How is this for a fish story? According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, millions of pounds of fish caught by Russian fishermen on Russian vessels in Russian waters each year are labeled and sold in the U.S. as “Alaska pollock.” Surveys have shown that consumers overwhelmingly think this means their fish is from Alaska. But it isn’t.
As American consumers increasingly care about where their fish comes from and if it is sustainable, Chinese processors of Russian pollock have been able to co-opt Alaska’s stellar reputation for quality fish. They sell Russian fish that is less sustainably caught and frozen, defrosted, and then frozen again and can call it ‘Alaska pollock.’ They can do this because the FDA currently allows Russian pollock to be sold under the FDA approved market name ‘Alaska pollock.’ This FDA loophole is especially egregious in light of Russia’s recent ban on US seafood, meaning Alaskan producers can no longer sell their fish in Russia.
In response, a coalition of Alaska fisheries called the “Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers” (GAPP)—with the support of 15 U.S. representatives and senators—recently filed a formal request with the FDA for a simple and just solution: change the acceptable market name of ‘Alaska pollock’ to simply ‘pollock’. This would be consistent with 98 percent of FDA practice in establishing market names for fish species, where the FDA tries to avoid a geographic designation wherever possible. The FDA should honor these requests and end this deceptive practice.
This is not a small problem; Alaska pollock is one of the most widely consumed fish in the United States. In 2012, it was the fifth most consumed fish, behind shrimp, tuna, salmon, and tilapia, and accounted for 11 percent of all U.S. fresh and frozen fish consumption. McDonald’s, Burger King, and other fast food restaurants use pollock for their fish sandwiches. Pollock also is sold at retail by familiar companies such as High Liner, Gorton’s, Mrs. Paul’s and other major brands. The labels, regulated by the FDA, say ‘Alaska pollock.’ Studies conducted by GAPP show that consumers overwhelmingly assume this means that the pollock was from Alaska. However, between roughly 30 and 45 percent of the pollock consumed in the U.S. in a given year is imported from Russia.
The fact is that the Alaska fishery and the Russian fishery are held to very different standards. The Alaska pollock fishery has been recognized not only as the largest food fishery in the U.S., but as one of the most sustainable fisheries on the planet, the result of a management system used in Alaska and throughout the U.S, where decades of precautionary, science-based limits have created stable and sustainable fisheries. The Alaskan model has strict by-catch regulations; strong avoidance measures for salmon and halibut, and a robust reporting system that monitors all prohibited species bycatch. As a result, the pollock fishery in Alaska has one of the lowest rates of bycatch of any fishery in the world, and what bycatch does occur is fully documented, reported, and monitored.
In contrast, the Russian fishery has suffered from boom and bust, with stocks collapsing due to heavy overfishing and a significant illegal fishing component, and then rebounding somewhat in recent years. The Russian fishery has virtually no bycatch controls.
Alaska also has a huge range of protected marine areas; it has legally binding laws on essential fish habitat, and it has fully 100 percent observer coverage in the pollock fishery. None of this exists in Russia.
Yet due to pressure from European buyers who desperately wanted a Russian source of cheap but “certified sustainable” pollock, the Russian Alaska pollock fishery received full certification last year from a European group called the Marine Stewardship Council. This certification came despite the widely documented differences in conservation efforts between the Alaskan and Russian fisheries.
This was a direct blow to Alaskan producers, which had been approached by the MSC to get certified as a model fishery. At the time it appeared to be in Alaska’s interests, as it served to differentiate a truly world class fishery in Alaska from one in Russia that suffered from rampant problems. But the MSC needs have diverged from those of the top fisheries producers. As the MSC came under pressure from buyers and its own need to generate revenue, it has sought to bring more marginal fisheries with lower conservation values into its certification system.
Consumers have a right to know these things. This is one reason why action by the FDA is so needed.
In addition to the “truth in advertising” imperative, there is also often a significant quality difference as well. The vast majority of Russian-caught “Alaska” pollock is frozen and sent to China for defrosting and further processing. Processing includes soaking the fish in chemicals, and adding fillers and water to the final product. These steps reduce the cost of the product that hits American shelves, but also damages the expectations of consumers seeking the genuine Alaskan article.
For all these reasons, it is time for the FDA to act on this petition. By changing the market name to simply pollock, as is done with virtually all other fish species where multiple individual species have a common market name, the geographic descriptor must then represent a true statement. So for example, New England producers of Atlantic pollock could market their product as Atlantic pollock. Alaskans could sell Alaska pollock, and Russians could sell Russian pollock.
Science, practice, consumer integrity, and a level playing field for US fisheries are all at stake. A favorable decision should be made without delay.
Sackton is publisher of SeafoodNews, the most widely read seafood industry newsletter in North America.