Sustainable Seafood Movement Expands Beyond Environmental Concerns

Don’t overfish. Don’t trawl the seabed. Keep aquaculture healthy for both fish and ocean. These principles of sustainable seafood have become familiar terrain for environmentally conscious consumers over the years.

But today’s seafood sustainability landscape has evolved into a complex ecosystem that extends far beyond these basic principles. Modern advocacy now encompasses human rights issues, indigenous fishing rights, carbon footprints of different seafood options compared to land-based proteins, and even the working conditions of fishing crews.

All of these considerations are now certified, rated and labeled by a patchwork of competing and sometimes overlapping organizations—creating a potentially overwhelming experience for American consumers already hesitant about seafood purchases.

“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,” admits Robert Jones, global director of aquatic foods for The Nature Conservancy.

For decades, the most recognizable expression of seafood sustainability was Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program. Its simple traffic-light approach—green for recommended choices, yellow for good alternatives, and red for species to avoid—made decision-making accessible for consumers concerned about preserving seafood populations.

Jennifer Kemmerly, vice president of global ocean conservation for Monterey Bay, notes this focus was appropriate 25 years ago. The strategy acknowledged that while overseas fisheries might be beyond American regulatory reach, they would respond to shifting consumer demands for sustainable options.

However, this simplified approach inadvertently created what Barton Seaver, a seafood sustainability expert with National Geographic, describes as a “guilty-until-proven-innocent aura” that continues to influence consumer behavior. Rather than parsing the nuances of whether farmed or wild salmon is more sustainable (an answer that has evolved over time), many consumers simply opt for chicken instead.

“The entire category had to be exonerated,” Seaver explains. “Yes, the information was more easily digestible, but the end result was fear, trepidation and a general lack of participation.”

While Seafood Watch eventually went quiet, partly due to pandemic pressures, the definition of “sustainable” expanded dramatically. Protecting endangered stocks remains important, but other factors—worker treatment, regenerative practices, and local versus corporate fleet ownership—now feature prominently in sustainability assessments.

Industry experts argue that true sustainability metrics must also compare seafood’s environmental impact against alternative protein sources.

“When we do so across five very important metrics—greenhouse gas, land-use alteration, feed conversion, freshwater and antibiotics—seafood just comes out on top in the animal-protein conversation,” says Seaver.

“If you want the sustainable option for dinner, the yellow-list or even red-list seafood might be the better environmental option than chicken or beef,” he adds.

This complexity presents challenges for everyday consumers. Some sustainability considerations aren’t immediately obvious—for instance, the availability of high-speed Wi-Fi on fishing vessels serves as a critical lifeline allowing workers to report labor abuses while at sea for months.

Unlike the relatively unified messaging of the beef, pork, and poultry industries, seafood encompasses thousands of species, regions, and regulatory frameworks.

“The biggest loser here is the American consumer,” says celebrity chef Andrew Zimmern, whose documentary “Hope in the Water” highlighted efforts to improve seafood sustainability.

Despite the information overload, Kemmerly sees this complexity as evidence of progress. “These big companies who 25 years ago made a sustainability commitment thinking it was just the environmental piece are now also on the hook—no pun intended—for reporting on environmental, social and governance issues,” she explains.

Many industry experts believe the path forward involves building consumer confidence in American seafood. Zimmern advocates for all stakeholders—from fishermen and wholesalers to watchdog groups—to agree on regularly updated standards, shifting responsibility for sustainable choices to the industry while allowing consumers to feel confident in their purchases.

The Alaskan seafood industry already benefits from this approach. “We’ve always said, if you choose Alaska, it’s the easy choice from a sustainability standpoint. There’s not a single one of our fisheries that isn’t sustainably managed,” says Jeremy Woodrow, executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. “We’ve tried to simplify that for them.”

Seaver suggests the best way to support the industry is to let chefs and consumers focus on what tastes good. Seafood Watch appears to agree as it prepares for a relaunch focused on educating chefs about sustainable choices.

For confused seafood shoppers, experts offer straightforward advice: Buy American, and local when possible. Though not perfect, the U.S. seafood industry operates under strong regulations and works with retailers that maintain sustainability standards.

“When you go to Whole Foods, you trust that they’ve done the job for you. And that’s the case for a lot of large grocery chains these days,” Woodrow says. “Consumers should feel confident when they go to the freezer case or the fresh case that that fish is going to be coming from a responsible fishery.”