America's war on seafood imports is nuts

It goes without saying that the United States is dependent on seafood imports. Period. Hard stop.

How dependent?

About 80 percent of estimated US consumption of seafood comes from abroad, according to the US government. The country has carried a seafood trade deficit dating back more than three decades.

The expanding deficit in trade value peaked in 2021 at $25.8 billion (€24 billion) in 2023 dollars and was recorded at $20.3 billion (€18.8 billion) in 2023, according to the US department of agriculture.

So, it is a bit hard to watch the recent resurgence in anti-import rhetoric from sectors of the US industry, specifically the Alaska pollock sector and, no surprise here, the perpetually pissed off US wild shrimp industry.

On average, the US imported roughly 28,000 metric tons of pollock products from China between 2018 and 2022, primarily made from Russian-origin product.

Recently, however, a loophole is the US embargo of Russian-origin seafood enacted in response to the country's invasion of Ukraine was closed at the behest of Alaska lawmakers and some Alaska pollock producers.

The loophole had been allowing Russian-origin product reprocessed in China to legally enter the US market, where seafood distributors -- mostly on the East Coast -- use it to supply retail items such as fish sticks and quick-serve foodservice items such as fish sandwiches.

The urge to close the loophole intensified in the middle of last year when Alaska pollock producers felt the sting of collapsing markets brought on by Russia selling less expensive pollock into world markets.

US Sen. Dan Sullivan from Alaska has been the most vocal about eliminating the loophole, saying not doing so undermines American fishermen and seafood processors, enriches Vladimir Putin and Russian oligarchs funding the brutal invasion of Ukraine, and empowers China to continue utilizing Uyghur slave labor to process some of this seafood.

The battle over the pollock imports even led to Alaska pollock giant Trident Seafoods dumping its membership in the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), the largest seafood trade group in the United States.

Trident, which had been a member in the group since 1978, said in January when it left that the move was sparked by NFI's decision to advocate for what Trident called the "continued presence of Russian-harvested seafood in the US market."

The NFI position, Trident said, goes against the broad and bipartisan support in Congress for the Biden administration’s ban on Russian-origin seafood from the US market in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine two years ago.

"NFI did not stay neutral on a significant public policy disagreement within its membership and made no effort to address opposing views clearly and transparently, contrary to well-established rules of the road for trade associations," Trident said.

"And here we are: An industry now wondering where we will get supplies and seafood," Kotok wrote. "The United States does not produce enough seafood to support even the government's own consumption recommendations."

More money

The US shrimp sector, meanwhile, is currently working to once again impose antidumping duties on shrimp imports from Ecuador, India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

The group in December won an International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that found there is a reasonable indication that these shrimp imports are injuring the US shrimp industry. There is a good chance a new round of shrimp tariffs will be imposed on US imports from these countries.

The ITC is expected to rule on its preliminary antidumping duty determinations on or about April 2.

You have to ask, though, if the anti-trade moves will help.

In the case of the pollock sector, wholesale prices for the fish remain soft, and most markets have not recovered from a continuing slump in consumer demand.

As for shrimp, how much money will it take to help the domestic sector?

According to the Southern Shrimp Alliance, which represents the US wild shrimp industry, the US government collected $44 million (€41 million) in antidumping duties on shrimp in fiscal year 2022. The organization estimates the agency collected between $340 million (€316 million) and $500 million (€465 million) between 2014 and 2022.

Keep in mind that imports account for the overwhelming percentage of the US shrimp market, and there is no possible way US producers could come close to supplying the market. So, should consumers just go without shrimp?

The US seafood market needs imports -- consumers depend on them, importers and distributors depend on them, retailers and restaurant operators depend on them.

The total contribution of seafood imports to the US economy exceeds $70 billion in industry output or sales revenue, $37 billion (€34 billion) in total value-added products, and $24 billion (€22 billion) in labor income, according to the University of Florida's Food and Resource Economics Department.

In terms of employment, 512,000 full- and part-time jobs throughout the US economy are supported by seafood imports, concentrated in the retail sector. Taxes associated with US seafood imports are estimated to be $5.03 billion (€4.6 billion) in total federal contributions and $3.9 billion in total state and local tax contributions.

Nationally, the Alaska seafood industry creates over 100,000 full time equivalent jobs, $6 billion (€5.5 billion) in annual labor income and $15 billion (€13.9 billion) in economic output, according to the Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers association.

We have suffered a nearly two-year slump in seafood sales, so it is hard to see how cutting off any portion of US seafood imports is going to help the broader industry, which has struggled enough since the onset of COVID.

The United States doesn't have the wherewithal to supply itself with seafood, and it never will.