What We Learned — and What's Still Missing
On 1 April 2026, the Seafood Consumers Association (SCA) wrote formally to the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), raising seven questions about certification, cost transparency, and marketing integrity — prompted in part by our concerns about a plastic-toy promotion run by an MSC-certified brand ("Beyond the Label – Why Sourcing 'Sustainable Seafood' Isn't Enough," 1 April 2026). At the time, we committed to publishing MSC's response transparently once received.
In July 2026, MSC's Program Director for Oceania & Singapore, Ms. Anne Gabriel, replied on behalf of the organisation, with a copy to Patrick Caleo, Regional Director, MSC Asia Pacific. We thank MSC for engaging in replying to our letter and providing a response. In the interest of the transparency, we promised our members and the wider consumer public, here is where things stand.
What MSC clarified
MSC's response gave useful context on several fronts:
- Scale and standing. MSC has operated for roughly 30 years, is grounded in the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, is recognised by the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI), and follows ISEAL Codes of Good Practice. Globally, 738 fisheries across 63 countries are certified, representing 20.6% of global wild marine catch, with more than 2,625 documented improvements delivered through the program.
- Australian footprint. In Australia, 32 fisheries across 40 species are certified, covering 34% of wild-capture landings (around 73,500 tonnes) and 63% of wild-caught prawns. MSC noted that Western Australia's government invested AUD 14.5 million in 2012 toward pre-assessment support, which contributed to 13 certified fisheries and more than 90% of WA's commercial fisheries (by value) now being certified.
- Support mechanisms. MSC pointed to its Ocean Stewardship Fund (established 2019, roughly £10 million awarded globally to around 200 fisheries and projects, including more than AU$500,000 in Australia and New Zealand) and a separate Recertification Assistance Fund.
- Chain of Custody. MSC described its Chain of Custody Standard, which relies on third-party audits, DNA testing, and product traceback capability to protect the integrity of certified supply chains.
- Consumer trust. MSC cited GlobeScan research indicating that 81% of MSC-aware Australian consumers trust the ecolabel, up from 72% in 2024.
- Award criteria. On our specific concern about the Sustainable Seafood Awards, MSC confirmed that award assessment is based strictly on published criteria relating to sourcing, supplying, and promoting certified seafood — not on a recipient's broader corporate or marketing conduct.
We appreciate this level of detail, and it materially improves public understanding of MSC's scale and existing safeguards.
Where the gaps remain
Having reviewed the response against each of our original seven questions, several were only partly addressed, and one was not addressed at all:
- Political closures. We asked whether MSC certification has helped fisheries resist politically motivated closures. MSC clarified that the specific WA and Victorian fisheries we referenced are not MSC certified — a fair correction — but did not answer the broader question of whether certification has ever been used as evidence to resist a closure decision for a certified fishery.
- Recreational displacement and IUU risk. Our question about unregulated recreational fishing displacing certified, traceable commercial catch was not addressed anywhere in MSC's response.
- Cost transparency. MSC explained that certification fees are privately negotiated and retail prices are set by producers and retailers — reasonable in principle, but no actual figures, ranges, or price-premium data were provided.
- Marketing integrity. MSC confirmed its awards are assessed only against sourcing, supply, and promotion criteria — which is precisely the gap we raised. Our call for an "Expanded Award Criteria" model, incorporating marketing conduct and fraud controls as a prerequisite for sustainability recognition, was not directly responded to.
- Seafood fraud — forward plan. MSC described its existing Chain of Custody safeguards but did not provide data on fraud cases detected or prevented, nor did it address how (or whether) MSC is responding to the FAO's February 2026 Technical Paper No. 742, which estimated fraud at approximately 20% of global aquatic trade.
- Hardship relief. MSC's funding mechanisms are general-purpose rather than crisis-specific, and the response did not confirm whether any South Australian fisheries affected by the 2026 Harmful Algal Bloom event have actually accessed this support.
What happens next
We have written back to MSC with a focused follow-up letter addressing these six outstanding points directly and have asked for a response within four weeks. We remain committed to constructive dialogue with MSC — this is not a dispute, it's an effort to get complete, specific answers on behalf of the everyday consumers we represent, who are too often left out of these conversations.
We will publish the full correspondence, including MSC's further response, once received.
Comments
No comments yet.