The Maritime SAFE Act (Maritime Security and Fisheries Enforcement Act) requires seafood importers to demonstrate that their products are free from forced labor at every stage of the supply chain — from vessel to shelf. Signed into US law in 2019, it directs federal agencies to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and the use of modern slavery in fishing industry operations. The sections below break down exactly what the law requires, who it affects, and how companies can prepare.
What does the Maritime SAFE Act actually require from seafood companies?
The Maritime SAFE Act requires seafood importers to take active steps to ensure their supply chains are free from IUU fishing and forced labor. The law directs US agencies — including the Coast Guard, NOAA, and Customs and Border Protection — to coordinate enforcement, share intelligence, and develop port-level controls that screen incoming seafood shipments for compliance violations.
In practical terms, this means seafood companies importing into the US need to be able to document where their fish was caught, by which vessel, under which flag, and under what labor conditions. The Act supports the use of vessel monitoring data, catch documentation schemes, and labor audits as evidence of clean supply chains. Companies that cannot produce this documentation when asked could face shipment delays, detentions, or import bans.
The law also encourages international cooperation, pushing for agreements with flag states and port nations to close the gaps that allow illegally or unethically caught fish to enter legitimate trade channels.
How does the Maritime SAFE Act define forced labor in fishing?
The Maritime SAFE Act references the definition of forced labor established under US law, which includes any work performed involuntarily under threat of penalty. In the fishing context, this covers debt bondage, document confiscation, physical confinement on vessels, excessive working hours without pay, and deceptive recruitment — all of which are documented patterns of modern slavery in the fishing industry.
Fishing vessels present unique enforcement challenges. Crews may spend months at sea, far beyond the reach of port-state inspectors. Transshipment at sea — where catch is transferred between vessels without returning to port — can obscure labor conditions and make it difficult to verify who caught the fish and under what circumstances.
The Act specifically flags distant-water fishing fleets and transshipment operations as elevated-risk areas, and it supports the use of electronic monitoring and observer programs as tools to independently verify what happens aboard vessels at sea.
Which seafood products are most at risk under the Maritime SAFE Act?
Seafood products sourced from distant-water fishing fleets, particularly those operating in the Western and Central Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and parts of Southeast Asia, carry the highest risk of exposure under the Maritime SAFE Act. Tuna, shrimp, and squid — all commonly caught by large-scale industrial fleets with complex, multi-vessel supply chains — are among the categories most scrutinized by US customs authorities.
The risk is not just about geography. It is also about supply chain structure. Products that pass through multiple transshipment points, are processed in countries with weaker labor enforcement, or originate from flag-of-convenience vessels with limited oversight are more likely to attract enforcement attention. Canned tuna, in particular, often travels through several countries before reaching a US retailer, making full traceability harder to establish without purpose-built systems.
Shrimp from certain Southeast Asian fisheries has previously been subject to forced labor findings under related US trade laws, and similar scrutiny could extend to other species as enforcement under the Maritime SAFE Act matures.
Book a demoHow does the Maritime SAFE Act relate to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act?
The Maritime SAFE Act and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) are separate laws, but they work together to tighten US import controls against forced labor. The UFLPA, which came into effect in 2022, creates a rebuttable presumption that any goods produced wholly or in part in China’s Xinjiang region were made with forced labor — meaning importers must prove otherwise or face an import ban. The Maritime SAFE Act provides the broader framework for combating forced labor and IUU fishing across all seafood supply chains.
For seafood companies, the overlap matters because some fishing vessels or processing facilities connected to Xinjiang-based supply chains may fall under both laws simultaneously. A shipment could be detained under the UFLPA for processing-stage concerns and simultaneously face scrutiny under the Maritime SAFE Act for vessel-level labor violations. Companies need documentation that covers both dimensions — origin, catch method, vessel identity, and labor conditions at processing.
The practical lesson is that these laws reinforce each other. Meeting the documentation standard of one does not automatically satisfy the other, and companies should treat them as complementary compliance requirements rather than alternatives.
What evidence do customs authorities accept as proof of forced-labor-free sourcing?
US Customs and Border Protection typically looks for a combination of vessel tracking records, catch documentation, labor audit certifications, and chain-of-custody documentation when evaluating whether a seafood shipment is free from forced labor. No single document is universally sufficient — authorities generally expect a layered body of evidence that covers the full supply chain from catch to import.
Useful documentation categories include:
- Satellite vessel monitoring system (VMS) and AIS tracking records showing vessel location and activity throughout the fishing trip
- Catch certificates and logbook data verified against flag-state or RFMO records
- Third-party social audits such as SMETA, BSCI/Amfori, or FISH Standard for Crew certifications linked to specific vessels or processing facilities
- Observer or electronic monitoring reports confirming crew conditions at sea
- Chain-of-custody certifications (such as MSC CoC) that connect the processed product back to a verified source
- Completed regulatory forms such as the US SIMP (Seafood Import Monitoring Program) form, which requires vessel-level catch data at the point of import
The stronger the documentation trail, and the earlier in the supply chain it starts, the more convincing the case. Post-processing paperwork alone is generally not enough to rebut a forced labor finding.
What happens when a seafood shipment is detained under the Maritime SAFE Act?
When a seafood shipment is detained under the Maritime SAFE Act or related US trade laws, the importer typically receives a formal notice from US Customs and Border Protection and is given an opportunity to provide evidence rebutting the forced labor finding. If the importer cannot produce sufficient documentation within the required timeframe, the shipment could be refused entry, seized, or returned to the exporting country.
The financial and reputational consequences could be significant. Detention ties up inventory, disrupts delivery commitments to retail buyers, and may trigger contractual penalties. If the finding becomes public — which it often does, since CBP publishes withhold release orders (WROs) — the reputational damage could extend well beyond the detained shipment. Retail partners and brand owners have, in some cases, faced their own scrutiny and consumer pressure as a result of supplier detentions.
Repeat detentions or a formal WRO against a supplier or vessel can effectively shut a company out of the US market until compliance is demonstrated. This is why proactive documentation matters far more than reactive damage control after a detention occurs.
How can seafood companies prepare for Maritime SAFE Act enforcement?
Seafood companies can prepare for Maritime SAFE Act enforcement by building traceability systems that capture verifiable data from the first mile of the supply chain — at the vessel or farm level — rather than relying on documentation assembled after processing. The earlier and more granular the data is captured, the easier it is to produce credible evidence when customs authorities ask questions.
Practical preparation steps include:
- Map your supply chain fully. Identify every vessel, transshipment point, processor, and logistics partner that touches your product before it reaches a US port. Gaps in this map are gaps in your compliance posture.
- Collect vessel-level data. VMS and AIS tracking records, linked to specific fishing trips and catch batches, provide the kind of first-mile evidence that customs authorities find compelling.
- Link labor audits to specific batches. Generic facility-level certifications are less convincing than audit records tied to the specific vessels or processing lines that produced a given shipment.
- Automate regulatory form completion. US SIMP forms require vessel-level catch data. Automating this process reduces errors and ensures the data is consistent with your traceability records.
- Engage your supply chain partners. Processors, traders, and fishing companies upstream of you need to understand what documentation you require — and they need systems capable of producing it.
SmarTuna’s digital traceability platform is built to support exactly this kind of preparation — capturing real-time vessel data, linking social-compliance certifications to individual batches, and automating the regulatory documentation that customs authorities expect to see. Starting traceability at the first mile, before fish is processed or transshipped, is what makes the difference between documentation that holds up under scrutiny and documentation that does not.
[seoaic_faq][{“id”:0,”title”:”How does the Maritime SAFE Act enforcement differ for small importers versus large seafood companies?”,”content”:”The Maritime SAFE Act applies to all seafood importers regardless of size — CBP does not formally exempt small businesses from documentation requirements. However, smaller importers often face a disproportionate compliance burden because they typically lack dedicated compliance teams or established supplier relationships that include traceability data. Small importers should prioritize working with suppliers who already have vessel monitoring and labor audit systems in place, and consider joining industry traceability programs or using shared digital platforms to reduce the cost of building documentation infrastructure from scratch.”},{“id”:1,”title”:”What is the difference between a Withhold Release Order (WRO) and a finding under the Maritime SAFE Act, and how should companies respond to each?”,”content”:”A Withhold Release Order (WRO) is a formal CBP action that instructs port officers to detain all shipments of a specific product from a named entity — it is broader and more lasting than a single shipment detention. A detention under the Maritime SAFE Act is typically triggered by shipment-level red flags and gives the importer a window to provide rebuttal evidence. If a WRO is issued against one of your suppliers, you cannot simply provide documentation to clear that specific shipment — you must either sever the supplier relationship or support them in demonstrating systemic remediation to CBP before trade can resume.”},{“id”:2,”title”:”Can a seafood company rely solely on third-party certifications like MSC or Fair Trade to satisfy Maritime SAFE Act documentation requirements?”,”content”:”No — third-party certifications like MSC or Fair Trade are valuable supporting evidence but are not sufficient on their own to satisfy CBP’s forced labor documentation expectations. These certifications confirm that a fishery or facility met a standard at the time of audit, but they do not provide the real-time, trip-level vessel tracking and labor records that customs authorities look for when evaluating a specific shipment. Certifications should be treated as one layer in a broader documentation stack, not as a standalone compliance solution.”},{“id”:3,”title”:”What are the most common mistakes seafood importers make when trying to comply with the Maritime SAFE Act?”,”content”:”The most common mistake is assembling documentation reactively — only pulling records together after a shipment is flagged, rather than capturing data systematically at the source. Other frequent errors include relying on facility-level audits that cannot be linked to specific vessels or fishing trips, failing to account for transshipment points in the chain-of-custody record, and treating SIMP form completion as a separate compliance exercise rather than integrating it with broader traceability data. Companies that build documentation habits into their procurement process from the start are far better positioned than those trying to reconstruct supply chain history under time pressure during a detention.”},{“id”:4,”title”:”How should seafood companies handle suppliers who are unwilling or unable to provide the vessel-level data required under the Maritime SAFE Act?”,”content”:”If a supplier cannot or will not provide vessel-level catch data, labor audit records, or VMS/AIS tracking information, that gap itself represents a compliance risk that needs to be treated as a red flag. Companies should first engage suppliers directly to understand whether the barrier is technical (lack of systems) or structural (deliberate opacity), and offer support where possible — such as onboarding them to a shared traceability platform. Where suppliers remain unable to provide credible documentation after reasonable engagement, the risk of continuing to import their products into the US market may outweigh the commercial relationship, particularly as enforcement matures.”},{“id”:5,”title”:”Does the Maritime SAFE Act apply to seafood products that are caught outside US waters but processed domestically?”,”content”:”Yes — the Maritime SAFE Act’s forced labor provisions apply at the point of import, meaning that fish caught in foreign waters and imported into the US for domestic processing must still be accompanied by documentation covering the catch and vessel-level labor conditions before it enters the US supply chain. The processing location does not reset the compliance clock. Importers who receive raw or semi-processed seafood from foreign vessels for domestic value-added processing need to ensure they have documentation covering the fishing stage, not just the processing stage that occurs on US soil.”},{“id”:6,”title”:”How is Maritime SAFE Act enforcement likely to evolve over the next few years, and what should companies be doing now to stay ahead?”,”content”:”Enforcement under the Maritime SAFE Act is expected to intensify as US agencies deepen inter-agency coordination, expand port-level screening capabilities, and increase intelligence sharing with foreign counterparts — a trajectory consistent with the broader trend of forced labor enforcement across US trade law. Companies should treat current enforcement as a baseline, not a ceiling, and invest now in traceability infrastructure that can scale as requirements grow. The companies best positioned for future scrutiny are those already capturing first-mile vessel data, linking labor certifications to individual batches, and treating supply chain transparency as an ongoing operational practice rather than a periodic compliance exercise.”}][/seoaic_faq]