Saving Seafood

Groups praise updated US government seafood guidance

July 9, 2019 — U.S. seafood groups are lauding an updated government guidance that encourages pregnant and breastfeeding women and children to eat more seafood.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is updating its 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released in 2017, which recommends that Americans eat at least eight ounces of seafood per week, based on a 2,000-calorie diet. While FDA did not increase the amount of seafood adults should eat, it is emphasizing the nutritional benefits – particularly to pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as children – of eating at least eight ounces of seafood weekly.

The agency also aims to help consumers who should limit their exposure to mercury choose from the many types of fish that are lower in mercury – “including ones commonly found in grocery stores, such as salmon, shrimp, pollock, canned light tuna, tilapia, catfish and cod,” the FDA said in a press release.

However, “it is important to note that women who might become pregnant, or who are pregnant or breastfeeding – along with young children – should avoid the few types of commercial fish with the highest levels of mercury listed on the chart,” FDA said.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

RAY HILBORN: Keep eating fish; it’s the best way to feed the world

June 3, 2019 — This week, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) is convening Capitol Hill Ocean Week in Washington, D.C. Additionally, President Trump has declared the month of June “National Ocean Month” in recognition of the importance of the ocean to the economy, national security, and environment of the United States.

For the duration of Ocean Week, Saving Seafood will share materials related to the sustainable and economically vital U.S. commercial fishing and seafood industries, including information tied directly to events being organized as part of the NMSF conference.

To kick off the week, Saving Seafood is sharing the following article on the importance of eating fish to global food security and the environment. It was written by renowned fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn and published by the Oxford University Press Blog last week:

The famous ocean explorer, Sylvia Earle, has long advocated that people stop eating fish. Recently, George Monbiot made a similar plea in The Guardian – there’s only one way to save the life in our oceans, stop eating fish – which, incidentally, would condemn several million people to starvation.

In both cases, it’s facile reasoning. The oceans may suffer from many things, but fishing isn’t the biggest. Earle and Monbiot’s sweeping pronouncements lack any thought for the consequences of rejecting fish and substituting fish protein for what? Steak? That delicious sizzler on your plate carries the most appallingly large environmental costs regarding fresh water, grain production, land use, erosion, loss of topsoil, transportation, you name it.

Luckily for our planet, not everyone eats steak. You’re vegan, you say, and your conscience is clean. An admirable choice – so long as there aren’t too many of you. For the sake of argument and numbers, let us assume that we can substitute plant protein in the form of tofu, made from soybeans, for fish protein. Soybeans need decent land; in fact it would take 2.58 times the land area of England to produce enough tofu to substitute for no longer available fish. That extra amount of decent arable land just isn’t available – unless we can persuade Brazil, Ecuador and Columbia to cut down more of the Amazon rainforest. We would also add 1.71 times the amount of greenhouse gases that it takes to catch the fish.

And, again for the sake of argument, were we to substitute beef for fish, we would need 192.43 Englands to raise all that cattle and greenhouse gases would rocket to 42.4 times what they are from fishing.

But aren’t there alternatives that we can eat with a clean conscience? It depends. First, we must accept the inescapable truth that everyone has to eat. You and I and another few billion humans right down to the single cell organisms. The second inescapable truth arises from the first but is often ignored, is that there is no free lunch. The big variable in this business of eating is deciding the appropriate price to the environment.

Read the full opinion piece at the Oxford University Press (OUP) Blog

5 Innovations In Aquaculture Worth Catching On To Now

May 30, 2019 — Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing forms of food production in the world and the fastest growing sector in the livestock industry. In a $140 billion market, startups in seafood and aquaculture technology raised $193 million in 2016, which marked a 271% increase from the two years prior combined. The latest group of innovations in agtech could very well come from the water, as something we could call “aquatech.”

Yet there are many areas in this industry that are in dire need of innovation. Today, I will focus on my top 5: disease prevention, vaccine delivery, fish meal replacement, sustainability solutions (including closed-loop farming) and supply chain management.

Tremendous opportunity exists right now for those interested in investing in the solutions to these issues. Let’s take a look at the five key areas mentioned, and how several forward-thinking companies are meeting them head on.

Disease prevention is a critical aspect of aquaculture. Changing ocean temperatures and water quality make animals and plants more stressed and susceptible to disease, yet innovation is lacking in prevention compared to land-based agriculture. Terrestrial food animal farmers can easily deploy dozens of vaccines and preventive solutions, while aquaculture has less choice and significant delivery challenges (more on this below). Vaccines are still administered by hand, and there simply aren’t good preventive measures for many infestations.

Read the full story at Forbes

To create sustainable seafood industries, the United States needs a better accounting of imports and exports

May 28, 2019 — Global seafood trade nearly doubled in recent decades, fueled by decreasing transportation costs, advances in preservation and processing technologies, and open trade policies and is now among the most highly traded commodities. The United States is currently the world’s top seafood importer and among the top five exporters. It is often quoted that 90% of seafood consumed in the United States is imported, implying only 10% is of domestic origin. Over the past decade, this statistic has been widely shared and highlighted with more than 60 news articles quoting it annually since 2014, and it is increasingly used to support proposed policy changes. In recent years, the former US Secretary of State, current US Secretary of Commerce, and members of Congress have all cited the number to call for new policy measures addressing seafood sustainability and dependence on foreign seafood.

However, we argue that far more than 10%, likely 35–38%, of seafood consumed in the United States is of domestic origin. Precise estimates are difficult because of complex supply chains: for instance, some seafood caught in the United States is exported for processing and imported again under a different trade code for consumption in the United States. Such globalized supply chains are commonplace with many products relying on numerous foreign inputs and crossing international borders multiple times. For example, beef production between the United States and Mexico can involve multiple exchanges of calves, adults, and final products. These counterintuitive patterns are created by low tariffs and transportation costs that allow producers to optimize for favorable interest rates and low production costs across supply chains, keeping prices low for US consumers of beef, seafood, and countless other products.

Unfortunately, a dark cloud looms over seafood trade as tariffs recently imposed by the United States and retaliatory tariffs imposed by China and other countries hit US seafood exporters and importers, resulting in higher seafood prices for US consumers. Accounting for the realities of globalized supply chains is not only needed for better statistics that support evidence-based policy but is also key to supporting the US seafood industry, achieving sustainable production, and meeting consumer demand.

Read the full story from the National Academy of Sciences at Medium

US and UK urge parents to feed more seafood to children

May 28, 2019 — “How can we engender enthusiasm in children for eating seafood?” asked Karen Galloway – owner of KAGC Limited, a company specialized in strategic development and consumer insights, and a former employee at Seafish – in her Drummond Lecture at the Shellfish Association of Great Britain this week. “Many studies have shown that children who eat seafood regularly have increased IQ and a better quality of sleep, yet parents in the U.K. are failing to take these messages onboard.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also happened to release a report this week identifying that children in the U.S. are not eating enough seafood and recommending that urgent action be taken to address this.

“It’s down to us as parents to influence our children, but don’t forget that children also influence parents, so we need to listen to them, and if they want to try seafood then let them, even if you don’t personally like it,” said Galloway.

She suggested keeping seafood comfortable, giving it some crunch, focusing on favorite flavors, putting it between bread, even taking it outdoors.

Advertising has a major influence on our lives and our food choices and Galloway pointed out that a “Kids Against Plastic” campaign has a massive reach, particularly because schools have taken the messaging onboard. However, advertising can also go wrong, and she warned that using cute characters to encourage kids into seafood could have the opposite effect.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

US kids aren’t eating enough seafood, study says; here’s how to add more

May 21, 2019 — The humble tuna sandwich, once a lunchbox staple, is making less frequent appearances in school cafeterias across the nation. American children are eating relatively little fish and shellfish in comparison to meat, according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The report, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, explores both the health benefits and the risks associated with eating what once swam in the sea while informing parents of the safest, most sustainable choices for their children.

Read the full story at CNN

Rabobank: Global seafood trade now worth USD 153 billion

May 7, 2019 — Seafood is one of the world’s most important food commodities and the trade continues to grow in line with rising demand and supply, but the dynamics of that trade are likely to change in the coming years, according to a new seafood trade map and report compiled by Rabobank International.

With an estimated traded value of USD 153 billion (EUR 136.5 billion) in 2017, increasing by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4 percent in the five-year period 2012-2017, the global seafood trade has been led by value growth rather than increased volumes. As Rabobank’s “World Seafood Map 2019” finds, the largest trade flow in value terms is still from Norway to the E.U., mainly consisting of salmon and some whitefish. This is followed by trade flows of salmon and crustaceans from Canada, and flows of whitefish and crustaceans from China to the U.S. market.

Rabobank Analyst Behyhan de Jong, who compiled the map, told SeafoodSource that in 2013, the average price of salmon in Norway was NOK 40 (USD 4.60, EUR 4.11) per kilogram, but this had increased by 50 percent to a level of NOK 60 (USD 6.91, EUR 6.16) in 2018. Meanwhile, the supply growth of shrimp has led to decreased prices, however, increased exports, “particularly from India and Ecuador,” have driven an increased crustacean trade globally, added de Jong.

Underpinned by the importance of localized production and the rising global demand for products, Rabobank expects seafood to maintain its standing as one of the most traded food commodities. Processing and re-exports are also important contributors to the traded volumes.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Replacing fish-based aquaculture feed with plant-based increases environmental impacts

April 24, 2019 — The sustainability of farmed seafood is directly tied to how efficiently the animals turn their feed into flesh, aka food for people. Farms that use more feed to grow the same amount of food are more impactful than others. But what also matters is the kind of feed given to cultured species. Typically, fish and shrimp are fed fishmeal, a kind of feed made from ground-up fish. Fishmeal can be made from the excess trimmings of fish processing, but there are several wild-caught fisheries that only serve to be reduced into fishmeal for aquaculture, e.g. Peruvian anchoveta. However, with a growing market for farmed seafood, fishmeal is in high demand.

This has raised fishmeal prices worldwide; so some shrimp farms, most of which are in developing countries, have begun to substitute fishmeal with plant-based feeds. A recent paper in Sustainability, Malcorps et al. 2019, set out to measure the environmental and social impact of substituting fishmeal for plant-based feed in farmed shrimp. Currently, shrimp feeds are 20-30% fishmeal, depending on the shrimp species being farmed—what would the environmental impact be if those percentages dropped?

Malcorps et al. 2019 built a computer model to assess the changes in land, freshwater, and fertilizer use caused by substituting a portion of fishmeal shrimp feed with plant-based feed. The model found that substituting fishmeal with plant-based feed led to a dramatic increase in terrestrial resource demand for the 5 crops commonly used for substitution (wheat, soybeans, rapeseed, pea, and corn). A maximum plant-based substitution in shrimp feed would lead to a 63% increase in freshwater use, 81% increase in land use, and an 83% increase in phosphorus (fertilizer) relative to the current levels in those 5 crops.

Further, and more concerning, is the notion that increased demand on those 5 crops would raise prices and seriously impact poor families that rely on them for food.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

 

Chilean salmon industry pledges 50 percent reduction in antibiotics usage

March 20, 2018 — At Seafood Expo North America on Monday, 18 March, companies representing about 80 percent of the total production of salmon in Chile vowed to reduce their use of antibiotics and seek a “Good Alternative” rating from the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program by 2025.

Members of the Chilean Salmon Marketing Council, which include Cermaq Chile, MultiExport Foods, Australis, Salmones Camachaca, Blumar, Ventisqueros, Salmones Austral, Marine Farm, Salmones Magallanes, and AgroSuper (which owns Aquachile, Los Fiordos, and Verlasso), have all pledged to pursue a 50 percent reduction in their use of antibiotics by 2025.

The partnership between SalmonChile, the Chilean Salmon Marketing Council, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium will formally be known as the Chilean Salmon Antibiotic Reduction Program (CSARP). Norway-based Mowi’s Chilean operations will also participate in the initiative, SalmonChile CEO Arturo Clement told SeafoodSource at the event.

Griffin said the issue of antibiotic use has been a major one for the Chilean salmon industry for years, and that when he took over as head of the marketing council in December 2017, curbing antibiotic use was a top priority for him, as a means to achieve higher recognition in Seafood Watch’s seafood ranking system, which rates seafood as either a “Best Choice,” a “Good Alternative,” or as food to “Avoid.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

Latest Oceana seafood fraud report takes aim at SIMP, but misses mark

March 20, 2019 — The intention of Oceana’s most recent report was to call for an expansion of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP). SIMP is an electronic traceability program designed to reduce fraud in the import of seafood into the United States. The program was created under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 and is managed by U.S. Customs and NOAA. Currently, SIMP requires importers to maintain records for shrimp, abalone, Atlantic cod, blue crab, dolphinfish, grouper, king crab, Pacific cod, red snapper, sea cucumber, sharks, swordfish, and tunas, detailing how they were caught or harvested and tracking the products until they reach the U.S. The program however does not extend past the importation stage – once it is in the domestic supply chain, the traceability systems end. Oceana is using their latest report as advocacy for including all seafood species (not just the ones listed above) and to extend traceability further into the supply chain past the point of importation.

Oceana sought to expose the limitations of this program by, “launching a nationwide investigation of some popular seafood types not covered by the program.” “Oceana employees and volunteers collected more than 400 samples from over 250 locations in 24 states and the District of Columbia, including restaurants, large grocery stores and smaller markets.”

Same critique of Oceana’s approach to seafood fraud

There were 29 different seafood “types” collected, but no criteria for how they chose these “types” other than they were not found in the SIMP program. Oceana used DNA testing to match the results with the label as per FDA guidelines. If something was labeled as simply “seabass”, but was more specifically Patagonian tooth, that label was considered incorrect and fraudulent. The same can be said for a label that read “snapper” but was not specific to explain which exact species. This is a critical decision by Oceana because it raises the incidence of seafood mislabeling found in restaurants where menu descriptions are often more general than in retail settings. Indeed, samples obtained in this study from restaurants were mislabeled 26% of the time compared to retail 16% of the time. As for seabass and snapper, they saw rates of mislabeling at 55% and 42%, respectively.

Oceana also attempted to exaggerate its results around catfish. Swai (Pangasius bocourti), a species of catfish, and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) are two major seafood imports to the US, typically from East Asia. Some of these imported catfish species have been associated with low sustainability ratings and health concerns; there is no doubt that this is a tricky labeling situation for the FDA to monitor. But there is already a strict labeling law that requires all imported catfish species – even true channel catfish – to be labeled differently. “Catfish” can now only be on labels of US caught or farm raised catfish products, even if it is the exact same species, as is the case with channel catfish imports. This law was enacted as an economic buffer a few years ago to protect the US catfish aquaculture industry. To this end, Oceana found only 7% of catfish labels to be incorrect. To me, that is a pretty low rate for one of the most consumed seafoods in the country, but Oceana framed this result much differently.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW