Click here to get the PDF

Over the past two decades, Americans have been eating more seafood than ever. The United States increasingly relies on imports – more than 80 percent – to satisfy consumers’ appetites for cheap seafood.²

As demand for seafood rises, the populations of wild fish are waning. In response, companies, governments, and many policymakers see industrial seafood farming – aquaculture – as the profitable way to satisfy consumer demand.  Indeed, aquaculture now produces half of the world’s seafood.³ Unfortunately for human health, foreign industrial fish farm operations are using an increasing number and variety of potentially harmful veterinary drugs to help them raise an abundance of seafood to export.

Americans are largely unaware of the health concerns associated with imported aquaculture products. An industrial farm with 200,000 salmon produces about the same amount of fecal matter as 65,000 people.⁴³ This waste contaminates the water and spreads disease. Inadequate sewage treatment in producing countries may also contaminate aquaculture crops.²⁶ Aquaculture operators use antibiotics, fungicides, and pesticides to try to control parasites, prevent infections, and stop the spread of diseases. Residues of these chemicals then end up in fish, where they can sicken the consumers who eat it.

The U.S. government’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a mandate to oversee the safety of seafood imports by inspecting shipments at the border. In reality, lack of money meant that FDA physically inspected less than two percent of all import shipments in 2006, and lab tested only 0.59 percent – not enough to ensure the safety of America’s seafood.

FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine has approved six drugs for use in aquaculture production; however, the drug approval and regulatory systems in other countries vary, and many foreign producers do not comply with U.S. standards. Five years ago, FDA began testing for the residues of unapproved antibiotics and chemicals – or veterinary drug residues – in seafood imports.  If the residues exceed FDA’s tolerance levels, the agency refuses the imports. 

Troubling Trends in Veterinary Drug Residues on Seafood Imports

Veterinary drug residues are being detected on imports from more countries and more types of seafood. Many countries have adopted industrial aquaculture as the most feasible and profitable way to raise seafood, and FDA has detected residues from veterinary drugs on imports from more and more countries. The number of countries with refusals for veterinary drug residue increased from four countries in 2003 to more than eight in 2006.

A similar increase is observed with the detection of veterinary drug residues in different types of seafood products. In part, this could reflect FDA’s testing for more substances in more species in recent years.  However, as more and more species are produced in aquaculture facilities, chemicals and antibiotic residues will remain on more types of seafood products, making it a challenge for consumers to avoid them.

A majority of all refusals from veterinary drug residues on U.S. seafood imports have come from China. China is the aquaculture center of the world and has an established history of violations for veterinary drug residues. The European Union first detected a sharp increase in violations for chloramphenicol and nitrofuran on shrimp imports from China in 2001 and 2002.  After FDA began testing for chloramphenicol in 2003, five of the 15 refused imports were from China. However, the most drastic increase in detection of drug residues from China happened over the past two years. In 2006, 78 of the 125 refusals, or 62.4 percent of all drug residue refusals, were on shipments from China. Malachite green was the substance most commonly detected in laboratory inspections, present in 33 shipments from China. In addition, in 2006, all four cases of gentian violet, a new drug being used in place of malachite green, were detected on imports from China. In the first four months of 2007, 78 shipments from China were refused for drug residue. This is equal to the number refused during all of 2006.⁴⁵

As China is providing more and more of the seafood consumed in the United States, its aquaculture operators’ heavy use of antibiotics and other chemicals presents a serious safety concern for consumers. Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and India are the other countries responsible for a large proportion of the refusals of veterinary drug residues on seafood imports.

Challenges to FDA Oversight

In general, FDA has responded slowly to inspecting new veterinary drugs used in aquaculture. FDA started testing for new chemicals in imports two or more years after the European Union began testing. FDA’s slow response means that shipments with residues of potentially harmful chemicals could have entered the U.S. seafood supply.⁴⁴

Recommendations

Trends in the global production of seafood make now a critical time for FDA to increase physical inspection of imported seafood. FDA must also respond more quickly when hazardous trends are identified. Congress should appropriate the money to make this happen.

What can you do?

• Choose wild-caught, sustainably produced, domestic seafood over imported, industrially produced fish. Consumers should ask stores and restaurants where their seafood comes from and how it was produced.
• Tell FDA to increase inspection of imported seafood, particularly products produced on industrial farms.
• Ask Congress to increase funding and oversight for FDA’s seafood import inspection program.

See our report, Import Alert, for the footnotes.