To the Editor:

Re A Brief History of a Problematic Appetizer (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 22, 2023):

Claiming that it “makes sense” for humans to eat squid is problematic.   

To get from the coasts of South America to dinner plates across 50 states is no sensible journey.

The Chinese fishing vessels dominating the high seas of South America are “so far from shore, constantly in transit,” making them diesel-hungry and thus by design, heavily polluting.

Squid requires refrigeration from the moment of death up until the moment of consumption. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are essential for refrigeration. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are also nasty chemicals which trap greenhouse gases at a potency up to 11,700 times more powerful than that of carbon dioxide.

Onshore supply chains are needed to deliver calamari, consisting of resource-hungry and environmentally toxic packaging facilities, refrigerated supermarket isles, and warehouse freezers.

I appreciate the insights to how squid production has changed over time, but it is misleading to present squid as an environmentally sound option. Global food production is responsible for 35% of all human-caused greenhouse emissions, the bulk of which comes from cultivating animal proteins. If we really want to get serious about low-carbon diets, suggesting plant-based alternatives is a more responsible narrative.

Cate Twining-Ward

New York