KILN — Imported seafood dominates the U.S. market, accounting for 64-94% of all seafood consumed in the country, according to varying sources. While imports provide affordability and year-round availability, industry representatives argue it comes at a steep cost to domestic fisheries.
Mississippi lawmakers are now pushing for greater transparency with House Bill 602 and Senate Bill 2014 — measures designed to ensure consumers know whether the seafood on their plate is imported or locally sourced. Advocates say these bills could help level the playing field for U.S. fishermen, many of whom are struggling to compete against cheaper foreign imports.
Imported seafood
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversees imported seafood safety. One way the FDA checks is through foreign facility inspections. The FDA’s target is to inspect 19,200 foreign seafood facilities each year; however, a 2025 Government Accountability Office report found the agency consistently falls short of inspection goals. From 2018-2023, the FDA averaged just 917 foreign seafood facility inspections per year — only 5% of the target. The report cited unrealistic inspection targets, workforce shortages and logistical challenges as key obstacles.
Industry advocates, like Ryan Bradley, executive director of Mississippi Commercial Fisheries United, argue these gaps in facility oversight create risks for consumers.
“A lot of imported seafood is not held to the same rigorous standards that American seafood is,” he said. “Their seafood is often farm-raised in very poor conditions and contains a lot of banned substances like antibiotics and drugs that we don’t allow here in America.”
While some foreign seafood suppliers adhere to strict safety protocols, the FDA acknowledges the rapid expansion of international aquaculture — farm-raised seafood — complicated global regulatory oversight. The FDA warns aquaculture poses unique risks because farmed seafood is vulnerable to changing environmental conditions and stress factors that make fish more susceptible to disease.
Joe Spraggins, the executive director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, points out the obvious.
“First off, you don’t know how it’s grown,” said Spraggins. “You don’t know what chemicals were put in it. You don’t know what anything was done to the shrimp or the fish or anything else.”
While international regulations vary, the FDA collaborates with seafood exporters through the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs, requiring importers to confirm their products meet U.S. safety standards. Some facilities also follow the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points protocols, which help identify and prevent contamination risks during processing. Additionally, once seafood reaches American ports, the FDA employs artificial intelligence-driven screening tools to flag high-risk shipments for further inspection. Select imports undergo laboratory testing for contaminants, drug residues and antibiotics.
The mislabeling problem
Concerns over seafood labeling extend beyond safety. Fraudulent mislabeling remains a key issue for those drafting legislation around seafood transparency.
In Biloxi, the owners of Mary Mahoney’s Old French House were sentenced for federal charges of fraudulently selling over 29 tons of mislabeled imported fish between 2013 and 2019, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Similarly, Quality Poultry and Seafood Inc., the largest seafood wholesaler on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, was found guilty of mislabeling seafood between 2003 and 2019 — even after an FDA search warrant was executed.
Federal prosecutor U.S. Attorney Todd Gee of the Southern District of Mississippi emphasized the economic and consumer impact.
“This large-scale scheme to misbrand imported seafood as local Gulf Coast seafood hurt local fishermen and consumers,” he said. “These criminal convictions should put restaurants and wholesalers on notice that they must be honest with customers about what is actually being sold.”
This deception hurt not only consumers and fishermen but also other restaurants that were correctly labeling seafood.
“It’s bad for the consumer, obviously, and the competing restaurants that are doing the right thing, selling local Gulf American products,” said Bradley. “The fishermen can’t get a fair price for their product because the imported seafood that these restaurants are pushing off as local is far cheaper, and so that sets the price for what local fishermen are paid.”
According to Bradley, the influx of imported seafood drove prices to 30-year lows, making it increasingly difficult for Mississippi fishermen to stay in business. According to MDMR, the economic strain forced hundreds of shrimping boats off the water over the past two decades.
“Around 2004, we had as many as 800 boats on the first day of shrimp season. This year (2024), we had 47,” Spraggins said.
The legislative solution: House Bill 602 and Senate Bill 2014
To combat these issues, lawmakers introduced House Bill 602 and Senate Bill 2014, aiming to increase transparency in seafood labeling. Both bills are currently under review in their respective legislative committees.
HB 602 expands Mississippi’s country-of-origin labeling law to cover all seafood and crawfish, requiring all seafood sold in Mississippi to be labeled as either domestic or foreign. If the product was mixed with foreign seafood, the bill requires it to be classified as foreign. SB 2014 would require restaurant owners to display notice on windows, placards or menus.
Spraggins said the goal is not to ban foreign seafood but to ensure transparency.
“It’s not necessarily labeling what country it came from,” he explained. “It’s basically labeling: Is it domestic or is it foreign?”
However, the Mississippi Hospitality and Restaurant Association, represented by Executive Director Pat Fontaine, opposes mandated labeling on menus, arguing it places an unnecessary financial burden on restaurants.
“We are not against disclosure,” Fontaine clarified. “But it should be the choice of the restaurateur as to how they want to disclose it. The menu mandate can be a very costly one.”
Fontaine pointed to statistics from the National Restaurant Association that show menu mandates could cost restaurants approximately $4,800 a year. Fontaine believes Mississippi should follow states like Alabama where restaurants can disclose the origin of their seafood on a sign in a prominent location that reads, “Certain seafood products are imported and may be wild caught or farm raised.”
Rep. Brent Anderson, author of HB 602, clarified the bill would allow restaurants to decide how it is disclosed.
The bill states restaurants “shall provide the country of origin on the label, menu, sales display or any other form of advertisement, in a font that is at least the same size as the name of the seafood or crawfish being sold or promoted.”
According to Anderson, signage labeling seafood items as ”foreign” would qualify as a label, and restaurants would have the option to have the label on their menu — but would not be required to do so.
Industry leaders call on consumers
As some lawmakers push for greater transparency, industry leaders urge consumers to ask restaurants where their seafood comes from.
“I would just encourage every patron of the restaurants here across the state, or anywhere you go out to eat fresh seafood: ask the restaurant where that seafood came from and get the details on that,” Bradley said.
For restaurants that prioritize Gulf seafood, transparency can be a selling point.
Hank Plauche, owner of Jourdan River Steamer in Kiln, emphasizes his commitment to serving local, wild-caught seafood: “People put their trust in us, so we’re going to put the food out that they’re expecting from us … no shortcuts in this business.”
Ultimately, the legislation is about consumer choice.
“You deserve the right to know what you’re eating,” Spraggins said. “And you deserve the right to know whether it’s domestic or foreign.”
Spraggins said his department will support restaurants that sell Gulf fresh seafood. He stated the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources plans to collaborate with Mississippi Tourism to promote these establishments; however, the specifics will depend on the passage of the bills.
