Why seafood deregulation may hurt more than help

A new executive order aimed at deregulating the U.S. seafood industry is raising red flags among scientists and policy experts. While the order claims to boost competitiveness and cut red tape, critics warn it could do more harm than good – weakening the very systems that protect seafood sustainability.

Scientists from UC Santa Barbara and the University of Washington outlined their concerns in a recent paper. They argue that the executive order misses the mark, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term stability.

Inside the seafood deregulation order

Signed in April 2025, the order – titled “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness” – claims that U.S. seafood markets are held back by overregulation and unfair trade practices. It calls for reducing regulatory burdens, eliminating unsafe imports, and strengthening the seafood supply chain.

However, the researchers say the plan is moving too fast and with too little support. They describe it as a policy that risks unraveling decades of scientific progress.

“(It’s) a significant escalation in undoing federal regulatory frameworks, weakening scientific authority and deemphasizing aquaculture development,” said Halley Froehlich of UC Santa Barbara and Jessica Gephart of the University of Washington.

“Instead of reform, it’s dismantling regulations in a very short amount of time,” added Froehlich, the paper’s lead author.  

NOAA’s role under threat

The scientists point to cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a major concern. NOAA oversees roughly 500 commercial fishery stocks in the U.S. It plays a key role in managing, monitoring, and protecting marine resources.

Under the new directive, NOAA faces budget cuts, staff reductions, and tighter controls on communication. That’s a serious blow to its ability to coordinate sustainable fishing, especially across regions where fish migrate between countries.

“It’s quite problematic because NOAA is so central to how we manage our fisheries,” Froehlich said. “Data collection, monitoring, oversight, you name it, NOAA is part of that, and a really important part.”

The plan ignores the ocean’s limits

The executive order is supposed to help boost domestic seafood production. But the researchers argue that the ocean has limits – and we’re already close to reaching them.

“We are not going to get more out of the ocean,” Froehlich said. “We’re already near ‘peak fish,’ meaning maintenance and recovery of our stocks.”

Wild fisheries – both in the U.S. and globally – are already producing at or near their maximum sustainable levels. That leaves aquaculture as the only real path for growth.

However, the new order gives little attention to farmed seafood and offers even less support to the agencies that regulate it. The scientists call it a mismatch between promises and practical outcomes.

Cutting data, cutting capacity

One of the most troubling issues is the potential loss of data. The researchers warn that NOAA’s online databases, climate research, and monitoring tools may be defunded or decommissioned.

Without this data, managing fisheries becomes guesswork. It also makes it harder to prepare for climate-driven shifts in marine ecosystems.

“Without the data, expertise and capacity to study and understand these systems we run the risk of fishery collapses becoming more common and long-lasting,” the authors wrote.

Trade conflicts and mismatched markets

The executive order also makes assumptions about seafood markets that don’t align with reality.

Much of the seafood farmed in the U.S. isn’t what consumers demand most. And a large portion of seafood caught in U.S. waters is processed overseas before being sold back into the domestic market.

If tariffs are imposed on imported or foreign-processed seafood, prices for high-demand products like shrimp could rise sharply. Right now, only about 10% of shrimp eaten in the U.S. comes from domestic sources.

“In disrupting the market dynamics we do have, especially with trade wars with our trading partners, it’s likely that we’re going to have the opposite effect of creating opportunity long-term,” Froehlich said.

An alternative to seafood deregulation

The paper was submitted as evidence in a recent hearing by the House Natural Resources Committee’s Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee. The scientists hope their findings will influence how Congress approaches seafood policy moving forward.

“When it comes to any shifts in production, these high levels of uncertainty are not a beneficial thing to happen for the sector,” Froehlich said.

While deregulation may sound appealing to some, the authors argue that a stable, well-regulated system – backed by science and data – is what actually keeps seafood both sustainable and competitive. In their view, cutting corners now could cost the industry far more in the future.

The full study was published in the journal Marine Policy.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–