Ms. Valerie Frances May 5, 2008

Executive Director

National Organic Standards Board

USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 4008 -- so., Ag Stop 0268

Washington, D.C. 20250-0268

> **Comments on National Organic Standards Board**

**Livestock Committee**

**Recommendation on the Use of Fish Meal and Fish Oil in Organic
Aquaculture**

**April, 2008**

In response to the 73 Federal Register (April, 2008) notice regarding
the Livestock Committee's "Recommendation on the use of fish Meal and
Fish Oil in Organic Aquaculture"; Richard Martin, President of Martin
International Corporation submits the following comments:

**Introduction**

Martin International Corporation is a Massachusetts Corporation,
exporting and importing fresh and frozen seafood products in over 14
countries Worldwide since 1985. Martin International Corporation has
also been a pioneer in the marketing of "best practice" aquaculture
products that also include EU Certified Organic seafood products.

**Discussion**

After reviewing the Livestock Committee Report and considering the
points contained in the Report, I strongly support the Livestock
Committee Minority Position as follows:

"Fish Meal and Fish Oil from wild caught fish and other wild aquatic
animals produced from sustainable food grade fisheries or
sustainably-managed forage fisheries could be allowed in the following
step-wise levels; no more than 12% each during year 1 through 5 after
this regulation is implemented, no more than 6% each during year 6
through 8, and no more than 3% each during year 9 through 10, with the
percentages being on average, over the production cycle of the aquatic
animals life".

I also strongly support the original AWG Interim Final Report approved
at the March, 2007 meeting of the NOSB, specifically §205.252
Aquaculture feed.

These considerations and proposals offer a practical solution to the
complex issue regarding the organic culture of carnivorous aquatic
organisms. The modification of the limitation proposed in the Livestock
Committee's Report which prescribes the use of Fish Meal and Fish Oil
derived from "foreign certified organic farmed aquatic animals" is not a
viable alternative from both the supply base and economic perspective.

Simply put; there is not enough cultured aquatic species, leave alone
*organic* species (now and perhaps within my lifetime) that would
qualify under the proposal by The Livestock Committee to generate
sufficient Fish Meal and Fish Oil on a commercial scale. Secondly, the
production of organic species to create a basis for Fish Meal and Fish
Oil utilized in the production of feed for yet another organic
(carnivorous) species would create unbearable cost that would be
prohibitive on a commercial scale and unaffordable by the consumer.

In addition, the energy requirement necessary to yield the scale of
production in order to create the bare minimum of Fish Oil and Fish Meal
would be massive and contrary to any level of practical efficiency. At
present the farming of carnivorous aquatic salmonid species is one of
the most efficient agri-models with a FCR approaching 1.1:1. The
addition of a secondary feed process would create a subsequent secondary
FCR which would have to be added onto the final product FCR in order to
properly assess the total feed and energy requirement, resulting in far
greater resource expenditures.

The creation of a cultured omnivore/herbivore organic food base to fuel
the organic culture of carnivorous species would create a new level of
energy cost that is contrary to basic organic principles. From a purely
ecological consideration; efficiency within a model which converts a
protein and lipid base that would otherwise be wasted (pet
food/fertilizer/raw waste) and which has already been produced (as is
currently the case using line trimmings and carcasses from sustainable
produced fisheries) should be conserved and utilized.

The current practice in the EU model utilizes a resource that is already
produced (the fish are already caught and utilized in human food
production). As this resource already exists, and as the required
infrastructure is already in place the energy expenditure has been made
once; to duplicate or add a redundant layer of energy expenditure would
only serve to create an end to suit the means (i.e. to fall within a
"definition") that is only appropriate in the terrestrial model and
remains unmodified to work within the aquatic system.

As I previously testified, I would urge the NOSB to consider creating a
separate definition for the *process* that creates "organic feed" in
which a percentage of wild components are utilized within the *process*
that is the organic "culture" of carnivorous aquatic species.

As Organic is a process claim, so too should the process by which
aquatic feed is produced (processed) for use in the culture of organic
aquatic organisms. To date all rules created have been restricted to
terrestrial models; which should not be "bent" to fit the aquatic model.
A new approach is needed to allow for the unique issues that confront
the NOSB in defining rules for aquatic species. The diligence and
perseverance of the NOSB in this effort should be recognized and
commended as extraordinary, yet a workable model (on a practical and
economic scale) must be the outcome; otherwise a non-workable model is
yet another (considerable) waste of energy on a human scale that does
not benefit the consumer, the environment or the industry.

**Conclusion**

1). I fully support the latest submission to the NOSB by the AWB in
their appendix A §205.252 Aquaculture Feed in its entirety yet it should
be noted that the model for forage fish used in feed processing should
parallel that of range and pasture models previously set forth which
represent a more accurate analogy of the system than does the
retrofitting of the dissimilar Livestock feed model. .

2). If and when Organic standards are in the Final Rule for aquaculture,
I intend to implore all producers (EU and otherwise) to move toward
compliance with USDA requirements and intend to trade in those products
at the soonest possible date post certification.

3). My business is committed to dealing in food products that are as
close to the definition of "sustainable" as humanly and practically
possible which not only provides the human consumer with foodstuff; but
ultimately provides the consumer with food that *promotes* health and
vigor at the lowest environmental cost.

4). There is allowance in the Final Rule (somewhere in between sections
§240-269) which could be utilized to describe a new (separate)
description for aquatic feeds that does not attempt to "bend" and
retrofit rules pertaining to terrestrial livestock to an aquatic
organism. It is quite apparent there are sufficient differences between
aquaculture and livestock and as aquaculture has demonstrated to be an
important enough World food source to warrant a system-specific stand
alone description for aquatic feeds.

I am very proud of the products we trade in; which may well be the most
health-promoting animal protein on the planet. Our industry is under
constant, withering attack from a myriad of special interest groups
feigning to represent some "higher cause" which has its own cost in
energy-sapping impedance that is ultimately passed onto the consumer.
The "highest cause" I can think of is to produce food that is
sustainable, health-promoting and affordable -- which the industry is
successfully approaching if not already delivering.

As a pioneer in the marketing of EU certified Organic fishery products;
we are delivering a product to the consumer that is not being produced
(in a real, practical sense) within the US. We are offering the consumer
a choice and a choice I can attest is valued by consumers and provides a
*choice*: and as choice has its own inherent value. We do so within the
legal boundaries under the FTC by describing the product accurately as
"EU Certified". In addition we provide a definition of what exactly (EU)
certification means and how to obtain all pertinent information to the
consumer if they wish to obtain that detail. If the consumer finds value
in that definition; it is their determination - it is up to the consumer
to make that determination, not special-interest groups, the government
or me.

The EU rules are in a state of flux and definition as much as the
consideration before the NOSB; yet the (EU) has acted. It must be noted
that the EU rules will continue to evolve over time and as someone who
speaks from practical experience in the industry I urge the NOSB to take
the bold step to consider how the US and the EU might partner to create
a universal solution that brings the industry, government
regulations/rules and the market together for the benefit of the
environment and the consumer.

We currently see clear examples of the result of short-sighted
over-exuberance in the attempt to create idealist solutions to
real-world, practical problems (e.g. the hysterical move to create corn
based ethanol at the expense of food production and the resultant impact
to food grain costs). Idealism is a luxury and luxury has a price.

I have worked for almost 30 years (my 30^th^ anniversary is January 15,
2009) in the aquaculture industry and have pursued and urged producers
to follow "best practice" regimes throughout my career. I have practical
experience working within the industry from the fledgling beginning to
present day reality. I have seen the industry expand and contract and
evolve from a formative, cottage industry to multi-national industrial
scale. The industry has learned and the consumer has learned and we are
close, so close to creating a model as good and as positive (organic) as
one can achieve.

Ten years ago the cultured salmon industry suffered through an
over-production glut as a result of overdevelopment in pursuit of the
lowest cost and highest output model technically obtainable. That model
failed, and it is the worst case option for our future on both
environmental and economical levels. What emerged from that period and
those lessons were improved efficiencies, improved products (more
sustainable) and a healthier (still affordable) end product for the
consumer. This is the model of the future and the establishment of sound
organic standards will promote, inspire and ensure the industry
maintains that direction.

At present the EU organic model *is* the "best practice" model for any
(carnivorous) aquatic species. It is not perfect; yet the evolution of
the model is continuous and should guide the industry forward. The
failure to forge organic rules and principles for aquatic species
retards the evolution of this model and in the worst case may ban it
altogether; removing motivation from the industry and a choice from the
consumer. The producers in the EU will certainly gravitate toward
compliance if and when a (viable) USDA standard is reached. As these
producers have made the initial (and considerable) investment in order
to comply with EU requirements it would be prudent to consider they
would take the necessary steps to come into compliance with any
realistic USDA requirements as the US market will certainly provide the
broadest market worldwide.

I am qualified to advise the NOSB that the consumer seeks organic
options for aquatic species and the industry will benefit from them
which in turn promote better (best) practices; positive developments for
the consumer, the industry and our environment.

The NOSB is not charged with having to make recommendations to serve the
industry or provide choice to the consumer; but failing to arrive at a
workable solution will clearly fail us all.