Little blue tick of lies: MSC-labelled food is misleading consumers concerned about conservation
A Guardian article out this week has highlighted the sad story of two right whales in the Gulf of St Lawrence seen entangled in fishing gear, bringing to light the controversy at the heart of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and its so-called ‘blue tick ecolabel’ that certifies fisheries responsible for killing endangered species.
There are thought to be only 365 North Atlantic right whales remaining, so the death of just one is devastating to their total population. The odds seem very much against the right whales whose migration takes them along the eastern coast of North America from Florida to Canada and through waters being fished for snow crabs and lobsters, particularly around the Gulfs of Maine and St Lawrence.
As well as having to deal with fishing gear, ship strikes are often fatal. According to the Guardian, more than a tenth of the right whale population perished or was seriously injured between 2017 and 2021 - a population already critically endangered and teetering on the precipice of extinction.
As sad as the story of the right whales is, it merely highlights a far greater problem - many people who buy fish, crabs, lobsters and other marine species sold for food believe that what they are paying for was sourced responsibly due to the lies of one organisation in particular: the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The MSC blue tick ‘ecolabel’ is there to assure consumers that what they are buying is the most sustainable product possible, yet many assume that sustainable equals conservation.
The MSC has since admitted that it is often “treading a fine line between fishing and conservation,” in a response to the Guardian hastily penned by CEO Rupert Howes the day after the article was published. In the response, Howes saw fit to blame the inconsiderate whales for shifting their migratory pattern as a response to climate change, thus putting the MSC in a tricky spot.
“Since the first snow crab and lobster fisheries in the Gulf of St Lawrence were certified to the MSC Standard in 2012, there has been a well-documented change in the migratory patterns of right whales associated with climate change,” wrote Howes. “Over the past five years, these changes have brought more right whales into direct contact with fishing gear – lobster and crab pots, connected to the surface by long ropes in which whales can become entangled. They have also brought right whales closer to shipping lanes where they are at greater risk of being stuck [sic] and injured or killed.”
Seemingly not ones to miss an opportunity to spin a tragic situation, Howes threw the Southern Gulf of St Lawrence snow crab fishery - whose MSC certification was suspended in 2018 and has since left the program - under the bus, before stating that the US and Canadian governments, and relevant fisheries, were all taking “significant steps” to protect the right whales with data being provided to MSC and included in its auditing.
However, Howes claims that there is “no direct evidence” that fisheries operating in the area are responsible for the death of right whales, and even that said fisheries are demonstrating significant measures to protect the whales. Well, that is reassuring, about as reassuring as what Howes says next:
“Without MSC certification, these fisheries would still set their pots, and their catch would continue to be sold to consumers. Ongoing MSC certification offers continued public scrutiny, traceability, expert review and open reporting.”
Basically, they’re going to fish anyway and cause all manner of destruction, but at least with MSC certification, there’s some additional bureaucracy and consumer guilt appeasement. Not to mention hefty fees charged to producers for the right to use the blue tick logo on their packaging and the subsequent premiums charged by retailers for MSC-certified products.
Never miss an article
Stay up-to-date with the weekly Surge newsletter to never miss an article, media production or investigation. We respect your privacy.
Despite charging blue tick licensing fees and generating funds through donations from foundations, in 2006 the MSC almost went bankrupt. A deal with Walmart effectively rescued them after the retail giant said that by 2012 all the seafood they would sell would be MSC certified. Other major retailers followed suit, increasing the amount of MSC-certified fish products by about 700 per cent, and for every business wanting to use the blue tick the MSC charged a licensing fee. The higher price of these products in supermarkets has incentivised producers to continue using the blue tick label and subsequently incentivised the MSC to keep handing them out.
As a result of this blatant collusion and lack of impartiality, ocean specialist Daniel Pauly, who took part in early meetings that shaped the MSC when it was founded in 1997, told NPR that he had lost faith in the system. "The MSC is doing the business of the business community," not the environment.
The MSC has defended its licensing fees by stating that all the income goes back into its programme work and “providing grants through our Ocean Stewardship Fund”. However, according to their own website, only 5 per cent of the royalties of certified products goes towards the Ocean Stewardship Fund. Even this would seem to be a gross overestimation - when Surge co-founder Ed Winters reviewed the MSC’s own reported figures for 2020, they stated that they had received an income of $29.3 million with 80 per cent from licensing fees equating to $23.4 million - however they only spent $650,000 on the Ocean Stewardship Fund, or 2.77 per cent of their income from blue tick royalties.
The MSC does admit that there is something of a misalignment between public perception of their stance on conservation and reality - in particular its failings regarding endangered species. In his Guardian response, Howes states that a “broad church of stakeholders from the conservation community” including Birdlife and WWF have representatives on the MSC’s Stakeholder Advisory Council thus, he says, ensuring points regarding conservation are “considered”. Not too vague, then.
“We cannot operate on gut feelings which may evolve and change and may ‘feel’ different to those with different perspectives” Howes added. “While conservationists’ views are welcome, those of the fishing industry and regulators are equally valid.”
Hard luck then, WWF, you can say what you want but if it contradicts fisheries and industry regulators, the MSC doesn’t have to listen to you. This barely disguised passive-aggressive animosity towards conservationists is less surprising when we consider that an internal review from the WWF in 2016 revealed that the MSC was actively interjecting themselves into ongoing certification processes to try and favour the approval of those certifications.
Furthermore, in 2020, the WWF released another statement stating that they were “very concerned by the lack of overall improvements, and the continued weakness of the certification and assurance process.” The WWF alone have filed 17 objections - all of which had to be paid for - to proposed certifications and in total only one objection has been passed by the MSC.
All of this is on top of the many doubts surrounding the MSC’s impartiality, or rather lack of, in regards to its auditing process which are conducted mostly by third parties paid by the companies they’re there to certify. As Ed Winters states in his video which discusses the MSC in great length:
“There is an obvious problem when every single part of the certification chain benefits from the passing of the certification. The fishing companies benefit, the certifiers benefit, the MSC benefits, the seafood brands benefit and the supermarkets and retailers benefit.”
For more on MSC including its failings regarding human rights and numerous case studies, plus other topics raised in the documentary Seaspiracy, watch Seaspiracy Debunked: A Vegan Indoctrination Movie?
Ed Winters is co-founder and co-director of Surge.
Andrew Gough is Media and Investigations Manager for Surge.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES