More than 100 organizations submitted a letter to members of Congress on Wednesday asking them to oppose ocean aquaculture. The letter, delivered during National Oceans Week, comes as the looming renewal of the “fish bill,” the Magnuson-Stevens Act, reveals divides between the fishing industry and environmentalists, ocean advocates, and other stakeholders about the future of fisheries regulation.
In the letter, which was addressed to members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Natural Resources, signees said that “[i]ndustrial ocean fish farms have no place in our waters.” The advocates, including Farm Aid, the Food Chain Workers Alliance, and the National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association among others, warned of environmental problems similar to the effects that livestock CAFOs have on groundwater and other water sources.
Hallie Templeton, senior oceans campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said advocates are concerned that “fish feedlots” will follow a similar trajectory as land-based industrial agriculture. “The factory farming problem is real and it’s impacting communities in so many ways,” she said. “I’m afraid that that will translate into the oceans eventually.”
Ocean aquaculture could present a threat to wild seafood as well, including “the spread of diseases and parasites from farmed fish to wild fish and other marine life; and pollution from excess feed, wastes, and any antibiotics or other chemicals used flowing through the open pens into natural waters,” said Niaz Dorry, coordinating director of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Association, in a statement released in conjunction with the letter.
Although Congress hasn’t presented specific legislation to expand ocean aquaculture, advocates are concerned that some government entities have shown support for the practice. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Fisheries has approved several open-ocean aquaculture permits. The Trump administration has gotten on board, too. In a recent proclamation that declared June National Ocean Month, Trump promoted domestic aquaculture as a means of capitalizing on the United States’ “underutilized” exclusive ocean rights.
The debate around ocean aquaculture comes as several proposed pieces of legislation mark a possible reauthorization process for the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which regulates aspects of the U.S. fishing industry. The MSA, first passed in 1976, manages fishing activity in federal waters, defined as 3 to 200 miles from shore. It established eight fishery management councils across the country, which oversee regional fisheries issues. The most recent reauthorization of the MSA was in 2007, when the law incorporated annual catch limits for about 390 species, a measure intended to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks.
Unlike the farm bill, which must be reauthorized every five years to retain funding, the MSA is reauthorized only when stakeholders propose changes to the regulations. This year, fishing industry groups have proposed several dramatic possible changes to the law.
One bill, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act (H.R.200), passed the House Committee on Natural Resources last December. H.R.200 would allow the fishery management councils to exceed federally set annual catch limits and would get rid of a 10-year deadline for stock-rebuilding programs.
Those measures are controversial. In October 2017, more than 200 scientists signed a letter urging members of Congress not to support H.R.200. The scientists argued that the proposals in the bill introduce “broad loopholes” and “roll back science-based management.” They attribute the rebuilding of more than 40 fish species since 2000 to fisheries management provisions of the 2007 version of the MSA.
Another piece of legislation that would roll back provisions of the MSA, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act (S.1520), was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in February. The bill would loosen requirements on stock rebuilding and allow exemptions from catch limit restrictions. It is supported by advocates for recreational fishing and boating, including the American Sportfishing Association and the National Marine Manufacturers Association. Executives from Bass Pro Shops and Maverick Boat Group brought the bill’s policy recommendations to Congress.
But other fishing groups, environmentalists, chefs, and several members of Congress have expressed concern with the bill. “It is unclear how diminishing the accountability of commercial fisheries will better serve the nation’s interests or enhance the quality or duration of recreational fishing,” wrote Christopher Brown, president of the Seafood Harvesters of America, in a February letter to the ranking members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Chefs have also begun to speak out against possible changes to the MSA that they say could make it harder for them to access affordable, sustainable seafood. In an April op-ed in the Las Vegas Sun, chef Rick Moonen wrote that catch limits and other MSA provisions mean that chefs “have access to more sustainable U.S. seafood than ever — including cod, sole, and sablefish. America’s science-based fisheries management has become the global standard, a source of national pride.” On June 14, more than 50 chefs will serve sustainably caught U.S. seafood to protest possible changes to the MSA.
Advocates anticipate that the next legislative steps for the MSA will come this summer. “We are gearing up for a fight, and we’ll be ready to push back as hard as we can,” said Friends of the Earth’s Templeton of the coming debates.
The U.S. currently imports roughly 90 percent of its seafood, much of which is raised in countries that use large-scale aquaculture. Annual per capita fish consumption in the United States is about 15.5 pounds.