« August 2007 Table of Contents 
One Man's Opinion: FDA fails with fish
By Peter Redmayne
August 01, 2007
How many whacks to the head does it take? The U.S. seafood
industry has suffered long enough under the less than watchful
eye of the Food and Drug Administration. If you sell fish, call
up your congressman and demand that it be under the control of
the Department of Agriculture, just like it's done in almost
every other country in the world. Clearly, the FDA is not up to
the job.
The latest evidence that the FDA is the seafood industry's
worst enemy came to light in July, during the brouhaha over the
FDA's import alert over the use of banned antibiotics by
Chinese fish farmers [see Newsline story, page 8]. It was a
story the media immediately jumped all over.
On Sunday, July 15, more than half of The New York Times
Op-Ed section was devoted to piscine punditry. And what tasty
morsels did the paper's readers digest? They learned that sushi
bars serve imported tuna that has "tasteless red flesh that has
often been frozen for months and treated with chemicals to
preserve its color." In another NYT piece, "Catfish with a Side
of Scombroid," readers were told that "if you're a shady
seafood dealer trying to unload a container of dodgy shrimp or
tilapia, chances are 98 in 100 it will make it into the United
States."
Confidence in the FDA's ability to ensure the safety of the
nation's seafood supply took yet another hit when a House
subcommittee ordered beleaguered FDA officials to Capitol Hill
in late July. The congressmen wanted to know why the FDA's
decision to close seven out of its 13 testing labs would make
the FDA's inspection program more effective. At the same
hearing, representatives heard from an oversight agency that
the FDA's inspection effort was woefully inadequate. That's not
surprising since the number of FDA inspectors has decreased at
the same time imports have soared.
The bad news about tainted seafood and the FDA's inability
to adequately inspect seafood imports is not going to go away
any time soon. Countries like China have shown they have a very
hard time controlling their fragmented seafood industries.
Chinese authorities, for example, conceded that the tainted
imports that triggered the FDA import alert were from plants
that were not even registered with health authorities. And who
really thinks the FDA will suddenly get the resources needed to
do a credible job?
USDA, on the other hand, does a much better job of
inspecting imports. An estimated 16 percent of the U.S. meat
imports is inspected, compared to less than 1 percent of
seafood. The USDA is also more efficient; the agency limits
imports to just 10 ports, while the FDA has inspectors spread
out at 90 ports. While inspection of seafood by USDA is no
guarantee that consumer confidence will be quickly restored,
it's clear the agency has more resources and clout with
Congress. Consider, for example, that COOL labeling applies
only to seafood, not to meat and poultry.
As long as the FDA is in charge of seafood inspection, the
seafood industry will continue to take hits from the media,
consumer confidence will suffer and sales will be slower than
they should. There is a better way and the letters are
USDA.
Contributing Editor Peter Redmayne lives in Seattle