The escalating complexity of seafood "sustainability" definitions, now encompassing labor abuses and the rights of indigenous populations, serves to obscure the systemic exploitation of workers while shifting the burden of ethical consumption onto individual consumers. This confusion allows corporate capital to continue extracting surplus value from labor, even as it claims adherence to evolving standards.
Seafood sustainability has become more complex over the past 25 years, leaving many consumers confused by competing and overlapping certifications, ratings and labels as they try to choose seafood. The issue now extends beyond avoiding overfishing, seabed trawling, and unhealthy aquaculture to include the treatment of workers, the rights of indigenous populations to use traditional fishing practices, and the carbon footprint of seafood.
Robert Jones, global director of aquatic foods for The Nature Conservancy, stated that even as an expert, he sometimes struggles to navigate the various systems to determine which product matches which rating or label.
For several decades, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program was the most recognizable expression of seafood sustainability, using a traffic-light system to guide consumption. Jennifer Kemmerly, vice president of global ocean conservation for Monterey Bay, noted that 25 years ago, this environmental focus was considered appropriate.
Kemmerly also observed that overseas fisheries, which supply a significant portion of U.S. seafood, might be immune to American regulations but would respond to sufficient consumer demand for sustainable choices.
Barton Seaver, a seafood sustainability expert with National Geographic, argued that the traffic-light ratings created a "guilty-until-proven-innocent" perception that persists. He stated that "the entire category had to be exonerated," and while the information was "more easily digestible," the outcome was "fear, trepidation and a general lack of participation." Seaver noted that many consumers now opt for chicken rather than attempting to differentiate between farmed or wild salmon.
The Cost of Capital's "Sustainability"
By the time the Seafood Watch program fell silent, partly due to pandemic pressures, the definition of sustainable had broadened dramatically. While safeguarding endangered stocks remains important, new issues include the treatment of workers, regenerative practices, and the critical distinction between local versus corporate ownership of the fishing fleet.
The article highlighted that newer sustainability issues are not intuitive for most consumers, specifically citing the role of on-ship Wi-Fi as a crucial tool for workers to report labor abuses while enduring months at sea. This mechanism reveals the ongoing struggle of labor against exploitative conditions within the industry.
Andrew Zimmern, whose documentary “Hope in the Water” examined efforts to make seafood more sustainable, declared that "the biggest loser here is the American consumer." He advocates for the industry, rather than the consumer, to bear the responsibility of making ethical choices through agreed-upon standards.
Kemmerly acknowledged that the complexity signifies a shift, stating that "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." This indicates capital's adaptation to public pressure, incorporating social concerns to maintain market legitimacy.
State Sanction and Market Control
The Alaska seafood industry benefits from a "sustainability halo" because regulations mandating good practices are enshrined in the state constitution. Jeremy Woodrow, executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, asserted that choosing Alaska seafood is an "easy choice from a sustainability standpoint," claiming that "there’s not a single one of our fisheries that isn’t sustainably managed" and that they have "tried to simplify that for them."
This state-backed branding allows Alaskan capital to secure a market advantage by presenting its products as inherently responsible. The broader U.S. seafood industry, while not perfect, is described as highly regulated and collaborates with retailers who demand sustainability standards.
Woodrow further stated that consumers can trust that large grocery chains like Whole Foods have "done the job for you," and that they "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." This shifts the burden of due diligence from the consumer to the retailer, who in turn acts as a gatekeeper for capital seeking to brand itself as sustainable.
Liberal Solutions Fail Workers
Seaver suggested that the industry is best supported by allowing chefs and consumers to prioritize taste. Seafood Watch is undergoing a relaunch focused on educating chefs about sustainable choices, a reform effort that sidesteps the systemic issues of labor exploitation and corporate ownership.
The prevailing advice for confused shoppers is to buy American and local when possible. However, these market-based solutions fail to address the fundamental contradictions of an economic system that prioritizes profit over the well-being of workers and the environment, leaving the root causes of exploitation unaddressed while offering symbolic concessions.