Saving Seafood

Magnuson Stevens fight to resume early in 2018

December 22, 2017 — There won’t likely be a long wait in 2018 for the battle to reignite over efforts to change the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), the key statute that oversees fishing regulations in the US.

Possibly as soon as January, just after Congress returns from its winter break, Alaska Republican senator Dan Sullivan will introduce his own version of an MSA reauthorization bill, sources tell Undercurrent News. Additionally, the MSA-related legislation just approved by the House of Representative’s Committee on Natural Resources could advance to the House floor.

“The House Floor schedule hasn’t been set for 2018 yet but we are optimistic that we will move forward with the bill early next year,” said Murphy McCullough, the press secretary for Alaska representative Don Young, about HR 200, the bill he introduced to change MSA. It’s one of Natural Resource Committee chairman Rob Bishop’s “top priorities”.

“As far as finding a Senate champion, we are working closely with senator Sullivan and his staff on this reauthorization,” she confirmed.

Young’s bill, formerly named the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, dashed through a one-hour markup last week, during which 13 amendments were discussed, six of which were adopted, before it was passed by a 23-17 vote along party lines.

HR 200 closely resembles HR 1335, legislation sponsored by Young that sailed through the House in 2015 but stalled out, in part, because President Barack Obama threatened to veto it over concerns that it would reduce the influence scientists have over the preservation of fish species. It’s the same concern that has ocean conservation groups rallying against Young’s latest bill now.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

US seafood industry, ocean groups in unison against red snapper bill

December 19, 2017 — The National Fisheries Institute and ocean conservation groups don’t always see eye to eye on legislation, but they do with regard to HR 3588, the Red Snapper Act, which has been advanced by the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources.

They are both against it.

The bill, which the panel approved by a 22-16 vote following a brief markup hearing on Wednesday, along with two amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, would transfer management of the red snapper recreational fishery in the Gulf of Mexico from a federal fisheries management council to several gulf states, including Louisiana. Representative Garrett Graves, who introduced the bill, represents the Republican districts of northern Terrebonne and Lafourche, in Louisiana.

Graves’ bill must still get to the House floor for a vote. And its companion bill, S. 1686, introduced in August by Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, also a Republican, in the upper chamber’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, has just two co-sponsors (Republicans John Kennedy, also from Louisiana, and Luther Strange, from Alabama).

But the recreational fishing industry is excited.

“The need to update our nation’s fisheries management system to ensure the conservation of our public marine resources and reasonable public access to those resources is abundantly clear. We look forward to the full House consideration of the bill,” said Patrick Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association, one of the nation’s largest sport fishing groups, in a written statement following the vote.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

NFI urges cut in U.S. tariffs to boost exports

May 23, 2017 — The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) encouraged the reduction of tariffs on United States seafood exports at public hearing before regulators in Washington, D.C., on 18 May.

Meanwhile, the American Shrimp Processors Association urged more restrictions on seafood imports from other countries in order to cut the United States’ significant overall trade deficit.

The U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative asked for public comments on an executive order, “Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits,” which impacts U.S. trade deficits with 13 countries: Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

“Addressing the U.S. goods trade deficit with any one of the 13 nations/blocs of nations identified by the department should focus on opening markets for American seafood, reducing overseas tariffs, and eliminating non-tariff barriers,” NFI President John Connelly said at the hearing. “Fully 95 percent of world’s consumers and nearly 80 percent of consumer purchasing power lie outside of the United States, and both numbers are likely to rise in the future.”

For example, per capita seafood consumption in Japan is 300 percent higher than in the U.S., and U.S. seafood exports to Japan were USD 681 million (EUR 608 million) in 2016, Connelly said.

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership would have immediately eliminated and phased out Japan duties on U.S. roe, surimi, and cod,” Connelly said. “This would have allowed domestic fishermen, and particularly fishermen on the Pacific coast, to exploit opportunities in a country that already has a high opinion of the U.S. harvest, and in the process would help narrow the U.S. trade deficit with the nation’s closest Pacific Rim ally.”

In addition, implementation of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, a recently signed trade deal between Canada and the European Union, has placed U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage, according to Connelly.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

NFI Says Greenpeace to Issue Rank and Spank US Foodservice Listings as Early as Monday

August 22, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — According to NFI’s Gavin Gibbons, Greenpeace is close to announcing a major new campaign to fund-raise off of a rank and spank approach to US Foodservice companies.

Similar to its retail rankings, Greenpeace scores companies in a subjective manner on how ideologically close they are to the organization.

For example, their retail “red list” contains recommendations to avoid some of the most sustainable and certified seafood products on the planet, such as Alaska pollock.  There is no scientific basis for this.

In fact, Greenpeace is very explicit in their desire to halt commercial sales of these species.  They say on their website:

“A crucial component of a responsible seafood operation is stopping the sale of the most destructively caught or endangered species. Greenpeace’s Red List is a scientifically compiled list of 22 marine species that should not currently be made commercially available. ”

And what are these species that Greenpeace would like to see the Foodservice industry stop selling?

The species, by order of commercial importance, include warm water shrimp, Atlantic salmon, Alaska pollock, albacore and yellowfin tuna, Atlantic cod, Atlantic sea scallops, hoki, Atlantic halibut, monkfish, redfish, swordfish, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, Greenland halibut, bluefin tuna, red snapper, sharks and rays, grouper, big eye tuna, and ocean quahogs.

Of the 20 wild caught species targeted by Greenpeace, 15 are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

The two farmed species, shrimp and Atlantic salmon, are also certified by both GAA’s Best Aquaculture Practices and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

So, of the species that Greenpeace is planning to rank companies on because they believe they should not be commercially available, fully 82% of them are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council or equivalent.

This suggests that the campaign is not about sustainability, but about positioning Greenpeace in opposition to the Marine Stewardship Council, and continuing to fundraise by telling supporters lies about seafood sustainability.

This practice is a very effective publicity and fundraising tool, known as rank and spank.

First Greenpeace creates its own criteria for rankings, not subject to outside review, and releases a report highlighting the malfeasance of companies that sell products Greenpeace wants proscribed.

Then Greenpeace agitates with the public and the publicity shy companies to make some concessions that raise their “score”, allowing Greenpeace to go to supporters and claim they are the tool forcing these companies to change practices.

Then, the cycle is repeated when companies that have complied with Greenpeace are called out again, if they don’t take ideological actions in support of the organization.

For example, Greenpeace called out retailers, and ranked them, by how strongly they pressed the North Pacific Council to close parts of the Bering Sea to protect Bering Sea Canyon habitat.  When the US government spent millions of dollars showing that the habitats in question did not have corals, and were not threatened by any fishing activity, the supermarket buyers who had sent letters looked foolish and manipulated.

Some of them took the honest step of withdrawing their letters, once they learned the facts.

As NFI says, “Foodservice companies are among the most dedicated to seafood sustainability and full supply chain sustainability. To target them, rather than laud them illustrates how out of touch Greenpeace is with real sustainability efforts.  While the group demands all seafood purchasing decisions be made based on Greenpeace’s arbitrary red list, foodservice providers work hard to ensure they understand the sustainability story of each species and the efforts underway to maintain those stocks.”

Many foodservice companies have committed to sustainable purchasing programs.  Some support fisheries improvement projects and virtually all of them now demand full traceability to ensure the integrity of their supply chain.

There is no need for Greenpeace to agitate in this environment.  The foodservice companies targeted in this list do not need to respond, except to show what they are already doing to promote sustainability, and to emphasize they were taking these actions long before Greenpeace’s rank and spank system ever came out.

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

NFI and Maine Lawmaker Ask Sweden for Restraint in Proposal to Ban Live Lobster Imports

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SeafoodNews] By Michael Ramsingh — March 21, 2016 — The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and a Maine lawmaker are asking for restraint on the part of Swedish officials who have proposed an outright import ban on live lobsters from North America.

Earlier this month Norway and Sweden proposed to ban live lobster imports from North America after several Homarus americanus species were found alive in Swedish waters. The basis for the import ban was environmental and considered the lobsters an invasive species.

However, the NFI’s President John Connelly issued a statement on behalf of its membership asking for Swedish and EU officials to carefully consider the potential of widespread fallout from such a trade restriction.

Following is Connelly’s statement:

It is important to note that there is no EU ban on imported live lobsters from North America. Sweden has raised the specter of such a prohibition but no embargo has been implemented.

We will work with our European colleagues to better appreciate their apprehensions. We need to understand how 32 lobsters found in EU waters over an 8-year period constitutes an “invasion.”

We will also work to identify credible, science-based solutions to reduce the chances of live North American lobsters entering EU waters.

The lobster trade has had a positive economic impact on both trading partners for many years. North American lobster exports to the EU generate about $139 million and are a favorite with consumers across Europe. North American lobsters mean jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

As the U.S. works on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Canadians implement their own groundbreaking agreement with the EU, we expect the European Commission to consider the least costly solution in addressing concerns.

Europeans releasing live lobsters into the sea, after arrival from North America, is a local law enforcement issue and perhaps not part of an international commerce dispute that could cripple mutually beneficial trade in lobsters. If locals break local laws, let’s not escalate this to a continent-wide ban on trade in lobsters.

Maine Congresswoman Chelli Pingree also took issue with the proposed ban.

“This is a complete overreaction on the part of Sweden.  We have safely exported live lobster to dozens of countries for decades, and even if it’s true that a few Maine lobsters have been found in foreign waters, regulators need to look at the problem more carefully and not just jump to conclusions,” said Pingree. “The idea that somehow lobsters are going to jump out of their tanks and crawl into the sea and survive just doesn’t make sense,” Pingree said. “Some reports have suggested that it’s actually consumers who have bought lobsters and thrown them in the ocean.  Whatever the cause, EU officials should figure out what’s really happening before jumping to any conclusions.”

The discussion on how best to address this problem has barely started, and it will likely be months before any further updates are forthcoming from the EU.  Although some Northern European countries are supporting the Swedish request, it is highly likely that it will be opposed by many southern European countries who have been importing large volumes of North American lobster for many years with no environmental issues whatsoever.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.