Consumers are increasingly overwhelmed by the growing complexity of seafood sustainability, with advocates now urging consideration of labour abuses, indigenous fishing rights, carbon footprints, and even onboard Wi-Fi for workers. The once-simple message of avoiding overfishing has expanded into a web of competing certifications and ratings.
Robert Jones, global director of aquatic foods for The Nature Conservancy, admitted: “I’m an expert and I still sometimes struggle to look through some of the systems to figure out which product in the store actually matches which rating, and which label is different.”
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme, which used green, yellow and red traffic-light ratings, was once the most recognisable guide. But Barton Seaver, a seafood sustainability expert with National Geographic, said it created a “guilty-until-proven-innocent aura” that drove consumers away. “The entire category had to be exonerated,” he said.
Seafood Watch fell silent partly due to pandemic pressures, but by then sustainability had broadened to include worker treatment, regenerative practices and local ownership. Seaver argued that even yellow- or red-list seafood may be environmentally better than chicken or beef when considering greenhouse gases, land use and water consumption.
Celebrity chef Andrew Zimmern called the American consumer “the biggest loser” amid the information overload. However, Jennifer Kemmerly, vice president of global ocean conservation for Monterey Bay, sees complexity as a sign of success, noting that big companies now report on environmental, social and governance issues.
Many experts advocate for selling confidence in American seafood through regularly updated, agreed-upon standards. As Zimmern put it, the way forward is to align all players—from fishermen to watchdog groups—on clear, consistent guidance.
