Saving Seafood

GEORGE LAPOINTE and TOM TIETENBERG: Reducing Maine’s carbon footprint

September 8, 2016 — We know the threat of climate disruption to Maine is real in part because we are experiencing early warning signs. The science is also clear that the problems will escalate if we do not act to further reduce carbon pollution.

There are now many important examples of how a warming climate threatens Maine, and here is one that strikes close to home for many Mainers: our changing marine environment could spell serious trouble for commercial fishing and all those who rely on it for a living. Consider the following:

• The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99 percent of world’s oceans.

• Maine’s shrimp fishery has been closed for several years now, attributed in part to warmer waters.

• Lobstermen and other fishermen are bringing up in new species from warming waters with their catch — presence of new species is not usually a good sign. For example, warming weather contributes to large increases in green crab populations, which ravages Maine clam flats and eelgrass beds.

• Clams and other shellfish face an existential threat: the same carbon pollution that is warming the globe is making ocean water more acidic and that makes it more and more difficult to build a shell.

These problems affect many Mainers, from commercial fishermen to all the households and businesses that they interact with. Commercial fishing is a $2 billion part of Maine’s economy, employing roughly 39,000 people.

Read the full opinion piece at Central Maine

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.

Is That Real Tuna in Your Sushi? Now, a Way to Track That Fish

August 18, 2016 — “Most people don’t think data management is sexy,” says Jared Auerbach, owner of Red’s Best, a seafood distributor in Boston. Most don’t associate it with fishing, either. But Mr. Auerbach and a few other seafood entrepreneurs are using technology to lift the curtain on the murky details surrounding where and how fish are caught in American waters.

Beyond Maine lobster, Maryland crabs and Gulf shrimp, fish has been largely ignored by foodies obsessing over the provenance of their meals, even though seafood travels a complex path. Until recently, diners weren’t asking many questions about where it came from, which meant restaurants and retailers didn’t feel a need to provide the information.

Much of what’s sold has been seen as “just a packaged, nondescript fish fillet with no skin,” says Beth Lowell, who works in the seafood-fraud prevention department at Oceana, an international ocean conservation advocacy group. “Seafood has been behind the curve on both traceability and transparency.”

What’s worse is that many people have no idea what they’re eating even when they think they do. In a recent Oceana investigation of seafood fraud, the organization bought fish sold at restaurants, seafood markets, sushi places and grocery stores, and ran DNA tests. It discovered that 33 percent of the fish was mislabeled per federal guidelines. Fish labeled snapper and tuna were the least likely to be what their purveyors claimed they were.

Several years ago, Red’s Best developed software to track the fish it procures from small local fishermen along the shores of New England. Sea to Table, a family business founded in the mid-1990s with headquarters in Brooklyn that supplies chefs and universities, has also developed its own seafood-tracking software to let customers follow the path of their purchases. Wood’s Fisheries, in Port St. Joe, Fla., specializes in sustainably harvested shrimp and uses software called Trace Register.

And starting this fall, the public will be able to glimpse the international fishing industry’s practices through a partnership of Oceana, Google and SkyTruth, a nonprofit group that uses aerial and satellite images to study changes in the landscape. The initiative, called Global Fishing Watch, uses satellite data to analyze fishing boat practices — including larger trends and information on individual vessels.

Sea to Table hopes to sell fish directly to home chefs starting this year, too.

But local seafood can cost more than many Americans are accustomed to paying, which partly accounts for the rampant seafood fraud in this country.

“U.S. fisheries are very well managed and are actually growing nicely,” said Michael Dimin, the founder of Sea to Table. “But the U.S. consumer’s been trained to buy cheap food, and imported seafood is really cheap because of I.U.U. fishing.” I.U.U. stands for illegal, unreported and unregulated. The result is unsustainably fished, cheap seafood flooding American fish markets and grocery chains.

“To us, the secret is traceability,” Mr. Dimin said. “If you can shine a light on where it came from, you can make informed decisions.”

Read the full story at the New York Times

AL BURCH: Governor should recognize value of Alaska groundfish industry

July 25, 2016 — My brother and I were some of the pioneers of the trawl fishery here in Kodiak. We started from scratch when the United States claimed a 200-mile zone. I remember the foreign fleets off our shores, and once they were replaced by U.S. vessels like ours, I remember how the trawl fishery for pollock and cod helped put the town back on its feet after the collapse of the crab and shrimp fisheries in the late 1970s. I am proud of the fact that the fishery I helped pioneer now supports a year-round fishing economy here in Kodiak.

Although I am retired now, I continue to follow how the fishery is run. And I am concerned.

In the past, when we were struggling to build the fishery, the state of Alaska was on our side. We worked hard together to build a fishery that was managed by scientific principles and research, with no overfishing. We pioneered putting observers on U.S. vessels, and unlike a lot of other fisheries here in Alaska we have had observers for roughly 30 years. We worked alongside the state and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to meet conservation and management challenges together, to ensure practical solutions that ensured an economically sustainable fishery for Kodiak and other Alaska coastal towns.

But now it seems that the state of Alaska is not concerned about the impacts of its decisions on the hard-working participants in this fishery and communities like mine that are dependent on groundfish.

Read the full opinion piece at Alaska Dispatch News

ALASKA: Sea Share steadily expands donations of fish to the needy

July 18, 2016 — The decades long “bycatch to food banks” program has grown far beyond its Alaska origins.

Today, only 10 percent of the fish going to hunger-relief programs is bycatch — primarily halibut and salmon taken accidentally in other fisheries. The remainder is first-run products donated to Sea Share, the nation’s only nonprofit that donates fish through a network of fishermen, processors, packagers and transporters.

Sea Share began in 1993 when Bering Sea fishermen pushed to be allowed to send fish taken as bycatch to food banks — instead of tossing them back, as required by law.

“Back then, that was the only thing that we were set up to do, and we are the only entity authorized to retain such fish. It became a rallying point for a lot of stakeholders, and from that beginning we’ve expanded to the Gulf of Alaska, and grown to 28 states and over 200 million fish meals a year,” said Jim Harmon, Sea Share director.

Some seafood companies commit a portion of their sales or donate products to Sea Share. Vessels in the At-sea Processors Association have donated 250,000 pounds of whitefish each year for 15 years, which are turned into breaded portions. Sea Share’s roster also has grown to include tilapia, shrimp, cod, tuna and other seafood products.

Over the years, Sea Share has ramped up donations in Alaska, where halibut portions from Kodiak fisheries are used locally, in Kenai as well as being flown to Nome and Kotzebue, courtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard. A new freezer container has been stationed at the Alaska Peninsula port of Dillingham, holding 8,500 pounds of fish, and several more are being added to hubs in Western Alaska, Harmon said.

“I think we’ll probably do 250,000 pounds in the state this year,” he added.

Read the full story at the Alaska Dispatch News

Flavor gives Mississippi wild-caught shrimp competitive advantage

July 8, 2016 — BILOXI, Mississippi — Better flavor gives Mississippi wild-caught shrimp a competitive advantage over imported and pond raised shrimp, experts say.

Dave Burrage, Mississippi State University Extension Service fisheries specialist, said in a news release Thursday consumers who participate in blind taste tests tend to prefer the taste of wild-caught Gulf shrimp over that of pond-raised, imported products.

“Fresh Gulf shrimp get their distinctive flavor from their natural diet, as opposed to the artificial feed given to shrimp raised in captivity,” Burrage said. “If you have ever stood on the beach where waves are breaking and smelled the salt mist in the air, that is what fresh shrimp taste like.

“Mississippi shrimpers have no trouble selling all they catch, as shrimp continue to be the leading seafood item consumed in the U.S.,” he said.

Ben Posadas, Extension seafood marketing specialist at the Coastal Research and Extension Center in Biloxi, said imported shrimp comprise about 90 percent of the total supply in the United States.

“Imports of shrimp have led to the continued decline in shrimp prices over time, since imported shrimp are cheaper,” Posadas said.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at GulfLive.com

Canada’s fish stocks poorly tracked — report

June 30, 2016 — As the federal government prepares to make major decisions about whether or not to expand access to clam and shrimp stocks in Atlantic Canada, a group of marine researchers are urging better tracking and more accountability for one of the country’s most valuable resources.

The Canadian chapter of international ocean conservation organization Oceana recently completed the most comprehensive public study ever conducted on the state of Canada’s fish stocks. But, according to Halifax-based marine biologist and report co-author Susanna Fuller, it wasn’t easy.

“It should not be that hard to find management decisions, whether or not something has a management plan, and the state of a stock, and it is hard right now,” she said.

Compiling the report often came down to calling individual scientists to get the data required, Fuller said, and some data wasn’t available at all — they were only able to get information on 125 of the 165 stocks they looked at.

“It’s shocking that in Canada you can’t find anywhere a list of all the fisheries in Canada that is publicly available” she said.

“When you compare that to the U.S., all that information is online. You can find it, it’s easy, and there’s an obligation in the U.S. that they actually have to report to Congress on how the fish stocks are doing.”

Read the full story at the Herald News

NC commercial, recreational fishermen saw record harvests in 2015

June 22, 2o16 — North Carolina commercial and recreational fisherman reeled in record harvests last year.

Milder weather allowed fishermen to work longer, harvesting more shrimp and hard blue crab in the latter months, according to the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.

Shrimp landings increased by 94 percent — the highest since 2008. November 2015 shrimp landings increased by 307 percent from November 2014. Hard blue crabs also increased by 23 percent to 31 million pounds.

“We had the best spring shrimp we’ve ever had,” said Phil Guyer, owner of Coastal Seafood and Propane in Leland. “In fact, we saw shrimp in March and our hometown shrimper said that they’ve never caught shrimp in March. We had a really good year.”

While shrimp and crab harvest flourished, other species in the top five — spiny dogfish, summer flounder, Atlantic croaker — plummeted.

Recreational fishermen caught an estimated 10.2 million fish in 2015, 6.8 percent more seafood than in 2014. Fishermen also released 6 percent more fish in 2015 than in 2014.

Similarly, coastal recreational fishing in 2015 also increased substantially. Dolphin, yellowfin tuna, cobia and wahoo were the top five recreational species harvested. Dolphin catches increased by 132 percent, while wahoo rose by 66 percent and cobia rose 62 percent.The increase in dolphin, wahoo and cobia is likely due to the decline of yellowfin tuna harvests, which was down 10.7 percent last year, Marine Fisheries stated in a news release.

Read the full story at the StarNews Online

North Carolina shrimp was a really big deal

June 19, 2016 — Rested, ready and eager to get going after what some people down this way refer to as “white gold,” owners and operators of a large fleet of boats will be shoving off from various coastal points … in search of the wily shrimp that are now beginning to move in commercial quantities in State-controlled waters.

The shrimpers, who run into the hundreds, are quite naturally hopeful as they prepare to sally forth into the sounds and coves after the shrimp that usually find ready markets to the north as well as in the Tar Heel State. …

Numerous buyers, especially from the New York area, are always on hand to buy the bulk of the the shrimp catch. The shrimp that go to northern markets are iced and rushed northward on trucks.

Read the full story at The Post and Courier 

NOAA recommends millions in grants to study salmon, cod, shrimp, lobster

June 14, 2016 — The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced its support for more than USD 11 million (EUR 9.8 million) in recommended grants to study or improve the nation’s fisheries as part of its Saltonstall-Kennedy grant competition.

The grants, which still must be approved by the NOAA Grants Management Division and the Department of Commerce’s Financial Assistance Law Division, and are contingent upon adequate funding availability, include projects in seven categories: aquaculture, fishery data collection, bycatch reduction, climate change adaptation, marketing, socio-economic research and territorial science.

All areas of the United States, including overseas territories, have projects that have been recommended.

In Alaska, they include a proposed University of Alaska, Fairbanks study of halibut bycatch management (USD 297,995, EUR 264,877) and an Alaska Department of Fish and Game analysis of pink salmon productivity (USD 249,998, EUR 222,222).

Read the full story at SeafoodSource.com