Saving Seafood

Feds to Analyze Environmental Impacts of Western Pacific Longline Fisheries for Bigeye and Tuna

February 17, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — HONOLULU — The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced on Monday that it will prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the U.S. Pacific Island deep-set tuna longline fisheries, which target bigeye tuna.

The PEIS will analyze the environmental impacts of management of deep-set tuna longliners, which operate out of Hawaii, American Samoa, and the U.S. West Coast. The need for the proposed action is to manage deep-set tuna longline fisheries under an adaptive management framework that allows for timely management responses to changing environmental conditions, consistent with domestic and international conservation and management measures.

The PEIS will be developed in coordination with the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council based in Honolulu.

Tuna longline fisheries use two distinct gear types: shallow-set vessels target swordfish near the surface and deep-set vessels target tunas deeper than 100 meters.

The deep-set tuna longline fisheries have greater levels of vessel participation, fishing effort, catch, and revenue than the shallow-set fishery. NOAA Fisheries previously evaluated the effects of the shallow-set fishery, so it will not be included in this PEIS.

The primary deep-set tuna longline fisheries are the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries. Access to the Hawaii longline fisheries is limited to 164 vessel permits, of which about 140 vessels are active. Of these active vessels, about 20 may also shallow-set during any given year. Most vessels in the Hawaii deep-set tuna longline fleet homeport in Hawaii and about 10 operate from ports on the U.S. west coast. These vessels target bigeye tuna.

Access to the American Samoa deep-set tuna fishery is limited to 60 permits. Historically, a few deep-set tuna longline vessels operated out of Guam and the CNMI, but these fisheries have been inactive since 2011.

“The PEIS is a proactive step in the management of deep-set tuna longline fisheries,” said Council Executive Director Kitty M. Simonds. “It streamlines environmental review for future management decisions and facilitates the ability of fisheries to adaptively respond to changing conditions.”

Management tools used for deep-set tuna longline fisheries include limited assess programs, vessel size limits, area constraints, observers, satellite-based vessel monitoring systems, gear configuration and specific handling and releasing bycatch methods.

Potential management issues include territorial bigeye tuna specifications and transfers, changes to permitting programs, and new gear requirements to further reduce bycatch.

Potential environmental, social and economic issues include the catch of target tuna and non-target (such as sharks) species, interactions with protected species, gear conflicts, and impacts on the ecosystem.

Public comments may be made at the scoping meetings listed below, sent electronically via the agency, or by mail to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

Public scoping meetings on the PEIS will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. on Feb. 21 in Hilo and Feb. 23 in Honolulu, Hawaii; Feb. 28 in Utulei, March 1 in Tafuna and March 2 in Pago Pago, American Samoa; March 7 in Susupe, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI); and March 9 in Mangilao, Guam.

All comments must be received by April 14, 2017.

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

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.

Regulators changing fishing rules to protect endangered tuna

January 4, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — The federal government is changing some of the rules about how fishermen harvest tuna in an attempt to protect one of the species of the fish.

The National Marine Fisheries Service says the rule change is designed to steer fishermen who catch yellowfin tuna and swordfish via longline away from bluefin tuna.

Atlantic bluefin tuna are listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Fishing boats sometimes catch them incidentally while targeting other species.

The fisheries service says the rule change will modify the way it handles distribution of quota transfers in the longline tuna fishery. The service says that flexibility will improve fishing opportunities while limiting the number of bluefin tuna that are incidentally caught.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

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

MATTHEW DALY: Congress must help Hawaii fishermen confined to boats

December 7th, 2016 — Congress should act immediately to improve slave-like conditions for hundreds of foreign fishermen working in Hawaii’s commercial fleet, speakers at a congressional forum said Tuesday.

“These fishermen are treated like disposable people,” said Mark Lagon, a scholar at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service, who told the forum the fishermen live like modern-day slaves. Crew members earn less than $1 per hour, and total costs for crews of nine or 10 men are less than the cost of ice to keep the fish fresh, Lagon said.

“Slavery is not just some abstract concept,” said Lagon, the former director of a State Department office to monitor and combat human trafficking.

Slavery “is something that touches our lives. It goes into our stores, and it goes into our mouths,” Lagon said.

Lagon was one of several speakers at a forum Tuesday on slavery and human rights abuses at sea. The forum, sponsored by Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee, followed an Associated Press investigation that found fishermen have been confined to vessels for years without basic labor protections.

The AP report found that commercial fishing boats in Honolulu employ hundreds of men from impoverished Southeast Asia and Pacific Island nations who catch swordfish, ahi tuna and other seafood sold at markets and restaurants nationwide. A legal loophole allows the men to work on American-owned, U.S-flagged boats without visas as long as they don’t set foot on shore.

Fishing “is used as a tool for slavery,” said Kathryn Xian, executive director of the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery, a Honolulu-based advocacy group.

Read the op-ed at The Seattle Times 

Catch quota implemented to protect swordfish

November 23, 2016 — A world body of fishing and shipping nations approved a catch quota yesterday to protect the overharvested Mediterranean swordfish, the EU and conservation group Oceana said.

The limit was set at 10,500 tonnes for 2017 at a meeting of the 51-member International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas in Vilamoura, Portugal.

It will be reduced by three per cent per year between 2018 and 2022.

“It’s done. Finally, ICCAT on its 50th anniversary moved a step forward on this too long-neglected stock,” Oceana’s Ilaria Vielmini said in the coastal town where the commission held its annual meeting.

Read the full story from AFP at NT News

How Foreign Crews Are Able To Work Aboard US Fishing Boats

September 22, 2016 — Foreign crew members reportedly working in slave-like conditions for monthly wages as low as $350 would not have found their way onto Hawaii’s longline fishing boats without an exemption carved into the law almost 30 years ago, according to longtime industry leaders, federal officials and government records.

Today, almost all the vessels in the longline fleet have entirely foreign crews.

It wasn’t always that way.

As the Cold War was coming to an end in the late 1980s, there was a push to “Americanize” the country’s fishing fleets by instituting requirements similar to those imposed under the Jones Act on vessels engaged in coastwise trade — namely, that U.S.-flagged ships be built in the U.S. and crewed by U.S. citizens.

Congress passed a bipartisan bill to that effect, and President Ronald Reagan signed it in 1988 as the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act.

But the legislation exempted commercial fishermen fishing for highly migratory species, such as tuna and swordfish, from the law’s requirement that U.S. citizens comprise at least 75 percent of each crew.

At about the same time, the longline industry — then comprised of just a few dozen vessels — and more established purse seiners were leaving the West Coast to set up shop in Hawaii and Pacific Island territories. 

They left because of depleted stocks and, in the case of purse seiners, pressure to stop killing so many dolphins. 

The purse seiners were setting their huge nets, up to 500 yards deep, around schools of tuna near pods of dolphins. It created a national controversy that led to new restrictions and “dolphin-safe” tuna.

The longline boats, which catch fish by extending miles of line with thousands of hooks, initially remained strictly crewed by U.S. citizens. This changed as the fleet grew and it became harder to find local residents willing to work on the boats. Fuel prices also soared after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, adding to operational costs.

This spurred the longliners to take advantage of the foreign-crew exemption that had been pushed by members of Congress from the West Coast who were looking after the purse seiners’ interests, said Jim Cook, who co-owns several longline fishing vessels, a marine supply store and fish restaurant at Pier 38 in Honolulu. 

“It slowly infiltrated our fleet,” he said.

The longline industry now includes roughly 140 vessels, nearly all of which are ported in Honolulu, and most have entirely foreign crews, according to industry leaders and federal officials.

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

Tarr: Marine monument punishes fishermen

September 16, 2016 — Creating the Atlantic Ocean’s first marine national monument is a needed response to dangerous climate change, oceanic dead zones and unsustainable fishing practices, President Barack Obama said Thursday.

But state Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, said the designation “singled out commercial fishing for more punishment.”

The new Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument consists of nearly 5,000 square miles of underwater canyons and mountains about 150 miles southeast of Cape Cod.

Gov. Charlie Baker said he is “deeply disappointed” by Obama’s designation of an area off the New England coast as the first deep-sea marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean, a move the Swampscott Republican’s administration sees as undermining Massachusetts fishermen.

The monument area includes three underwater canyons and four underwater mountains that provide habitats for protected species including sea turtles and endangered whales.

Fishing operations

Recreational fishing will be allowed in the protected zone but most commercial fishing operations have 60 days to “transition from the monument area,” according to the White House. Red crab and lobster fisheries will be given seven years to cease operations in the area.

Tarr said the designation marked a missed opportunity to “balance conservation and support for commercial fishing.”

“In New England, we have one of the most highly regulated fishing industries in the world, and we have had a steady decline in the amount of area available to fish, and it should be a last resort to take away more area as opposed to trying to carefully draw the lines of this monument area,” Tarr told the State House News Service.

The marine protections will hurt red crab, swordfish, tuna, squid, whiting and offshore lobster fisheries, according to the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, which said industry representatives offered White House aides alternative proposals that would have protected coral habitat while still allowing fishing in some areas.

“The Baker-Polito Administration is deeply disappointed by the federal government’s unilateral decision to undermine the Commonwealth’s commercial and recreational fishermen with this designation,” Baker spokesman Brendan Moss said in an email. “The Commonwealth is committed to working with members of the fishing industry and environmental stakeholders through existing management programs to utilize the best science available in order to continue our advocacy for the responsible protection of our state’s fishing industry while ensuring the preservation of important ecological areas.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Foreign Fishermen Confined to Boats Catch Hawaiian Seafood

September 8, 2016 — HONOLULU — Hawaii’s high-quality seafood is sold with the promise that it’s caught by local, hard-working fishermen. But the people who haul in the prized catch are almost all undocumented foreign workers, confined to American boats for years at a time without basic rights or protections.

About 700 men from impoverished Southeast Asian and Pacific Island nations make up the bulk of the workforce in this unique U.S. fishing fleet. A federal loophole allows them to take the dangerous jobs without proper work permits, just as long as they don’t set foot on shore.

Americans buying Hawaiian seafood are almost certainly eating fish caught by one of these workers.

A six-month Associated Press investigation found fishing crews living in squalor on some boats, forced to use buckets instead of toilets and suffering running sores from bed bugs. There have been instances of human trafficking, active tuberculosis and low food supplies.

“We want the same standards as the other workers in America, but we are just small people working there,” said fisherman Syamsul Maarif, who didn’t get paid for four months. He was sent back to his Indonesian village after nearly dying at sea when his Hawaiian boat sank earlier this year.

Because they have no visas, the men can’t fly into Hawaii, so they’re brought by boat. And since they’re not technically in the country, they’re at the mercy of their American captains on American-flagged, American-owned vessels, catching choice swordfish and ahi tuna that can fetch more than $1,000 apiece. The entire system contradicts other state and federal laws, yet operates with the blessing of U.S. officials and law enforcement.

“People say these fishermen can’t leave their boats, they’re like captives,” said U.S. Attorney Florence Nakakuni in Hawaii. “But they don’t have visas, so they can’t leave their boat, really.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press

“Good Catch!” Campaign Bolsters New England’s Sustainable Seafood Businesses

August 10, 2016 — The following was released by the Marine Stewardship Council:

BOSTON — According to new independent research, seafood consumers in New England are significantly more likely than national consumers to purchase fresh fish at a seafood counter, 58 percent and 40 percent, respectively. New England consumers’ affinity for fresh seafood is renowned, and the region benefits from a concentration of certified sustainable fisheries, which work to protect fish stocks, ecosystems and local fishing communities. However, consumer awareness of the abundant sustainable seafood offerings from area sellers remains low. To address this, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an international non-profit dedicated to safeguarding the seafood supply, will launch a campaign to educate New England consumers about identifying sustainable seafood products.

MSC will take its “Good Catch!” campaign directly to consumers this month with events at Whole Foods and Big Y grocery stores, which feature MSC at their fresh fish counters, in greater Boston, Springfield and Great Barrington, as well as at Green Fest and the Quincy Farmers Market.

“As consumers are developing greater awareness of their impact on the world, they are demanding more ways to validate that the products they buy support their values,” said Brian Perkins, MSC Regional Director – Americas. “You should have confidence that what you are buying really is what it says it is and that it originates from a sustainable source. The blue MSC label ensures that the seafood was caught wild, using methods that don’t deplete the natural supply or come at the expense of other ocean life.”

IMPACT ON LOCAL FISHING INDUSTRY: The fishing industry – at the heart of many New England communities – has seen first-hand the consequences of unsustainable fishing. Sustainable fisheries in New England, and globally, are the most important players in addressing these problems. The MSC certification program helps these fishing communities prove to the marketplace that their seafood supplies are healthy. In New England, the US Atlantic sea scallop; Maine Lobster; US North Atlantic swordfish; US Atlantic spiny dogfish; US Acadian, redfish, pollock and haddock fisheries are MSC certified.

“The fishing industry is vital to New England’s economy, and operating them sustainably ensures that our industry will continue for generations to come,” said Doug Feeney a commercial fisherman and member of the Cape Cod Fisherman’s Association. “Consumers want to know that the seafood they buy is responsibly sourced – MSC certification allows us to let local shoppers know that what they’re buying really does come from our sustainable sources.”

Consumers wishing to learn more about sustainable seafood can look for the MSC booth throughout August outside Whole Foods stores in the Boston area, Big Y stores in Springfield and Great Barrington, Green Fest, and the Quincy Farmers Market. Visit msc.org/goodcatch for information.

“By purchasing seafood that they know comes from a sustainable source, consumers help protect our oceans and ensure that seafood can be enjoyed for many generations to come,” said Perkins. “They have the power to impact the health of the ocean and the continuation of the fishing industry simply by the products they choose.”

About the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC): The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an international non-profit organization. Our vision is for the world’s oceans to be teeming with life, and seafood supplies safeguarded for this and future generations. Our ecolabel and certification program recognizes and rewards sustainable fishing practices and is helping create a more sustainable seafood market. The MSC ecolabel on a seafood product means that it comes from a wild-catch fishery which has been independently certified to the MSC’s science-based standard for environmentally sustainable fishing, and it’s fully traceable to a sustainable source. More than 280 fisheries in over 35 countries are certified to the MSC’s Standard. These fisheries have a combined annual seafood production of almost nine million metric tons, representing close to 10% of annual global yields. More than 20,000 seafood products worldwide carry the MSC ecolabel. For more information, visit www.msc.org.