Agency Seeks Power to Destroy Contaminated Shrimp Imports
Last week, the FDA released Human Foods Program 2026 Priority Deliverables, its 2026 priorities for food safety. The agency noted imported seafood needs special attention because imports dominate the U.S. market and consumer demand is high. The FDA said it will finish developing a seafood fraud detection program and is asking Congress for authority to destroy imported seafood that poses significant public health risks, referencing its Summary of FY 2026 Legislative Proposals. The Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA) welcomes the FDA’s support for increased scrutiny of imported shrimp that dominate the U.S. market, but has reservations about the effectiveness of specific programs.
Why the FDA Needs Destruction Authority
SSA strongly advocates that Congress grant the FDA authority to destroy contaminated food, including shrimp, and protect both consumers and U.S. shrimpers. Under current law, importers can re-export contaminated products refused by FDA within 90 days, regardless of health risks. The FDA wants authority to require destruction instead, which would:
- Stop “port shopping.” Foreign suppliers currently re-export contaminated shrimp creating the possibility that they will seek to gain access to the U.S. market for the FDA-refused products through different ports.
- Create real consequences. Importers would have to destroy—and pay for destroying—contaminated products, incentivizing safer imports while eliminating the need for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to seize harmful products
- Reduce unfair competition. U.S. shrimpers are forced to compete against pond-raised foreign farmed shrimp raised with banned and harmful antibiotics
The FDA has observed importers attempting to re-import commercial-sized shipments of products that pose significant health concerns, including food contaminated with Salmonella, Listeria, and carcinogenic drugs. As highlighted by the FDA, in May 2023, an importer pled guilty to smuggling 2,100 cartons of frozen eel previously refused for contamination with carcinogenic fungicides Gentian Violet, Leucogentian Violet and Malachite Green. He received a 15-month jail term and a 5-year import ban. But such prosecutions are rare. Port shopping is hard to detect.
In its work combating seafood fraud, SSA identified multiple cases where it appeared that Malaysian shrimp contaminated with banned antibiotics was refused entry only to later be shipped to the U.S. market through a different port.
Bipartisan Legislative Support
Legislation to provide the FDA with authority to destroy imports, including seafood, that pose a “significant public health concern” was reintroduced in April 2025 by Representatives Clay Higgins (R-LA) and Troy Carter (D-LA). The Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act (H.R. 2715) is co-sponsored by another five members of Congress: Representatives Randy Weber Sr. (R-TX), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Julia Letlow (R-LA), Gregory Murphy (R-NC), and Gregory Steube (R-FL). In November, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act (S. 3213) in the Senate.
“There is no reason why any exporter should be selling shrimp to the United States that is contaminated with banned antibiotics or harmful human pathogens,” said Blake Price, SSA’s deputy director. “Giving the FDA authority to destroy contaminated seafood that poses significant public health concerns appropriately incentivizes foreign suppliers to screen shrimp prior to exportation. The Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act is a commonsense solution and the U.S. shrimp industry calls on Congress to support the FDA’s request.”
FDA Advances Other Initiatives of Questionable Effectiveness
The FDA also highlighted three specific steps the agency intends to take to improve the safety of imported shrimp in 2026:
- Continue increased sampling of shrimp supply chains for surveillance and compliance
- Advance Regulatory Partnership Arrangements. The FDA aims to strengthen partnerships with India and Ecuador, top shrimp-exporting countries
- Establish genetic tracking (whole genome sequencing) and data sharing for shrimp
SSA continues to support the agency’s efforts to improve sampling in order to identify non-compliance in overseas supply chains. As previously reported by SSA, Congress once again directed the FDA to spend no less than $15 million on field examinations of imported seafood and inspections of foreign seafood facilities for this fiscal year. However, the other two initiatives involve FDA undertakings that do not appear to have brought about any meaningful improvements in the quality of the farmed shrimp imported into the United States.
Regulatory Partnership Arrangements: Unclear Results After Years of Implementation
The FDA has promoted Regulatory Partnership Arrangements with major shrimp exporters for over three years. Nevertheless, despite the existence of these arrangements, the FDA has yet to describe any tangible way in which this has improved foreign shrimp supply chains. In fact, although agreements were signed with Ecuador, India, and Indonesia, the Human Foods Program 2026 Priority Deliverables omits any mention of the arrangement with Indonesia, which is currently subject to a certification requirement under Import Alert 99-52 due to repeated findings of radioactive contamination.
What Are Regulatory Partnership Arrangements?
The FDA has described Regulatory Partnership Arrangements as a way of improving the safety of foreign food sold in the United States: “The principal goal of the regulatory partnership will be to establish a forum with another country where we can learn about our respective regulatory authorities and how we can work together to effectively strengthen the enforcement of food safety measures around a specific commodity.”
According to the FDA, shrimp was chosen as the pilot because it’s the most consumed seafood in the U.S. and 94% of U.S. seafood is imported.
In a February 2023 publication, Activities for the Safety of Imported Seafood, the FDA explains that the arrangements would formalize cooperation and leverage foreign oversight of shrimp exports by:
- Setting mutual goals to reduce contaminated shrimp from foreign suppliers
- Increasing transparency and data sharing through confidentiality commitments
- Increasing monitoring of potentially contaminated shrimp
- Directing foreign countries’ resources to the highest risk areas in shrimp supply chains
However, there’s been little public discussion about how these Regulatory Partnership Arrangements actually work. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) produced a one-minute overview video, but how they are structured and what they are intended to achieve is less apparent. For example, the Ecuador agreement is only four pages and lists eight vague possible “Areas of Cooperation.”
Billed as a significant positive development for improving the safety of imported shrimp, the FDA highlights areas of “intended cooperation” and reports that:
“To date, the FDA has provided seven seafood safety trainings in Ecuador, including Seafood HACCP, HACCP train the trainer, FDA import requirements, Sensory/Decomposition training and Good Aquaculture Practices. In addition, the FDA has been sharing information with [Ecuador’s Vice Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries (VMAF)] under the confidentiality commitment, including import refusals, product recalls, compliance actions and detailed sampling results. In response, VMAF has provided information to the FDA on Ecuador’s regulatory follow-up to these events.”
What is Whole Genome Sequencing?
The arrangements also appear to encourage countries to adopt genetic tracking (whole genome sequencing) to better trace food-borne disease outbreaks, according to foreign media reports. The CDC used this technology to link a 2021 Salmonella outbreak to Indian shrimp exporter Avanti Frozen Foods. The FDA also used whole genome sequencing to link a Salmonella outbreak from tuna to southwest India—the same region where a 2012 Salmonella outbreak was traced to a shrimp processing plant.
Yet, why the FDA has chosen to prioritize whole genome sequencing over eliminating the abuse of banned and harmful antibiotics through Regulatory Partnership Arrangements is unknown.
At best, the FDA appears to have utilized Regulatory Partnership Arrangements to direct resources to initiatives pursued by agency staff prior to the development of these arrangements. For example, the FDA November 2022 Global Update noted that the agency aimed to provide India with equipment and training to build its whole genome sequencing capacity well before any Regulatory Partnership Arrangement had been broached. These efforts were supported by numerous visits by FDA staff to India, a remarkable contrast to the limited number of on-site inspections conducted by agency officials of Indian shrimp processing plants.
Results Don’t Match the Promise
Despite the exchanges of information and repeated overseas visits by agency officials over the last few years, the FDA’s own refusal data does not indicate significant positive developments for improving the safety of imported shrimp. To the contrary:
- In 2025, the FDA reported a record number of entry line refusals for Indonesian shrimp contaminated with veterinary drug residues
- In 2025, the FDA recalled Indonesian shrimp for potential radioactive contamination after CBP detected Cesium-137
- The FDA refused 33 entry lines of Indian shrimp for banned antibiotics in 2025—the third highest since the agency began reporting 25 years ago
- Despite their existence and administration over the last few years, the FDA does not appear to be advocating for the expansion of these arrangements to any other seafood products or food products generally, suggesting limited success
“Although the U.S. shrimp industry welcomes the FDA’s emphasis on the importance of ensuring the safety of imported shrimp, the agency hasn’t shown that its Regulatory Partnership Arrangements are making any difference,” said Price. “If the agency intends to dedicate additional significant resources to advancing these arrangements, there must be some explanation as to how they’ve helped, particularly with respect to Indonesian shrimp.”