News Archive 

A major new research project commissioned by the Fish Sustainability Information Group (FSIG), an international consortium representing a variety of national organisations concerned with seafood trade claims that shoppers are being confused by eco-labels on fish, and has called for better information for consumers. The benefits of sustainable fisheries and the need to mitigate the environmental impacts of fishing and aquaculture are increasingly in the public consciousness. Poorly implemented, government run, command and control management schemes have often failed to curb fishing effort, prevent over-fishing and avoid environmental degradation. Alternative, market based approaches have shown promise and, among these, enabling informed consumer choice in seafood purchasing can generate strong motivation for improved catching and culture practices. Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of schemes designed to provide consumers and wholesalers with more and better information. For example, WWF Germany has moved from printing 10 000 copies of its “Fish to Eat and Avoid” list in 1997 to printing some 1.5 million copies of this document ten years later. However, a lack of consistency of approach and contradictory recommendations have the potential to confuse consumers, blur the differences between what’s good and what’s not, and erode the benefits of better information for purchasing decisions. The researchers conclude that labelling schemes can be confusing as they are too simplistic, and that the high cost of certification may discriminate against developing economies. The review notes that certification schemes and recommendation lists have had substantial success in increasing awareness of the issues associated with sustainable fishing and aquaculture mainly in developed country markets. However, the review also notes that fish products from developing economies, upon which there is considerable reliance, can easily be denied access to markets if they cannot afford to produce the data required by certification schemes. The report proposes core quality standards including transparency, relevance, accuracy, and peer review which would improve the potential for inconsistent and, sometimes, conflicting advice which emanates from some advisory lists which are often outdated and too general to be of real value.

 

 

Advertisements