Seafood Industry Criticized for One That Got Away

The seafood industry’s processing practices, quality control and pricing structures came under attack recently from a trade magazine that covers the domestic and international fishery marketplace.

The criticism, an editorial in the current issue of Seafood Leader magazine, addressed why U.S. per capita fish consumption in 1986 failed to reach previously anticipated levels.

Industry analysts had projected major gains as a result of changes in Americans’ eating habits, fueled, in part, by research indicating that diets high in some types of fish seem to correspond with lower incidences of heart disease.

Although both sales and consumption reached record levels, the actual growth rate was considered disappointing. Americans ate more than 3.5 billion pounds of fish and shellfish last year, or 14.7 pounds per person, a 2% increase over 1985 levels.

“So why is consumption stalled when consumers are clamoring for seafood? Two reasons: Demand has driven prices of many species through the roof--and there still is a lot of lousy fish around,” Seafood Leader stated.

Pricing and Quality Problems

Peter Redmayne, the Seattle-based magazine’s editor and publisher, elaborated on the industry’s growing pricing and quality problems during a phone interview.

Fish, primarily due to overharvesting, should be viewed as a more volatile, unpredictable commodity than the traditional protein sources, such as chicken or beef. The difference being that fish are unable to reproduce fast enough to keep pace with the record catches of the past five years. On the other hand, the poultry and livestock industries are more market responsive: increasing or decreasing production to meet demand, according to Redmayne.

Other factors also come into play, including the increased worldwide demand for fish, particularly from Japan and Western Europe and a weaker U.S. dollar in international currency exchanges.

Any one of these factors, such as declining stocks of a particular fishery, can trigger a chain reaction that produces poorer quality at higher prices in local markets.

“In some cases, there are not as many fish as there used to be,” Redmayne said. “So, boats are out at sea for longer periods of time in order to load up. And I can’t think of a case where any fish species actually acquires value as it lies (on board) for days prior to being unloaded. Generally, American (fishermen) don’t have the respect for fish that they do abroad.”

The quality issue alone has become acute as the market for fresh fish grows. Redmayne said there is only so much of the world’s total catch that can be sold fresh, yet some fishermen attempt to increase this percentage without regard to the ultimate condition of the product.

Quality has indeed been a concern of the seafood industry for more than a decade, acknowledged Pete Carlson, manager of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute in Juneau.

“The industry has made great strides in this area,” he said. “And it remains a real priority.”

Carlson said progress is evidenced by improved boat technology, which allows crews to operate automatic processing systems that, among other things, chill fish to proper storage temperatures almost immediately after they leave the sea.

“Fifteen years ago you didn’t have any of that; everything was done by hand,” he said.

The companion issue to quality is pricing, according to Redmayne, who said it is another area that needs improvement in order for the market to grow. Food stores, for instance, should pay greater attention to their seafood.

A Need for Better Marketing

“Supermarkets have to learn to market fish better. If they are going to charge these high prices then they should be high prices for good-quality fish,” Redmayne said. “I think the markets have taken consumers up (in price) as high as they can take them. We need better quality or better marketing to justify the prices these stores are getting. Or people will switch back to meat.”

Carlson disputed the excessive price claim and said there are more than 500 processors in Alaska, and the sheer numbers preclude any effort to control pricing.

“I don’t think seafood prices are too high,” he said. “Demand sets the price, and people are demanding more fish. And they are also aware of good seafood versus bad. And they are demanding the good seafood.”

Despite the problems that seem to be brought on by the industry’s recent success, Redmayne remains optimistic about seafood’s future.

“There is still tremendous opportunity for people in this business, but it will be for those with a quality product. Consumers today are more educated and they know how to better judge what is actually a good fish,” he said.

Fishing Frenzy--Alaska’s halibut fishery is one area in which Redmayne believes measures should be taken to both improve quality and stabilize pricing. The species has been plagued this year by short-term gluts and poor processing.

The resource is managed by a joint commission composed of representatives from the United States and Canada. In order to ensure a continued halibut replenishment, just a few days a year are set aside by the organization when fisherman, with the necessary permits, may pursue the species.

The days ultimately selected are not consecutive and tend to be a month or more apart. So, when the commission establishes a halibut opening, there is only a 24-hour time period when the boats can set their skates, or lines, for the fish.

When the commission established the first of this season’s halibut openings in the Gulf of Alaska on May 5, more than 4,000 boats set out in search of the fish.

The large number was attracted by reports that some crews net as much as $100,000 in these one-day openings.

Bad weather at the time and the frenzy of the catch contributed to the sinking of four vessels and five deaths. Some boats were so loaded with halibut that thousands of pounds of fish had to be thrown overboard to prevent the vessels from sinking, according to Seafood Leader.

There are estimates that as much as 1 million pounds of the white, meaty fish were either tossed back to sea or left on fishing lines which had to be cleared of catch when the 24-hour period ended.

To underscore the intensity surrounding the halibut fleet, the U.S. Coast Guard office in Juneau, Alaska, reported that they participated in 25 search and rescue cases during the May 5 period--a number considered high for that, or any, time of year.

“They have a 24-hour opening to catch as many fish as they can and for many of these people it is a gold-rush mentality,” said Lt. Edward Wieliczkiewicz in the Coast Guard’s Juneau office.

A second halibut opening occurred in June. In just these two days a record 50-million pounds of the fish were harvested, according to Steve Hoag, the International Pacific Halibut Commission’s assistant director.

The fishery is healthy enough to sustain such an all-out assault, according to Hoag, but the commission is searching for ways to improve the process.

“It’s a bad situation,” he said. “The commission staff is really concerned. We have some bad (resource) management problems that have affected the industry, and one is quality.”

The record catch this season has taxed the capacity of the on-shore processing facilities, causing some fish to be improperly frozen due to the crushing backlogs. Even before reaching port, fisherman are in such a hurry to catch large numbers that they pay scant attention to properly gutting, bleeding and icing fish, according to Redmayne of Seafood Leader.

Some of the suggestions for addressing the halibut problem are to limit the number of fishing licenses distributed, offer a lottery for permits which would allow fishing over an extended period of time or strictly limit the per-boat catch. For one reason or another all of the present options face strong opposition from various segments of the industry, Hoag said.

“No one forces people to be fishermen,” he said. “In this case, it’s human greed that endangers lives and quality of fish.”

In the meantime, Hoag said that the commission is considering having another halibut opening sometime in September.

Urban Catch Criticized--While concerns about Pacific Ocean seafood presently center on quality and price, a Washington-based consumer organization recently questioned the safety of eating some fish caught off New England’s shore.

Coast Alliance, an environmentalist group, studied the condition of the New England fishery and found that seafood netted near the area’s urban centers was prone to contamination.

The group stated that such coastal waters, primarily those of Massachusetts and Connecticut, are increasingly contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from nearby industrial wastes, sewage and boat fuel.

The areas singled out in the report, carried in a recent issue of Public Voice Advocacy Update newsletter, were New Bedford, Boston and Bridgeport.

The pollutants were found to lodge in the bones and flesh of fish. The effects of this type of contamination in fish consumed by humans is not yet known, but the group said the toxins are likely to cause increased cancer risks, neurological damage and inhibit fetal development.

The report also faulted the federal government for not regularly monitoring seafood supplies and for failing to establish tolerance levels for some of the more common industrial pollutants found in fish. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does sample a small percentage of the seafood consumed in this country, but the program is minuscule compared to the inspection efforts for poultry and livestock.

Coast Alliance urged both federal and state governments to undertake a broad monitoring and inspection program for seafood coupled with greater efforts aimed at reducing coastal pollution.

The study of the New England fishery is the first in a series of surveys the group plans to conduct on the safety of all the nation’s coastal seafood.