Sustainable Seafood Labels Aren’t Always What They Seem

Consumers in the U.S. see seafood as a sustainable choice at the grocery store, with 40% noticing environmental labels on these foods when they shop.

One quarter of the world’s seafood is certified as sustainable, according to one benchmarking resource. The industry has embraced sustainability certifications as a way to demonstrate responsible fishing practices, but these labels don’t necessarily translate into earnings for the people who catch the fish. A new study finds that small-scale fishers participating in sustainability programs receive only a small share of the seafood’s final retail price, while businesses further along the supply chain capture most of the value.

“A lot of people assume that when they pay more for a labeled product, a share of that makes its way back to the fisher,” Shreya Yadav, program manager of Conservation International’s seafood markets and equity and lead researcher of the study, wrote to Sentient in an email. “What we found is that it’s really difficult to trace that value down the supply chain. And more often than not, fishers are not seeing much of a tangible financial benefit.”

The researchers found that fishers get only around 4% to 22% of the final retail price, while importers, distributors and retailers receive most of the rest.

The fisheries in the study took part in certification programs run by the Marine Stewardship Council and Fair Trade USA, as well as other fishery improvement programs. These voluntary, market-driven programs operate on the premise that consumer demand for sustainable seafood can create economic incentives for fishers — including higher prices and access to new markets — and encourage them to adopt more sustainable practices.

Around 90% of the world’s fishers are classified as small-scale operators, and most fishers in developing countries earn less than a living wage.

Yet certification standards vary broadly. The Marine Stewardship Council, which awards its blue fish label to wild-caught fisheries, is focused on environmental impact. Social equity isn’t part of its core standard.

Fair Trade covers social and economic requirements as well, such as safe working conditions, fair wages, elimination of forced labor and community improvement funds.

“Most of these programs are designed to track environmental sustainability, and that’s where their focus is. The problem is environmental and social outcomes are interlinked, wrote Yadav.

Limited Benefits for People the Industry Relies On

Global demand for seafood continues to surge, fueled by population growth, rising incomes and seafood’s reputation as a healthy choice. The U.S. currently imports around 90% of its seafood to meet growing demand.

The researchers examined the environmental, political, social and economic benefits of sustainability initiatives in three small-scale fisheries supplying United States and European markets: skipjack tuna in the Maldives, yellowfin tuna in Indonesia’s Maluku region and blue swimming crab in India’s Palk Bay.

In the Maldives, the Marine Stewardship Council certification brought limited benefits to fishers after industrial purse seine fleets targeting the same Indian Ocean tuna stock also received certification. One industry representative even told the researchers the label had become “quite meaningless to us.” Government-set prices and processing costs further limited the benefits reaching fishers.

In India’s Palk Bay, where nearly all blue swimming crabs are exported to the United States, the researchers found that crab fishers made about the same profit whether or not they were participants in a fishery improvement project, projects often led by NGOs or industry.

Some fishers in India take loans from processing companies or intermediaries, leaving them “locked into relationships” in which interest payments were deducted from the value of their catch, according to the paper. Even if the program generated a price premium, fishers’ debts to processors and intermediaries would prevent them from receiving the additional income.

The researchers were also surprised to discover that many small-scale fishers in the Maldives and India had no, or little, idea that their fisheries were participating in sustainability programs. Nine in 10 fishers in the Maldives participating in the Marine Stewardship Council certification were unaware of the label or knew little about it. By contrast, 82% of Fair Trade fishers were not only aware of their program, but could name its benefits, including education, environmental support and infrastructure improvements.

What Can Make Sustainable Certification Better for Workers

Indonesia’s yellowfin tuna fishery offered a more encouraging example. Fishers involved in the Marine Stewardship Council certification received 22% of the final retail price of tuna — the highest share among the three fisheries studied. The researchers noted that local organizers were crucial to making the arrangement work.

“In Indonesia and parts of the Maldives, what made certification programs feel fairer to communities was the presence of committed local organizations that had been there for years. They made the process more transparent for fishers, built trust and were able to help connect fishers with seafood companies,” Yadav said in an email. But certification standards matter too, she adds, noting that Fair Trade gives fishers control over how premiums are spent.

The Marine Stewardship Council assesses environmental sustainability of fisheries, not “how value is shared between fishers, processors, traders, retailers or other market actors,” Jackie Marks, the organization’s senior communications and public relations manager, wrote to Sentient in an email. Marks cited a MSC-certified tuna fishery in Indonesia as an example of connecting sustainable fishing to market opportunities, but she stressed whether fishers benefit financially “depends on market demand and commercial arrangement beyond the scope of MSC certification.”

Both programs have faced criticisms. The Marine Stewardship Council has faced longstanding criticism over its environmental standards, with one peer-reviewed analysis suggesting that it may be “too lenient and discretionary,” potentially misleading consumers and conservation funders.

Fair Trade USA has been accused of “fairwashing” — or using certification to signal ethical labor practices that may fall short in reality — as well as allegations of weak vetting, gaps in worker protections and inadequate enforcement.

Sentient reached out to Fair Trade USA but did not receive a response.

These programs must give fishers — who often have little control over prices — meaningful say in decisions that affect them, the authors said. For Yadav, consumers should ask not only whether seafood was caught sustainably, but also “if the person who caught it is able to live a decent and safe life.”

The study had several limitations. Its pricing data could not always distinguish certified from non-certified seafood, provide fishery-specific prices or account for labor and operating costs, the authors said.

Yoshitaka Ota, director of Ocean Nexus, a network of researchers focused on ocean equity, told Sentient in an email that “what stands out most in this study is the finding that so little of the financial benefit actually reaches fishers.”

Yet the study itself comes as no surprise to Ota, who says these programs tend to benefit industry rather than fishers, and that suggests a deeper failure.” It is not merely a failure of market-based sustainability initiatives, but a fundamental issue of accountability and justice,” he writes.

Editor’s note: The author was a recipient of a fellowship hosted by Ocean Nexus and The Uproot Project. Ocean Nexus had no editorial input into this story, and the fellowship funds were not used for this story.