Dear Editor:

I have read your magazine with great interest and relish for the past 8-9 years, and for the most part have enjoyed your high quality product. Thus it was with a great deal of dismay that I read the cover story of your February publication, entitled "Seafood: Taiwan's Undersea Treasure" and its accompanying article "That's Fresh!-Seafood in Chinese Culture."

The Taiwan fishing industry is well known around the world for its culpability regarding over-fishing and the use of banned fish catching methods (which are banned because of their tendency to exacerbate the over-fishing problem). This fact, along with the present state of the fish stocks worldwide, leads me to feel that the mood expressed in your stories was irresponsible and unthinking. The two stories cited seemed to offer the viewpoint that the growing consumption of seafood in Taiwan is a source of pride and something to be pursued with gusto by all, as well as having historical precedent to lend said attitudes credibility and persuasiveness. Perhaps this is a difference of cultural outlook, as I am a Westerner. However, saving the environment is a phenomenon that transcends all notions of cultural ethnocentrism, and I was surprised to see this lack of perspective displayed by your otherwise excellent magazine. "Saving the world" can only be accomplished by changing our own behavior, and encouraging rampant consumerism adds nothing positive to the struggle.

Perhaps the fact that a one-page "wishy-washy" article offering little in the way of persuasion, and an excellent photo essay expounding what is closer to the reality (especially in Taiwan, with its horribly polluted environment) were included in this issue led your editorial staff to believe it was presenting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. This was, in fact, not the case. It is not enough to point out what is already obvious to all; after all, the pollution in Taiwan is pretty hard to miss. It is, however, important to try to help people to understand that their present levels of consumption and their attitudes regarding the environment can have a dramatic and important impact on this precious earth that we all share. I respectfully and regretfully submit that these two articles failed greatly in this respect. I hope that Sinorama will not pursue this line in the future, as it detracts exceedingly from the excellence that your magazine typically pursues.

Thank you,

Editor's Reply: Thank you for your letter. For more than a decade now, we have reported steadily on environmental issues. In our February story on seafood, we tried to show how seafood has changed in the lives of Taiwanese. It has gone from being a part of the natural diet, taken in small numbers, to being a high-demand and expensive consumer item. We tried to remind people not to waste precious resources, or else the maritime resources harvested to cater to today's conspicuous consumption of seafood will one day disappear.