On a recent trip to New Orleans, I had dinner at a seafood restaurant called the Fishmongers, where chefs and other foodies were showing off their cooking skills.

I was impressed with the seafood dishes, but when I tried to get a taste of the fish broth I ordered, it tasted like a soup.

It was very thin, and it smelled fishy.

I asked a waiter what it was, and he told me it was fish broth.

I said, “Really?” he said.

“What do you mean?”

I asked, and this is where he went to his next dish, a shrimp-and-fish soup that smelled like fish broth, too.

He explained that it was made with fresh shrimp, and that it needed to be warmed up in the broth before it would be ready to eat.

The restaurant owner told me the broth was meant to be eaten with rice, and we ordered two.

But as I ate the soup, I found it was a little bit too thick, too salty.

I took it back to the restaurant and the chef apologized.

I then asked the owner again.

“I apologize,” he said, and added, “The soup was made without fish.

If you have any questions about it, I’ll see you tomorrow.”

The next day, I called the restaurant owner, who told me he had received a call from someone claiming to be from the FDA, saying that the broth made with fish is not food, and therefore it must be sold as food.

But, he said he had no choice but to sell it as food, as the FDA did not have the authority to regulate the food industry.

The next morning, I phoned the FDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and asked about the food safety of the broth, and the agency’s response: “It is not regulated by the FDA.”

The FDA does have the power to regulate food manufacturers, and I called FDA Deputy Director David Shafer to see if he would explain why it was that fish broth would be considered food.

The FDA said that in order to sell fish broth as food it had to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and if the FDA were to find that the food was not food the FDA would have to revoke the product’s approval.

“Fish is considered a plant, not a animal,” Shafer told me.

“The FDA is not the FDA.

Fish is not an animal.

It’s a plant.

The agency doesn’t regulate animals.

So it’s not that FDA can’t regulate fish.”

But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have the ability to regulate fish.

The fish industry has been lobbying for the FDA to give it authority to define food that is not fish, which is why the Fish and Aquaculture Act, passed in 1972, was passed to allow the FDA the power of regulating fish in the food supply.

That Act gave the FDA authority to ban food that contains fish from entering the United States.

In 1997, the Food & Drug Administration approved a supplement for people to help prevent fish poisoning by regulating the amount of mercury in fish.

But that wasn’t enough to change the way the fish industry is regulated.

Because of the way fish are made, it’s impossible to know how much mercury is in fish, and because of the fact that fish have a unique immune system, the FDA has been trying to regulate their use.

But there’s another way the FDA could regulate fish: by requiring that the seafood that is sold be free of mercury, which has been happening with other foods.

When fish is sold in a retail store, it is usually wrapped in paper bags that are covered with a label that says “not to be used for food purposes.”

The labels have labels stating that the fish contains no mercury, and so the food is not considered food under the FDA regulation.

But in 2011, the U.S. Fish & Food Inspection Service announced that it would require that all seafood sold be labeled as such.

But the agency said it would do so only for seafood sold in restaurants, grocery stores, and other restaurants that sell their seafood in refrigerated storage facilities, which have been the subject of much public pressure.

“There’s no regulation of restaurants,” said Mary-Louise O’Connor, a former FDA deputy commissioner and a leading critic of the agency.

“We’ve got the ability, through the Food Safety Modernization Act, to require that food is inspected by inspectors who have a very broad knowledge of the foods they are inspecting.

And it is up to the manufacturer to comply with that.”

But the FDA is still in the process of revising its seafood regulations, and while O’Conner says she supports the agency making fish a regulated food, she thinks the current system is too restrictive.

“My view is the current regulations are too restrictive,” she said.

When I asked the FDA about the regulations, I was told that the FDA “is working on a draft regulation” that will be finalized “in the coming