Question: When was the scientific study that found that if current trends continue all fish stocks will collapse within fifty years published?
About the article "Seafood", section "Sustainability".

Candidate passages:
Research into population trends of various species of seafood is pointing to a global collapse of seafood species by 2048.
Such a collapse would occur due to pollution and overfishing, threatening oceanic ecosystems, according to some researchers.
A major international scientific study released in November 2006 in the journal "Science" found that about one-third of all fishing stocks worldwide have collapsed (with a collapse being defined as a decline to less than 10% of their maximum observed abundance), and that if current trends continue all fish stocks worldwide will collapse within fifty years.
In July 2009, Boris Worm of Dalhousie University, the author of the November 2006 study in "Science," co-authored an update on the state of the world's fisheries with one of the original study's critics, Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington at Seattle.
The new study found that through good fisheries management techniques even depleted fish stocks can be revived and made commercially viable again.
The FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004 report estimates that in 2003, of the main fish stocks or groups of resources for which assessment information is available, "approximately one-quarter were overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion (16%, 7% and 1% respectively) and needed rebuilding.
"The National Fisheries Institute, a trade advocacy group representing the United States seafood industry, disagree.
They claim that currently observed declines in fish population are due to natural fluctuations and that enhanced technologies will eventually alleviate whatever impact humanity is having on oceanic life.
Commercial fish processing ships can affect birds, whales, dolphins, turtles and sharks by their broad reach methods of catching fish.
Purse seine ships, with nets up to two kilometres in circumference, can encircle whole shoals of pelagic fish, such as mackerel, herring and tuna.
A major international scientific study released in November 2006 in the journal "Science" found that about one-third of all fishing stocks worldwide have collapsed (with a collapse being defined as a decline to less than 10% of their maximum observed abundance), and that if current trends continue all fish stocks worldwide will collapse within fifty years.
The FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004 report estimates that in 2003, of the main fish stocks or groups of resources for which assessment information is available, "approximately one-quarter were overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion (16%, 7% and 1% respectively) and needed rebuilding.
The threat of overfishing is not limited to the target species only.
As trawlers resort to deeper and deeper waters to fill their nets, they have begun to threaten delicate deep-sea ecosystems and the fish that inhabit them, such as the coelacanth.
In the May 15, 2003 issue of the journal "Nature", it is estimated that 10% of large predatory fish remain compared to levels before commercial fishing.
Many fisheries experts, however, consider this claim to beexaggerated with respect to tuna populations.
From 1950 (18 million tons) to 1969 (56 million tons) fishfood production grew by about 5% each year; from 1969 onward production has raised 8% annually.
It is expected that this demand will continue to rise, and MariCulture Systems estimated in 2002 that, by 2010, seafood production would have to increase by over 15.5 million tonnes to meet the desire of Earth's growing population.
This is likely to further aggravate the problem of overfishing, unless aquaculture technology expands to meet the needs of human population.
The world's total wild catch has remained constant for almost 30 years.
Overfishing has depleted some fish populations to the point that large scale commercial fishing, on average around the world, is not economically viable without government assistance.
Many states offer subsidies to their fishing fleets, which is unsustainable in the long term.
According to Oceana, the global fishing fleet is currently up to 250 percent larger than it needs to be to catch what the oceans can sustainably produce.  
[[File:Bluefin-big.jpg|thumb|right|The Atlantic bluefin tuna is currently seriously overexploited.
Scientists say 7,500 tons annually is the sustainable limit, yet the fishing industry continue to harvest 60,000 tons.
]]In wild fisheries, overexploitation or overfishing occurs when a fish stock has been fished down "below the size that, on average, would support the long-term maximum sustainable yield of the fishery".
However, overexploitation can be sustainable.
When a fishery starts harvesting fish from a previously unexploited stock, the biomass of the fish stock will decrease, since harvesting means fish are being removed.
For sustainability, the rate at which the fish replenish biomass through reproduction must balance the rate at which the fish are being harvested.
If the harvest rate is increased, then the stock biomass will further decrease.
At a certain point, the maximum harvest yield that can be sustained will be reached, and further attempts to increase the harvest rate will result in the collapse of the fishery.
This point is called the maximum sustainable yield, and in practice, usually occurs when the fishery has been fished down to about 30% of the biomass it had before harvesting started.
It is possible to fish the stock down further to, say, 15% of the pre-harvest biomass, and then adjust the harvest rate so the biomass remains at that level.
In this case, the fishery is sustainable, but is now overexploited, because the stock has been run down to the point where the sustainable yield is less than it could be.
Fish stocks are said to "collapse" if their biomass declines by more than 95 percent of their maximum historical biomass.
Atlantic cod stocks were severely overexploited in the 1970s and 1980s, leading to their abrupt collapse in 1992.
Even though fishing has ceased, the cod stocks have failed to recover.
The absence of cod as the apex predator in many areas has led to trophic cascades.
About 25% of world fisheries are now overexploited to the point where their current biomass is less than the level that maximizes their sustainable yield.
These depleted fisheries can often recover if fishing pressure is reduced until the stock biomass returns to the optimal biomass.
At this point, harvesting can be resumed near the maximum sustainable yield.
The tragedy of the commons can be avoided within the context of fisheries if fishing effort and practices are regulated appropriately by fisheries management.
One effective approach may be assigning some measure of ownership in the form of individual transferable quotas (ITQs) to fishermen.
In 2008, a large scale study of fisheries that used ITQs, and ones that didn't, provided strong evidence that ITQs help prevent collapses and restore fisheries that appear to be in decline. 
A recent scientific study found that MSC certified fisheries show improvements that deliver benefits to the marine environment.
Benefits included: increased stocks; improved management of stocks; reduced bycatch; expansion of environmentally protected areas; and increased knowledge about ecosystem impacts amongst fishers.
A further study published in the scientific journal PLoS One (Ecolabel conveys reliable information on fish stock health to seafood consumers’, Gutierrez et al., 21 August 2012) found, following the first comprehensive analysis of global fish stocks targeted by MSC certified fisheries, that certified stocks are healthy and maintained above levels that ensure continuing sustainability. 
"The Limits to Growth" was ridiculed as early as the 1970s.
In 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called "A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality".
It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book's predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century.
In 2010, Peet, Nørgård, and Ragnarsdóttir called the book a "pioneering report".
They said that, "its approach remains useful and that its conclusions are still surprisingly valid... unfortunately the report has been largely dismissed by critics as a doomsday prophecy that has not held up to scrutiny.
"In a 2009 article published in American Scientist titled "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil," Hall and Day noted that "the values predicted by the limits-to-growth model and actual data for 2008 are very close."
These findings are consistent with a 2010 study titled "A Comparison of the Limits of Growth with Thirty Years of Reality" which concluded: "The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features… the Limits to Growth ‘standard run’ scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st Century.
"In 2011 Ugo Bardi analyzed "The Limits to Growth", its methods and historical reception and concluded that "The warnings that we received in 1972 ... are becoming increasingly more worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the ... scenario had generated.
"After publication some economists, scientists and political figures criticized the "Limits to Growth".
They attacked the methodology, the computer, the conclusions, the rhetoric and the people behind the project.
Yale economist Henry C. Wallich agreed that growth could not continue indefinitely, but that a natural end to growth was preferable to intervention.
Wallich stated that technology could solve all the problems the Meadows were concerned about, but only if growth continued apace.
By stopping growth too soon, Wallich warned, the world would be "consigning billions to permanent poverty".
Robert Solow from MIT, argued that prediction in "The Limits to Growth" was based on a weak foundation of the data (Newsweek, March 13, 1972, page 103).
Allen Kneese and Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future (RFF) stated: "The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not.
Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.
"Critics also argue that the authors of the report claimed to accept that the then-known resources of minerals and energy could, and would, grow in the future, and consumption growth rates could also decline.
The theoretical expiry time for each resource would therefore need to be updated as new discoveries, technologies and trends came to light.
To overcome this uncertainty, the authors offered an upper value for the expiry time, calculated as if the known resources were multiplied by two.
Even in that case, assuming continuation of the average rate of consumption growth, virtually all major minerals and energy resources would expire within 100 years of publication (i.e., by 2070).
Even if reserves were two times larger than expected, they state, ongoing growth in the consumption rate would still lead to the relatively rapid exhaustion of those reserves.
In 2008 researcher Peter A. Victor wrote, that even though D.H. Meadows et al.
probably underestimated price-mechanism's role in adjusting, their critics have overestimated it.
He states that "Limits to Growth" has had a significant impact on the conception of environmental issues and notes that the models in the book were meant to be taken as predictions "only in the most limited sense of the word" as they wrote.