9 Fischsiegel im Überblick: Können wir ihnen vertrauen?

9 Fish Labels at a Glance: Can We Trust Them?

Recently we explained to you why our bracenets all look so different and introduced you to the many types of fishing nets and fishing methods . A few questions remained unanswered that we now want to answer: Does sustainable fishing even exist and are the various sustainability certifications credible? Come on, let's take a closer look at the fish labels!

To do this, we put on our critical glasses and take a close look at the fish labels. We take a particularly close look at the widely used MSC label and, of course, also look at the statements of the organization behind it in order to make a fair judgement. Finally, we tell you what we recommend when it comes to fish consumption.

The State of the Oceans

Why are we even talking about this? In short, our oceans and fish stocks are not doing particularly well.

According to the According to the FAO , the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, around a third of all fish stocks worldwide are overfished (as of 2017). Overfishing means that more fish are caught than can be replaced by natural reproduction and their numbers are continuously decreasing. In addition, 60% of stocks are already at their maximum, so that stocks are just barely remaining stable. In our immediate vicinity, in the Mediterranean, the situation is even worse: Here, a full 62% of fish stocks overfished.

The consequences are serious, because overfishing throws ecosystems out of balance forever. As if that wasn't bad enough, many of the fishing methods are devastating: bottom trawling, for example, destroys the seabed and catches a lot of bycatch - including sea turtles, whales, sharks and dolphins.

Do we want to support this with our fish consumption? We shake our heads. Fortunately, certain certificates in the supermarket promise sustainable fishing. But is the certified fish really free from the above-mentioned allegations?

9 Fish Labels at a Glance

1/9: MSC

The blue seal of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is widely used and many people know it from the supermarket. For certification, independent auditors assess whether wild fish fisheries meet the environmental and traceability standards of the MSC. After According to the MSC , the seal requires that fish stocks are in good condition, the impact on ecosystems is low and fisheries management is geared towards sustainability. The MSC was founded in 1996 by Unilever and the WWF, but now criticizes the WWF the MSC and is calling for reforms. The environmental organization is joining a long line of criticism: More than 60 organizations and scientists called for stricter rules and higher standards in an open letter in 2018. They complain that some fisheries are certified as sustainable despite the destruction of the seabed, continuous overfishing, high bycatch rates and more.

2/9: ASC

The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), like the MSC, was co-founded by the WWF, but has been independent since 2009. The seal certifies fish and seafood from aquaculture (controlled rearing of fish in particular) according to the ASC breeding standards. The specific standards focus on ecological diversity, feed, pollution, disease and social aspects. For wild salmon, for example, the ASC stipulates a maximum proportion of wild fish in the feed, requires the waters to be classified as “good” or “very good” by independent analyses, only allows certain medications and always as a last option, and is based on the labor standards of the International Labor Organization.  According to the WWF The ASC is the result of long negotiations with many interest groups and should therefore be understood as a compromise, not as a premium seal. This explains the criticism of the NABU : For example, the breeding of predatory fish such as salmon is permitted, for which other fish must be caught as feed, and the seal can already be used during the conversion phase.

3/9: Naturland Wildfisch

Naturland is an international association with the mission of promoting ecological farming practices. Guidelines for the Wild Fish Seal rely on both ecological and social standards and promise to protect fish stocks and ecosystems, avoid environmentally harmful fishing methods, ecological processing, social guidelines for employees along the value chain and a transparent recognition process. While Naturland stands out with its social standards and sets the sustainability bar higher than the MSC, criticizes NABU certified fisheries that had set up gillnets in marine protected areas.

4/9: Naturland Aquacultures

The Naturland counterpart to the ASC: Naturland has formulated guidelines for both the breeding and processing of fish, seafood and algae from aquaculture. The certification criteria include the protection of waters and ecosystems, species-appropriate husbandry conditions, the avoidance of genetic engineering, chemical additives, growth promoters and hormones, certified organic feed, strict requirements for medication and social standards for employees along the value chain. Naturland emphasizes that the proportion of fish in the feed consists of leftovers from the processing of edible fish and is not fished specifically for breeding. In comparison to the ASC, the Naturland aquaculture seal is awarded by the WWF calls it a “'premium' label” .

5/9: FOTS

Friends of the Sea (FOTS) certifies both wild fish and fish from aquaculture with its seal. The criteria for wild fish require that there is no overfishing, that there is no “significant” impact on the seabed, that no more than 8% of the catch is bycatch, that no endangered species end up in the net, that legal regulations are complied with, and that steps are taken to ensure social responsibility. certification of aquaculture requires that they have no impact on threatened habitats, comply with water quality guidelines, reduce outbreaks to “acceptable” levels, do not use growth hormones, meet their social responsibilities and reduce their carbon footprint. NABU advocates that the certificates should only be awarded after the switch to more sustainable methods and not during the process, as is the case with the ASC and MSC. However, there is criticism that the requirements for feed should be more binding and the certifications more transparent.

6/9: Bioland (fresh fish)

Bioland is an association of over 8100 members and 1100 representatives from trade, manufacturing and gastronomy. Although it is more of a brand than a seal, it functions as an association of independent companies that are committed to high demands on organic farming They value biodiversity, animal welfare, climate and the environment as well as regionality and all members avoid genetic engineering. Bioland completely rejects wild catch due to overfishing and bycatch, which is why only specific rules have been formulated for aquaculture. Since predatory fish in aquaculture require animal meal in their feed, which in turn requires fish to be caught, Bioland only supports non-predatory fish that feed on the nutrients available in the pond. At the moment, Bioland only sells carp (but not currently available in stores). This puts Bioland in line with the Greenpeace Fish Shopping Guide very close, who recommends only carp without exceptions.

7/9: EU organic label for organic farming

The EU Eco-Regulation stipulates guidelines for fish from aquaculture. For companies that meet the requirements, the corresponding EU organic seal is mandatory. This makes it the highest legal standard for fish from aquaculture, although compliance with the criteria is of course voluntary, as with the other seals. regulations include, among other things, principles for organic production (e.g. no genetic engineering or use of hormones) and animal husbandry (e.g. 100% organic feed). Specific rules have also been formulated for aquaculture, such as an upper limit on stocking density, water quality requirements and the use of organic feed, but with permission for fish feed from sustainable fisheries. Greenpeace criticized that the maximum stocking density is set too high and that critical chemicals are allowed. Naturland and Bioland each state that their criteria go beyond the requirements of the EU Organic Regulation.

8/9: Dolphin Safe

The Dolphin Safe seal is an initiative of the Earth Island Institute with the aim of encouraging tuna fisheries to switch to fishing methods that do not threaten dolphins and to certify them accordingly. criteria demand: no deliberate tracking or catching of dolphins, no drift nets, no accidental killing or injuring of dolphins, no mixing of dolphin-safe and dolphin-lethal tuna, and an independent observer on board vessels over a certain size. The seal is criticized because it does not make any further demands on sustainability or responsible fishing methods. But that is not what it is designed for, it only certifies fisheries that do not want to let any dolphins get caught in their nets. The Earth Island Institute is stricter on this point than the MSC seal and criticizes the MSC for the certification of the Mexican tuna fishery despite the high bycatch rate of dolphins.

9/9: GGN – certified aquaculture

The GLOBAL G.AP seal stands for global compliance with the rules of a good Agrar- P raxis. The standard includes animal welfare, environmental protection, occupational safety and food safety and is continuously developed in cooperation with stakeholders such as production companies and environmental organizations. The criteria for aquaculture include a total of 265 control points. The 13-letter GGN number of a certified product can on-line to trace the supply chain and learn more about the fishery in question. Greenpeace supports the ban on feeding wild fish and genetic engineering, but criticises the sustainability criteria as inadequate and complains that the social standards are merely recommendations.

sustainable wild fish fisheries

Sustainability in wild fisheries requires not overfishing stocks and avoiding bycatch. Photo by  Paul Einerhand on  Unsplash

Fish and a clear conscience?

9 seals, 9 reasons to buy fish? It's not quite that simple. Only Bioland gets off scot-free, but their criteria are so strict that no fish is currently available under the brand. How should the other seals be assessed, or does it simply mean: Don't eat fish anymore? A closer look is important, because appearances often promise more than reality.

Criticism of the MSC example

Most of the criticism is directed at the MSC, as its seal is the most widely used – as is the case in the ARD documentary "The business of the fish label" . She accuses the MSC of having certified the Mexican tuna fishery, although many dolphins still end up as bycatch in the nets. In addition, independent experts have reported that they were offered bribes by the fisheries - which they did not accept - but these allegations were not investigated.

The criticism continues:

  • Greenpeace criticizes the fact that stakeholders can raise objections in the certification process, but the time window is too short and the stakeholders have to pay a fee
  • In addition, the certification standards are too lax, which means that fisheries that fish in overfished areas or have high bycatch rates receive the seal
  • Another problem is that the MSC is largely financed by certification fees from fisheries
  • The WWF , co-founder of the MSC, advocates reforms of the MSC and calls for steps towards improved, objective assessment, as well as ensuring strict ecological standards

The MSC denies the criticism and takes the ARD report Position. In the report, MSC CEO Rupert Howes himself speaks out. He explains that particularly high standards are not the purpose of the MSC. He asks whether the MSC should certify the few, extremely sustainable fisheries or whether it should concentrate on the large majority and ensure that they improve a little. So is the criticism of the MSC inappropriate, since the organization's standards are not that high?

No: That is actually our main criticism. The MSC's standards for sustainable fishing should be higher, because the current strategy misleads consumers and puts their trust in a seal that does not keep what it promises - at least in terms of communication.

Even if the MSC is right that the ARD report misrepresents the label, criticism of the structure of the MSC remains legitimate, which in turn undermines the credibility of their label. For example, the MSC receives money from certifications, which calls into question their motivation to certify fisheries. The independent auditors are also paid directly by fisheries, which puts them under pressure to rate them positively.

Interestingly, the MSC label has become one of the top eco-labels in the Netherlands What is lost in the communication about this, however, are the criteria for this award: The MSC only had to achieve 4 out of 5 points in one of five areas, including people, animal welfare and the environment. The MSC actually achieved that many points in the area of ​​the environment, but only two for people and - shockingly but not surprisingly - no points for animal welfare. That is not nearly enough for us.

What about the other seals?

The other seals may fare a little better, but we have already shown that they are not free from criticism either. ASC is a compromise between interest groups and therefore cannot be seen as a seal that puts animal welfare and marine conservation first. Even Naturland Wildfisch is criticized for questionable certifications, and the credibility of Naturland Aquacultures Unfortunately, we are in the same boat. The maximum bycatch rate of 8% of FOTS legitimizes bycatch to a certain extent, which we cannot support. Bioland has very high standards, which is very good – but they are so high that currently no Bioland fish is available. EU eco-label has a special status as the highest legal requirement, but could also go further. The dolphin seal of the Earth Island Institutes fulfills its purpose, but does not represent sustainable fishing overall. The standards of the GLOBAL G.AP are also criticized as inadequate.

aquaculture sustainable fisheries Sustainability in aquaculture is multifaceted: breeding conditions, feed procurement and medication all play a role. Photo by  Hanson Lu on  Unsplash

So what kind of fish can I buy?

Is there no way out if the most promising seal doesn't offer fish? It does indeed look difficult. With our mission, we naturally have a very critical eye and recommend the strictest criteria. Basically, the same applies here: rethink your own consumption - and even if you don't want to give up fish completely, maybe eat less of it and research the seals behind them carefully. For example, with the Naturland and Bioland seals you are on the much more sustainable side than with the MSC.

You can also take a look at the particularly strict, but therefore credible, Fish Shopping Guide from Greenpeace. It is easy to understand and clearly states which fish you can eat with a clear conscience.

A final word

After so much criticism, we would like to say: Basically, seals and certifications are a good thing. They help us as consumers to put pressure on the industry and send signals that we want more sustainability.

But there is still a long way to go to achieve greater sustainability in fishing. We must continue to be loud and, if necessary, reduce our consumption in order to protest. We need seals, but we also need stricter laws, as voluntary measures do not get us far enough. We need startups that make noise and do things better. And we need you, all of us, who can make a big difference together.

Header image: Photo by  Johannes Plenio on  Unsplash

Back to blog