Saving Seafood

Salmon Farming On The Rise In Washington

August 22, 2016 — Human travelers have interstates 5 and 90. Salish Sea salmon have the Juan de Fuca Strait.

It’s the route that they all swim on their way to and from the wide Pacific — the salmon from the Elwha and all the rivers of Puget Sound, plus many salmon returning to Canada’s Fraser River, which are the main local food source for Puget Sound orcas and have always formed the bulk of Puget Sound’s commercial catch.

Now, Icicle Seafoods —  recently acquired by Canada’s Cooke Seafood — wants to raise Atlantic salmon in 9.7 acres of salmon net pens in the strait, just east of Port Angeles, Washington.

Although it has its critics, salmon aquaculture isn’t new in Puget Sound — and certainly not elsewhere. British Columbia aquaculture produces salmon worth nearly half a billion (Canadian) dollars a year. And B.C. is a minnow compared to the salmon-raising industries of Norway (where salmon aquaculture is booming) and Chile (where it’s not.)

Icicle already has eight salmon aquaculture operations in the Sound, including one at Port Angeles tucked in behind Ediz Hook. The company’s plan for putting pens out in the Strait has been driven by U.S. Navy plans to expand its base on Ediz Hook, which won’t physically displace the existing pens but will ruin the neighborhood for salmon. Pile driving for the Navy project, scheduled to begin late this year, would actually kill salmon in nearby pens. Icicle has decided to move its operation.

Under Icicle’s planned new development, 14 circular pens, each 126 feet in diameter, would be kept in place by a network of two-to- four-ton steel anchors. The new pens would produce 20 percent more salmon than the old. They would be the first anchored this far offshore in Washington waters.

Read the full story at Oregon Public Broadcasting

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.

NOAA Recommends $9 Million in Funding for Community-based Habitat Restoration

July 25, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA:

NOAA is recommending $9 million in funding for 17 coastal and marine habitat restoration projects for its 2016 Community-based Restoration Program, as part of agency efforts to support healthy ecosystems and resilient coastal communities.

The recommended projects, in 10 states and territories, range from coral reef restoration in Florida to fish passage improvements in California. In the Greater Atlantic region, there are four recommended projects in Massachusetts, one in Maine, and one in Maryland.

This year’s projects will restore habitat for a variety of coastal and marine species, including three of NOAA Fisheries’ highly at-risk “Species in the Spotlight” – Atlantic salmon, Central California Coast coho, and Sacramento River winter-run Chinook. Projects will also concentrate on habitat improvement in two of NOAA’s Habitat Focus Areas – Puerto Rico’s Culebra Island, and West Hawaii – where agency and partner efforts can come together to yield community and environmental benefits.

“These restoration projects are a win-win for the environment and surrounding communities,” said Pat Montanio, director of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation. “When we make smart investments in habitat restoration, we not only help sustain fisheries and recover protected resources, we also use these projects to provide additional benefits, like protecting coastal communities from flooding and erosion, and boosting local economies through increased recreational opportunities.”

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Community-based Restoration Program, which was established in 1996 and authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. Since the program’s beginning, NOAA has provided more than $140 million to implement more than 2,000 habitat restoration projects, all through strong partnerships with more than 2,500 organizations. Through the program and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA and its partners are helping to create healthy habitats and resilient fish populations in the United States.

At this point in the selection process, the application approval and obligation of funds is not final. Each of the 17 applications is being “recommended” and is not a guarantee of funding. Final approval is subject to funding availability as well as final review and approval by both the NOAA Grants Management Division and Department of Commerce Federal Assistance Law Division. Applicants should expect to receive formal notification of award approval by October 1.

Details about the 17 projects recommended for funding are available on the NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation website.

Portland Press Herald: Clean Water Rule will help sustain fishermen’s livelihoods

April 22, 2016 — SACO, Maine — You can learn a lot about the life cycle of certain types of fish by spending your time on the seas. As a small-scale, sustainable hook fisherman, I’ve certainly been able to learn a lot over my years. But more recently, some of what I’ve learned has me really scared.

Take herring, a fish that we see a lot of around New England. They make their way to inland rivers in the spring in order to spawn before heading offshore. The problem is, New England has had a huge problem with pollution in our waterways – and herring, at a very young age, are particularly susceptible to pollution. And what they take in could very well end up on your dinner plate.

The same is true with Atlantic salmon, a fish that was harvested here by Native Americans and Pilgrims hundreds of years ago – and that now is on the verge of extinction. Some will say that’s because of climate change, and that’s probably partially true. What they are missing is water quality.

Read the full editorial at the Portland Press Herald

Changing Ocean Conditions Affect Quality of Prey for Atlantic Salmon, Other Species

March 29, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA:

Researchers have found that changes in ocean conditions in the Northwest Atlantic during the past 40 years have altered the food web, changing the quantity and quality of important prey species. These food-web changes are thought to have influenced the survival and abundance of Atlantic salmon and many other ecologically, commercially, and culturally important species.

“Salmon are a good barometer of what is happening in the marine ecosystem,” said Mark Renkawitz, a salmon researcher at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and lead author of a study on salmon foraging and the changing food web in the Northwest Atlantic published in Marine Ecology Progress Series. “They are like a canary in the coal mine. Dams and decreasing marine survival rates have been the primary drivers of the declines for many populations. In taking a closer look at the marine part of a salmon’s life, we found that changes in salmon diet may be a big factor.”

Atlantic salmon have a broad range, extending from the US and Portugal in the south to Canada and Russia in the north. After a freshwater phase, juveniles migrate to sea for a year or more, with North American and European salmon stocks congregating at common marine feeding areas like the waters off West Greenland during summer and fall. There, salmon feed on abundant and energy-rich prey such as capelin, a small forage fish. This diet promotes rapid growth and maturation, allowing salmon to undertake long migrations back to their natal rivers to spawn.

Changes in ocean conditions have significantly changed the quality of capelin, the primary prey for both North American and European origin Atlantic salmon feeding at West Greenland. Since the early 1970s, the North American portion of the stock complex at West Greenland has declined approximately 54 percent, and similar declines have been documented for the European stock complexes.

Read the release from NOAA

Shift to plant-based fish feed could hurt health, environment

March 25, 2016 — In an effort to make fish farming more sustainable, the aquaculture industry has been cutting back on feed made of other fish and replacing it with plant-based alternatives. But a new study warns that may make the fish less healthy to eat and have negative impacts on the environment.

Many fish species that are farmed, including Atlantic salmon, the most farmed fish in Canada, are carnivores that eat feed traditionally based on fish meal and fish oil. Environmental advocates such as Greenpeace have criticized the practice as unsustainable, as wild fish that could be used to feed people or maintain wild populations need to be caught in order to produce the fish food.

“They realized that we’re grinding up a lot of fish to feed the fish,” said Jillian Fry, director of the Public Health and Sustainable Aquaculture Project at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md.

The price of fish meal and fish oil has also increased with demand.

Omega-3 concerns

The study said the use of plant-based ingredients could reduce the amount of healthy omega-3 fatty acids in fish – one of the things that makes fish like salmon attractive and tasty to consumers.

While this is something salmon farmers are aware of and trying to avoid, Fry says, omnivorous fish that already eat more plant material and have less omega-3s, such as tilapia, may end up with even lower levels.

“Anywhere it’s decreasing in our diet, we need to pay attention.”

Read the full story at CBC News

False Claims about ‘Frankenfish’

March 24, 2016 — Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she opposes federal approval of genetically engineered salmon “for the health of both consumers and fisheries.” But there is no scientific evidence that suggests GE salmon will pose a significant risk to either.

Murkowski claims GE salmon may “interbreed with the wild stocks, and thus perhaps destroy them.” But GE salmon have been rendered sterile — meaning they can’t interbreed with wild salmon stocks. Geographic and physical confinement measures also limit the likelihood that the GE fish will escape and survive.

As for human consumption, scientists engineered GE salmon to grow faster than non-GE farm-raised salmon by inserting genes from two other fish into the genome of an Atlantic salmon. After these changes, the GE salmon remained nutritionally and physiologically comparable to non-GE salmon, according to Food and Drug Administration’s scientific assessments, so the agency deemed GE salmon “safe to eat.”

FDA Approves GE Salmon

The FDA approved GE salmon – marketed by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. as “AquAdvantage Salmon” – on Nov. 19, 2015. AquaBounty first submitted its application to the FDA in 1995.

By inserting DNA from other fish, the company’s scientists engineered Atlantic salmon to reach market size faster than non-GE farm-raised Atlantic salmon. As per AquaBounty’s FDA application, the GE salmon will only be raised and farmed in inland facilities on Prince Edward Island in Canada and in Panama.

AquAdvantage Salmon was the first GE animal (as opposed to a plant) approved for human consumption in the United States.

However, it’s unclear when the GE fish will reach supermarkets. Back in November, when the FDA approved the product, Ronald Stotish, the chief executive of AquaBounty, told the New York Times that “the salmon would not be in stores immediately because it would take about two years for even these fast-growing salmon to reach market size.”

In January, the FDA also issued a ban on the import and sale of GE salmon until the agency “publishes final labeling guidelines for informing consumers of such content,” the FDA said. The ban was the result of language Murkowski introduced into the 2016 fiscal budget, or omnibus, bill. 

False claims about GE salmon have come from politicians on both sides of the party divide. While Murkowski is a Republican, Rep. Jared Huffman, a Democrat from California, has said, for example, that “by approving GE salmon, the FDA is allowing the release of a new hybrid animal that could pose a danger to our wild salmon populations, damage the ecosystems they live in, and undermine our domestic commercial fisheries.”

But Murkowski has arguably been one of the most vocal and active opponents. On her website, she notes the importance Alaska’s fisheries to the economy of her state. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the “seafood industry contributes 78,500 jobs to the Alaskan economy and an estimated $5.8 billion annually with Bristol Bay sockeye salmon … representing some of the largest salmon … fisheries in the world.” For this reason, Murkowski has “supported Alaska’s fisheries … through legislation and her position on the Senate Appropriations Committee,” as her website says.

The day the FDA approved GE salmon, Murkowski voiced her opposition on the Senate floor, claiming the FDA’s decision was “quite disturbing news to any of us who care about our wild species of salmon.” Specifically, she questioned the FDA’s ability to certify that GE salmon don’t “interbreed with the wild stocks, and thus perhaps destroy them.” In that speech, and later press releases, Murkowski called particular attention to GE salmon’s threat to Alaskan salmon stocks.

Murkowski also said that as someone “who believes that the real thing is the best thing for our families,” she found the FDA’s approval of GE salmon “very troubling.” In fact, she said, “I don’t even know that I want to call it a fish,” and instead referred to the GE salmon as a “frankenfish” and an “organism” generally. Likewise, in a Nov. 23 press release, Murkowski said: “Genetically modifying salmon is messing with nature’s perfect brain food. The real thing is not only the safe choice, but it’s the best thing.”

Most recently, Murkowski said in a March 3 press release: “I still adamantly oppose the FDA’s approval of GE salmon, for the health of both consumers and fisheries.” In this release, Murkowski announced the introduction of her Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act, cosponsored with Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan and Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.

This legislation calls for the market name of GE salmon to “include the words ‘Genetically Engineered’ or ‘GE.’ ” It would also authorize “an independent scientific review” of the effects of GE salmon on wild salmon stocks and for human consumption.

Read the full article at FactCheck.org

Saving Atlantic salmon will require Greenland’s help

March 13, 2016 (AP) — Preventing the long-imperiled Atlantic salmon from disappearing from American waters will require the U.S. to put pressure on Inuit fishermen in Greenland to stop harvesting a fish that has fed them for hundreds of years, federal officials say.

The salmon were once found from Long Island Sound to Canada, but their population has cratered in the face of river damming, warming ocean waters, competition for food with non-native fish and, officials say, continued Greenlandic fishing.

Now, federal officials have outlined an ambitious plan to try to save the Atlantic salmon that they say will require removing dams, creating fish passages and fostering cooperation with Inuit fishermen some 2,000 miles away from Maine, where most of America’s last wild Atlantic salmon spawn.

“We’ve tried everything possible to negotiate with Greenland to find alternatives to find out how they can lessen impacts on U.S. fish,” said Dan Kircheis, a fisheries biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service. “This is part of their culture, this is part of who they are, this is something they’ve always done. We are trying to work with them to realize the fish they are fishing for originate in Canada, in U.S. waters, in Europe, and these populations are in decline.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at Portland Press Herald

Presumed Dead, Wild Atlantic Salmon Return to the Connecticut River

February 23, 2016 — By the fall of 2015, the salmon of the Connecticut River were supposed to be doomed. The silvery fish that once swam the Northeast’s longest river, 407 miles from the mountains of New Hampshire to Long Island Sound, went extinct because of dams and industrial pollution in the 1700s that turned the river deadly. In the late 1800s a nascent salmon stocking program failed. Then in 2012, despite nearly a half-century of work and an investment of $25 million, the federal government and three New England states pulled the plug on another attempt to resurrect the prized fish.

But five Atlantic salmon didn’t get the memo. In November, fisheries biologists found something in the waters of the Farmington River — which pours into the Connecticut River — that historians say had not appeared since the Revolutionary War: three salmon nests full of eggs.

“It’s a great story,” said John Burrows, of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, a conservation group, “whether it’s the beginning of something great or the beginning of the end.”

The quest to resurrect Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River began anew in the mid-1960s when the federal government and New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut joined forces. They worked to curb pollution in their shared river and also build passageways around some of the 2,500 dams that plugged the river and its feeder streams in the 11,250-square-mile Connecticut River watershed.

The streamlined wild Atlantic salmon, genetically different from their fattened domesticated counterparts, which are mass-produced for human consumption, are so rare that anglers spend small fortunes chasing them across Canada, Iceland and Russia. Robert J. Behnke, the preeminent salmon biologist of the 20th century, wrote that Salmo salar (Latin for “leaping salmon”) has inspired in people “an emotional, almost mystical attachment to a species they regard as a magnificent creation of nature.”

Read the full story at Al Jazeera America

New Owner May Reopen Fish Company After Food Safety Upgrade

February 17, 2016 — The federal court documents that Friday led to the mandatory closure of the Sullivan Harbor Farm smokehouse in Hancock, ME, also included  a lengthy recipe for re-opening the facility known for annually smoking as much as 75,000 pounds of Atlantic salmon.

Friday’s consent decree of permanent injunction, ordered by a federal judge, shut down Mill Stream Corp., doing business as Sullivan Harbor Farm on U.S. 1 in Maine. The injunction also prohibits the company’s former president and owner, Ira J. Frantzman, from working in the food industry. The injunction is in response to a Feb. 10 complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice at the behest of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

But ahead of the Feb. 12 injunction, in late January, Sullivan Harbor Farm reportedly was sold.

“The new owner has already made most of the necessary improvements while working with a food safety expert in conjunction with FDA to improve safety, sanitation and training practices in anticipation of reopening soon, bringing award winning products back into the marketplace,” stated a Sullivan Harbor Farm post Monday on the company’s Facebook page.

It did not disclose the name of the new owner, but said whoever it is plans to “move forward with new concepts, while continuing the 25 year tradition of producing safe, tasty artisanal smoked seafood.”

Read the full story at Food Safety News