Princes tuna: 'the tin full of sin'

Posted by jamie - 22 February 2011 at 5:40pm - Comments

Now I'm back in the office and finally warmed up after yesterday's trip to visit Princes in Liverpool, I've been able to browse through some of the slogan suggestions which have been sent in. There are some absolute crackers in the 1,000-plus ideas we've received. Not to mention a couple of logo suggestions which appeared on Facebook here and here.

Many people played on Princes's existing "Yours to enjoy" slogan, with "Yours to destroy" being a clear favourite, as well as plenty of puns around tuna, Jaws and fins. I've picked out some of my favourites below, and if you're struck with inspiration please add yours to the collection (your ideas will also be emailed to Princes).

And there are some rumours floating around following yesterday's shark attack. Is it true, for instance, that other companies housed in the Royal Liver Building along with Princes have been expressing displeasure at their neighbours' indiscriminate fishing methods?

And which quick-thinking shark who made it into Princes's reception and was asked for a name by a police officer replied "Fergal Sharkey"?

Now here are those top taglines for Princes's less-than-sustainable tuna:

Tuna fish today, soylent green tomorrow
Teofan Tomescu

There are not plenty of other fish in the sea - Princes is making sure of that
Michael Reynolds

Mmm, tastes like large scale slaughter!
Heather Kennedy

There are plenty more fish in the sea. Probably
James Atkinson

Entire species we'll destroy, so you can enjoy
Trudi Hayden

Princes: care for no-fin
Rosie Gibbs

Princes: unforTUNAte fish!
Sue Moore

Best left on the shelf
Rod Kebble

Slaughter the rest and take the best
Marcus Jones

Jaws to destroy
Paul Hartles

The tin full of sin
Paul Rowlinson

Sorry, we are not in tuna with the rest of you
Ian Perry

More tuna for me, less for the sea
Daniel Jameson

Yours to enjoy, jaws we destroy!
Mike Baldwin

Catch it. Kill it. Throw it back.
David Hoare

Article tagged as: bycatch, destructive fishing, princes, tinned tuna, tuna

Comments Commenting is now closed

Still gutted Greenpeace are supporting the slaughter of Tuna. Yes, shark by-catch is bad, but what about the Tuna, is it okay to kill one fish, but not another? Save the Tuna, not just the sharks! I don't see the logic?????

By Iain Vincent - 23 February 2011 at 2:37pm

Iain, what do you mean you don't see the logic? It's obvious on the most logical level, certain types of tuna are sustainable, the problem here is reckless fishing, not fishing in general.

One step at a time!

By Maxwell Scott-Slade - 24 February 2011 at 12:05pm

I'm just one of those totally unreasonable vegetarian types that doesn't want to see marine diversity destroyed for man's pleasure in a cheap sandwich.

Tuna are apex predators, many species of which are under immense stress. Yes, selecting species that have currently more robust populations is perhaps more sustainable, but not in the long term - humans can't fish sustainably with our demand. We take too much from the oceans (there are a gazzilion papers, documentary's and books to reinforce this). Telling people to buy another tin of tuna over someone else's is not a positive message - asking people to eat less, or preferably none at all is. Reduce demand and you reduce ecosystem fragility.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against the horrendous consequences of by-catch, but personally, I don't want to see any marine creature killed for human satisfaction. Especially when the consequences are so serious.

By Iain Vincent - 24 February 2011 at 12:20pm

I'm against fishing too, I am also vegetarian but you can't get people on-side by being 100% what you want, it's a slow process that starts with awareness.

Hopefully this will actually stop some people from buying Tuna altogether, just being educated on what goes on. Most people have no idea how their food even makes it into their sandwiches/salads etc.

This is a positive step regardless and no doubt, the future for fishing is not sustainable but getting to a fish-free world is not going to start here. But it sure is a good place to start/continue don't you think?

By Maxwell Scott-Slade - 24 February 2011 at 12:24pm

I just wished the campaign came with a stronger message about the consequences of consuming the target species as well as the effect on the by-catch. It turns my stomach to see GP advocating the consumption of tuna when they do so much to protect other species like sharks & whales. But without a doubt, limiting by-catch is a good thing. Agreed.

By Iain Vincent - 24 February 2011 at 12:36pm

Much as the vegetarian in me would love to see less meat and fish being consumed, I do agree with Maxwell that (for Greenpeace at least) it's not something that would be easy to achieve. Persuading people to eat less fish (or meat) is a real open-ended objective which Greenpeace isn't really structured to work on - we're more about measureable change which alters corporate or government practices, rather than influencing individual choice. Not that that's not an important part of making our civlisation more sustainable and responsible, it's just not what Greenpeace does best, but if a consequence of our campaign is that people think more about the fish they buy, that's brilliant.

By jamie - 28 February 2011 at 2:33pm