National Fisheries Institute Archives - Page 23 of 24

Love Canned Tuna? More Grocers Want To Make Sure It Was Caught Responsibly

March 24, 2017 — For the last 20 years, Americans have been having a conversation about sustainable seafood that was largely focused on fish purchased at restaurants or fresh seafood counters. Armed with seafood guides, thoughtful customers were encouraged to pose questions about where their fish was caught and what type of gear was used — questions that are far trickier to pose in front of a wall of canned tuna in the middle of a supermarket.

While tuna poke may be winning over American palates today, our consumption of fresh tuna is still dwarfed by our collective appetite for the canned stuff. According to the National Fisheries Institute, Americans ate more than 700 million pounds of canned tuna in 2015. That’s 2.2 pounds per person, enough to keep it firmly among the top three seafood items Americans consume, a ranking held for more than a decade.

Unlike the sustainability conversations we tend to have over farmed vs. wild salmon — or on issues like bycatch, mangrove destruction or human slavery that swirl around shrimp — the hand-wringing over canned tuna has largely been focused on contaminants like mercury, rather than fishing methods or the health of fish stocks.

A handful of retailers are about to change that.

Last Wednesday Whole Foods Market announced that by January 2018, all canned tuna sold in its stores or used in its prepared foods departments will be sourced from fisheries that use only pole-and-line, troll or handline catch methods that eliminate bycatch (accidental harvest of other fish, birds or mammals) because fishermen are catching tuna one at a time.

The new Whole Foods’ policy also requires canned tuna products to come from fisheries that are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or are sourced from fisheries rated green (best choice) or yellow (good alternative) by the Monterey Bay Aquarium and The Safina Center. And Whole Foods has included a traceability requirement as well.

Read the full story from NPR

Fishwise Releases Two White Papers on Seafood Supply Chain Labor Abuse and Traceability

February 1, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Fishwise, a Sustainable Seafood Consultancy in California, has issued two white papers on seafood traceability and labor abuse in the seafood supply chain.

Both papers are comprehensive reviews of how both government and industry is tackling the problems identified.

The reports include some recommendation on supply chain best practices, that Fishwise hopes will be adopted by its retail partners, which include Albertsons Co., Target Corp., and Hy-Vee Inc.

The reports also detail the industry support of many of these initiatives through corporate programs, including those of Thai Union, High Liner, Young’s Seafood and the National Fisheries Institute.

The Fishwise traceability white paper, Advancing Traceability in the Seafood Industry, calls for ongoing collaboration. Traceability – a term that describes the ability to track the flow of products and product transformations throughout the supply chain – has received more attention as a way to combat IUU fishing. In particular, the European Union and the United States have both recently instituted anti-IUU fishing regulations requiring increased record keeping and reporting for select imported seafood products. These regulations, building upon those addressing food safety, have prompted companies around the globe to make improvements to their product tracking systems and to initiate conversations within their supply chains. FishWise’s white paper highlights many key traceability initiatives and outlines next steps all types of businesses can take to improve their traceability practices.

NFI has sued the US government over the implementation of its traceability rules, arguing that they are less targeted than those of the EU, which NFI supports.

Mariah Boyle, Traceability Division Director at FishWise says it is an exciting time for an NGO/Consultant to be working on traceability. “ New government requirements, novel efforts by individual companies, new NGO collaborations, and pre-competitive initiatives by private sector leaders are all focusing on this critical foundation of seafood supply chains,” said Boyle. “By sharing examples and providing guidance, we hope our white paper will empower more supply chains to make traceability improvements.”

The second white paper deals with Labor Abuse. “Social Responsibility in the Global Seafood Industry“, outlines the drivers of human rights and labor abuses, identifies social responsibility resources for businesses, and provides information on key legislation and initiatives. The paper traces the history of media investigations of labor abuse, starting with challenges to aquaculture, and moving to writing about slavery and forced labor on fishing vessels.

“Collaboration is critical because no one government, company, or NGO has the influence to eliminate human rights abuses on their own,” said Mariah Boyle, Traceability Division Director at FishWise.

The report highlights efforts to create full databases of blacklisted vessels, and ways to keep them out of a company supply chain.

This story originally appeared on Seafood News.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Chris Oliver Supported by Industry to Lead NOAA Fisheries

January 25, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — An industry letter signed by more than 50 companies and fisheries groups to Vice President Pence and Secretary of Commerce nominee Wilbur Ross, urges the appointment of Chris Oliver to the post of Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries.

Oliver is the executive director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, a position he has held for 16 years. Prior to that, he worked as staff for the council for another ten years.

The letter, which is signed by most major processors and industry organizations from Unalaska to southern California, national groups such as National Fisheries Institute, and recreational users of the marine resource, points out that NOAA Fisheries oversees a marine economy of $214 billion in sales that supports 1.83 million jobs.

“However, the industry faces tremendous pressure from overseas competition — 90 percent of the seafood we consume is imported and our country has a trade deficit of $13.2 billion (mostly with China.),” the letter says.

“We need a leader of NOAA Fisheries who is committed to the economic productivity of American waters, and we are confident that Mr. Oliver is the right choice.”

The letter notes Oliver’s experience over three decades “promoting economic prosperity in our nation’s largest and most productive fishery” and “balancing competing interests among communities, fishing sectors, and environmentalist to become the most sustainably managed and productive fishery in the world” makes him uniquely well qualified to hold the post.

Oliver has worked closely with all eight regional councils through the Council Coordination Committee, successfully building consensus on controversial issues that restrict efficient fishing practices in the industry.

“Chris Oliver understands the regulatory framework of U.S. fisheries,” the letter’s authors say. “He supports easing regulatory burdens” while supporting conservation practices for long-term sustainability.

His advocacy for streamlining the rule-making process and decentralizing fisheries management are key recommendations for his appointment to the post.

Oliver has experience working with international groups to resolve fisheries issues and promote research initiatives. A native of Texas, he also has a track record of working closely with the recreational sector, and successfully balanced both sectors need when he worked with the council on the halibut catch sharing plan in Alaska.

There are also reports of other candidates from other regions who may not have the same level of experience with the commercially important fisheries. The signers make clear that Oliver is a consensus choice that would unite the US seafood industry.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Oysters remain king as growers race to meet consumer demand

January 23, 2017 — Demand for oysters continues to trend upward heading into 2017, with production capacity expanding to satiate consumer demand.

According to a panel of bivalve and oyster experts speaking at the National Fisheries Institute’s 2017 Global Seafood Market Conference in San Francisco, California, “the number of oyster growers [is] increasing just to keep up with demand.”

The rate of oyster consumption particularly at restaurants, remains strong, with the popular shellfish serving to elevate complementary species such as mussels, clams and scallops, noted the panel.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

New FDA seafood consumption guidelines criticized by NFI

January 19, 2017 — U.S. seafood leaders and suppliers are expressing concern about new governmental guidelines issued Wednesday, 18 January regarding seafood consumption among pregnant women, parents and other consumers.

The new final advice document from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency is meant to help women who are pregnant or may become pregnant – as well as breastfeeding mothers and parents of young children – decide which fish are healthy to eat. To that end, the agencies divided 62 types of seafood into three categories: “Best choices” (eat two to three servings a week), “Good choices” (eat one serving a week) and “Fish to avoid.”

Fish on the “Best choices” list account for more than 90 percent of the fish consumed in the U.S., according to the agencies. Best choices include salmon, pollock, anchovy, herring, Atlantic mackerel, lobster, scallop, shrimp, tilapia, catfish and canned light (skipjack) tuna. Good choices, which should be eaten once a week, include Chilean sea bass, halibut, carp, rockfish, snapper, Yellowfin tuna and albacore tuna.

Fish that should be avoided – because they contain the highest mercury levels – include King mackerel, orange roughy, marlin, shark, swordfish, bigeye tuna and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, according to the FDA and EPA.

However, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) issued a statement criticizing the guidelines, calling them “confusing.”

The new advice “runs the risk of confusing moms and nutrition professionals alike,” the NFI said. “With lists, categories and an unclear message that includes suggestions on how often to eat buffalofish, weakfish and sheepshead, the advice has nutrition professionals scratching their heads.”

“Clear, concise direction that encourages pregnant women to eat more fish for optimal baby brain and eye development is a science-based message that’s needed. I don’t see that message in this document,” said Rima Kleiner, registered dietitian with the NFI. “FDA numbers show that pregnant women eat less than two ounces of fish per week as it is. The FDA’s clinical goal, originally, was to increase that number. That message is lost in this advice.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Tough times for tilapia persist due to oversupply, low prices

January 19, 2017 — Tilapia producers faced a tough year in 2016, with an oversupply of product and the lowest prices seen since 2011.

A panel of premium finfish experts speaking at this year’s National Fisheries Institute’s Global Seafood Market Conference in San Francisco, California, debated tilapia’s latest challenges, including a softening in demand related to a lack of species promotion. Such hurdles have prompted many fresh tilapia producers to gravitate toward frozen product offerings, and tilapia producers in Ecuador have started to veer in the direction of shrimp production, which has become more lucrative in the region recently.

“2016 has been a challenging year for anyone producing tilapia,” the panel surmised. “A little too much fish in the market.”

Despite these difficulties, the outlook for tilapia heading into 2017 and 2018 is positive, the panel said. Honduras continues to dominate tilapia production, even with a devastating El Nino drought to contend with, and is expected to maintain its reign in the sector. Meanwhile, Colombia will look to capitalize on its new free trade agreements and Brazil has growing potential to transform into a major tilapia exporter to the United States, the panel agreed. However, given the volatility of tilapia, it may still be a while yet before Brazil reaches its potential as a tilapia exporter, the panel concurred.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

National Fisheries Institute Sues NOAA Over New Seafood Fraud Import Rules Claiming Regulatory Overreach

January 10, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The National Fisheries Institute, six major seafood companies, and two West Coast Associations sued the Obama Administration over the final US Rule regarding seafood import regulations in federal district court on Friday, Jan 6th.

The six company plaintiffs are Alfa International, Fortune Fish & Gourmet, Handy Seafood, Pacific Seafood Group, Trident Seafoods, and Libby Hill Seafood Restaurants. Also the Pacific Seafood Processors Association and the West Coast Seafood Processors Association joined the lawsuit.

The Final rule was announced on December 9, 2016, and was the culmination of the regulations that were developed at the urging of the Presidential Task Force on Seafood Fraud.

The suit is unusual in that NFI was the leading advocate for action against seafood fraud over the past decade. However, NFI claims that the new rule is not based on a risk assessment with data about seafood fraud, but without evidence will impose enormous and unjustified costs on the American public and the seafood industry.

In a statement, John Connelly, President of NFI, said “The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and our members have led industry efforts to combat both Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud for the last decade. NFI has supported most U.S. government efforts to eliminate illegal fishing and urged the government to do more to ensure accurate labeling.”

NFI began publicizing and working against seafood fraud more than a decade ago, focusing on the lack of any enforcement over seafood labeling regarding net weights and product integrity. At the time, US buyers were being flooded with offers for seafood with glaze (protective ice coatings) of 20% to 40% of the total weight of the product, leading to a hugely misleading price per lb.

Also NFI worked with the FDA and NOAA on better enforcement of seafood labeling, including attacking mislabeling of species in commerce. As a result of this pressure a number of states increased their enforcement of state labeling requirements on seafood.

Finally, NFI aggressively supported NOAA action against IUU fishing, including traceability requirements on species like toothfish, the signing of the UN Port State Measures Agreement, and the authority of NOAA to blacklist products from IUU vessels from entering the United States.

So why, after a decade of work, would NFI feel compelled to sue over the implementation of the Presidential Task Force rule, through NOAA, to combat seafood fraud.

The simple answer is that the Task Force refused to recognize the major ways in which fraud was already reduced, and would not accept a data driven approach to defining risk.

Instead, the Task force defined 13 species ‘at risk’ that were the target of enforcement under the act, without any verifiable documentation that seafood fraud was a significant problem with these species.

Connelly says in the rush to publish the rule, NOAA and the Obama administration refused to disclose the data used to craft it, and grossly miscalculated compliance costs. The Office of Management and Budget made a back of the envelope calculation under the Paperwork Reduction Act that the cost to the industry would be $6.475 million, based on about 30 minutes additional work on each container.

The industry thinks costs could exceed $100 million per year, with a total economic impact on the seafood sector of as much as $1 billion.

The reason is that there is a total mismatch between the requirements in the rule and the way in which seafood is actually harvested, collected, processed and imported.

Connelly says NOAA “grossly underestimates the cost and impact of the regulation on those companies doing the right thing, and will not solve the problem. NOAA’s fundamental shift from targeted investigation of the suspected guilty to arbitrary and massive data collection from the innocent creates an enormous economic burden on American companies.”

One of the most glaring examples of the overreach is that in the Task Force, there was wide praise for the EU rule on traceability that requires exporters to the EU to certify the vessels from which the products originated. But at the same time, the EU provides a wide exemption to countries that have sufficient internal fisheries management controls. So for example, neither Norway, Iceland, the US, or New Zealand, for example, are subject to this requirement.

But NOAA’s rule makes no exemptions for the lower risk of fraud from countries where enforcement and management is at the highest standard.

The rule would apply to ten species of fish and the five species of tuna, or 15 commodities altogether. The agency has deferred rule-making on shrimp and abalone.

The ten species are: Atlantic Cod, Pacific Cod, Blue Crab, Red King Crab, Mahi Mahi, Grouper, Red Snapper, Sea Cucumber, Shark, and Swordfish.

In addition, Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bluefin tuna are included.

The complaint filed by NFI says:

“According to the Government’s own studies, most mislabeling occurs after seafood has entered the United States and even though many U.S. importers subject imported seafood to DNA testing to preclude fraud at the border. The Rule would accomplish its goals by requiring that fish imported into the United States be traceable to the boat or to a single collection point, time, and place that the fish was caught, and that this information be entered into a master computer program operated by the Government.

“The Rule, were it to go into effect, would remake the way in which seafood is caught, processed and imported around the World. These changes to food processing practices in every nation would reduce exports into the United States and would dramatically increase the cost of catching, processing and importing seafood. Fishermen, many of whom are subsistence workers operating in Third World Nations, would have to keep track of each fish harvested, as would the brokers who purchase the seafood from the fisherman, and processors who handle catches from hundreds of fishermen would have to be able to trace each piece of fish to a specific vessel and specific fishing events or to a single collection point. This would require significant changes in the way fish are processed overseas. It would also affect the way in which fish are processed in the United States, because these requirements would also apply to all domestically caught or farmed seafood covered by the Rule that are shipped outside the U.S. for processing and re-imported back into the United States.”

If implemented the rule will drive up seafood prices and reduce consumption, the exact opposite of the advice to consumers from government health agencies.

Alfa Seafood says “The Rule would require processors in Ecuador and Peru, where most of Alfa’s seafood originates, to change the way in which fishermen or brokers document their catches and the way in which processors actually process these catches, so that fish imported into the United States can be traced to a particular fishing event or to a single collection point. This will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to Alfa Seafood’s cost of importing fish, assuming that the processors abroad are willing to modify the way in which they process fish.

Handy says they already use DNA testing for all their imports to ensure accuracy. “If Handy’s processors modified their processing methods to segregate product by Aggregate Harvest Report and gathered the information required by the Rule, both the price of Blue Crab to Handy, as well as at retail, would increase by approximately 28%. The price of Grouper would increase by about 8% with a similar impact at retail.

Libby Hill restaurants says “The Department’s Rule would force Libby Hill to charge more for many popular seafood menu items, thus hurting its business and driving customers to less healthy fast-food options. Further, because of the very real possibility that certain species under the Rule may become less available in the U.S. market, Libby Hill may have to contend with supply interruption that will make it more difficult to attract return customers expecting to be able to rely on the same menu from visit to visit. Because return customers are essential in the fast-casual category of the restaurant industry, such uncertainty could have a debilitating impact on Libby Hill’s business.”

The rule would require the following to be entered for each seafood entry subject to the regulations:

a. Name of harvesting vessel(s).

b. Flag state of harvesting vessel(s).

c. Evidence of authorization of harvesting vessel(s).

d. Unique vessel identification(s) of harvesting vessel(s) (if available).

e. Type(s) of fishing gear used in harvesting product.

f. Names(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.

g. Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable name, AND an AFSIS number.

h. Product description(s).

i. Name of product(s).

j. Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).

k. Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture location.

l. Date(s) of harvest or trip(s).

m. Location of aquaculture facility [Not relevant to wild caught seafood].

n. Point(s) of first landing.

o. Date(s) of first landing.

p. Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) of first landing.

q. NMFS-issued IFTP number.

It would be a violation of Magnuson-Stevens to import any at-risk seafood without a valid IFTP number.

The rule would also reach into the US domestic industry, where currently no such reporting requirements exist, because any seafood exported from the US overseas for processing and re-imported into the US would be subject to the rule. So for example, this would change the entire reporting system for cod and salmon in Alaska.

The suit is being filed now, although the actual date of implementation is January, 2018.

The arguments are there are multiple ways in which this rule has violated the administrative procedures act:

There was no public sharing of the data on which the agency identified species at risk.
There is not a sufficient agency record to support the rule.
The final rule was rushed into being by a junior official, the Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, who is an employee of the Dept. of Commerce, not an ‘officer.’ There was no formal designation of authority to make the rule, and such designations are required to only go to “officers of the united states ” of the executive branch.
The agency does not have the legislative authority to ‘regulate seafood fraud’. That authority was given to the FDA, not NOAA.
The agency failed to do a regulatory flexibility analysis to see if the desired results could be achieved in a less costly and burdensome manner.
The agency failed to do an adequate cost benefits analysis.

The plaintiffs ask for a ruling that enjoins the effective date of the rule until the agency remedies the deficiencies that have been cited.

The plaintiffs ask the rule be declared invalid.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the Agency failed to do the required analysis under the regulatory flexibility act, and to enjoin the rule until such time as that is done.

The suit was filed on Friday in the federal district court in Washington, DC.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Congressmen Seek Investigation Of Hawaii Fishing Practices

December 14, 2016 — Four Democratic congressmen have written to officials at the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claiming that Hawaii’s longline fishing fleet is operating illegally by employing — and in some cases possibly abusing — foreign fishermen.

The congressmen said fishing boat owners who are not in “compliance with the law” should not be allowed to sell their products.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva’s staff convened a forum about the matter on Capitol Hill last week. Activists at the event, who described what was happening as modern-day slavery, advocated a boycott of tuna until the alleged abuses stop.

The letter was signed by Grijalva, ranking Democratic member of the Natural Resources Committee; Jared Huffman of California, ranking Democratic member of the Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee; Peter DeFazio of Oregon, ranking Democratic member of the Transportation Committee and Infrastructure; and John Garamendi of California, ranking Democratic member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee.

It was addressed to Adm. Paul Zukunft, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, and Kathryn Sullivan, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator, and was delivered Monday.

“This illegal activity does not represent American values and has dealt a blow to U.S. credibility as a global leader in fighting (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing and human trafficking,” the congressmen wrote.

John P. Connelly, president of the National Fisheries Institute, a trade group, told Civil Beat the industry is looking forward to the response by the Coast Guard and NOAA, saying that it would allow a “clarification” of employment law affecting foreign fishermen working in Hawaii.

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

Reactions to Trump victory trickle in from seafood industry

November 11th, 2016 — Seafood companies and industry groups have begun to issue statements and responses to the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States.

Trump has said little about the seafood industry directly, but he has expressed favor for policies that reduce environmental barriers preventing the further development American industry, which may lead to changes in the management of U.S. fisheries. Trump has also taken a strong stand against free-trade agreements, and if he acts on pledges to scuttle the Trans-Pacific Partnership framework, add tariffs on Chinese imports and renegotiate or withdraw from the North America Free Trade Agreement, it will likely have an significant effect on the global seafood trade.

The National Fisheries Institute, the trade group representing the American seafood industry, released an official statement on Wednesday, 9 November, though spokesman Gavin Gibbons.

“NFI is prepared to work with incoming President Trump and his administration on all aspects of seafood,” it said. “From trade to fisheries and nutrition, seafood is an important component of a variety of vital sectors. NFI is ready to serve as a resource as this new administration begins to learn the complexities and significance of seafood.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Bait and Switch Still a Favorite Policy for Many Seafood Restaurants

October 6th, 2016 — Happy National Seafood Month!

But do you know what’s in your sushi or that basket of fish and chips? A recent report indicates you might not.

According to research compiled by ocean conservation group Oceana from 200 studies, 20 percent of seafood sold worldwide is mislabeled.

So that tuna you’re enjoying might actually be whale meat, and the “wild-caught salmon” commanding the high ticket price on the menu may actually be cheaper farmed salmon. In other egregious cases, fish containing high levels of mercury are being sold as safer alternatives, and some “caviar” contains no animal DNA whatsoever.

How can this happen? “Seafood fraud is one of those issues that isn’t always under one [government] agency,” Beth Lowell, senior campaign director at Oceana, explained to NBC. “There’s this patchwork of fish management laws, wildlife trafficking laws, food and drug laws.”

Oceana defines mislabeling as “species substitution where one fish was sold as another.” And, according to their research, it’s rampant.

Fishy methodology?

But not everyone agrees that the problem is as widespread as this report indicates. The National Fisheries Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to education about seafood safety, sustainability, and nutrition — and which promotes dietary guidelines recommending Americans include fish and shellfish in their diets twice per week — responded to the Oceana report criticizing their methods.

The NFI cited FDA research that shows the percentage of mislabeled (primarily domestic) seafood is 15 percent, focusing on the varieties at highest risk for mislabeling and/or substitution, including cod, snapper, and grouper.

Others in the industry think all of these numbers are overstated. “My belief is that it’s very, very small,” Wayne Samiere, a marine biologist and owner of Honolulu Fish Company, told NBC. “In seafood, reputation is everything. Who would risk their reputation?”

“You can always go to a restaurant and find something, always dig up some kind of thing going on, but is it going on on a large scale?” he said. “There’s simply no way. A high-end chef in a large restaurant group, these are the guys that will be the most afraid, they have the most to lose. The benefit is very small.”

Read the full story at NBC