Saving Seafood

Opinion

Op-ed: Fighting forced labor across tuna supply chains: Progress requires companies to work with fishers’ unions

March 17, 2025 — Allison Gill is the legal director of Global Labor Justice, an NGO that works transnationally to advance policies and laws that protect decent work, strengthen freedom of association and workers’ ability to advocate for their rights, and hold corporations accountable for labor rights violations in their supply chains.

She is a human rights lawyer, researcher, and advocate who has conducted numerous field investigations into human and labor rights abuse, including in the seafood sector.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Coastal economies rely on NOAA, from Maine to Florida, Texas and Alaska – even if they don’t realize it

March 3, 2025 — Healthy coastal ecosystems play crucial roles in the U.S. economy, from supporting multibillion-dollar fisheries and tourism industries to protecting coastlines from storms.

They’re also difficult to manage, requiring specialized knowledge and technology.

That’s why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – the federal agency best known for collecting and analyzing the data that make weather forecasts and warnings possible – leads most of the government’s work on ocean and coastal health, as well as research into the growing risks posed by climate change.

The government estimates that NOAA’s projects and services support more than one-third of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet, this is one of the agencies that the Trump administration has targeted, with discussions of trying to privatize NOAA’s forecasting operations and disband its crucial climate change research.

As a marine environmental historian who studies relationships among scientists, fishermen and environmentalists, I have seen how NOAA’s work affects American livelihoods, coastal health and the U.S. economy.

Here are a few examples from just NOAA’s coastal work, and what it means to fishing industries and coastal states.

Read the full article at The Conversation

Trump Didn’t Kill New Jersey’s Wind Farms. Economics Did

February 6, 2025 — Donald Trump’s supporters and opponents alike are giving the president credit for “killing” an offshore wind farm project along the coast of New Jersey.

An executive order pausing permitting for offshore wind projects cast doubt on that project’s viability, New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities indicated in a statement this week. It is indisputable that creating uncertainty in this market threw a wrench in the works. But as Politico confessed, the “challenges” that Governor Phil Murphy’s project encountered “include economic conditions beyond Murphy’s control and Trump.”

Read the full article at National Review

Monty Deihl: Let’s set the record straight about menhaden fishing

December 18, 2024 — The following is an excerpt from an opinion piece published by The Virginian-Pilot and the Daily Press. It was written by Monty Deihl, the CEO of Ocean Harvesters, Inc. He is a native of Reedville, where he and his wife raised their family, and a retired Air Force officer.

A guest column published on Dec. 11 (“Menhaden harvesting has an impact on local fisheries”) contained several inaccuracies regarding the menhaden fishery — including Reedville-based companies Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein — and the state of the Atlantic menhaden population.

Omega Protein neither “farms” fish nor engages in aquaculture. Menhaden used in Omega Protein’s products are harvested by Ocean Harvesters, an independent company that operates a fleet of nine vessels out of Reedville. Omega Protein processes the menhaden harvested by Ocean Harvesters into products that improve the nutritional integrity of foods, dietary supplements, and animal feeds.

The menhaden population is not “dwindling.” The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) reports menhaden populations are abundant and sustainably managed. Menhaden are not overfished and are not experiencing overfishing. The biomass exceeded 4.5 million metric tons in 2022, while total commercial landings amounted to just 195,387 metric tons. The ASMFC says menhaden biomass has been stable since the 1960s.

At the August ASMFC meeting, both the representative from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Maryland governor’s appointee stated there are “no menhaden” in Maryland. Ironically, in October, the Maryland DNR juvenile striped bass survey found that juvenile menhaden abundance in the Chesapeake Bay over the past two years is at the highest level measured since 1990.

The menhaden fishery is certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. This required a rigorous, independent evaluation by third-party auditors confirming a healthy biomass, minimal environmental impact and a robust management system.

Atlantic menhaden is the first U.S. species managed to account for predator forage needs. In 2020, after a decade of work, the ASMFC implemented “ecological reference points.” This was applauded by numerous environmental advocates and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Although some critics in the recreational fishing community claim a distinction between the coast-wide and Chesapeake Bay menhaden populations, no evidence supports this. Menhaden are migratory, naturally moving in and out of the Bay. At a Dec. 6, 2022, meeting, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) scientists called “localized depletion” claims speculative and unsupported by evidence.

In recent months, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other groups publicized a controversial study allegedly linking menhaden harvesting and negative osprey reproductive success. At the August ASMFC meeting, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Maryland executive director offered a motion creating a workgroup to consider more precautionary management of menhaden based on the study. But an article in the current Bay Journal highlights criticism from three VIMS fisheries scientists, who questioned the study’s data, methods and conclusion linking osprey nesting issues to menhaden fishing.

Antagonism between commercial menhaden and recreational fishing interests is nothing new. It was first reported in The New York Times in 1895. But recently, threats on social media and physical attacks on commercial vessels escalated to the point that Virginia amended its laws in 2024 to increase penalties for such dangerous actions. We are thankful to the governor, delegates and commercial watermen from other fisheries who worked hard to change the law to increase public safety.

Today, Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein are the largest providers of union jobs with full benefits, and the largest minority employers in Northumberland County, serving as key economic drivers. My family has worked in the menhaden industry in Reedville for more than 100 years; it clothed and fed me, put me through school, and today employs my children and supports my grandchildren.

For more than a century, those in the Northern Neck’s menhaden fishing industry have defended their livelihoods against unfounded claims that menhaden purse-seine fishing harms recreational fishing. The debate will continue, but it must be based on fact. And the regulation of this job-creating industry must also be based on fact — not politics and unsubstantiated conjecture.

Read the op-ed at The Virginian-Pilot

Op-ed: In suing Cooke, Conservation Law Foundation has a short memory

November 18, 2024 — Sebastian Belle is the executive director of the Maine Aquaculture Association, and the president of the board of directors of the National Aquaculture Association.

Prior to joining the Maine Aquaculture Association, Belle was the U.S. state of Maine’s state aquaculture coordinator, working for the Maine Department of Marine Resources. He has also served on NOAA’s Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee and on the board of directors of the Maine Fishermen’s Forum, The Island Institute, and the Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center. 

The recent announcement by Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) that they intend to sue Cooke Aquaculture is a surprise given the fact that they worked closely with the salmon farmers to develop the very standards they indicate they are going to sue over.

Perhaps this is a case of staff turnover and lack of institutional memory? Or is it yet another example of big city, opportunist law firms trying to cash in on citizen lawsuits?

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

My Turn: Charting a course toward seafood independence for Alaska’s vulnerable food systems

November 8, 2024 — As a commercial fisherman based in Sitka and the executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association (ALFA), I’ve spent decades navigating Alaska’s challenging waters and the headwinds facing our fishing communities. Alaska’s coastal residents are resilient, but they are up against a new magnitude of challenges. The loss of fishing access and community-based processing capacity, along with a dearth of local markets for seafood, are straining once vibrant fishing economies up and down our coastline.

I recently contributed to a fisheries access report commissioned by the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust (ASFT), which highlights the outmigration of fishing access in Southeast Alaska. Communities with historically robust local fishing fleets now see few active vessels based in town. This trend is acute in communities such as Kake, which has lost its local processor — and with it, a viable market for resident fishermen. Through interviews and in-person engagement, ASFT’s report found that a common concern among fishermen was the loss of a local fish buyer. When this happens, resident fishermen often sell their permits or abandon fishing altogether. The double blow of losing a local buyer and having to relinquish fishing rights has driven many families away from long-standing communities and hometowns, resulting in the closure of schools and businesses, weakening the viability of fishing as a way of life.

Right now our fishing communities need federal support to pursue economic resilience and seafood independence. That’s why I’m grateful to Rep. Mary Peltola for introducing the Domestic Seafood Production Act (DSPA), alongside Reps. Troy Carter (D-LA) and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR). By investing $90 million, DSPA will help stem the loss of fishery access, support the development of localized markets, secure coastal fishing livelihoods, and ultimately foster prosperous fishing communities.

Read the full article at Juneau Empire

California MPAs have not increased populations: a response to Carl Safina

October 16, 2024 — Two weeks ago I published an op-ed in the Santa Barbara Independent critiquing the proposals for expansion of California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) that established 124 MPAs across California. Follow this link to read the full op-ed, but essentially, I argued that in the last decade since the MPA network was established, there have been no benefits to the marine ecosystems of California. Thus, what are the proposed benefits to even more MPAs?

Carl Safina took particular exception to the op-ed and sent a note to his email list criticizing it. His note was flawed and sloppy and I feel compelled to respond on our own email list:

The MLPA 10-year review does not show that there are more fish in California because of the MLPA. It only shows that there are more fish inside some of the closed areas. The question of MPA effectiveness (in relation to fish) is how MPAs affect fish populations as a whole, not just in a closed area. There is no science that shows an increase in fish across California. Ovando et al., A 2021 paper evaluating the MPAs in the Channel Islands found no regional increase. In other words, the increase in fish inside the MPA was counterbalanced by less fish outside the MPA.

The fishing effort that was in the closed areas simply moved somewhere else and caught the fish there (often with more fuel burnt moving farther). During the planning process, many of us suggested there would be no overall benefit unless the stocks were overfished, and there was no evidence that overfishing was taking place. Everyone, even Safina, seems to accept that the amount of response you see inside the MPA depends on how much fishing pressure there was before the closure.

But the basis of Safina’s response to me was copy and pasting passages from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife decadal review. What he failed to grasp is that most of the review and the science in the report was looking at fish abundance inside the MPAs versus so called “reference sites” outside the MPAs. In theory, a reference site has similar habitat to the MPA so the abundance in the reference site is potentially what would have happened to the MPA without closure. You can think of it as what scientists would call a “control” site. What Safina (and many other MPA advocates) don’t understand about MPA science is the fallacy of comparing reference sites outside a protected area to fish abundance inside after the MPA is established.

Reference sites cannot be used as a scientific control because they are a “treatment.” After an MPA is established, the reference sites would have been fished harder after areas were closed because some of the fishing effort would have moved there. It is not a true control group as the establishment of the MPA essentially “treats” the reference site to more fishing. This fallacy permeates all of the quotes from the 10-year review Safina used to argue for positive benefits.

If the MPAs show more stability because fishing effort was removed, would we not expect the reference sites to show less stability because fishing effort increased there?

In the below figure from Ziegler et al. 2024, the catch per hour fished in different California MPAs is compared to nearby “reference sites” (arranged from north to south). The red is the MPA, the blue is the reference site. There is little difference in the areas where population density is low and MPAs are far from harbors (i.e. Cape Mendocino), while in Southern California, where there are far more people and MPAs are closer to harbors, the number of fish inside the MPAs went up. The differences are presumably influenced not only by how heavily the area was fished before the closure (leading to an increase inside the MPA), but also how much effort was then pushed out, leading to a decline in the reference areas.

Safina suggests that having some areas with more fish means the MLPA was a success. But if there are more fish in closed areas, and fewer fish outside, is this a success? I frankly doubt that the California legislature, or the people of California, would have supported the MLPA if it had been put to them that there would be no increase in fish abundance because of the MPAs but instead there would be more fish in some closed areas, but everywhere people wanted to go fishing would have fewer fish.

There are certainly advantages in having some closed areas as special sites for diving tourism and scientific study, but as the 10-year review said regarding tourism, “MPAs that allow some level of take and have nearby infrastructure, such as easily accessible parking lots, attract more human uses.” So does California need even more no-take areas?

Finally, I go back to a key point of my critique of the 10-year review. If the MLPA was a biological success, why are only 4 pages out of a 120 page report devoted to changes in species abundance?

 

Ray Hilborn

“Skepticism is the highest duty, blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” Thomas Huxley

Fishing communities call on Biden-Harris Administration to update National Standard guidelines

October 15, 2024 — We have a simple message: it’s time for the Biden-Harris Administration to update the National Standard 4, 8, and 9 guidelines. The next step is to publish the Proposed Rule developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to update the guidelines. The Administration should move this forward as soon as possible.

Across the country, fishermen are grappling with shifting stocks, collapsing markets, and vanishing opportunity. It’s not all doom and gloom, but there’s plenty of both to be found walking the docks in 2024. What we see on the water and in our communities makes clear that the ways federal fishery management allocates access to resources, treats communities, and stops bycatch in one fishery from impacting another must be modernized.

To build climate resilience and ensure that coastal communities maintain access to their local fisheries, action is needed now. As a recent study from the Government Accountability Office (the leading federal watchdog) points out, there’s a serious need to build in measurable goals and objectives for bycatch accountability, with enforceable timelines for their achievement. And as we have emphasized to NMFS, updating the National Standard guidelines represents a key opportunity for substantial progress. Congress has explicitly authorized NMFS to make these updates, and the agency must take the opportunity.

Read the full article at National Fisherman

Op-ed: From farmworkers to fishermen: Lessons from US produce on protecting human rights on the high seas

October 10, 2024 — Greg Asbed is the co-founder of the Fair Food Program and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. He was a MacArthur Fellow in 2017.

In 2003, while speaking to a reporter from The New Yorker magazine, a U.S. Justice Department official called the agricultural industry in and around the farmworker community of Immokalee, Florida, “ground zero for modern-day slavery.” The distinction was well-earned, with six separate forced labor operations uncovered in the area and successfully prosecuted by federal officials in the six years leading up to that interview.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Op-ed: A new culture of compliance will give the seafood industry greater confidence to trade

October 9, 2024 — Martin Thurley is executive director of the Seafood Task Force, a U.S.-based nonprofit trade association representing major retailers, brands, foodservice companies, and supply chain partners established in 2014 to rebuild trust in global trade amid concerns of social and environmental misconduct occurring within global tuna and shrimp supply networks. 

Ten years ago, concerns about social and environmental abuse in global shrimp supply chains in Thailand created a crisis of confidence in the industry. A decade on, as the Seafood Task Force (STF) prepares to head to Bangkok for its annual summit, we know that the solutions lie within the industry, and although progress can often be frustratingly slow and extremely challenging, we have implemented tangible improvements.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource