October 31, 2019 — According to a study released in 2012 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, between 3.9 and 4.5 billion people get all or most of their protein sustenance from wild caught seafood. The Commerce Department reports that, despite having one of the largest exclusive fishing zones in the world, the United States imports more than 90% of its seafood.
These two facts should concern the American public and our presidential candidates, yet fishery policy is seldom if ever mentioned on the campaign trail. Every candidate has an agricultural policy, just look at the traffic jam of candidates at Iowa state fairs. Fishermen and farmers contribute over $230 million to the state’s economy annually. However, ask a candidate about the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act and you will likely get a blank stare.
All candidates have national security policies and food security is inextricably linked to national security. A country that is self-sufficient in fishing and farming is also secure. Long supply chains, often involving countries that do not necessarily have the United States best interests at heart, is inherently risky. So why has this issue not been addressed in the most recent iteration of Magnuson?