Photo: Stockfile/FIS

Seafood Giants Sue NOAA Over 'Arbitrary' Import Ban Set to Disrupt US$3.6 Billion Supply Chain

UNITED STATES
Monday, October 13, 2025, 00:10 (GMT + 9)

Coalition challenges Marine Mammal Protection Act implementation, arguing 240 species bans from 46 countries will devastate domestic processing and restaurant industries starting January 1, 2026.

NEW YORK CITY, NY. A powerful coalition of seafood processors, importers, and distributors, led by the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and joined by the Restaurant Law Center, has filed a lawsuit against NOAA Fisheries over sweeping new import restrictions. The suit, filed Thursday in the U.S. Court for International Trade in New York City, challenges NOAA’s September 2 decision to ban seafood products from 240 commercial species sourced from 46 countries, effective January 1, 2026.

The restrictions implement the 2016 fish-import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which requires foreign nations exporting to the U.S. to demonstrate that their fisheries meet marine mammal protection standards "comparable" to those in the U.S.

The lawsuit asserts that NOAA’s implementation "constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision-making" because it lacked "reasoned explanation, fishery-specific evidence, or consideration of the devastating domestic and international economic consequences they are already causing."

Impact on Domestic Supply and Restaurant Menus

The seafood coalition argues that the sudden ban will catastrophically disrupt the US supply chain, which relies heavily on imports to meet demand. The affected imports are estimated to be worth US$3.6 billion annually.

Gavin Gibbons, the NFI’s Chief Strategy Officer, highlighted the urgency of the situation: "After a decade of assessing fisheries, without stakeholder input, NOAA has given effected members of the seafood community only four months to come into compliance or face complete shutdown."

• No Domestic Alternatives: Plaintiffs emphasize that U.S. fisheries cannot sustainably harvest the banned volumes, qualities, or product forms required by the domestic processing and restaurant sectors. Gibbons noted, "We are talking about U.S. processing and distribution businesses working with imported, raw materials that can’t be sustainably harvested at this volume in our own waters."

• Restaurant Sector Risk: Angelo Amador, Executive Director of the Restaurant Law Center, stressed that the ban is "poised to devastate seafood supply chains that restaurants across the country rely on. Without access to these products, many restaurants will be forced to remove popular seafood items from their menus, raise prices, or worse—close their doors." The center represents over one million restaurants and foodservice outlets nationwide.

Focus on Procedure, Not Protection Goals

The lawsuit maintains that many foreign fisheries, including major exporters of pasteurized crabmeat and tuna in countries like Vietnam and Indonesia, have invested heavily in sustainability but were denied based on procedural or data gaps rather than documented harm to marine mammals.

Countries facing full import bans include Russia, Grenada, and Venezuela, while others like China, Mexico, South Korea, and Vietnam face partial restrictions on specific fisheries.

The plaintiffs support the conservation goals of the MMPA but seek to vacate the import bans and compel NOAA to reconsider its determinations using a lawful, results-based approach that respects the Administrative Procedure Act and the realities of the global seafood trade. They argue that abruptly cutting off commerce could be counterproductive, pushing foreign suppliers to sell to countries with less stringent marine mammal protections.

editorial@seafood.media
www.seafood.media

Print