Who Pays for Menhaden Science? Part 1 – Conflicts of Interest

There is a significant dynamic of menhaden management that is rotten but has not been exposed — until now. Menhaden companies are among the dues-paying members of a research center where votes are weighted by dollars. At least two Committee members, including the stock assessment subcommittee chair, also lead that center’s menhaden projects¹. ASMFC has no rule requiring members of its assessment committees to disclose who funds their work. With the Menhaden Board setting the next coastwide catch limit on November 10–11, we all deserve to know where some of that science comes from.

Our ask: ASMFC’s ISFMP Policy Board should change commission policy to require every member of a Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, work group, or Plan Development Team to file an annual disclosure of financial interests and research funding sources, posted publicly next to the committee rosters. The Policy Board sets commission-wide committee procedures, including the Technical Guidance document and the ISFMP Charter^2,3. It meets at the Annual Meeting in Newport, November 9–12, 2026. Nobody is handing out cash. These are small things that happen over time and are at least partially funded by federal dollars on top of the industry money. Scientists populate various bodies across the research and management spectrum. The money flows for “research,” and the industry board approves funding and sets the agenda.

This blog aims to connect the dots on what’s really happening behind the scenes.

ASMFC requires its peer reviewers to certify they have no conflict of interest, including any involvement with the fishing industry or interest groups on the species under review, or recent collaboration with the assessment scientists². It posts disclosure forms for some commissioners⁴, so the Commission plainly knows what a conflict looks like. But we could not find a single written ASMFC rule requiring scientists on the menhaden technical committee, stock assessment subcommittee, or ERP work group to disclose who funds their research or to step aside when industry money funds the work they include in the assessment. The scientists who build the assessment are held to a weaker standard than the people hired to check it.

Compare the FDA: when it lets an advisory committee member with a financial conflict participate, it must post the type and size of that interest online before the meeting⁵. So, what are ASMFC’s rules? Let’s explore by role:

Peer reviewers: Reviewers “should declare themselves not eligible to serve” if they have a relationship “that might be construed as creating a conflict of interest,” including “Involvement with state, federal, or international management, the fishing industry, or any other interest group regarding the species under review” and “Financial partnerships (consulting, business, or other financial connection) with the persons involved in the stock assessment.” Each certifies, “I do not have a conflict of interest”².

Commissioners and proxies: “No Commissioner shall have a direct or indirect financial interest that conflicts with the fair and impartial conduct of official duties”⁶. The 2014 policy requires public disclosure forms, filed “by February 1st of each year,” but it “applies only to Legislative Commissioners and Governors’ Appointees and their proxies”⁴. It counts only large ownership or employment stakes in the fishery (over 10%), not research funding⁴.

Technical committees, assessment subcommittees, work groups, and plan development teams: Members must “use the best science available in an objective manner, not to represent the policies and/or politics of that agency”² and “use the best scientific information available and established stock assessment techniques”². The ERP work group is “comprised of state, federal, and academic scientists”². Plan development teams need “scientific and management ability”³. None of these sections contains a conflict of interest, disclosure, funding or recusal requirement.

Advisory panels: The only bar is a fishery law violation in the past three years or a felony conviction⁷. The nomination form asks about “fishermen’s organizations or clubs,” but nothing about financial interests⁷.

SEDAR, which ran past menhaden assessments, does not fill the gap. “All reviewers shall be independent from the assessments and data under review,” which again covers only reviewers, and its participant provisions “do not apply to the Interstate Fisheries Commissions”⁸. In short, ASMFC checks the reviewers and some commissioners. It has no written disclosure or recusal rule for the scientists who build the assessment.

This is the fair question advocates and stakeholders deserve to know:
Who pays for the science that determines how many menhaden are taken?

Part of the answer is a group called SCEMFIS, the Science Center for Marine Fisheries. Everything below is drawn from its own papers, federal records, and ASMFC reports.

SCEMFIS is a National Science Foundation program run by the University of Southern Mississippi and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science⁹. NSF itself does a lot of good, independent, peer-reviewed science. The problem is a specific NSF program, its Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers, which is designed to let paying members steer research. Companies pay dues to sit on its Industry Advisory Board. The menhaden companies on that board include Omega Protein, Ocean Harvesters, Daybrook Fisheries, and Westbank Fishing^10,11.

The rules within this domain start to get fishy, and it all starts with the votes. This is not one company, one vote. The bylaws allocate votes by the dollar: “12.5 for a $15,625 associate membership fee, 25 for a $31,250 membership fee, and 50 for a $62,500 membership fee”¹². Pay $62,500 a year, get 50 votes. Pay half that, get half the say. The system is set up to reward deep pockets with more say.

The board “will attempt to fund projects by consensus.” When it can’t agree, weighted votes decide¹². The bylaws even allow the board to shift money between fisheries “to distribute funds consistent with IAB member contributions”¹².

So, what do those votes control? The board approves all project funding, jointly with the center’s director¹² — and SCEMFIS doesn’t try to hide it. Its own website says: “The science agenda is determined by the industry board members”¹³. Another page calls the program “Industry Partner driven” and run “under Industry Partner oversight”¹⁴.

The companies that catch the fish help decide what questions get asked about the fish. In turn, that means the companies that catch the fish decide what science goes into their management. How the _____ is that allowed?

The tainted influence goes beyond selecting projects. Scientists retain the right to publish. However, board members “shall have the opportunity to review any paper containing results of the research program of the Center prior to publication.” With a written request and justification within thirty days, a member can delay publication up to “sixty (60) days”¹².

To be fair, we found no record of any paper ever being held up. But the right is written into the rules. The people paying get a first look before the public does, and then they decide what happens next. Meanwhile, member dues grew from $325,000 in 2016–17¹⁵ to $500,000 a year by 2024–25¹⁶. NSF’s own evaluator says “the IAB has begun to cover the administrative cost shortfall from their membership fees”¹¹. Industry now carries more of the load.

Why do they pay? NSF’s evaluator asked them. Members said they value “the ability to leverage research results for public relations, regulatory engagement, decision support, and commercial benefits”¹⁷.

Wait a minute… Regulatory engagement? That includes the ASMFC, who manages the forage fish that our fisheries, businesses and coastal economy depend on. That sparks a lot more questions. Where does that engagement happen? Here is how ASMFC works:

Technical committees and assessment teams build the stock assessment and give advice. The Menhaden Board, made up of state commissioners, takes the votes¹. At least two committee members, including the stock assessment subcommittee chair, also lead SCEMFIS-funded menhaden projects¹. This is about roles, not anyone’s character.

They don’t cast the Board’s votes. But they shape what the Board sees. When the people who build the assessment can also lead industry-funded projects, ASMFC’s rules should require that to be disclosed.

We checked the 12 Atlantic menhaden and forage projects and papers we could tie to SCEMFIS against the assessments. One became a base-model input. Three are cited. Eight were not used. The one that was used, the egg study, was disclosed in the assessment, accepted by the independent review panel, and did not change whether the stock is overfished. We found no evidence that industry money changed a result. The problem is that nothing in ASMFC’s rules would tell the public if it changed a result.

The egg study answered a “high-priority research recommendation” from the 2015 assessment¹⁸. A VIMS research team studied how many eggs menhaden produce. The study was funded by NSF “and through membership fees provided by the SCEMFIS Industry Advisory Board”¹⁸. Omega Protein supplied samples, and the summer fish came from Omega boats unloading at the Reedville plant¹⁸.

The new numbers were substantial. Estimated eggs per fish, by age, came out 554.7% to 680.8% higher than the 1987 relationship used before¹⁸. ASMFC incorporated them directly into the base model in 2019¹⁸ and retained them in 2025¹⁹.

Industry dues helped pay for a core input to the model that sets the catch. This is what the overlap looks like in practice: a study paid for in part by industry dues, with samples from industry boats, became an input to the assessment. ASMFC’s rules did not require that funding to be disclosed.

So what did it do? The independent review panel said the change “has little impact on the management outputs of the model because the management targets are similarly scaled upward”¹⁸. The stock’s status didn’t change¹⁸. What did change is the size of the numbers. Estimated egg production across the whole time series increased roughly sevenfold¹⁸.

The point is who decides what gets studied and that there is far too much crossover on what scientists work with SCEMFIS and have seats on the Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee and the Menhaden Technical Committee. Even if every single thing they are doing is above board, the perception and potential conflict are far too severe to leave as is. And that assumption gives ASMFC a longer leash than it has earned over the years.

Fair is fair, though. NSF builds each of these centers around dues-paying companies that vote on projects^20,21. Scientists retain the right to publish¹². The fecundity funding was disclosed in the assessment¹⁸.

We are not saying anyone faked numbers. We are saying industry members choose and fund research questions, and ASMFC has no rule requiring that funding to be disclosed when the work reaches the assessment — and that is explicitly inappropriate.

There is a model, and ASMFC should go further than it. Under federal law, scientists on a fishery council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee must file a financial disclosure before appointment and update it every year, covering ties to harvesting, processing, lobbying, advocacy and marketing²². That rule applies only to federal Councils and their SSCs, not ASMFC. It exempts SSC forms from public posting²², and it excludes employment with an entity doing scientific fisheries research²². The Policy Board should go further: annual disclosure of financial interests and research funding sources by every Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, work group, and Plan Development Team member, posted publicly next to the committee rosters. Anglers and guides deserve to know who paid for the science behind the catch limit.

ASMFC can close this gap, and the ISFMP Policy Board is the body that can do it. When it meets in Newport, November 9–12, 2026, the Policy Board should change commission policy, including the Technical Guidance document and the ISFMP Charter, to require annual, publicly posted disclosure of financial interests and research funding sources for every Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, work group, and Plan Development Team member. It would cost little and answer the question for good. Anglers and guides deserve a menhaden assessment built on questions the public chose.

There is more going on with who sits on that board. Part 2 of this blog will discuss how SCEMFIS is paying for the “Chesapeake Bay Road Map”¹. Separately, Virginia allocated $1 million in each of FY2027 and FY2028 to VIMS, working with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, for Atlantic menhaden research²³. None of that state money goes to SCEMFIS. Part 3 will discuss why the Marine Stewardship Council joined SCEMFIS²⁴ and why that raises questions.