The Seafood Exporters Association of India

SEAI’s Letter to the Associated Press

Admin Editor — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:36:01 +0000

March 28, 2024

Mr. Tom Berman, Editor
Associated Press

Dear Mr. Berman:

On behalf of the Seafood Exporters Association of India, a group comprising companies that export shrimp to the U.S. market, I am writing to take issue with a series of factual inaccuracies and errors in reporter Martha Mendoza’s recent article on our industry, as well as to raise concerns about the troubling way that story was put together.

Ms. Mendoza never contacted our group at any time, and so we have been obliged to ourselves retrace the various situations and settings that are described in her piece. We discovered many disturbing discrepancies.

For example, she publicly accused one of our members of workplace abuses that in fact occurred at an entirely different company, one that plays no part in the export market. She reported that another member company “destroyed critical ecosystems” in mangrove areas, yet the photography AP used for that anecdote is not a mangrove region at all and is in fact a regulated location that has authorization from the Indian government’s environmental authorities. Ms. Mendoza wrote that one of our members released wastewater into local fields, but AP’s photography shows that she was in fact at a location nearly 50 miles away from the company’s actual operations.

The report from Corporate Accountability Lab, on which AP’s reporting heavily relies, is almost entirely unsubstantiated in connection with any specific company. Instead, nearly all of the incidents and circumstances described in CAL’s report lack the basic detail such as who, what, where, and when the incidents are supposed to have occurred. We can find no evidence in Ms. Mendoza’s reporting that AP made any effort whatsoever to verify any of the details, situations, individuals, or companies to which the CAL report alludes.

Here are some additional specifics on these and other aspects on which we are hoping for some explanation from you:

Prior to contacting our member company, Nekkanti, Ms. Mendoza confronted a wide range of its customers with accusations that a Nekkanti facility lacked “adequate safety and hygiene protections” and showed them lurid photos of worker injuries she blamed on Nekkanti. Again, she stated all this to those customers as plain fact. But her claims were entirely false. The operation to which she was referring was not part of Nekkanti’s business at all. How do you justify that, and what steps can we expect from you to set the record straight with those customers?
Ms. Mendoza also claimed to those same customers, again before ever attempting contact with Nekkanti, that its “workers are under guard and are not allowed to leave more than once a month.” This too is demonstrably untrue, as Nekkanti specified to Ms. Mendoza once they finally got in touch with her. That included entry/exit logs, and the nonexistence of any such complaint lodged by any Nekkanti employee, despite multiple methods available for them to do so. Yet none of that was included in the article, and AP has made no effort to set the record straight with the customers it so badly misled. What steps will you take to correct that damage?
AP’s article claims a member company of ours, Wellcome, dug shrimp ponds in mangrove areas, “destroying critical ecosystems” at a location with “abusive working conditions.”

Again, the accompanying AP photographs are not a mangrove area at all but instead a lawful and fully regulated operation, with prior approval from the government’s relevant regulatory agency (MPEDA) – as the attached permit shows. What’s more, mangrove areas are entirely unsuitable for aquaculture because the soil is too acidic for that purpose – facts we would have gladly explained to AP had you reached out.

AP’s article repeats a claim from CAL inferring that Wellcome uses antibiotics in its shrimp operations. That too is entirely false and Wellcome does not use antibiotics in any of its shrimp farms. In reality, the company uses probiotic systems to cultivate beneficial microbes that help maintain shrimp health and water quality. All of that company’s harvested shrimp are subject to two- or three-stage antibiotic testing to ensure no antibiotics are used. Those test reports for each batch of processed shrimp are readily available for verification, though apparently Ms. Mendoza made no such effort.
The article also depicts Wellcome operations in its accompanying video in an erroneous way. From the 3:03 to 4:44 time stamp, a local official named Koyya Sampath Rao, from Jonnalagaruvu village, claims that a canal from the factory has released wastewater into the nearby stream, generating pollution. But at the 3:18 to 3:19 time stamp, AP uses harvest clips of our plant in Kamanagaruvu village in the East Godavari district—which is nearly 50 miles away from Jonnalagaruvu village.
Similarly, the article reports that 57 acres of rice paddy were converted to shrimp processing, releasing wastewater, and polluting a local village. Again, this situation has nothing whatsoever to do with Wellcome nor any shrimp export company – facts that are entirely concealed from readers.
The article states, “Among the trucks being loaded with the shrimp at a pond in the village was one with a large sign: ‘Wellcome KingWhite.’” Yet in the accompanying photo, that vehicle is shown at the MPEDA-approved farm in Kamanagruvu village – more than 50 miles away from the harvest site that Ms. Mendoza describes.

All of these various errors have a thread in common, which is that Ms. Mendoza is deceptively conflating well-regulated companies that operate state-of-the-art facilities and export to the U.S. market with rogue actors that do not export to the U.S. market.

It has something else in common too. That framing, which maligns all Indian shrimp operations with no distinctions made, is also the same rhetoric used by the activist foundations that are directly funding AP’s reporting on this topic. AP claims its editorial judgment is unaffected by the high seven-figure donations it has received for years from those groups. But in light of the details above, we must ask if you still stand by that declaration?

Our organization has tried several times now to reach Ms. Mendoza and has heard no reply from her. But we would appreciate your thoughts on these specifics and are requesting published correction and clarification on the many errors and omissions we have detailed. We would also be grateful for some explanation on how all this got past AP editors and how you intend to repair the wrong information Ms. Mendoza trafficked to our corporate customers.

With kind thanks for your swift attention to the matter, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Pawan Kumar, President
Seafood Exporters Association of India

CC: Ms. Julie Pace, Executive Editor, Associated Press

Statement From SEAI’s U.S. Shrimp Exporters On C.A.L. Report

Admin Editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:07:23 +0000

As the group of leading Indian shrimp companies exporting to the United States, we have reviewed the nearly 100-page document issued by the “Corporate Accountability Lab” (C.A.L.). We can say categorically that the companies in our group peel and process shrimp entirely in-house, at state-of-the-art facilities that are purpose-designed to meet the highest standards and protocols set by Indian, U.S., and international law and best practices. We take those requirements seriously and have always been open and transparent with customers, regulators, and other stakeholders about the way we do things. Put plainly, none of our companies use any of the “peeling sheds” described in the C.A.L. document.

We would also like to be clear and unambiguous that our companies do not engage in illegal or unsafe labor practices, period. Any insinuation to the contrary by activists, press, or competitors in the West is false and rooted in outdated impressions or harmful stereotypes. India is the fifth largest economy in the world and growing. Its Labor laws are broad, strong, and modern, and we are proud to comply fully with them. Our employees deserve no less. That is why none of our companies have ever been cited by regulators for any of the sorts of infractions alleged in the C.A.L. report.

Further points:

Throughout the report, the various work conditions and settings where alleged incidents take place are generalized, with no specific company or any identifying details are cited. Obviously, this prevents any kind of verification or examination of those allegations — and of course also makes any remediation impossible.
In one section, for example, CAL cites a report by an consulting business called Elevate, purportedly showing a variety of workplace violations. But the company that is being faulted is nowhere mentioned by name, there are no other specific details provided, and the many footnotes that CAL uses in that section for substantiation all in fact are simply a link to the 1948 Factories Act, a law passed by the Indian government decades ago. The Elevate report itself, which we obtained and reviewed, cites no specific companies anywhere in its analysis.
There is a wide litany of incidents and circumstances of workplace violations that are described in CAL’s report, most of which are seemingly from first-hand accounts. But nearly all of them lack the basic elements of journalism detail — such as who, what, where, and when the incidents are supposed to have occurred.
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.
Obvious questions arise from the vivid accounts in the CAL report. Why was no effort made to alert local law enforcement or national regulatory authorities? Were specific, identifying details on any of these unlawful situations and settings provided to the government agencies that have a duty-bound obligation to intervene? The report itself describes such interventions that have been publicly reported in the past and yet, inexplicably, apparently did nothing to inform relevant authorities that are in a position to take action.
SEAI itself never heard from CAL — not prior to, during, nor after their seemingly extensive time in the country. As we did with AP and other journalists, we would have gladly interacted with them on the record. We would also have been keen to help rectify any documented violations by any member company of ours.
In the rare instances when major companies are cited, the claims about them fall apart on closer scrutiny. For example, CAL quotes an unnamed “manager” at Nekkanti saying that the company’s recruiters “look for workers in rural areas who need money desperately.” Once again, there are no verifying details presented whatsoever and Nekkanti was never contacted for a chance to verify this or respond in any way.
In another section, the report claims Nekkanti dormitories “only allow[s] workers to leave company premises once a month.” The report quotes an unnamed employee saying, “in Nekkanti’s factory, the freedom of movement of workers is restricted without compromise.” But that is flatly untrue. Nekkanti’s workers are free to come and go at any time, and the company keeps a documented log of all entry and exit at their facilities showing that’s exactly what happens on a routine basis. Those workers have a range of options to governmental authorities and other means of reporting violations, including through their personal cell phones, and the company has never once been cited for detaining workers in any fashion. Here too, CAL never presented any of these allegations or details to the company for a response. It’s telling that when Nekkanti and SEAI provided hard evidence to AP backing up these facts, they conspicuously avoiding repeating CAL’s accusations about Nekkanti in their story, despite the fact that they take the CAL report at face value in many other instances.
The report Is filled throughout with ideological rhetoric, explicitly aiming to influence political and policy outcomes. For example: “The Indian shrimp industry is at a crossroads. As demand for shrimp continues to increase, so must the pressure on stakeholders at every level to identify and remedy abusive working conditions, forced labor, and environmental harm that characterize the sector. Workers in the sector are victims in the race to cut costs and profit more on America’s favorite seafood.”
A quote from an unnamed auditor in the report is unintentionally revealing. “Ultimately, everybody wants money in the industry,” that person said. “Nobody is working for the sake of betterment of workers, that is all bulls**t, everybody is here to make money.” Yet notice that the organization that produced this report, Corporate Accountability Lab, receives huge financial grants from deep-pocket foundations with an ideological agenda that is hostile to the seafood industry. That financing is often hidden, with unknown terms and durations, and utterly opaque from scrutiny. By contrast, the companies in our organization are transparent with their financial performance, production metrics, and partnerships. Our companies also report diligently to a variety of government regulators in both the U.S. and India — and they collaborate with those agencies on standards and compliance. Just as we are doing here, those companies are also forthcoming with news media and other independent bodies reporting on the industry. Readers would be right to notice that the industry is being fully open — while its critics at CAL and Associated Press are concealing their funding, refuse to answer basic questions about their methods, and won’t disclose the terms of their arrangements or collaborations with foundations and NGOs.

SEAI Responds to Flawed Associated Press Article on Indian Shrimp

Admin Editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:43:19 +0000

Interview With IntraFish

Admin Editor — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:29:03 +0000

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.

# # #

Statement on Flawed Journalism in Associated Press Article on the Indian Seafood Industry.

Admin Editor — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:45:56 +0000

Statement on Flawed Journalism in Associated Press Article on the Indian Seafood Industry.

Pawan Kumar, President, Seafood Exporters Association of India

This report contains a number of errors and omissions, and leaves readers with a willfully
distorted view of Indian shrimp exporters that could cause harm to the very workers AP claims to be concerned with, setting back economic development in the region by years.

We are the leading trade association in India representing shrimp exporters, and yet AP reporters not only never reached out to us for comment or input prior to publication. Even worse, when we learned of their reporting after they confronted several of our members and their customers at a conference in the U.S., we reached out to AP ourselves and they flatly ignored us. They also never responded to our reasonable request that we have an opportunity to respond to any allegations they intended to print about us. They ignored similar outreach from the National Fisheries Institute, America’s largest seafood trade association, and included only a single brief quote from NFI from before that group had a chance to look into any specifics.

At that same conference AP reporters spread malicious rumors about several of our members that were later demonstrated to be false, as AP was forced to admit. Yet those falsehoods, which were irresponsibly presented as fact, led some customers to interrupt their relationships with some members—a fact that AP outrageously brags about.

Nekkanti for example had to chase down Ms. Mendoza after it learned she had spent many days falsely disparaging the company to its customers. The AP article claims our members at Wellcome did not respond to her, but that is untrue, and in fact Ms. Mendoza never reached out to that company at all. If she had, Wellcome would have provided the same details of its strong labor and environmental record that it provided to the customers to whom AP presented the unsubstantiated allegations.

As far as we can tell, AP never presented our association or any of our members with specific details about the infractions they alleged, making it impossible for us to examine them or indeed to establish whether they ever happened. But we did inform AP that none of the members they asked about had ever been found to have committed any of these kinds of infractions, and made them aware of multiple, independent channels our employees have to safely report any issues.

AP left all of that out of the story. They also misleadingly conflate the shrimp exporters we represent with smaller companies that operate only within India’s domestic market, leaving readers with the impression that major exporters are involved in the bad behavior they describe without presenting any evidence that that is the case.

We will have more to say about this deeply flawed article at our web site, and we encourage anyone who cares about the truth of these matters to read our substantive and substantiated response before making up their minds.