Saving Seafood

NOAA defends U.S. Fisheries

October 17, 2017 — This week, NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator, Chris Oliver, sent a letter to the editor of Marine Policy that does not mince words. In response to a new report on IUU fishing, Mr. Oliver asks the editor, “to publish a retraction, and to ensure future articles undergo adequate review to avoid publication of misleading information.”

The article in question, “Estimates of illegal and unreported seafood imports to Japan,” claims a portion of IUU seafood coming to Japan include salmon, crab, and Alaska pollock from the United States. However, these three species in particular are considered among the best managed and most closely monitored in the world. (Not to mention, they’re healthy).

A flawed methodology

Mr. Oliver calls the allegations absent of any transparency regarding the data sources and methodology used by the authors to come up with these claims. The letter goes into more detail about data and methodology concerns and then provides ample information about the robust management of U.S. Alaska pollock, salmon, and crab fisheries.

Read the full story at the National Fisheries Institute

Read the letter from Chris Oliver to Marine Policy at NOAA

Walton Foundation Flops As NOAA Demands an Outrageous Paper They Funded on IUU Fishing be Retracted

October 17, 2017 — Seafood News — The Head of NOAA Fisheries, Chris Oliver, has called for a major paper on IUU fishing published in Marine Policy to be retracted in its entirety due to egregious factual errors and misreporting as regards US fisheries.

The paper, Estimates of Illegal and Unreported Seafood Imports to Japan,  was funded by the Walton Family Foundation (WFF).The lead author, Ganapathiraju Pramod conceived the design, conducted the study, analyzed information and drafted the paper. He has made a career out of constructing a model of trade in illegal fisheries, and has previously published a paper claiming up to 32% of US Fisheries Imports are from IUU fish.

He used the same basic methodology in both papers.  First, he develops estimates for trade flows, including fish processed in 3rd countries.  Then he searches for all possible indications of IUU fishing from news accounts, literature citations, government and fisheries association reports, consultants reports, NGO reports, Oral or Written interviews, and finally, peer reviewed academic papers.

He takes the mishmash of sources and assigns a weight to IUU fishing in each major sourcing area.

In the Marine Policy paper, he concluded that 24% to 36% by weight of seafood imported into Japan in 2015 came from IUU fishing.

The reasons NOAA called for the complete retraction of the paper can be seen in his estimates of IUU catches of Alaska Pollock, Crab, and Salmon.

He estimates that out of the 122,280 tons of US Alaska pollock products exported to Japan in 2015, from 15% to 22% (26,901 tons) came from IUU fisheries.

To put this in perspective, his estimate would mean about 20% of surimi destined for Japan is produced from IUU fish.  Since US surimi is produced by vessels with 100% onboard observer coverage, or in plants that are meticulously inspected and required to pay tax on all fish landed in Alaska, it seems that the authors are living in some alternate universe where their own perspective replaces hard facts.

So how does the paper get from the fact that the US Alaska pollock fishery is one of the cleanest, most transparent, industrialized, and most highly regulated fisheries in the world, to a claim that 20% of their exports are illegal fish.

He does so through the murky process of conflating all his sources where ever any source has mentioned a fisheries problem.  So for example, if a source wrote about high grading Alaska pollock, or roe stripping (both activities which would be impossible to hide from the 100% observer coverage), he then applies this to the export numbers and assumes a certain percentage of the charge must be true.

Writing to Marine Policy, Chris Oliver said “the Bering Sea pollock industry has long-established and contractually binding requirements among all vessels to share all catch data with an independent third-party. Discard of pollock is prohibited. Were it to occur, discard and high-grading of pollock would be detected by the numerous monitoring and enforcements provisions in place, and would result in a significant enforcement action.”

On Salmon, Oliver says “The authors’ suggestion that sockeye and coho salmon taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries makes its way to Japan as IUU product is a particularly egregious example of inadequate research and flawed conclusions. Easily accessible and publically available reports indicate that Chinook salmon in Alaska and along the West Coast of the U.S. and chum salmon in Alaska are the predominant species taken incidentally in trawl fisheries. Bycatch of sockeye and coho across all trawl (and for that matter, most other gear types) is de minimis, and occurs primarily in the highly-monitored pollock fishery.”

The paper claims that between 2200 and 4400 tons of Illegal salmon are caught in Alaska and exported to Japan.  The authors likely don’t realize that monitoring of salmon bycatch by trawl fisheries is highly developed in Alaska, with vessels reporting bycatch down to the individual fish.  These fish cannot be legally sold.

It is quite likely that the authors have confused US practices where bycatch is highly regulated with those in Russia, where the pollock fleet is allowed to keep whatever salmon they catch, and that salmon is subsequently sold in the commercial market.  The Russian system does not require that pollock vessels identify the species of salmon; and it assumes all pollock vessel bycatch of salmon is legal.

The authors make a similar mistake with US crab fisheries, once again assuming that because they have heard people talk about IUU crab in some instance, therefore up to 18*% of the US crab exports to Japan represent illegal fishing.  As anyone in the crab industry will tell you, this is simply laughable, given the regulatory oversight and close inspection of the Bering Sea snow crab and king crab fisheries.

Furthermore, most of the crab exports to Japan are made by very large exporting companies.  None of these major companies would allow their business or their markets to be jeopardized by engaging in illegal behavior.  The fact that the authors accept their model output without thinking twice about the real-world implications is the key reason they should withdraw their paper.

In short, this paper has sullied the reputation of all associated with it, because it is such an egregious example of constructing a fantasy world and then justifying it with a numeric model.

There has been a problem of IUU fish imports to Japan, especially in the crab and tuna fisheries.

if the authors had looked at the real world instead of just models, they would have seen that since the Russia-Japanese agreement on documentation for crab vessels, illegal live crab landings in Japan have dwindled to nearly zero.  In fact, plants closed, the supply chain shifted, and the market felt a huge impact in the collapse of IUU crab fishing to Japan.  But none of this makes it into the paper.

The problem here is that papers such as this one are based on fantasy but they become the basis for NGO claims about generalized IUU fishing, and they take away resources, attention and commitments from actions that actually address some of the problems.  These include the Port State Measures agreement, universal vessel registration in the tuna fisheries, US, Japanese, and EU import traceability requirements, all of which have served to dramatically reduce the marketability of IUU fish products.

NOAA is right to demand Marine Policy retract this paper and submit it to additional peer review,  if it is ever to be published again.

The Walton Family Foundation also needs to think about its own reputation.  Although they do fund many important fishery projects, allowing a paper as misguided as this to result from their funding actually undermines their efforts to promote sustainable seafood, because it sows doubts about their competence and understanding of fisheries issues.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Success of Alaska Pollock Fishery is focus of SeaWeb Seafood Summit Panel

SEATTLE (Saving Seafood) — June 7, 2017 — The success of the industrial pollock fishery in the Eastern Bering Sea, which generally harvests in excess of one million metric tons each year, was the focus of a panel at the SeaWeb Seafood Summit on Tuesday. The panel, “Moving Beyond Fishery Certification: Using Collaboration, Technology and Innovation to Further Improve Sustainability” was moderated by Tim Fitzgerald of the Environmental Defense Fund. Panelists were Allen Kimball of Trident Seafoods, Richard Draves of American Seafoods, and Karl Bratvold of Starbound LLC. Trident Seafoods is a large, vertically integrated company, which processes Alaska pollock at shoreside facilities. Vessels owned by Starbound and American Seafoods harvest and process Alaska pollock at sea.

Panelists discussed the development of the Alaska pollock fishery: from before extended jurisdiction through the period of transition to a fully domestic fishery, to the years before rationalization when catcher-processors and catcher vessels competed in an Olympic-style race for fish, to the advent of an effective and efficient enterprise with the establishment of catch shares under the American Fisheries Act (AFA). Under the AFA, quota share is permanently allocated between the at sea and shoreside processing sectors, and among cooperatives (groups of fishing companies) within each sector. AFA provisions encourage cooperation and collaboration within and between sectors and cooperatives, which has brought about many improvements.

Examples of successful collaboration and cooperation include avoidance of salmon bycatch, which is facilitated by comprehensive observer coverage, daily electronic communication of catch and bycatch information that is shared across the fishery, and binding agreements that require vessels to relocate to avoid bycatch or suffer substantive financial penalties. Similarly, collaboration on development of selective gear, development of gear with reduced drag, and other shared innovations have been effective in reducing bycatch and greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing operating efficiency. All of the panelists highlighted their commitment to science-based management, their support for federal government science, and the extent to which they collectively fund scientific research. They also spoke about the importance and value associated with Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification.

Additionally, the panelists emphasized the extent to which rationalization through catch shares has improved the harvesting and processing processes, as well as increased safety and operational efficiency.

This session told the story of Alaska pollock and illustrated the benefits of a well crafted and well implemented catch share program, as well as MSC certification. Other fisheries can learn from this experience, but it’s important to note that this is not a “one size fits all” solution that is immediately applicable in all types and scales of fisheries.

NMFS Temporarily Closes “A” Season Pollock Fishing in Gulf of Alaska Area 610

February 6, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — National Marine Fisheries Service has issued a temporary rule prohibiting directed fishing for Pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska for the A season.

The action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 610, NMFS said in the rule published on Jan. 31 in the Federal Register.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Gulf exclusive economic zone under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The A season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch of Pollock for Area 610 of the GOA is 2,232 metric tons, as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA.

After NMFS’ regional administrator determined that the A season allowance for that TAC would soon be reached, NMFS moved to prohibit additional directed fishing for Pollock there during the A season.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission. 

Growth in global fish production slows, aquaculture increases

December 8th, 2016 — Growth in global fish production is expected to slow slightly this year, driven primarily by lower catches of major wild species such as Alaska pollock and anchoveta. Production solely from aquaculture continues to increase at a steady rate with a further 5 percent increase in total volume expected in 2016. Driven by higher incomes and urbanization, global consumption of fish is growing at a faster rate than global population, meaning that per capita consumption is rising each year by approximately 1 percent. In 2016, expected per capita consumption is 20.5 kg per year, compared with 20.3 kg in 2015 and 17.6 kg a decade ago in 2006. Another important figure is the proportion of fish produced by the aquaculture sector for human consumption, forecast to reach 53 percent this year, a trend that is only going up in the foreseeable future.

The total value of world trade in seafood products is expected to bounce back this year after a drop in 2015, to US$140 billion, representing a 4.4 percent increase, although this is still well below the 2014 total of US$148.4 billion. This return to growth in value terms is partly due to a stabilization of the US dollar after a sharp increase versus multiple currencies in 2015, but it is also a consequence of improved prices for a number of highly traded seafood commodities. Salmon prices, in particular, have been reaching extreme peaks in 2016, while tuna prices have also risen after a period of sustained lows. Supply constraints are part of the reason for the price gains, but demand growth is also a contributing factor.

Read the full story at Aquafeed.com

NFI Says Greenpeace to Issue Rank and Spank US Foodservice Listings as Early as Monday

August 22, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — According to NFI’s Gavin Gibbons, Greenpeace is close to announcing a major new campaign to fund-raise off of a rank and spank approach to US Foodservice companies.

Similar to its retail rankings, Greenpeace scores companies in a subjective manner on how ideologically close they are to the organization.

For example, their retail “red list” contains recommendations to avoid some of the most sustainable and certified seafood products on the planet, such as Alaska pollock.  There is no scientific basis for this.

In fact, Greenpeace is very explicit in their desire to halt commercial sales of these species.  They say on their website:

“A crucial component of a responsible seafood operation is stopping the sale of the most destructively caught or endangered species. Greenpeace’s Red List is a scientifically compiled list of 22 marine species that should not currently be made commercially available. ”

And what are these species that Greenpeace would like to see the Foodservice industry stop selling?

The species, by order of commercial importance, include warm water shrimp, Atlantic salmon, Alaska pollock, albacore and yellowfin tuna, Atlantic cod, Atlantic sea scallops, hoki, Atlantic halibut, monkfish, redfish, swordfish, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, Greenland halibut, bluefin tuna, red snapper, sharks and rays, grouper, big eye tuna, and ocean quahogs.

Of the 20 wild caught species targeted by Greenpeace, 15 are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

The two farmed species, shrimp and Atlantic salmon, are also certified by both GAA’s Best Aquaculture Practices and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

So, of the species that Greenpeace is planning to rank companies on because they believe they should not be commercially available, fully 82% of them are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council or equivalent.

This suggests that the campaign is not about sustainability, but about positioning Greenpeace in opposition to the Marine Stewardship Council, and continuing to fundraise by telling supporters lies about seafood sustainability.

This practice is a very effective publicity and fundraising tool, known as rank and spank.

First Greenpeace creates its own criteria for rankings, not subject to outside review, and releases a report highlighting the malfeasance of companies that sell products Greenpeace wants proscribed.

Then Greenpeace agitates with the public and the publicity shy companies to make some concessions that raise their “score”, allowing Greenpeace to go to supporters and claim they are the tool forcing these companies to change practices.

Then, the cycle is repeated when companies that have complied with Greenpeace are called out again, if they don’t take ideological actions in support of the organization.

For example, Greenpeace called out retailers, and ranked them, by how strongly they pressed the North Pacific Council to close parts of the Bering Sea to protect Bering Sea Canyon habitat.  When the US government spent millions of dollars showing that the habitats in question did not have corals, and were not threatened by any fishing activity, the supermarket buyers who had sent letters looked foolish and manipulated.

Some of them took the honest step of withdrawing their letters, once they learned the facts.

As NFI says, “Foodservice companies are among the most dedicated to seafood sustainability and full supply chain sustainability. To target them, rather than laud them illustrates how out of touch Greenpeace is with real sustainability efforts.  While the group demands all seafood purchasing decisions be made based on Greenpeace’s arbitrary red list, foodservice providers work hard to ensure they understand the sustainability story of each species and the efforts underway to maintain those stocks.”

Many foodservice companies have committed to sustainable purchasing programs.  Some support fisheries improvement projects and virtually all of them now demand full traceability to ensure the integrity of their supply chain.

There is no need for Greenpeace to agitate in this environment.  The foodservice companies targeted in this list do not need to respond, except to show what they are already doing to promote sustainability, and to emphasize they were taking these actions long before Greenpeace’s rank and spank system ever came out.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Forest Products Co. Targets Greenpeace with Racketeering Suit; Lays Claim of Fraudulent Enterprise

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton — June 7, 2016 — A major lawsuit against Greenpeace by a Forest Products company has a lot of resonance for the seafood industry, especially regarding whether damages can be awarded if Greenpeace deliberately mis-states facts.

Resolute Forest Products, a Montreal Company that is one of the largest producers of newsprint, pulp, and other paper and wood products in the world, has sued Greenpeace over its multiyear campaign called Resolute: Forest Destroyer.

Our industry members should read the entire case document (here). It lays out a familiar pattern.

  1. Greenpeace and various Forest Products Companies come to a landmark agreement regarding better forestry practices and measures to reduce impacts on Woodland caribou, whose populations are declining in Quebec and Ontario.
  1. The cooperation does not support Greenpeace’s fundraising model, which depends on conflict and targeting specific companies to raise donations.
  1. Greenpeace blows up the existing agreements, and pressures certification organizations to withdraw compliance certificates.
  1. Greenpeace goes to customers with a campaign of intimidation, saying that if they continue to do business with Resolute, Greenpeace will attack their brand.

Best Buy, Proctor and Gamble, Hearst Newspapers, the European Publisher Axel Springer, Rite-Aid, Home Depot, 3-M, Kimberly Clark and others all were targeted by Greenpeace to stop doing business with Resolute.

Initially Best Buy refused, but its website was hacked on Black Friday (the biggest online shopping day after Thanksgiving) in 2014, and over 50,000 people posted false and misleading product reviews claiming Best Buy supported ‘fueling the destruction of the Canadian Boreal Forest. ”

The next month, Best Buy informed Resolute that they would no longer buy from them.

The total cost in lost business has been well over $100 million from three companies alone: Best Buy, Rite-Aid, and 3M, according to a Greenpeace document.

Resolute charges that Greenpeace fits the definition of a racketeering organization because a number of groups and individuals (Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Canada, Greenpeace Fund, Greenpeace Inc., etc make false statements, threats, and take other actions with the purpose of securing donations under fraudulent purposes.

Resolute says that Greenpeace needs to “emotionalize” issues rather than report facts to generate sufficient donations that its bloated and ineffective operations would not otherwise generate. They give numerous examples, including an accidentally released internal statement calling for the insertion of an “ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID”, in a public report.

Resolute says well over 60% of GP-Inc’s annual revenues go to the six-figure salaries of its executives and the salaries and benefits of its other employees. A whopping 94% of revenue is consumed by salaries and administrative and fundraising expenses, including office expenses, IT, travel, lodging, conferences, and telemarketing expenses.

That is to say, far from an organization that actually does things to improve the environment, Greenpeace is fundamentally a fundraising organization that raises funds to pay its leaders and continue raising more funds.

Resolute argues that because funds raised to ‘save the boreal forests’ are not used for a public purpose, but instead to maintain the enterprise, the use of threats, false statements, and intimidation fit the definitions of the American Racketeering and Corrupt Practices act.

The heart of the case is that Greenpeace’s claims against Resolute are false, and were made for the purpose of generating emotional heat that would result in massive donations.

For example,

“Resolute is not a “destroyer” of the Boreal forest in any possible sense of the word, and cannot in any way be accurately characterized as such. Less than. 5% (. 005) of the Canadian boreal forest is harvested annually, and five times as much is lost due to natural causes including insects, disease, blowdowns, and fire. Due to planting and regeneration efforts, there is zero net loss from logging in the Boreal Forest.

“Resolute has received numerous awards and recognitions for its responsible and sustainable forestry. The claim by Greenpeace — which has never planted a single tree in the Boreal forest — that Resolute — which has planted over a billion trees in the Boreal forest and contributed to no permanent loss of forest acreage — is a “Forest Destroyer” is patently false and unfounded. It is a malicious lie”, claims the suit documents.

Secondly, Greenpeace has accused the company of contributing to climate change by logging. Yet the Scientists at the UN IPCC have said that a “sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustainable yield of timber, fibre, or energy from the forest will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit. ” In other words, younger trees absorb more carbon, while older trees lose carbon to the atmosphere. Resolutes practices are helping the forests remain an effective carbon sink.

Thirdly, Greenpeace’s campaign repeatedly fails to disclose that in 2010 Resolute and other forestry companies agreed with Greenpeace to, in Greenpeace’s own words, a “moratorium . .. protecting virtually all of the habitat of the threatened woodland caribou, ” and Resolute’s operations since that time have remained outside “virtually all of th[at] habitat”.

Fourth Greenpeace has repeatedly manufactured facts and evidence to support the “Resolute: Forest Destroyer” campaign’s lies. For example, it has published staged photos and video falsely purporting to show Resolute logging in prohibited areas and others purporting to show forest areas impacted by Resolute harvesting when the areas depicted were actually impacted by fire or other natural causes.

In addition to the false claims, Resolute says Greenpeace torpedoed the 2010 forestry agreement by falsely claiming that Resolute was logging in areas that were prohibited.

Part of the issue is that there were multiple disputes over Northern Forest issues between the government of Quebec and some of the native bands; and there were also conflicts between government mandated forest practices to conserve caribou, and forest practices preferred by native bands in their own hunting areas. The FSI certificates were withdrawn based on these disputes, not due to Greenpeace’s charges against Resolute. Yet customers were told that Resolute was losing its certifications.

Resolute has asked for a jury trial in Georgia, where it has offices and the headquarters of a number of the companies who have withdrawn purchasing under pressure from Greenpeace are also located.

They hope with the discovery process to be able to show in more depth the corruption of the campaign against them.

In their suit, they site several examples from the seafood industry as well where Greenpeace has made false claims that have been refuted by NOAA and scientific consensus, and yet Greenpeace has pursued those claims to try and halt sales of products. Their retail report card, for example, that grades retailers on whether they reject Alaska pollock or not, is mentioned, as is Greenpeace’s refusal to engage on Tuna with the ISSF.

The recent Bering Sea Canyon fight is very similar to the Forest Destroyer Campaign. Greenpeace tried to claim to customers that unless they refused to buy pollock from a certain part of the Bering Sea, they would be contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem.

When a major scientific effort showed this was totally false, the campaign collapsed because the retailers still retained some faith in NOAA and US government Science. But the issues at stake are very much the same as those with the Northern Forest, so it will be extremely interesting to keep abreast as the suit goes forward.

In Canada, another suit has been filed by Resolute in 2013, and is still making its way towards trial. In Canada, Greenpeace long ago lost its ‘tax-exempt’ status as the Canadian government determined the charity did not serve a public purpose.

The Resolute case seeks to establish that in some areas, the organization acts as a criminal enterprise.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Read the story at Seafood News

Misunderstood pollock a key to New England seafood’s future

May 9, 2016 — PORTLAND, Maine — It might not be time yet to rechristen Cape Cod as Cape Pollock, but the humble fish is staking its claim.

The Atlantic pollock has long played a role in New England’s fishing industry as a cheaper alternative to cod and haddock, but the fish’s place in America’s oldest fishing industry is expanding as stocks like cod fade.

But the fish has an image problem.

While considered a whitefish, its uncooked gray-pinkish color looks drab compared to the snow-white cod fillets consumers are used to seeing on seafood counters. And many confuse it with the very different Alaska pollock, which is the subject of a much larger industrial fishery that provides fish for processed food products such as the McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish.

A loose consortium of fishermen, processors, restaurateurs and sustainable seafood advocates wants to change all that. They’re trying to rebrand Atlantic pollock as New England’s fish, and the push is catching on in places like food-crazy Portland, where food trucks offer pollock tacos to eager crowds.

Read the full story from the Associated Press

New DNA results answer consumers’ demand for trust in seafood

March 15, 2016 — The following was released by the Marine Stewardship Council:

Two-thirds (67 percent) of U.S. seafood consumers say they want to know that their fish can be traced back to a known and trusted source, with 58 percent saying they look to ecolabels as a trusted source of information. Globally, 55 percent doubt that the seafood they consume is what it says on the package. These findings are from the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) latest survey of more than 16,000 seafood consumers across 21 countries.

Today, the MSC also released results from DNA tests showing that over 99 percent* of MSC ecolabeled products are correctly labeled. In 2015, the MSC commissioned the Wildlife DNA Forensics unit at Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) to conduct DNA tests on a random sample of 257 MSC ecolabeled seafood products from 16 countries. The test verifies that the species described on the packaging is the same as that in the product. By comparison, Oceana’s nationwide survey in 2013 found one-third (33 percent) of U.S. seafood samples genetically analyzed were mislabeled. 

Commenting on the results, Brian Perkins, MSC Regional Director – Americas, said, “The MSC’s DNA results prove you can trust that seafood sold with the blue MSC ecolabel really is what the package says it is and can be traced from ocean to plate. Last month, the U.S. government announced proposed rules that would require tracking to combat illegal fishing and fraud. Many businesses are left wondering whether they’re selling seafood that was produced legally and sustainably. MSC certification means consumers and businesses can be confident that MSC ecolabeled fish has been caught legally and can be traced back to a sustainable source.”

The latest round of DNA testing is the fifth to be commissioned by the MSC. Previous results also showed very little mislabeling of MSC ecolabeled seafood. The MSC’s DNA testing program and results are captured in a new report, Ocean to plate: How DNA testing helps to ensure traceable sustainable seafood.

MSC ecolabeled fish is sold and processed by certified organizations operating in more than 38,000 sites in over 100 countries. Fishers, processors, retailers and chefs handling MSC certified seafood must follow strict requirements to ensure that seafood is traceable and correctly labeled. The MSC Chain of Custody Standard is used by leading brands in driving awareness and consumer education on sustainable seafood such as Whole Foods, McDonald’s, and IKEA to ensure the integrity of the products they sell.

Susan Forsell, Vice President, Sustainability, McDonald’s USA said: “We know our customers care about where their food comes from, which is why McDonald’s USA is proud to only serve fish sourced from a Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified sustainable fishery. This means that our customers can confidently know that the wild-caught, Alaska Pollock they enjoy on our Filet-O-Fish sandwich can be traced back to sustainably managed fisheries, direct from the pristine waters of Alaska.”

US Congress Changes Market Name of the Nation’s Largest Fishery

January 4, 2016 — The law, which currently only applies to the USA, requires that the geographic descriptor “Alaska” be used only on pollock harvested from the state of Alaska changing the market name of the nation’s largest fishery from “Alaska pollock” to “pollock”.

The new law corrects decades of consumer and market confusion over the use of the market name “Alaska pollock” on the species Gadus chalcogrammus regardless of its origin.

Before the law was enacted, pollock from both Russia and Alaska were sold in under the name “Alaska pollock,” making it impossible for consumers to determine product origin and to make a choice between the two sources.

Alaska pollock is the eighth most consumed fish in the United Kingdom being a favorite for children in the form of fish fingers, with some 15,000 tonnes being used annually in the UK Russian pollock, which has a different quality profile can be sold in the UK as “Alaska Pollock.”

Read the full story at The Fish Site