Misconceptions around certification

“Recently, more than 40 civil society groups from across the globe joined forces in a letter submission to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council’s Farm Standard consultation calling out the certification scheme for misleading shoppers with their ‘farmed responsibly’ label on open net pen farmed salmon.”

“However, in actuality, the ASC label does not guarantee an ASC certified salmon was “farmed responsibly” from hatchery to harvest.”

“The truth is, a salmon product with the ASC logo on the package is likely to have met the ASC standard rules for only some of its production cycle: the hatchery and final growout farm stages. In fact, more than one-third of the salmon’s life is never assessed for environmental impact, such as sea lice outbreaks or chemical treatments.”  Reference

“This certification is supposed to guide consumers towards an ecologically virtuous choice. But it tolerates controversial breeding practices that are contested by specialist NGOs.”

“The ASC (Aquaculture Stewardship Council) label, created in 2010 by the Dutch organization Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative and the environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) WWF, which covers around 40% of salmon sold worldwide, is supposed to be one of the most demanding on the market. "If you see the ASC label on the packaging, you can be sure that your seafood has been raised with care," assures the organization, which even promises consumers to have "a proven positive impact on people and the planet." The reality is, however, more nuanced: the ASC certainly sets a certain number of restrictive rules, which pull certified farms upwards. But it leaves farmers significant room for manoeuvre to perpetuate controversial practices.”

“The [ASC] label does not, for the moment, set any rules regarding stocking density or slaughtering methods. However, the organization intends to make stunning mandatory before slaughter next year. It is also working on the issue of density, while ruling out "setting a threshold density", which would in its eyes be "a significant risk for animal health because, taken in isolation, density [is] not a reflection of the health of the fish".”

“Mortality in the cages”

“The proportion of animals that do not survive the rearing phase is, implicitly, a good indicator of their quality of life. However, mortality rates are often very high in salmon maturation pens due to diseases, parasites, overpopulation injuries and failures in oxygenation systems. "An industry in which one in four animals is unlikely to survive the 'growth' period (...) should not be allowed to develop," the CIWF [Compassion in World farming] said. A group of Norwegian biologists recently called for a cap on the allowable mortality rate of 5% – bringing salmon closer to the mortality rate of chicken farms, which is around 4%.”

“The [ASC] label theoretically caps mortality in the tanks at 10% of individuals. However, not only does this figure not take into account mortality during the early stages of salmon life, but a review of the audit reports also shows that the organization actually tolerates much higher mortality episodes. For example, the farm in Varden (Norway), operated by the giant Mowi, was able to keep its label this year despite a mortality rate of 27%, because "the necessary precautions and actions have been taken" by removing the fish from consumption.”

“Escapes”

“Due to the fragility of sea cages, salmon sometimes escape from farms to the open sea or rivers. […] In effect, these escapes promote the spread of diseases and parasites.”

“The ASC label theoretically limits the number of escapes allowed to 300 per two- or three-year production cycle, […]. However, the organization regularly grants exemptions when the incident "clearly escapes the control" of the operator, and "corrective actions" are put in place.”

“Chemicals”

“The salmon farming industry uses many chemicals to treat pen water, fight pests and treat diseases. These treatments can pollute the waters around the farms, but also impregnate the salmon. Significant levels of dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and heavy metals were detected in the flesh of salmon marketed in France by UFC-Que choisir in 2016.”

“The [ASC] label prohibits the administration of antibiotics to salmon as a preventive measure, but does not set any rules for chemical treatment. "Treating fish when necessary is a welfare requirement. This ensures that the fish receive proper care and do not suffer from preventable or curable diseases," the organization argues.

“Carbon impact”

“The production of one kilogram of farmed salmon generates, depending on the source, between 5.1 and 10 kilograms of CO2, which is much less than red meat, but as much or even more than chicken. Beyond transport to the end consumer, the carbon footprint is increased by the feeding of the salmon. NGOs are particularly wary of the large quantities of forage fish used to produce fishmeal – 440 small fish on average for each salmon, according to the CIWF – which threaten ecosystems and the food security of human populations in West Africa. "The use of wild fish in aquaculture feed is a fundamentally unsustainable way to produce protein," says the NGO Changing Markets.”

“The [ASC] label is not interested in the carbon impact of salmon. For example, there is nothing to prevent an ASC salmon from being transported by plane, or from the soy used to feed it coming from deforestation. The ASC, on the other hand, limits the proportion of fish oils and meals used in salmon feed.”.

Le Monde

“A new report from WildFish finds salmon farms are certified by leading bodies despite substantial marine pollution, inadequate parasite control and monthly mortality rates as high as 74%. Recent footage from a certified farm shows salmon suffering from deformity and disease.”

“Schemes such as Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and RSPCA Assuredare potentially misleading consumers on the environmental and welfare credentials of certified farmed salmon, the new report finds.”

“The report, Responsibly farmed?, investigates certification bodies ASC, RSPCA Assured and Soil Association Organic, and finds numerous examples of how certification of Scottish salmon requires lower environmental and welfare standards than could reasonably be expected by consumers.”

“Additionally, the report documents numerous examples of farms breaching the standards required by its certification, but remaining certified – including four salmon farms which breached ASC sea lice limits earlier this year, but did not lose their certified status. Salmon from these farms can still be sold as ASC-certified.”

“The report’s release comes as new undercover footagehas emerged, taken in June this year, which shows salmon suffering from deformities and disease on a farm run by Norwegian giant Mowi, which has ASC and Soil Association Organic certification. The farm may also be RSPCA Assured; Mowi has previously stated that its ‘Scottish operations are 100% certified against the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) standard”, but RSPCA Assured does not publish a list of certified farms’.”

“’It seems unbelievable that RSPCA Assured and ASC can endorse and certify farms where more than half of fish die prematurely from disease or parasite infestation over a production cycle, or where farms have clearly breached the requirements designed to protect both farmed and wild fish welfare.’ - Rachel Mulrenan, Scotland Director, WildFish”

“The report explores the requirements of the three certification schemes across a number of different environmental and welfare indicators, such as permitted mortality rates, use of chemical pesticides and sea lice limits, and documents a number of case studies where farms have breached the requirements, with no loss of certification.”

“Ms Mulrenan added: ‘Our research found that, contrary to what the industry says, these are not one-off incidents of breaches of standards – the breadth of examples we encountered, both in relation to environmental and welfare standards, indicate a systemic failing of certification schemes such as RSPCA Assured and ASC to both implement meaningful requirements, and then to enforce these’.” Reference

● “The salmon farming industry’s go to eco-certifier, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, continues to weaken its standards for certified farms.”

“Now, by substantially lowering the bar on its sea lice standard, ASC has at a stroke further devalued the dubious credibility of its certification.” Andrew Graham-Steward, director of Wildfish Scotland.

“ASC’s new sea lice limits protects industry […]”

Reference

● “In February 2023, ASC introduced its updated Salmon Standard, which included a five-fold increase in the number of sea lice permitted on its certified farms. Sea lice infestations proliferate on salmon farms across Scotland and other salmon-producing countries. These parasites cause huge welfare issues for the farmed salmon, eating the fish alive, and can transfer to wild fish in the surrounding environment.”

“The move by ASC to relax its rules on sea lice levels was accompanied by an apparent strengthening of its enforcement. ASC stated that breaching and failing to rectify sea lice levels, would result in the salmon from the relevant farm becoming ‘not eligible to be sold as certified and the certificate shall be cancelled.’ However, WildFish contacted ASC in relation to four farms that had breached the standard, and was informed that the standard has a ‘veterinary exemption’ clause, which had been applied. All four farms remained certified.”

“’ASC’s own research shows that certification schemes are consumers’ most trusted source of information about the sustainability of the fish they are buying. If these schemes aren’t going to properly hold the industry to account, then their existence risks being little more than a greenwashing operation. If they are to be credible, certification schemes need to be proactive, rather than reactive. Currently that is certainly not the case.’” - Rachel Mulrenan, Scotland Director at WildFish

Reference

“Both certification schemes (Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Best Aquaculture Practice) have had their credibility questioned over the years. Most recently, BAP has been the subject of a US Federal Trade Commission petition for potentially misleading marketing claims.”

“In 2015, the first ASC farm in BC was certified – with seven sea lion deaths, dangerously high sea lice numbers that peaked at 23 lice per fish that SeaChoice members Living Oceans challenged in a complaint. Such outrageous practices continued to be certified throughout the decade of ASC in BC [British Columbia, Canada] and revisions to the salmon standard increasingly reflected business as usual industry practices.”

“ASC certified. BAP certified. ‘Responsibly sourced’. Seafood shoppers – don’t fall for eco-labels on farmed salmon! Open net pen BC [British Columbia, Canada] farmed salmon remains not recommended by Ocean Wise and on the Seafood Watch red-list (Avoid).”

Reference

Quoting the 2021 MEP Report:

Organic Certification: Two issues exist for the production of organic certified fish in the Falklands;

1. Non-Indigenous Species: The EU Organic standard states that ‘locally grown species shall be used’. ‘Locally grown’ are then defined as species which are neither alien nor locally absent. Rather confusingly though, certain species that are non-indigenous are allowed to be certified, such as pacific oysters in Europe (as an example). Following clarification, it appears that the EU have accepted species which have been present or produced for a significant period of time in the local environment (although they don’t specify what they see as ‘significant’). The current interpretation currently used is that the species needs to of been produced for at least 10 years in the country with no significant issues. Since no salmon is currently produced in the Falklands it is not considered possible that it could be certified as Organic in the next ten (10) years at least.

2. Triploidy Use: The use of sterile fish has been recommended as a licence requirement elsewhere in this report as a way of mitigating escapes from a non-indigenous species. However, this is specifically not allowed under the EU Organic standard.

Based on the above, it is not considered possible for EU organic certification to be obtained for salmon produced in the Falklands.

“Thirty charities, conservation and community organisations, including WildFish, the Pesticide Action Network and Blue Marine Foundation, say the negative environmental impacts of the industry in Scotland “run completely counter” to the principles of the Soil Association’s promotion of healthy, humane and sustainable food.” [In the UK, organic certification is administered by the Soil Association]

“In an open letter to the association, which plans to update its organic fish farming standards, the groups call for the removal of its certification of Scottish salmon and trout farms, as ‘unacceptable greenwashing of an unsustainable industry’.”

“Rachel Mulrenan, WildFish’s Scotland director, said: ‘So-called ‘organic’ Scottish salmon is a misnomer. The fish are raised in the same way as all Scottish farmed salmon – in open-net cages, where all the waste from the farm flows straight into the surrounding lochs and sounds, including faeces and uneaten feed’.”

“She said that salmon farms certified organic were permitted to use highly toxic chemicals, which could kill surrounding wildlife.”

Reference

“Salmon farming is fundamentally at odds with organic standards”

“Over the past year, WildFish and others have been calling on the Soil Association to end its organic certification standard for farmed salmon, arguing that the certification is misleading consumers.”

Reference

“The Fallacy of “Organic” open net-pen farmed salmon”

“While some types of farm-raised seafood (such as farmed shellfish) follow more stringent guidelines to protect the health of our oceans, the "organic" salmon farming standard varies little from conventional open-net cage practices.”

“It seems intuitive that the same organic principles that exist for land-grown organic produce, livestock and dairy should also apply to farmed fish. Unfortunately this is not the case. The Canadian Organic Aquaculture Standard allows for the use of synthetic pesticides (parasiticides), non-organic feed with the unlimited use of wild fish in feed and the inherent risks of open-net cages including disease and parasite transfer, uncontrolled waste directly into the ocean and escapes.

“The Canadian Organic Aquaculture Standard allows:

• “The use of synthetic pesticides

• “The unlimited use of wild fish in feed. Since operations use substantially more wild fish in feed than farmed salmon produced, this allows farmed fish to be certified organic despite contributing to a net loss of marine protein and a drain on already strained global fish stocks.

• “The unrestricted use of feed from non-organic, potentially unsustainable sources, as opposed to the 100 per cent organic feed requirement now in place for all other organic livestock

• “The potentially uncontrollable spread of disease and parasites to wild fish

• “The uncontrolled disposal of fish feces into the ocean

• “Escapes of farmed fish that compete for food or interbreed with wild fish (on the east coast) and concerns about farmed fish invading wild fish breeding areas

• “Entanglement, drowning deaths, and licensed killings of marine mammals.”

Reference