Document type : article published in Le Monde (subscriber edition)
Author: Maxime Vaudano
Preview: This certification is supposed to help consumers make ecologically virtuous choices. But it tolerates farming practices that are disputed and criticized by specialist NGOs.
Sustainable", "responsible", "quality" salmon... Browsing the supermarket shelves and fishmongers' stalls, French consumers are provided with reassurances of the ecological virtues of the fish that will end up on their plates. But the reality is sometimes far from what the blue or green labels on the packaging suggest. Salmon production conditions are rarely verified directly in the field by wholesalers and retailers. Retailers tend to rely on labels awarded by specialized international organizations, which conduct regular audits of each approved farm to verify its compliance with fixed specifications.
The ASC (Aquaculture Stewardship Council) label, created in 2010 by the Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative and the environmental NGO WWF, covers around 40% of the salmon sold worldwide, and is claimed to be one of the most exacting on the market. The label tells consumers that they have chosen "seafood farmed with care", and that they have made "the most trusted seafood choice". The organisation even commits to "a proven, measurable and meaningful impact on people and our planet". The reality, however, is more nuanced: while the ASC sets a certain number of restrictive rules, which pull certified farms upwards, it also leaves farmers considerable leeway to continue controversial practices.
Animal welfare
What does this mean? Cramming salmon into overcrowded rearing tanks can have serious consequences for their health, making injuries and the spread of disease more likely. The specialized NGO Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) recommends that stocking densities should be limited to 10 kilograms per cubic meter to allow salmon "to express their natural swimming behavior and disperse to more favorable areas when water conditions are poor" - which would leave the equivalent of two or three bathtubs for each individual. CIWF also condemns slaughter without prior stunning, which generates stress and pain. What does the ASC stipulate? For the present, the label lays down no rules on stocking density or slaughter methods. Next year, however, the organization intends to make pre-slaughter stunning mandatory. It is also working on the question of stocking density, while ruling out the idea of "setting a density threshold", which in its view would be a major risk for animal health, since taken in isolation, density is not an indicator of fish health.
(Remainder of article for subscribers only)
