Saving Seafood

Spiny dogfish gets a marketing makeover

October 27, 2015 — When Steve DeLeonardis, the owner of the Corner Store restaurants on Cape Cod, heard about the new FDA-approved name for spiny dogfish, he immediately created a new menu item — “SharkRito.”

“Cape shark” has been an alternative moniker for the Cape’s ubiquitous groundfish for some time, but it gained local popularity when the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance adopted it last year.

“We’re on the Cape, and there’s been all this buzz about the great whites down here,” said DeLeonardis, who operates restaurants in Orleans and Chatham.

“We have a younger, hip demo here that responds well to what we’re doing.”

He debuted the SharkRito at his Orleans location in mid-June and, despite the fact that the fish-filled burrito is available only on Fridays, he’s already selling 20 to 30 pounds a week.

The SharkRito is just the latest in ongoing efforts by New England seafood interests to expand the culinary taste of Americans. Their goal is to support the ecological management of aquatic life while stabilizing the income of fishermen and others who work in the field.

 

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

 

Congressman Young Takes Up Misleading Pollock and Crab Labeling Fight in U.S. House

October 22, 2015 — WASHINGTON – The following was released by the Office of Congressman Don Young:

Alaska Congressman Don Young and Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) today introduced bipartisan legislation to change the market name of “Alaska pollock” to “pollock.” The bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to eliminate confusion for consumers, and stem the flood of mislabeled fish from less sustainable fisheries that harms U.S. pollock fishermen and the businesses they support.

Under current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling standards, pollock caught in any part of the world can label be labeled as “Alaskan pollock.” Approximately 40% of the fish labeled “Alaskan pollock” available to American consumers is caught in the Russian pollock fishery.

“The U.S. fishing industry and the American consumer deserve this commonsense change to the pollock name,” said Congressman Don Young. “There’s no reason why foreign caught pollock should be disguised as Alaskan, especially given the significant management efforts we’ve taken in the North Pacific to create the most sustainable fishery in the world. No other nation can replicate the quality and care we put into Alaskan seafood and the FDA’s labeling standards should reflect that. Unfortunately, an Act of Congress is the only immediate way to keep foreign caught pollock from degrading our U.S. seafood markets.”

“Americans want to know where their food is coming from. This bill will give American consumers more transparency by closing this FDA loophole that allows Russian pollock from Chinese processors to flood our markets under the label ‘Alaskan pollock,’” said Rep. Herrera Beutler. “If a mom in Vancouver wants to purchase fish caught sustainably and packaged truthfully, she should have that choice. With this legislative fix, we’re also ensuring that pollock fishing and processing businesses located in Southwest Washington and throughout the U.S. aren’t having to compete with deceptively labeled products from far less sustainable fisheries.”

A consumer survey conducted by GMA Research revealed that:

  • 77% of participants said that if they saw seafood labeled as “Alaska Pollock,” they would think the seafood is harvested in Alaska.
  • 81% of participants said they would feel misled if they purchased seafood labeled as “Alaska pollock” and found out it was harvested from somewhere else.

The Alaskan pollock fishery is the nation’s largest food fishery in the United States, producing 1.3 million tons annually and accounting for 11 percent of American fresh and frozen fish intake. The Alaskan pollock fishery is carefully managed for sustainability, safety and environmental impact.

The bipartisan legislation also works to resolve an outstanding nomenclature petition to the FDA, filed by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) and the Alaska Golden King Crab Coalition in 2014, to change the Brown King Crab name (considered obsolete and sometimes confusing in U.S. markets) to the acceptable market name of Golden King Crab.

Companion legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

Read the release here

 

Senator Murkowski Introduces Legislation Requiring Label Change to Remove Misrepresentation

September 17, 2015 — The following was released by the Office of Senator Lisa Murkowski: 

Today Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to change the market name of “Alaska pollock” to “pollock”. The change aims to better distinguish the pollock harvested in Alaskan waters from Russian pollock passing itself off as “Alaskan pollock” in stores nationwide.

In 2012, 113 million pounds of Russia’s pollock were sold to U.S. consumers as “Alaska pollock.” Murkowski believes the labeling move is necessary because Alaska’s fisheries are far more rigorously managed than Russian waters.

“Alaska is known world-wide for our top quality seafood. When consumers seek out the words, ‘Alaska, wild-caught’ at the grocery store, they shouldn’t be deceived by what they are actually getting,” said Senator Murkowski. “The change in nomenclature is necessary to avoid ongoing misrepresentation of the origin of pollock that is purchased and consumed in the U.S.”

This bill also makes a similar change to golden king crab, which has met the same problems in the market as pollock.

The Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers (GAPP) support Murkowski’s 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.

Background: The bill is the result of a long standing effort to get the FDA to change the name. Senator Murkowski has reached out to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) multiple times to push for the market name to be changed, including writing a letter to the FDA Commissioner this past May.

Permalink: http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/9/murkowski-introduces-legislation-to-protect-alaska-seafood

Do Fish Names Encourage Fishy Business?

July 29, 2015 — Order a rockfish at a restaurant in Maryland, and you’ll likely get a striped bass. Place the same order in California, and you could end up with a vermilion rockfish, a Pacific Ocean perch or one of dozens of other fish species on your plate.

This jumble of names is perfectly legal. But it’s confusing to diners — and it can hamper efforts to combat illegal fishing and seafood fraud, says the ocean conservation group Oceana.

Under current Food and Drug Administration rules, a single fish species can go by multiple names from the time it’s caught to the time it ends up on your plate. Conversely, lots of different fish legally can be sold under a single name.

For example, that “grouper” on a menu could be one of 64 different species. It could be a fish known by the common name sand perch (scientific name: Diplectrum formosum), which is plentiful. Or it could be a goliath grouper, a critically endangered species. The FDA says all can be sold under the acceptable market name “grouper.”

Oceana wants the entire supply chain — from boat to plate — to ditch the FDA’s list of “acceptable market names” for seafood. Instead, it wants the FDA to require that a species’ Latin scientific name or common name be used in all cases.

Oceana says more precise labeling of seafood — the kind it calls for in its One Name, One Fish report — will go a long way toward protecting vulnerable or endangered species and deterring illegal fishing. And it says it will help to put a stop to seafood fraud — an issue the nonprofit group has been working on since 2011.

“It’s another tool to help with enforcement,” says Oceana senior campaign director Beth Lowell. “People have a right to know about the food they eat. It shouldn’t be that hard to find out what fish I’m eating without having to do a DNA test or ask the server, who has to ask the manager, who has to ask the distributor.”

Read the full story at NPR

Why Eating Fresh, Just-Caught Fish May Be a Thing of the Past

July 29, 2015 — What would you think if your raw sushi had actually been frozen for 15 hours or more before you ate it? If the Food and Drug Administration has its way, that’s how all uncooked fish in the U.S. will be treated.

For several years, the FDA has recommended that any fish that’s served in sushi, crudo, or ceviche be frozen for at least 15 hours or longer in order to kill potential parasites. But since the FDA leaves it to local health departments to enforce the recommendation, few cities actually follow it — until now.

Recently, New York City’s Department of Health decided to enforce the policy and other cities may follow suit. Many cities and states, with the notable exception of California, which has a state code that allows raw fish, have the FDA’s recommendation on the books, but enforcement is patchy.

So what exactly happens to fish when it’s flash frozen?

In Japan, super-freezing tuna has been commonplace for the last 15 years, according to Mike Kanter, the seafood merchant for FreshDirect, a large online grocer in New York City. Fish are flash frozen to negative 76° F within hours of being caught — sometimes while still on the boat. Sushi kitchens in Japan are often decked out with mini super freezers that keep the fish at the same arctic temperatures until it’s ready to serve.

Read the full story at Yahoo Food

Genetically Modified Salmon: Coming To A River Near You?

June 24, 2015 — While the debate over whether to label foods containing GMO ingredients plays out across the country, another engineered food has long been waiting to hit grocery stores: genetically modified salmon.

Produced by Massachusetts-based biotech firm AquaBounty Technologies, the fish is an Atlantic salmon engineered to grow twice as fast as its conventional, farm-raised counterpart. But AquaBounty’s fish has been languishing in the regulatory process: The company has been trying to get the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve its salmon for sale for nearly 20 years.

One concern repeatedly raised by critics who don’t want the FDA to give the transgenic fish the green light: What would happen if these fish got out of the land-based facilities where they’re grown and escaped into the wild? Would genetically modified salmon push out their wild counterparts or permanently alter habitat? In a review paper published this month in the journal BioScience, scientists tackle that very question.

Robert H. Devlin, a scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, led a team that reviewed more than 80 studies analyzing growth, behavior and other trait differences between genetically modified and unaltered fish. The scientists used this to predict what might happen if fish with modified traits were unleashed in nature.

Genetically modified salmon contain the growth hormone gene from one fish, combined with the promoter of an antifreeze gene from another. This combination both increases and speeds up growth, so the salmon reach a larger size faster.

Read the full story at New York Now