Pick up a bag of frozen shrimp from practically any American grocery store. Turn it over. It probably reads “Product of Vietnam” or “Farmed in Ecuador.” For American fish farmers, that little label symbolizes years of frustration, lost income, and a regulatory framework that appears to be intended to discourage rather than promote domestic production. Most consumers are unaware of this story.
One of the world’s most productive ocean territories is where the United States is located. Some of the world’s most nutrient-rich coastal waters, centuries of maritime tradition, and more than four million square miles of excellent fishing grounds. However, almost 90% of the seafood consumed by Americans is imported. The deficit in the seafood trade has surpassed $20 billion. When you speak with a Gulf Coast fish farmer who has been trying for two years to get a permit approved, that figure doesn’t feel abstract.
In theory, one of America’s greatest opportunities should be aquaculture, or the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic species. It is widely acknowledged as being crucial to feeding a growing world, resource-efficient, and increasingly scalable. Over half of all fish consumed by humans worldwide is already farmed seafood. The share is increasing. It’s not whether aquaculture is important. Why the US keeps coming up with ways to make things more difficult is the question.
A portion of the solution is hidden within a complex web of conflicting federal regulations. American fish farmers manage regulations from the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the FDA, NOAA, and several state-level organizations—often concurrently and with competing deadlines. Months-long permits can become years-long. Despite their importance, environmental review procedures have frequently become so sluggish as to prevent projects from ever getting off the ground. The system seems to have been designed for a different time period, one that did not foresee the scope and urgency of contemporary food production.
In the meantime, rival countries function under completely different circumstances. The majority of the seafood imported into the United States comes from farms in Southeast Asia and South America, which encounter minimal regulatory obstacles. The product reaches the market faster, labor costs are reduced, and environmental regulations are loosened. Whether all of that imported seafood satisfies the sustainability and safety requirements that Americans believe they are receiving is still up for debate. Most likely, some of it doesn’t. However, it sits on shelves next to nothing domestic because American producers are unable to keep up, not because their fish is inferior, but rather because the route to market is so much more costly and time-consuming.
It’s difficult to ignore the irony. The majority of the seafood consumed in the nation that demands the strictest environmental and food safety regulations domestically is imported from nations that do not. While foreign competitors operate unrestrictedly and sell freely into American markets, American farmers are subject to strict regulations. It’s not just an unequal playing field. It’s tilted almost comically.
There are indications of motion. Agencies are reconsidering some of the more onerous regulations as a result of recent executive-level attention to the seafood trade deficit. Modernizing fisheries data, integrating more recent technology into aquaculture evaluations, and creating a formal plan to support domestic seafood production and export are all ongoing initiatives. It remains to be seen if those efforts result in actual, long-lasting change for the fish farmer in Maine or Louisiana awaiting a permit. The pace of bureaucracies is slow. Fish farms don’t hold back.
