Honolulu, HAWAII — At its 199th meeting in June, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) members lamented the influx of foreign- caught fish flooding U.S. markets, undermining local fishermen. This issue affects not only Hawai‘i but also U.S. territories, where local fisheries struggle with profitability due to cheaper foreign imports.

Fishermen are frustrated by the lack of price adjustment after retailers replace locally caught fish with lower-cost foreign alternatives. As one Kona fisherman put it: “It’s not like we can’t catch fish or that fresh fish is scarce—buyers and retailers have simply decided to buy foreign products, making it hard to find local buyers.”

U.S. tuna landings, primarily from Hawai‘i and excluding those used in canned tuna, are valued at $170 million (Figure 1). In comparison, imports of fresh and frozen yellowfin and bigeye tuna were approximately $230 million in 2023, reaching almost $300 million in 2022 (Figure 2), with Vietnam, Panama and Indonesia being major sources.

U.S.-caught tuna is of superior quality, while many cheaper foreign imports use questionable practices.

In Hawai‘i, bigeye and yellowfin tuna are primarily supplied to poke and sashimi markets, sold fresh and never chemically treated. However, imported tuna, often in the form of loins and cubes treated with carbon monoxide (referred to as “tailpipe tuna”), retains a misleadingly fresh appearance.

According to a June 11, 2024, Seafood Source article, up to 60% of yellowfin tuna steaks from Vietnam undergo a process involving saline injections and treatments with beet juice, paprika and additives like sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid.¹

This product is given a euphemism of “vitamin tuna” (from ascorbic acid), which is intended to mask low-quality, brown-colored fish.

Many of these imported products, particularly chemically treated ones, come from fisheries lacking the monitoring needed to ensure sustainability and fair labor practices.

A significant source of these frozen fish is heavily subsidized Chinese fisheries. These subsidies create overcapacity and reduce operational costs, leading to lower prices that outcompete U.S. fisheries, which, unlike foreign counterparts, are not subsidized and are subject to strict laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and numerous labor regulations, in addition to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Foreign fishery products entering the United States must meet similar marine mammal protection standards, yet enforcement remains lax.

Is The Fish You Are Buying Truly Local?

Misleading labeling of seafood is a widespread issue in state and territorial markets, possib­ly due to insufficient enforcement and coordi­nation between federal, state, and territorial authorities.

Federal law requires country of origin labeling (COOL) for imported seafood and agricultural products until they are substantially transformed and/or processed. However, there is substantial gray area with ‘ahi poke, which is often marketed as “locally made” or “freshly made” despite being import­ed, previously frozen and gas-treated.

This misleads the consumer.

The Council has recommended better coordination among state, territorial and federal agencies to enforce labeling laws, as has been done in states like Alabama, which requires clear labeling for all seafood products.2

The Council is pushing for investigations into dumping, countervailing and unfair trade harming U.S. Pacific tuna fisheries.

Council members, staff and industry leaders recently met with the International Trade Administration (ITA) to discuss these concerns.

U.S. fishermen and industry leaders contend that foreign products are undercutting prices, possibly by “dumping” cheap, subsidized goods into the domestic market.

Foreign governments subsidize industries by providing financial assis­tance to boost production, manufacturing, or exports. The level of subsidy a foreign fishery receives determines the rate of “countervailing” duties imposed to offset the subsidy. However, this practice harms U.S. fisheries by undercutting domestic prices.

According to the ITA, dumping occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States below its home market price or production cost. This is different from simply having lower costs due to factors like lower wages. However, exceptions may apply for countries like China, where subsidies and economic conditions lower production costs.

Consequently, the U.S.Department of Commerce considers Vietnam a “non-market economy,” meaning its exports to the United States will be treated differently in antidumping and countervailing investigations, beyond just the production costs in Vietnam.³

The ITA may investigate these practices and request action by several agencies, which can trigger action by lawmakers. U.S. Pacific tuna industries can petition for investigations by providing data and evidence. If foreign entities are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices, duties could be imposed to mitigate the impact on U.S. fisheries.

The Council has long contended that MMPA import provisions should be enforced to ensure fairness and limit imports from questionable foreign fisheries.

On Aug. 8, 2024, a group of environmental nongovernmental organizations filed suit against several federal departments for not enforcing these provisions,4 which aim to level the playing field by requiring foreign fisheries to meet the same standards as U.S. fisheries in reducing bycatch and protecting marine mammals.

The Council will continue to monitor petitions and investigations to ensure fair competition for U.S. Pacific fisheries. Progress on these issues will be discussed at the Council’s 200th meeting in September.