SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton — September 2, 2014 — The deadline for submitting comments to the Presidential task force on IUU fishing and Seafood Fraud is midnight today.
A number of industry organizations have spoken up, focusing on similar themes:
-there is no widespread evidence of IUU seafood in the US, despite some claims by NGO's. There may be an issue with illegal crab, and where specific areas and markets can be addressed, the government should look into further action.
-The issue of IUU fishing and Seafood fraud are quite distinct. Seafood fraud, including mislabeling, underweight packaging, excessive processing and glazing – all can occur on fully legally harvested fish. Likewise, IUU fish can be completely properly labeled as to species, packaging, country of origin etc. Conflating the two issues does not lead to any reasonable course of action.
Here are some of the comments that caught our eye:
Patrick McGuiness, Fisheries Council of Canada:
"We understand that the March 2014 report in the Marine Policy journal: "Estimates of Illegal and Underreported Fish and Seafood Imports in the USA"; which estimates that illegal and unrepo1ted catches represented 20-32% by weight of wild-caught seafood apparently has bought IUU fishing to the forefront in the US Administration. The report was mainly based on 42 interviews of which 32 are classified as confidential -hardly a platform for government to impose controversial and market access restrictions.
Our discussions with people in the US seafood marketplace and US government officials would lead us to say that the figures in the report are extreme. "
Regarding Seafood Fraud, McGuiness said "In our opinion, species substitution is mainly a restaurant/food service issue related to their being hostage to their menus and challenged by the variability of the supplies of popular wild species (grouper, white flesh species -cod, haddock, sockeye salmon, etc.). In 2013 in the Boston area there was a significant species substitution expose. However, a follow-up investigation indicated that the invoices provided by the seafood distributor to the restaurant/food service operator were mostly correct regarding the identification of the species provided to the restaurant/food service operators identified in the report."
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director of the At Sea Processors Association, also cautioned about overestimating the extent of IUU seafood entering the US.
"While the Alaska crab industry makes a strong case that IUU Russian crab is present in large volumes in the U.S. market, general estimates by others about IUU seafood being prevalent in the U.S. market seem unsupported. Most U.S. consumption is accounted for by the ten species identified by NOAA Fisheries in its annual report of per capita seafood consumption. At least half of the listed species are largely produced in aquaculture operations, which by definition are excluded from IUU consideration. It isn’t clear which other species could be sold in large volumes in the U.S. with IUU catches."
" As with Russian crab, there have been numerous media reports over the years of IUU fishing for Russian pollock, which accounts for half of the pollock consumed in the U.S. As with Russian crab in the U.S. market, IUU fishing of Russian pollock could disadvantage U.S. Alaska pollock producers— domestically and in our international sales. One recommendation of APA is that NOAA Fisheries conduct a market analysis to identify to what extent there is significant IUU Russian crab and pollock catches and, if so, whether such products are being exported to the U.S. While there isn’t evidence to support the contention of large scale IUU fish across various species being marketed in the U.S., the federal government can better investigate media reports regarding fisheries where allegations are more specific."
Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association:
"Separate the issues of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Fraud can occur regardless of the provenance of the seafood product in question. If a fish is landed as a result of IUU fishing, it can then proceed through the same market channels as a legally landed fish, complying at every step with rules governing health and safety, weights and measures, and proper labeling. IUU fishing needs to be addressed at the source before the illegal fish enters the market system. On the other hand, fraud can occur with any fish, legal or illegal."
"Seafood Fraud" is a broad term and needs to be better categorized, with appropriate measures used to address each category. For example, fraud can constitute deliberately misleading package weights or volumes due to the addition of water or ice; concealing the true country of origin of a seafood product; or not reporting the addition of chemicals to the product.
This is different than mislabeling, which itself can be a knowing act (e.g. deliberately substituting a cheaper fish for a more expensive one) or an uneducated mistake (e.g. using a colloquial name instead of an accepted common market name provided by the FDA Seafood List).
It is important that the Task Force determine what the problem is and where (i.e. at what level in the seafood market system) the problem is occurring and concentrate resources in that direction. Further, rather than relying on headline-driven reports compiled by activist organizations, the Task Force should examine the data and determine how widespread, deliberate, and damaging seafood fraud really is.
Comments can be made and read at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/taskforce.html. Follow the link to Regulations.gov.
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.