This article ran in Urner Barry’s Reporter Magazine.

Seafood is arguably the healthiest animal protein on the planet. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) encourage people to eat two-to-three servings of seafood each week for numerous health benefits throughout the lifespan, including brain development in babies and strong bones and muscle maintenance in older adults. 

The DGA are an important vehicle for nutrition policy —they inform what’s in school lunches; Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food packages; and feeding programs for older adults.  Seafood has long been mentioned by the DGA as a healthy, lean protein and the 2010 DGA include the first specific guidance to eat two-to-three servings of seafood each week.  Since then, the seafood recommendations have become stronger and clearer.  The current 2020-2025 DGA encourage caregivers and healthcare professionals to introduce foods rich in omega-3s, like seafood, to babies beginning around the age of six months, rounding out recommendations for all parts of the life cycle. 

The latest DGA also emphasize that 94% of children and 80% of adults do not eat enough fish. The evolution of seafood in the DGA sees it move from a vaguely healthy choice to a powerful source of specific benefits from birth to old age.

While this shift in seafood’s place at the table has been monumental, there’s more the federal government can do to help turn nutrition advice into actual changes in the way Americans eat.   

Clear Up Confusing and Complex Seafood Advice

As the White House plans to convene its Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health for the first time in more than 50 years it will be important to make sure future seafood advice is clear, concise and science-based.  Consumers, policymakers and even many doctors are still confused about the benefits of seafood, particularly during pregnancy.  

The science is crystal clear – seafood, including traces of mercury alongside beneficial nutrients like omega-3s and selenium – provides brain development (and continued brain health) benefits.  Period.

The White House has the power to declare for once and for all what the Dietary Guidelines allude to:  The demonstrable health risk associated with eating seafood is not eating enough to reap the benefits.   

Focus on the Foods – like Fish – That Improve Public Health the Most  

The amount of health problems and potential interventions the White House could explore is overwhelming.  The science must inform the diseases with the greatest detriment to well-being and the most powerful dietary interventions.  For example, a Harvard School of Public Health study estimates that low seafood intake is responsible for about 84,000 American lives lost to heart disease each year, which makes seafood deficiency the second-biggest dietary contributor to preventable deaths in the U.S.  

Promote Affordable Accessible Seafood Options 

The 2020-2025 DGA emphasizes a need for affordable, healthy protein, “despite a common perception that eating healthfully is expensive, a healthy dietary pattern can be affordable and fit within budgetary constraints.” Frozen and canned seafood fill that need perfectly and pack a nutritious punch.

The Importance of Communicating the Benefits of Eating Seafood 

The medical and nutrition community, globally, agree; seafood is the healthiest animal protein on the planet, and maintaining access to safe healthy food, like seafood, will be imperative as we aim to feed a growing population.   

Seafood is a food to be encouraged and is not only needed for a new and aging population, but essential. It’s time for the federal government to effectively educate and communicate to Americans about seafood and the role it plays in their lifelong health and there is no bigger platform to serve these facts from than the White House’s own table. 

A recent study that suggested a link between fish consumption and melanoma has garnered quite a few headlines. The challenge is, many consumers (and even other journalists) don’t read past said headlines.  In this case, the hyperbolic proclamations are followed by densely packed text filled with high grade professionals essentially saying—whoooa there kiddo, that’s not quite what the study says.

The New York Times headline asked Can Your Diet Really Affect Your Skin Cancer Risk? And then answered the fish finding with these little gems:

• “…while the finding raises questions about possible links between diet and melanoma, the study’s lead author and other experts cautioned that it’s not a reason to avoid eating fish.”

• “I wouldn’t discourage people from having fish just because of our finding,” said Eunyoung Cho, an associate professor of dermatology at Brown University and the lead author of the study.

• “This does not change dietary recommendations for fish intake as part of a heart-healthy, anti-inflammatory or broad cancer prevention diet,” said Carrie Daniel-MacDougall, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

• Sancy Leachman, director of the Melanoma Research Program at Oregon Health & Science University, said the new study was well-designed and called the findings “intriguing.” But, she said, when “you crunch large data sets like this,” what you find are correlations between factors, not evidence that one causes another.

“It’s refreshing to see both the lead author of this study and the Times’ coverage resisting the urge to sensationalize,” said Jennifer McGuire, Registered Dietitian at the National Fisheries Institute. “This study changes nothing about longstanding common-sense nutrition advice and that’s made pretty clear.  What a rare but responsible thing to see public health being prioritized over click-bait.”

So, consider this a public service announce to please wear sunscreen and read past the headlines.

In this episode, Richard and Melaina take a look at how the seafood industry can navigate this ongoing inflationary time, how consumers are reacting, and what Megan Thee Stallion has to do with menu consolidation.

Find out what on earth that means in NFI’s new member’s only podcast. 

Episode 3

If there’s one thing NFI’s Richard Barry and Melaina Lewis know about Peeps, chocolate bunnies, and hip-hop feuds, it’s their impact on Lenten sales. 

Find out what on earth that means and what’s on the horizon for seafood during the Lenten season in NFI’s new member’s only podcast. 

Episode 1

Over the past two years, the seafood community has navigated an ever-evolving business landscape. With so much innovation, change, and disruption, NFI members need a way to keep up with what’s going on in the seafood industry.

That’s why NFI is launching SoFISHticated — a new podcast AND member resource. NFI’s Communication Director, Melaina Lewis, and Richard Barry, programs director, will break down the accelerated changes and opportunities brought by the pandemic, as well as, emerging trends and issues on the horizon for the seafood industry.  

However hectic your days maybe, have confidence that NFI is here to provide you with meaningful SoFISHticated takeaways on public policy and regulations to industry trends, consumer insights, and more.

The first episode launches next week for NFI members. Listen to the trailer below.

This article was originally published in Urner Barry’s Reporter Quarterly Magazine.

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) is the modern-day lawn dart. Envision it—excited, naive toymakers merge a distinctly indoor
game with outdoor fun on a grand scale. Enthusiastic elves whip themselves into a frenzy, and then the barely pressure-tested concept is sent to toy manufacturers to be readied for the holidays.

As it turns out, lawn darts don’t work that well. While they might be conceptually fun, they’re also very dangerous. And, ultimately, do more harm than good.

While you’re unlikely to be impaled by a flying Seafood Import Monitoring Program, expansion of the program could do more harm than good. It’s also a misdirected effort of federal programming, a compliance headache and a regulatory mess. SIMP was supposedly created as part of an effort to stop illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud, but the program falls short of its big, intended purpose.

NOAA Itself Says Simp Does Not Stop IUU

SIMP currently covers 13 species (such as shrimp, cod, tuna, mahi-mahi, and grouper) thought to be at risk of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. Keep in mind the majority of shrimp is farmed, making this effort to stop illegal fishing almost nonsensical. What’s more, it’s a misnomer to suggest the program only covers a handful of products because these 13 categories include more than 1,100 unique species.

In its own report, released May 21, 2021, NOAA clearly states, “SIMP does not prevent or stop IUU fish and fish products from entering the U.S.” In fact, NOAA highlights that the “violations” are largely clerical, “most of the issues that have been found relate to issues apparent from the documents themselves (e.g., vessel permit dates do not match harvest dates, documents are missing).”

While groups, like Oceana and WWF, along with various voices on Capitol Hill continue to push for the expansion of SIMP, NOAA itself emphasizes that the agency remains “focused on maintaining the risk-based nature of SIMP.”

Calls for expanding the program to all species undercut this very clear focus on risk. So why do we continue to see misguided legislation pushing to expand an already flawed federal program? Could it be that NGOs are unwitting pawns in a game designed to not stop IUU, but to place non-tariff barriers on imports? Your guess is as good as mine.

The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and six leading associations representing the nation’s commercial seafood supply chain that employs 1.25 million Americans stated in a letter to Congressional leaders, “In attempting to respond to the challenge of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (“IUU”) fishing, the bill imposes unworkable regulatory mandates on industry, raises the costs and risks for American fishermen to sell their catch in the United States, and exposes U.S. exporters to retaliation in overseas markets, all without addressing the existing program’s lack of demonstrated success in deterring illegally harvested products from reaching U.S. ports.”

Costing U.S. seafood jobs, in search of an ill-conceived plan likely designed to impede imported competition, would be the real legacy of expanding SIMP.

Laws That Continue to Create Supply Chain Burdens

In an unprecedented time, where port congestion and shortages in transportation are causing severe disruptions, we need real solutions. Not a misguided effort that creates significant cost and administrative burdens for the entire value chain, thus impacting U.S. jobs and raising prices for American consumers.

The seafood community estimates it has spent over $50 million on SIMP regulatory and paperwork compliance for just the 13 species covered by the program, a significant economic burden on an industry working hard to feed Americans.

An expansion of SIMP would cost hundreds of millions of dollars in annual expense and impose a complex regulatory burden on domestic harvesters of the additional items, without having an impact on IUU (because little to no U.S. fish is caught illegally).

SIMP Was Flawed From the Start

Though initially framed as an attempt to combat IUU fishing among non-U.S. fleets, the program continues to miss its mark. SIMP was prompted largely by a single study published in May 2014. Relying almost entirely on confidential interviews, that study made wild assertions about the extent of IUU-harvested products in the U.S. market. Using the same approach, two of the authors made similar allegations in a 2018 study about IUU products harvested in the U.S. and found in the Japanese market. This methodology was so flawed that the publishing journal retracted it.

The seafood industry strongly supports efforts to combat IUU fishing, which includes support for the many federal initiatives underway to ensure the U.S. is a strong leader in promoting sustainable fisheries management and identifying measures that can reduce the rate of IUU fishing activity globally.

The U.S. has strong laws in place to protect the rights of workers across all industries, credible reporting on instances of human rights abuses in parts of the global seafood supply chain reminds us that not every country prioritizes or enforces such protections. SIMP is not, and was not designed to be, a silver bullet against IUU; moreover, federal resources to devote to SIMP are finite.

The focus of U.S. policy must be on constructing a streamlined SIMP program that is more effective, more efficient, and more carefully targeted towards the highest-risk sources of IUU products. One way to do that might be to scrap it and start over. Sort of like what they did with lawn darts.

If you missed Greenpeace’s release of their 2021 tuna retailer “scorecard”, then you’re not alone. The group has tried countless times over the years to garner publicity by ranking retailers’ seafood sourcing policies according to their own arbitrary and shifting preferences, and each such effort has met with diminishing traction and declining media coverage. The latest iteration continues that trend, landing with more of a thud than a splash.  

As with previous “reports,” this one assigns arbitrary and unscientific scores according to a secret methodology that Greenpeace has never agreed to disclose. That lack of transparency should be a clue that the primary goal of this exercise is not positive, incremental change, but fundraising and self-promotion.  

The “scorecard” does nothing to educate buyers or assist in any meaningful sustainability efforts. There is serious work being done by responsible experts at the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), but Greenpeace has shown no interest in participating in that process, despite good-faith invitations to do so.  

The reality is that tuna retailers, and their suppliers, are now light years ahead of the activist group on sustainable sourcing and metrics, with more progress being made every day.  

But it’d be bad enough if Greenpeace’s scorecards were merely outmoded or irrelevant. Unfortunately, they’re also dangerous. Because the group now goes so far as to tell Americans to “eat less fish”, a disastrous piece of public health advice that flies in the face of both the scientific consensus and the official Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The truth is tuna is packed with nutrients, such as vitamins B12 and D, iron, zinc, magnesium, phosphorous, selenium, and beneficial omega-3s called EPA and DHA. 

You could say that Greenpeace has finally jumped the shark—or the albacore—but the reality is they did that a long time ago. Now they’re just repeating the same performance to an ever-diminishing audience.   

Boston Globe Report: Mass. lawmakers urge resumption of shipping at Port of Boston

By Hiawatha Bray and Anissa Gardizy November 12, 2021

Six members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation have signed letters to three global shipping companies, urging them to reverse a recent decision to stop making port calls at Massport’s Conley Container Terminal.

The letters sent to COSCO Shipping, CMA CGM, and Evergreen Shipping Agency state that the companies decided to skip regular shipments to Boston starting next week (Nov. 14) to focus on speeding up deliveries at larger ports, including New York, amid the global supply-chain crisis. Shipments to Boston are not expected to resume until Feb. 2, according to an online marine shipping schedule, the lawmakers wrote.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and Representatives Ayanna Pressley, William Keating, Jake Auchincloss, and Stephen Lynch signed the letters, which are dated Nov. 4
“As we face these challenges together, I urge you to make every effort to restore this service to Boston as soon as possible in an effort to support New England businesses and keep good paying jobs in Boston,” they wrote.

The lawmakers said the decision to bypass Boston will impact companies that depend on shipments during the holiday season and will force local manufacturers to wait on truck deliveries from ports located hundreds of miles away. They added that it undermines “massive investments” made in the Port of Boston and will take away work from dockworkers during the winter months.
The shipping companies, which are part of the Ocean Alliance coalition, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The working port of Boston is a great place to do business, but the supply chain crisis, and its ever changing nature, is forcing shipping lines to take some temporary measures they wouldn’t normally pursue,” said a statement issued by Massport. “As always, we appreciate the support of the congressional delegation.”

The National Fisheries Institute, a major seafood trade organization, urged Congress to put pressure on the shipping companies. Many of the group’s members are major seafood importers and exporters, and supply-chain delays pose a major challenge in shipping highly perishable merchandise requiring constant and costly refrigeration.

NFI member Kim Gorton, chief executive of Slade Gorton & Co. of Boston, said the cancelled Ocean Alliance ships were supposed to deliver seafood to her company from producers in China and Vietnam.

“My hub is Boston,” said Gorton. “So not having anything coming into Boston is problematic.”

For example, Gorton pays rent for space in refrigerated warehouses. That money goes to waste if the fish is offloaded in New York. In addition, the cargo must be trucked to Boston. With the ongoing shortage of trucks and drivers, this adds several days to the process. Gorton must pay extra storage fees to the port, as well as a fee for delayed return of the shipping container. In addition, highway weight limits in Connecticut are lower than those in Massachusetts, Gorton said. So her company must unload the seafood and redistribute the loads among a larger number of trucks before making the trip to Boston.

All the while, said Gorton, a newly remodeled port in Boston with ample cargo capacity is largely unused.

“We’re trying to help our congressional delegation understand that the $850 million investment our government has made in the Port of Boston is for naught at this point,” she said.

Many foods can help boost our overall health over the holidays. Whether the holidays are merry or not, this time of year can put extra stress on us or can just feel incredibly overwhelming. The good news is that eating a seafood diet rich in healthful, nourishing foods can help protect against the wintertime blues. 

Jennifer McGuire, RD, MS, of the National Fisheries Institute and Dish on Fish spokesperson, Rima Kleiner, RD, MS, joined Oldways recently to share more on how to stay healthy over the holidays with seafood. 

Eating a Mediterranean-style diet that includes seafood is a great way to get more of the nutrients you need to help keep you healthy over the holidays.

We know that the foods we eat can greatly impact our health, and that includes our immune system. This is incredibly empowering because it means we can help keep ourselves healthy over the holiday season by choosing foods that contain nutrients that are beneficial for supporting the immune system, like zinc, antioxidants, and vitamins A, B6, C, and D. These nutrients are found in foods that feature prominently in the Mediterranean diet, like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, olive oil, nuts, seeds and seafood, both fish and shellfish.  

Eating seafood can boost your health to keep you healthy over the holidays.

The omega-3s and vitamin D in seafood can help support mental wellness, boost brain health and improve mood. Studies from Iceland and Japan—countries with short winter days and typically high fish intake—show that there may be a correlation between a high-seafood diet and the reduced risk of Seasonal Affective Disorder, which impacts about 5% of the US population over the winter months.

There are easy ways to incorporate more seafood into our holiday menus. 

Seafood is so versatile and is a great protein-rich food to add to your holiday festivities. One way to enjoy seafood at Thanksgiving is to include it in appetizers and hors d’oeuvres. The Dish on Fish digital cookbook includes 65 delicious-seafood recipes.  A couple of appetizers that would work well at Thanksgiving are the Air Fryer Mac ‘n’ Cheese Tuna Bites and the Smoked Salmon Deviled Eggs.  Baked spinach and artichoke shrimp dip is just super comforting and always crowd-pleasing.

And right on the heels of Thanksgiving is Christmas and Hanukkah, which falls right after Thanksgiving this year. You can serve these traditional holiday dishes with more healthful proteins and lots of vegetables to make your Hanukkah a tad healthier. For example, top latkes with a little cream cheese, or farmer’s cheese, smoked salmon and chopped chives on top. Or try adding some veggies to your latkes for more antioxidants and serving alongside roasted salmon or other baked fish to up your intake of those immune-boosting omega-3s.

Watch the entire conversation with Oldways here: 

For more resources, we have many videos discussing the health benefits of eating seafood—including immune health—at our NFI YouTube channel, Dish on Fish, and AboutSeafood.com. 

•          5 Nutrients in Seafood that May Support a Healthy Immune System

•          Everyday Seafood Recipes: 65 Quick & Easy Dishes 

•          Baked Spinach Artichoke Shrimp Dip