Sustainability and health are table stakes for seafood shoppers, yet trust increasingly hinges on third-party verification, according to a recent Marine Stewardship Council report.
Sustainability’s influence on seafood purchases matters more to consumers than a decade ago, according to MSC’s report conducted by third-party insights firm GlobeScan across 15,000 seafood consumers.
More than half (67%) of US seafood consumers say they believe that seafood should only come from sustainable sources – up 56% from 2016 , MSC states. These figures closely align with European consumers’ expectations.
The connection between health and sustainability has also strengthened in recent years, MSC reports. Fifty-three percent of US seafood consumers say that eco-labeled seafood is better for their health, compared to 46% in 2018, while 58% say they want both healthier and more sustainable products.
What consumers say and do may differ when it comes to how they shop, yet when it comes to sustainability claims more shoppers want proof rather than promises, according to MSC. Nearly three-quarters (72%) say sustainability and environmental claims should be clearly labeled by an independent organization, which is up 65% in 2016. Greenwashing continues to influence consumers’ aversion to what they buy, with 63% saying they do not trust most environmental claims on the products they purchase.
At the same time, ecolabels are becoming more visible – with 40% of US consumers saying they notice ecolabeled products while shopping, up from 25% in 2018.
Can consumers trust sustainability seals?
Consumers increasingly want third-party verification of sustainability claims, even though many seafood certification programs derive revenue from certification, auditing, licensing and logo-use fees paid by fisheries, aquaculture operations and seafood companies participating in their programs.
Yet, the seafood industry remains divided over how effective and transparent certification systems are in guiding consumer purchasing decisions.
Critics have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest within seafood certification programs like the Marine Stewardship Council, Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP). Watchdog groups such as the Aquaculture Accountability Project and Farm Forward argue that because certifiers rely on revenue generated from industry participation, consumers may question the independence of certification decisions.
While most major seafood certification programs rely on fees from fisheries, farms, processors, distributors, retailers and brands to support operations, the programs’ governance structures and certification processes differ.
Both MSC, which focuses on wild-caught seafood, and ASC, which focuses on aquaculture farming, rely on accredited third-party auditors to conduct certification assessments. Fisheries and aquaculture operations seeking certification hire independent auditors to determine whether they meet program standards, and certified products can then carry the organizations’ ecolabels through their respective chain-of-custody systems.
BAP, administered by the Global Seafood Alliance, differs in that it offers separate certifications across multiple stages of the aquaculture supply chain, including feed mills, hatcheries, farms and processing facilities.
