Saving Seafood

Rash of catfish recalls caused by agency confusion

March 7, 2019 — The rash of wild and farmed catfish recalls in the United States since the beginning of this year may be caused by confusion over which regulatory agency oversees catfish inspections.

More than a year after a controversial regulation shifting inspections of all siluriformes (catfish) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) went into effect, many catfish importers – and some domestic suppliers – remain unaware of the change, sources told SeafoodSource.

In addition, FSIS “discovered a lesser known species of siluriformes fish (sheat) in commerce without FSIS inspection, resulting in a recall,” Buck McKay, public affairs specialist with FSIS, told SeafoodSource.

“Working with our federal partners at Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the FDA, FSIS identified additional recent shipments of this fish imported by other companies resulting in two additional recalls,” McKay said.

FSIS identified a fourth product in commerce while performing effectiveness checks for one of the recalls.

As a result, five importers were forced to recall thousands of pounds of catfish that were not presented for re-inspection by FSIS. The agency did not find a food safety risk with the catfish.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Maine seafood business stuck in limbo due to shutdown

January 23, 2019 — The ongoing partial shutdown of the U.S. government, which is entering its second month, has caused headaches for Leslie Harlow, the owner of Hancock, Maine-based Sullivan Harbor Farm Smokehouse.

Harlow, who is seeking to reopen the salmon smoking operation after it closed several years ago, is awaiting licensing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after a final inspection took place in December.

“Our final paperwork is sitting on the desk of an FDA inspector, who currently is not working due to the shutdown,” Harlow said.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

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

US government sues New York seafood processor

August 24, 2018 — The United States government is trying to permanently stop a New York-based seafood processor from preparing and distributing its fish balls and other products.

At the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal complaint against Brooklyn, New York-based Foo Yuan Food Products Company, alleging that the seafood company failed to adequately control the risk of Clostridium botulinum and Listeria monocytogenes growth and toxin formation in susceptible fish and fishery products.

The complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Foo Yuan Food Products, Owner and President Hsing Chang, and Secretary Susan Chang from preparing and distributing adulterated seafood products in violation of federal law.

Foo Yuan prepares, packs, and distributes refrigerated and frozen ready-to-eat fish balls, fried fish cakes, and fried fish balls.

“When food processors ignore federal laws concerning the preparation of food, they subject the public to serious health risks,” said Attorney Richard P. Donoghue, in a statement. “The Department of Justice has asked the Court to stop the defendants from processing, packaging or distributing any more food until they establish that they can comply with federal laws and regulations designed to avert those health risks.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Senate approves spending bill allocating 26 percent more funding for FDA import inspections

August 3, 2018 –The U.S. Senate earlier this week approved a funding bill that an includes an amendment to increase the budget for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s imported seafood inspection program. H.R. 6147, the Interior, Environment, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for 2019, passed by a 92-6 margin on Wednesday, 1 August.

Last week, the Senate added USD 3.1 million (EUR 2.7 million) for FDA inspections for the 2019 fiscal year, which starts on 1 October. That increase, approved by an 87-11 vote, represents a 26 percent rise in funding from this year.

U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) offered the amendment after meeting with shrimp industry representatives from his home state earlier this year. Inspections of seafood imports have been a point of concern for American seafood producers, who note that imports raised in foreign fish farms can be treated with antibiotics and other drugs not approved by the FDA.

“Shrimpers are proud to provide American families with healthy, wholesome, sustainably harvested seafood and we are grateful by our representatives’ insistence that everyone play by the same rules,” said John Williams, the executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, in a statement after the Senate added the amendment on 24 July. “The Senate’s action yesterday demonstrates that shrimpers’ voices are heard in Washington DC.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Muddled communications on mercury causing consumer confusion

June 6, 2018 — It’s a rare occasion when representatives of industry, academia, and government all agree.

The fact that the U.S. seafood industry, an army of health experts, and the U.S. government all want to see the country’s population consume more seafood is a sign of how universal the agreement is surrounding the health benefits of seafood consumption.

But in seeking to achieve that objective, consensus often breaks down over the best way to communicate the benefits to consumers. One of the biggest points of division is the issue of mercury contamination in fish, since scientific studies on the potential harm of mercury in seafood are often conflicting and a source of frustration to consumers.

Jay Shimshack, an asssociate professor of public policy and economics at the University of Virginia and an expert in environmental and health policy, told SeafoodSource the problem lies with the way policymakers frame the message when issuing health advisories.

“Fish consumption advice is often complex and confusing. Message-framing matters a lot, and real-world constraints like affordability are as important as the true risks and benefits,” Shimshack said.

Consumers are told eating a variety of fish can be good for them, Shimshack said.

“But [they are told], ‘Do not consume some species [and be] careful not to consume too much of other species,’” Shimshack said. “Current U.S. commercial fish advisories list more than 60 species, and species names are not always consistent from one time and place to the next.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Fish, seafood distributors tipping the scales in favor of safety

May 26, 2017 — J. J. McDonnell & Co., Inc. processes thousands of pounds of fish a day: lobster trucked to its Howard County headquarters from Maine, crabs plucked from Tangier Sound, farmed oysters from Southern Maryland and tuna flown in from Africa. They’re different species, but their requirements are the same — constant, consistent cold. Under 50 degrees for live fish, under 40 degrees for dead ones.

With uncertainty about new regulations and increases in the reported cases of food-borne illnesses, wholesale fish distributors are taking their need for refrigeration to a whole new level — and place. Some, like McDonnell, have moved out of the wholesale city markets that used to be gathering places for early-morning fish delivery and banter. Others are going out of business, selling out to competitors, or merging to share space and expenses.

All of this is happening because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has in the past signaled it was looking at tougher regulations to bring seafood under refrigeration, which is the first line of defense against pathogens and illnesses. But changes are also happening because distributors’ customers are getting larger and more global as well as seeking increasingly high standards to ensure their food is safe. The pressure is coming both from the threat of regulatory changes and the industry itself.

Regulators in the past have been concerned about Vibrio, a bacteria that lives in warm waters and can contaminate seafood.

In 2013, 104 cases of illness from ingesting the bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus were reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — including several in Maryland and Virginia. That type of Vibrio, which typically results in a severely upset stomach, comes from eating raw or undercooked seafood, usually oysters. It often occurs in the warmer months, as Vibrio thrives in temperatures above 70 degrees.

Read the full story at the Bay Journal