The Winding Glass

Will Southern States test domestic catfish for melamine

I am curious whether the agricultural commissioners in Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana will test domestic catfish for melamine.

It is a prohibited additive that is not allowed in food by the FDA, but it is not dangerous to human health, and there is no chance, according to scientists, that someone eating catfish with this substance could have an adverse reaction.

It seems that melamine is no different than Fluoroquinolones in this regard, except that in this case, the melamine binders used for fish pellets were manufactured in the U.S.

Somehow, I doubt the states will do any testing. If asked, they would probably say that the FDA is taking sufficient action, and no action on the state level is required.

Comparing the grandstanding to test fish based on Fluoroquinolones with the silence that is greeting testing for Melamine says what we are really interested in is trade barriers. Now that the enemy is within our gates, the last thing in the world that state health officials may want to do is call down any suspicion on domestic catfish.

Why, if I remember correctly, after Vietnamese catfish won a taste test panel at the University of Mississippi, the professor doing the test was almost fired, and the legislature almost cut (or did cut) funds for the program.

Unfortunately, the highly publicized tests for FQ's by the southern states probably did a lot to amplify the attention to the connection between melamine and domestic fish feed; and has undoubtedly led some customers to conclude that farmed fish are not safe. Thanks.

Industrialization can hurt the seafood industry

I wanted to add some more thoughts to the editorial comment Friday on a Tough Week for the Seafood Industry.

I am currently reading Michael Polin's book, the Omnivore's Dilemma, in which he talks about corn. Basically, Americans now get virtually all their body mass from corn and petroleum. The reason is that corn is the principal cattle feed; it is the second highest ingredient in coca cola, it is the oil often used for frying; it is added to most processed foods in one form or another. The petroleum part comes in because it takes about half a gallon of gasoline to produce a bushel of corn, due to fertilizer etc.

Cattle are not even able to eat corn in a natural environment. It bloats their digestive system, and they suffocate. It is only thru continuous use of medicine and antibiotics that cattle can survive 6 to 12 months on a feed lot.

I think growing consumer knowledge of the fraud that is corn-fed beef is one of the reasons meat consumption is stagnant or falling. More and more people consider the way meat is produced to be unhealthy, and they stay away from it.

IN the seafood industry, we have seen the rapid proliferation of industrial processing in the last twenty years. Prior to that, very little industrial scale processing was done for seafood.

By industrial processing, I mean treating the product in some way so as to change or enhance its natural characteristics in a way that is profitable. Examples are soaking shrimp or scallops with STP beyond the minimal amounts that provide freezing benefits. Or treating tilapia with CO (carbon monoxide) so a fillet that is seven or eight days old looks the same as one that is 24 hours old. CO is also widely used in treating tuna. However it is banned in Europe, Japan, and Canada.

Another example is water or brine injection. Most retail salmon fillets are injected with a solution. Costco uses a 4% spec, I believe. Other fish fillet sellers also use injection. The result is to provide a 5% to 10% increase in the net weight of the fillet which is nothing more than water.

All of these processes lower the per lb. cost of the actual product. But now we are running up against the limits of adulteration; so outright net weight cheating has become rampant. No longer are we content to sell pumped up shrimp, now we sell 4.4 lbs. of shrimp in a 5 lb. box, as we do for squid, catfish, many other products.

Where does this end. The three primary attributes of seafood in the consumers mind are fresh, natural, and healthy. Our industrial processes are undermining all of these attributes.

In the U.S., we can have some faith in the level of process control so that abuses that threaten health and quality will not be tolerated. We have less faith that is true on the edges of competition in China.

There is a food revolution going on-- as evidenced by the growth of natural, organic, and "certified" products. It is shown in the steady decline of market share of traditional supermarkets, and the loss for many packaged goods.

Seafood could benefit tremendously from our products natural attributes: wild, healthy, minimally processed. But we are in danger of squandering our birthright.

In this fight, local fishing communities are key allies that will help us position seafood as a positive food choice. Rampant industrialization that destroyes local communities, and adulterates our products, may provide a short term financial fix, but at the long term cost of destroying the value of our industry.

Capelin and Crab

Reports continue that Japanese contracts for Canadian crab are about to be signed -- that parties are very close, and there are some indications that the Japanese may end up paying more for crab than they initially projected.

If so, the reason is likely to be capelin. Fish markets move in mysterious ways, and this year the Icelandic capelin fishery was poor, resulting in a shortage of capelin roe in Japan. The same trading houses that are short capelin roe are also negotiating with Newfoundland packers over crab --- these same packers who will have capelin shortly. Any linkage between the two will be to the advantage of the Newfoundland packers.

Projections are for strong and robust capelin prices this year, based on the supply situation. This could be a factor keeping the crab prices high as well. Of course- other factors include the strong sales of crab in Japane last year, and the fact that Chinese plants need inventory.

Ecolabels and Food Safety

I am attending a meeting in Montreal this week on ecolabeling in Canada, along with representatives from the MSC, Wal-Mart, and some industry people. The conference is being organized by the DFO to look at the future of ecolabels in Canada.

The Canadian cold water shrimp fishery is the largest Canadian fishery to seek an MSC label, which should help market the product in the major markets like the UK and Germany / Scandinavia.

But in preparing for the conference, I have been struck by how much the landscape has changed since 1997 when the MSC was founded. At that time, there was still a lot of industry resistance to overfishing, and the idea of using consumer pressure to help conserve stocks seemed necessary.

Today, especially in IFQ or cooperative fisheries, the issue of overfishing is moot as they are increasingly well managed, and there is no incentive in the system for overexploitation.

The new threat to the customer trust and the supply chain reliability, which initially drove many retailers to embrace the MSC, now focuses on food safety and traceability. My question at this conference is whether retailers now see ecolabels as part of a broader attempt to ensure traceability and food safety, and if so, does this change their approach: i.e. they can use many different types of certifications, so long as they are credible.

The second issue is that food safety is a governmental responsibility. Does this mean that we will see an evolution to a government certified ecolabel, similar to a "usda organic" label, for example.

NFI Grows Up

NFI has undergone a change that I feel more people in the industry need to take notice of. The National Fisheries Institute has been the primary trade organization of the seafood industry for nearly 60 years-- but it has gone through several life stages.

Initially, the seafood industry was kind of a club, or family -- dysfunctional at times - but it was a place where all the largest players knew each other intimately -- and fought during the day for customers or suppliers, but then drank with each other at night.

Then, as the industry grew, NFI became a vital trading and networking opportunity. At the convention, many buyers and suppliers would make deals for the year. in 1982, the NFI convention in Hawaii had over 1800 people registered -- and they were all doing deals in the halls and their rooms.

The growth of seafood trade shows put an end to that, and NFI did not see soon enough that it had to control the show business in its industry to survive. That result is history -- NFI is a small adjunct to the major Boston Seafood Show run by diversified, and the West Coast seafood show, at one time run in conjunction with the NFI fall convention, is now defunct. NFI faced declining membership, and many questioned its relevence. One of the biggest problems was that in representing the entire seafood industry it was often paralized between competing interests of domestic vs. importers, or of branded companies vs. those who wanted more generic seafood marketing. As a result, the association provided members with specific services, but was seen as one of many competing seafood interests in Washington.

About 4 years ago the board brought in new leadership, by hiring John Connolly. I have been very impressed. John is a Irish tough guy from South Boston - as honest as the day is long and as Irish as they come. He's proud of his military career in the Navy, and he is willing to take a stand.

His first stand was to tell the board what it cost to run NFI the way they needed, and that the organization would focus on those companies that would pay the dues necessary. The change in dues structure meant many companies that had been paying $5000 to $15,000 for membership were faced with paying $15,000 to $40,000 or more, depending on the size of the company. Many dropped out.

But a funny thing happened. NFI began to focus on specific issues -- and was no longer trying to be all things to all people. It focused on Economic integrity-- to start to take a stand against the tide of illegal activity that has become widespread in the industry in terms of false species declarations, transhipment, false weights. This has led some large buyers to join. NFI also focused on media opportunities-- not with advertising, but with targeted responses to major media on every seafood story. Their press operation improved. They also focused their website on consumer issues, making aboutseafod.com a credible information source.

At the board meeting last week, I saw an organization focused on the real threats facing the industry: safety, the role of the FDA, the need for protecting the integrity of seafood. Also I saw a trade association that has been recognized by NOAA, the FDA, and the Secretary of Commerce as a serious partner -- and the one to go to when needed to support a bill, or get something done.

When a crisis hits the industry, such as the seizure in Southern states of chinese catfish that meets FDA standards, but is a convenient political target, NFI is coordinating the industry's response. We should all ask ourselves if Washington began to push for a seafood import ban from China- who would we turn to.

We have environmental and conservation organizations spending hundreds of millions of dollars to define good and bad seafood in the eyes of the politicians, and of the consumer. We have NFI with just 1% to 2% of their budget, trying to define seafood as legal, safe, healthy and good to eat. We are in danger of losing this battle of perception because we simply don't step up to the table to play seriously.

There are many companies in the seafood industry today benefiting from a free ride. It's time to take a second look at NFI, and realize that if we are to protect our "brand" we need to pay for a Washington presence and a serious organization to make our case.

Copper River: We goofed

We got some numbers wrong on the Copper River opening, and just wanted to set the record straight.  In our initial story, filed prior to the season opening, Laine Welch reported that "Mangers predict a first catch of about 52,000 sockeye salmon and 8,000 kings"--  Unfortunately, that made it into our news summary on Tuesday, a few hours after the opening, as a statement that catches were 52,000 sockeye and 8,000 kings.

Some people here at the NFI meeting in Florida told me that a number of people were out looking for Copper River salmon to buy on Tuesday, partly based on our reports of volumes, and they couldn't find any.

On Wednesday, we corrected the numbers to the actuals: 
• 1,384 kings
• 21,274 reds

We got a couple of emails pointing out our mistakes, and wanted to acknowledge them.  It's always dangerous to take salmon predictions at face value, and we should have been more careful to label them as such. 

Also, it appears that most of the first 32,000 lbs. of fish that landed in Seattle to much fanfare belonged to Ocean Beauty-- so others looking for it were out of luck.  Finally, Alaska airlines, which had a lot of flights standing by, did not make nearly the number of runs they initially said they would, as the fishery was slower than expected.

There is another opening today, and the number of kings will presumeably increase.  No predictions, though.

WASI Brand hit by hypocrisy

When you try and promote a brand, any actions that contradict the very thing the brand is known for can cause your reputation to blow up in your face.

We have long advocated for Wild American Shrimp (WASI) to release the standards by which they certify product. They have not made these standards public. As a result, their certification simply does not have the same credibility as an MSC or BAP or other certification.

In the absence of standards, the primary message of the brand is “Buy American Wild Shrimp”. This is a worthy goal, and the idea of promoting a quality wild domestic shrimp has attracted a lot of support. There is federal money available, and the eight southern shrimp producing states all have marketing boards that have signed on and support the program.

So the idea that WASI would certify domestic shrimp sent for processing in Mexico is a red flag—because it muddies out the message of buy American. This has been the subject of several letters yesterday and today.

Many of us in the seafood industry recognize the need to have an international seafood industry, and have no problem with open borders, in which shrimp caught in Texas, for example, is processed in Mexico, or salmon caught in BC is processed in Washington. But WASI has taken a very public stand that imported shrimp is not to be trusted, that they are full of antibiotics, that they are produced in areas that have no controls similar to the U.S. So the fact that when asked, likely by a major customer, that hey turn around and certify something processed in Mexico is a perfect example of hypocrisy.

The state marketing boards that support WASI are all dependent on political support. If their legislators and public think they are supporting shrimp processed in Mexico, that support will evaporate.

WASI needs to be more open and transparent, and say what they stand for. They cannot bash imports on the one hand, and then certify imports as “Wild American” on the other.

Corruption and the Alaska Fishing Industry

We have had some angry emails from people involved in the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board following our publication of an article last week (Sen. Stevens no longer backing funds for Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board from a Congressional newspaper called Roll Call, which implied somehow that there was a link between the activities of the marketing board and the current FBI investigation into Ben Stevens.

It's true that the reporter mentioned both facts (i.e. cut in earmarks, and the investigation) but other than by innuendo, he did not tie the two together.

I am a big supporter of the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, and have long credited them and ASMI with changing the public perception of wild salmon from Alaska, and helping to create a new type of market demand for wild salmon.

This is a totally appropriate use of federal and state funds, and I would like to see it continued. Naturally, such an endeavor will involve all the largest salmon marketing companies in the state, who also put up their own money for these promotion campaigns.

But there is a stink of corrupution coming out of Ben Stevens' legislative career, and in some areas it involves the fishing industry.

In my view, the worst example is Stevens' secret option to control 25% of Adak fisheries (see our article from 2005) at a time when a special pollock allocation was being legislated. Ben's father Sen. Ted Stevens adamantly denies any corruption, and I beleive him. But there is a red flag, and that is when any politician has ownership interests in a fisheries corporation.

This is the hubris which has brought down Ben Stevens. No matter what type of campaign contributions or consulting fees are paid-- the idea that a politician with significant oversight responsibility for an industry could also own a major share of a company within that industry is corrupt, regardless of intent.

No matter what else is proved, the fact that Ben Stevens would even consider an arrangement where he personally took ownership of a fishing company that would benefit from political legislation in Alaska or Washington smells "fishy", and he never should have agreed to it. The fact he did indicates such poor judgment that i think there will be some actual charges that stick against him, in the other corrupiotn investigations currently being done by the FBI.

This does not mean I think someone who owns a vessel should never serve in the Alaska legislature-- its just that they need to exercise real judgement when there is a conflict, and Ben Stevens did not exercise this judgment.

The end result is to tarnish the good work of the Alaskan Fish Marketing Board.

Editorial sparks comments on cheating examples

Our editorial yesterday on how the Melamine scam was the tip of the iceberg in terms of cheating brought a lot of comments and phone calls.

A number of people had examples of what we are talking about -- not just from the Chinese. Here are some of the comments:

I have been in plants and witnessed the soaking of shrimp with Tri-poly then followed the shrimp to packaging. Label stated shrimp and salt. When I asked why Tri-Poly was not labeled I was told the buyer did not want it on. For the most part these buyers are importers

And

We certainly can point fingers at what is going on in China and other parts of the world, but we must realize that the majority of abuse on seafood is being perpetrated by our domestic packers as well.

Before we start pointing fingers at foreign packer we should start to clean our own house first. Where is the policing of our own domestic packers. 25% water added product on scallops is a joke. Most if not all scallop packers in New Bedford are adding significantly more water than the 25%. With no one watching or enforcing the abuse is rampant.

And

we are selling, Cod, Squid, Salmon and a variety of other items where we directly compete against foreign produced and processed products. The species substitutions, short weights, water added and over glazing are killing us.

It is time that the enforcement agencies of this country actually enforce the law. It is also time that the food service distributors stop forcing the legitimate sellers to compete at the levels that the illegitimate sellers are at in price with their substandard products.

And

I'll give you an example with Dover Sole. We have always been 100% net weight, but with the recent run-up in the price due to the Euro, we have found it tougher and tougher to compete with people who sell 90% or 80% or less net weight.

And

I had a scallop supplier who all of a sudden started putting 4 1/2 pounds in a 5 lb. bag. When I complained, he said "I'm doing you a favor. All my other customers are getting 4 lbs., or even 3 1/2 lbs. and I'll give it to them if that's what they want.

The NFI economic integrity initiative may not be perfect -- but it is a good place to start. Many of those holding back say it won't work because it is voluntary, and there is no real enforcement mechanism. But I think the problems are so widespread, and the consequences for the health of the seafood industry so serious, that we have to start somewhere, and in this regard, NFI and John Connolly have stepped forward as leaders. It is time for much of the rest of the industry to join in.

Wild Fish also implicated in Melamine contamination

Many wild fish advocates are quick to point to the melamine fish feed contamination as more evidence of the unreliability of farmed fish. But in our news, we report that the melamine laced feed went to hatcheries in both Oregon and Washington that raised chinook salmon-- and that these smolts were fed the contaminated feed.

The point here is not to trash hatchery fish -- which are considered "wild". But to say that the overall problem is bigger than wild vs. farmed. The issue of consumer trust and contamination applies to all seafood-- whether in relation to mercury in swordfish, tuna or halibut, or antibiotics and chemicals in farmed catfish and salmon.

We gain nothing by pointing fingers. We will have an editorial later today on the whole situaiton -- but food safety and economic integrity need to apply across the entire seafood industry - not just to one sector.