Saving Seafood

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:

  1. There was no public sharing of the data on which the agency identified species at risk.
  2. There is not a sufficient agency record to support the rule.
  3. 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.
  4. The agency does not have the legislative authority to ‘regulate seafood fraud’.  That authority was given to the FDA, not NOAA.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

Effort continues to replace humans with cameras on fishing boats

January 9, 2017 — Several years into the controversial effort to bolster Alaska’s fisheries observer program, a top federal fisheries official defended the work at a Seattle gathering of fishermen.

Eileen Sobeck, the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, took the stage this past Nov. 18 to talk to fishermen gathered for the annual Fish Expo event to recap the program.

Observers are the eyes and ears on boats, collecting a range of data, she explained.

“We have been monitoring fisheries for decades, and we do it in a lot of different ways,” Sobeck said.

But the details of the program have been under fire over the past few years. Federal efforts to put a human on smaller boats was met with concerns about safety and efficiency, and fishermen’s requests to use cameras have had logistical difficulties.

Over the past few years, the effort to use cameras has increased nationwide, and the National Marine Fisheries Service has been tasked with sorting out how to make that work, both logistically and cost-wise.

Over 10 years, the National Marine Fisheries Service has helped fund more than 30 electronic monitoring, or EM, pilot programs. Expenses include the cost of cameras, the cost to install them, and the cost of going through the immense amount of data they can collect.

“We have, collectively, an interest in being as cost-effective as we can possibly be,” Sobeck said.

That effort has translated into regional electronic monitoring plans that were finished more than a year ago, and are now being implemented with plans for regular reviews, said George LaPointe, one of the point people on the project.

Although monitoring in some fisheries has developed successfully, like in the groundfish fisheries, LaPointe said, the agency is still working toward certain implementation, such as in Alaska’s small boat fixed gear and pot fisheries, where the target date is 2018.

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

NOAA plans to open federal waters in Pacific to fish farming

January 6, 2017 — HONOLULU — As traditional commercial fishing is threatening fish populations worldwide, U.S. officials are working on a plan to expand fish farming into federal waters around the Pacific Ocean.

The government sees the move toward aquaculture as a promising solution to overfishing and feeding a hungry planet. But some environmentalists say the industrial-scale farms could do more harm than good to overall fish stocks and ocean health.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is creating a plan to manage commercial fish farms in federal waters, the area of ocean from three to 200 miles offshore, around Hawaii and other Pacific islands.

The program is similar to one recently implemented by NOAA in the Gulf of Mexico. The farms in the Gulf and the Pacific would be the only aquaculture operations in U.S. federal waters, though there are smaller operations in state waters close to shore.

Fish farming has been practiced for centuries in Hawaii and around the world. But modern aquaculture, some environmentalists say, carries pollution risks and the potential for non-native farmed fish to escape and enter the natural ecosystem.

Most shellfish consumed in America comes from farms, and their methods are widely considered sustainable. However, some farms that grow carnivorous fish such as salmon have raised concerns about sustainability because they use wild-caught fish to feed the captive species.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Seattle Times

Request for Comments: Proposed Actions to Implement Special Management Zones in Federal Waters of the South Atlantic Region

January 6, 2017 — The following was released by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

KEY MESSAGE:

NOAA Fisheries requests your comments on an amendment that considers implementation of spawning special management zones (SMZ) in federal waters of the South Atlantic region. The actions outlined in Amendment 36 to the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan of the South Atlantic region (Amendment 36) are intended to protect spawning, or reproducing, fish and their habitat. Comments are due by March 6, 2017.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS:

  • Implement five spawning SMZs in federal waters of the South Atlantic region off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.
  • Inside of the spawning SMZs, fishing for, retention, and possession of fish species in the snapper-grouper complex would be prohibited year-round by all fishers.
  • Anchoring inside most of the spawning SMZs would not be allowed; however, transit with snapper-grouper species onboard would be allowed if gear is properly stowed in most spawning SMZs.
  • Most spawning SMZs would automatically go away in 10 years unless they are reauthorized.
  • Move the existing Charleston Deep Artificial Reef Marine Protected Area to match the boundaries of the permitted site.
  • Modify the SMZ procedure in the fishery management plan to allow for the designation of spawning SMZs and the framework procedure to allow spawning SMZs to be established or modified through the framework process, rather than through plan amendments.

HOW TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ACTIONS:

The comment period on the amendment is open now through March 6, 2017.

You may submit comments by electronic submission or by postal mail. Comments sent by any other method (such as e-mail), to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NOAA Fisheries.

The comment period on the amendment will be followed by a comment period on the proposed rule. Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted through the same method as used for the amendment as specified below.

FORMAL FEDERAL REGISTER NAME/NUMBER: 2016-31896, published Jan. 4, 2017

Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

  1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0153.
  2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields.
  3. Enter or attach your comments.

Mail: Submit written comments to Frank Helies, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

NOTE: Read the complete Fishery Bulletin with Frequently Asked Questions and Proposed SMZ Coordinates available from the NOAA Fisheries Website.

NOAA expands ways to get fishing information

January 5, 2016 — NOAA Fisheries is entering 2017 with the goal of offering more ways for fishermen, seafood dealers and the general public to get the federal fishing news they need.

The federal fisheries regulator is providing a slew of avenues for information, from password-protected websites to smartphone text alerts and fishery information all designed to provide updated information on a continuous schedule.

“We really want to make it easier for fishermen, seafood dealers and the public to be able to do a number of different things,” said Olivia Rugo, a staffer in NOAA Fisheries’ stakeholder engagement division and the managing editor of NOAA Navigator, a bi-monthly insert generated by NOAA Fisheries that appears in the Commercial Fisheries News publication.

For commercial fishermen, the information platforms include the Fish OnLine website, regulatory text alerts, NOAA Navigator, vessel monitoring systems, fishery bulletins and information sheets.

The password-protected Fish OnLine website is available to all vessel permit holders and allows them to access vessel and vessel trip reports data, dealer landing reports, observer data, as well as lease additional multi-species days at sea and collect the most recent regulatory information.

“It’s someplace they can go to check their landings data, providing a way to cross-check for accuracy,” Rugo said. “It’s also a place where we will post news and notices related to changes in regulations. They can also use it to check with their sector managers, trade some quota and even pay bills.”

Information on specific regulatory information is available to commercial fishermen in the fishery bulletins and information sheets.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

A high-tech battle for the future of the fishing industry

January 3, 2017 — OFF THE COAST OF SCITUATE, Mass. — The high-tech battle for the future of the Massachusetts fishing industry is being waged aboard a western-rigged stern trawler named the Miss Emily.

Onboard the commercial groundfish vessel, in addition to the satellite positioning system and other sophisticated tools that have become standard in the industry, are at least five computer monitors and a $14,000 fish-measuring board that has halved the time it takes to gauge the catch.

State officials say it’s money well spent.

Federal catch limits — caps on how many fish each boat can catch — have devastated the state’s most iconic commercial sector, fishermen say. In response to an outcry from the struggling local groundfishing industry, environmental officials are now using the Miss Emily to try to come up with a new — and, they say, more accurate — estimate of codfish in the Gulf of Maine.

Under a survey launched last April, local fishermen hope new technology and an aggressive timetable will yield what they have concluded based on their own anecdotal evidence: There are more fish in the sea.

“That’ll give the federal scientists something to think about,” says David Pierce, director of the state’s Division of Marine Fisheries. “It’s going to be eye-opening, I suspect. It’s going to force them to do some soul-searching.”

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration estimates put the Gulf of Maine groundfish stock at historically low levels, dictating a corresponding reduction in catch limits. Between 1982 and 2013, the number of metric tons of cod landed aboard commercial vessels plunged from more than 13,000 to 951, according to federal estimates. That, predictably, has drastically undercut the industry.

“The fleet has been decreasing in size, and we’re seeing less effort due to these catch limits,” says Bill Hoffman, a senior biologist with the state who oversees the survey. “Guys have gotten out.”

The 55-foot Miss Emily, skippered out of Scituate by captain Kevin Norton, has been equipped to approximate a smaller version of the Henry B. Bigelow, a 209-foot floating research vessel operated by NOAA, that is used to count fish for the federal government. Using a small portion of $21 million in federal fisheries disaster relief, the state launched a series of random “tows” to counter what some think is the less accurate federal vessel.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

US issuing new rules to curb illegal fishing, seafood fraud

January 3, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — The Obama administration is issuing new rules it says will crack down on illegal fishing and seafood fraud by preventing unverifiable fish products from entering the U.S. market.

The new protections are called the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, and they are designed to stop illegally fished and intentionally misidentified seafood from getting into stores and restaurants by way of imported fish.

The rules will require seafood importers to report information and maintain records about the harvest and chain of custody of fish, officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

The program will start by focusing on “priority species” that are especially vulnerable to illegal fishing, such as popular food fish like tuna, swordfish, Atlantic cod and grouper. The government hopes eventually to broaden the program out to include all fish species, NOAA officials said.

“It sends an important message to the international seafood community that if you are open and transparent about the seafood you catch and sell across the supply chain, then the U.S. markets are open for your business,” said Catherine Novelli, a State Department undersecretary.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Seattle Times

VIRGINIA: Derelict pots killing 3.3 million crabs annually in the Bay

January 3, 2017 — When Virginia closed its winter dredge fishery in 2008, waterman Clay Justis turned his attention from catching crabs that season to collecting the gear that captures them.

He was one of several watermen hired under a program that taught them to use sonar to find and remove lost and abandoned fishing gear, primarily crab pots, littering the bottom of the Bay.

“As a waterman, I knew there was stuff on the bottom, but when I turned the machine on, I was like, ‘Wow!’” said Justis, who fishes out of Accomack on the Eastern Shore.

Out of sight in the Bay’s often murky water, crab pots lay scattered all over the bottom, the sonar showed — along with other fishing gear such as gill nets, and all manner of trash, even a laundry machine.

But the so-called “ghost pots” are a special concern because the wire mesh cages with openings to draw crabs in but not let them out can continue to catch — and kill — crabs and fish for years. They are taking a bite out of both the crab populations and the wallets of watermen. More often than not, Justis noted, the derelict pots he pulled up had something in them. “You’ve got fish, you’ve got crabs, you’ve got ducks. All kinds of things,” he said. But, he added, “most of the time, they are dead.”

Concern about delict crab pots in the Bay has been growing for a decade, and a new report for the first time attempts to estimate their Baywide impact. It found that more than 145,000 pots litter the bottom of the Bay — a number the report authors consider to be conservative.

Each year, the report estimated that those pots kill about 3.3 million crabs, 3.5 million white perch, 3.6 million Atlantic croaker, and smaller numbers of other species, including ducks, diamondback terrapins and striped bass.

The number of crabs killed amounts to 4.5 percent of the 2014 Baywide harvest, the report said. Nor is the problem limited to the Bay. Studies have found similar problems with fisheries that use “trap” devices to catch crabs and lobsters globally.

“It’s an issue that, around the country, folks may not be aware of unless you live close to an area where commercial fishing is a way of life,” said Amy Uhrin, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, which funded the study. “It is one of those ‘out-of-sight, out-of-mind’ issues.”

Read the full story at the Bay Journal

NOAA Fisheries Announces a Commercial Trip Limit for Dolphin in the Atlantic

December 30, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA:

The final rule implementing Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic (Regulatory Amendment 1) will publish in the Federal Register on December 30, 2016 (81 FR 96388). The final rule becomes effective on January 30, 2017.

The final rule establishes a commercial trip limit for dolphin of 4,000 pounds whole weight after 75 percent of the commercial sector annual catch limit has been reached. The trip limit applies to dolphin caught commercially from Maine through the east coast of Florida. The trip limit remains in place until the end of the fishing year or until the entire commercial annual catch limit is met, whichever comes first. The purpose of the trip limit is to reduce the chance of an in-season closure of the dolphin commercial sector as a result of the annual catch limit being reached during the fishing year, and to reduce the severity of social and economic impacts caused by these closures.

For more information on Regulatory Amendment 1, please visit the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office Website here.