Saving Seafood

MASSACHUSETTS: Governor, delegation appeal to Obama for fishing safety money

December 21, 2015 — NEW BEDFORD — The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation has co-signed a letter to President Barack Obama by Gov. Charlie Baker, appealing for the fishing safety money promised in legislation two years ago but never released.

The Fishing Safety Training Grants Program and Fishing Safety Research Grant Program were supposed to get $3 million each to target the safety issues that make commercial fishing the most dangerous job in the nation.

“Every day in Massachusetts, our fishermen perform the harrowing tasks at sea that have made their industry a vital part of our heritage as well as our economy,” said Baker in a statement. “These modest investments by the federal government would not only equip them with new life-saving technologies, but also make good fiscal sense through the reduction of costly search-and-rescue missions.”

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

Governor Baker, Federal Delegation Urge President Obama to Fund Protections for Northeast Fishing Industry

December 21, 2015 – The following was released from the Office of Governor Charlie Baker:

In a letter sent to President Barack Obama, Governor Charlie Baker and the entire Massachusetts congressional delegation petitioned funding for the Fishing Safety Training Grants Program and Fishing Safety Research Grant Program as part of the president’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget. In the letter, Governor Baker and the delegation make the case for $6 million in matching federal funds to support the safety and survival of commercial fisherman, who perform the deadliest job in the country based on the rate of on-the-job fatalities.

“Every day in Massachusetts, our fishermen perform the harrowing tasks at sea that have made their industry a vital part of our heritage as well as our economy,” said Governor Baker. “These modest investments by the federal government would not only equip them with new life-saving technologies, but also make good fiscal sense through the reduction of costly search-and-rescue missions.” 

“Fishing families greatly appreciate that Governor Baker and the entire Massachusetts delegation are making the safety of fishermen a priority,” said J.J. Bartlett, President of Fishing Partnership Support Services. “For too long, fishermen have been forced to work without access to the information and training necessary to do their jobs safely. Access to these essential grant funds will save lives and reduce the number of risky and costly search-and-rescue missions.”

In 2015, new rules under the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (CGGA) took effect and require commercial fishing vessels operating beyond three nautical miles to be outfitted with an updated safety and survival training program. Prior to this change, similar regulations only applied to vessels operating outside of 13 nautical miles. To date, Congress has not funded the two grant programs set aside to help absorb ancillary costs to fishing families associated with this change. 

Authorization of $3 million for both the training and research grant programs has been extended through Fiscal Year 2017, but funds have yet to be appropriated. If approved, non-federal grant applicants such as the Fishing Partnerships Support Services are prepared to provide matching funds for New England with the goal of training one hundred percent of Massachusetts fishermen within 10 years. 

The letter points to conclusive evidence that these trainings save lives, including the nation’s largest decrease in on-the-job fatalities among Alaskan fisherman between 1986 and 2012. Additionally, the letter states that preventing just one search and rescue operation – often $200,000 per day or more than $1.5 million in multiday searches by the U.S. Coast Guard – would more than pay for the cost of running the training program in New England for an entire year.

View a PDF of the letter

Gulf Congressional Delegation Teams for Big Win for Gulf Reef Fish Accountability in 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act

December 19, 2015 — The Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act heading to the White House for a Presidential signature includes $10 million for Gulf of Mexico fisheries data collection, stock assessments and research due to the tireless efforts led by Alabama’s Senator Richard Shelby, Chairman of the Senate’s Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, and Florida’s 13th District Representative David Jolly, who sits on the House’s Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science.

Additionally, the bill directs NOAA to count fish on artificial reefs and offshore energy exploration infrastructure, and incorporate those counts into future stock assessments and management decisions for reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico.  It provides continued support for electronic monitoring and reporting to collect real-time data that is more economical and efficient than current management processes. According to Senator Shelby, who authored the provisions for red snapper in the legislation, the 2016 omnibus provides up to $5 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Sea Grant College program to support external research and development through its network of academic institutions for a red snapper tagging study in the Gulf of Mexico.  In addition, it provides $5 million for independent, non-NOAA stock assessments for Gulf reef fish, including red snapper.

“Commercial and recreational anglers across the Gulf Coast depend on the red snapper fishery, which is not only a key economic driver, but also integral to their way of life,” Senator Shelby told Gulf Seafood News. “That is why I pushed to include common-sense reforms in this year’s omnibus bill to ensure that both commercial and recreational fishermen have increased access to the red snapper population in the Gulf.”

Read the full story at Gulf Seafood Institute

FDA must develop plan to label genetically engineered salmon, Congress says

December 17, 2015 — The sprawling federal spending bill unveiled this week on Capitol Hill included a small passage with potentially big implications in the food world.

In two paragraphs on page 106, lawmakers instructed the Food and Drug Administration to forbid the sale of genetically engineered salmon until the agency puts in place labeling guidelines and “a program to disclose to consumers” whether a fish has been genetically altered. The language comes just a month after FDA made salmon the first genetically modified animal approved for human consumption and represents a victory for advocates who have long opposed such foods from reaching Americans’ dinner plates. At the very least, they say, consumers ought to know what they are buying.

The fish in the spotlight is the AquAdvantage salmon, produced by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty. The Atlantic salmon contains a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon and a gene from the ocean pout — a combination to help it grow large enough for consumption in 18 months instead of the typical three years.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

 

Congressional GMO Labelling Fight Set For January

December 17, 2015 — Lawmakers are pledging to re-double efforts to pass legislation early next year to block state GMO labeling laws and set national disclosure standards.

The industry wanted to get a bill attached to the must-pass fiscal 2016 spending agreement that congressional leaders reached on Tuesday, but talks stalled and Senate Democrats stopped even a temporary preemption measure from being included.

“The clock’s ticking. We’ll be back in session in January and that’s got to be at the front,” said House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Kansas. “We’ve got it fixed in the House. We’ve just to get the Senate to move on it.”

Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, has also pledged to make the issue a top priority in January. She had been leading negotiations on the legislation this fall and had said in October that she wanted a bill passed by the end of the year.

An industry lobbyist who didn’t want to be quoted by name said negotiations would “begin in earnest” right after the first of the year on broad legislation.

A Vermont labeling laws is set to take effect in July, and the failure of the federal preemption measure could embolden labeling proponents who are gearing up to push next year for labeling laws in New York state and Connecticut, said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch, which supports the state labeling efforts.

Read the full story at KTIC

Sen. Maria Cantwell Secures Key Provisions to Protect Pacific Northwest Seafood

December 15, 2015 — The following was released by the Office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell today announced that her bipartisan bill—which will change the market name of “Alaska pollock” to “pollock”—will be included in the Congressional spending bill, also known as the ‘omnibus.’ The bill will legally change the acceptable market name essentially outlawing Pollock harvested in Russia from being passed off as “Alaskan Pollock” in the supermarket. Representative Jamie Herrera Butler (WA-3) sponsored the bill in the House.

In 2012, 113 million pounds of Russian Pollock—which is less sustainable and lower quality than pollock from Alaskan fisheries—was sold to U.S. consumers as “Alaska pollock.” 

“Alaskan pollock is one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world,” said Cantwell, a senior member of the Commerce Committee, “And American consumers deserve to know whether they are purchasing this high quality product or a cheap alternative with a misleading label. By changing the acceptable market name to pollock, it will be illegal to label pollock caught in Russia, as Alaskan. Americans will be able to shop with confidence, knowing that they are buying the real thing and not a knock–off.”  

The Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers (GAPP) supports these efforts and have previously cited several reasons for the requested change:                          

• The use of “Alaska pollock” as an acceptable market name is misleading to consumers;

•“Alaska pollock” is understood by consumers to connote a geographic origin, not a particular kind of food from any geographic origin;

• The use of “Alaska pollock” as an acceptable market name is inconsistent with other similar fish species; and

• U.S. government programs support other efforts to provide accurate information to consumers about the seafood they purchase.

Are You Eating Frankenfish?

December 15, 2015 — This month, Congress may decide whether consumers are smart enough to be trusted with their own food choices. Some lawmakers are trying to insert language into must-pass spending legislation that would block states from giving consumers the right to know whether their food contains genetically modified ingredients.

They must be stopped.

Nine out of 10 Americans want G.M.O. disclosure on food packages, according to a 2013 New York Times poll, just like consumers in 64 other nations. But powerful members of the agriculture and appropriations committees, along with their allies in agribusiness corporations like Monsanto, want to keep consumers in the dark. That’s why opponents of this effort have called it the DARK Act — or the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act.

As a chef, I’m proud of the food I serve. The idea that I would try to hide what’s in my food from my customers offends everything I believe in. It’s also really bad for business.

Why, then, have companies like Kellogg and groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association spent millions in recent years to lobby against transparency? They say, in effect: “Trust us, folks. We looked into it. G.M.O. ingredients are safe.” But what they’re missing is that consumers want to make their own judgments. Consumers are saying: “Trust me. Let me do my own homework and make my own choices.”

Read the full opinion piece at the New York Times

Officials calling for more accurate fish counts

December 14, 2015 — WASHINGTON – The federal agency in charge of the nation’s fisheries should do a better job counting fish so it can develop proper catch limits for recreational anglers, a report by Congress’ investigative arm concludes.

The analysis by the Government Accountability Office was requested nearly three years ago by several Republican senators from the Gulf Coast who believe the Obama administration may have been overly restrictive in imposing catch limits on several popular fish, including red snapper.

The GAO report says the National Marine Fisheries Service has taken “many steps” in recent years to improve data collection but needs to adopt a master plan for counting fish in a more accurate, timely and transparent manner.

For example, the agency doesn’t have a complete registry of recreational anglers, often misses some groups of fishermen while conducting surveys, lacks catch-and-discard data in areas where access to the coastal communities is limited, and needs more “shoreside observers” to improve data collection.

“Without a comprehensive strategy, NMFS may have difficulty ensuring that the variety of steps it is taking to improve data collection are prioritized so that the most important steps are undertaken first,” the report says. “Further, without communicating the strategy and NMFS’ progress in implementing it, NMFS may have difficulty building trust among its stakeholders, and these stakeholders may have difficulty tracking the agency’s efforts.”

Read the full story from USA Today at Pensacola News Journal

 

Fishermen File Suit in N.H. Against NOAA Over Observers

December 9, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from a story published today in the Boston Globe. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are David Goethel, who has been a fisherman for over 30 years and has served two terms on the New England Fishery Management Council, and Northeast Sector 13, a nonprofit organization comprised of 20 active groundfishermen who are permitted in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia. They are represented in the lawsuit by Cause of Action, a government accountability organization committed to ensuring that decisions made by federal agencies are open, honest, and fair. 

A group of fishermen in the region filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in federal district court in Concord, N.H., arguing that the agency violated their rights by forcing them to pay for a controversial program that requires government-trained monitors on their vessels to observe their catch.

The fishermen, who in the coming weeks will be required to pay hundreds of dollars every time an observer accompanies them to sea, argue that the costs are too much to bear and will put many of them out of business. 

They’re asking the court to prevent the regulations from taking effect when the federal dollars now subsidizing the program run out early next year. 

“I’m extremely fearful that I won’t be able to do what I love and provide for my family if I’m forced to pay,” said David Goethel, one of the plaintiffs, who for 30 years has been fishing for cod and other bottom-dwelling fish out of Hampton, N.H. “I’m doing this not only to protect myself, but to stand up for others out there like me whose livelihoods are in serious jeopardy.” 

The lawsuit alleges that, by forcing fishermen to pay for the monitors, regulators have violated their Constitutional rights and that their actions are “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

It adds that agency officials are “acting in excess of any statutory authority granted by Congress” and “improperly infringing on Congress’s exclusive taxation authority.”

As a result, the fishermen claim, the government’s authority to require the payments are “void and unenforceable.”

Fishing officials acknowledge that requiring the fishermen to pay for the so-called “at-sea monitoring” program will increase the hardship of fishermen who are already struggling with major cuts to their quotas. A federal report this year found that the costs could cause 59 percent of the region’s groundfishing fleet to lose money.

But agency officials have said that NOAA no longer has the money to pay for the program, and that by law, the fishermen were supposed to start paying for the observers three years ago.

The government has defrayed the costs because of the industry’s financial turmoil, said John Bullard, the agency’s regional administrator. In February, the agency told fishermen they would have to start paying later this year.

Bullard declined to comment on the lawsuit.

“NOAA Fisheries does not discuss ongoing litigation,” he said. “Independent of any litigation, we appreciate the challenge that paying for at-sea monitoring raises for fishermen.”

He and others noted that the fishermen may end up paying less than they expect for the observer program.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe  

Read the Legal Memo here 

Read the Complaint here

Overregulation threatens local fishing economies, Congressmen say

December 8, 2015 — A U.S. House of Representatives committee held a rare field hearing in Riverhead yesterday, the first time in recent memory such a committee has formally met on the East End.

A three-member panel of the House Committee on Natural Resources convened the hearing to discuss the federal policies that currently regulate the region’s fishing grounds, probing the policies’ basis in science, fishery conditions and economic impacts on the local economy with testimony and questioning  of several invited witnesses.

The committee members who conducted the hearing, hosted by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-Shirley), heard testimony for two hours yesterday at the Suffolk County Community College Culinary Arts Institute on East Main Street.

They also discussed alternatives to what some on the four-member panel characterized as oppressive regulation that could potentially damage the region’s fishing industry.

“In my part of the world, there’s a saying that if you have no farms, you have no food,” said committee chairman Rob Bishop, a Republican congressman from Utah. “The same can be said that if you have no boating access, you have no fish.”

Bishop claimed that federal agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have “ignored state and local laws, input and science” in their regulatory decisions.

Read the full story from Riverhead Local