Saving Seafood

US-China tariffs: What’s behind them, who stands to be hurt?

July 5, 2018 — President Donald Trump has boldly declared that trade wars are easy to win. He’s about to find out.

Barring a last-minute breakthrough, the Trump administration on Friday will start imposing tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese imports. And China will promptly strike back with tariffs on an equal amount of U.S. exports.

And just like that, a high-risk trade war between the world’s two biggest economies will begin — one that could quickly escalate.

“I see us running into a full collision course in a few days,” said Ashley Craig, a trade lawyer at Venable LLP. “It seems as if both sides are fairly dug in.”

Here’s a look at what’s happening this week and its likely impact.

WHAT IS THE U.S. DOING?

The White House last month announced plans to slap 25 percent tariffs on roughly 1,100 goods imported from China, worth $50 billion a year. It had originally proposed the tariffs in April, starting with 1,333 Chinese products. After receiving public feedback, the administration cut 515 imports from the blacklist and added 284 others.

Starting Friday, the U.S. will tax 818 Chinese products, worth $34 billion a year, from the original list. It won’t target the 284 additions, worth $16 billion, until it gathers further public comments.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Gloucester Daily Times

Canadian tariffs on US goods go into effect, but spare seafood industry

July 3, 2018 — Canada has placed tariffs valued at CAD 16.6 billion (USD 12.6 billion, EUR 10.8 billion) on American products as retaliation for a 25-percent tariff on steel and 10-percent tariff on aluminum the United States instituted earlier this year by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Canada’s tariffs took effect 1 July – Canada Day. While the new tariffs affect goods ranging from beer kegs to ball point pens, orange juice to candy to bourbon, they appear to have largely spared the seafood industry.

It’s an extraordinary situation for the two countries which traditionally tout their undefended border, close relationship, and are the world’s second-largest trading block.

More than USD 1.5 billion (EUR 1.3 billion) in goods and more than 300,000 people cross the U.S. Canada border every day. The value of trade crossing the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan is equal to all of Japan’s exports to the U.S. Canada is a bigger market for U.S. goods than the 27 countries of the European Community. For example, 4,000 shipments of ingredients for Campbell’s Soup products cross from the US into Canada each day and 3,500 travel from Canada into the U.S.

Since introduction of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1985, there has been a 350 percent rise in trade between the U.S. and Canada. Canada is one of the top five investor nations in the U.S. and is America’s primary energy source (oil, natural gas, and electricity), while Saudi Arabia is number three.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Researchers Map Global Fishing Patterns From 1869 to 2015

June 28, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Researchers at the University of Tasmania’s Institute for Maine and Antarctic Studies have mapped the scale and patterns of change in global marine fishing for the last century and a half.

Led by Reg Watson, Professor of Fisheries and Ecological Modelling at the University, the study takes a look at global marine fishing from 1869 to 2015. The data was able to not only document entire catch by country and associated fishing gear, but also estimate the illegal, unreported and discarded catch.

“Compared to the previous blurry maps, the new techniques have provided a sharp image of the fishing patterns providing valuable wild-caught seafoods,” Watson explained.

For Watson, the data dating back to 1869 is “invaluable to get an all-inclusive overview and see how things have changed over time.” For instance, the researchers were able to discover that prior to the 1900s, Canada, the United States and Japan were all key fishing countries. However, Japan, Russia and Peru have been leading the pack since the 1950s. The data also revealed that more bottom-dwelling fish were caught prior to 1900 and that the “expansion of valued landings of tuna, shrimp and squid” didn’t happen until recent years.

“Much can be learnt from looking at historical patterns of fishing, and they can help inform decisions vital to maintaining the marine resources and their environments that mankind depends on,” said Watson.

Find the full research paper here.

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

Tariffs ding commercial fishing industry

June 27, 2018 — Fishermen and seafood harvesters may take a major trade hit with the announcement of new tariffs from China, though the details still aren’t clear.

The country announced new tariffs on a broad cross-section of American seafood products on June 15 in response to a U.S tariff hike on imported Chinese products. If the tariffs are approved, China will apply a 25 percent tax to items like Pacific salmon, cod, Alaska pollock, flatfish, crab, shellfish and other commonly exported seafoods.

China is a major trade partner for the Alaskan seafood industry. Processors regularly ship salmon that have been headed and gutted to China to finish the processing and packaging before being re-exported to the rest of the world. China is also a major consumer of seafood products within its borders, and a 25 percent tariff could push down imports.

It’s possible the tariffs won’t be implemented at all, or there may be exceptions, said Garrett Evridge, an economist with the McDowell Group.

“At this point, there’s a lot of outstanding information that we’re still trying to get our fingers on,” he said. “It’s actually unclear as to whether re-exported seafood is going to be excluded.”

According to an announcement from the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, multiple contacts in China have indicated that customs officials would exclude products intended for reprocessing and export.

“It is not yet clear how product entering China will be differentiated between export and domestic consumption upon entry or at what point a tariff and/or credit will be applied,” the June 22 announcement states. “This is a developing situation and ASMI will continue to provide updates as information becomes available.”

The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute has maintained a Chinese office in Hong Kong since 1997. On a recent trade mission to China, Gov. Bill Walker took several representatives of the seafood industry with him specifically to build relationships between Chinese and American companies for seafood trade.

Read the full story at the Peninsula Clarion

AP report claims Sea To Table lied to customers about seafood origins

June 14, 2018 — An investigative report by the Associated Press claims it has found evidence that the company Sea To Table has been misleading customers about origins of its seafood.

Sea To Table, founded more than two decades ago, offers fresh wild-caught seafood sourced from small-scale American fishermen. The company guarantees that its products are wild-caught and directly traceable to docks, and often specific boats, in the U.S. The purchase of the seafood often comes with informational packages detailing the origins and the people behind the product.

According to the AP report, published on 13 June, those claims may be suspect as investigations found that the company was sourcing “fresh” seafood from boats that hadn’t been to sea for two years, species that weren’t allowed to be fished in locations Sea To Table was claiming they were from, and tuna from southeast Asian companies with checkered histories of labor abuse.

“Preliminary DNA tests suggested some of its yellowfin tuna likely came from the other side of the world, and reporters traced the company’s supply chain to migrant fishermen in foreign waters who described labor abuses, poaching and the slaughter of sharks, whales and dolphins,” the AP report said.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

AP Investigation: Fish billed as local isn’t always local

June 14, 2018 — Even after winter storms left East Coast harbors thick with ice, some of the country’s top chefs and trendy restaurants were offering sushi-grade tuna supposedly pulled in fresh off the coast of New York.

But it was just an illusion. No tuna was landing there. The fish had long since migrated to warmer waters.

In a global industry plagued by fraud and deceit, conscientious consumers are increasingly paying top dollar for what they believe is local, sustainably caught seafood. But even in this fast-growing niche market, companies can hide behind murky supply chains that make it difficult to determine where any given fish comes from. That’s where national distributor Sea To Table stepped in, guaranteeing its products were wild and directly traceable to a U.S. dock — and sometimes the very boat that brought it in.

However, an Associated Press investigation found the company was linked to some of the same practices it vowed to fight. Preliminary DNA tests suggested some of its yellowfin tuna likely came from the other side of the world, and reporters traced the company’s supply chain to migrant fishermen in foreign waters who described labor abuses, poaching and the slaughter of sharks, whales and dolphins.

The New York-based distributor was also offering species in other parts of the country that were illegal to catch, out of season and farmed.

Over the years, Sea To Table has become a darling in the sustainable seafood movement, building an impressive list of clientele, including celebrity chef Rick Bayless, Chopt Creative Salad chain, top universities and the makers of home meal kits such as HelloFresh.

“It’s sad to me that this is what’s going on,” said Bayless, an award-winning chef who runs eight popular restaurants and hosts a PBS cooking series. He said he loved the idea of being directly tied to fishermen — and the pictures and “wonderful stories” about their catch. “This throws quite a wrench in all of that.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at The Boston Herald

Survey finds Americans put premium on Alaska seafood

June 13, 2018 — New research has found that nearly 40 percent of Americans would pay more for Alaska seafood. With the Alaska salmon selling season now underway, that’s music to the ears of retailers and restaurants looking to grow their profit margins.

The consumer survey was completed by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) and research firm Technomic. The online survey, completed in January 2018, registered the opinions of 4,000 American seafood consumers over the age of 18.

The survey found that 39 percent agree that they would pay more for Alaska seafood. For those willing to pay more, 71 percent said they would be willing to pay at least 10 percent more, while 51 percent said they would pay at least a five percent premium. The top reasons respondents said they support Alaska seafood is that it is a “pure source of healthy proteins,” followed by the fact that the industry supports American jobs, is sustainable, and is made up of family fishermen.

“We continue to feature the Alaska sustainability story through images of fishing in Alaska. It is clear through the research that American jobs [are] an important piece of the sustainability [and] quality story of Alaska seafood,” Victoria Parr, domestic marketing director for ASMI, told SeafoodSource.

The survey also found that restaurants serving Alaska seafood benefit from increased consumer loyalty. The survey found that 54 percent of patrons will return in the near future to the restaurants that serve Alaska seafood, and 48 percent will recommend the establishment to their family and friends.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

A closer look at the environmental costs of food

June 13, 2018 — The relationship between food and environment is one of the most important conservation issues in the anthropocene. Currently, agriculture uses 38% of the world’s land and accounts for over 90% of freshwater use. Farming and food production has been, and continues to be, the largest driver of habitat and biodiversity loss on the planet.

But, not all foods have the same environmental cost. Comparing and quantifying environmental impacts of different foods is important to guide agricultural policy and empower consumer choice. A paper published today is the most comprehensive comparison of the environmental impacts of meat and fish production—its findings can better inform personal food choices and, hopefully, will help decision-makers devise better food policies that account for environmental cost. Lead author of the study, Ray Hilborn said, “I think this is one of the most important things I’ve ever done…Policymakers need to be able to say, ‘There are certain food production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.’”

The paper used 148 different life-cycle assessment papers (also know as “cradle-to-grave” analysis) to look at environmental impacts associated with every aspect of animal protein as food. Researchers quantified 4 different kinds of major environmental impacts caused by food production: (1) electricity/energy use; (2) greenhouse gas emissions; (3) potential for nutrient runoff—this causes most of the world’s water quality issues; (4) potential to cause air pollution.

By standardizing environmental impacts per 40g/protein produced researchers were able to compare different kinds of animal proteins. Basically, the paper answers the question: what are the environmental costs of producing a hamburger patty’s worth of protein from different animal sources?

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Hundreds of seafood stakeholders heading to Spain to tackle top sustainability issues

June 11, 2018 — Barcelona, Spain will play host to more than 100 speakers and even more attendees from across the sustainable seafood movement for this year’s SeaWeb Seafood Summit, occurring from 18 to 21 June at the Hotel Arts.

Over the course of up to five days, summit speakers and registered attendees – including global representatives from the seafood industry, the conservation community, retail/foodservice, academia, government and the media – will convene to learn, network, and problem solve, said Diversified Communications, which produces the summit in partnership with SeaWeb.

“This year, we’ve expanded interactive formats across more sessions,” said Brenna Hensley, event director for Diversified Communications. “This forum vastly benefits from wide participation and input from diverse stakeholders.”

The educational sessions planned for the summit are formatted as “engagement-driven panels or workshops,” explained Diversified, and aim to unpack and troubleshoot challenging and emerging issues within the seafood sustainability oceanscape.

The event will feature several plenary and panel discussions, including the opening session set to take place on Tuesday, 19 June at 11:15 a.m.: “Is Spain Really as Important as the Global Seafood Sustainability Movement Believes?” During this kickoff plenary, “panelists will examine the key factors that explain and drive the success of the global seafood sustainability movement through the lens of global consumer appetite for mature (whitefish, small shrimps, salmon, cold water crabs) and non-mature (octopus and squid) markets,” Diversified said in a press release.

Such discussions will continue to heat up on Wednesday, 20 June, when the plenary “Building Socially Responsible Seafood Supply Chains Through Worker Voice,” is scheduled to take place. The session will involve a “dynamic, multi-stakeholder “ perspective on the concept of worker voice, covering why worker voice is important and how to incorporate it into seafood supply chains.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Not All Fish Puts You at Risk of Mercury Poisoning

June 7, 2018 — If you’ve ever eaten sushi, you may be familiar with rumors and rumblings about how eating too much can give you mercury poisoning. Pregnant women are typically advised to steer clear of any spicy tuna roll cravings because.

It has to be dangerous to eat too much of a certain kind of fish, right? Well, sort of. Mercury poisoning, and fear of it, is laced with misconceptions, in part because the metal comes in different forms and thus, has different modes of poisoning someone.

Mercury is a natural metal found in the earth, Judith Zelikoff, a professor in NYU’s School of Medicine’s department of environmental medicine, told The Daily Beast. It’s potentially dangerous to ingest because it inhibits inhibits selenoenzymes, which protect the immune system, causing toxicity. Methylmercury is the most common type of organic mercury that is found in the earth and what is commonly in fish that most commonly leads to mercury poisoning. There’s also inorganic mercury, or elemental mercury, that is found in old-school thermometers.

“The problem comes from environmental exposures,” Zelikoff said, pointing to mercury-containing coal combustion as the problem. “So when [coal] is burned and combusted, it gets into the air. Once it’s in the air it falls to the ground, not only to the soil but also to the surface of water and rivers and lakes.

Read the full story at The Daily Beast