- The Washington Times - Sunday, November 29, 2015

The Obama administration released new rules last week imposing stiffer requirements on catfish sold as food — a move Southern lawmakers cheered, hoping it will push foreign catfish out of the U.S. market and help local producers.

But the rules, released Wednesday, spawned a backlash from other lawmakers who say the regulations have little to do with safety and are really a protectionist overture that could spark a trade dispute with Vietnam.

The rules were required by a 2008 law, renewed in 2014, but have taken years to finalize as the two sides were battling behind the scenes, arguing over whether catfish farmers deserve government intervention. The new inspection regime will be shifted from the Food and Drug Administration, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and regulates most seafood, to the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, which normally handles meat, poultry and eggs — and now catfish.

“The point of this process has been to ensure that the farm-raised catfish served to American families is safe and nutritious,” said Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican. “The USDA is in the best position to get this done.”

The new Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspection will begin in March, and will be phased in over 18 months.

“FSIS is committed to a smooth and gradual introduction to the new inspection program, which was mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill,” said Al Almanza, USDA’s deputy undersecretary for food safety. “The agency will conduct extensive outreach to domestic industry and international partners so that they fully understand FSIS’ requirements prior to full implementation.”

Domestic catfish farmers, concentrated in Mississippi and Alabama, have faced increased competition from foreign catfish producers, and from Vietnam in particular.

Catfish is the sixth-most-popular seafood in the U.S., but American producers are being undercut by cheaper imports from Vietnam. They already had persuaded the FDA to ban foreign producers from labeling their imports as catfish, which is why imported catfish in grocery stores is often called “basa” or “swai,” the Vietnamese names for the fish.

But the domestic producers said the FDA should have done more to crack down on foreign pangasius catfish imports that the American producers said contained banned antibiotics. Fed up with the FDA, the American producers fought a yearslong battle to shift oversight to the FSIS, which they expect to be more sympathetic to their demands.

The Vietnamese Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment Friday, but the government has said it would consider moves to stiffen inspections in case of protectionism.

Congress’s investigative branch, the Government Accountability Office, has released a series of reports calling the shift “duplicative” and “wasteful,” and firmly rejected it in a 2012 report starkly titled “Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA.”

The Catfish Farmers of America said they were involved in the push for regulatory responsibilities to go to the USDA purely as a matter of food safety.

“After years of almost nonexistent FDA inspection of imports, placing the health of consumers at risk, we are on the road to raising consumer confidence in the catfish products sold in our stores and our restaurants,” CFA President Bari Cain said.

The GAO found no evidence of tainted foreign catfish problems.

That has left lawmakers on both sides of the aisle ridiculing the latest move as a waste of time and taxpayers’ money, all to protect an industry that can’t compete on its own.

“As a result of this protectionist program, an estimated $15 million per year will be spent on enabling government bureaucrats to impose barriers on foreign catfish importers, which will in turn increase the price of catfish for American consumers, restaurants and seafood processors,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Democrat, said she was “disappointed” with the Obama administration for moving forward with “unnecessary and harmful regulations.”

“This decision to appease a small special interest group puts at risk hundreds of jobs in New Hampshire,” she said. “These regulations have nothing to do with food safety and are an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars.”

The Obama administration had tried to fight the move, including calling for the FSIS shift to be stripped out of the budget. But after the 2014 farm bill repeated Congress’ intent that the shift happen, the administration finally followed through.

• Anjali Shastry can be reached at ashastry@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide