There’s a distinct mismatch between what consumers expect from a seafood product that bears an eco-label and the reality of certified fisheries, according to new research commissioned by the On The Hook campaign.
In a survey of over 2,000 British adults, 40% of whom indicated that they purchase eco-labelled seafood products, some 62% of respondents said they believed an eco-label to mean there is limited or no damage to the environment associated with catching the seafood.
The same number also felt that an eco-label means that a seafood product was not caught using a high-impact fishing practice, such as bottom trawling, while the same number said methods which catch large numbers of non-target species, such as sharks and turtles, were not used.
Also 48% of respondents felt that an eco-label means the seafood does not come from a fishery where sharks are killed by finning.
Of those respondents who indicated that they do purchase eco-labelled seafood products, 80% believed an eco-label to mean there is limited or no damage to the environment associated with catching the seafood; and the same number said that it meant seafood is not caught using a high-impact practice; 78% felt it meant seafood caught should not use methods that accidentally catch large numbers of non-target species; and 65% felt it means the seafood does not come from a fishery where sharks are killed by finning.
On The Hook said that its research, issued ahead of the publication of the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) new Fisheries Standard, sought to understand whether consumers interpret sustainability eco-labels as providing any guarantee on the human impact of certified fisheries.
It further advised that 44% of respondents believed an eco-label to mean that there are limited carbon emissions associated with catching the labelled seafood product; 41% believed an eco-label to mean that working conditions in the fishery are safe and hygienic; 38% believed it means basic human rights are upheld; 36% that no forced or child labour is used in the fishery; and 30% that living wages are paid for all labour in the fishery.
These results indicate that there is growing awareness of the human component of sustainability, with consequent expectations for products labelled as “sustainable”, stated the campaign.
Again, figures were higher amongst eco-label purchasers. Of those respondents who indicated that they did purchase eco-labelled seafood, 57% believed an eco-label to mean that there are limited carbon emissions associated with catching the labelled seafood product; 57% believed an eco-label to mean that working conditions in the fishery are safe and hygienic; 52% believed it means basic human rights are upheld; 49% that no forced or child labour is used in the fishery; and 41% that living wages are paid for all labour inn the fishery.
Finally, the research asked respondents, when purchasing an eco-labelled seafood product, who they believed had responsibility for guaranteeing the sustainability of that product. It found that 47% believe the responsibility for upholding the eco-label lies with the standard-setting organisation granting the label.
Of those who purchased eco-labelled seafood, this figure rose to 60%, indicating greater faith in the role of the standard-setter than found across the general population.
Some 34% attributed responsibility to the retailer.
The polling follows the release of On The Hook’s external review of MSC, which found some stakeholder concerns over the label, with 77% of respondents stating that they felt the NGO’s use of the term “sustainable” was not appropriate.
In a statement, an On The Hook spokesperson said, “These public polling results further reinforce our view that there is a fundamental mismatch between what consumers expect from an eco-labelled product, and the reality of certified fisheries. Eco-label heavyweights such as the Marine Stewardship Council should take stock of these results and re-evaluate whether they are delivering what seafood consumers need from them. With growing awareness of both the environmental damage and human rights abuses perpetrated by components of the fishing industry, consumers must be able to expect that a premium product carrying a sustainability guarantee means something.”
The statement continued, “We would also urge fisheries and retailers, as well as MSC, to take note of the finding that a significant number of consumers attribute responsibility for product standards to those players. MSC is facing a public credibility crisis as it has dropped the bar for certification too low. If this is not addressed by the new Fisheries Standard, all those associated with the label risk reputational damage – it is therefore in the interest of the whole of the industry and conservationists alike to push MSC to raise the bar and deliver what is needed of it.”
