Walk through any supermarket seafood section and you’ll see reassuring labels everywhere: “sustainably sourced,” “responsibly farmed,” or a stamp of approval from a certification program like Best Aquaculture Practices or Aquaculture Stewardship Council. For many shoppers, these kinds of labels offer peace of mind, the sense that the products they’re buying are clean, healthy, and sustainable. Unfortunately, the reality is far more complicated; many labels on sea animal products are tools of greenwashing and humanewashing.
Concerns about ocean health are rising. Survey research shows that consumers worry about rapidly declining fish populations, ecosystem collapse, and the environmental impacts of industrial-scale fish farming. In response, the seafood industry has embraced sustainability branding, using marketing and labeling to assuage consumer concern. Demand for products marketed with sustainability claims is growing faster than conventional products that do not make these labeling claims.
But while some certification programs have produced small improvements, the overall system has serious flaws. There are no global standards for what counts as “sustainable seafood.” In many cases, the industry helps define the standards and finances the organizations that certify them. The result is a system that, from self-declared eco-labels to major certification programs and consumer purchasing guides, creates the appearance of sustainability without delivering meaningful environmental protection or accountability. And the industry’s harm isn’t confined to the ocean. As aquaculture has scaled up, feed producers have increasingly turned to soy and other crops to replace a share of the fishmeal in aquafeed, tying industrial fish farming to the same deforestation pressures (particularly in South America) driven by other forms of industrial animal agriculture.
In the United States and Canada, there are no standardized definitions for terms that indicate sustainable production and no consistent government oversight to ensure they come anywhere near “sustainable” or “responsible” practices. This void of government regulation means that companies can essentially set their own benchmarks.
Research illustrates how unreliable these labels can be. A study of Canadian retailers found that:
Even mandatory disclosures required by government regulators fail to ensure meaningful standards. U.S. law requires aquatic animal products to be labeled by country of origin and whether they are wild-caught or farmed, yet enforcement remains weak. A DNA study by the nonprofit Oceana found that 43% of salmon sold in U.S. grocery stores and restaurants was mislabeled, most commonly farmed Atlantic salmon marketed as wild-caught.
In practice, these company-defined labels function as the first line of greenwashing, building consumer trust without guaranteeing meaningful environmental action.
Third-party certification programs appear to offer a more rigorous approach by setting meaningful standards, verifying compliance through independent audits, and revoking certifications if companies fail these audits. The reality, however, is quite different. The very structure of these certifications compromises their ability to ensure accountability and adherence to standards, and even the standards themselves.
Conflicts of interest abound in the landscape of aquaculture certification. Most programs rely financially on fees paid by the companies seeking certification. In other words, the producers being evaluated help fund the organizations that evaluate them. If companies leave the program because standards become too strict, the certification body loses revenue.
This financial dependence can create a powerful incentive to keep standards acceptable to industry rather than pushing for stronger environmental safeguards.
Two of the most widely recognized aquaculture certifications are the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP). Both claim to ensure responsible seafood production and both illustrate the glaring conflicts of interest at the heart of this system.
Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP), for instance, is run by the Global Seafood Alliance, an industry group founded by major agribusiness and seafood companies. As of 2025, 42 percent of its board members represent companies that produce, process, distribute, or sell sea animal products or aquafeed, and another 27 percent are major buyers or distributors. The program is also funded largely through membership dues and licensing fees from the companies seeking certification, creating a clear conflict of interest. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) presents itself as independent but relies on a similar fee-based model, meaning stricter standards could drive away the very companies that fund the program.
The issue isn’t just governance—it’s the standards themselves. Industry influence has allowed harmful practices to persist under a “sustainable” label, while enforcement mechanisms rarely hold producers accountable.
Take farmed salmon, one of the most commonly certified seafood products. As carnivorous fish, salmon require feed made in large part from wild fish; producing one kilogram of farmed salmon can require more than two kilograms of wild fish inputs, increasing pressure on ocean ecosystems. At the same time, certification programs often permit high levels of disease and parasites. For example, some standards, like ASC, allow elevated sea lice levels, while BAP sets no limits at all. Meanwhile, antibiotic use is loosely regulated, contributing to environmental contamination and the broader crisis of antibiotic resistance.
Even these weak standards are inconsistently enforced. Auditing systems typically rely on limited sampling, meaning only a fraction of farms are inspected, and some programs do not publicly release audit results. Investigations have found that farms can exceed parasite thresholds or fail multiple requirements yet still retain certification.
In practice, this combination of low standards and weak enforcement turns certification from a safeguard into a form of legitimacy for business as usual.
Many environmentally conscious shoppers turn to consumer guides for help. One of the most widely used guides is Seafood Watch, which rates both farmed and wild-caught sea animal products as “Best Choice,” “Good Alternative,” or “Avoid.” These types of guides are meant to instill confidence in consumers, and yet, they too, have their limitations.
Seafood Watch evaluates seafood by species and region, not individual farms. This means that farms with serious problems can still fall under a positive regional rating if the overall management system in that region scores well.
In addition, the program has aligned some of its standards with aquaculture certifications like ASC, a scheme that we know is inherently compromised. This alignment can result in ASC-certified farms automatically receiving higher ratings, even in regions where broader environmental concerns remain unresolved. Ultimately Seafood Watch’s practice of rating some fish operations as “Best Choice” is deeply misleading at best and a glaring form of greenwashing at worst.
In this way, like certifications and labeling, consumer guides can reinforce the lack of accountability and transparency, rather than ensuring more responsible practices.
Labeling and certifications are increasingly presented as reliable signals for environmentally responsible choices. In reality, the system is fragmented, influenced by industry interests, and inconsistently enforced. It’s natural to assume that the path forward is to make certifications and labeling more transparent, rigorous, and enforceable. However, the sustainability challenges in aquaculture are systemic rather than incidental. Even in the best-case scenario, industrial aquaculture cannot meet basic thresholds for sustainability.
Plant proteins carry a fraction of the carbon burden of animal products, including fish, and are much less resource-intensive. Transitioning away from the consumption of sea animals toward plant protein offers a path to a truly sustainable food future.