Saving Seafood

Lawsuit filed over Trump plans for offshore drilling tests

December 12, 2018 — Environmental groups sued the Trump administration Tuesday over offshore drilling tests, launching a legal fight against a proposal that has drawn bipartisan opposition along the Atlantic Coast.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Charleston, South Carolina, claims the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued five permits for the use of seismic air guns.

“This action is unlawful and we’re going to stop it,” Diane Hoskins, campaign director at OCEANA, said in a news release. “The Trump administration’s rash decision to harm marine mammals hundreds of thousands of times in the hope of finding oil and gas is shortsighted and dangerous.”

The coalition includes OCEANA, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, Surfrider Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, One Hundred Miles and the Sierra Club, as well as the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and the North Carolina Coastal Federation.

The blasts are conducted in preparation for potential offshore drilling, which the administration has proposed to expand from the Atlantic to the Arctic and Pacific oceans. The five-year plan would open 90 percent of the nation’s offshore reserves to private development.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

Mislabeled seafood in the U.S.

December 7, 2018 — The 2018 Oceana Canada study was only the most recent of a series of similar studies published by Oceana (see my earlier piece here). In 2016, Oceana released a report that summarized and mapped seafood fraud from, “more than 200 published studies covering 55 different countries, on every continent except Antarctica, in order to reveal the global scope of seafood fraud.” Oceana found relevant studies by searching Google Scholar and Google News with relevant search terms. Further, legal cases involving seafood fraud in the United States were collected in NOAA Law Enforcement or Department of Justice press releases and archives. The final collection was displayed on this map.

In this post, I will attempt to contextualize Oceana’s findings in the US specifically. I aim to challenge the report title that this map study “reveal[ed] the global scale of seafood swapping”, and instead suggest that it provided an unrepresentative view of mislabeling in the context of actual seafood consumption trends in the U.S.

The vast majority of the studies collected by Oceana (>75%) were from Europe or the US and, “the bulk of the studies [were] conducted after 2005.” Globally, Oceana reported the weighted average mislabeling rate was 19%, but in the U.S., it was 28%. The most commonly mislabeled species in the US studies referenced were snapper, grouper, and salmon. Across all studies referenced (US and abroad) Oceana reported mislabeling in “all 200+ studies reviewed except one.”

Pins were placed on the world map to indicate the location of each mislabeling study collected for this report. The pins were color coded to indicate the extent of mislabeling, and to indicate if the study was an Oceana study or a study from another source like news media or peer reviewed literature. Dark red indicated studies showing mislabeling rates from 75%-100%; lighter red indicated mislabeling rates from 50%-75%; dark pink indicated rates from 25%-50%; light pink indicated rates from 0%-25%; a white pin with black pinstripes indicated a study featuring “other examples of fraud”; and a blue Oceana logo pin indicated an Oceana study.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Virginia conservationists blast approval of seismic testing for oil, gas in Atlantic

December 4, 2018 — Virginia conservationists are blasting the Trump administration’s decision to reverse course and approve seismic air gun surveys along the Atlantic coast to search for buried oil and gas reserves.

The groups cite widespread public opposition to seismic blasting and offshore drilling, as well as the harm posed to marine life and coastal economies that rely on healthy waters and wetlands.

“This action flies in the face of massive opposition to offshore drilling and exploration from over 90 percent of coastal municipalities in the proposed blast zone,” said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at the D.C.-based advocacy group Oceana. “President (Donald) Trump is essentially giving these companies permission to harass, harm and possibly even kill marine life.”

“Offshore drilling in our region would pose far too many risks to the health of coastal waters and the Chesapeake Bay, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and all jobs that depend on clean water,” said Lisa Feldt, vice president for environmental protection and restoration at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “We need to run away from offshore drilling, not move towards it.”

Read the full story at the Daily Press

MSC gives Gulf of Mexico menhaden fishery six more months to deliver report

November 29, 2018 — The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has granted independent auditor SAI Global an extra six months — until June 6 — to finish its final report on whether to grant certification to the menhaden fishery in the US’ Gulf of Mexico.

The report was due Dec. 6, in a little more than a week. However, in requesting more time, SAI Global had noted unforeseen delays that included “a new benchmark stock assessment”, “additional consultation”, “substantial stakeholder submittals” and the “development and revision of the client action plan”, reveals MSC’s letter approving the delay, sent Monday to lead auditor Ivan Mateo.

If the new June 6 deadline is not met, the MSC warns, the application must be withdrawn.

The note about receiving a “substantial” number of stakeholder comments is interesting as several groups, including the Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) and Recirculating Farms Coalition (RFC), have let their opposition to MSC certification of the Gulf menhaden fishery be known. The fishery currently maintains no limits on its harvest of menhaden, which is a forage fish relied upon heavily by numerous other fish and bird species.

“Notably, the MSC label has become a well-known marker for fisheries that strive for sustainability,” said Marianne Cufone, RFC’s executive director, and Cynthia Sartou, GRN’s executive director, in a jointly signed letter sent earlier to the accrediting organization. “To certify gulf menhaden, with its lack of transparency and information, would most certainly tarnish MSC’s reputation and weaken public confidence in the label.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Canadian gov’t to put $80m into rebuilding stocks

November 26, 2018 — Canada’s finance minister Bill Moreau has announced an investment of CAD 107.4 million ($81.3m) over five years for the rebuilding and assessment of fish stocks across the country.

In response to this announcement, Oceana Canada’s executive director, Josh Laughren, said:

“This is great news for Canada’s fisheries and a critical investment that will help address one of the most urgent challenges in managing Canada’s oceans: the need to rebuild depleted fisheries and rebuild abundance.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

The Irony of Oceana’s Seafood Fraud Campaign

November 16, 2018 — Seafood fraud/mislabeled seafood is a permanent topic in the sustainable fisheries space. Since 2015, news sources such as The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and the Economist have published stories on the topic of seafood fraud. Nearly every ocean conservation NGO has commented or contributed to the discourse, but Oceana has led the conversation. Oceana has an entire campaign aimed at exposing and reducing seafood fraud globally. Since 2011, they have published sixteen reports on seafood fraud—most recently, a report from Oceana Canada.

There are important differences between seafood fraud and fraud in other food systems. Language barriers, multiple acceptable market names, the sheer quantity of seafood species compared to other animal proteins, and the simple fact that wild capture adds a slew of complications compared to controlled terrestrial farming, should set a different expectation level for seafood labeling standards. There are so many chances for mistakes or miscommunication to happen—far more than any other food supply chain. But the seafood fraud discourse (largely led by Oceana) often excludes these realities and instead points fingers at fishermen, restaurateurs, and retailers for duping their customers.

In this post, I take a look at Oceana Canada’s methodology for determining “fraud” in its most recent report. I consider the results of Oceana’s report through the lens of the seafood and restaurant industries and attempt to illustrate the difference between legitimate fraud and unintentional mislabeling.

Oceana’s methodology & general results

Oceana defines Seafood Fraud as, “the practice of misleading consumers about their seafood in order to increase profits.” This is an important distinction from the term “mislabeled” because it assigns an intent to deceive. Fraud is on purpose, whereas mislabeling could be an accident. Most reports on this subject today infer that the seafood industry is actively deceiving consumers on a broad scale, across the most commonly consumed species, both domestically and internationally.

Oceana’s methodology for conducting its seafood fraud reports is suspect. In this post, I focus on the most recent Canadian study, but my criticisms apply to all seafood fraud reports that use the same methods. Generally, Oceana collects seafood samples, DNA tests them, then matches the DNA results to outdated government guidelines. The samples they collect are purposefully not representative of seafood consumption habits. In Oceana Canada’s 2018 report, 382 seafood samples from 177 restaurants and retailers across the country were tested. The aim was to focus on cod, halibut, snapper, tuna, salmon and sole because these species historically, “have the highest rates of species substitution.” The specific species sampled were chosen because of past studies on seafood mislabeling, i.e. they were not randomly sampled. DNA testing then determined if these samples met the minimum labelling requirements as defined by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), an equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This nonrandom sampling is consistent with previous seafood fraud studies from Oceana. A key parallel across Oceana’s seafood fraud investigations is that “targeted fish of interest” are the focus. Oceana Canada encouraged participants to aim for species that are often marked in other fraud studies, meaning the sample in these studies is not indicative of national seafood consumption rates on average, but instead represents very specific species that have proven to present high rates of mislabeling in previous research.

Of the 382 seafood samples tested in Canada, 168 (44%) were found to be fraudulent, meaning the names of the species did not align with the acceptable market names determined by CFIA standards.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Report card on Canada’s fish stocks suggests action required to reverse decline

November 16, 2018 — Atlantic herring is a hearty source of protein for people and marine mammals alike, but like a startling number of Canada’s fish stocks the plan to rebuild the depleted herring population is currently one big question mark.

That’s a conclusion reached by advocacy group Oceana Canada, which published its second annual fisheries audit Tuesday — a report card assessing the health of Canada’s fish stocks.

The report found Canada has a lot of work to do to reverse the term decline of its fish stocks, and it needs to pick up the pace.

Oceana’s science director Robert Rangeley said he hopes the audit is a “wake-up call” for better fisheries management.

“My biggest fear is one of complacency,” said Rangeley. “We’re still hovering around one-third of our fish stocks (that) are healthy, which is very poor performance for the 194 stocks that are so important for coastal communities.”

Only 34 per cent of Canada’s fish stocks are considered healthy. Twenty-nine per cent are in a critical or cautious zone, and perhaps most alarmingly, 37 per cent of stocks don’t have sufficient data to assign a health status.

Some, like Pacific herring in Haida Gwaii, slipped into the critical red zone this year.

The numbers are indicative of the slow policy implementation that plagues management of Canada’s fisheries, Rangeley said. The Oceana team expected to see more stocks move from the uncertain zone into one of the other categories this year, but in fact, the needle barely moved

Read the full story at CTV News

California May Soon Unravel Controversial Nets Used To Harvest Swordfish

November 9, 2018 — Ocean activists seem to be on the eve of winning a long battle against a controversial type of fishing gear that has been banned in most of world’s oceans. But many fishermen are not ready to let go of what has been a reliable method for catching valuable swordfish.

A federal court ruling last week could lead to strict limits on using drift gillnets in California, one of the last places where the gear is still allowed. Drift gillnets are used to snag swordfish but prone to ensnaring other sea life, too. The court decision comes weeks after the state’s governor signed a law that would phase the nets out of use over the next few years.

Todd Steiner, an environmentalist who has fought for stricter regulations on drift gillnets since the 1990s, believes the time has come to ban them everywhere.

“Drift gillnets should no longer be in the ocean,” says Steiner, founder of the Turtle Island Restoration Network based in Forest Knolls, Calif. “Only one in six or seven animals caught in these nets is a swordfish. They’re indiscriminate in what they catch.”

Drift gillnets are essentially long curtains of nearly invisible mesh that hang from buoys and entangle large creatures that swim into them. The nets are notorious for catching high volumes of unwanted creatures, or bycatch — the primary reason Steiner and other activists want them banned.

But Santa Barbara fisherman Gary Burke, who has been using drift gillnets since the 1980s, says environmentalists who oppose the gear have set unrealistic expectations. “We’ve reduced our bycatch so much at this point that it would take some dramatic tech innovation to reduce it anymore,” he says.

Read the full story at NPR

Peru becomes second nation to put fishing vessels on public monitoring site

October 29th, 2018 — Peru has taken a “bold” step toward making its commercial fishing practices more transparent, putting at least 1,300 of its industrial fishing vessels on a publicly accessible website so that their locations can be monitored in real-time, Global Fishing Watch (GFW) and Oceana report in a jointly issued statement.

The change marks a 10-fold increase in the number of Peruvian vessels detectable by GFW’s Automatic Identification System (AIS), and represents a big boost in efforts to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, the groups said.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

U.S. Withdrawal of California Gillnet Protections for Whales, Turtles Ruled Illegal

October 29, 2018 — The Trump administration unlawfully withdrew a plan to limit the number of whales, turtles and other marine creatures permitted to be inadvertently killed or harmed by drift gillnets used to catch swordfish off California, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision requires U.S. fisheries managers to take steps to implement the plan, which calls for placing numerical limits on the “bycatch” of bottlenose dolphins, four whale species and four sea turtle species snared in swordfish gillnets.

As currently written, the regulation in question also would mandate suspension of swordfish gillnet operations altogether off Southern California if any one of the bycatch limits were exceeded.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council endorsed the plan in 2015, and it was formally proposed for implementation by the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service the following year.

The rule was expected to gain final approval but was abruptly withdrawn instead in June 2017 under President Donald Trump, whose Commerce Department determined the cost to the commercial fishing industry outweighed conservation benefits.

The environmental group Oceana sued, accusing the Commerce Department of violating U.S. fisheries laws and the federal Administrative Procedures Act. Oceana also asked the courts to order the agency to put the bycatch limits into effect.

U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner declined to force the National Marine Fisheries Service to immediately implement the restrictions in a decision handed down Wednesday in Los Angeles.

But he sided with environmentalists in finding the agency’s reversal exceeded its authority and was “arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of its discretion.”

Read the full story at U.S. News