4 minute read


Fish Tales

“The End of the Line” incorrectly suggests that land-based systems like ours mentioned in the piece are “more experimental than economical” [July 18]. Not only is ours a land-based, indoor facility, but it is also a fully contained, zero-discharge aquaculture system. We are a commercial-scale, economically viable operation that produces high-quality fish while using a minimal amount of water and continually reducing our consumption of electricity. Our technology, which re-creates on land the conditions that sustain a natural marine ecosystem, results in a reliable supply of healthy, fresh, ecologically raised fish protein. At no point does water or biological waste leave our facility. While we very much appreciate the attention to aquaculture, we felt it was important to make this clarification.

Nadya Peeva, Vice President, Business Development, Local Ocean, NEW YORK CITY

Congratulations to Bryan Walsh for his excellent article. At last, some needed perspective on how we domesticate the ocean. Yet Walsh perpetuates the incorrect view that salmon and bass are “a bit like … tigers of the sea.” Not even. Salmon have far greater reproductive potential and are not the oceans’ top predators.

John Marra, BROOKLYN

Let’s not fool ourselves. The only real solution to preserving the essence of fish requires scientifically based, rigorously enforced limits on the yearly catch, together with the establishment of sufficient marine reserves.

Fred Drumlevitch, TUCSON, ARIZ.

I was pleased to see TIME highlighting the importance of aquaculture. However, Walsh was incorrect when he wrote that “salmon raised in an aquaculture environment often have lower levels of cardiovascular-friendly omega-3s than wild fish.” A quick comparison at the USDA nutrient database finds that the opposite is true. Most of the time, the farmed product has more omega-3s than the wild product does.

Gavin Gibbons, National Fisheries Institute, MCLEAN, VA.

A Better Start

Re Joe Klein’s “Head Start Doesn’t Work” [July 18]: For 45 years, Head Start has helped children enter school with the skills to learn and thrive. The program can be more effective, and that is why the Obama Administration has made reform a top priority. Research shows that Head Start improves children’s kindergarten readiness. We need to strengthen the program so that more children not only start school ready to succeed but also continue to thrive. We launched a reform effort to require low-performing programs to compete for funding, and we will end funding for those delivering poor services. We have stepped up training of teachers and staffs. My department is working with the Department of Education and states to bring more innovation to early education, including Head Start. The needs of children that inspired leaders to create Head Start in 1965 have not gone away. In today’s global economy, U.S. competitiveness depends on ensuring that all children can reach their full potential. Our reform agenda will help us reach that goal.

Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, WASHINGTON

One of several things Klein chose not to mention is that Head Start results extend beyond the classroom and contribute to overall preparedness for life. The bottom line is that the cumulative, lifelong benefits of Head Start show that the program is a smart investment. Study after study has demonstrated that for every dollar spent on Head Start, society earns back at least $7 through increased earnings, employment and family stability and decreased welfare dependency, crime costs, grade repetition and special education. In fact, the value and efficacy of Head Start was further affirmed in a recent letter to Congress signed by nearly 300 early-learning academics and researchers.

Yasmina Vinci, Executive Director, National Head Start Association, WASHINGTON

As one of the many Head Start pioneers of the 1960s, I agree it has lost focus and professional accountability. One of the early and successful pilots gave preschool-age children with physical and cognitive disabilities the opportunity to be educated, respected and productive. Sadly, it became a political football, with some inept government managers calling bad plays.

Marion Walton, GREENFIELD, WIS.

The Fans Go Wild

Finally, someone who gets fan fiction right! [“The Boy Who Lived Forever,” July 18]. Thank you, Lev Grossman, for doing your homework and writing a sensitive, nuanced, nonsensationalized piece that looks at all sides of the issue.

Gwyn Harper, TUCSON, ARIZ.

I was surprised to find some of the quoted authors so territorial. They chose to publish their stories, and the characters and worlds they created entered the hearts and imaginations of the fans who support their earnings. I would think they would be proud.

Kathleen D’Auria, FLEMINGTON, N.J.

I blame you, TIME, for getting me involved in Harry Potter fan fiction. Now I will never get around to my summer AP schoolwork and studying for the SATs.


Please recycle this magazine and remove inserts or samples before recycling

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at