Interview With IntraFish

22nd March, 2024.

 

As part of the coverage on our industry, the trade publication IntraFish presented SEAI a set of questions on our view of the reporting done by the Associated Press. We promptly provided them full and detailed feedback, although some of the salient points we sent them were left out of the final article that IntraFish published. So that our many stakeholders can see our full and detailed reply to IntraFish, we are publishing the entire verbatim Q&A below. 

These on-the-record assertions come from our Secretary General Mr. Elias Sait: 

First and foremost, the entire sequence of events that have unfolded over the last week or so, with seemingly coordinated reports appearing in close sequence, suggests a carefully planned and sinister effort, strategically aimed to denigrate and derail the growing image and status of Indian shrimp in the US market. Today the Indian export market stands at US 2.5 billion annually (40% of U.S. imports of shrimps), comprising of supermarkets, retail chains, and institutions. But most importantly, these reports are explicitly aimed at manipulating the perceptions of the American consumer, with totally unverifiable charges and underhanded reporting methods that badly mislead the public about the Indian Shrimp producing industry.

Now, a point-to-point response:

 

IntraFish: Some serious allegations are made against the Indian shrimp processing sector in the CAL report and the Associated Press investigation. How concerned are you about these types of abuses taking place in the shrimp supply chain? 

 

SEAI: SEAI is seriously concerned about the charge of such abuses, and a key part of our mission as an organization is to facilitate and protect the highest standards for our supply chain and our industry.

 

The government in India too has a robust mechanism of checks and controls, in the processing, pre-processing and primary production systems in fisheries, both capture and culture. That’s the central flaw in the AP and CAL reporting – they smear the entire industry, making no distinction between companies operating the right way and bad actors that are skirting the law. Our group never even heard from either AP or CAL at any time and AP has ignored our attempts to dialogue with them. But the few vague claims that AP trafficked to our members’ customers fell apart on basic examination, as we have detailed. AP has offered no explanation for those falsehoods and no apology. 

 

India can very strongly claim to have one of the best, if not the best processing infrastructure in the world, with nearly 400 EEC approved processing plants, all with advanced HACCP systems and programmes, very closely monitored and regulated by government agencies, like Export Inspection Council, which is the designated competent authority in India for many importing countries. Some of the processing plants in operation, are amongst the world’s best designed ones, in terms of systems, design, equipment and aesthetics. Most of the leading international certification agencies have given their three-, four-, and five-star certifications, purely on the basis of full satisfaction and conviction on such facilities and systems being rightly in place and

in action.

 

In any industry in any country, there is always the possibility of poor conduct. A central purpose of our association is to uphold and safeguard industry-wide standards, so that customers and consumers can be confident in our products.

 

IntraFish: Have workers expressed these kinds of concerns (poor living conditions, lack of freedom of movement, underaged labor) to SEAI members in the past? If so, how has the association addressed their concerns? 

 

SEAI: Indian law requires a formal grievance process for all workers, which we strongly support. All the workers at SEAI companies also have easy access to the government agencies that are tasked with worker safety and labor standards – through online apps, hotlines, and other safe channels. We are not aware of any grievances filed about our members on those aspects that you cite, housing and underage labour – and the company that AP singled out has never once been cited or even alleged to have a violation like that. So the way that AP’s reporter, Martha Mendoza, paraded that accusation to our members’ customers is completely irresponsible.

 

India, as a country, have excellent labour laws in place, which are implemented very strictly by both the national and federal governments. More importantly, all the processing plant owners, who are SEAI members, are quite conscious to ensure good care of the workers, in all respects, which includes good wages, boarding and lodging facilities, health care and recreation, in addition to security, and independence of movement. Our members do not use underage labour. SEAI, as an association, consisting of office-bearers and 28 committee members representing all the coastal states in the country, keeps track of these situations very closely and we have a keen interest, both ethically and for our business reputation, to correct any non-compliance

with the established standards.

 

IntraFish: How often are processing and peeling factories of SEAI members audited to ensure labor standards are met? The BAP and ASC standards were criticized in the report as little more than a “marketing” tool. Do SEAI members feel confident that their auditors are being sufficiently thorough, both for sustainability and labor standards? 

 

SEAI: The regulation and monitoring by designated government agencies, like the Export Inspection Council, is very strict for both pre-processing and processing facilities, systems and operations. This includes facilities, infrastructure, for processing, preprocessing, labour boarding and lodging, and health and hygiene. There is also the assessment and audit done by international certification agencies, for ensuring compliance on all fronts, including labour standards.

 

Notice please that both AP and CAL are accusing everyone else of corruption and moral indifference – government agencies in India and the U.S., the various certification agencies, independent auditors, and established companies at all levels of the supply chain. Yet they themselves are taking large financial contributions from wealthy donors that have a stated hostility to the seafood industry as a whole, while actively evading any attempt to examine their work and methods. 

 

AP’s report is filled with politicized rhetoric about “issues of globalization and Western power,” their quoted sources call for a “purge” of the entire industry, and it promotes alternatives such as vegan shrimp “grown in a lab.” The CAL report too is steeped in ideological language about stopping “profit-making from America’s favorite seafood” and it demands specific policy outcomes. This is not neutral, objective reporting – as it pretends to be – it is part of an activist campaign. 

 

While we say all this, we invite any agency of any importer, consumer or any US government representatives to come and check the Indian system, and satisfy themselves, and compare this with the systems and programmes of other countries, whose shrimps are being imported by USA.

 

We are always open to any suggestions for further improvements in the systems, as required. One of our members invited AP for an open visit to their facilities. The offer was disregarded.

 

IntraFish: The CAL report makes a series of recommendations to the industry and to the Indian government, including things like enrollment in state insurance programs and the elimination of target-based payments. What are your thoughts on their recommendations?

 

SEAI: Although many of these measures are currently implemented in various capacities, SEAI remains receptive to new ideas. Rather than consulting a select few unidentified individuals, CAL could have gained a deeper understanding of the implementation of these measures and the actions taken by authorities in their absence by reaching out to SEAI or any of our members directly.

 

IntraFish: You’ve expressed frustration with how the Associated Press has reported on the CAL report and India in general. What is your initial reaction to the report and press coverage?

 

SEAI: Both reports violated fundamental guidelines of ethical journalism and, by their own account, are intended to drive economic and political outcomes. Throughout the CAL report, the various work conditions and settings where alleged incidents take place are generalized, with no specific company or any identifying details cited. Obviously, this prevents any kind of verification or examination of those allegations — and of course also makes any remediation impossible. 

 

Although the Associated Press relies on the CAL report in its article, there is no evidence that AP made any effort whatsoever to verify any of the interior details, situations, individuals, or companies involved. Indeed it would seem impossible to conduct any such fact-check effort because CAL has concealed nearly all of those specifics.

 

Both AP and CAL received large sums of money, specifically to produce this reporting, from activist foundations with financial and ideological incentives on the issue. Obviously, those donors hope for reports that align with their missions and goals and both AP and CAL are each openly seeking more donations. 

 

That is more than speculation — the proof shows up in the slanted journalism that results. AP’s article makes no distinction whatsoever between independent, domestic shrimp operations and the established export companies, like those in our group, that have a longstanding track record of regulatory compliance and high standards. Instead, AP falsely blurs that divide, writing “It is nearly impossible to tell where a specific shrimp ends up, and whether a U.S.-bound shipment has a connection to abusive labor practices.” That is flatly untrue. There are stringent regulatory processes in both India and the United States that monitor and oversee that entire supply chain from start to finish.

 

IntraFish: Obviously, these reports will have an impact on the reputation of Indian shrimp. How will SEAI help calm concerns to the seafood industry?

 

SEAI: India has put in strenuous and professional efforts, over a long number of years, in reaching the level of the largest exporter of shrimps to USA, with “Brand India” being established on the retail and supermarket shelves of USA, and most importantly, being registered as a good, tasty and safe product in the minds of the consumers. A few negative reports, all occurring at the same time, with a sinister design on impacting India’s share of the shrimp market in the USA, will not erode this share.

 

Our members are in active consultation with their U.S. customers and of course are offering full transparency and access for any additional inspections or engagement they wish to add to the existing structure.

 

But we are also going to continue to expose the underhanded and unethical way that these reports were compiled. They are unreliable and they are driven by underlying agendas.

 

IntraFish: In the past, US politicians typically investigate these types of stories quite aggressively. What is SEAI and the Indian government doing to discuss these allegations with the US government and ensure Indian shrimp does not face additional restrictions?

 

SEAI: We have been in active touch with government authorities and the Indian embassy in Washington during recent days. They share our view that the integrity of the Indian regulatory system must be defended. We would welcome any interaction with American policymakers about the way we safeguard our standards and practices.

 

It’s obvious that the goal of the AP and its activist donors is to set back economic development  in India and intimidate our customers into sourcing from our competitors. Don’t just take our word for it – the AP boasts about it in their story. Creating the appearance of controversy, and using it to entice lawmakers into spurious investigations, obviously suits their purpose.

 

IntraFish: What is the key message that SEAI would like to send to US customers, and other

buyers of Indian shrimp worldwide?

 

SEAI: India is amongst the largest exporters of shrimps in the world, as a result of its commitment to quality, value-addition, and especially consumer safety and satisfaction. We have always been fully open and transparent about those practices because of course our business relationships rely on verifiable and robust standards. Every company in this supply chain, both in India and the U.S., has been targeted at one time or another by these same political activist groups. So we would urge anyone reading those reports to apply a high level of skepticism and consider what is truly motivating those organizations.

 

The Indian Shrimp industry and the Indian government is going to stand firmly behind our association’s track record and our integrity.

 

# # #