Saving Seafood

Salmon breakthrough was driven by chance

November 25, 2015 — It was the early 1980s, and a group of Canadian fish farmers was hoping to find a way for salmon to thrive in the region’s frigid waters. So scientists in Newfoundland began experimenting with how to inject them with antifreeze proteins from an eel­-like creature known as ocean pout.

Instead, they found a way to make the fish grow more quickly.

That work, more than 30 years ago, led to the controversial breakthroughs that allowed AquaBounty Technologies, a biotechnology company in Maynard, to produce a rapidly growing salmon, which the Food and Drug Administration last week declared the first genetically altered animal fit for consumption.

“We thought if we can enhance the growth rate, that’s good for the industry, which can get fish to market faster,” said Garth Fletcher, a researcher at Memorial University in Newfoundland, who did the initial experiments that led to the creation of salmon that can grow twice as fast as those in the wild. Fletcher’s technique of inserting growth hormone from Chinook salmon and a “promoter gene” from ocean pout is now considered antiquated technology. But scientists say its commercial application heralds a new era of genetic engineering.  

Federal regulators on Thursday approved a Massachusetts biotechnology company’s bid to modify salmon for human consumption.

“We thought if we can enhance the growth rate, that’s good for the industry, which can get fish to market faster,” said Garth Fletcher, a researcher at Memorial University in Newfoundland, who did the initial experiments that led to the creation of salmon that can grow twice as fast as those in the wild.

Fletcher’s technique of inserting growth hormone from Chinook salmon and a “promoter gene” from ocean pout is now considered antiquated technology. But scientists say its commercial application heralds a new era of genetic engineering.

New techniques have allowed scientists to more precisely alter animal genomes by editing DNA to include or exclude beneficial or harmful traits. Researchers are now experimenting with modifying the genes of chickens so they don’t transfer avian flu, for example. They also want to develop pigs and cattle that are resistant to foot and mouth disease, and goats that produce a higher level of a microbial protein that may help treat diarrhea in people.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

FDA OK’s genetically modified salmon

November 20, 2015 — For the first time, Americans will be able to dine on a genetically altered animal, after federal regulators on Thursday approved a Massachusetts biotechnology company’s bid to modify salmon for human consumption.

After years of testing the company’s modified fish, regulators said there are no “biologically relevant differences” between the so-called AquAdvantage salmon and other farm-raised Atlantic salmon. Still, for the time being the FDA has barred the fish from being cultivated in the United States and has issued strict regulations to prevent the modified salmon from breeding with those in the wild.

The decision was a big win for AquaBounty, which began seeking approval in the 1990s for its technique of inserting growth hormone genes from Chinook salmon and an eel-like creature called ocean pout into the DNA of Atlantic salmon. The faster the fish grow, the more the company can produce and sell, potentially reducing overfishing of the oceans and developing a new source of food for a growing global population.

Company officials said the federal approval would create a new industry in the United States, which they say imports 95 percent of its Atlantic salmon. But it was unclear how long it might take before the fish appear in supermarkets.

“AquAdvantage salmon is a game-changer that brings healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner, without damaging the ocean and other marine habitats,” Ronald L. Stotish, the chief executive of AquaBounty, said in a statement.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

Judge bars boat from dredging for clams

November 19, 2015 — PROVINCETOWN — A judge has temporarily barred a Gloucester fishing vessel from dredging for clams off Herring Cove while a dispute about who governs such dredging in that area makes its way through court.

Barnstable Superior Court Judge Raymond Veary issued a temporary restraining order Nov. 3, after the Provincetown harbormaster’s staff followed the 70-foot Tom Slaughter as it dredged for surf clams the previous two days, Harbormaster Rex McKinsey said.

The Slaughter is one of three clam draggers whose owners are in court in separate actions fighting cease-and-desist orders issued by the Provincetown Conservation Commission to keep them from dredging up to 40 feet offshore without a permit.

Veary’s temporary order was to last until Friday, but according to Monte Rome, owner of the Tom Slaughter, it has been extended to Jan. 5 at his request.

Provincetown officials want to stop hydraulic dredging, a process that involves shooting water at 50 to 100 pounds of pressure into the sand to release the clams, because it disturbs the ocean floor and damages the habitat for fish, clams and other marine life, McKinsey said.

In 2007, the Conservation Commission passed a regulation banning hydraulic dredging in that area without a permit.

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

New nationwide coalition seeking to unify commercial fishing interests

November 16, 2015 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — A Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group with strong New Bedford ties is creating a national coalition of commercial fishing interests to boost outreach and communication for the industry, which supporters claim often can be overmatched by unified environmental groups that promote competing interests.

“America’s fishing communities and seafood industry have been maligned by special interest groups working in collusion, who have slandered hard-working Americans with outrageous claims and misrepresentations,” Bob Vanasse, a New Bedford native and executive director of Saving Seafood, said in a Monday news release. “We’re aiming to bring the entire supply chain of fishermen, shoreside businesses, processors, markets and restaurants together to join this effort to move the national conversation in a positive direction.”

The Saving Seafood release said the nonprofit, formed in 2009, is conducting a membership drive for its new National Coalition of Fishing Communities (NCFC). Vanasse said the coalition, so far, has about 60 members across the country, including New Bedford’s Harbor Development Commission.

The NCFC will formally launch in Washington in January, during the next U.S. Conference of Mayors event. Vanasse said New Bedford Mayor Mitchell will be chairman of the coalition’s mayors’ group, reaching out to municipal leaders in Seattle, Honolulu, Atlantic City and other cities with strong commercial fishing ties. Coalition members already include commercial fishing associations from Hawaii, Oregon, North Carolina, New Jersey and more.

“I believe there needs to be a stronger voice for fishing communities in the halls of Congress,” Mitchell said.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard -Times

 

Group hopes to solidify, amplify voice of fishing interests

November 16, 2015 — A new coalition of seafood industry interests is being assembled to help tell the commercial fishing industry story nationally, regionally and locally without being drowned out by the larger reach of well-funded special interest groups, organizers said Monday.

The National Coalition of Fishing Communities, according to its organizers, will provide an informational platform for fishing communities, commercial fishermen, fishing advocacy groups and other fishing stakeholders “all the way up the food chain.”

“We need to balance the protection of the resource with the protection of the fishing communities,” said Bob Vanasse, the executive director of the Savings Seafood website and the driving force behind the new coalition. “We need the entire supply chain to work together.”

Toward that end, Vanasse wants to include processors, seafood marketers and even restaurants to help portray the most accurate state of the industry and “move the national conversation in a positive direction.”

The coalition boasts a familiar name.

Former Gloucester Harbor Planning Director Sarah Garcia is the director of outreach and membership for the Washington D.C.-based coalition.

“This is a really exciting and innovative idea that will help us develop a shared message among all of the nation’s fisheries,” Garcia said. “We’re not just a clearinghouse for information for those with an interest in the management of the fisheries. We’re spreading the message that we all have to speak up for the domestic fishing industry so we can hear fishermen’s voices as well as the environmentalists.”

Read the full story at Gloucester Daily Times

 

Decision on 2016 Maine shrimp season due Dec. 7, outlook bleak

November 13, 2015 — Interstate fishing regulators say they will meet next month to decide if there will be a fishing season for Gulf of Maine shrimp next year, though they say prospects are bleak.

The fishery is currently shut down over concerns about its low population. Fishermen haven’t been able to catch the popular food species since 2013. A panel of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will make a decision about the coming season on Dec. 7 in Portsmouth, N.H.

The fishery was formerly a popular winter fishery for fishermen who spent the warmer months trapping lobsters.

Read the full story at Gloucester Daily Times

 

 

Fishermen facing huge cost to pay for at-sea monitors as federal dollars dwindle

November 11, 2015 — QUINCY, Mass.  — The Northeast Fisheries Service Center said Wednesday that money to pay for at-sea monitors on fishing vessels is almost depleted, leaving fishermen and companies that own fishing vessels to cover the cost come January.

Bringing along a monitor to watch over the daily catch will cost local fishermen more than $700 a day.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration program started five years ago, but the NOAA and taxpayers picked up the tab at a total cost of $18.4 million since 2010, said Teri Frady, a spokeswoman for the Gloucester-based fisheries service said.

Frady was unable to say how many fishing boats in the state are currently mandated to have a monitor.

Marshfield fisherman Ed Barrett said the regulation affects any fishing boat working under the federal catch share program.

“No one can afford to do this,” said Barrett, who is president of the Massachusetts Bay Ground Fishermen’s Association. “There’s just not that kind of profit margin in this.”

Forced to pay $710 to bring along an approved monitor, some fishermen would actually lose money depending on the day’s catch, he added.

It was unclear Wednesday whether Congress would vote to restore funding to the program.

Read the full story at the Marshfield Mariner

 

Mass. public may be unaware of striped bass contaminants

November 10, 2015 — Anglers are perched on Massachusetts’ shores long into the cold weather, fishing for fare that often lands on their dinner tables: Striped bass.

But what they may not know is the striped bass they catch in state marine waters may contain high levels of toxins that make eating too much harmful to one’s health, especially for pregnant women and children.

Massachusetts is the only state on the East Coast that does not specifically mention striped bass in its fish consumption advisories. While some states issue broad blanket advisories, especially for pregnant women and children, others offer warnings not to eat too much of striped bass from specific water bodies.

Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire all recommend that children as well as women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant not eat striped bass at all. Some states in New England warn the general population not to eat more than a maximum of between 4 and 12 meals per year of striped bass caught in state waters. Rhode Island has the most stringent advisory, urging striped bass not be eaten at all.

Read the full story at the New England Center for Investigative Reporting

 

Fishermen’s Energy Loses Bid for Wind Farm Leases Off LBI

November 10, 2015 — The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management held an offshore land lease sale for the purposes of developing future wind farms on Monday, Nov. 9.  Although a locally held company, Fishermen’s Energy, participated in the auction, it lost out to two other concerns.

US Wind Inc. won the right to develop the Wind Energy Area off Ocean and Atlantic counties by bidding$1,006,240 for 183,353 acres, Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area 0499. RES America Developments Inc. won the right to develop the 160,480 Wind Energy Area acres from Atlantic City south to Cape May County, paying $880,715 for Lease Area OCS-A 0498.

The New Jersey Wind Energy Area starts about 7 nautical miles offshore and extends roughly 21 nautical miles seaward. To see a map of the New Jersey Wind Energy Area, go to boem.gov/New–Jersey.

Each lease will have a preliminary term of one year, during which the lessee will submit a site assessment plan to BOEM for approval. A site assessment plan describes the activities (installation of meteorological towers and buoys) a lessee plans to perform for the assessment of the wind resources and ocean conditions of its commercial lease area.

Fishermen’s Energy Chief Operating Official Paul Gallagher was not available for comment on Tuesday.

Fishermen’s Energy was developed in 2007 by a consortium of eight commercial fishing and dock facilities along the East Coast from Massachusetts to Virginia. In New Jersey, Viking Village in Barnegat Light, Atlantic Cape Fisheries and Cold Spring Fish and Supply Co. are some of the partners.

The idea was to take a leadership role in building wind energy farms that would be sensitive to fishing areas and the marine environment.

Read the full story at The SandPaper

 

Former NOAA official pushed regs that benefit his company

November 10, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from a story originally published today by Greenwire:

The head of a company that receives millions of dollars from the federal government to provide at-sea watchdogs has a long history of advocating for the strict regulations that now benefit his company.

Andrew Rosenberg wears many hats. He heads up the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He is an unpaid affiliate professor of natural resources and the environment at the University of New Hampshire. He is a biologist with expertise in fisheries, once serving as the Northeast regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

And he is the president of MRAG Americas, a consulting company that earns most of its gross revenue from NMFS.

Today, about 64 percent of the company’s gross revenue comes from providing at-sea monitors and observers to NMFS, an agency under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Most of that — 55 percent — comes from being the sole provider of observers for the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Those observers collect data on bycatch, or fish and mammals caught unintentionally.

But MRAG has become a sort of boogeyman among New England fishermen who face paying for the separate At-Sea Monitoring Program. MRAG is one of three companies NOAA pays for those monitors, who are put on fishing boats to ensure groundfish fishermen stay within their quotas.

In an industry with long memories, Rosenberg is known for his time at NOAA. Fishermen who remember him as a government official now bristle at the thought of paying his company for watchdogs they find unnecessary.

“It seems strange that somebody who was an assistant administrator for NOAA quits the government and turns around and has a multimillion-dollar contract for observers,” David Goethel, the operator of a 44-foot trawler called the Ellen Diane, said in a recent interview. “Fishermen think that it’s wrong.”

Rosenberg left NOAA in 2000 and bought into MRAG in 2006. He became president of the company in 2007. In a recent interview, he emphasized the time lapse between the two jobs — and denied that his company benefited from his NOAA contacts.

The contracting process was “very difficult and very rigid,” he said. The observer program is also not very profitable, he said, thanks to the costs of training and the unpredictability of how many observers will be used.

“It was a very long, drawn-out process, and in fact that’s caused us a lot of problems,” Rosenberg said, citing competition that brought down the contract’s worth. “So if I got a benefit from the inside track, it wasn’t obvious.”

Read the full story from Greenwire