An abundance of bonito in the sea, poverty on the table: How does abundance turn into waste?

The abundance of bonito in Turkish waters has brought to the fore, on the one hand, falling prices and fishermen’s struggles to make ends meet, and on the other, food waste and environmental pollution resulting from surplus fish being dumped back into the sea. The dead bonito covering the surface of the sea in the Pazar district of Rize are not merely an unsightly sight, but also a sign of problems throughout the chain from production to consumption.

The Black Sea has been teeming with bonito this year. Whilst fishing boats returned to port with crates full of fish, prices at the fishmongers’ stalls fell. At first glance, this seemed like a period where everyone stood to gain: fishermen would sell more fish, consumers would buy fish more cheaply, and more protein would find its way onto dining tables. However, in Turkey, abundance does not always equate to prosperity. Sometimes, the wealth extracted from the sea, when mismanaged, turns into both economic loss and an environmental problem.

One of the most striking examples of this occurred at the fishing harbour in the Kirazlık neighbourhood of the Pazar district in Rize. According to news reports in October 2026, thousands of bonito—which, it was claimed, could not fit into the crates during the intense fishing and were crushed whilst being transported and stacked—were dumped from some boats onto the harbour. As the dead fish accumulated on the sea’s surface and began to rot, the foul odour spreading through the area also affected the daily lives of those living around the harbour. Thus, the abundance of fish turned into an environmental problem for people living along the coast.

The question that needs answering here is simple yet unsettling: in a country where people struggle to put food on the table and food prices are straining family budgets, how is it that tonnes of fish can go from being an edible food source to becoming waste dumped into the sea?

There is abundance, but is there affordability for everyone?

With the start of the 2026–2027 fishing season, there was a marked drop in the price of palamut. A report by the Anadolu Agency dated 20 October 2026 stated that in Istanbul, palamut was being sold for between 100 and 125 lira depending on size, whilst wholesale prices in the Eastern Black Sea region had fallen even further. In the same report, representatives of the fishing industry stated that, despite the increase in catch volumes, demand had not reached the expected level.

Previously, on 1 September, at the start of the season, a single bonito was being sold for 150–200 lira in Giresun. As the season progressed, the rising catch volumes drove prices down. This fluctuation in prices demonstrates just how rapidly the market value of seafood can change.

However, a fall in price does not mean that everyone can afford fish. The fact that a product has become cheaper is not the same as households having the financial means to purchase it regularly. For families whose budgets are stretched by rent, electricity, transport and basic food costs, the price of fish is an issue that cannot be assessed in isolation.

Even during a period when bonito is plentiful, the fact that this fish does not make it onto dining tables serves as a reminder that poverty is not merely about a scarcity of produce. Sometimes the problem is not the absence of food, but the inability to access the food that is available.

Moreover, a fall in prices does not always translate into profit for the fisherman. Fishing requires expenditure on fuel, crew, nets, maintenance and transport. When the selling price of the fish does not cover these costs, hauling large quantities of fish from the sea becomes economically unsustainable. A fishing boat may return with a full catch, but the income generated may not increase proportionally.

At this point, it appears as though the interests of the consumer and the fisherman are at odds: the consumer wants cheap fish, whilst the producer must be compensated for their labour and expenses. Yet the real issue lies in how the production and marketing system that pits these two sides against one another actually operates.

Why is the bounty of the sea turning into waste?

The incident in Rize highlights a broader problem that cannot be explained solely by the fish damaged during transport: the mismatch between catch volume and sales capacity.

In the fishing industry, it may not be possible to sell the entire catch at the same rate. The size of the fish, its freshness, transport conditions, the capacity of the cold chain, the time taken to reach the market and consumer demand all determine how the catch is utilised. A disruption at any link in this chain can lead to the loss of thousands of fish in a short space of time.

However, this situation is not an inevitable natural occurrence, but a management issue that requires preventive measures. When problems such as catch volumes far exceeding market and processing capacity, fish becoming crammed and crushed on board vessels, and a lack of adequate storage facilities converge, the live fish brought from the sea may lose their economic value.

Here, two separate issues must not be confused. Firstly, ensuring that fishermen can achieve a selling price that allows them to make a living. Secondly, preventing fish that cannot be sold or have been damaged from becoming waste. It is possible to discuss reducing catches to raise fish prices; however, the way to maintain prices should not be to make it difficult for consumers to access affordable food or to dump fish back into the sea.

The solution lies in increasing the predictability of catch volumes, facilitating the preservation and processing of the product, developing sales and distribution channels, and effectively regulating the practice of discarding fish at sea.

How do dead bonito affect the sea?

A single fish dying at sea does not, in itself, constitute environmental pollution. In natural ecosystems, dead organisms decompose and become part of the food cycle. However, the dumping of thousands of fish into a confined harbour area, in a short space of time and in large quantities, can alter the impact of this natural process on the local environment.

During the decomposition of dead bonito, bacteria break down organic matter. In this process, dissolved oxygen in the water is consumed. If the quantity of fish is high, water circulation is poor and oxygen replenishment is limited, oxygen levels may drop. Particularly in areas where water movement is restricted, such as harbours, this situation can create additional pressure on fish and other aquatic life.

The decomposition process also causes nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus to be released back into the water. A high organic load can degrade local water quality and increase the formation of compounds that cause unpleasant odours. Fish remains accumulating on the shore can also exacerbate environmental nuisance.

However, to determine the extent to which the incident in Rize has reduced oxygen levels in the water, the damage caused to the ecosystem, or whether it poses a specific risk to human health, water quality measurements and scientific investigation are required. The strong odour and accumulation of dead fish reported in the news are visible signs of an environmental problem; however, they do not, on their own, prove the presence of a specific chemical pollutant.

This distinction is important. Because environmental pollution is not merely a change in the colour of the water or a foul odour on the shore. The chemical and biological balance of the water, the dissolved oxygen level and the condition of the aquatic communities must also be assessed.

There is also the aspect of the issue extending to the seabed. When fish remains, unseen on the surface, sink to the bottom, the decomposition process can affect the environment inhabited by bottom-dwelling organisms. However, the extent of this impact depends on the amount of accumulated organic matter, water currents and the ecological characteristics of the region.

Consequently, the problem caused by bonito being dumped into the sea is not merely one of odour. A heavy and uncontrolled load of organic waste constitutes a pressure that must be taken into account, particularly in enclosed or semi-enclosed coastal areas, in terms of safeguarding water quality and ecosystem balance.

Poverty on one side, food waste on the other

The most stark contradiction of this situation is that images of fish being dumped into the sea coexist with people’s struggle to access food within the same country.

On the one hand, there are households removing fish from their shopping lists due to financial hardship; on the other, there are thousands of bonito being dumped into the sea because they cannot be sold or have been damaged. To establish a direct link between these two phenomena, it is necessary to examine in detail which fish could not be sold and whether alternative ways of utilising them exist. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges clearly shows that the food system must be assessed not only by how much is produced, but also by how much of what is produced can be preserved and to whom it reaches.

Fish is not merely a commercial product; it is a nutritionally valuable foodstuff. When a caught fish is discarded without being consumed, it means that natural resources, labour and energy are wasted. Moreover, this loss is compounded by the environmental burden of the organic matter released into the sea.

Preventing food waste cannot be limited to simply telling consumers to finish the food on their plates. The entire supply chain – from production to storage, and from transport to sale – bears responsibility. A similar approach is required in the fishing industry: just as much attention must be paid to how much fish is caught as to how the catch is preserved and utilised.

The future of the bonito is also part of this debate

An abundance of bonito does not mean it is a permanent and unlimited resource. In an assessment carried out in 2026 by Prof. Dr Firdes Saadet Karakulak of the Faculty of Aquatic Sciences at Istanbul University, it was emphasised that bonito stocks can fluctuate from year to year; factors such as excessive fishing pressure, marine pollution, climate change and rising sea temperatures can affect fish stocks.

It is therefore risky to assume that the same quantities of fish can be caught in future years simply by looking at the abundance of a single season. Particularly in the case of migratory species, intensive fishing over a short period is an issue that must be managed with care to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks.

The aim here is not to drive fishermen away from the sea. On the contrary, fishing must be able to provide a livelihood today whilst also being sustainable for the future. To this end, science-based fisheries management, effective monitoring, compliance with appropriate size and season regulations, investments in the cold chain, and infrastructure to reduce losses must all be addressed together.

The collection and proper disposal of fish washed up on the shore are also an urgent necessity. Furthermore, to prevent a recurrence of such incidents, the reasons why the fish ended up in this situation must be investigated. Is it insufficient sales capacity, transport conditions, overfishing, or a combination of these factors? Each requires a different solution. Merely clearing the dead fish from the shore does not eliminate the root cause of the problem.

Abundance is only a blessing when it is put to good use

The bonito washed up on the shore in Rize’s Pazar district show us that not every product taken from the sea automatically translates into prosperity. Without proper planning and fair distribution, abundance can turn into waste. Low prices alone are not a solution for those without purchasing power. The fisherman’s labour, the consumer’s table and the health of the marine ecosystem cannot be considered in isolation from one another.

That is why it is not enough to simply ask, “Why have bonito prices fallen?” We must also ask: ‘Why has so much fish been caught?’, ‘Why could unsold fish not be utilised?’, ‘Can a system be established that covers the fisherman’s costs whilst remaining accessible to the consumer?’, and ‘How can the environmental impact of organic waste dumped into the sea be prevented?’

The sea is not an infinite reservoir. A fisherman’s labour is not merely the number of fish caught in the nets overnight. Nor can poverty be measured solely by the figure on the price tag.

In a scenario where bonito caught from the sea fails to reach the dinner table, fishermen are unable to receive fair compensation for their labour, and coastal residents are exposed to the stench of rotting fish, the issue is not merely one of food waste. There is a problem that highlights how the connection between production, consumption, livelihoods and nature has been misconstrued.

True abundance does not lie in catching the greatest quantity of fish from the sea; it lies in utilising the catch without wastage, safeguarding the fisherman’s livelihood, ensuring people have access to healthy food, and preserving the sea in a thriving state for future generations.