Saving Seafood

FDA study finds “forever chemicals” in grocery-store seafood

June 4, 2019 — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has released the results of a wide-scale study investigating the presence of so-called “forever chemicals” in U.S. supermarket food.

The FDA found levels of per- and polyfluoroalykyl (PFAs) and other fluorocarbon resins – which are grease-proofing agents used in non-stick cookware, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags and numerous other foodservice and food retail applications in many foods, including seafood – in market basket sampling done at grocery stores and supermarkets in three undisclosed U.S. cities in the mid-Atlantic region.

The FDA found PFAs at levels ranging from 134 parts per trillion to 865 parts per trillion in tilapia, cod, salmon, shrimp, and catfish, as well as numerous meat products, according to an FDA presentation at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in late May, the Associated Press reported.

FDA spokesperson Tara Rabin told the AP that her agency rated PFAs as “not likely to be a human health concern,” but the levels of chemical contamination found in the seafood tested were more than double the FDA’s recommended 70-parts-per-trillion limit for safe drinking water.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Cell-based seafood faces labeling fight in US

June 3, 2019 — Those who remember the introduction of surimi to the U.S. in the early 1980s might still recall a fight that rose to the federal level involving what it would officially be named.

“Sea Legs,” “King Krab,” “Crab Shapes,” and “crab sticks” were all put forward as options. Eventually, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required – but did not have the manpower to enforce – the term “imitation crab.” Finally, it agreed in 2006 to the long-winded “Crab-flavored seafood, made with surimi, a fully cooked fish protein.”

Previously, the U.S. government oversaw a protracted fight by the dairy industry against “oleomargarine.” The fight involved questions over classification of the product for tax purposes and a mishmash of state laws, some of which included a requirement to sell margarine in its original pale grey color – the yellow dye to be physically mixed in by the consumer – to avoid deception.

Now the scene is playing out for cell-based meats, if that is what they will finally be called.

“Cell-based meat,” “cell-cultured meat,” or “lab-grown meat,” are all terms referring to artificially cultured muscle or organ cells of animals. The Good Food Institute (GFI), which lobbies for and promotes the plant-based meat analog and cell-based meat industries, promotes the term “clean meat.”

“Rather than obtaining meat from animals raised on environmentally destructive factory farms and slaughtered in filthy slaughterhouses, clean meat is produced by taking a small sample of animal cells and replicating them in a culture outside of the animal. The resulting product is 100 percent real meat, but without the antibiotics, E. coli, salmonella, or waste contamination – all of which come standard in conventional meat production,” the organization explains on its website.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Rash of catfish recalls caused by agency confusion

March 7, 2019 — The rash of wild and farmed catfish recalls in the United States since the beginning of this year may be caused by confusion over which regulatory agency oversees catfish inspections.

More than a year after a controversial regulation shifting inspections of all siluriformes (catfish) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) went into effect, many catfish importers – and some domestic suppliers – remain unaware of the change, sources told SeafoodSource.

In addition, FSIS “discovered a lesser known species of siluriformes fish (sheat) in commerce without FSIS inspection, resulting in a recall,” Buck McKay, public affairs specialist with FSIS, told SeafoodSource.

“Working with our federal partners at Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the FDA, FSIS identified additional recent shipments of this fish imported by other companies resulting in two additional recalls,” McKay said.

FSIS identified a fourth product in commerce while performing effectiveness checks for one of the recalls.

As a result, five importers were forced to recall thousands of pounds of catfish that were not presented for re-inspection by FSIS. The agency did not find a food safety risk with the catfish.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Trump’s signature gives 26% boost to imported seafood inspections

February 19, 2019 — Don’t be surprised to see more scrutiny by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of imported seafood over the next few months thanks to the inclusion of Senate language in the final fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills signed by president Donald Trump on Friday.

The legislation retains language earlier argued for by Louisiana Republican senators John Kennedy and William Cassidy that requires FDA spend at least $15 million on its inspections of imported seafood during the fiscal year, a $3.1m, or 26%, increase over fiscal 2018.

The US government’s fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, meaning the impact could be felt shortly.

The Senate voted, 83-16, on Thursday afternoon to approve a legislative package that included seven spending measures, and the House followed suit with a 300-128 vote later in the evening. Trump’s signature on Friday ended the months-long budget standoff tied to his efforts to secure funding for a wall on the southern border, though a battle now is expected to begin over his much-reported national emergency declaration.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Agreement to end government shutdown brings relief to US seafood industry

January 28, 2019 — Workers at NOAA Fisheries and other federal agencies returned to their jobs Monday, 28 January, for the first time in more than a month, thanks to an agreement reached Friday between the U.S. Congress and the administration of President Donald Trump.

However, the resumption could be short-lived, as the deal to fund several government agencies lasts for only three weeks. That means another shutdown could happen next month if lawmakers and President Trump cannot finalize spending priorities for the 2019 fiscal year or approve another temporary bill.

While the talks hinge on whether the president gets funding for a border wall, numerous other policies and initiatives have been affected by the impasse. That includes some tied to the seafood industry.

For example, while the Food and Drug Administration maintained inspecting foreign seafood imports during the shutdown, funding for additional inspections remains in limbo.

Last July, the Senate passed a bill that would add more than USD 3 million (EUR 2.6 million) in funding for such inspections. However, the House failed to pass the bill, which would increase inspection funding by 26 percent, before Congress’ term ended at the beginning of this month.

Since the new Congress convened, the House has passed a bill that includes the funding, first proposed by U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana). That bill has yet to pass in the Senate.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

The Irony of Oceana’s Seafood Fraud Campaign

November 16, 2018 — Seafood fraud/mislabeled seafood is a permanent topic in the sustainable fisheries space. Since 2015, news sources such as The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and the Economist have published stories on the topic of seafood fraud. Nearly every ocean conservation NGO has commented or contributed to the discourse, but Oceana has led the conversation. Oceana has an entire campaign aimed at exposing and reducing seafood fraud globally. Since 2011, they have published sixteen reports on seafood fraud—most recently, a report from Oceana Canada.

There are important differences between seafood fraud and fraud in other food systems. Language barriers, multiple acceptable market names, the sheer quantity of seafood species compared to other animal proteins, and the simple fact that wild capture adds a slew of complications compared to controlled terrestrial farming, should set a different expectation level for seafood labeling standards. There are so many chances for mistakes or miscommunication to happen—far more than any other food supply chain. But the seafood fraud discourse (largely led by Oceana) often excludes these realities and instead points fingers at fishermen, restaurateurs, and retailers for duping their customers.

In this post, I take a look at Oceana Canada’s methodology for determining “fraud” in its most recent report. I consider the results of Oceana’s report through the lens of the seafood and restaurant industries and attempt to illustrate the difference between legitimate fraud and unintentional mislabeling.

Oceana’s methodology & general results

Oceana defines Seafood Fraud as, “the practice of misleading consumers about their seafood in order to increase profits.” This is an important distinction from the term “mislabeled” because it assigns an intent to deceive. Fraud is on purpose, whereas mislabeling could be an accident. Most reports on this subject today infer that the seafood industry is actively deceiving consumers on a broad scale, across the most commonly consumed species, both domestically and internationally.

Oceana’s methodology for conducting its seafood fraud reports is suspect. In this post, I focus on the most recent Canadian study, but my criticisms apply to all seafood fraud reports that use the same methods. Generally, Oceana collects seafood samples, DNA tests them, then matches the DNA results to outdated government guidelines. The samples they collect are purposefully not representative of seafood consumption habits. In Oceana Canada’s 2018 report, 382 seafood samples from 177 restaurants and retailers across the country were tested. The aim was to focus on cod, halibut, snapper, tuna, salmon and sole because these species historically, “have the highest rates of species substitution.” The specific species sampled were chosen because of past studies on seafood mislabeling, i.e. they were not randomly sampled. DNA testing then determined if these samples met the minimum labelling requirements as defined by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), an equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This nonrandom sampling is consistent with previous seafood fraud studies from Oceana. A key parallel across Oceana’s seafood fraud investigations is that “targeted fish of interest” are the focus. Oceana Canada encouraged participants to aim for species that are often marked in other fraud studies, meaning the sample in these studies is not indicative of national seafood consumption rates on average, but instead represents very specific species that have proven to present high rates of mislabeling in previous research.

Of the 382 seafood samples tested in Canada, 168 (44%) were found to be fraudulent, meaning the names of the species did not align with the acceptable market names determined by CFIA standards.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Omega-3s in Fish Oils Tied to Healthy Aging

October 19, 2018 — Higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, the fats found in fish, are linked to a healthier old age, according to a new study.

Researchers tracked 2,622 adults, average age 74 and healthy at the start of the study, from 1992 to 2015, looking to see if they continued to live without chronic diseases and without mental or physical problems.

The investigators measured blood levels of four common types of omega-3s: EPA and DHA, found in seafood; ALA, derived from plants; and DPA, which the body produces in small amounts.

After adjusting for many medical, dietary and lifestyle factors, they found that compared with people in the lowest one-fifth for omega-3 levels, those in the highest one-fifth had an 18 percent lower risk of unhealthy aging. The study appeared in BMJ.

Considered separately, EPA and DPA were associated with lowered risk of unhealthy aging, but DHA and ALA were not.

Read the full story at The New York Times

US government sues New York seafood processor

August 24, 2018 — The United States government is trying to permanently stop a New York-based seafood processor from preparing and distributing its fish balls and other products.

At the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal complaint against Brooklyn, New York-based Foo Yuan Food Products Company, alleging that the seafood company failed to adequately control the risk of Clostridium botulinum and Listeria monocytogenes growth and toxin formation in susceptible fish and fishery products.

The complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Foo Yuan Food Products, Owner and President Hsing Chang, and Secretary Susan Chang from preparing and distributing adulterated seafood products in violation of federal law.

Foo Yuan prepares, packs, and distributes refrigerated and frozen ready-to-eat fish balls, fried fish cakes, and fried fish balls.

“When food processors ignore federal laws concerning the preparation of food, they subject the public to serious health risks,” said Attorney Richard P. Donoghue, in a statement. “The Department of Justice has asked the Court to stop the defendants from processing, packaging or distributing any more food until they establish that they can comply with federal laws and regulations designed to avert those health risks.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Senate approves spending bill allocating 26 percent more funding for FDA import inspections

August 3, 2018 –The U.S. Senate earlier this week approved a funding bill that an includes an amendment to increase the budget for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s imported seafood inspection program. H.R. 6147, the Interior, Environment, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for 2019, passed by a 92-6 margin on Wednesday, 1 August.

Last week, the Senate added USD 3.1 million (EUR 2.7 million) for FDA inspections for the 2019 fiscal year, which starts on 1 October. That increase, approved by an 87-11 vote, represents a 26 percent rise in funding from this year.

U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) offered the amendment after meeting with shrimp industry representatives from his home state earlier this year. Inspections of seafood imports have been a point of concern for American seafood producers, who note that imports raised in foreign fish farms can be treated with antibiotics and other drugs not approved by the FDA.

“Shrimpers are proud to provide American families with healthy, wholesome, sustainably harvested seafood and we are grateful by our representatives’ insistence that everyone play by the same rules,” said John Williams, the executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, in a statement after the Senate added the amendment on 24 July. “The Senate’s action yesterday demonstrates that shrimpers’ voices are heard in Washington DC.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Murkowski: Fight against Frankenfish isn’t over

May 4, 2018 — AquaBounty may have won federal approval on April 26 for a genetically engineered salmon facility in Indiana, but they won’t be able to produce GE salmon there, says Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

The Alaska Republican’s comments on May 1 came in the wake of Federal Drug Administration approval of an application for an AquaBounty salmon facility in Indiana last week. The company began developing genetically engineered salmon in 1996 and received an FDA approval in 2005 to sell it for human consumption.

Murkowski said the fight against “Frankenfish” is not over and she would continue to push for clear labeling of the product if it is to enter into the U.S. marketplace and for proper oversight.

Genetically engineered salmon currently are evaluated under the FDA’s New Animal Drug Application, a program intended to oversee antibiotics and medicines used on animals and livestock.

Read the full story at the Cordova Times