The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s five-year plan to strengthen the domestic seafood market includes establishing dozens of open-pen fish farms up to three miles offshore. But some experts worry about the well-being of marine mammals, the expansion of dead zones from fish excrement, and infringement on wild fishing grounds.
The cardboard gravestones read “RIP Local fisherman,” “RIP Wild Fish,” and “RIP Humpback Whales.” Assembled in response to new aquaculture sites planned off the coast of California, the gravestones were brought to the offices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Long Beach, California, in April by activists keen to register their discontent.
The sites pave the way for possibly dozens of new open-pen fish farms as far as three miles offshore, the future home of species that range from carp to salmon. Chief among the protesters’ concerns were entanglement of marine mammals, the expansion of dead zones caused by fish excrement, and infringement on wild fishing grounds.
Such has been the pushback to the announcement of the site plan following NOAA’s first-ever five-year strategic plan for aquaculture. The plan, released last October, outlines national goals for a thriving and sustainable domestic farmed seafood sector. Central to its aim is using science and best-practice approaches to identify areas in the U.S. suitable for development. Pro-aquaculture proponents have touted its potential to reverse a growing seafood trade deficit and provide Americans with seafood for years to come. However, not everyone sees it this way.
Opponents to the plan point to known risks, including ecological disasters like the infamous 2017 salmon spill that took place in Washington State waters when a salmon net pen collapsed, releasing roughly 300,000 Atlantic salmon in Puget Sound. The spill wreaked havoc, and scientists, environmentalists, and policymakers worried escaped salmon could spread disease or parasites to native Pacific varieties.
Accidents like these are why some governments are moving away from the practice, opponents say. Argentina, Washington State, and British Columbia recently banned net-pen salmon aquaculture. So why, then, is the U.S. moving ahead?
The goal to increase farmed seafood production in America dates back to the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 when the U.S. established aquaculture as a national policy priority. Thanks to an acceleration of scientific improvements in the field, the effort has gained momentum over the past decade.
But, again, not everyone sees it this way. Many critics reject the idea that the trade deficit results from a lack of fish. According to Andrianna Natsoulas, campaign director at Don’t Cage Our Oceans, a more likely explanation is that the U.S. sends too much domestically caught seafood out of the country for cheap processing and then re-imports it for consumption.
The organization, an environmental nonprofit focused on the harms of offshore finfish farming, recently took a closer look at the NOAA data. They found that the U.S. can easily feed itself with wild caught domestic seafood.
The deficit figures, they say, fail to account for re-imported seafood. This process, also known as re-shipment, has been called “the great American fish swap” because it creates a confusing web of exports and imports that do nothing to improve food security.