De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood

eu ope

About Food & Water Europe Food & Water Europe is the European program of Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer organization based in the United States that works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.

Contact: Food & Water Europe [email protected] +32 (0) 2893 1045

eu ope

Copyright © April 2011 by Food & Water Europe. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwatereurope.org.

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood

Table of Contents Executive Summary and Findings.......................................................................................................iv Introduction and Background: What’s an Eco-Label?...........................................................................1 What Info Does the European Commission Require for Seafood Labels?.............................................1 Third-Party Sustainability Certifications...............................................................................................2 Organic Certification..........................................................................................................................3 What Does Sustainability Mean for Seafood?.......................................................................................4 Concerns with Seafood Eco-Labels.....................................................................................................5 Comparisons of Eco-Label Programs Against FAO Standards...............................................................8 Will Enforcement of FAO Standards for Labeling Ensure Sustainable Seafood....................................10 Eco-Label Comparison and Breakdown.............................................................................................11 How Eco-Labels Have Changed the Marketplace..............................................................................13 Solutions..........................................................................................................................................15 Endnotes..........................................................................................................................................16

Executive Summary Choosing the best fish to eat can be complicated. While you’re browsing the seafood counter or restaurant menu you may wonder whether certain fish are safe and sustainable. In many cases, the more a person knows, the more questions arise: Is this wild or farmed? Local or imported? Environmentally responsible and humane? High in mercury? Tainted with antibiotics and chemicals? In light of these questions, there is a demand for straightforward guidance on seafood. To address the sustainability questions surrounding fish consumption, a number of certification programs have developed sets of standards and labels to evaluate and then market “environmentally friendly” or “sustainably produced” fish. Meanwhile, many retailers have begun sourcing their seafood predominately or exclusively from fisheries or companies that have been certified with eco-labels in an effort to promote their environmental awareness about seafood sustainability to consumers. Many of these labels claim to be in line with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidelines for aquaculture or fisheries certification, but are they? The European Commission has indicated it will make an effort to enforce these guidelines. To determine what eco-labels really mean, Food & Water Europe examined various seafood certification programs and found that, unfortunately, labels do not always represent what consumers expect. Our research reveals a variety of flaws and inadequacies associated with the eco-labels analyzed and suggests that private labels may not be the most appropriate means to convey neutral, credible information about seafood. While the intent to raise awareness about sustainability among seafood suppliers and fish farms is admirable, it is questionable whether labels are actually increasing sustainability in the marketplace or meeting consumers’ demand for reliable information on seafood. In fact, some labels with industry connections may actually be more successful at convincing consumers that the products found in markets are “sustainable,” than at offering the neutral guidance consumers truly seek. This report proposes that in order to provide consumers with much-needed, unbiased and well-regulated information, the European Commission must develop and enforce strict criteria for interpreting the FAO guidelines on aquaculture and fisheries certification. Until that time, consumers can use our guidelines and recommendations for safer and more sustainable seafood choices at the end of this report.

Findings • The eco-label certification programs reviewed in this report demonstrate inadequacies in regard to some or all of the following: environmental standards, social responsibility and community relations, labor regulations, international law, and transparency. • Eco-labeling programs may cause increased public acceptance of products from controversial farming operations such as coastal shrimp ponds and open-water aquaculture. • Eco-labeling programs fail to promote local seafood options or account for the miles that imported seafood travels. • Existing eco-labels have the potential to override the authority of governments, particularly in developing countries. • The eco-labels examined fail to meet FAO criteria for eco-labeling and certification programs for wild fisheries and aquaculture. • Financial constraints have affected the ability of some otherwise eligible fisheries to attain certification. • For some programs, there is a conflict between the intent to promote change within a certain fishery and the labeling program, which can place a seal of approval on a product from a certified fishery before it has made conditional improvements in ecological performance to actually meet the standards for the label. • Eco-labels may negatively impact forage fish populations, which could damage marine food webs and harm food security in developing countries.

iv

Introduction and Background: What’s an Eco-Label?

T

he general purpose of eco-labels is to help consumers identify products that are “greener,” more “environmentally friendly” or more “sustainable.” Eco-labels can be found on a wide array of goods, from cleaning supplies to paper products to seafood. In addition to providing a means of identification for consumers, labeling can also be used as an incentive for industries to clean up their act. If they “go green,” they earn the ability to market more easily to the growing body of consumers seeking eco-friendly options. In the case of fisheries and seafood, eco-labels have emerged in response to the range of controversial issues related to the production and consumption of fish. Poor fisheries management has caused the depletion of many wild fish populations, and imported seafood from countries with lower health, safety and environmental standards can be tainted with dangerous chemicals and antibiotics.1 More than half of the world’s seafood now comes from aquaculture — also known as fish farming — and many methods of this type of farming are associated with serious environmental degradation and consumer health risks.2 Market research in Europe reveals that “consumers want more information on sustainable seafood and point of purchase labeling.”3 In fact, 95 percent of consumers responding to one survey said they wanted more information on how to avoid seafood that harms the environment.4 Although this desire for information must sound like good news to seafood labeling schemes looking to expand their reach, consumers should be wary of the information indicated on these private labels, which is, in many cases, misleading and insufficient.

What Information Does the European Commission Require for Seafood Labels? You can already look for a few things on every seafood label in the European Union, even if it isn’t certified as “eco-” or “organic.” Currently, the European Commission (EC) requires all fish to be labeled with the name of the fish, whether it is fished or farmed, and where it is from. As of January 1, 2011, labels must also indicate whether the fish was previously frozen. The EC is also considering requiring that labels include the scientific name of the fish, which would clear up confusion from common names, such as “sole” which is currently used for both Atlantic sole and tropical sole. There is also a possibility that farmed fish may start to be labeled by region rather than country. The EC has stated that information on the means of production could also be more specific. For instance, labels could state “small-scale fishing,” “caught by trawl” or “longline.”5 If these definitions are carefully crafted, they could be very useful for helping consumers to determine the likely environmental impact of a fishery. Additionally, informa-

1

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood tion on the method of production for farmed fish, such as “open-water,” “pond” or “recirculating system,” which the EC has not publicly considered, would be advantageous to consumers.

Third-Party Sustainability Certifications

southern Europe. FOS certifies both farmed and wild fish and boasts a wide range of certifications, including labels for fishmeal and oil from forage fisheries, an essential part of the marine food chain.12 •

Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) was founded in 1997 by a wide range of companies including international aquaculture businesses, U.S. chain seafood restaurants, wholesalers and processors, and agribusinesses, like Monsanto and Cargill. It is now a powerful industry consortium.13 Their hundreds of corporate members include AquaBounty,14 a biotechnology company that developed a type of genetically engineered salmon widely opposed for its potential negative impacts on human health and the environment;15 the U.S. Soybean Export Council and Indiana Soybean Alliance, two organizations actively promoting growth in the aquaculture industry to expand the market for soybased feeds;16 and Findus Group, which owns several prominent brands of frozen food products, including fish and other seafood, found under the label “Young’s” in the United Kingdom.17 GAA is connected to major aquaculture companies through membership on its technical committees for standards-setting. For instance, an executive of Marine Harvest, a large salmon aquaculture corporation, is on the Salmon Farm Technical Committee.18 One of GAA’s primary programs is the certification label known as Best Aquaculture Practices (BAPs), which was introduced in 2003. GAA uses the Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC) as its exclusive certifying body. ACC only certifies farmed fish and produces certification criteria by individual species.19 The standards consider environmental and social responsibility, community relations, and food safety, among other things.20

•

The International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization (IFFO) certifies forage fish, or reduction fisheries, through its own set of global standards for responsible sourcing, with a focus on sustainability and food safety.21 Reduction fisheries supply the raw materials for fishmeal and oil. While some fishmeal and oil is used to make feed for land animals or nutritional supplements for humans, the majority is used as feed by the aquaculture sector.22 In 2006, aquaculture consumed approximately 68 percent of the world’s fishmeal and 90 percent of fish oil.23

•

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was initially created by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature and Unilever, once one of the world’s largest seafood buyers.24 MSC became independent in 1999.25 It exclusively certifies wild fisheries26 and has traditionally seen certification as a way to form long-term working relationships with particular fisheries.27 MSC states that it bases standards around maintaining sustainable fish stocks, minimizing ecological impact and effective management.28

The method of fishing or farming and the origin of the fish can be enough information for a fish expert to determine whether a product meets his or her criteria for environmental or economic sustainability, but for many people, the knowledge needed to make this analysis is not yet common, or easy to locate. To fill in these knowledge gaps, some third-party certifications have emerged to designate fish as “sustainable” or “responsibly produced.” The FAO has established criteria for eco-labeling and certification programs for wild fisheries and for aquaculture certification programs, and the EC has stated that it “intends to ensure that labels respect FAO guidelines.”6 However, it is not yet clear how this will be carried out, and many existing ecolabels can be interpreted as vastly inconsistent with the FAO criteria. Standards, motivations and approaches all differ between labels. The following is a brief breakdown on those examined in this report. •

•

•

2

Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) is not yet operational, but has plans to create standards that would certify 12 types of fish that “have the greatest impact on the environment, highest market value and/or the heaviest trading in the global market.” Standards have already been developed for tilapia, pangasius, bivalves and abalone.7 The standards for the ASC are being created through “Aquaculture Dialogues” — roundtable discussions sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund and attended by fish farmers, other members of the aquaculture industry, government officials and non-governmental organizations.8 Freedom Food, operating in the United Kingdom, is the farm assurance and food-labeling program of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). It covers various farm animals and livestock, including salmon. It describes itself as “the only UK Farm assurance scheme to focus solely on improving the welfare of farm animals reared for food.”9 The welfare standards for salmon cover conditions during the freshwater and marine stages of salmon farming.10 At this time, there are no Freedom Food standards for other types of fish and seafood. Consumers should note that this certification is focused on animal welfare rather than environmental and social responsibility. Friend of the Sea (FOS) was established in 2005 in Italy by the creator of the dolphin-safe tuna label.11 It has gained a portion of market share in central and

Food & Water Europe

Organic Certification Unlike the private eco-labels discussed in this report, organic standards are determined and regulated by the European Commission.29 Public control and government oversight of labels could help to make them more credible and transparent. Unfortunately, in the case of organic aquaculture, the EC published regulations before developing sufficient standards. The regulations allow non-organic materials to be used as feed, lack standards for water use and waste disposal, allow the use of potentially harmful chemicals, and permit environmentally destructive net pen aquaculture. While the EC works to improve the credibility of seafood certification and keep misleading labels out of stores, it should also work to develop more comprehensive standards for organics. The way farmed fish are fed is an important indicator of a farm’s sustainability. Farmed fish should not consume excessive amounts of wild fish, especially if they are sourced from unstable fisheries. However, the regulations will allow farms to use feed that is not completely organic or entirely sourced from sustainable fisheries until 2014, and these farms will still get organic certification for the next several years.30 Although the regulations do ban artificial hormones and limitations on chemical use, farms are allowed up to two courses of chemical treatment a year.31 Two chemicals that are known to be potentially dangerous to humans, copper sulphate and potassium permanganate, are currently allowed for cleansing and disinfection, though copper sulphate will be phased out by the end of 2015.32 Exposure to copper sulfate can cause liver and kidney damage,33 and potassium permanganate can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and kidney damage.34 The regulations lack standards for water use and waste disposal and, strangely, they ban closed-containment recirculating aquaculture (farming fish in closed tanks that reuse and filter water), insinuating that it is not as “natural” as organic fish production should be.35 Unfortunately, this poorly articulated notion of what constitutes “natural” prevents use of one of the best possibilities for sustainable, healthy aquaculture in organic production. Worse, operations with net pens anchored to the ocean floor that allow pollution to flow directly into the ocean are potentially eligible. Meanwhile, several private organizations, including the Soil Association (UK),36 Bioland Germany,37 Naturland (Germany),38 KRAV (Sweden) and Debio (Norway)39 have developed their own standards and certification programs for farmed fish.

3

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood

What Does Sustainability Mean for Seafood? A certification program should be transparent and represent a clearly defined set of standards that are publicly vetted and easily accessible to everyone. Its primary motivation should be to provide neutral and straightforward guidance to consumers, and to do so, it should be independent from parties with financial interests in marketing seafood. A label should not make vague claims of being “sustainable,” “eco-friendly” or “responsible” unless it can clearly define and support those assertions. Although there is no single definition for sustainability or environmental responsibility for seafood, a sustainable choice is generally considered one that is both ecologically and socially responsible. For many people, the carbon footprint is also an important consideration, and in the case of food, how sustainable a product is for our health (in terms of contaminants and chemicals) can be an equally important issue. For the purpose of this report, we consider that smart, or “sustainable,” seafood choices take the following into account: 1. Ecological impacts: a. For wild fish, the fish in question should have a healthy population, and the current level of fishing should not threaten other species dependent on that fish for food. Additionally, the fishery should not significantly threaten birds, marine mammals or other animals, or damage the marine habitat. The type of fishing gear used and its impacts on the seafloor and other marine wildlife are also important considerations. b. For farmed fish, certification programs must consider water, chemical and feed use as well as pollution discharge and impacts on wildlife and habitats. 2. Social impacts: a. Labor standards must be fair. Working conditions should be safe, and hours reasonable. b. Economic, health and safety impacts on surrounding communities must be considered. A farm or fishery should not negatively impact the local economy or public health, and must not cause safety concerns. c. Indigenous, traditional and cultural considerations should be upheld. 3. Encouragement of a diversified seafood economy: It is important that the seafood economy represent a variety of fish and shellfish options to benefit fishing communities, consumer health and ecological sustainability. When a few types of fish are marketed heavily, they can eventually become overexploited, resulting in negative ecological effects. 4. Transport and distance of the product from the market: Some of the seafood consumed in the United Kingdom and Europe is imported from distant regions, or shipped around the world for processing before returning to the United Kingdom or European Union. Eating local or regional seafood helps to limit these fossil-fuel-consuming food miles. 5. Health and safety: Seafood must not be farmed with dangerous antibiotics, drugs or chemicals and must not pose a contamination threat to consumers.

4

Food & Water Europe

Concerns with Seafood Eco-Labels The following are 13 prominent issues with seafood certification that the EC should ensure are addressed in its regulation and enforcement. [Disclaimer: The following section is designed to discuss overarching problems associated with private seafood certification programs, not to provide individual analysis of specific labels. Each concern is associated with at least one program, but they do not all apply to every program.]

1. Certification of Flawed Fisheries Some programs use their eco-label as incentive for a fishery or farm to make improvements. For instance, MSC has traditionally viewed certification as a way to begin long-term relationships with fisheries, and they expect further improvement to occur after certification takes place.40 After a fishery has been evaluated by a third party, the fishery may be granted certification even if it falls short of some standards.41 The fishery is given conditions for improvement, but unfortunately, this means that a fishery with significant flaws may still carry the MSC logo, indicating sustainability, before it has achieved any improvements. This creates what is known as the “free-rider” problem, in which fisheries that are flawed, yet certified, get to ride on the reputation of the more sustainable certified fisheries. Worse still, it risks seriously misleading consumers who may refer to the full standards and assume that certified products comply completely with all of them. Some critics have claimed that fisheries do not always make improvements after MSC certification. A 2008 paper observed that “there has been only one major ecological improvement related to the MSC certification program… and it is unclear if it can be strictly attributed to the direct effects of the MSC program.”42 In 2010, a widely publicized article written by prominent marine biologists openly criticized the MSC explaining that “as the MSC increasingly risks its credibility, the planet risks losing more wild fish and healthy marine ecosystems.”43 The authors cited their concern that some fisheries seeking the eco-label are not worthy of recognition for sustainability, and suggested that the organization was in need of major reform if it wanted to fulfill its promise as “the best environmental choice.” The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) will follow a similar model — setting environmental and social standards not at the ideal, but just above the status quo (even if the status quo is quite far from any measure of sustainability).44

2. Leaving Out Underfunded Fisheries and Farms Paying for certification is expensive, and many fisheries and farms are not able to finance the cost. MSC certification of the small Cornish handline mackerel fishery, for instance, cost the fishery €15,000.45 Because of this cost, many small fisheries may not find certification financially feasible, and

Various logos used in fish certification programs products from large, industrial fish farms and boats may be more likely to be certified. Even Alaskan salmon, a very valuable and well-managed United States fishery, has had difficulties financing MSC certification. It almost dropped out of the MSC program when the Alaska Department of Fish and Game opted not to continue sponsoring recertification, which was anticipated to cost up to $1 million.46 Unfortunately, certification programs with lower costs can come with their own problems. For instance, FOS does not conduct any of its own studies on the fishery or farm in question. Instead, it relies on existing studies produced by the FAO, regional fishing management organizations or national marine research authorities.47 FOS suggests that their evaluation method allows for an expedited review and certification process, and makes the process less expensive for smaller fisheries.48 Unfortunately, this puts auditing in the hands of someone who may or may not have any expertise in the fishery or farm, and bases the assessment on external documents that may or may not be up-to-date.

3. Conflicts Resulting from Labels Used for Marketing Purposes More than just a source of information for consumers, ecolabels are often predominantly used as a marketing tool for seafood companies. Some labeling programs, including MSC, may be dependent, to a certain extent, on certifying an increasing number of fisheries to continue building their name and market share.49 Thus, there is an inherent conflict between an organization’s desire to maintain healthy oceans and a need to grow its own brand name. When these contradictory motives collide, objectionable certifica5

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood tions can result. The increase in eco-label popularity may even give incentive for groups to create new labels for the purpose of marketing products they already have a stake in promoting. Some companies, such as the Casino Groupe, which owns the French supermarket chain Monoprix, have created their own labels in order to designate some of their products as environmentally friendly.50 Marketing goals or connections to the industry may prevent certification schemes from being as critical as they should be of some fisheries and farms.

4. Inadequate Transparency and Public Input Some certification programs lack sufficient transparency. For instance, the criteria behind Casino Groupe’s internally created label, “Terre et Saveur (Land and Flavour),” is unclear and not readily available to the public, leading one analyst to deem it a “fantasy” label.51 In comparison, MSC, ASC and some other programs are much more transparent. Their standards are more readily available to the public and they hold meetings for interested stakeholders to participate. However, some stakeholders have complained that their comments on proposed certifications have not been fully considered. For instance, after MSC’s controversial decision to certify pollock, the Alaska Oceans Program concluded that the “objections process is not legitimate.”52

5. Failure to Support a Diverse Seafood Economy A diverse seafood economy is necessary for supporting both the economic and ecological sustainability of fisheries and seafood consumption. Extractive industries (like fishing and fish farming) that wish to operate sustainably should allow for a broad range of participation from many different stakeholders in a community or region. In other words, a range of fishermen and farmers must produce sustainable seafood to maintain diversity and economic benefits. If the industry becomes too consolidated, communities will not be able to participate meaningfully in the use and management of public resources, and the local economy will suffer. Additionally, focusing the seafood market on only a handful of species threatens those stocks’ longevity and disrupts ecological balance to the ocean’s food web. To prevent these problems, eco-labels would need to encourage the participation of a range of small-scale, communitybased individuals and companies.

6. Failure to Fully Consider Carbon Footprint By placing a standard seal of approval on a fish, regardless of whether it is consumed in New York, San Francisco, Tokyo, London, Sydney or elsewhere, most eco-labels fail to include “food miles” in their sustainability standards. For example, a London consumer relying on eco-labels to pick sustainable seafood may end up with New Zealand hoki, rather than uncertified farmed mussels produced much closer, in the United Kingdom. 6

FOS is the only program evaluated here that addresses the issue of carbon dioxide emissions in seafood transportation. It provides a “carbon footprint calculator” to the seafood industry to estimate the amount of CO2 emitted in the process of catching (or producing) the fish and transporting seafood to its final destination.53 They offer companies the ability to offset their carbon emissions by investing in forestry, renewable energy or carbon capture technologies — a controversial concept in its own right.

7. Pushing Farmed Fish Certification programs that work exclusively with farmed fish may, whether intentionally or inadvertently, promote the consumption of farmed fish. Generally, the intention of farmed fish certification programs is to distinguish the more sustainable operations from ones that are associated with a wider array of problems. But by exclusively labeling farmed fish, they may send the misleading message that it is better than other non-labeled wild fish, especially among consumers who are unaware that the label applies specifically to farmed fish. A survey of European consumers has indicated that the majority would choose to purchase wild seafood over farmed when it is labeled as such.54 Indeed, in many cases, wild fish from well-managed populations is the more sustainable option.

8. Depletion of Forage Fish Forage fish, which are near the bottom of the food chain, are an important foundation for almost all ocean life. Without these “prey fish” in our seas, the marine food web could collapse.55 Additionally, many food-insecure countries rely on the same small fish as a key protein source for residents, and fishing for them is a primary means of coastal employment. Overuse of these fish can harm both the marine wildlife and the people that need these fish most.56 Forage fish are often caught and processed into fishmeal or fish oil, which is used as an ingredient in food for carnivorous farmed fish (fish that eat other fish for protein), such as Atlantic salmon. Some programs certify forage fisheries, which allows fishmeal and fish oil manufacturers to claim their product is from a sustainable source. Some labeling standards may not sufficiently consider the role of forage fish in the ecosystem and the effect that its continual extraction will have on other fish, marine animals, seabirds or people that depend on it for food. Additionally, some programs that certify farmed fish do not contain adequate standards for the use of wild fish in fish feed. One popular view of fish farming is that it can take the pressure off of wild stocks by supplementing our seafood supply. While this can be true for farming mussels, oysters, tilapia or other species that do not require wild fish in their diets, other farming systems rely heavily on extraction of “lower-value” fish to sustain their farmed stock. This can mean that more fish are consumed by the farmed fish

Food & Water Europe in some countries to dredge up pond sediment to “prepare soil” for crop production.61 MT can also cause skewed sex ratios of untargeted organisms in the local environment.62

10. Threats to Mangrove Ecosystems Mangroves are the densely shrubby habitats that occur naturally at the border between water and land along many tropical coasts, which a wide variety of marine creatures (including fish, birds, turtles and many mammals) call home. They help anchor soil, can provide a buffer from storms and help filter water. Unfortunately, mangroves are frequently destroyed or damaged for development of coastal shrimp farms in South America and Southeast Asia.63

than are ultimately produced. This is referred to as a high feed conversion or “fish-in-fish-out” ratio. For example, to grow just one pound of some farmed fish may require five pounds of wild fish as feed. Some certification schemes allow farms with a much higher fish-in-fish-out ratio to gain eco-certification.57

9. Allowance of Genetic Engineering, Antibiotics and Hormones Although some certification programs ban genetically engineered (GE) fish, not all do. Further, because infections are common on fish farms, certifications often allow some use of antibiotics. For instance, one set of standards allows both antibiotics and hormones to be used as long as they are used “in accordance with instructions on product labels and national regulations.”58 Unfortunately, some countries may not have strict regulation or enforcement of guidelines for antibiotic and hormone use in animals destined for human consumption. Right now, the standards pertaining to hormones and GE fish are most relevant to tilapia production, because the international industry often relies on a hormone called methyltestosterone (MT) to rear male fish to prevent uncontrolled reproduction and achieve speedier growth rates.59 There are serious public health and environmental concerns surrounding the use of MT. The human risks of exposure to this hormone may include liver dysfunction and certain cancers.60 MT has been documented to persist in the aquatic environment and sediment below fish farms long after being released in the form of medicated feed. This has troubling implications for worker health and the local environment, especially because it is common industry practice

The Mangrove Action Project (MAP), which works to manage, protect and restore the rich ecology of coastal mangroves, has been a vocal opponent of certain ecocertifications. In one program, for instance, mangroves can be removed for “allowable purposes” as long as the farm replants “an area of mangroves three times the size of the area removed.” However, mangroves can take dozens of years to fully develop, and replanting may never result in successful growth of a full system. MAP explains that their “years of collective experience in working to counter the negative effects of the shrimp aquaculture industry” has led them to “take a strong stance against this [the Aquaculture Stewardship Council] and other shrimp certification attempts.” MAP says that current certification processes “exclude those peoples most affected by the industry’s ongoing assaults” and say that ASC’s process is “aimed in an inappropriate and environmentally dangerous direction.”64

11. Jeopardizing Worker Rights and Safety With so much seafood produced in developing countries that have less stringent or poorly enforced labor laws, worker wellbeing is a critical issue in seafood production, yet some certification programs may not sufficiently review labor standards. In 2008, the Solidarity Center produced a shocking exposé on laborers at shrimp farms and processing plants in Southeast Asia. The report details egregious human rights abuses in these facilities, including child labor, the total absence of healthcare services or even basic first-aid treatment for most workers, pitifully low wages, and work shifts of up to 26 hours in length.65 The Center characterizes the creation of the GAA and ACC as an attempt to mitigate the negative effects of the industry on its workers, but notes that its standards are sub-par. One of the flaws it documents is that the standards do not mention any restrictions on the number of working hours — a major oversight in an industry where working shifts often exceed 12 hours a day.66 The Center also observes that the standards make “no mention of international migrant rights standards or best practices to prevent abuses like debt bondage, forced labor and human trafficking,” all of which are documented abuses mentioned throughout the report.

7

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood 12. Superseding Governmental Authority Additionally, there is a concern that by exerting a powerful influence in the marketplace, private eco-labels may steer fisheries management away from the control of national governments, particularly in developing countries. As one study finds, “MSC reregulates the coordination of the global fisheries away from public venues and into private arenas.”67 According to authors, the MSC “bypasses national laws and marginalizes fisherpeople.”68 Even in developed countries, the power of private labels can cause government laws to be pushed aside. The MSCcertified New Zealand hoki fishery, for example, has been found to violate that country’s fisheries act, which requires

that adverse effects on the aquatic environment (including seabirds) be addressed and avoided.69

13. Incongruence with FAO Guidelines The FAO standards for eco-labeling and certification programs for wild fisheries are intended to be a benchmark for quality and reliability in a label. Many of the eco-labels mentioned in this report have favorably compared themselves to the FAO guidelines, providing them with an ostensible measure of legitimacy.70 However, analysis of each of the eco-label programs against the FAO’s guidelines found them lacking. While this chart is not a complete review, it does highlight some of the examples where labels fall short.

Comparisons of Eco-Label Programs Against FAO Standards*

MSC

Friend of the Sea

IFFO’s GSRS

Description of FAO Standard70

Explanation of Violation

Criterion 29.3: Requires identification of “adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem”

Alaska pollock is being considered for re-certification despite a crashing population and some concerns about bycatch and impact to local communities.71 Also, MSC is currently considering certifying several reduction fisheries,72 which could be destabilizing to marine ecosystems that depend on forage fish as a primary food source.

Principle 2.12: MSC certifies fisheries that fail to meet certain criteria. It mandates improvements that must be met in the future, but the label is granted in the meantime, meaning consumers may be buying a certified product that isn’t fully compliant yet. This can be seen as failure to fully communicate the label’s meaning.

MSC certifies fisheries that fail to meet certain criteria; it mandates improvements that must be met in the future, but label is granted in the meantime, meaning consumers may be buying a certified product that isn’t yet fully compliant.73 This can be seen as a failure to communicate full information.

Criteria 28 and 29.5: The fishery operates “in compliance with the requirements of local, national and international law and regulations,” and under an “effective legal and administrative framework”

Certified New Zealand hoki has been found to violate that country’s fisheries act, which requires that adverse effects on the aquatic environment (such as known bycatch of endangered seabirds) be avoided.74

Criterion 29.6: The fishery implements the “precautionary approach” to “protect the ‘stock under consideration’”

Controversial certification of British Columbia sockeye salmon occurred even as a Canadian judicial review into collapse of the resource was ongoing.75

Criterion 29.3: Requires identification of “adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem”

FOS’s certification of reduction fisheries, and companies such as Omega Protein that catch massive amounts of menhaden, could be destabilizing to the ecosystem and detrimentally affect water quality in the coastal mid-Atlantic.76

Criterion 59: “Proper records of standards and development activity should be prepared and maintained”

FOS’s website does not publicly offer evaluations for many of their certified fisheries and companies.77

Criterion 128: The certification body “should carry out periodic surveillance and monitoring at sufficiently close intervals” to verify that the fishery continues to comply with criteria

FOS apparently performs an annual review — of stock status only — in the five years between each certification.78 Many other factors should be taken into consideration to ensure that no other impacts on local ecology (such as the seafloor or new and unanticipated bycatch) are taking place.

Criterion 29.3: Requires identification of “adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem”

IFFO’s certification of fisheries destined for reduction could be destabilizing to marine ecosystems that depend on forage fish as a primary food source.79

Criterion 41: Eco-label standards “should not distort global markets”

Certification of reduction fisheries may distort global markets and cause food insecurity in developing countries.80

* GAA / ACC, GTC, Ltd., and ASC are not included in this analysis because they only certify aquacultured seafood.

8

Food & Water Europe In October 2010, the FAO’s Subcommittee on Aquaculture of the Committee on Fisheries approved the first global guidelines for aquaculture certification. These non-binding guidelines, which will go on to the full committee for approval sometime this year, are intended to account for

Best Aquaculture Practices (of the Global Aquaculture Alliance)

Friend of the Sea

Freedom Food*

animal welfare, environmental impacts and socioeconomic aspects of certifications.82 Analysis of the fish farm certification programs discussed in this report indicates that many of these do not live up to the full intent of the FAO guidelines.

Description of FAO Standard83

Explanation of Violation

55: “Workers should be treated responsibly and in accordance with national labour rules and regulations and, where appropriate, relevant ILO conventions.”

The BAP standards include no restrictions on the number of working hours in a day and make “no mention of international migrant rights standards or best practices to prevent abuses like debt bondage, forced labor and human trafficking.” Wages, benefits and child labor are evaluated through information provided by the facility, and not by independent evaluators.84

76: “The standards setting body or entity should strive to achieve balanced participation by independent technical experts and by representatives of interested parties in the standards development, revision and approval process.”

The BAPs have not fully engaged subsistence farming and fishing communities affected by farming operations, or ensured that local populations participate in development, implementation or monitoring of farms’ environmental and social impacts.85

46: “Evaluation and mitigation of the adverse impacts on surrounding natural ecosystems, including fauna, flora and habitats should be carried out.”

Coastal shrimp farms, which can be certified by the BAPs, can pose a substantial risk to mangrove ecosystems. The BAPs allow mangroves to be removed for allowable purposes if a larger area is replanted. These replanting efforts are not necessarily effective, and their success is not enforced.86

40: “Environmental Integrity: Schemes should not be overly prescriptive, but set measurable benchmarks that encourage improvement and innovation in environmental performance of aquaculture.”

While the FOS standards require certified farms to record information on feed conversion (the amount of feed needed to raise farmed fish) and “undertake to carry out a gradual annual reduction,” no numerical requirements are put in place.87

104: “The accreditation body or entity should have a written policy and procedures for dealing with any complaints in relation to any aspect of the accreditation or de-accreditation of certifying bodies” and 107: “Information on procedures for handling complaints concerning accreditation should be made publicly available.”

The FOS procedure does not appear to include peer review of certifications or explicitly provide information on how complaints can be lodged regarding the review process.88

53: “Aquaculture should be conducted in a socially responsible manner, within national rules and regulations, having regard to the ILO convention on labour rights, not jeopardizing the livelihood of aquaculture workers, and local communities. Aquaculture contributes to rural development, enhances benefits and equity in local communities, alleviates poverty and promotes food security. As a result, socio-economic issues should be considered at all stages of aquaculture planning, development and operation.”

FOS requires “social accountability” in its standards, but they only require basic compliance with national and international laws and access to medical care. There are no standards to ensure socio-economic issues are considered, as mentioned in the FAO standards.89 Farms should be required to go beyond basic legal requirements in order to achieve special certification.

46: “Evaluation and mitigation of the adverse impacts on surrounding natural ecosystems including fauna, flora and habitats should be carried out.”

Although protection of the benthic (seafloor) system is largely viewed as a primary reason for salmon regulation,90 Freedom Food does not require monitoring of the seafloor.91

47: “Measures should be adopted to promote efficient water management and use as well as proper management of effluents to reduce impacts on surrounding land and water resources…”

Most water quality requirements are designed in relation to salmon health and not wider environmental health. Water quality monitoring requirements are not sufficiently explicit.92

* Freedom Food focuses exclusively on animal welfare standards and does not claim to represent wider environmental or socio-economic standards. In light of this, consumers specifically concerned with animal welfare may not be concerned with the highlighted inconsistencies with FAO standards. This comparison is intended for consumers who may assume that the presence of the label indicates a more responsibly produced product overall.

9

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood

Signs in a U.S. grocery store.

Will Enforcement of FAO Standards for Labeling Ensure Sustainable Seafood? Not necessarily. Even if labeling programs strictly adhere to FAO guidelines for eco-labeling wild fisheries and aquaculture certification, the prevalence of certified fish in the marketplace could still lead to a homogenous seafood economy and contribute to the growing carbon footprint of the seafood industry. However, if the EC does rigorously pursue adherence to FAO standards, the seafood industry should at least be pushed in the direction of sustainability. But because some of the FAO guidelines are vague or open to multiple interpretations, the EC must go beyond the guidelines to develop strict interpretations of them. For instance, the proposed aquaculture guidelines state: “feeds… should be used responsibly to minimize their adverse impacts on the environment and to promote economic viability.”93 To meet this guideline, the EC could require low fish-in-fish-out ratios from producers as well as evidence that any small amounts of wild fish used in feed come from demonstrably responsible and healthy fisheries.

10

Food & Water Europe

Eco-Label Comparison and Breakdown Table 1: Concerns Associated with Standards for Certifying Wild Fish, by Label

MARInE StEwARDSHIP COunCIl

FRIEnD OF tHE SEA (wIlD CRItERIA)

IntERnAtIOnAl FISH MEAl AnD FISH OIl ORGAnIZAtIOn

Prohibitive costs

Ambiguous or non-transparent criteria

Insufficient public input

negative impact on marine animals no carbon footprint standards

Certifies forage fisheries or their products

Free-rider problem

Incongruent with FAO criteria

11

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood

Table 2: Concerns Associated with Standards for Certifying Farmed Fish, by Label . Best Aquaculture practices

Prohibitive costs

Friend of the sea (farmed criteria)

aquaculture stewardship council/wwf*

freedom food

terre et saveur

N/A

TBD

Does not prohibit… GE

antibiotics

Unknown

hormones

Unknown

Ambiguous or non-transparent criteria

Insufficient public input Certify farms with negative impact on mangrove ecosystems

TBD

no carbon footprint standards Insufficient FCR standards

Unknown

Unknown

TBD

Free-rider problem

Insufficient worker safety

N/A

Unknown

Unknown

TBD

Unknown

*Standards have only been completed for four (tilapia, pangasius, bivalves and abalone) out of the 12 categories being discussed in the Aquaculture Dialogues.94 Because each species or category of species is being discussed separately, not all violations will necessarily apply to all standards. Concerns listed here are associated with one or more of the completed sets of standards. No standards produced by the Aquaculture Dialogues yet have made reference to carbon footprint.

12

Food & Water Europe

How Eco-Labels Have Changed the Marketplace In response to consumer demand for sustainable seafood options, retailers have developed policies for procuring and labeling “sustainable” seafood. MSC has a particularly wide reach in Europe and the United Kingdom and is connected to many of the “responsible seafood purchasing” programs implemented by retailers. Although retailers’ attention to seafood sustainability is a positive step, it is problematic that so many base their seafood sustainability programs around private third-party certification systems. Supermarkets offering MSC-labeled products in Europe UK supermarkets: ASDA, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Young’s Bluecrest, M&S, Morrisons and Co-op German supermarkets: Edeka, Friedrichs, Lidl, Iglo, Tengelmann Group, Dohle Group, Tegut, Frosta, Pickenpack, Rügen Feinkost, Royal Greenland, Appel Feinkost, Gottfried Friedrichs and Friesenkrone Feinkost French supermarkets: Carrefour, Casino, Monoprix and Picard95

Case Studies: Carrefour has launched a campaign along with the MSC. In January 2010 it announced an awareness campaign called “The Blue Days” to “help French consumers make positive environmental choices when buying seafood.” These positive choices referred primarily to buying MSC-labeled seafood. The store sells 25 MSC-labeled products under its own brand name in the refrigerated section and fresh fish counters. As stated by the store’s global quality director: “The MSC is at the very heart of the Carrefour Group’s seafood sourcing policy.”96 The Cooperative Group (the Co-op) has also linked itself with MSC, announcing in 2003 that it would launch its MSC-certified fish under its own label, meaning that it would have its own packaged products certified by proving the chain of custody from the fisheries. However, the company stated that its work with MSC was only part of its sustainable seafood effort and that it would also be using its Responsible Retailing policy to evaluate fishing grounds and methods associated with fisheries it could source from.97 A full responsible fish sourcing policy was announced in 2008 and is intended to address “over-fishing, illegal fishing, bycatch, fishing methods that destroy the seabed and the effect on other fish species, marine animals and birds.”98 This initiative is important and earned the store congratulations from European non-profit Marine Conservation Society (MCS) in 2009. MCS noted, however, that the Co-op still needed to improve the sourcing of farmed seafood.99 Delhaize, a prominent chain in Belgium with additional stores in Germany, Luxembourg, Greece and other parts of the world, is also working to develop policies for seafood

purchasing. They plan to offer MSC-certified wild-caught seafood and, on a more independent-minded and positive note, have also decided to favor line-caught seafood and make sure that fish considered endangered, such as bluefin tuna, are phased out. Regarding aquaculture, their policy is “aquaculture where needed,” and have stated that they prefer for farmed seafood to be GAA- or ACC-certified.100 Marks & Spencer (M&S), based out of the United Kingdom with stores in Europe (and worldwide), is often considered the leading retailer in terms of seafood sustainability and has been praised by Greenpeace, Seafood Choices Alliance and the Marine Conservation Society.101 Although the extent of M&S’s involvement in addressing questions of seafood sustainability is impressive, it is concerning that much of their work is tied up in private-certification programs. They are participating in the development of the ASC102 and source wild fish from MSC-certified fisheries. Like Carrefour and the Co-op, M&S carries MSC products under its own label.103 Monoprix, Franprix and Leader Price are all owned by the French conglomerate Casino. As of 2009, Casino’s line included 24 MSC-certified seafood products. They also label some farmed fish with the tagline, “This Product Preserves Our Seas.” The company says this logo is reserved for select products meeting specific requirements, but does not list these requirements on its website or public materials. The company has a label called Terre et Saveur, which includes 40 seafood products.104 According to the very general language used on the company’s website, the label requires that modes of production “contribute to a respect of the environment and the real needs of plants and animals.”105 This has been referred to as a “fantasy” label by critics, who are suspicious of its internal evaluations and development.106 Sainsbury’s: Sainsbury’s, the United Kingdom’s longeststanding major food retailer, has made it a policy to buy MSC-certified seafood when possible. It sells over 55 MSCcertified products. When it is not possible to obtain an MSC certification for a product, the supermarket’s policy is to label it using the stoplight system: Green if it is “scientifically verified” to be in plentiful supply, amber if there are concerns about sustainability but action is being taken, and red when there are major sustainability concerns. The store does not sell fish with red status.107 The store also claims to sell “responsibly sourced” farmed Scottish salmon that meets the RSPCA Freedom Food Standards.108 Unfortunately, the environmental and socio-economic impacts of Scottish and other salmon farms make this a dubious claim.109 In November 2010, Sainsbury’s announced that it had helped the MSC reach 7,000 products worldwide with certification of a peeled, frozen prawn product.110 Tesco is the third-largest store group in the world and the market leader in both fresh and frozen fish.111 It boasts sustainability goals, claiming that it “is committed to offering customers sustainable choices… Fish is a healthy meal 13

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood option for families; it also needs to be a healthy option for our oceans and fishing communities.” Tesco began offering processed (chilled, smoked and frozen) MSC products in 2001 and started offering fresh MSC-labeled fish at its seafood counters in 2005.112 Tesco boasts of four types of salmon in its stores. First, there’s the “standard/value” salmon, which is typically farmed in Scotland, Chile and Norway. Tesco claims that “farmed salmon is a sustainable way to produce quality tasting fresh fish and the environment and health of the fish is monitored by farm assurance schemes,” on its website. However, it does not mention the environmental and socioeconomic ramifications for which open-water salmon farms are notorious.113 They also offer “Tesco Finest Specially Selected Salmon” which is grown in Scotland and “stocked at levels recommended by the RSPCA”; “Tesco Organic Salmon” from certified organic farms; and “Tesco Finest Wild Salmon” from Alaska.114 Although it is a positive step for these major retailers to

14

recognize the importance of sustainability in seafood sourcing, partnerships with sustainable seafood certification schemes can allow eco-labels to capture large portions of the market, keeping sustainable but uncertified fish out of marketplace and allowing some questionably certified products to become dominant. Additionally, retailers making independent (non-certified) claims about seafood can be problematic and misleading. According to a study carried about by ClientEarth, a non-profit environmental law organization, claims such as “sustainably sourced,” “protects the environment” and “responsibly farmed” were misleading or unverified on almost one-third of examined products. The organization asked that retailers including Tesco, Asda, the Co-operative, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose verify their claims or remove the labels, and warned they would take legal action if this is not done.115

Food & Water Europe

Solutions The majority of European consumers want to purchase seafood that is sustainable, but many do not feel they have the information necessary to do so. Market research has revealed that consumers want the government or retailers to bear the responsibility for making sustainable seafood available.116 The findings of this report suggest that private eco-labels are not reliable or neutral indicators of sustainable seafood choices for consumers, restaurants or retailers. Furthermore, these labels have allowed private organizations and even companies with vested financial interests to set the standards for sustainability without meaningful public input. To address this problem, governments must step up to offer consumers meaningful, well-defined and verified information on seafood. Specifically: 1. The EC should expand information required on seafood labels to include method of capture (handline, trawl, etc.) as well as method of production for farmed fish (pond, open water, re-circulating land-based, etc.). This information will enable consumers to make well-informed choices about all seafood, whether it is eco-labeled or not. 2. The EC should fulfill their intention to ensure that labels adhere to FAO guidelines by developing specific and clear interpretations of the guidelines and requiring any programs wishing to certify fish sold in the EU to adhere to them. This practice must be established as soon as possible, before weak enforcement becomes the status quo. In the meantime, consumers can use the following questions at supermarkets and restaurants to help assess the quality and sustainability of seafood.

higher levels of mercury or other pollutants, so consumers (especially parents and women that are pregnant or may become pregnant) should watch for warnings about which fish to choose for themselves and their children.

4. How is it caught? Some fishing methods have high levels of bycatch or can cause habitat damage. Ask whether the fish has been caught using sustainable methods.

5. How is it farmed? Choose types of fish that need fewer inputs. Farm-raised mussels and clams can grow more easily without chemicals and antibiotics. Ask your grocery or restaurant about the type of farm seafood products come from. Avoid openwater factory-farm-raised finfish that require large amounts of wild fish as feed (such as most salmon). Wild fish are used to produce feed for many farmed fish, taking food away from other marine wildlife and from people that rely on smaller fish for food. Farmed fish are often grown in large, overcrowded open-water cages where fish waste, excess feed and any chemicals used in the operation flow straight into open waters. This can cause environmental harm and human health problems. Also, the large businesses that grow these fish often overtake independent fishermen and put them out of business, hurting smaller-scale, local fishing communities. Fish farmed in land-based recirculating systems are currently harder to find in the market, but can be a more environmentally friendly option.

6. Is it associated with any contaminants?

1. Was it caught or farmed locally?

Overall, try to eat a variety of fish — don’t stick to just one type. By doing so, your exposure to possible seafood contaminants can be reduced. This also helps to lower pressure on wild fish that have become over-popular seafood choices.

Often the shorter the distance food travels to get to your table, the less fuel is used to get it to you. Eating fish caught or farmed close to home also gives you a better chance of supporting local fishing communities and getting fresher seafood.

Always ask questions about your seafood before you buy — you have a right to know! This will also prompt restaurants and markets to pay attention to what they buy once they know their patrons care. Learn about your seafood and share your knowledge with others.

2. Was it caught or farmed within the EU? Seafood safety standards in the EU are stronger than in many other parts of the world. Choosing seafood from the EU can reduce the likelihood that your fish is contaminated with toxic substances that the EU considers illegal.

3. Is it farmed or wild? In general, choose wild-caught. For farmed seafood, see tip #5 below. Wild fish often carry fewer health risks for consumers because they are not grown in large crowded cages with antibiotics and pesticides. Wild-caught fish aren’t always perfect, though — some types may contain

For a handy guide that you can keep in your wallet and pull out when you’re at a seafood market or sitting down to dinner at your favorite restaurant, check out our Smart Seafood Guide at: http://bit.ly/seafood-guide

15

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood

1

Food & Water Watch. “Laboratory Error.” 2008

22 International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization. “Benefits of Fishmeal and Fish Oil Use.” Available at: www.iffo.net, 2006. Accessed February 15, 2011.

2

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). “The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008.” March 2009.

23 Tacon, Albert G.J. “Global overview on the use of fishmeal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects.” Aquaculture 285, 2008.

3

Seafood Choices Alliance. “Constant Cravings: The European Consumer and Sustainable Seafood Choices.” 2005 at 2.

4

Ibid at 10.

5

European Commission (EC). “Traceability, labeling and certification: informing consumers.” Fisheries and Aquaculture in Europe No. 48, August 2010 at 5.

6

Ibid at 8.

24 Unilever sold its seafood business in August of 2001, but before that, it was one of the world’s largest buyers of frozen fish, with a 25% share of the European and United States markets; it also managed several fishmeal and fish oil companies. Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17. June 2000 at 125 and 129.

7

World Wildlife Fund. [Press Release]. “Global Abalone Sustainability Standards Completed,” October 14, 2010.

8

World Wildlife Fund. [Press Release]. “WWF to Help Fund Creation of Aquaculture Stewardship Council.” January 27, 2009.

9

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). “Are you ready to make a difference to the lives of farm animals?” [Brochure / Presentation]. Freedom Food, undated at page 16.

Endnotes

10 RSPCA. “Welfare Standards for Salmon.” July 2010 at 3. 11 Friend of the Sea (FOS). [Press Release]. “Dolphin Safe and Friend of the Sea guide the tuna industry toward real sustainability at Infofish conference in Bangkok.” May 23, 2008.

25 Marine Stewardship Council. “Net Benefits: The first ten years of MSC certified sustainable fisheries.” September 2009 at 3. 26 Marine Stewardship Council. [Press Release]. “MSC not to develop aquaculture standard – MSC Board Statement,” November 20, 2006. 27 Marine Stewardship Council. “Fisheries Certification Methodology,” version 6. Revised September 2006. At Section 3.4.1. 28 Marine Stewardship Council. “MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.” Versions 1.1, May 2010. 29 European Commission. Regulation No 710/2009, Aug. 5, 2009.

12 Friend of the Sea. [Leaflet]. “Friend of the Sea: Sustainable Seafood,” undated.

30 Ibid OJ L 204, 5.8. At16 and 22.

13 The Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA). Database: “Members.” Accessed February 22, 2011; available at www. gaalliance.org

32 Ibid at 30.

14 Ibid. 15 Food & Water Watch. “GE Salmon Will Not Feed the World.” November 2010. 16 As evidenced by www.soyaqua.org, a website devoted to development in aquaculture and feed technology sponsored by the U.S. Soybean Export Council, American Soybean Association, and United Soybean Board, as well as by the creation of an Aquaculture Initiative and Aquaculture Director position by the Indiana Soybean Association in order to increase use of soybean meal in farmed fish diets, see: Indiana Soybean Alliance. [Press Release] “Hart Joins Indiana Soybean Alliance as Aquaculture Director,” October 24, 2007. 17 Findus Group. [Press Release]. “Foodvest becomes Findus Group.” May 20, 2009. 18 Global Aquaculture Alliance. [Press Release]. “Salmon Technical Committee Membership Confirmed.” June 2010. 19 Global Aquacuture Alliance. [Press Release]. “Statement on WWF-GLOBALGAP Linkage.” June 2009. 20 As evidenced by the shrimp farm standards for Global Aquaculture Alliance. “Aquaculture Facility Certification: Shrimp Farms.” Last revision in September 2009. 21 International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization. “Global Standard for Responsible Supply: Requirements for Certification.” September 7, 2009 at 3.

16

31 Ibid at 22 and 24. 33 “Copper and Compounds.” Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Australian Government, May 2007. 34 “Material Safety Data Sheet: Potassium Permanganate.” Libox Chem. (India) Pvt. Ltd, Undated. 35 European Commission Regulation No 710/2009, Aug. 5, 2009. OJ L 204, 5.8.2009 at 16. 36 Soil Association. “Organic Standards: Aquaculture.” July 2010. 37 Bioland Germany. “Bioland Standards.” April 23, 2007. 38 Naturland. “Naturland Standards for Organic Aquaculture.” Gräfelfing, Germany, May 2010. 39 KRAV. “Standards for KRAV Certified Production.” Uppsala, Sweden, January 2009, Section 5. 40 Marine Stewardship Council. “Fisheries Certification Methodology,” version 6. Revised September 2006. At Section 3.4.1. 41 Ibid. See Sections 2.3.2. and 3.4.2. 42 Ward, Trevor J. “Barriers to biodiversity conservation in marine fishery certification.” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 9. June 2008 at 175. 43 Jacquet, Jennifer, et al. “Seafood stewardship in crisis.” Nature 467: 28-29. September 2, 2010. 44 Aquaculture Stewardship Council. “ASC Strategy.” Accessed September 6, 2010. Available at www.ascworldwide.org

Food & Water Europe

45 European Commission. “Traceability, labeling and certification: informing consumers.” Fisheries and Aquaculture in Europe No. 48, August 2010 at 9. 46 Fiorillo, John, “MSC Label in Jeopardy?” Intrafish Media. July 25, 2008 47 Friend of the Sea. “Fishery Check List: Wild-Caught.” 2009 at 2. 48 Stromsta, Karl-Erik. “Friend of the Sea vs. Marine Stewardship Council: Only one?” Intrafish Media. July 31, 2008. 49 Burton, Bob. Inside Spin: The dark underbelly of the PR industry. Crows Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2007 at 164. 50 Produits Casino. “Nos gammes éco-citoyennes.” Accessed January 13, 2011. Available at: http://www.produits-casino. fr/developpement-durable/dd_nos-gammes-saveur.html 51 Gruszkowski, Patrice. “Les signes de qualité concernant l’environnement et le développement durable en France et en Europe.” L’Encyclopédi du Développement Durable. Accessed January 13, 2011. Available at: http://www. encyclopedie-dd.org/les-signes-de-qualite-concernant-l 52 Marz, Stacey, consultant to Trustees for Alaska. Letter to Rupert Howes, chief executive of Marine Stewardship Council. Sent April 25, 2005 on behalf of the Alaska Oceans Program, the National Environment Trust, Oceana and Trustees for Alaska. On file with Food & Water Watch. 53 Friend of the Sea. [Press Release] “Seafood Carbon Footprint Calculator Allows Industry and Retailers to Offset their CO2.” May 21, 2008. 54 Seafood Choices Alliance. “Constant Cravings” at 10. 55 Marine Fish Conservation Network. [Newsletter]. “Network News.” Vol. 13, Issue 1. May 2008 at 1. 56 Food & Water Watch. “Expansion of Factory Fish Farms in the Ocean May Lead to Food Insecurity in Developing Countries.” June 2010. 57 For example, Friend of the Sea requires that evidence of a decreasing FCR (feed conversion ratio) is available, but does not require explicit calculation or declaration of FCR. Friend of the Sea. “Farmed Products Certification Checklist (English).” May 13, 2009 at 6. 58 Aquaculture Certification Council. “Aquaculture Facility Certification, Certification Application Form.” Revision 5. Jan. 15, 2009. 59 Tetreault, Irene. “Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Farmed Tilapia (Oreochromis sarotherodon, Tilapia).” Monterey Bay Aquarium, May 16, 2006 at 7; And Subasinghe, Dr. Rohana et al. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service. Review of the state of world aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886. Rome: FAO, 2003 at 61-62. 60 El-Neklawey, E.M. A. et al. “Detection of testosterone residues in farm fish tissue.” Beni-Suef Veterinary Medical Journal, vol. 19, no. 1. January 2009 at 23-26. 61 Contreras-Sánchez, Wilfrido and Martin S. Fitzpatrick. “Fate of methyltestosterone in the pond environment: Impact of MT-contaminated soil on tilapia sex differentiation.” Pond Dynamics and Aquaculture, Collaborative Research Support Program, Oregon State University. Eighteenth Annual Technical Report. 2001 at 83-86.

62 Contreras-Sánchez, Wilfrido and Gabriel Marquez-Couturier. “Fate of Methyltestosterone in the pond environment: Use of MT in earthen ponds with no record of hormone usage.” Pond Dynamics and Aquaculture, Collaborative Research Support Program, Oregon State University. Nineteenth Annual Technical Report. 2002 at 103-106. 63 Wells, Sue et al. United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre. “In the Front Line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral reefs.” 2006 at 14-17; Alongi, Daniel. “Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science vol. 76, iss. 1. January 2008 at 6-7. 64 Mangrove Action Project [Press release]. “International NGO network opposes WWF’s decision to form Aquaculture Stewardship Council.” February 5, 2009; Mangrove Action Project. [Action Alert]. “Wal-Mart and Darden Restaurants announce future sourcing of ‘certified’ farm-raised shrimp.” January 29, 2006. 65 Solidarity Center. “The True Cost of Shrimp: How Shrimp Industry Workers in Bangladesh and Thailand Pay the Price for Affordable Shrimp” (Series: Degradation of Work, Part 2). January 2008 at 27. 66 Ibid at 16. 67 Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 17. June 2000 at 134. 68 Ibid at 133, 135. 69 Highleyman, Scott et al. Wildhavens, Turnstone Consulting and Ecos Corporation. “An Independent Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council.” Prepared for Homeland Foundation, Oak Foundation, and The Pew Charitable Trusts. January 2004 at 11. 70 Marine Stewardship Council. [Press Release.] “MSC welcomes FAO guidelines on marine eco-labeling,” March 31, 2005.; Friend of the Sea.[Press Release]. “Friend of the Sea distances itself from WWF’s MSC ‘Everything else stinks’ campaign,” May 21, 2008; International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization. “Global Standard for Responsible Supply: Requirements for Certification.” September 7, 2009 at 8. 71 FAO. “Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries.” Rome, Italy, 2005. 72 A formal objection to the certification of Bering Sea / Aleutian Island pollock by the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA) was submitted in September 2010 but was rejected in the final determination in December 2010. Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands pollock and Gulf of Alaska pollock are both now covered by the MSC eco-label through 2015. See Rice, Jake, et al. Moody Marine, Ltd. “MSC Assessment Report for The Gulf of Alaska Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery.” Public Certification Report, Version 5, September 28, 2010.; and Rice, Jake, et al. Moody Marine, Ltd. “MSC Assessment Report for the Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery.” Public Certification Report, Version 5, December 14, 2010. Available at www.msc.org 73 These fisheries being considered for certification include anchovy, sardine, herring and hake fisheries. See: Organización Internacional Agropecuaria. [Press Release].”Argentine Anchovy,” November 12, 2010; and MSC. “Annual Report 2009/2010.” April 1, 2010.

17

De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: How the European Commission Can Help Consumers Access Sustainable Seafood 74 Because the MSC allows fisheries that do not meet all standards to be certified and labeled, it allows problematic fisheries to ride on the eco-friendly reputation of more sustainable fisheries in the program – this is referred to as the “free-rider” problem. For example, see Condition 3.4.2 in MSC Methodology: “Where the fishery achieves a score of less than 80, but of at least 60 for any individual Performance Indicator, the certification body shall set one or more conditions for continuing certification.” Marine Stewardship Council. “MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology.” Version 6, revised September 2006. At Condition 3.4.2 on page 21. 75 Highleyman, Scott et al. Wildhavens, Turnstone Consulting and Ecos Corporation. “An Independent Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council.” Prepared for Homeland Foundation, Oak Foundation, and The Pew Charitable Trusts. January 2004 at 11.

85 Mangrove Action Project [Action-Alert]. “Wal-Mart and Darden Restaurants announce future sourcing of “certified” farm-raised shrimp.” January 29, 2006. 86 Ibid. 87 Friend of the Sea. “Certification Criteria Checklist for Aquaculture Products: Marine Aquaculture.” Updated April 1, 2010. See Criterion 5.2 for FCR. 88 Based on a thorough review of FOS’s website, it does not appear to be the case that peer review is required of any audit. See Friend of the Sea. “Frequently Asked Questions” at “The Audit Process.” Page undated. Available at http://friendofthesea. org/faq.asp, accessed February 23, 2011; and FOS. “Stakeholders.” Page undated. Available at http://friendofthesea.org/stakeholders. asp , accessed February 23, 2011.

76 The fact that this fishery later in 2010 sustained record runs (occurring several weeks after the certification was deemed effective) should not dissuade from considering this certification a violation of the precautionary approach. At the time of certification and prior, there was no knowledge of, or evidence that such a drastic uptick in the population would occur; MacLeod, Andrew. “Sockeye Eco-Certification Kicks up Storm.” The Tyee (British Columbia, Canada). January 21, 2010.

89 Friend of the Sea. “Certification Criteria Checklist for Aquaculture Products: Marine Aquaculture.” Updated April 1, 2010.

77 FOS has certified companies that catch and sell large quantities of forage fisheries, such as Omega Protein Corporation, which processes menhaden into fishmeal and fish oil. See: Franklin, H. Bruce. “The Most Important Fish In the Sea.” Island Press, 2007. See also: Omega Protein. [Press Release]. “Omega Protein Receives 2009 Friend of the Sea Award.” April 28, 2009.

92 RSPCA. “Welfare Standards for Salmon” at 22.

78 For example, visit Friend of the Sea. “Downloads – English Version Documents.” Accessed February 21, 2011. Previous versions of FOS’s website yielded downloadable PDF documents, but several of these were only available in Italian. On file with Food & Water Watch. 79 FOS does not require audits beyond the minimum required by FAO, and peer review of a fishery to be certified to FOS does not appear to be incorporated into the assessment process. See Friend of the Sea. [Audit and Licensing Agreement]. “Agreement concerning the Friend of the Sea Audit and Licensing of the Trademark Friend of the Sea.” Undated. Available at www.friendofthesea.org 80 IFFO’s very mission, to certify forage fish stocks as sustainable, could result in over-extraction and adverse impacts on the ecosystem, such as harm to marine mammals. Depleting forage fish stocks can harm marine food webs and negatively impact food security in developing countries. International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization. “Plants Approved Under the IFFO Global Standards for Responsible Supply (IFFO RS).” Updated September 7, 2010.

90 Black, K.D., Hansen, P.K. and Holmer, M. “Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue: Working Group Report on Benthic Impacts and Farm Siting.” 2008 at 4. 91 RSPCA. “Welfare Standards for Salmon.” See “Wider Environmental Impact.” July 2010 at 49-50. 93 FAO. Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification. Version adopted by the COFI Sub-Committee on Aquaculture in its fifth session in Phuket, Thailand. 2010 at 84. 94 World Wildlife Fund. [Press Release]. “Global Abalone Sustainability Standards Completed,” October 14, 2010. 95 Oloruntuyi, Yemi. “Workshop on Eco-labelling and Fisheries Sustainability in Morocco.” Marrakech, Morocco. December 1-3, 2010. 96 MSC. [Press Release] “Connétable, Findus, Labeyrie, Carrefour and the MSC join forces to promote certified sustainable seafood.” January 25, 2010. 97 Davies, Kit. “JS and Co-op make MSC pledges.” Grocer. March 15, 2003 98 Cooperative Group. [Press Release]. “Cooperative Commits Funding for More Sustainable UK Fisheries. August 14, 2008. 99 Marine Conservation Society. [Press Release.] “Results of 2009 Supermarket Survey.” November 26, 2009. 100 Verbeke, Katrien. “Delhaize and its sustainable fish approach.” FRDO, Brussels, January 19, 2010.

81 Smith, Martin D. et al. “Sustainability and Global Seafood.” Science, vol. 327, no. 5967. February 12, 2010 at 784-786.

101 Seafood Choices Alliance. [Press Release]. “Seafood Choices Alliance Names First ‘Seafood Champions’ at Awards Breakfast During International Boston Seafood Show, March 13, 2006.”

82 FAO. [Press Release] “First global guidelines for aquaculture certification finalized.” October 1, 2010.

102 Holland, Jason. “Q&A: Marks & Spencer’s sustainability pledge.” Seafoodsource.com, May 17, 2010.

83 FAO. “Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification Version adopted by the COFI Sub-Committee on Aquaculture in its fifth session.” Phuket, Thailand, 2010.

103 Davies, Kit. “JS and Co-op make MSC pledges.” Grocer. March 15, 2003.

84 Solidarity Center. “The True Cost of Shrimp” at 16.

18

104 Groupe Casino. “Products that are Friendly to People and the Environment.” Accessed on January 13, 2011. Available at: http://www.groupe-casino.fr/en/Products-that-arefriendly-to.html

Food & Water Europe 105 Produits Casino. “Nos gammes éco-citoyennes.” Accessed January 13, 2011. Available at: http://www.produits-casino. fr/developpement-durable/dd_nos-gammes-saveur.html 106 Gruszkowski, Patrice. “Les signes de qualité concernant l’environnement et le développement durable en France et en Europe.” L’Encyclopédi du Développement Durable. Accessed January 13, 2011. Available at: http://www. encyclopedie-dd.org/les-signes-de-qualite-concernant-l 107 Stacey, Margaret. “Sainsbury’s Sells Over 55 MSC Products.” FIS. December 9, 2009. 108 J Sainsbury’s plc. “Corporate Responsibility Report 2010.” 2010 at 35. 109 Food & Water Europe. “Fishy Formula: Why the European Strategy Doesn’t Add Up to Sustainable Aquaculture.” June 2010. 110 J. Sainsbury’s plc. [Press Release]. “Sainsbury’s helps Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) reach 7,000 products worldwide.” November 22, 2010. 111 “Long road to full sustainability, says Tesco Chief.” Fishupdate, March 25, 2008. 112 Marine Stewardship Council. [Press Release]. “Tesco Boosts Commitment to fresh, sustainable seafood.” November 15, 2005. 113 Food & Water Europe. “Fishy Formula: Why the European Strategy Doesn’t Add Up to Sustainable Aquaculture.” June 2010. 114 Tesco. “The Tesco Salmon Range.” Livestock Standards, 2010. Available at www.tescofarming.com 115 Client Earth. “Environmental claims on supermarket seafood: Improving product labeling and consumer protection.” January 2011. 116 Seafood Choices Alliance. “Constant Cravings” at 2 and 10.

19

Food & Water Europe [email protected] www.foodandwatereurope.org

eu ope