Opinion

GLOUCESTER, Mass. — October 2, 2012 — After sitting more than six months on a second, in-depth probe report from special investigator Charles B. Swartwood III, the word that Acting Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank has asked her staff “to gather more information regarding issues” spotlighted in Swartwood’s report on 66 cases of alleged abuse by NOAA enforcement personnel against the commercial fishing industry at least shows some long-overdue movement.

Yet, it’s also troubling to learn that Blank expects to “use that information to finalize her decision memorandum,” as Blank’s press secretary, Marni Goldberg, reported in an email to the Times last week.

While Blank may indeed be “completing her analysis” of the second Swartwood report, as Goldberg also noted, federal lawmakers, fishermen, industry activists and indeed taxpayers at large shouldn’t have to wait for an analysis by the acting head of the department whose employees are at the center of the investigation. And if any of this “more information” is coming from further interviews with NOAA’s or Commerce’s own agents, Blank shouldn’t even bother.

U.S. Sen John Kerry, who remains the only member of the state’s federal legislative delegation not to call for Lubchenco’s ouster, says that, while “it’s important that the report be released at the earliest date possible, it’s just as important that it be comprehensive,” according to Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth. Yet, given his findings the first time around — findings that led to a 2011 Cabinet-level apology to fishermen, and the payment of some $650,000 in reparations to fishermen whose fines were found to be excessive and wrongly-motivated — there’s no reason to think that Swartwood’s new, 554-page report is anything but thorough.

Blank may well want to contribute her “analysis,” and is welcome to bolster or refute any of the charges and findings expected in Swartwood’s report. But federal lawmakers — including Kerry, whose brother, Cameron Kerry, works as the Commerce Department’s general counsel — should not allow Blank and other officials to respond or especially alter Swartwood’s initial findings before they are released.

That’s called doctoring. And the doctoring of federal investigative documents can and should be seen as obstructing justice – the kind of obstructing that cries out for a fully independent federal prosecutor these cases have needed for far too long.

 

Read the full story in the Gloucester Times 

 

 

October 3, 2012 — Tuna, like other ocean fish, is a nutrition powerhouse. A single serving packs lean protein and omega-3s, both essential for normal development, into less than 150 calories. And as an added bonus, tuna is convenient, widely available, and affordable. Is there really a trend toward tiny tuna lovers and, if so, does this warrant concern or accolades?

The Mercury Policy Project report is not a peer-reviewed study or review of studies, so its claims require a closer look.

Claim #1: "Canned tuna is the largest source of methylmercury in the US diet, contributing 32 percent of the total, and is a major source of mercury for children."

A closer look: For this claim to be meaningful, the amount of mercury in kids' diets would need to be concerning. Or at least close to concerning. Or at least measurable. The latest scientific data shows that, among children, the "average blood mercury levels for 2005-2008 were not reported because the proportion of results below the limit of detection was too high to provide a valid result." So, not only is the level of mercury in kids' diets not problematic, it's not detectable.

Claim #2: "Canned tuna is served in many school lunch programs."

A closer look: The list of United States Department of Agriculture foods available to schools includes over 40 beef, chicken, pork, and turkey options, but only two kinds of fish, catfish and Alaskan pollock. Foods on this list account for about 15-20 percent of foods served with school lunch. Among the remainder of offerings, tuna is not a very common option, according to the School Nutrition Association. Their 2012 Back to School Trends Report asked about the most popular lunch and breakfast choices in schools and tuna was not on the list.

So what is the entire Mercury Policy Project report about too much tuna in school lunches based on? The lead author, Ned Groth, was interviewed by Food Chemical News, which reported:

"Additionally, there are some questions to be asked about the report. Groth admits his organization didn't conduct a survey to find out how commonly tuna is served in schools, adding that he's heard 'anecdotal' references to the frequency of tuna served in lunches of a friend's grandson in New Jersey."

Claim #3: "Children should not eat albacore tuna."

A closer look: Essentially all seafood contains traces of mercury and has since the beginning of time. Though Mercury Policy Project's report is called "Tuna Surprise," the average mercury levels found were expected. Chunk light tuna, light skipjack tuna, and albacore tuna all contained average mercury levels at least 40 percent lower than the Food and Drug Administration level of concern of 1.0 parts per million; 0.125, 0.058 and 0.560 parts per million, respectively. Based on this isolated component of tuna alone, it is safe. However, tuna is more than a mercury delivery vehicle.

There was little to no consideration in the report for the other 999,999.44 or more parts per million of the fish – lean protein, omega-3s, selenium, etc. Of the three types of tuna looked at, albacore tuna is the richest source of omega-3s. Stripping it from kids' diets means stripping out those brain-building healthful fats too.

The bottom line: There is nothing to suggest kids are eating too much tuna or fish of any kind, and in fact the science shows they aren't eating enough. While we know the average level of mercury in kids' diets is not detectable, 90 percent of children do not meet the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics suggested intake for fish-based omega-3s. The Mercury Policy Project report not only solves a problem that doesn't exist; by scaring people away from a relatively popular type of fish, tuna, this report may unfortunately contribute to the real risk, seafood- and omega-3-deficient diets.

 

Read the full story on Medical News Today

 

 

September 28, 2012 — New England fishermen need disaster relief, and that relief needs to focus on the long-term prospects for the families and communities that depend on fish for their livelihood. 

But disaster relief needs to recognize that preserving the fishery is about more than jobs or even a traditional way of life. It is also about preserving a crucial, healthy food source for all of us.

The $100 million the federal government is considering for the industry would go a long way for research on fish stocks, to determine root causes of declines, to identify plentiful fish stocks that can replace more scarce fish, and for investments in better gear and monitoring to create a more selective fishery.

 

Read the full story in the Boston Globe

 

 

September 30, 2012 — New Bedford is a fishing port like no other.

Earlier this month, we were named the nation's highest grossing fishing port for the 12th year in a row, and no other port in the country can match our authenticity and history. New Bedford is the real deal.

But at few times in our history has our fishing industry been more threatened. Just a few weeks ago the federal government proposed fishing quotas for next season that would reduce the groundfish catch by 45 to 73 percent.

If implemented, these cuts would be ruinous for New Bedford. Annual groundfish landings in New Bedford are worth $20 million. The scallop industry, which could be severely undermined by groundfish reductions, is worth $400 million. Together the two fisheries account for nearly $1.3 billion in annual economic activity in Greater New Bedford.

Given these numbers, the forecasted cuts would deal a devastating economic blow to New Bedford, permanently eliminating hundreds, if not thousands of jobs on shore and at sea. The cuts would trigger severe social dislocation, with fishing families losing their income streams, homes and identities.

The forecasted cuts and their consequences would be painful enough for New Bedford if the underlying science was beyond debate, but they are unacceptable in light of the growing lack of confidence in the stock assessments, both among fishermen and scientists.

Fishermen have repeatedly told the federal government, thus far to little avail, that the underlying surveys are conducted with the wrong types of vessels and gear and are therefore inaccurate. In addition, over the summer scientists raised serious questions about the model used for the Georges Bank yellowtail flounder stock assessment. Months earlier, the 2011 Gulf of Maine cod assessment, which showed a dramatic negative change from the 2008 assessment, was called into question.

And when the 2011 Groundfish Stock Assessment Updates were conducted, significant unexplained discrepancies (19 to 67 percent deviations) in the estimate of stock biomass were noted for seven stocks. The economic and social stakes for New Bedford are too high to permit severe cuts based on uncertain science.

We must work hard on two other fronts to ensure that fishermen can keep fishing.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

HARTFORD, Conn. — September 28, 2012 — The fleet's future is at stake following a decision by the federal Commerce Department to declare a fisheries disaster in New England waters. The declaration raises the hope Congress will overhaul the nation's nearly 40-year-old program to build sustainable fisheries through sound management practices.

It's been a long time since fishermen lived along Water Street in the village of Stonington in southeastern Connecticut. The Stonington Dock and the Roman Catholic bishop's annual blessing of the fleet are among the few reminders to outsiders that a commercial fishing fleet still operates in the port, more conspicuous for its yachts.

The fleet's future is at stake following a decision by the federal Commerce Department to declare a fisheries disaster in New England waters. The declaration raises the hope Congress will overhaul the nation's nearly 40-year-old program to build sustainable fisheries through sound management practices.

The Commerce Department issued the finding based on dire projections in the stocks of several species of groundfish. The species make up a small part of business for this state's commercial fishermen. They have more urgent worries: rising water temperatures (temperatures in Long Island Sound rose so high this summer that Dominion Power Co. had to shut down one of its nuclear plants), unusually low levels of dissolved oxygen in the western end of the Sound and a vanishing lobster population.

Looming over all is the fear that climate change is disrupting the ecology of Long Island Sound, threatening familiar species and inviting in strangers. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy underscored this possibility when he joined other governors from the Northeast this summer in calling for the disaster declaration.

The next step is for Congress to come up with money. Some of it will be for disaster relief, mitigating the financial hardships to fishermen from steep reductions in fishing quotas. But just as important, the government needs devote funds to scrutinizing its approach to managing American fisheries, which fishermen argue is needlessly driving them out of business with nothing to show for it.

This can be the opportunity the Stonington fishermen have been looking for to avoid being squeezed out entirely from the picturesque fishing village they created.

 

Read the full story in the Hartford Courant

 

 

September 28, 2012 — How is it that the Northeast Seafood Coalition, with far fewer resources and access to data, devised an acceptable alternative that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grudgingly accepted with less than 96 hours to go before the closure went into effect?

This last-minute reprieve, although gratefully welcomed, left the new kid on the block with egg on his face largely due to the agenda-driven, purposeful ineptitude of some of his key so-called “expert” scientists and bean counters. If I were he, I would be furious at this betrayal, which initially made him look like Barney Fife. To his credit, he had the guts to take matters into his own hands, despite the treachery from within his own ranks, and get to the truth, thereby saving almost 100 families from the unemployment lines and 40 small businesses from insolvency.

 

Read the full letter at the Gloucester Times

 

 

September 27, 2012 — The tradition of fishing in Massachusetts means food on the table, gas in the car and clothes on the backs of the families that rely on the jobs it supports. We have much more work ahead now to keep it that way.

This month, Massachusetts marked a breakthrough: After meetings and meetings, telephone calls and letters, we secured a disaster declaration for New England's fisheries.

It took persistence, and it took teamwork.

Where do we go from here?

Fisheries and fishing communities in Massachusetts are hurting. The families relying on the more than 77,000 jobs the fishing industry supports are struggling, and we are seeing too many small boat fishermen disappear from our shores.

Now, help is on the horizon. The hard-fought disaster declaration was a necessary step on the path to financial assistance and relief for our fishermen.

The disaster declaration is a big deal and gives fishing communities reason to be encouraged, but there's more to be done. That's why I'm working with Sen. Harry Reid and members of the Northeast Congressional delegations to obtain $100 million in economic disaster assistance for those who will be directly affected by the declines in groundfish stocks.

But this kind of assistance only goes so far in addressing the problem. It's not enough to treat the symptoms, we must also get to the root of the problem. I have been working to develop a candid and constructive exchange with the Obama administration about what needs to be done to make sure our state's fishermen stay in business and prosper both in the short and long terms. Federal regulators must take into account the impact of their policies on independent fishermen and local economies, but at the same time we must continue the effort to build a sustainable fishery in Massachusetts so future generations can continue the tradition of fishing for a living.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

September 26, 2012 — When a consumer buys a 1.5-pound bag of a fish at the supermarket, it’s only reasonable to expect that it contains a pound and a half of fish. Yet as the Globe reported Sunday, some companies that supply frozen fish are coating their products with so much ice that shoppers end up with much less fish than they pay for. But the problem is fixable.

State and federal regulators who enforce labeling requirements shouldn’t allow as much variation between packages, and should crack down on repeat violators.

The Globe found that about 1 in 5 samples of ice-glazed fish from local supermarkets yielded less fish than what the label specified. That was somewhat better than statistics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which says it finds economic fraud in at least 40 percent of seafood products voluntarily submitted for testing.

Overglazing may indeed be, as some fish suppliers suggest, a common issue in the industry, yet the Globe’s tests indicate some companies have more problems than others. Two-thirds of samples of frozen fish from Henry Gonsalves Co. of Smithfield, R.I., were under the stated weight. Eastern Fisheries of New Bedford, the world’s largest processor of scallops, supplied Walmart with packages labeled 16 ounces, but that contained only 13 ounces of the shellfish. Scallops are normally 75 percent water when fished. But at Walmart, they were 91 percent water.

If these were just one-time mistakes, they would be more understandable. But in 2010, Eastern Fisheries was fined $14,000 for distributing underweight sole in Wisconsin, and Gonsalves was fined $3,870 for having too much ice glaze on products in Connecticut. These issues are all the more striking because the Globe found that another supplier, High Liner Foods USA of Danvers, accurately labeled the weight of fish. If it can do so, there is no excuse for others.

 

Read the full story at the Boston Globe (subscription required)

 

 

September 26, 2012 — In Britain, as is the case here, fisheries scientists have their hands full trying to tell what the ocean warming is causing. Here, yellowtail flounder may be migrating away from warm spots during the winter, which may be why NOAA can't seem to find them. Shellfish may be in decline because of acidity caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels. It goes on and on, and scapegoating the fishermen is not going to put Mother Nature into reverse.

"The Shocking News About Cod" was the breathless editorial page headline in The New York Times on Monday.

What was the news?

In the North Sea, cod stocks are so depleted that there were only 600 12-to-13-year-old cod caught during all of last year, and not one over 13. No more than 100 mature cod are thought to be left in the North Sea. Truly shocking, no?

And since older fish are the biggest producer of eggs, the whole fishery is circling the drain, goes the tale. Proposed shallow cutbacks might not be enough to rescue the fishery but instead would merely protect the greedy fishermen.

This sure sounds familiar to anyone dealing with the New England fishery, but is it on the mark? Was the London Sunday Times, where this story originated, on the money?

Well, as it happens, no.

Great Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wasted no time in calling the story a "myth."

"This is completely wrong," the department said in a "Myth Bust" that's a lot harder to find online than the "100 cod left" story.

"In fact, we know there to be around 21 million mature cod in the North Sea." It went on to explain that cod start to mature at around 1 year and are fully mature at age 6. That's mature as in able to reproduce.

"There are a small number of cod over the age of 12 years old, which has always been the case in the North Sea even when fished at lower levels in the 1950s and 1960s.

Cod older than 15 have rarely been recorded in the North Sea," said the department.

What an inconvenient fact. Britain's fishing industry group, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, shot back that for the past six years, cod biomass has been increasing steadily and is on its way back to health, and the paper knows it. The group accused the Times of waging a calculated and misleading attack on the fishing industry rather than telling the less eye-grabbing straight story.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

September 25, 2012 — The international rules and quotas governing cod-fishing are complex and intended to help both cod and the industrial cod fishery survive. But no species can rebound when it has been stripped of its most fertile members.

The ideal fish for human consumption would mature quickly and reproduce in staggering numbers. This does not describe the Atlantic cod. Cod mature late — at 4 to 6 years old — and they can live as long as 25 years. Female cod do, in fact, produce astonishing numbers of eggs. But older cod lay two or three times as many eggs as younger cod. This means that a healthy cod population must include relatively large numbers of older fish.

A recent survey of cod catches in Northern Europe shows exactly the opposite. Extrapolating from survey numbers, scientists at a British government fisheries agency estimate that there are nearly 200 million 1-year-old cod in the North Sea but only 18 million 3-year-olds. As for older cod, the numbers are shocking. The survey team estimates that in 2011 there were only 600 12- to 13-year-old cod, a third of which were caught, and not a single fish older than 13 has been caught in the past year.

Most of the cod being caught are sexually immature, and the rest are just entering maturity. As for the great flood of eggs from older fish — as many as nine million in a single spawning — they have vanished. In other words, we have fished our way down the population until we’ve reached the boundary of reproduction.

That cod are in trouble will come as old news to New England, where the cod population essentially crashed years ago. Despite conservation efforts, and periodic reports of a comeback, New England cod populations are thought to be far below the number required for a sustainable fishery. Earlier this month, the Commerce Department issued a formal disaster declaration for the entire Northeastern commercial groundfish fishery, which includes cod.

 

Read the full editorial at the New York Times