about the fish that is being caught, either.
In some countries, the fish is also being turned into other products, like plastics, pesticides and fertilizers, the report says.
But the environmental costs of this industry have been well-documented, and even more so for those of us who live on the West Coast, where the fishing industry has been blamed for the devastating effects of climate change.
That’s why California, the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and France are all taking steps to combat the problem by mandating quotas, limiting fish consumption, and restricting the sale of fish and seafood products from certain areas.
While the quotas have so far failed to meet the needs of the population, they’ve also proven incredibly successful in reducing fish consumption.
For instance, according, the World Wildlife Fund, the global fish catch has dropped by nearly 40 percent since 2020, from 4.5 million tons to 1.9 million tons.
As a result, global demand for fish has fallen by about 3 million tons in the last five years, the organization says.
And as a result of those changes, the world is now exporting an estimated $1.2 trillion worth of fish to developing nations.
But there’s another, more fundamental problem: a lack of awareness among consumers and consumers of the environmental impacts of their fish.
This is a problem because, for many consumers, fish are often just another food item on their plate.
The most common way consumers learn about the environmental impact of fish is through the fish in the grocery store, said Michael Gans, an environmental consultant and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group that advocates for marine and coastal ecosystems.
And the biggest problem with fish is that they’re sold in a wide variety of flavors and forms, which consumers aren’t really familiar with, Gans said.
And they’re often packaged in ways that aren’t transparent and that often leave people confused.
For example: A study from the National Center for Environmental Information found that fish consumption in the U, UK, and France was nearly 10 times greater than fish consumption from other countries, which meant that people were eating more fish per capita in the United Kingdom than they were in the European Union. “
The majority of people don’t know how the environmental effects of a particular product are impacted by that product, or how that product is going to affect them.”
For example: A study from the National Center for Environmental Information found that fish consumption in the U, UK, and France was nearly 10 times greater than fish consumption from other countries, which meant that people were eating more fish per capita in the United Kingdom than they were in the European Union.
But even though the fish consumption rates in these countries are significantly higher than those in other parts of the world such as Japan and South Korea, the overall numbers of fish consumed in these three countries were almost the same.
And even though fish consumption is actually decreasing, the environmental damage caused by that consumption is getting worse, according the report.
The report, which surveyed 1,000 consumers from 25 countries around the world from February to September 2017, found that consumers were less concerned with environmental impacts associated with their fish consumption and were much more concerned about the impact on local fish stocks and local fisheries.
“This has the potential to have devastating impacts on the sustainability of fish stocks, local fishing communities, and communities,” Gains told Business Insiders.
“And it also has the opportunity to create huge demand for more seafood in certain markets.”
The most pressing problem with seafood is that it’s still being made in factories and warehouses that are more than 30 years old.
That means that while it’s now possible to find cheaper and better fish that can be processed in smaller, more environmentally friendly factories, that process can take up to 60 years.
That time is being wasted, as the environmental footprint of seafood products is becoming increasingly less and less.
The World Health Organization has estimated that, by 2030, fish consumption will be lower than it is today, with an average daily consumption of about 1,200 pounds of fish, down from 1,800 pounds in 2014.
And while the U and UK are currently the two biggest fish producers in the region, the demand for the fish has grown, and the environmental consequences of this production are becoming increasingly severe.
“In the UK, we’ve got a whole lot of fish that we can’t