With U.S. President Donald Trump set on reordering international trade to align with his “America First” priorities, seafood companies have been quick to list areas where they would like to see improvements.
Trump has moved swiftly in the first months of his second term to change the nation’s trade policies, threatening and implementing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China.
In February, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) asked the public to point out “unfair trade practices by other countries” in response to Trump’s America First Trade Policy Presidential Memorandum. Several seafood companies and associations have responded to the call, documenting issues they have with the status quo and recommending areas for improvement.
In a detailed letter, the National Fisheries Institute – the largest trade association representing the U.S. seafood sector – called on the U.S. government to work to eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers that hinder American producers’ access to foreign markets.
“U.S. seafood exporters continue to face significant barriers that have eroded their competitiveness,” NFI Executive Vice President Robert DeHaan said. “A combination of longstanding and newly imposed trade restrictions – including tariff and non-tariff measures – has allowed competitors such as Canada and Chile to gain market share at the expense of U.S. producers. China’s retaliatory tariffs, for example, have made it far more difficult for U.S. seafood to compete, while restrictive import measures in key markets such as the European Union, Japan, and Brazil have further eroded access for American producers.”
“The result should surprise no one: U.S. seafood exports have declined to their lowest levels in over a decade,” DeHaan added.
Among NFI’s recommendations are eliminating China’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. seafood, the European Union’s tariffs and Autonomous Tariff Quotas on seafood products, and tariffs imposed by the United Kingdom and Japan.
The institute also called on the U.S. to enforce China’s commitments to buy American seafood, which were agreed to in the first Trump administration.
Of particular concern is the U.S. lobster industry, which faces an imminent challenge with the forthcoming expiration of the E.U.-U.S. “mini deal,” a 2020 agreement that eliminated E.U. tariffs on live lobster imports from the U.S. That deal is set to expire at the end of July 2025, exposing live lobster exports to E.U. tariffs again. In its letter, NFI urged the USTR to work with the E.U. to extend the mini deal and expand its coverage to other lobster products, such as lobster tails.
NFI also wants live lobster to be excluded from the E.U.’s proposed live animal transport legislation.
“This regulation introduces new requirements that, if misapplied, will end transatlantic exports of live lobster and crab,” NFI stated. “Should any of that happen, trade of live lobsters between the U.S. and the E.U. will cease, depriving lobstermen of yet another major market.”
NFI hopes the USTR can secure confirmation from E.U. counterparts that the new regulation won’t impact live shellfish transportation.
NFI is also seeking reforms in Japan, where regulations require inspections of all live lobster imports. Those inspections can delay shipments by 20-40 hours, according to NFI, increasing lobster mortality risks and “making it nearly impossible for U.S. exporters to compete in this market. Canadian lobster exports to Japan do not face those restrictions.
The NFI also documented various trade barriers in Brazil and Indonesia that hamper U.S. exporters and importers.
The American pollock sector also raised concerns with unfair trade practices, with the At-Sea Processors Association and the Pacific Seafood Processors Association submitting a joint letter outlining the challenges the fishery faces.
“The Alaska seafood industry faces an existential and global threat in the form of unfair trade and non-market practices by Russian seafood producers – state subsidies, overproduction and global dumping, and wide-ranging environmental and labor exploitation, including forced labor – that drive down the costs of Russian seafood around the world and prevent U.S. exporters from being able to compete on fair terms,” the two organizations said in their joint letter to the USTR.
In their letter, the pollock associations called out Japan for not taking actions against Russia’s predatory seafood policies, which they claim undermines Alaskan seafood producers. For example, the associations point to the rise of Russian pollock surimi, priced to displace American products.
“This production shift, combined with aggressive Russian pricing designed to displace U.S. pollock surimi from its traditional Asian markets, is having an immediate and devastating impact: Russian pollock surimi has rapidly gained a new foothold in Japan and other key Asian markets; global pollock surimi prices have declined sharply; and trends suggest even more acute disruption ahead,” the associations claimed.
Like NFI, the associations would like to see an end of Japanese tariffs on U.S. seafood.
The pollock producers would also like to see tariffs on U.S. seafood implemented by the European Union, China, the U.K., and Taiwan eliminated.
Both the pollock associations and NFI also highlight Brazil’s Identity and Quality Technical Regulations (RTIQ), which establishes “an unreasonably low sodium threshold requirement,” as overly stringent.
Other submitted comments raised issues with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Seafood Inspection Program (USDC SIP), a government program which certifies seafood products for export. U.S. seafood companies claim the auditing and inspection fees associated with the program are too high, putting American exports at a disadvantage.
“The costs for the USDC SIP audits and per shipment certification have steadily risen over the years and place U.S. seafood producers at a financial disadvantage in the global marketplace as compared to seafood producers from foreign countries (e.g. EU, Canada, China) that provide export certification with no or significantly lower cost systems,” the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute said in a letter to the USTR.
According to ASMI and the Seafood Products Association, which raised identical concerns in its letter, quarterly auditing fees can exceed USD 16,000 (EUR 14,823) per year, while export certification fees cost an additional USD 97 (EUR 90) per shipment.
“In Alaska, these numbers are often towards the upper percentiles of expense, due to the auditors lodging and travel to remote Alaska facilities being exceptionally more expensive,” ASMI noted.
Many foreign nations provide similar export certification services for no cost, or at least a much lower cost, both ASMI and SPA noted in their letters, putting U.S. exporters at a disadvantage.
“The safety and viability of internationally traded seafood products is evolving,” the Seafood Products Association said. “It is important to make trade requirements more equitable, less redundant, and more cost effective. Our domestic seafood manufacturers are competing with foreign seafood importers, who technically have less oversight and costs associated with their imported products. It is time to explore new options that can assist with fair trade and equitable costs for all parties involved.”
The domestic shrimp industry – which has long complained about unfair trade practices, contaminated imports, and foreign subsidies – also voiced its ongoing concerns with imported shrimp.
“Domestic shrimp prices have declined by more than 50 percent. We have lost thousands of domestic shrimp businesses,” Ronnie Anderson of Andersons Louisiana Seafood said in a comment. “The struggle, just to sell domestic product against cheap contaminated imports, is unbelievable.”
In its comments, the American Shrimp Processors Association called on the USTR to investigate unfair trade practices with Ecuador, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, with tariffs implemented on frozen warmwater shrimp from all four countries. The U.S. shrimp sector has been consistent in its calls for the U.S. government to take a hard stance against shrimp imports.
“If our domestic fisheries continue to be overrun by foreign imports, we will become increasingly dependent on foreign sources, leaving our food supply vulnerable to disruptions and price manipulation,” William Wayne of the Seafood Work and Waterman’s Association said. “It is imperative that we take immediate action to level the playing field for American fishermen. Implementing stricter enforcement of fair-trade policies, increasing inspections of foreign seafood, and prioritizing the sustainability and security of our domestic food supply should be top priorities. Without intervention, we risk losing not only an industry, but a fundamental part of our national identity.”
Other concerns raised by U.S. shrimpers were high fuel prices, the inability to obtain H2-B visa workers, and high operating costs.
The U.S. catfish sector also raised issue with competition from cheap imports, claiming that Vietnamese catfish producers are dumping their product into U.S. markets.
“For more than two decades, the domestic catfish industry has been decimated by Vietnam’s predatory economic practices, with severe negative consequences for U.S. workers and communities,” several catfish processors noted in a joint comment to the USTR.
Last year, Vietnamese exporters sent 247 million pounds of catfish to the U.S., accounting for 99 percent of the catfish imported into the country.
The East Coast Shellfish Growers Association also raised issue with foreign subsidization of aquaculture, which gives foreign shellfish farmers an edge.
“Several of our competitors enjoy substantial government subsidies and reduced regulatory costs,” the association said. “They have much lower regulatory costs and can establish extremely large farms, allowing them to take advantage of superior economies of scale. The relative strength of the U.S. dollar means that shellfish are coming into our markets at a significant discount.”
