University of Victoria study finds many eco-labels are not much better at protecting oceans than conventionally farmed fish
Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk 7 Dec 11;
Farmed fish sold under the Marks & Spencer eco-label is no better for the environment than conventionally farmed fish, a study on the sustainability claims of major fish producers says.
The report from the University of Victoria found that many of the so-called eco-labels were not much better than conventional farmed fish when it came to protecting the oceans, and some – including those produced under the Marks & Spencer brand – were actually worse.
"They have set criteria that currently sit below the normative performance of conventional industry," said lead author John Volpe, who heads the Seafood Ecology Research Group at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. "What this analysis makes clear is that the criteria a producer might meet to acquire the Marks & Spencer label is already below industry-wide practice."
A spokeswoman for Marks & Spencer said that the company was very disappointed by the report and that its commitment to sustainable fishing went beyond labels. "We have developed an industry leading aquaculture standard that we apply to all the farmed fish we use in our business, including that used as an ingredient in prepared food, which very few other major retailers do," said Emma Johnson.
She criticised the report for including only two retailers – Marks & Spencer and Whole Foods – on its list of 20 standards developed by organic associations, industry groups and supermarkets in the US, UK, Europe and Australia.
How Green Is Your Eco-Label? looked at the environmental impacts of farming 11 species of fish, including three varieties of salmon – Atlantic, chinook and coho – as well as Atlantic cod, European seabass, barramundi and turbot. It did not look at farmed freshwater fish such as tilapia.
Overall, most eco-labels for farmed marine fish produced no more than a 10% improvement over conventional varieties. A third of the 20 eco-labels in the study were at the same level as, or below, standard industry practice, Volpe said. "When you start looking into how much time and money has been poured into the development of these labels, which are the banner of the sustainable seafood movement, and just how much return there is on the investment they are receiving, then on the whole it is quite modest," said Volpe. "That was a bit of a shocker to us."
The study, which was reviewed and was supported by the Pew Environment Group, used 10 factors to rate the eco-labels including feeding, antibiotic use and energy use.
Marks & Spencer scored at the bottom, or second from the bottom, on all four sets of rankings. Of any of the labels, it was the furthest from reaching the voluntary standards set by the Monterey Bay Aquarium seafood watch guide and the Blue Ocean Institute seafood guide.
Both are seen as the authorities on sustainable farmed and wild caught seafood, and the Monterey Bay guidelines have been adopted by leading chefs and restaurants in the US.
Marks & Spencer described the guidelines used in the report as "niche standards".
"Whilst we believe the report is wrong to compare a standard we apply to all our sourcing with niche standards, it does not remove our commitment to further improve our standards in the future," Johnson said.
She said the company had worked closely with the World Wildlife Fund to develop the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue and that it was aiming to introduce it on a number of its supplier farms next year.
Volpe said the researchers focused on the major producers, which included organic associations, industry groups and retailers.
But he noted that Marks & Spencer faced a much higher bar on eco-label salmon than other producers on other types of fish. Conventional salmon farming had already come some distance to improving its environmental footprint, he said.
"It's like going on a diet," Volpe said. "Losing the first 10lbs is easier than losing the last 10lbs or the last 2lbs."
The study claims to be the first to take an in-depth look at how eco-labels on farmed fish stand up to conventional options in the marketplace.
Volpe said it was aimed at helping consumers find their way through a confusing thicket of claims from the fishing industry and supermarkets about the sustainability of their products.
A number of recent news investigations in America have focused on false labelling of fish, and Volpe argued consumers were more savvy at assessing claims made by beef or poultry farmers than seafood producers.
Among the researchers' other main findings, organic labels are ahead of trade associations and retailers in living up to their sustainability claims – although a few do fall short.
The study warns that looking at the environmental footprint of a single fish farm, or group of fish farms, could be misleading. The overall impact of the farmed fish industry could overwhelm any of the efforts to reduce the toll on the environment.
