09/11/2007 - When unsanitary processing becomes a corrupted political move

Quality questions over fishery imports to Russia from Norway could be covering up a political agenda. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: When unsanitary processing becomes a corrupted political move

WORLDWIDE
Friday, November 09, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


A trade war could be in the making as a result of Russian sanitary inspectors earlier this autumn visiting Norway inspecting pelagic processing plants and in initial messages were said to be in good order, but then events turned around.

A tidy agreement had been drawn up during meetings between the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and Russian authority, the Rostechnadzor, as inspections should have gone on with no unexpected snags with the remaining factories to be inspected. However, suddenly the Russians announced the deal was off and now only seven Norwegian processing plants would be allowed to export herring to Russia after 15 November. In another about face this date was then suddenly changed to the 15 December, without further explanation.

The Russian about face

The mysterious turn about came when suddenly the Russian veterinary service announced that they had found salmonella, staphylococcus, and other dangerous bacteria in consignments from three Norwegian plants. As of 15 November they were told to stop further exports to Russia.

"We are taking these allegations very serious and will inspect those plants," announced director Roald Waage of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.

He is speaking diplomatically to not further infuriate Russian authorities, because, if in fact the allegations were true, then the plants are not the only ones responsible for the mishap, and part the blame lands in squarely on the shoulders of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.

It is difficult to believe the Norwegian authority's inspectors would be slumbering through quality controls over the past few moths as Russian inspectors were running up and down the coast inspecting Norwegian processing facilities. However, Waage can not blatantly call the Russians liars either. He knows, based on numerous media reports that there is a game going on in the Russian fishing industry. Foreign investors are concerned over how their Russian investments are at risk in the volatile business climate.

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority has not published the names of the three processors being blocked from exporting to Russia. They only say that the bacteria found in Norwegian pelagic fish during inspections has been very low.

Herring is transported in RSW-tanks in Norway where water is chilled down to around zero degrees. On arrival to factories the fish is usually pumped directly into chilled storage tanks or directly into production facilities resulting in the fish being packed and frozen without being in contact with any open environment.

Salmonella contamination is usually a result of bird’s feces coming into contact with fish or production equipment. Staphylococcus contamination of seafood is usually a result of cooked seafood being contaminated by the bacteria Staphylococcus aurea. Bacteria is commonly known to contaminate raw seafood products are Clostridium perfringens, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp and Shigella spp.

Staphylococcus is thus a surprising contamination for frozen herring, as it is usually transmitted from the hands of humans handling cooked seafood.

This, however, is merely the tip of the iceberg of a larger drama that is unveiling.

Media reports slander imports

The Russians have more ammunition against Norwegian seafood processors and fishery industry. At a press conference a week ago Igor Kapnulin chief inspector for Rostechnadzor announced that half of all fish sold in Moscow is below quality standard set by the authorities, and that the situation is even worse in other parts of the countries.

According the Russian press bureau Izvestija a large portion of imported fish is contaminated, and some of it even by yellow staphylococcus.
They report that it is usually low quality fish that arrives to Russia from overseas. China, Thailand, Chile, Lithuania, Vietnam, Iceland and Norway sometimes delivers the poorest quality products to Russia, that include contamination with such bacteria as fetus bacteria, staphylococcus, and salmonella.

The news also quoted the chief inspector stating that most processing plants inspected in other countries have been found to be below the standard demanded by Russian sanitary regulations.

A news clipping from the Russia RIA Novosti last Wednesday stated: "Only seven out of more than 40 Norwegian companies will be allowed to export fish to Russia beginning 15 December." The Russian industrial safety watchdog (Rostechnadzor) stated in a press release that the embargo was being introduced following an inspection of Norwegian companies by Russian specialists.

Market analysts believe that this would have grave economic consequences for Norwegian exporters. According to official statistics, in 2006 Norway exported 197,300 metric tonnes of fish, including herring, mackerel, haddock and capelin worth USD198.6 million.

Experts said that the sanctions would not reduce fish supplies on the Russian market. Vladislav Kochetkov, an analyst with the Finam investment company, stated: "The market will be divided, with Norwegian companies approved by the regulator increasing supplies, and Russian producers boosting output." He said that the market re-division would raise prices of these fish by 5-10 per cent.

The embargo could be a result of officials' desire to support Russian producers, which are working at 30-50 per cent of their capacity. Some experts said that Norway often supplied fish illegally caught in Russian territorial waters and transferred abroad”.

The hidden agenda

The question remains over what is the real agenda behind the Russian actions, and why are representatives of Rostechnadzor changing their assessments over the sanitary conditions of the Norwegian seafood industry overnight?

There are big changes coming to the Russian fishery industry. The terrain is now being leveled out so the new industry can be built. “A monster-department for the Russian fishing industry. More power than a normal department. The risk of corruption is high, and the process is more than anything else a show of longing for the old Soviet Union”, writes the Russian analyst Pavel Kudjokin in the Russian paper Vedomosti.

According to the article in Vedomosti the new Russian fishing industry is to be financed through a credit line of RBL 50 billion (USD 2.42 billion) available for fishing vessels and processing plants. President Vladimir Putin's government wants to see Russian fishing vessels plying the oceans in hunt of fish far off from Russia shores, in a sort of expansionist policy.

The informed Norwegian-Russian speaking, fishery journalist Morten Vikeby last week, in an article in the Norwegian fishery paper Fiskeribladet wrote about changes to the political structure controlling Russian fishery sector.

“When somebody calls the new fishery management a monster with great danger of becoming even more corrupted, it looks like most experts with a point of view deem it is common sense to centralise all powers, from the 15 different ministries the industry has to relate to today, into one body. It still stands to see how a new fishery committee will function. Since early 1990s Russian fishery management has been reorganised a number of times and the leaders have been changed frequently.

Right now signs are looming of the intention of reinstating Russian pride as a fishery nation. Increased activity in all world oceans seem to be a priority. In august said Vice Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov that the number of departments that is dealing with the fishery industry is above any logic number. Prime Minister Fradkov, who is leaving his post, said it is necessary for one authority to take care of the needs of the industry,” writes Vikeby.

Campaign against Norwegian seafood

In other news reports marketing director Polina Druzjinina of the import company Rok in St. Petersburg has said that there is an ongoing campaign against Norwegian seafood imports, as Russian veterinary authority considers Norwegian fish as a possible health risk for Russian consumers.

“Norwegian fish have very good quality, and the last year we have had very few complaints in the consignments we received. On average we are 100 per cent satisfied with the products we receive from Norway, "says Druzijinina to the paper Fiskaren.

Rok imports herring, salmon, and trout from Norway, and it is her opinion that there is a slander campaign against Norwegian seafood as the government seeks to rebuild the Russian domestic fishery sector.

Russian President Putin has declared that he will have a stop the illegal fishery and has also said that as much fish as possible caught by Russian vessels in Russian economic zone has to be landed in Russia.

The Chairman of The Russian Fishery committee, Andrej Krajnij earlier was quoted by media as saying that Norwegian salmon is farmed in containers. He also allegest that Norway has also received fish feed from China containing bovine meal.

This is a far cry from reality, however, and could be distorting the truth win over opinion, or perhaps he is simply showing a lack of knowledge when talking about the industry in other countries. This would substantiate the Rostechnadzor blocking of seafood imports, which is a tough measure for a nation's authorities to take against another country.

The Rostechnadzor either must prove that Norwegian fish is contaminated, or they will be deemed as corrupted by their government looking for ways of stopping Norwegian products without coming up against international trade rules. When similar actions were taken against Norwegian salmon, they could not prove their charges.

Russians are not prone to involve themselves in such procedures as substantiating what they allege, in a tradition that goes back to the old communist era, and even farther back to when they were a peasant nation ruled by aristocratic despots.

Not only Norway is affected by such traditions that permeate their policies, and manifest in the Russian veterinary authorities and their allegations. Their inspectors have been visiting companies world wide for the same reasons, to see whether they fulfill Russian sanitary regulations. The problem is, nobody has been issued a translated copy, or for that sake, a Russian language copy either, of Russian regulations by which to comply.

Corruption uncovered?

What is possibly more interesting is the fact uncovered by the Innovation Norways office in Moscow. Responsible for the seafood sector, Lubov Bychkova, showed the journalist Vikeby a request from a Russian company written one week before the Rostechnadzor announced its new rules effective as of 15 November, and later changed to 15 December.

This request has the internal figures for the seven companies allowed to continue to export. The question rmains as to why one importer is granted a favour, making it possible to place orders quickly before others are even informed? Less exporters will give less production capacity intended for the world 'slargest herring market, and possibly result in higher prices for Russian importers, except for those told beforehand. They can reap bountiful profits because of their prior knowledge.

Vikeby dos not say so, neither does Bychkova, but the looming stench of corruption is so powerful that Russian authorities should take a look into the sanitary conditions inside Rostechnadzor. Even if this authority were to be helping the Putin government actively raise seafood prices in the Russian market to make it easier to finance the rebuilding of the Russian industry, there is no reason to allege outright that Putin condones any form of corruption.

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority will be kept busy finding the facts. If they have been too careless in keeping controls with Norwegian processing plants, or are they just seeing the result of a Russian game?

Russian authorities have to present the international seafood industry with concrete facts, and clean away the bad stench that has permeated the air of fair trade. It is not easy to find the truth, and sift through what is fact and what is fiction in the current situation.

Until the facts are revealed, the Russian consumer is the one who is losing most, along with Russian importers, Norwegian fishers and processors, and the thousands of other seafood companies world wide who actively trade with Russia, during what seems to be an ever increasing volatile political climate.


By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

26/10/2007 - Global pelagic market meltdown

Large Pacific mackerel was selling for USD 0.56 kg in Thai supermarkets in October. (Photo: T. Engoe)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Global pelagic market meltdown

WORLDWIDE
Friday, October 26, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


ICES has announced another bumper catch of Atlanto-Scandian herring for 2008, and even with a large percentage of the Atlanto-Scandian herring caught mainly off Norway, in Icelandic and Faroese waters, it is finding its way to fishmeal plants, as the world supply continues to rise in coming months.

Bumper harvests of Pacific mackerel have made the Japanese market nearly free of imports of Atlantic mackerel. They have instead started to push large volumes of cheap Japanese-caught mackerel into Asian markets.

Prices are and have been falling as mackerel and herring has been pushed onto existing markets, many already showing a glut, raising the question of whether the global market for small pelagic fish could be facing a meltdown.The other possibility is that increased resources in marketing and increased purchasing power of many emerging economies could make the pelagic industry turn the increased supply into profit.

Japan is expecting another year with very high catches of Pacific mackerel, as is South Korea, which is heavy handedly dumping mackerel onto other Asian markets. Retail prices in Thailand for Pacific mackerel during periods with discounted prices have been below USD 0.60 per kilo in large supermarket chains.

The table shows estimated imports for 2007, and includes sardines, sardinella, herring, mackerel, horse mackerel and other small pelagic fish. The increase in net imports by the world's leading importers is estimated to be around 2.5 million tonnes in 2007. This is a very large volume. The increased supply of herring alone this year represents around 10 per cent of the net imports by the main importing nations, and in addition remains the increased catches of Pacific mackerel, mainly by Japan.

Estimates for 2007
Net import of small pelagic fish
Country
Tonnes

Nigeria
370,000

Russian Federation
360,000

Netherlands
260,000

Japan
240,000

Ukraine
240,000

Ghana
220,000

China
180,000

Cote d`Ivore
110,000

Cameroon
80,000

South Korea
70,000

Egypt
70,000

France
60,000

Belarus
60,000

Kazakhstan
60,000

Romania
60,000

Malaysia
60,000

Total net import
2,500,000



Source: FIS.com, FAO, Eurostat and Japanese Customs
China market with potential
China is a small importer of pelagic fish if taken in to consideration it being the most populous country in the world. It is difficult to obtain reliable numbers. But import of herring is estimated to between 15,000 and 18,000 tonnes. The net import of all pelagic fish species accumulated is only 180,000 tonnes. Not much for a country the size of China. This is both because of the country’s own catches, and pelagic fish not traditionally being consumed in large volumes in most of China.

In addition there is herring produced from roe for the Japanese market, while whole herring is imported to China in transit. The herring roe is extracted and sent to Japan, while herring meat is sold locally.

Experience garnered from other markets has pointed to the Chinese market potential, but there is a need for large resources into marketing.

The Nippon factor in Thailand

The large Big-C supermarket chain in Thailand introduced herring into their fish assortment one year ago. A spot test undertaken some months ago by FIS.com revealed herring as being appreciated by Thai consumers, but were not purchasing the produce at the supermarkets; they didn't have a clue about the taste of the fish “plaa herring.”

Pacific and Atlantic mackerel have also been introduced to the Thai market, with great success. The product was called “plaa saba Nippon”, or Japanese mackerel.

Mackerel was riding high on the market and touted as Japanese, given that food from the Nippon is regarded as high quality by Thailand. This made “plaa saba Nippon” all the more popular with the high end market seafood segment in Bangkok. Consumption increase in the countryside, however, was slow, and herring was just herring, failing to conquer this market segment, despite riding on the back of trendy Japanese food.

The marketers of herring may believe it should have success just because of the low price of the fish, but herring will need more PR. If given the chance, it may sell in the tens of thousands of tonnes in Thailand within a couple of years.

The large West African markets

The West African nations of Guinea Bissau, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, and the Republic of Congo all import large volumes of small pelagic fish, as does their northern neighbour, Egypt. An estimated one million tonnes finds it way to these countries in total. Even a country like Angola, who has a long coastline with rich resources of pelagic fish, is an importer.

These countries import herring, blue whiting, and horse mackerel from Europe, mackerel and herring from the United States, sardine, sardinella, mackerel and horse mackerel from Morocco and Mauritania, and the list is longer.

The West African market, as well as the large Egyptian market, are not buying much in the upper end with regard to size and quality. The fish is staple food for populations with low incomes. With regards to sardinella the West Africa is the main market.

There is a big difference in the West African market and many other potential markets round the world. They are large consumers of sardinella and sardine, which are very similar to herring.

To introduce herring to consumers is a much more easy task than getting people in Laos or North China to try the fish. So even if the Norwegian Seafood Export Council has sponsored marketing campaigns for herring in China, European exporters of herring will be knocking on the doors to traditional sardinella markets. Sardinella is still competitive in price when considering large fish, but consumers in West Africa will be willing to buy smaller herring at a price at which sardinella is becoming expensive even if it is larger.

Unusual large herring

So far this autumn purse seiners and trawlers that fish herring in the Norwegian Sea have landed unusually large hauls of herring of 300 grams or more. Some catches have even had substantial share of herring around 400 grams. However, this fish will not end up in West Africa. Instead it heads mainly to Russia and Eastern Europe. The smaller herring of four to five fish per kilo, and even smaller, will be sold to markets in West Africa and Egypt.

Herring prices, if they fall, will have an impact on sardinella and sardine prices. Especially in the Egyptian market, the competition will affect the imports and prices of Moroccan sardines.

The catches of sardines off Morocco are reportedly down this year, making it easier for the herring to increase its market share as prices decrease. Herring is by most consumers regarded as superior to sardinella, but also as equal to sardines. If the enormous herring production forces sardinella prices down this will have a very negative impact on the profitability of the pelagic trawler fleet fishing off of North Africa. Sardinella is the main share of their catch.

Herring and sardinella together

Interestingly, the Dutch exporters have historically dominated West African markets. One reason is the large number of Dutch-controlled vessels trawling sardines, sardinella, mackerel, and horse mackerel off Morocco and Mauritania. Some of these companies operating these trawlers also catch herring in the Northeast Atlantic. They will fight to keep Norway from getting a strong foothold in these markets, even if it might cost them dearly, as they have no alternative markets for the sardinella.

Herring caught early in the autumn is suitable for some markets. If a market is to be developed in Southeast Asia, the herring caught early in the year stands a much better chance to win the hearts of the population. They prefer to grill the fish whole, and if there is a roe inside, all the better.

The Russian wild card

Large herring and mackerel from the Northeast Atlantic have traditionally received a premium price, but this year there is an unusual high supply of very large herring, and also of small mackerel. The Russian market especially welcomes large herring. By the end of this year Russian imports of herring could surpass 200,000 tonnes. But the increase comes at a price, in fact a falling price. Total consumption of Atlantic herring in Russia in 2007 will be around 500,000 tonnes, coupled with probably around 200,000 tonnes of Pacific herring.

So, the bumper harvest of herring to be caught next year adds to the already witnessed largest herring fishery in modern history taking place in the Northeast Atlantic and Norwegian Sea. In Norway, especially, there are very large frozen stocks of herring.

Russian imports have increased fast, but not fast enough to stop stocks from building. It is possible the Russians have imported more than usual because of increased demand, or they could be stocking up as there have been strong rumours of the government slapping restrictions on imports by enforcing much tougher sanitary rules. The chance of this happening is dissipating, however, and will now be interesting to see whether or not the demand from Russia will continue as strong as previously.

Russia is the wild card on the global herring market. It is by far the largest market for Norwegian herring. For 2007 Russia has by end of week 41 imported 111,850 tonnes of whole frozen herring out of a total exported volume 235,481 tonnes.

If the current trend continues it will probably amount to 50 per cent or more of the total Norwegian production of frozen whole herring that end up on Russian meal tables. Coupled with the volume of herring fillets, this is a reality that Russia is currently keeping the prices on herring on the up and up. If the demand falls sharply, beginning of 2008 may end up with a dramatic fall in the price on herring. However, even if the demand falls to a normal level this would increase pressure on herring prices.

Fillet prices halved

Early 2002 witnessed Norwegian exporters generate over NOK 12.00 (USD 2.23) per kilo for frozen herring fillets. Current price is around NOK 6.60 (USD 1.23) per kilo. Take in to considerations inflation, and prices are down more than fifty per cent. In comparison have prices on whole frozen herring been very stable. But export figures does not show the whole truth. It does not differ between large and small herring. In US dollars that are a widely used currency in the fish trade does the picture look a bit different. A low dollar is affecting exporters in many countries. Some of the importing countries have their currency pegged to the dollar. If the fall in the dollar is to be recovered by increasing prices, is there a risk of the markets reducing the volume.

So where is the world prices on small pelagic fish heading? They seem to be set for a fall, though it stands to be seen whether it will prove to be a dramatic decline. So far Russian demand has saved prices from collapsing or at least falling towards levels that make it as profitable to land the fish for fishmeal production as for human consumption.

If Dutch and Norwegian exporters spend their marketing money wisely, not battling each other by under-bidding in existing markets, prices could remain stable. The first half of 2008 will show whether the global market is able to absorb an increasing supply or we are headed for a global pelagic price meltdown.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

12/10/2007 - Seafood fraud: Something fishy going on

Many species have distinguishing marks or specific origins, and an informed consumer can watch for the marks to ID the species. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Seafood fraud: Something fishy going on

UNITED STATES
Friday, October 12, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


Disguise, swindle, or outright fraud, call it what you may, there is something going on with the seafood trade, and is well known to the industry, by any name. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States published a very detailed explanation of hoe illicit activies are carried out, and have given advice on how to uncover and protect against them. FIS.com considers the report essential reading for the industry, and is publishing the report in full:

Fresh fish for dinner tonight. Twelve dollars a pound is a bit pricey to experiment with a new recipe, but on ice in the market, the fish labeled "red snapper" looks fresh and inviting. So you buy it.

But how do you know the fish really is red snapper and not rockfish, its look-alike that generally sells for about USD 2 a pound? Such species substitution — selling a cheaper fish as though it were a more expensive one — is one of several kinds of economic fraud involving seafood sales, which troubles consumers, reputable dealers, and the FDA.

Because seafood is such a high-value product, it is a particularly attractive target for fraud. Overbreading, another form of economic fraud, has consumers paying shrimp prices for bread crumbs, and overglazing charges lobster tail prices for ice. Abuses such as these hit consumers squarely in the wallet. FDA has recently begun focusing more intensely on its mandate to reduce economic fraud in the seafood industry. In 1991, the agency established the Office of Seafood, with a 60 per cent increase in funding for seafood inspection, including an increase in resources for field offices.

The seafood industry doesn't like economic fraud either. A 1985 National Fisheries Institute survey report said, "There was general agreement among the industries (processing, distributing and importing firms) as well as retailers and restaurateurs that there is widespread abuse of overglazing and overbreading of fishery products, inaccurate net weights, and species substitution." In a presentation at the Atlantic Fisheries Technology Conference in 1990, the National Marine Fisheries Service said, "No matter what the reason, industry’s desire for a level playing field to combat fraud is strong, and consumers want full value."

Though there are reported incidents, the extent of seafood fraud is not well documented. Few databases are designed specifically to track economic fraud. The ones that do usually include data from the National Marine Fisheries Service seafood inspection laboratory (which analyzes samples upon request), state-directed surveys, and weights and measure programs, such as that of the US Department of Commerce.

Fraud is not always intentional. It can occur because of misunderstanding or lack of information, or it can be an honest mistake by a grocery store if the store bought a misrepresented product. Ignorance of the mislabeling does not excuse the violation, however, and FDA holds the seller responsible.

Mary Snyder, chief of the policy guidance branch of FDAs Office of Seafood, says the agency is doing what it can to educate retailers so they can guard against fraud. FDA advises retailers to be specific when ordering seafood and encourages them to take the initiative to learn about the products. In addition, FDA has put retailers on notice about the agency's emphasis on enforcement through letters warning about economic fraud. As a result, some supermarkets advised their seafood buyers that they would report abuses to FDA.

What Species Is It?
This question doesn't have to come up if a product is properly labeled. But it does, because species substitution is likely the most widespread abuse. Speaking to the National Fisheries Institute in April 1991, FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler, M.D., said: "There is no place in the seafood industry for those who substitute a less expensive or less desirable species of fish for one that consumers value more. We will seek out those who perpetrate fraud — and we will bring them to justice."

FDA is reeling in abusers making big profits. For example, in May 1992, FDA detained 1,200 pounds of fresh rockfish from Canada, invoiced at USD 1.50 per pound. According to FDA's Seattle district, it was labeled red snapper, the federally recognized name for a species that comes from the southern Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. FDA estimates the firm could have realized an excess profit of about USD 12,600 on that shipment alone over what it would have received if the fish had been properly labeled. In another case in 1989, FDAs Chicago district seized a 45,000 pound lot of oreo dory (average price USD 2 per pound), imported from New Zealand, bound for Ohio markets labeled as orange roughy, which also comes from New Zealand but generally sells for USD 6 per pound. FDA estimates the firm could have realized an unfair profit of about USD 150,000.

"It's not always possible to 'see' that a lesser product has been substituted for another," says Snyder, who is also FDA's species identification expert. Sometimes, FDA regulators must use laboratory verification such as identifying the fish scale and patterns, or isoelectric focusing, a technique that identifies a species by analyzing the pattern of proteins in the flesh. When charged with an electric current, the proteins form a unique pattern for each 7 species. The pattern from the species in question is then compared with the known pattern for that species, very much like comparing fingerprints.

Many species have distinguishing marks or specific origins, and an informed consumer can watch for the marks or ask the fish market manager where the fish comes from. Consumers can also check one of many well-illustrated seafood cookbooks. These have information on what species look like, and how to tell the difference between substitutes and the real thing. Usually there's also information about the texture and taste of a species. If a product isn't as expected after it's cooked, FDA advises consumers to discuss the problem with the fish market manager where the product was purchased.

To guide species identification, FDA maintains a seafood names list, which is being expanded this year to include shellfish. The list is used mostly by industry so it can uniformly label its products using FDA acceptable market names. Developed in co-operation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the list includes over 1,000 species currently sold in the United States or that have a strong potential for sale here. It does not list endangered species nor those prohibited for sale. For example, escolar, a fish commonly known as "castor oil fish," was deleted from the new edition after it was reported to cause diarrhea in many consumers.

The seafood list shows the acceptable market name, the scientific name, and any regional names. Regional names can cause confusion, sometimes deliberately, other times inadvertently. For example, rockfish is called "Pacific red snapper" in California. People in California know what to expect when they see "Pacific red snapper" but in other parts of the United States, consumers only know red snapper as a highly valued fish from the Gulf of Mexico. FDA does not allow rockfish sold across state lines out of California to be called anything other than "rockfish."

Sometimes regional names for fish are "made up" to make the fish sound better or of higher value, Snyder says. She gives the example of tilapia, a common imported fish that is also bred in the United States and other countries through aquaculture (on fish farms). Because it is also found in the Sea of Galilee in Israel, it traditionally has been called "St. Peter's fish," for the biblical fisherman of the New Testament. Importers have tried bringing it into this country labeled "St. Peter's fish," but FDA has informed them that it must be labeled tilapia.

Colors Added to Fish Feed
Some aquaculturalists have begun using the color additives canthaxanthin and astaxanthin, both derived from beta carotene, a vitamin A component that imparts an orange color. Canthaxanthin is approved for use in chicken feed — the color gives chicken flesh the yellow cast that some people find desirable. Astaxanthin has not yet been approved for any food or feed use

When used in feed for rainbow trout, these color additives turn trout flesh the color of salmon, a much higher valued species. In addition, some aquaculturalists grow the fish to larger than trout size, and then market it as "salmon trout." There is no such species and this is not an acceptable market name, Snyder says.

Color additive experts in FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition are aware that the regulation listing canthaxanthin to color food may lead some to think that it may be used in fish and fish feed. FDA did not intend to list this color additive for these uses. The agency is currently working on a regulation that would make it clear that the use of regulated colors in animal feed with the intention of coloring the animal flesh must have a specific listing for such use.

Water Added
Sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) is one of a family of phosphates the seafood industry may use as humectants, substances that maintain moisture in products. STP is used to process scallops, shrimp and lobster tails.

The phosphates are currently listed by FDA as "generally recognized as safe," a classification that means a food additive may be used for certain purposes. However, FDA is concerned that the seafood industry is using STP in ways that constitute economic abuse, especially in scallops. Atlantic sea scallops, for example, usually consist of 75 to 79 per cent water. They can lose a considerable amount of their moisture after the shellfish are harvested and the meat is removed from the shell.

Soaking in an STP-water solution keeps scallops from losing their natural water. Prolonged soaking, however, can result in Atlantic sea scallops with excessive water, adding to the product's total weight. Inspections of processing plants by FDA's Boston and Baltimore districts showed that some scallop processors were soaking the shellfish for up to 36 hours, resulting in a 4 to 5 per cent weight gain.

Consumers could be defrauded into buying water-augmented scallops at the same price per pound as scallops that are naturally larger. FDA met with industry representatives to discuss the use of STP. The industry agreed to determine the effects of various treatment times and STP concentrations on scallops, and to determine whether STP soaking provides benefits beyond restoring water loss, such as improving the texture of the scallops.

Excessive water has also been found in shelled oyster containers. FDA is concerned that this practice adulterates the product because the water is absorbed by the oysters, increasing their apparent weight. The agency is currently revising the regulation that defines the number of oysters and amount of liquid.

FDA does not object to the industry practice of using a frozen glaze of water to protect products such as frozen shrimp and lobster tails from freezer burn. Such glaze, however, cannot be pan of the net weight. FDA has sent warning letters to processors and trade associations saying that the agency will take regulatory action where evidence of this practice is found.

Over-breading and Fresh Thawed
It's disappointing to open a frozen seafood package and find more breading than fish. In 1991, the Connecticut state government surveyed breaded frozen shrimp products and found an average of 33.5 per cent shrimp — the rest was bread crumbs. The FDA standard for breaded shrimp requires that the product contain at least 50 per cent shrimp. The method for breading is included in the standard.

FDA is taking enforcement action against processors who overbreed. For example, in March 1991 in Mississippi, FDA seized 1,788 pounds of frozen breaded shrimp, valued at USD 5,000 (USD2.80 per pound), which contained only 41.4 per cent shrimp. With an 8.2 per cent shortage of shrimp, FDA estimated the firm could have realized a profit excess of USD 300 at the consumers' expense.

Sometimes, fish in the market is labeled "previously frozen." FDA allows the sale of thawed fish that has previously been frozen, but it must be labeled as such and cannot be labeled fresh. Fish spoils more easily than most flesh foods, and even in ideal storage conditions, it has a very short shelf life in its fresh condition. Therefore, to protect the product, many processors freeze fish as soon as possible, often at sea. This can be an excellent product. However, if a fish has previously been frozen and is then thawed for sale, the label must state that the product was previously frozen.

Is It Really Caviar?
Unless it's roe (fish eggs) from the sturgeon species, it's not caviar, FDA says in a policy established many years ago. Sturgeon roe sells for about USD 35 an ounce; roe from other species such as salmon or lumpfish sells for USD 1 an ounce. Two years ago, FDA issued a warning letter to a firm that had labeled whitefish roe as "American Golden Caviar."

FDA is working to protect consumers from fraudulent practices in the seafood industry. The agency gives talks to industry groups, displays at trade shows, and has open exchanges with state regulatory agencies, as well as increased training for its own field investigators. And a hot line is available to answer consumer questions. But FDA emphasizes that the best defense against fraud is the educated consumer.

How to Avoid Seafood Economic Fraud
To get the best value for your money when buying seafood, it's important to know what you're buying. Be wary of unusual bargains — some seafood is seasonal. If there is a considerable difference between the price of a fresh product and what you are accustomed to paying, it could be that it is from the last season's frozen inventory. Buy from a reputable dealer. And if the fish you choose looks or smells different from what you expect, discuss it with the fish market manager.

Look for firm, shiny flesh that bounces back when touched. If the head is on, the eyes should be clear and bulge, and the gills should be bright red. The fish should not smell "fishy" — it should smell like a fresh ocean breeze.

It's easy to miss the telltale signs of species substitution. Sometimes, taste or consistency is the only way to detect it. If you feel you have purchased something different from what was represented, tell your fish market manager.

Here's how to distinguish some common species:

Haddock has a dark lateral line along the skin surface.
Skinless cod fillets have a distinctive white papery membrane along the belly and a white line of fat along the lateral line of the fillet.
Shark and swordfish look alike, but shark has a dark streak of flesh in the center and rough skin along the edge.
Red snapper comes only from the southern Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (ask your retailer where the snapper originated).
Orange roughy comes only from Australia or New Zealand and always arrives frozen. It may be sold thawed, but it must be labeled as previously frozen.
Scrod is not a type of fish. The term originated in the Boston area to describe the catch of the day. It is a fish under two and a half pounds that is either cod, haddock or pollock. Such fish should be labeled in the market or listed in a restaurant as "scrod cod," "scrod haddock," or "scrod pollock."
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
www.fis.com

06/10/2007 - Investors salivating over the poor man's fish

Tilapia production for export could grow without affecting the volumes produced for domestic consumption. (Photo: T. Engoe)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Investors salivating over the poor man's fish

WORLDWIDE
Friday, October 05, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


Tilapia has been considered a species mainly for poor farmers in the third world for a very long time. The members of the American Tilapia Association, which have long understood the importance of the resource, are eyeing its potential on the world market while recently the management of the world's largest salmon farming company, Marine Harvest has told the market that they are looking for new species to farm, and tilapia was mentioned as one of the species being considered.

Cheap to produce

The problem with the tilapia trade is the low price it commands, but many seem to forget that the production cost is also very low. Where salmon needs fishmeal and fish oil to grow on, tilapia is a vegetarian with feed costing just a fraction of the cost of salmon feed. If fact, too high fat content in tilapia feed will have a negative effect on the taste and texture.

Tilapia is an herbivore feeding on algae and even bacteria growing in water. Some farmers that are not producing for export are fertilizing the tilapia ponds with excrement from pigs or poultry. The excrement increases the growth of algae, and the algae is then eaten by the tilapia. In this way the fish also solve an environmental problem in many rural areas.


Tilapia is an herbivore feeding on algae and even bacteria in water. (Photo: T. Engoe )


Salmon is reported to have disease problems worldwide. Millions of dollars are spent on antibiotics, vaccines, and veterinarians. Tilapia meanwhile is not fussy. It will accept periods with very low water quality, and it is nearly free of any diseases. This is also the main reason for why China, the world's largest producer of tilapia have had no problem with their tilapia export. There is rarely any need to feed the fish with antibiotics or any chemicals.

More than 2 million tonnes

Last year was 2,350,000 tonnes of tilapia produced worldwide. Only carp is farmed in larger volumes, but no other farmed fish species has been creating more jobs and values in third world countries than tilapia.

In 2000 was tilapia the 11th most popular seafood in United States, with tuna, shrimp, pollock, salmon, catfish, cod, clams, crabs, flatfish, and scallops all ranked higher in consumption and popularity.

In 2001 it overtook the position of scallops, while in 2002 it had surpassed flatfish, and continued swimming upwards in the ranking. In 2003 it left clams behind, in 2004 did it make it leaped passed crab and cod. Finally, in 2006 it became more popular than catfish and is now the fifth most popular seafood in US where it retails for close to USD 20 per kilo for whole fish. In Europe the fish is increasing fast in popularity, and is now a regular species in most large fish displays in United Kingdom. Tilapia is penetrating market after market at a steady pace.

Investors moving into tilapia

Tilapia is mainly farmed in labour intensive economies at a low cost, where it is cheap to fillet and add value to products. In Thailand the mighty CP Group has contracted farmers all over the country, and have set up feed mills for fish feed in Thailand and a number of other Asian countries.

The Norwegian life science company Genomar AS is a leader in genetic selection of tilapia. They have branches in Philippines, China, and a number of other countries. Tilapia is on the verge of going from being a fish consumed by the economically impoverished to a fish being eyed by large corporations and investors.

AquaChile has invested in tilapia farms in Panama through the subsidiary Aquacorporacion Internacional in Cost Rica. The new planned farm will more than triple the Panamanian production of 5,500 tonnes of tilapia.

India – the next giant

The next and probable giant in tilapia may well be India. Large areas of the country have climatic conditions that are ideal for tilapia farming. Indian shrimp farmers dealing with white spot disease also have the possibility of converting to tilapia. No large investments are needed to convert a shrimp pond to a tilapia pond.


No large investments are needed to convert a shrimp pond to a tilapia pond. (Photo: T. Engoe )


Only a small share is exported

Most of the global tilapia production is consumed be the local population in the areas where it is farmed, but as investors are showing interest in the fish, more processing facilities are being built. Farms are modified and farming techniques are improved. The production of tilapia could grow very much without influencing the volume of tilapia available for local consumption.

For now, China is the world's largest exporter of tilapia. They doubled their export from 90,356 tonnes in 2004 to 181,831 tonnes last year. Still, less than 25 per cent of the Chinese tilapia production is exported.

China: Export of tilapia, product weight


Destination
2004 tonnes
2005 tonnes
2006 tonnes

United States
62,860
80,853
104,668

Mexico
15,884
16,343
32,894

Russian Federation
19
22
5,530

Israel
678
1,287
3,694

Germany
-
673
1,740

Hong Kong
1,016
842
1,702

Belgium
-
1,124
1,371

Puerto Rica
515
852
1,292

Dominican Republic
117
493
1,019

Canada
1,096
1,103
992

Others
8,171
9,266
26,929

Total
90,356
112,858
181,831



Source: Eurofish

United States to import 180,000 tonnes

This year tilapia import s to the US reached 47,600 tonnes during the first quarter. The main increase was in the import of frozen fillets, which increased from 14,200 tonnes first quarter 2006 to 25,100 this year.

The total import to US reached 158,300 tonnes last year and there is no reason to believe the increase will let up, as tilapia is both competitive in price and has a quality that is appreciated by American consumers. China and Indonesia are the largest sources of frozen tilapia fillets imported to US, with Thailand being the third largest source. China is also dominating the source of frozen whole tilapia, with Taiwan the second largest source. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated US imports to reach 180,000 tonnes for this year.

From whole fish to value added products

What is more interesting than just total volumes imported or exported, is the change in presentation. In 2004 China exported 7,964 tonnes of tilapia characterised in export statistics as “preserved tilapia.” According to Eurofish this is considered value added tilapia, such as breaded tilapia fillets and tilapia fillets with the addition of lemon, pimento, herbs, or other spices. Last year 98,862 tonnes of the Chinese exports were “preserved tilapia”. The export of frozen whole tilapia increased from 43,840 tonnes to 46,901 tonnes from 2004 to 2006. Tilapia is becoming an important raw material for Chinese processors, not just a commodity.


Tilapia is becoming an important raw material for Chinese processors. (Photo: AARM)


Great potential in many countries

The development seen in China, on a different scale, can be replicated in many countries around the world. Brazil, Burma, India, and many African countries have large freshwater resources suitable for tilapia farming. They are now waiting for the investors who in addition to money have knowledge about processing and marketing. Marine Harvest has made their intentions public. AquaChile has already begun tilapia growing in ponds. Many will follow.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

28/09/20007 - Global dollar trouble sinks profits

Processors worldwide, in most countries are hit by dollar trouble to different degrees. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Global dollar trouble sinks profits

WORLDWIDE
Friday, September 28, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


Indian exporters are unable to compete with their Asian competitors such as China, Vietnam, and even Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, according to AJ Tharakan, president of The Seafood Exporters Association of India (SEAI). The Indian products are priced out in the major markets of the United States, Japan, and the European Union (EU) due to the strong rupee.

It is difficult for exporters to lower the price paid to fishermen or aqua farmers in line with the appreciating rupee, he said, as one of many industry representatives making the same complaints worldwide.

The US dollar is, despite it losing some weight, the most important currency in international trade for all sorts of commodities and products. Since 1 January it has lost 10.9 per cent of its value against the Indian rupee. Exporters who have joined long term contracts where the prices are pegged to the dollar are in trouble if no clause in the contract protects them against such large fluctuations to the currencies.

Value of 1 USD against other currencies 2004 – 2007

Country
Currency
01.01.04
01.01.05
01.01.06
01.01.07
25.09.07

Canada
CAD
1.297
1.2
1.164
1.166
1

Chile
CLP
611.4
575
514
532.6
514.1

China
CNY
8.287
8.286
8.075
7.817
7.518

EU
EUR
0.795
0.737
0.844
0.758
0.709

India
INR
45.69
43.47
45.19
44.12
39.77

Japan
JPY
107.4
102.44
117.68
119.11
115.07

S. Korea
KRW
1193
1076
1029
940
922

Morocco
MAD
8.841
8.506
9.366
8.508
8.047

Norway
NOK
6.67
6.07
6.77
6.24
5.52

New Zealand
NZD
1.527
1.393
1.464
1.421
1.343

Russia
RUB
29.25
27.73
28.75
26.331
25.016

Thailand
THB
39.7
38.84
41.08
35.95
32.22




US dollar vs. Indian rupee

However, the Indian seafood industry is now experiencing what exporters and importers in other countries have troubled over for years. Since 1 January the US dollar lost 10.9 per cent against the Indian rupee. In comparison the US dollar lost 13 per cent against the Norwegian krone this year, and since 1 January 2004 has depreciated 29.7 per cent against the Canadian dollar and 29.4 per cent against the South Korean won.




The Thai baht is strengthening fast, and just this year the US dollar has lost 11.6 per cent against it. Since 1 January, 2004 the value of the dollar has decreased 23.2 per cent against the baht.


Change in % against the US dollar

Currency
01.01.07
01.01.04

CAD
11.6
29.7

CLP
10.3
18.9

CNY
4
10.2

EUR
6.9
12.1

INR
10.9
12.1

JPY
3.5
- 9.3

KRW
3.5
29.4

MAD
5.7
9.9

NOK
13
20.8

NZD
5.8
13.7

RUB
5.3
16.9

THB
11.6
23.2



US dollar vs. Canadian dollar

In Canada the strengthening of the Canadian dollar reduced profits, and also put many companies into the red. It is difficult to increase prices nearly 30 per cent in three years just to cover changes in exchange rates.




US dollar vs. Thai baht

The effect of the weakening dollar is varying from sector to sector. Increasing prices on fuel is not only real increases. Some of the increase is due to the depreciation of the dollar. For a Thai processor selling the products in the domestic market, and basing production on imported raw material paid in dollar, is the situation not to bad. But large exporters like CP-Group exporting large volumes of seafood and poultry are getting paid in dollars. The same is happening for a company like The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (UFP)

Exporters of canned tuna to the US market have been hit hard. Not only do they have to make US buyers pay more to cover the rapidly increasing value of the Thai baht, but also the cost of transportation is also up, especially in dollar terms. All this in the end has to be paid by US consumers.

For a company like UFP the situation is not totally gloom and doom. Much of the tuna canned by the industry is sourced worldwide, and therefore often paid in dollars. As the raw material is imported, it is mainly added value done in Thailand that is affecting the product price in dollars. However, at least two thirds of the increased product price in dollars will have to be recovered by lowering production costs, decreasing profits for the processor, as well as US importers and consumers.




US dollar vs. euro -The North Africa trawler fleet

For Morocco, Mauritania, and many other African countries the income from fishing licenses issued for foreign pelagic trawlers is putting good cash in the coffers. Luckily enough, many deals have been agreed upon in euros, especially in bilateral agreements with EU or European governments. The euro has also depreciated against many currencies, but the fall in the value of the euro is less against most currencies than what it is for the dollar.

This does not change the fact that countries issuing fishing licenses against a fixed fee per tonne of fish caught are loosing big money in the development in the dollar value. An increase in the fees is possible upon renewal of licenses. But high fuel costs are making many fuel intensive fisheries less profitable than before. There is a limit for how much the vessel owners will pay to continue fishing. Prices on small pelagic fish are fluctuating. The enormous herring catches in the Northeast Atlantic is putting pressure on sardinella. Importers in many main markets for the West-African sardinella catches are also settling their contracts in dollars.




US dollar vs. Moroccan dirham

Moroccan dirham has been hit less than many other currencies. The dollar has only depreciated 9.9 per cent against the dirham this year.




US dollar vs. Chilean peso and Norwegian krone

A winner in the currency game was for some time Norway. The Chilean peso was increasing faster against the dollar than the Norwegian krone. This made Norwegian salmon cheaper than Chilean salmon i dollar terms.




But this did not last very long, especially in the last couple of months the Norwegian krone has increased in value against most currencies in the world, as has the Chilean pesos, but to a lesser degree.




The reason is the fast growing economy in Norway. To cool down the consumers’ lust the Norwegian Central Bank has pushed the interest rates up by 0.25 per cent six times, just this year. The latest increase in the interest rate was Wednesday last week.

Now the Norwegian fishing industry is protesting, as they are getting less and less competitive. They have to pay the price of heat in the Norwegian economy, a situation resulting from very lax regulations of lending towards consumers. Until Norway has solved this trouble, the increased interest rates will increase the value of the krone further. Combined with a dollar in the middle of dive most finance experts expect to continue, the Norwegian seafood industry is facing tougher international competition.

The good news in the current situation is the fact that most free currencies are appreciating against the dollar. Processors worldwide, in most countries are hit by dollar trouble to different degrees. This is also what will make the world seafood industry continue as before. The US market may contract as local consumers change to local products, which should be more competitive against imported products.

US dollar vs. Japanese yen

A similar development has been seen in the Japanese market. The yen have seen much worse trouble than the US dollar. Since 1 January 2004 the dollar has strengthened nearly 10 per cent against the Japanese yen. Since 1 January this year the development has changed, and the dollar is down 3.5 per cent against the yen, despite the strength of the Nippon's currency.




By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

141/09/2007 - Hunting down pirates and ministers

The Antares the Russian pirate trawler docked in Norway. (Photo: Greenpeace)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Hunting down pirates and ministers

NORWAY
Friday, September 14, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


The situation has the elements of crime, politic, and circus; perfect for a modern TV series. The crew of a vessel suspected for illegal fishery is being interrogated by police, a minister of Fisheries, who has declared pirate fishing vessel war, has been reported to the police for neglecting duties. The vessel has just a small cargo of illegal fish, but more interesting, it has tonnes of different stamps needed to falsify documents, and hovering over all this, an envorinmetal activist hunting for blood, both pirate and minister.

The story did not start when the Russian vessel Antares was seized on Thursday this week. It started a couple of years back. The vessel had been fishing in the North Atlantic for cod. On 24 November last year the Norwegian Directorate of Fishery completed a lengthy, well-documented report on the trawler Antares. The confidential report has, as is normal in Norway, leaked out and is now more or less public. In the report there are copies of numerous documents proving illegal activities.

The vessel M-0149 Antares is owned and operated by the company CF Ponoy headquartered in Murmansk, and was inspected on 15 November, 2006 by the Directorate of Fishery, Finnmark Regional office.

This reports covers high seas transfers to the reefer Mumrinskiy taking place on 11 November last year, unloaded by Mumrinskiy in Eemshaven on 24 July last year, with a high seas transfer on 11 August last year and discharge from Mumrinskiy in Eemshaven on 20 August 2006.

Case No. 1
According to the bill of lading collected by the Directorate of Fishery ,during an inspection on 15 November, 2006 the vessels catch journal number PM-060039/01-fc, page 108, states that the Antares transferred 30,300 kilos of cod and 20,670 kilos of haddock (product weight) to the reefer Mumrinskiy on 11 November, 2006 at position 71 00 N 34 10 E.

According to the bill of lading collected from the Mumrinskiy during an inspection performed by the Coast Guard Vessel Harstad on 15 July, 2006 and “Delivery acceptance note” collected by the Coast Guard Vessel Malene Østervold on 25 October, 2006, the transferred quantity from Antares is noted at 81,180 kilos of cod and 20,670 kilos of haddock (product weight).

This quantity is in accordance with documentation received from the Dutch Control Authorities (AID) on the landing of cargo from the Mumrinskiy in Eemshaven the 24 July, 2006.

Discrepancies in quantity of cod and haddock are shown in a separate table,” writes the Directorate of Fisheries.

Case No. 2
This is the first well-documented case in which it is proven that the Antares has been cheating. A second case is described this way: “According to the bill of lading collected by the Directorate of Fishery during an inspection 15.11.06, and the vessels catch journal with number PM-060039/01-fc, page 132, the Antares transferred 55,740 kilos of cod and 30,900 kilos of haddock (product weight) to the reefer Mumrinskiy 11.08.06 at position 71 00 N 34 10 E."

This quantity is in accordance with bill of lading collected from the reefer Mumrinskiy when inspected by Coast Guard Vessels Malene Østervold the 25 October, 2006.

The bill of lading, cargo manifest, landing declaration, and health certificate received by the Directorate of Fishery from Dutch Control Authorities (AID) shows that the Mumrinskiy unloaded 109,590 kilos of cod and 55,980 kilos of haddock (product weight) from the Antares in Eemshafen 20 August, 2006.

Discrepancies in quantity of cod and haddock is shown in a separate table,” writes the Directorate of Fisheries. The rest of the report is mainly copies of all documentation collected to prove the swindle.

Greenpeace,Norway has argued for the Norwegian authorities to blacklist the Antares, and a large number of vessels that has been proven are operating in the same illegal way. Norway was probably the first country in the world to publicly list identities, IMO-number and other details on vessels they declared as blacklisted.

However, despite the Minister of Fishery and Coastal Affairs Helga Pedersen, in a number of national and international forums, spoke of the success of Norway in fighting illegal fishery in the North-East Atlantic, the list is slowly turning into a political problem. One thing is for vessels to be operating under flags of convenience, often flying the flag of exotic countries, which do not even have an honorary consul in the country, and another thing is to police the activities of vessels flying the flag of a big brother in the East: Russia. Right now Norwegian authorites are like a mouse in the shadow of this, and there are those who believe the reason is a small fish called herring.

The Russian President Vladimir Putin has also declared illegal fishing a serious problem. The whole fishery sector is up for restructuring, however Russia does not like interference from other countries telling them how to clean up their own act.

Norway already has felt the power of Russia when a year and a half ago they had the doors closed on them to export their salmon to Russia for reasons to be speculated upon. They know that similar actions towards the pelagic sector would be creating a much worse crisis. A collapse in herring prices would hit hard at pelagic processors already struggling to make ends meet. Moreover, nobody knows the direction of the new Russian Government.

Chairman of Greenpeace Norway, Truls Gulowsen reacted promptly when the Antares was arrested upon unloading fish and receiving fuel in the city of Kirkenes, close to the Russian border.

Gulowsen explained to FIS.com: “If Norway is blacklisting other vessels for the same breaches of fishery rules, and denying these vessels to be serviced in Norwegian harbours, the same rules must apply to a vessels like the Antares. It is the Directorate of Fisheries, a body controlled under the Department of Fishery and Coastal Affairs structure, that has documented clearly the crimes committed by the Antares”.

He adds that: “The minister has been very active in the work to have in place European rules for blacklisting of pirate vessels. But she is afraid of maintaining these rules in our own harbours. The situation is directly embarrassing."

Gulowsen has now widened his hunt for those who are breaching Norwegian Law to not only cover vessels operating illegally. Thursday he reported the minister to the police, by way of letter in which he explains why the minister is breaching, the law.

The letter reads:

“Report on neglect of public duties:
Greenpeace is reporting the Minister of Fishery and Coastal Affairs for breaching the Law of Responsibility, § 8. The law demands that a member of Government be punished shoud this member, by action or neglect, cause or contribute to a decision made by the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) to not be executed or an action be made in conflict with the decision by the Storting.

The minister has, by: allowing continuous access to fishing operation in the Norwegian Economic Zone and for the use of Norwegian harbours, such as Kirkenes, for landing of fish and exchange of crew by the Russian fishing vessels Antares, and for not blacklisting the vessel on the recently Norwegian IUU-list, acted in breach of the decision made by the Storting.”

For the Police it is a delicate situation to receive a well-documented report concerning a minister acting in breach of a decision made by the Storting. It is difficult to believe the Police would do anything other than drop the case. However, Greenpeace raised the attention necessary and owners of pirate vessels worldwide will now watch the case with great interest. Arrested by the Norwegians, would they have a right to demand equality under the Law?

Foreign politicians irritated over Norway’s so-called heavy-handed response against foreign vessels found guilty of breaching Norwegian and International laws and regulations, will use any chance to attack the Norwegian minister for speaking with a forked tongue.

The minister responded on Thursday afternoon, that a loophole in the Law has made it impossible to blacklist the vessel. The Law was changed in May and the vessel will be blacklisted if caught with illegal fish one more time.

The Antares will probably leave Kirkenes harbour after paying a fine if found guilty of illegal fishing. In the worse case, seen with the eyes of Greenpeace, the vessel leave the harbour unpunished and with a guarantee of no future trouble if it is not caught redhanded.

The Antares has been forgiven as it had the right flag and fished illegal in the right spots. However, Minister Pedersen will have a problem explaining her in-actions to the EU and others who have been pressed into actions by her and the Norwegian Government.

The Ministry of Fishery and Coastal Affairs has decided to fund a new fishery newspaper in Northwest Russia. They feel the information given by Russian media, fishery press included, is not presenting the Norwegian views in a fair way. The ministry will possibly need to publish such PR-publications in Europe too.

Gulowsen of Greenpeace will continue his hunt for pirates and ministers. He probably did not get a hit that was big enough, with the Antares, however he has wounded the international reputation of the minister.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

7/9/2007 - Putting a stop to rotten fish

Russian inspections tightening the grip to protect their growing consumer market. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Putting a stop to rotten fish

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Friday, September 07, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


Gone is the time when cheap, low quality goods could be poured into the all-absorbing Russian market. Their authorities have now scared seafood exporters from countries worldwide. Suddenly they have stopped all imports from facilities that are not approved by their own nation's health authorities.

Norwegian salmon exporters were in shock when the Russian Federal Service of Veterinary and Phytoveterinary Surveillance (VPSS), at the beginning of last year, temporarily closed down the import of Norwegian salmon. The official reason was the discovery of salmon contaminated with heavy metals.

Norwegian authorities and the salmon farming industry denied that this could have happened. However, in the background lurked the shadow of contaminated ingredients used in the production of salmon feed. One researcher working for the Norwegian Food Safety Authority publicly gave support to the Russian accusations. She was quickly silenced.

The large feed producer EWOS, which had to withdraw feed from the market due to contamination from cadmium, was able to quickly prove that only one in four consignments of salmon were found to be contaminated by this substance as well as lead traced to feed from their company. So though apparently the problem was not due to their feed, the situation remains a great mystery.

Seafood and dirty fire wood

Upon this apparent slap in the face, the Norwegian salmon industry was in an uproar. The fastest growing large market was suddenly closed off to them. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority this week announced, during a conference for the pelagic industry held in Bergen, that they would intensify the controls over trucks used to transport fish to the markets.

The reality is that competition for transport of chilled or frozen fish is so stiff, there is hardly any money to be made. Transporters are desperately looking for return cargo from markets where salmon and other fish is delivered. In fact, they are usually willing to bring back whatever cargo is available. Trucks transporting salmon to the Baltic are filled with dirty fire wood for the return trip. The industry has not focused on what had been in the trucks transporting the contaminated salmon to Russia.

The largest Norwegian transporter of chilled fish, Johannes Lunde AS, last year lost NOK 26.6 million in a turnover of 161,9 million. Another company controlled by Lunde AS is Nordan Transport & Spedisjon AS had a turnover of NOK 151.2 million and a loss of NOK 14.3 million. These two companies illustrate the tough competition.

Times are tough. Without return cargoes, no chance for these transporters to turn a profit exists. Perhaps Norway would be better off making rules for exactly what content is allowe as return cargo.

Protecting Russian consumers

At least the Russian VPSS has made Norwegian authorities push for improved quality control. Not many believe that Norway has a sub-standard seafood industry. However, there is no reason to believe it is infallible. Neither is there reason to believe that their salmon was contaminated during the transport.

In fact, there are many more reasons to believe that the salmon was in up to norms. But Russian checks showed different results and they reacted in the only correct way. They protected Russian consumers.

It is possible, also, that the Russians were not wrong, however nothing has been proven as yet, and the Norwegian industry prefers to believe contamination is a Chinese issue, not a Norwegian one. Russia, however, knows there is a problem, and as the country moves towards a higher average standard of living, the intensive controls involving exporters in more than 20 countries have been put in place for safeguarding.

Controlling pelagic facilites

This week a group of Russian inspectors leave Norway upon inspecting a number of processing facilities for pelagic fish. Only nine processing facilities for salmon are currently allowed to export to Russia. This limitation gives Russia an easier task in controlling the payment of import duties, and lessens the chance of loop holes in the import declarations to avoid taxes and duties by camouflaging produce.

If it works, or whether the Russian border is porous due to corrupt officials allowing salmon across the border under a herring or other cheap fish disguise is another question. In Moscow they have at least started the process of cleaning up their act, or at least their image.

In the wake of what the Russians are doing to safeguard against being used as a bin for substandard products, the global markets are abuzz with rumours. When one Lithuanian and one Chilean company were denied entry to the Russian market with their seafood products, it was expected that all Chilean exporters would be barred from the Russian market.

This happened with Norwegian salmon exporters, when they were all barred from the Russia market.

The Russian newspapers Kommersant and Vladivostok Times further fanned the flames, writing that the Federal Service of Veterinary and Phytoveterinary Surveillance would prohibit imported fish and fishery products to be effective as of 1 July this year.

Stopped the pangasius import

Russian food safety inspectors arrived to Vietnam in March to conduct an inspection tour of fish processing facilities, fishery ports, and aquaculture facilities, as well as fish markets. The Federal Service of Veterinary and Phytoveterinary Surveillance inspectors were there to ensure that seafood shipments being exported to the Russian market were complying with food hygiene requirements. They quickly found problems, bringing them to put a halt to imports.

The growing export of Vietnamese pangasius to the important Russian market was also stopped. But a few weeks ago some relief was in sight after Russia announced that 11 Vietnamese seafood companies could resume exports to their market. The go-ahead is a result of recent inspections of Vietnamese processing facilities meeting a clean bill of health and necessary compliance to norms. Again, the number of exporters has been reduced giving Russian authorities control.

It was first announced at end of July, by the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Processors, that the Russian authorities had approved 20 companies. So the number of approved exporters could be increased further.

The 11 Vietnamese seafood companies that were given permission to access the Russian market, according to a report published on FIS.com include: Frozen Food Factory No 7 under Agifish; the Southern Seafood Industrial Co Ltd; Cafatex; Changhua Vietnam; NTACO; the Branch of Ben Tre-based Dong Bang Xanh Co Ltd; Basa Joint Stock Company; Pacific Asia Frozen Seafood Factory under Nam Viet Company; Cho Lon Factory; Factory No 4 under the Ba Ria-Vung Tau Seafood Import-Export Processing Company.

These are all modern facilities able to produce under rigorous quality assurance regimes. In addition the authorities decided that all Vietnamese seafood has to enter Russia via St. Petersburg or the Vladivostok port.

Russia takes control

Russian authorities are clearly showing the world that they are taking control of their market. This may be due to the fact that Russian fleet is a disaster, and if it is to be rebuilt, it can only happen if Russian-caught seafood can compete with seafood imported in accordance with Russian regulations.

Strict rules on imports do not favour Russian producers, but it does bring a halt to cheating and tax evasion, which makes locally produced seafood less competitive.

At the same time Russia is implementing standards, which Europe, the United States, and many other countries have been enforcing for many years.

The licence to export to Russia is a golden opportunity, as the Russian market increases in size. And while the doors are open for top quality seafood, the doors are closing for those who try to make money on exporting rotten fish.

Related articles:

-Secrecy surrounds Russian inspection of pelagic plants
-Russian market not restricted for Chilean salmon producers, says SERNAPESCA
-Russia commences food safety inspection over Vietnamese fishing facilities
-Russian okays 20 Vietnamese firms for standards compliance


By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

24/08/2007 - How the media gets it all mixed up

WEEKEND FEATURE: How the media gets it all mixed up

WORLDWIDE
Friday, August 24, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


In a recent feature story published in The Independent, a well known and well-respected daily newspaper of the media house Independent News and Media Limited, an excessive amount of misinformation was reported, demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge regarding the industry of fishery and aquaculture and the whole business of seafood in general.

Journalists Rob Sharp, Julia Stuart, and John Walsh -a qualified team of authors- of the feature story: The great zebu con – and other restaurant swindles, show a disgregard for the seafood, through several blunders, demonstrating their negligent way of obtaining knowledge and reporting it to the public. This is quite common in today's information-chocked age, where oft times even urban legends, because they are in print, are taken as fact. Today's press has lowered the bar on clear and factual reporting, leading many to believe, that when a wide-circulation paper such as The Independent, shows a disregard for news, there are few reliable sources to turn to. Shouldn't we be expecting more?

Ripped off by restaurants
The feature article is about how Britons are being ripped off by restaurants not serving what their menus promise in print. The team of journalists calls the rip off a scandal, but their lack of knowledge, demonstrated by their information, is more scandalous -and one perpetrated by them- than mislabeling or misrepresenting what consumers eat. One of the journalists writes that he has had a brief career as a restaurant critic, the brevity of which is reflected indeed by what he reports.

John Walsh starts off his attack of disguised seafood products in a careful way, showing that he is able to identify a scallop from a scallop or a bluefin tuna from a bluefin tuna depending on how it is caught. If it looks like the one sold in the supermarket Sainsbury's, it is logically not caught by diving or longlining. He may be right, but one wonders, how he can distinguish the one from the other.

Walsh writes: " I've been offered "diver-gathered" scallops and "line-caught bluefin tuna" wholly indistinguishable from the kind you get in Sainsbury’s. I'm not saying the waiters or the menus were lying through their teeth, but it's clear that they often are. So much of the scrupulously "sourced" ingredients are nothing of the sort.”

Julia Stuart then reports on her interview with Bjorn Van der Horst, a chef patron of Gordon Ramsay's La Noisette restaurant, who explains: It's difficult to tell if a restaurant is swizzing you. One thing to look for is the price. If they are selling wild line-caught fish, and it's cheap bass or turbot, you should be suspicious. Wild turbot costs between GBP 20 and GBP 25 a kilo and – knowing that there's about 60 per cent waste on that fish – if a portion doesn't cost between GBP 25 to GBP 30 then they're either selling it at a loss, or it's not wild turbot."

My own guess is that next time of Gordon Ramsay's La Noisette restaurant offers on it menu a line-caught turbot, something fishy could be up. Turbot for commercial use is not caught either by longlining or hand line.

Sea bass or not?
”Once cooked, the prime fillet of sea bass can be hard to identify – and there are many look-alikes, imposter species being dressed up as the original. Among the counterfeit fish recently identified in Britain's kitchens by local authorities were the Patagonian toothfish – itself threatened by overfishing – which is often sold under the moniker of "sea bass", despite bearing little resemblance to the fish in the wild,” he states.

Maybe the reason for this fish being called sea bass is that it is imported as Chilean sea bass. There is not much profit in substituting Patagonian toothfish and sea bass.

Scampi or not scampi
The journalists also attempt to show their knowledge about scampi: “It's common for eateries to pass off scampi tails glued together with additives as "scampi" pieces. They can even be minced scampi that has been breaded. This is “reformed scampi"."

They should probably look closer into what really is called scampi and what is not. Restaurateurs all over Europe misuse this name. Large shrimp from all over the world, wild of farmed, are passed on as scampi, though are never even close to being scampi. And the small pieces glued together are in most cases not scampi, but shrimp. British food writers, journalists, and chefs have been using the name scampi in unconscious way for years.

“Scampi is the plural of scampo, the Italian name for the Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), also known as the Dublin Bay prawn (especially in Ireland and the U.K.) and langoustine (the French name). The name is used loosely both in Italy and elsewhere, though in Britain, food labelling laws define "scampi" as Nephrops norvegicus.” (Source: Wikipedia).

Not only does media do it injustice. There are thousands and thousands of cases of mislabeling by the seafood industry itself. Some Norwegian exporters of rainbow trout farmed in saltwater still promote it as “salmon trout”. The fish with this name is a North American species. Rainbow trout is a trout, and if a container of this species tries to enter the United States under the guise of being “salmon trout” the container risks being stopped at the border. But most of us accept that “salmon trout” sounds better than “rainbow trout” or trout.


Albatross line-caught by ugly trawler
”"Line-caught" conjures up images of an artisanal fisher with a rod. What it actually means is that an ugly great trawler has crossed the ocean with several hundred yards of nylon and hooks hanging out the back, indiscriminately killing all sea life as well as the occasional albatross. Even then, line-caught fish is more expensive than farmed or netted alternatives, since it is normally fresher and its flesh firmer. Most consumers cannot taste the difference, and an estimated five per cent is mislabeled by disreputable outlets or suppliers,” the feature article explains.

However, “A trawler is a fishing vessel designed for the purpose of operating a trawl, a type of fishing net that is dragged along the bottom of the sea (or sometimes above the bottom at a specified depth)”. (Source: Wikipedia)

So now we all know that line caught fish are caught by "ugly great trawlers." Seen as one of the most selective fishing methods, the journalists still purport that this fishery gear indiscriminately kills all sealife, and even causes incidental seabird catches. It is disturbing news that “trawlers” catching the "odd albatross" can deliver fresher seafood than fish farms.

In fact the seabird albatross does not inhabit the North Atlantic. Only a handful of observations have been made of its presence there. If Scottish and English fish farms are delivering less fresh fish than products received from the southern hemisphere or the Northern Pacific, they have severe problems of being slow with their logistics. The same goes for if they are slower in bringing their produce to the market than long-liners operating out of British harbours.

It is to be appreciated that the press is focusing on seafood substitutions and swindles, but it would be great to see this done by journalists with a minimum of understanding of the seafood industry and how it operates.

Why this lack of knowledge?
Journalists use language as a tool. The right choice of words makes a story more interesting, much like the right fishing gear will bring in a better catch. In their quest to catch the attention of their target audience, they may risk some important details that later can wreak havoc, much as a bottom trawl across the ocean bottom, with its indiscrimination.

Journalists and public relations people with an agenda, promoting a set of views on behalf of themselves, a organisation, or a company, often choose to show bias in their writing, and do not try to present any different point of view. This is common practice, and questionable, however, as long as they do not do it under disguise of neutral journalism it is acceptable. It is not acceptable that journalists representing a wide-circulation independent newspapers like The Independent forget to go their homework.

The name of a product also results in trade policies and protectionism. The North Americans have decided that only their species of catfish is allowed to be named catfish in their markets. Basa from Vietnam cannot be called catfish, which is supposed to make it clearer for consumers. But what is wrong with calling the same fish in the US and Vietnam as "catfish?" There is clearly a political slant. Not only does the seafood industry sometimes disguise what they are selling but journalists then mix up names because of a lack of knowledge, of both politics and the nature of the seafood industry.

Even those who should know often are not interested in using correct labels or names. Laks og Vildtcentralen, established in 1930 is one of Norway’s leading retailers and wholesalers of imported high quality seafood and they call imported black tiger shrimp scampi of course. And they are one of many thousands of seafood companies worldwide that disregard the correct use of product names.

So how can the seafood industry complain about journalists getting it wrong, when they don't have it very clear themselves? Until the seafood industry begins to get things right, they cannot expect the media to correct their errors, only report them. And bass will be a different bass, and a trawler will fish with longlines and scampi will be a term not just for nephrops but also any large shrimp.

And, yes, journalists will continue to behave like experts who can pick a scallop hand picked from the sea by a diver, from a scallop scooped up by a longline, or, sorry, was that a purse seiner? Not that would be for bluefin tuna... oh well.

Note from the writer:
This writer takes responsibility for his own mistakes, and his views do not necessarily express those of FIS.com. However, as journalists, we all must try to learn our mistakes and bridge the gap of what is information and what is heresay.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

17/08/2007 - Celebrating 50 years of Norwegian-Russian co-operation

WEEKEND FEATURE: Celebrating 50 years of Norwegian-Russian co-operation

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Friday, August 17, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


Russian and Norwegian scientists for 50 years have been co-operating. Cold war and other political problems not related to the scientific activities have never stopped this, and not affected the benefits from it for the fishing industry, not only in Russia and Norway, but also for other nations with fishing rights in the North East Atlantic.

A number of times Russian authorities have closed large areas of their jurisdictional sector of the Barents Sea off for Norwegian scientists for reasons not related to any scientific work, but for political issues. The problems have usually been resolved and Russian and Norwegian scientists, as well as fisheries, have benefited from the co-operation.

On August 21–22, the Russian marine research institute PINRO in Murmansk and the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Bergen, will hold a jubilee symposium in Tromsø to mark this half-century of collaboration.

Much negative reaction arose earlier this year when PINRO was not able to finance a research exploratory cruise agreed upon during the Russian-Norwegian Fishery Commission. But this week, director Viktor Komlitsjenko, at Pinro in Murmansk, informed the Norwegian fishery paper Fiskeribladet that two research vessels, Smolensk and Vilnius left harbour to commence coordinated research activities.

A Russian rejection of a permit for Norwegian research vessels to enter Russian zone added to this dilemma earlier this year. This trouble now serves to foreshadow results of the symposium next week.

The background for co-operation is found in the development of stocks of the North East Arctic cod and Norwegian spring-spawning herring in the 1950s. Although both countries were members of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which provides advice on resources management in the North Atlantic, a need for even closer co-operation remained.

In the 1950s, ICES did not advise on total outtakes of stocks, as fish stocks were not regulated in this way at that time. The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea were open seas where everyone could fish as much as they wanted, and the concepts of economic zones and allocations of total quotas still lay 20–30 years in the future.

Problems of unrestricted fishing
Nevertheless, the problems caused by unrestricted fishing were becoming obvious, and catches were becoming smaller. The data on age distribution of cod stocks suggested that the decline in catches was due to overfishing rather than to natural oscillations. The Norwegian fishery for young herring was at issue: Soviet scientists thought that this fishery was the main reason for the decline in herring catches during the 1950s.

The Norwegians rejected this claim, since the nursery grounds of the strong herring year-classes were out in the open sea, where young herring were not being fished. There was scientific disagreement regarding analytical methods and the choice of year-classes for the analysis, which made it difficult to reach agreement. Both the Russians and the Norwegians therefore felt the need for better cooperation, and with that began the co-operation between the IMR and PINRO.

Joint surveys
Since then, joint efforts have been extended and deepened, for example, via joint surveys. The 0-group surveys that started in 1965 have since become a part of the autumn ecosystem survey, which assesses the spawning success of all Barents Sea stocks. It provides what is probably the longest continuous survey series used by ICES and is important to make prognoses of fish. As cooperative efforts have evolved, annual meetings have been held within oceanography, biology and technology.

The introduction of economic zones was one very important factor in the co-operation resulting in the establishment of the Mixed Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. Currently, the main emphasis for Norwegian and Russian scientists is to agree on matters the commission deals with, particularly as regards stock development and quota recommendations.

Without a joint set of recommendations from Norwegian and Russian scientists, it is difficult for the commission to adopt effective resolutions. However, the work of the Fisheries Commission is evolving, and Norwegian and Russian scientists now collaborate on long-term strategies, catch regulations and ecosystem management, rather than simply obtaining figures for the following year’s quota recommendations.

Also the work of the more recent Norwegian-Russian Environmental Commission is likely to affect the cooperation.

A key element in the co-operation is the annual scientific meeting, where 10–20 Norwegian researchers meet their Russian colleagues to discuss questions raised by the Fisheries Commission.

Joint surveys are also organised, the most extensive of these being the above mentioned ecosystem survey in August- September, in which three Norwegian and two Russian vessels take part. A joint Norwegian-Russian report is published in the wake of this cruise. The co-operation also covers exchanges of otoliths and annual meetings dedicated to age determinations of important fish species. Since 1983, Norwegian-Russian symposia have been organised at intervals of one to three years.

International quality control
Although, most of the data on important fish stocks in the Arctic are collected by Russian and Norwegian scientists, large quantities of information are processed under the auspices of ICES, particularly by the Arctic Fisheries and Northern Pelagic working groups. Within ICES, both Russian and Norwegian scientists work towards a joint understanding of models and input data, while ICES provide the international quality control. ICES are therefore a pillar in the Norwegian-Russian co-operation.

At the jubilee meeting in Tromsø, the scientists will summarise some of the results obtained and understandings reached in the course of 50 years of co-operation between IMR and PINRO. They will also be looking ahead, anticipating a trend towards different types of ecosystem studies and more co-operating partners. For this reason, institutions from several other countries have been invited to make presentations at the meeting.


By Terje Engoe/ Institute of Marine Research
www.fis.com