Saving Seafood

Oceana Loses Court Battle on Mid-Atlantic & New England Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology

August 28, 2017 — WASHINGTON — As part of its efforts to prevent overfishing, Congress has directed the National Marine Fisheries Service and regional councils to establish methodologies for collecting and reporting data on fish that are caught but subsequently discarded. Such discards are known as bycatch. In response to the congressional directive, the Northeast region adopted its Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology in 2015. Oceana, Inc., a nonprofit organization focused on protecting the oceans, filed suit, claiming that the adoption of this methodology violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In March 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service approved a new version of the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology, which is set forth in Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology: An Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regional Fishery Management Councils, AR 6438-7511. NMFS then promulgated a final rule implementing the amendment in June 2015. United States District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle has ruled that Oceana has not identified any feature of the 2015 SBRM that violates the MSA, APA, or NEPA.

The following is excerpted from an article published Friday by Courthouse News Service:

Federal regulators ducked a conservation-minded challenge Thursday concerning rules meant to minimize fishing bycatch.

The National Marine Fisheries Service adopted the rules in question two years ago, with approval from the D.C. Circuit.

Though the rules requires fishing vessels to occasionally have a biologist document the amount of fish caught and discarded, the group Oceana complained in a federal complaint that the infrequency of such observation undermines its efficacy as a serious check on fishing abuses.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle sided with the agency Thursday at summary judgment, saying the issue comes down to how the Fisheries Service allocates its funding for NMFS, short for standardized bycatch reporting methodology.

“There is no funding trigger that needs to be adequately defined, nor a discretionary procedure for which the agency must set out an identifiable standard,” the ruling states. “Since there is no impermissibly vague funding trigger, the agency’s funding allocations to the SBRM are not reviewable.”

Read the full story at Courthouse News Service

Congressional Bills Would Alter National MSA to Benefit Recreational Fisheries in Gulf of Mexico

August 22, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Two companion bills in the House and Senate, both currently in committee, would alter the Magnuson-Stevens Act in how it addresses recreational and commercial fisheries management.

Both bills call for a review of the red snapper fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and alter the section in the MSA dealing with Gulf red snapper. Then each bill changes sections of the law that apply to all U.S. fisheries on fundamental management principals in MSA, like how regional councils will allocate access to marine resources, adopt annual catch limits requirements, and put data-poor fisheries under a less strict management than more strict.

Both versions of The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017 (S.1520 and H.2023) are an attempt to codify what is becoming a standard argument for the recreational sector: “We are different from commercial fishermen, so the fish we target should be managed differently.”

The strength of the MSA, adopted in 1976 and amended at regular intervals to address changing aspects of the nation’s fisheries, is that within its founding principles are guidelines for managing recreational as well as commercial use.

An example of this is the halibut charter management program in Alaska. Very much like red snapper, a resurgence of non-commercial interest in Pacific halibut triggered the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to adopt a catch sharing plan (note:“shareING” is key here — this is different from a catch share program) which allows the total allowable catch (TAC) in Alaska to be shared, and in times of low abundance, allows a higher ratio to go to charter operators. That recognizes a different business model for charters compared to commercial operators.

The Alaskan catch sharing plan for halibut came after years of difficult discussions among charter operators, commercial fishermen, federal fisheries managers and state recreational fisheries managers. It is not perfect but it has worked since it was implemented in June 2011.

The charter sector in Alaska has continued to grow and recently introduced new measures that would provide more stability for their businesses, but potentially take a higher percentage of the available resource.

A continuing problem in the charter sector is accounting for all harvests and mortality. The group is working on improving data collection and accountability which will improve their chances of getting increased TAC.

These and other considerations are currently being resolved under the aegis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Pacific Halibut Act, legislation that manages Pacific halibut under a treaty with Canada, within the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

Nationally, the recreational sector based in the Gulf of Mexico would like to see recreational fisheries removed from most fishery management plans, under the guise that recreational fishermen don’t take much fish compared to commercial fishermen. This is the purpose of the Modern Fish Act.

While this is true on an individual case by case basis, it is not true in the aggregate, where hundreds of thousands of recreational anglers can quickly decimate a stock.

In arguing for the bill  Mike Leonard, Director of Conservation of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), told the Magazine Monga Bay that although the old MSA has been successful, it was written to regulate commercial fisheries, but was unjustifiably applied to managing recreational fishing as well. In actuality, the MSA was written to address all aspects of fisheries, spelling out rules for commercial, charter and recreational fishing in order to preserve sustainable fish stocks.

Leonard argued to Mongabay that “Much like gardening in one’s backyard is different than large scale agriculture practices, recreational and commercial fishing are very different activities.” He contends that, while commercial fishermen have a single goal (to efficiently catch as many fish as possible), recreational anglers have other motivations, such as enjoying the outdoors with family and friends, catching and often releasing trophy fish, and occasionally catching dinner.

Where recreational fishermen take fish from public waters, unless they are subject to the same accountability rules as the commercial industry, they are in effect claiming unlimited rights to keep a public resource to themselves.  The commercial industry on the other hand, serves a national interest in providing fish for American consumption regardless as to whether you go out and catch it yourself or not.

Many in the commercial industry and NGO community support some of the efforts to improve recreational catch data, but the idea of taking recreational fish out of Magnuson is a non-starter.

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

US Senate committee rejects most of Trump’s proposed cuts to NOAA

August 8, 2017 — The appropriations committee of the United States Senate has voted to reduce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s 2018 budget, but the cuts are less severe than those requested by President Donald Trump.

The Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations subcommittee agreed to a USD 85.1 million (EUR 72.3 million) cut to NOAA’s budget to USD 5.6 billion (EUR 4.8 billion) – much less than the nearly USD 900 million (EUR 764 million) in cuts requested by Trump, according to a press release put out by Senate Republicans.

The committee voted to fully fund NOAA operations including ocean monitoring; fisheries management; coastal grants to states; aquaculture research; and severe weather forecasting, according to the press release.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

U.S. Senate passes resolution designating Sept. 25, 2017, as ‘National Lobster Day’

August 4, 2017 — In recognition of the historic and economic importance of the lobster industry to Rhode Island and other coastal states, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a resolution designating Monday, Sept. 25, 2017, as “National Lobster Day.” The resolution, cosponsored by U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and seven New England colleagues, invites lobster-lovers to mark their culinary calendars for the last Monday in September.

“This is a fitting tribute to our local lobstermen and women and the important economic impact lobsters have on Rhode Island’s economy. As consumer demand for sustainably harvested, wild-caught New England lobsters continues to grow, ‘National Lobster Day’ offers an opportunity to celebrate and appreciate an industry that supports hundreds of Rhode Island families and helps bring tourists to the area to enjoy delicious, freshly caught lobster and seafood,” Reed said. “It will also help showcase Rhode Island’s culinary diversity and boost sales. Whether you enjoy lobster fresh off the boat, or with fresh-made pasta, Rhode Island offers plenty of ways to join the celebration.”

“National Lobster Day is a great time to remember that the lobsters caught off of Rhode Island are some of the best on the East Coast, and we’re fortunate to have no shortage of first-rate restaurants to serve them up,” Whitehouse said. “Although warming seas have contributed to the reduction of our lobster landings by half in the last twenty years, I’ll continue to do everything in my power to make sure lobstermen and other Rhode Island fishermen, who make enormous contributions to the local economy, will continue to find healthy stocks off our coast and be able to call Rhode Island ports home for decades to come.”

Read the full story at the Westerly Sun

First MSA Reauthorization Hearing Acknowledged Successes, Identified Needed Changes

August 2, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — At the first of a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act held yesterday at the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, senators from both sides of the aisle voiced support for the regional management council system, NOAA Fisheries, and the science that supports fisheries management, despite the deep cuts proposed in the President’s budget.

“With regard to the budget, I think some of these cuts may not survive the [reauthorization] process,” said Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK). “I think we’re going to be adding a lot back to the projects that we think are vital.”

Sullivan was responding in part to a series of questions from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, about the current administration’s proposed budget for the agency.

“My question concerns the budget submitted by the president of the United States. The budget slashes funding for programs like Sea Grant and the Milford Lab at the University of Connecticut [Northeast Fisheries Science Center],” Blumenthal said.

“These federal research efforts to help grow and expand certain aspects of aquaculture are very promising. As a representative of this administration, how can you justify these cuts to the agency that you are responsible for administering? Are you going to commit to me that you’re going to [find funding] for Sea Grant and the Milford Lab?”

Oliver responded, “Senator, I don’t know that I’m in a position to comment very extensively on the President’s budget. I do know that they’ve placed a revised emphasis on the Department of Defense and national security.”

Blumenthal: “I’m on the Armed Services Committee sir, and I very much support that emphasis … but this kind of slashing and trashing of programs that are essential to the kinds of programs you administer, that are vital to our economic future in aquaculture I consider a mockery of the mission of your agency. And if you’re not in a position to justify it, who would be?”

Oliver: “All I can say sir is we’re going to do our best to operate within the budget that we have, and I know that a lot of the programs that were slated to be cut involve cooperative agreements or past grants of funding through the Sea Grant program, for example, and grants to the coastal states. We’re going to do our best to make that up internally…”

Blumenthal: “Are you going to commit to me that you can make up those cuts to the Sea Grant program and the Milford Lab and the University of Connecticut that are essential to those programs?”

Oliver: “I can’t commit that we’re specifically going to be able to make those up from our baseline budget. I think that we’re facing some tough decisions too. I’ve said on many occasions that I feel that this agency may be in a position to refocus on some of its very core mission – science mission…”

Blumenthal: “You’d agree with me that those are valid and important programs?”

Oliver: “Of course sir, I really do.”

Blumenthal: “If you agree these programs are valid, then your agency has a responsibility to fight for them and to make sure they are fully funded.”

The exchange was toward the end of an otherwise non-confrontational hearing on the “long overdue” reauthorization of the MSA with Oliver and Dr. John Quinn, Chair of the New England Fisheries Management Council. Both men lauded the successes brought about by the original 1976 law and the amendments to it, most recently in 2007.

“As a group, we are strong believers in the Magnuson-Stevens Act – and not just because it established the Councils,” said Quinn, who spoke on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), which is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.

“The outcome of our management success is clear: commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries are key contributors to our coastal communities and the nation’s economy. In large measure, this is because the Act structured a very successful approach to sustainable fisheries management. Central to the Act are the 10 National Standards that guide our management process.”

“Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act the nation has made great strides in maintaining more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for U.S. seafood consumers in a market dominated by imports,” echoed Oliver.

Both agreed, however, that changes should be made. Oliver noted in particular ways in which overall production could be increased, particularly in areas where catch limits have not been updated to changes in stock sizes.

“For example, while our West Coast groundfish fisheries have rebuilt several important stocks, in recent years fishermen are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints. We must find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species in all of our fisheries,” explained Oliver.

Stakeholders in the West Coast groundfish fishery were enthusiastic about Oliver’s references to the plight of those working in the non-whiting trawl catch shares program. The program has realized far less than full utilization of the resource, with less than one-third of the available fish being harvested annually.

“We applaud Chris Oliver’s recent testimony to the Senate on the state of the West Coast IFQ non-whiting trawl fishery,” Pacific Seafood’s Mike Okoniewski said.

“Members of industry have been testifying for years that while the conservation benefits of the program have passed all expectations, but the economics are performing at abysmal levels,” Okoniewski said.

Oliver’s testimony drilled to the heart of the matter: if you cannot get the fish out of the water you cannot realize the economic benefits outlined in the program’s goals and objectives. Targets such as increasing economic benefits, providing full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, increasing operational flexibility and providing measurable economic and employment benefits throughout the processing and distribution chain have not been met for the non-whiting sector.

“Chris Oliver’s testimony is a huge step forward to reverse the present trajectory we are on. Again we thank him and look forward his leadership of NMFS. His focus on balance and economic output, as well as conservation and sustainability, is long overdue,” Okoniewski said.

“Much like Pacific groundfish (to quote AA Oliver), New England groundfish fishermen ‘are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints’”, noted Maggie Raymond, Executive Director of Associated Fisheries of Maine.

Both Quinn and Oliver referenced a need for “flexibility”, Raymond observed.

“Quinn’s testimony is specific to a need for flexibility in rebuilding timelines.  But flexibility in rebuilding timelines is not necessarily the fix, at least not for New England,” she added.

“As long as an otherwise healthy mixed stock fishery remains constrained by a weak stock in the complex, the problem of leaving available harvest in the water cannot be addressed.  We look forward to working with AA Oliver to ‘find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species.’

“Let’s start with windowpane flounder. A species with no economic value that puts a significant burden on the NE groundfish and scallop fisheries,” said Raymond.

Oliver acknowledged his testimony from last year on no need for further flexibility on MSA. But, he said, “I’m in a new role now and as I look at the issue more broadly, I’d heard from constituents across the country, listened to the dialog about issues with the Act, and I’ve come to believe that there is a possibility that additional flexibilities should be considered, accountability measures that are used to enforced annual catch limits (ACLs), particularly in fisheries where we don’t have the robust and accurate accounting.

“Many of our recreational fisheries are of a nature that don’t lend themselves well to those monitoring methods.

“The administration has not taken positions on these specific issues,” Oliver said. “But in my personal view, in fisheries that don’t have robust systems of accountability, in particular the recreational fisheries that have different goals, there’s room for flexibility.”

Quinn agreed. “We’re here to reauthorize [the MSA], not repeal it. Data availability and stock assessment, particularly in the recreational side, I think we’ve got a lot of work to do. Data needs are really important. ACLs and AMs work for the commercial, not necessarily for the recreational fisheries.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the nation’s bycatch quantity “unacceptable” and asked Quinn for an assessment on catch shares.

“In some parts of the country, catch shares have worked,” Quinn responded. “In my part of the country, it hasn’t worked as well. But the CCC’s position is to keep catch shares as a part of our management tool box.”

Sullivan brought up the issue of electronic monitoring as a less expensive alternative to onboard observers and asked, “What can we do to help the councils use EM more efficiently?”

“Like catch shares, the authority for EM is in the Act now,” said Quinn, “but individual regions may have specific fisheries that may or may not use EM. There are a lot of pilot programs using EM now. Decisions should be made region by region.”

“I want to compliment you both on your emphasis on data and science,” Sullivan said in closing comments. “We’re going to back you up on that.”

The next hearing will be August 23, 2017 in Kenai, Alaska.

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

NEFMC Chairman Testifies Tuesday in D.C.

August 1, 2017 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — John Quinn will appear in front of the U.S. Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard as a representative of the nation’s fisheries on Tuesday at 10 a.m. in Washington D.C.

The Director of Public Interest Law Program at UMass Law School in Dartmouth is also the chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council and the national chair of the Council Coordinating Committee.

The hearing is the first in a series to examine the nation’s fishery laws and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is discussed about every decade. The second is scheduled for Aug. 23 in Alaska.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Hawaii Longline Leader Testifies on Ways to Strengthen the MSA

July 27, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — A Hawaii fishing industry leader made three suggestions to the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans during a hearing last week on “Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” The hearing was designed to continue discussions relevant to MSA reform and consider current draft legislation.

Hawaii Longline Association President Sean Martin, one of four invited witnesses, said overall the MSA is working well, but the Hawaii seafood industry is facing problems related to national monuments created under the Antiquities Act, Endangered Species Act issues and more.

“The MSA is a success and should be the principal source of authority for management of U.S. fisheries,” Martin said in his testimony. “Overfished stocks have been rebuilt, and few stocks are now overfished. Management measures are precautionary and based on the best scientific information available. The regional fishery management councils provide regional fishing expertise and utilize an effective bottom-up decision making process that includes the fishing industry. The MSA also requires the evaluation of impacts on fish stocks as well as fishermen and fishing communities.”

However, the 140 active vessels in the longline fleet, which lands roughly $100 million worth of tuna and other highly migratory fish annually, is struggling with access to fishing grounds.

“We operate in a very competitive arena, both for fishing grounds in international waters and for the U.S. domestic market. The recent marine monument designations established under the Antiquities Act prohibits us from fishing in 51 percent of the US Exclusive Economic Zone in the Western Pacific region,” Martin said. “Access to the high seas is also being challenged by recent United Nations initiatives. Closure of US waters and the high seas hurts us, reducing our ability to compete and increasing the vulnerability of our markets to foreign takeover.”

Martin said the longliners have worked with NMFS and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council for more than 25 years to ensure sound fishery data would be used in stock assessments and regulations. They have collaborated on research such as gear modifications to protect sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals.

“We are proud of our efforts and the Hawaii longline fishery is an iconic, internationally recognized model fishery. It is the most highly monitored, strictly regulated longline fishery in the Pacific,” he said.

With that, Martin suggested three things to help make the MSA stronger:

  1. Manage U.S. ocean fisheries through the MSA process;
  2. Strengthen support for U.S. fisheries in the international arena; and
  3. Simplify the MSA regulatory process.

“In recent years, the management of fisheries covered by the MSA has been circumvented by other statutes and authorities,” Martin said regarding using the MSA process for managing ocean fisheries. “This includes the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Antiquities Act. These acts do not require the same level of public consultation and transparency as compared to the MSA.

“For our fishery, the biggest gains in protection have been achieved through the Council process. For example, sea turtle and seabird interactions were reduced by 90 percent as a result of industry cooperative research and Council developed regulations. In HLA’s view, fisheries should be managed primarily through the fishery management councils under the MSA. This ensures a transparent, public, and science-based process which allows the fishing industry and stakeholders to be consulted. It provides that analyses of impacts to fishery dependent communities are considered, and prevents regulations that might otherwise be duplicative, unenforceable, or contradictory.

“Past administrations have established huge national marine monuments in the Pacific totaling more than 760 million acres of U.S. waters under the Antiquities Act of 1906. In our view, marine monument designations were politically motivated and addressed non-existing problems. Fisheries operating in these areas were sustainably managed for several decades under the MSA and the Western Pacific Council. There was no serious attempt to work with the fishing industry in the designations of these marine monuments. Public input was minimal.”

Regarding support for U.S. fisheries in the international arena, Martin said, “In 2016, Congress enacted ‘Amendments to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act’ (16U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The amendments direct the Secretaries of Commerce and State to seek to minimize any disadvantage to U.S. fisheries relative to other fisheries of the region and to maximize U.S. fisheries’ harvest of fish in the Convention Area.

“The amendments are intended to level the playing field between
U.S. and foreign fisheries. U.S. fisheries managed under the MSA are sustainable, yet they are often disadvantaged within international fisheries commissions. U.S. fishing interests require strong U.S. government negotiators to advocate and support U.S. fisheries.

“For example, the Hawaii longline bigeye quota has been reduced to 3,345 metric tonnes (mt), while quotas for other countries have not been reduced (e.g. Indonesia). The WCPFC-imposed quotas are based on historical catch and do not match current fishing capacity. For example, Japan has a bigeye quota of nearly 17,000 mt, but only catches around 11,000 mt. China has been expanding its longline fleet from about 100 vessels in 2001 to over 430 vessels in 2015, and has a bigeye quota of around 7,000 mt. Our fleet has been limited to 164 permits since 1991. China is continuing to expand its longline fisheries and supplying US markets with poorly monitored seafood.”

Lastly, Martin hit on another problem faced by several industry groups around the country, not just in Hawaii: Simplifying the MSA regulatory process. The National Environmental Policy Act has caused delays and duplications in several regions.

“HLA supports the regional councils’ efforts to achieve a more streamlined process for approval of regulatory actions,” Martin testified. “A fishery management plan document from a regional council typically contains a full discussion of impacts on the fisheries, on the fish stocks, and on associated species (e.g., endangered species, marine mammals, seabirds, etc.).

“The National Environmental Policy Act requires duplicative evaluation and incongruent public comment periods. The analytical duplication between the MSA and NEPA is unnecessary, delays needed actions, has a high cost, and provides more avenues for legal challenges and delays on non-MSA grounds. Also, it is often very confusing to the industry with regard to timing and where we should apply our input in the process.”

Martin said the longline association recommends amending the MSA to authorize a single analytical document for any proposed regulatory action that will streamline the process, eliminate duplication and allow for more meaningful industry input.

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

Save the snappers? Environmental groups calling for shorter fishing season

July 27, 2017 — DESTIN, Fla. — A lawsuit filed in Washington D.C. wants to kill or significantly reduce next year’s recreational red snapper season before it starts.

The suit was filed on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund and could benefit commercial fishermen. They say the suit will save the snapper for future generations of fishermen.

The Environmental Defense Fund wants to do away the extra days the federal government gave to recreational fishermen this year by removing them from next year’s season.

Parker Destin has lived in the city named after his family most of his life.

He supports the lawsuit; as well as more regulations on recreational red snapper fishermen.

“If we do not get it right, well we won’t have red snapper in the future and that’s not good for anybody including the small angler, who comes down here and wants to access it,” Destin said.

Read and watch the full story at WEAR-TV

Marine Sanctuaries Program is Bad for Fishermen, California Fishing Captain Tells Senate Subcommittee

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — July 10, 2017 — Marine sanctuaries are hurting commercial and recreational fishermen and overruling the fisheries management process created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, said Capt. Jeremiah O’Brien, vice president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization, at a Senate hearing June 27.

Speaking before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard at a hearing convened by chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Mr. O’Brien criticized marine sanctuaries for their “weak science capabilities” and “poor, self-serving public process.” He said that policymakers are interpreting the National Marine Sanctuaries Act in a way that steadily limits human uses of marine resources, violating the principles of ecosystem-based management and the law’s mandate for comprehensive and coordinated management.

“For fishermen and fishery managers, the fact that sanctuaries can overrule the Regional Fishery Management Councils, with eight National Standards serving as the council’s guide, is disconcerting, and not in the best interest of ocean health,” Mr. O’Brien said. “I hope Congress will make it clear that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the nation’s law for fisheries and habitat management.”

Read the full testimony here

Scientists tested seafood at six D.C. restaurants. It didn’t always match the menu.

April 25, 2017 — When you order ahi tuna tartare at a D.C. restaurant, can you be sure that’s what you’re getting? A new study from George Washington University found that some restaurants are serving similar, but not the exact, species of fish advertised on local menus.

A group of scientists led by Keith Crandall of the university’s Milken Institute School of Public Health tested 12 dishes at six seafood chains with locations in Washington to see if the fish or crustacean DNA matched what it was called on the menu. They found that one-third of the samples were incorrectly labeled.

But these weren’t cases in which tilapia was being sold as snapper. In most of the mislabeled samples, the DNA matched a closely related species and wasn’t an egregious substitution.

The study discovered “pretty mild substitutions,” Crandall said. “We didn’t see anything that looked like some kind of comprehensive fraud, to swap out an expensive piece of seafood for something much less expensive.”

Still, there were a few restaurants whose results might raise an eyebrow. At Bobby Van’s steakhouse, a dish advertised as a rock shrimp tempura was a DNA match with whiteleg shrimp, which is typically a much cheaper, farmed shrimp.

The testing was performed in 2015, and Bobby Van’s doesn’t have a rock shrimp tempura on the current menu. Jonathan Langle, the chain’s head of operations for Washington, said he doesn’t recall it being on the menu, and that it may have been a special.

Read the full story at the Washington Post