Category: Seafood

Seafood Progress Year 2 results – Step 6: Supports Improvements
Retailers are doing more to improve the sustainability of the worst offenders in the Canadian marketplace, but it’s not enough.

At the start of July, SeaChoice released our first annual update to Seafood Progress – an online resource that assesses and compares major Canadian food retailers’ sustainable seafood commitments and what they are doing to achieve them. Seafood Progress has six steps that follow the framework produced by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions in their Common Vision for Sustainable Seafood. This post is the last in a series that looks at each of the six steps in detail, highlighting trends, shortcomings and leaders in action.

The previous five posts reviewed how retailers scored on their Commitments, Data Collection policies, Responsible Sourcing practices, Transparency and Education. This post looks at what actions retailers are taking to support improvements in fisheries and aquaculture production, with a focus on the high-volume commodities with big environmental and social risks.

In Step 6, retailers are awarded points if they are engaging in actions to improve the production of Atlantic salmon that is farmed in Atlantic Canada, Western Canada, or internationally; farmed, imported shrimps and prawns; and/or skipjack tuna. Seafood Progress narrows in on these commodities because each is sold in high volumes in Canadian retail stores and the majority of production is Not Recommended by the Ocean Wise Seafood Program.

Examples of actions that have the potential to directly affect the supply chain include outreach to policy or decision-makers, pre-competitive collaboration with other seafood companies, and working directly with suppliers or producers. Actions retailers can take that send indirect market signals include not advertising unsustainable versions of a commodity, preferentially sourcing eco-certified or eco-labelled products, and preferentially sourcing products with high levels of social responsibility and traceability.

Most retailers are doing one or two actions per commodity, but some are doing many more – for example Loblaw, which is engaged in five different types of action to support improvement in farmed Atlantic salmon. These include working with the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification programs on standard development and supply chain expansion, aiming to source farmed salmon from closed containment or organic certified open-water net pens, preferentially sourcing ASC certified salmon for its private label products, and only sourcing from suppliers that meet Loblaw’s Ethical Sourcing Policy and traceability requirements.

Alternatively, retailers can get full points if all the products sold in that commodity category are sustainably produced. SeaChoice considers products sustainably produced if they are eco-certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or ASC (or, for shrimps and prawns, BAP 2-star or more), Recommended by Ocean Wise and/or ranked Best Choice by Seafood Watch. So, for example, Save-On-Foods scored 100 for KPI 6.1 because all its farmed salmon products are ASC certified. Retailers can also get full points if they refrain from selling the commodity altogether, for example, Buy-Low Foods scored 100 for KPI 6.1 because it doesn’t sell any farmed Atlantic salmon.

Retailers are doing the least to support improvements in the production of skipjack tuna (possibly because so few of their commitments include canned seafood in their policies). For example, three retailers are not engaged in any actions to support improvement of skipjack tuna and three are doing only one action. But some retailers are showing leadership on this issue. SeaChoice commends Walmart Canada for engaging in pre-competitive collaboration through the Retailer Canned Tuna Forum and the Seafood Task Force Tuna Sub-group, working directly with suppliers to switch to pole-and-line gear or free-school seining, and preferentially sourcing MSC certified tuna as part of its 2025 sustainable seafood commitment.

This step is about encouraging retailers to be part of the solution – to be active in improving the sustainability of the seafood they sell, beyond the more usual top-down pressure on their suppliers (although communicating their expectations and desires is important). And while the national average for this step increased by 13 points this year, despite two additional potential actions being added to the KPI scoring which meant that each individual action was worth fewer points, Step 6 continued to be the lowest scoring step in Seafood Progress. SeaChoice strongly encourages retailers – especially the eight profiled that scored under 50 on this step – to look at their workplans for the next year and see what else they could do.

Many of the actions in this step aim to increase the volume of sustainable seafood in Canada, which will be great for Canadian consumers. But some of the actions, like supporting producers to undertake improvements or advocating for better governmental regulation of the industry, also aim to ensure the costs and benefits of sustainable seafood are shared equitably across all actors in the supply chain. Producers need to be adequately rewarded, or at least compensated, if they are going to invest in practices that are more sustainable and responsible.

Producing seafood that is environmentally sustainable and socially responsible is clearly the right thing to do, but we need to make sure that all actors are justly compensated and that businesses are profitable over the long term. Otherwise, there’s very little incentive to make that extra effort to truly protect the natural resources that underpin seafood production, or the well-being of the people who get seafood from net or farm to plate. In other words, environmentally and socially sustainable seafood needs to be financially sustainable, as well.

We hope that you have enjoyed our series on the latest results from Seafood Progress. Please let your retailer know what they are doing right and where they can do better. You can take to social media, using the twitter buttons on their main profile page. Alternatively, next time you are in store, you can ask to speak to their seafood or customer service staff. At the end of the day your retailer wants to do right by you – so let them know sustainable seafood matters to you and it will continue to matter to them!

Others in this series:
September 16, 2019
Seafood Progress Year 2 results – Step 5: Education
Education doesn’t stop when we leave school – retailers need to do their part to educate customers and suppliers about their sustainability policies.

At the start of July, SeaChoice released our first annual update to Seafood Progress – an online resource that assesses and compares major Canadian food retailers’ sustainable seafood commitments and what they are doing to achieve them. Seafood Progress has six steps that follow the framework produced by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions in their Common Vision for Sustainable Seafood. This post is the fifth in a series that looks at each of the six steps in detail, highlighting trends, shortcomings and leaders in action.

The previous four posts reviewed how retailers scored on their Commitments, Data Collection policies, Responsible Sourcing practices and on Transparency. This post looks at Education (Step 5), including what retailers’ policies are for training their seafood staff, providing information in store about their sustainable seafood, and for working with their suppliers to help meet their commitments.

Step 5 saw the biggest year-to-year improvement in the national mean, or average, scores of any steps in Seafood Progress, jumping from 50 to 68 out of 100. Part of the reason for this increase is that two additional retailers (Sobeys and Canada Safeway) engaged with SeaChoice in the development of their profiles and shared new information with us that justified increases in their scores compared to last year. SeaChoice recognizes METRO, Buy-Low Foods and Save-On-Foods as the highest scoring retailers for this step and commends them on their education-related activities. One retailer – Costco Canada – scored zero across all indicators in this step because there was no publicly available information with which to score its education-related policies and activities.

Five of the retailers profiled are conducting training programs for all their seafood staff regularly (at least every two years), while three also conduct training for all staff but less frequently. It is important that seafood staff understand basic seafood sustainability issues and the principles of the retailer’s seafood policy or commitment so they can accurately answer customers’ questions and help them choose seafood that meets their needs. For example, Buy-Low Foods updates its seafood counter staff regularly on which products are Recommended by the Ocean Wise Seafood Program so that they can help customers choose more sustainable options. METRO, which uses fewer eco-labels in store, ensures its staff are knowledgeable about its sustainable seafood policy, seafood eco-certifications, and the environmental impacts of fisheries such as overfishing and bycatch through training programs, in-person workshops, and an online resource library.

However, retail staff are not always around or available to chat with customers about seafood options, which is why it is important that retailers also provide written information on their seafood policies – such as posters, pamphlets, or screens – in their seafood aisles. Currently only one retailer, METRO, provides detailed information on its seafood policy in stores. All METRO fresh seafood counters have screens with information on METRO’s seafood commitment displayed, and its Quebec stores also have pamphlets that explain its Fraîcheur traçable campaign (“Freshness you can trace”). Four retailers profiled include some information on their sustainable seafood policy at their seafood counters, for example highlighting that they are an Ocean Wise partner and directing people to visit the Ocean Wise website for more information on the program. SeaChoice encourages the retailers that have no information on their seafood policy available where their seafood products are displayed to consider developing some communications that will help their customers understand their policies.

Finally, it is important that retailers communicate their policies and expectations in the other direction – to their suppliers. Four retailers reported to SeaChoice that they regularly speak to their suppliers about their sustainable seafood commitment to help ensure the products they supply exceed the retailer’s expectation, and two (Loblaw and Buy-Low Foods) reported regular engagement plus providing direct support, as needed, to help ensure all seafood products are procured in line with their policies. For example, Loblaw reports helping its suppliers find eco-certified fisheries and farms that meet its commitment for private label products, and Buy-Low reports helping its suppliers identify more sustainable sources for some products.

Thanks to the efforts of seafood advocacy organizations and forward-thinking seafood businesses, there is already a much greater awareness of seafood sustainability issues than there was ten or fifteen years ago – but it could be better. Many people still find choosing seafood to stressful and confusing, so the more that retailers do to help, for example by clearly explaining their sustainability policy in store or labelling products that meet robust sustainability thresholds, the better. And since the sustainability of retailers’ products will depend on the sustainability of the products they get from their suppliers, it’s important that suppliers understand retailer’s expectations and aspirations.

Others in this series:
September 4, 2019
Canada’s proposed seafood labelling laws miss the mark

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has missed the mark on their proposed regulations to modernize seafood labelling. We have one last chance to push for robust seafood labelling laws.

Over the past six years the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has worked on a Food Labelling Modernization initiative with the goal to “develop a more modern food labelling system that responds to current and future challenges.” SeaChoice has been involved in this process by advocating for best practice seafood labelling – best practice labels include three key elements 1) scientific name, 2) geographic origin (where the seafood was farmed or fished), and 3) method of farming or fishing

Unfortunately CFIA’s proposed regulations fail to meet current best practices and offer no improvements for consumers to Canada’s opaque approach to seafood labelling. The proposed changes still only require companies to indicate the common name of any seafood product, and if imported, ‘the place of last major transformation’ of the product, for example, where the seafood was canned or filleted (also called “country of origin”). The proposed regulations do little to inform buyers about potential health implications, environmental or social sustainability, quality assurance, or even truthful naming of the products. It further obstructs Canadians from supporting local Canadian fisheries and seafood products.

While we have advocated for the introduction of several elements for best practice during this labelling modernization work of CFIA, for this last consultation opportunity. SeaChoice is focusing on the need for labels to specify the species scientific name and geographic origin.

Scientific name is critical on a label because Canada’s current seafood labelling regulations allow for many different species with variety of health and safety, environmental and social concerns to be vaguely labelled. Also including the species scientific name on a label can reduce confusion when one species may have a variety of common names based on language, culture, or region. For example, “shrimp” is an acceptable common name for 41 different shrimp species and “sardine” is used as a common name for Atlantic herring which is an entirely different species.

The geographic origin of a seafood product is also critical. Consumers often interpret country of origin that is listed on the package to be the geographic origin – where the food was caught or farmed. However, seafood is often caught or harvested in one country/region then processed in another, such that the geographic origin is not the country of origin indicated on a label. For example, an Atlantic Halibut caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by a Canadian fishing vessel may be exported to China for processing into fillets, then re-imported into Canada with a label that says “Product of China”. For more examples of why country of origin labelling is confusing, check out our other post here.

Overall, CFIA’s modernization effort tries to streamline labelling standards for all food products at the expense of improving transparency for seafood. SeaChoice has reiterated our position to CFIA with respect to species name and geographic origin on seafood labels. In addition to these central concerns, we oppose other proposed changes that have weakened the previous regulations. For example, lake whitefish, the only species category that historically has benefitted from strong labelling requirements including lake and province of origin is having these requirements repealed. Furthermore, CFIA is seeking feedback on changing the term used to present country of origin on a label from “Product of” to “Imported from” or “From”. SeaChoice does not support this change as consumers will remain in the dark on whether their seafood was caught, harvested or processed in the country indicated on the label.

SeaChoice wants Canada’s seafood-labelling laws brought into the 21st century so they reflect what Canadians are looking for, meet or exceed standards enjoyed by other countries and are consistent with issues the CFIA has itself identified. If you agree then please consider making your own submission to the consultation process. The CFIA is seeking feedback on the draft regulations. Please send an email now to voice your concerns https://davidsuzuki.org/action/seafood-labelling/

August 28, 2019
Seafood Progress Year 2 results – Step 4: Transparency
Most retailers are resisting publishing their procurement information or labelling their seafood products better.

At the start of July, SeaChoice released our first annual update to Seafood Progress – an online resource that assesses and compares major Canadian food retailers’ sustainable seafood commitments and what they are doing to achieve them. Seafood Progress has six steps that follow the framework produced by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions in their Common Vision for Sustainable Seafood. This post is the fourth in a series that looks at each of the six steps in more detail, highlighting trends, shortcomings and leaders in action.

The three previous posts reviewed how retailers scored on their Commitments, Data Collection policies, and on their Responsible Sourcing practices – this post looks at how transparent retailers are in terms of seafood labelling, where their seafood is coming from and how it is produced, and how much of the seafood they sell meets their sustainability criteria.

The national mean (average) for Step 4 went up by 17 points this year to 68 (out of 100), with the biggest jump coming from increased frequency of retailers reporting how much of the seafood they procured met their sustainability policy or commitment. Part of this increased frequency is due to retailers disclosing progress against their commitment last year through Seafood Progress, or disclosing for the first time this year. The average score for using eco-labels on seafood products to indicate they are either from eco-certified sources (e.g. the Marine Stewardship Council) or have been assessed by ranking or recommendation programs (e.g. Ocean Wise) was also high, jumping from 73 to 94.

However, this year saw only a small increase (from 35 to 41 out of 100) in the average seafood labelling practices of major retailers. Canada’s labelling laws only require that retailers use a common or market name on their seafood products, and sometimes the country of origin if the product has been imported. This is not nearly enough information for seafood consumers to know what they are actually eating (most common names can be used with multiple species, for example “snapper”, which can be used on over 200 species), where it was caught or farmed, or what methods were used to catch or farm it. And this information is crucial to determine how environmentally sustainable the product is and whether it is a healthy choice for people who need to be careful what they eat. SeaChoice commends METRO for achieving a labelling score of 100 for the second year in a row, labelling all of its fresh, frozen and private label products (except for seafood in frozen bulk bins) with species scientific names, where it was caught/farmed, whether it was wild or farmed, and the gear or method used to produce it. We encourage other retailers to voluntarily adopt a policy of better seafood labelling quality.

Another low scoring element of this step is transparency of procurement information, like which fisheries or farming areas retailers’ seafood products come from. However, the 2019 average of 13 (out of 100) is better than the zero it was last year, thanks to recent initiatives from METRO and Walmart Canada. METRO has made information on the region and gear type data available for many its wild caught and farmed products through its new public information platform – “Fraîcheur traçable” / “Freshness you can trace“. Using this system and the information available on seafood counter and private label products, customers can find out where products are from and what gear or farming method was used to produce them. Walmart Canada used the Ocean Disclosure Program to publish the species name and location, production method, stock status and management system, and whether the fishery is certified or in a registered improvement project for their wild-caught fresh and frozen products.

One of the main goals of Seafood Progress is to increase the transparency of major Canadian retailer’s sustainable seafood policies and their actions against those policies, so we are pleased to report that the average step score for Transparency went up almost 50% in one year. This shows that retailers are responding to their customers’ demands for more information and openness. SeaChoice recognizes the hard work and courage of the retailers who have shown themselves to be leaders on this issue. However, there is still significant room for improvement, especially from the four retailers which are scoring less than 50 on this important issue.

Others in this series:
August 22, 2019
Is aquaculture the answer to overfishing and world hunger?

Science tests two common claims about the aquaculture industry.

You’ve likely heard the narrative: ‘eat a farmed fish, save a wild fish’. It is a claim that the farmed salmon industry is particularly fond of. It’s a simple theory: if consumers substitute farmed seafood for wild, that should alleviate fishing pressure on wild stocks. With a third of the world’s wild fisheries overfished, any solutions to help reduce fishing pressure are certainly welcomed.

But does the theory stack up? A recent study put it to the test and the answer, so far, is no. If the theory is true, then modelling should show that increased aquaculture production is correlated with decreases in wild catch. Instead, Longo et al. (2018) found that aquaculture has been supplementing – not suppressing – wild fishery captures. Since the 1980s, aquaculture production has steadily increased while fishery capture has remained relatively stagnant.

The authors explored several potential factors to explain why aquaculture has not given wild fish a reprieve. The most obvious is the use of wild fish to feed farmed carnivorous fish. While fish feed manufacturers have innovated over recent years, 15 million tonnes of wild fish are still used for aquaculture. It doesn’t help that the ‘global North’ consumes predominantly high-value commodities that tend to be carnivorous and environmentally intensive, such as farmed salmon and shrimp. The authors suggest aquaculture production has focused efforts on “overall expansion rather than environmental conservation”.

So, choosing farmed over wild isn’t alleviating pressure on wild populations – but aquaculture is adding to overall seafood production. Is it true, therefore, that farmed fish are feeding the world’s growing population, again as the industry often claims?

A UN report recently estimated over 820 million people suffer from hunger, while 1.3 billion are food insecure (i.e. lack regular access to nutritious and sufficient food). A key element of FAO’s plan to eliminate world hunger is to increase access to fish through fishing and aquaculture.

At the same time, studies have found the world produces more than enough food, including fish protein, for the entire global population. Between 1961 and 2013, world population grew at an average annual rate of 1.6%, while global fish supply increased annually on average by 3.2%. This highlights the need to understand and address the gap between supply and access.

One of the reasons for the ‘gap’ is food loss and waste. Globally, around 35% of seafood is either ‘lost’ during the fishing, farming and/or processing stages (i.e. bycatch, discards, rejected, process waste, etc.) or thrown away as ‘waste’ at the retail or consumer level. Rich countries are the worst offenders. For example, nearly half of the U.S. seafood supply was found to be lost or wasted. The FAO has called on all nations to halve food loss and waste by 2030.

Another reason for the gap between supply and access is that the type of seafood being farmed is frequently inaccessible to those who need it most, because of factors like locality, cost and/or culture. Longo et al. suggest the problem is that the industry often prioritizes the production of high-value seafood as a global commodity, think farmed salmon, rather than the production of seafood that meets human needs, think shellfish and seaweed. Other studies also suggest a shift away from farmed species that rely on feed inputs (e.g. wild fish and edible crops) is necessary to meet the protein needs of a growing population.

Thankfully some places are closing the gap. In Bangladesh, a rapid transformation of the fish value chain – including the diversification of species farmed – has led to more affordable and accessible seafood for the domestic market, including the people who need it most.

In the end, farmed salmon isn’t decreasing pressure on wild stocks nor is it the affordable protein that is going to feed the world (or even all Canadians) – in spite of what the industry says. But that’s not to say that we should avoid eating all farmed seafood – even if it is simply supplementing, not suppressing, the fish we catch. Maybe we just need to rethink which seafood we farm and choose to buy.

Fisheries and Oceans last year announced a “renewed approach” to sustainable aquaculture in Canada – all targeted towards farmed salmon. However, diversifying our approach to aquaculture, beyond salmon, could help provide more accessible and affordable seafood protein options to more Canadians (though we should also ensure it is farmed sustainably). Consumers can help drive this change by purchasing the unsung sustainable farmed seafood heroes, such as shellfish and seaweed – which require no feed inputs. And please, avoid sending that extra seafood to the bin!

August 9, 2019
Seafood Progress Year 2 results – Step 3: Responsible Sourcing
Truly responsible seafood products don’t harm the environment or the people who produce them.

At the start of July, SeaChoice released our first annual update to Seafood Progress – an online resource that assesses and compares major Canadian food retailers’ sustainable seafood commitments and what they are doing to achieve them. Seafood Progress has six steps that follow the framework produced by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions in their Common Vision for Sustainable Seafood. This post is the third in a series that looks at each of the six steps in more detail, highlighting trends, shortcomings and leaders in action.

The two previous posts reviewed how retailers scored on their Commitments (Step 1) and their Data Collection policies (Step 2) – this post looks at how retailers are applying these principles in their procurement decisions. Step 3, on Responsible Sourcing, scores retailers on whether they use seafood certification or ranking programs to inform their procurement decisions, on how much of their procurement is in line with their seafood commitment, and on what aspects of their seafood commitments are reflected in their supplier codes of conduct.

The national mean or average for Step 3 increased by ten points to 73 (out of 100) from 2018 to 2019, making it the second-highest scoring step in Seafood Progress. SeaChoice recognizes the great work done by Loblaw, METRO and Buy-Low which are top performing retailers for this step.

Every retailer profiled is using seafood certification standards (like the Marine Stewardship Council or Best Aquaculture Practices) and ranking or recommendation programs (like Seafood Watch or Ocean Wise Seafood Program) to help inform their procurement choices. Programs like these point seafood buyers toward more sustainable products, taking some of the guesswork out of procuring sustainable seafood. In most cases, retailers also make this information available to their consumers, which can help you spot seafood you can feel good about, too.

Five out of nine retailers have publicly reported on how much of their procurement is in line with their policy within the last three years. This transparency is a critical component of having a sustainable seafood commitment, because it proves that the retailer is tracking performance against its policies and holding itself accountable to its organizational objectives. Of course, the more ambitious a commitment is, the harder it may be to achieve. Similarly, a seafood business that expands the scope of its commitment – for example, starting to include shelf stable seafood in its commitment – may appear to be going backward in terms of progress in the immediate term, which is why the scope and context of commitment tracking is also essential in terms of assessing businesses’ impact on the water.

In order to achieve their sourcing commitments, retailers must purchase seafood from their suppliers that meets or exceeds their requirements. This makes the relationships and agreements that retailers have with their suppliers key to delivering on their commitments. Step 3 has two indicators that relate to their supplier code of conduct (sometimes called a vendor agreement); one to assess to what level their agreement assures the retailer’s environmental sustainability commitment, and the other to assess how it assures their social responsibility commitment. In order to score 100 on these indicators, all seafood suppliers must be required to sign a code of conduct (or similar contract) that comprehensively covers the retailer’s environmental and/or social responsibility commitments, and the retailer must actively verify that the signed agreements are being upheld. SeaChoice commends Loblaw on scoring 100 on both indicators, and METRO and Walmart for scoring 100 on the indicators for environmental sustainability and social responsibility, respectively.

If your retailer is not reporting on the progress it is making against its commitment and you would like to see this information – or if there are other responsible sourcing actions you would like to see your retailer doing – you can easily let them know by using the tweet button on their Seafood Progress profile page. Alternatively, call their customer service department or stop by a store and talk to someone at the seafood counter about your concerns.

Others in this series:
August 7, 2019
Seafood Progress Year 2 results – Step 2: Data collection
You can’t manage what you don’t measure

At the start of July, SeaChoice released our first annual update to Seafood Progress – an online resource that assesses and compares major Canadian food retailers’ sustainable seafood commitments and what they are doing to achieve them. Seafood Progress has six steps that follow the framework produced by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions in their Common Vision for Sustainable Seafood. This post is the second in a series that will look at each of the six steps in more detail, highlighting trends, shortcomings and leaders in action.

Our post on Step 1, which focused on retailers’ sustainable seafood commitments, highlighted the variety of strategies that retailers have taken to try to “green” their seafood selection. But as the saying goes, you can’t manage what you don’t measure, which is why Step 2 of Seafood Progress scores retailers on their policy on data collection. The four indicators making up Step 2 assess whether retailers are tracking, for none, some or all of their seafood products, 1) species names, 2) geographic origins, 3) whether products are wild or farmed, and 4) harvest methods. This information is required to assess a seafood’s sustainability – without it retailers can’t track their performance against their environmental or social sustainability commitments.

In 2019, Step 2 went up by six points to a national average or mean of 69 (out of 100). This increase is largely a result of Safeway starting to engage with Seafood Progress and share information that had previously not been publicly available. SeaChoice would also like to recognize that METRO, Loblaw and Save-On-Foods all scored 100 on this step, meaning that they collect scientific names, geographic origins and harvest methods for all commodities covered by their seafood commitments.

In addition to being imperative to internal commitment tracking, collecting these data also allows retailers to be more transparent with their customers, who want to know more about what they are eating, whether for health, environmental or social responsibility reasons. METRO, for example, have made this data publicly available for a wide range of its seafood products via its “Fraîcheur traçable” / “Freshness you can trace” program. Using this system and the information available on seafood counter and private label products, customers can find out more information about the species, where the product came from and what gear type or farming method was used to produce it. Walmart Canada have made similar information available for all of its wild-caught seafood through the Ocean Disclosure Project, which also includes information about certifications, fishery improvement projects and stock status and management.

Finally, these sorts of initiatives in data collection and transparency demonstrate that retailers have mapped their supply chains and have confidence in the vendors they purchase seafood from. Although it might be a big lift at first, this should be part of every company’s due diligence. In fact, some of Canada’s biggest seafood trade partners, the European Union and the United States, have laws that require more information to be printed on seafood labels, which in turn requires strong traceability so this data travels with products up the supply chain. Unfortunately, Canada has just reviewed its food labelling laws and is proposing no changes to improve Canada’s seafood labelling laws, even though studies have shown that seafood labelling quality is generally poor (e.g. SeaChoice’s 2017 and 2018 studies, Oceana’s 2018 report).

There’s one final chance for the government to change its mind and bring Canada’s seafood labelling laws into the 21^st century and require retailers to not only collect this important data but also make it publicly available for consumers. SeaChoice, through the David Suzuki Foundation, are petitioning the government to reconsider its lack of ambition – you can add your voice to the call here.

It is in everyone’s interest that seafood businesses collect these key data on the seafood products they buy and sell, both to ensure they are meeting their sustainability commitments and so they can be sure the information they give their customers about their products is truthful and not misleading. For these reasons, SeaChoice encourages the retailers that are not currently scoring 100 on this step to look into expanding their data collection programs.

Others in this series:
July 25, 2019
Seafood Progress Year 2 results – Step 1: Commitment
Retailers have generally set strong commitments – though they may apply to fewer products than you thought.

On July 3^rd, SeaChoice released our first annual update to Seafood Progress – an online resource that assesses and compares major Canadian food retailers’ sustainable seafood commitments and what they are doing against those commitments. Seafood Progress has six steps that follow the framework produced by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions in their Common Vision for Sustainable Seafood. This post is the first of a series that will look at each of the six steps in more detail, highlighting trends, shortcomings and leaders in action.

Step 1 is comprised of two indicators that assess the quality of a retailer’s environmental sustainability and social responsibility commitments. The indicators are designed to separate retailers that have “hand waving” commitments from those that have more robust and meaningful commitments. The scoring is additive, giving points for: clear objectives (as opposed to general, non-specific commitments), use of credible standards, actions or expectations for suppliers, a means of tracking products through the supply chain (“traceability”) to support the commitment and a timeline to achieve the commitment. These components reflect how concrete a retailer’s policies are and whether progress against them will be actionable and measurable.

These indicators do not, however, score the level of ambition of the commitments; a retailer could have a clear and specific commitment that has a timeline and traceability to support it, but still set a low bar and therefore limit their potential for impact ‘on the water’. In general, Seafood Progress assesses retailers against their commitments and their actions to meet their commitments – not against an idea of where their bar for sustainability should be.

In 2019, Step 1 continued to be the highest scoring step in Seafood Progress because most retailers have well-defined environmental sustainability commitments (national average or mean out of 100 = 87) and are developing more detailed social responsibility commitments (national average = 67). Three retailers – Loblaw, METRO and Walmart – have publicly available commitments that scored 100 for both indicators. However, despite many high scores, Seafood Progress found two main areas for general improvement.

The first issue that many retailers seem to be struggling with, particularly for their social responsibility commitments, is traceability. Traceability systems ensure that products do in fact meet a retailer’s sustainability bar, whether this means sourcing from eco-certified farms or fisheries, or from socially responsible producers or processors. Traceability systems should be part of a wider due diligence program on behalf of retailers to engage their business partners down the supply chain and work with them to ensure national laws, international standards and business-specific commitments are being upheld.

The second area for improvement is scope, i.e., which products the commitments apply to. Scope is not scored by Seafood Progress, but is integral to the impact retailers will have on seafood sustainability overall and whether they will meet their customers’ expectations. Over half of the retailers profiled in Seafood Progress don’t include any shelf-stable items (canned tuna, tinned anchovies, etc.) in their commitments to sustainable seafood. Excluding products like canned tuna is significant because Canadians eat a lot of canned tuna. In 2018, Canada imported nearly 40,000 tonnes of skipjack and albacore tuna* – the equivalent weight of 85,000 adult male polar bears – the vast majority of which will have been sold as shelf stable products.

Another important product segment that not all retailers’ commitments apply to is national brands. Well known national brands in Canada include Bluewater Seafood, High Liner and SeaQuest, and their products are typically sold frozen in boxes or bags covered by their own branding. Many of these companies have their own sustainability commitments (see the ‘Self Claims’ section of this recent post for more on those), which may or may not be in line with a retailer’s own policies. And while retailers can’t dictate the policies of independent companies, they can decide whether to carry their products in store.

Finally, some retailers are restricting the scope of their commitments by only applying them in some of their stores. Many of the retailers profiled in Seafood Progress own branded food stores, known as banners (for example, Safeway and IGA are banners of Sobeys, Real Canadian Superstore and Provigo are banners of Loblaw, etc.). Some retailers’ commitments only apply to a selection of their banners, meaning that even if the retailer has a good policy, it might not apply in all of their stores. Additionally, some retailers’ banners are franchised, meaning they may have even more autonomy to set their own policies.

As a first step, SeaChoice believes it is important that retailers are open and transparent about which products, in which stores, their commitments cover. This is critical for consumer trust. Next, we encourage those retailers whose commitments have limited scope to look into expanding them to cover more products, in more stores. We know that this won’t be easy, and that retailers who are reporting progress against their commitment may appear to be taking a step backwards as new products enter sustainability assessments. But this is the best way to take the guess work out of which products consumers can feel good about buying, and the best way to ensure ongoing and meaningful “seafood progress”.

(*from DFO trade statistics – 33,646 tonnes of skipjack tuna and 4,657 tonnes of albacore tuna)

Others in this series:
July 15, 2019
Market drivers, modern-day slavery and making sure eco-certifications deliver

SeaChoice reports on hot topics at the 2019 SeaWeb Summit in Bangkok, Thailand

Last month, an increasingly diverse group of seafood sustainability professionals from all over the world gathered in Bangkok for the 2019 SeaWeb Seafood Summit. In addition to representatives from environmental organizations, there were seafood buyers for large businesses, corporate social responsibility specialists, human rights advocates, traceability experts, funders and academics.

What was notable, in comparison to past Summits, was the increasing focus on social responsibility. This is not because seafood’s environmental issues have all been addressed, but due to a growing acknowledgement that environmental sustainability and social responsibility need to be tackled at the same time. Likewise, the third pillar of sustainability – economics – needs to be able to support both objectives, as well as seafood businesses’ bottom lines.

The need for all three aspects of sustainability to be improving at the same time was well illustrated by the opening keynote from Paul Rice, the Founder and CEO of Fair Trade USA. Rice first realized that “markets can be the most powerful driver of change” after he saw the dependency on foreign aid that was created by large-scale international development projects. In Nicaragua, Rice started working with a coffee farmer cooperative that sold their product with a price premium that went back to the producers. Fast forward a couple decades, and Fair Trade USA has 1,400 partner companies, 1.6 million farmers and workers, and $610 million financial impact (the premiums that have been generated). Fair Trade has also begun certifying fisheries, while aquaculture farms are in the works.

Rice also cited research showing that consumers, especially young ones, are hungry to reward companies supplying products that support their values. Many mainstream businesses are now realizing that sustainability and profitability go hand in hand. This should be fairly obvious with seafood – if there are no fish, there is no seafood to sell – and in many countries seafood businesses have made commitments to supporting sustainable practices. In Canada, consumers can use Seafood Progress to see what commitments their retailer has made and how it is performing against them. SeaChoice just released the results from our second year of assessment, so you can also see whether retailers are doing better or worse compared to last year.

The Summit’s Thailand location was a very appropriate place for social responsibility conversations. When it comes to seafood, Thailand has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Investigations into Thai-flagged fishing vessels and Thai seafood processing plants found evidence of widespread human rights abuses, including forced labour, trafficking, and in some cases, murder. The delegates heard from fishermen who had experienced these horrors firsthand, being recruited from neighbouring Myanmar or Cambodia under false pretenses and only managing to escape after several years of forced labour. And this isn’t just a problem with Thai vessels and Thai factories; a recent U.S. Department of State report of Trafficking in Persons found widespread forced labour in seafood-related work in 47 countries. Recently, the Thai government and leading seafood businesses like Thai Union have taken steps to start to address these issues, but the risks are still very real for vulnerable people around the world.

Fortunately, in addition to hearing about what can go wrong (for example from the Migrant Workers Rights Network, feature image, among many others), delegates also heard about what can go right. For example, human rights organizations are collaborating with seafood businesses to identify risks in their supply chain and make changes to address them. Collaborations between seafood NGOs and human rights NGOs are also resulting in new tools for businesses to help them with this due diligence, such as the Roadmap for Improving Seafood Ethics (RISE). The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI), which assesses and benchmarks existing seafood certification schemes against Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) guidelines, announced that they are working with the Consumer Goods Forum Sustainable Supply Chain Initiative to start benchmarking social compliance audit and certification schemes.

In fact, many of the presentations talked about seafood certifications and promoted their role in verifying to consumers that a company is procuring sustainably and responsibly. However, certifications are not without their challenges. One of the main challenges discussed was that the burden associated with improvements and/or certification typically lies with the producers, while the benefits from certification accrue to companies further up the supply chain. There needs to be a more equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of certification programs if they are going to be long lasting and resilient. Another challenge discussed was the huge amount of seafood yet to be certified or ranked. Globally, nearly two-thirds (126.8 million MT) of seafood falls under this sustainability ‘unknown’ category.

One challenge that was noticeably absent from discussions on certifications at the Summit was the gap that can occur between what eco-certifications promise and what they actually deliver. Companies and consumers expect eco-certifications to be robust and have stringent standards in place. While a number of certifications benchmark to GSSI and/or are ISEAL members to demonstrate that they have robust processes and stringent standards in place – neither GSSI nor ISEAL assess the decisions made by the certification scheme under their process frameworks or the sustainability rigor of their standards. This is where stakeholders can play an important role in holding certifications accountable to their promises. SeaChoice, for example, has been engaging in multiple ways with eco-certifications to make sure that the programs remain credible and are leading real change on the water to reduce the environmental impact of fishing and aquaculture.

The complexity and inter-related nature of these issues, the fact that they combine environmental and social challenges with economics and market drivers, goes a long way towards explaining another hot topic at this year’s Summit – collaboration. No one organization has the expertise or relationships (or funding!) to address all three pillars by itself, so collaboration and partnership will be increasingly important to produce truly sustainable seafood at the global level.

July 9, 2019