14 DAY TRIAL // A new study issued by the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada indicates farmed fish production aiming to be sustainable and “eco-friendly” is in fact worse than its traditional competitor, in terms of ecological footprint.
After analyzing several kinds of “eco-labels,” the leading author of the report, John Volpe from the Seafood Ecology Research Group can now guarantee that these brands have a questionable impact on marine ecosystems, the Guardian reports.
On the other hand, Marks & Spencer representative did not welcome these conclusions and stated their sustainable farming techniques are meant to preserve the fragile balance of oceans, while assuring the people that what they eat does not put the entire fish population at risk. Moreover, they have highly criticized the report and declared it relies on “niche standards.”
Volpe tends to disagree. "They have set criteria that currently sit below the normative performance of conventional industry. What this analysis makes clear is that the criteria a producer might meet to acquire the Marks & Spencer label is already below industry-wide practice," notes the expert.
In his defense, the researcher said it is disappointing to know for sure how much time, money and energy have been invested on the market of sustainable fish and how many benefits are actually provided by this presumed green technology.
While gathering all the information needed to shame major brands operating in this line of business, like Marks & Spencer and Whole Foods, two giant retailers, Volpe took 10 decisive factors into consideration, like energy consumption, feeding, antibiotic usage.
Moreover, the same study shows buyers who choose to eat responsibly-caught seafood are more likely to catch the bait than the rest of the customers who opt for alleged organic beef or chicken. This is the conclusion drawn up after a series of investigations developed all across the US, involving false labeling of fish products.
All in all, the industry seems to be hiding something. It encourages customers to pay more, empowering the myth of green fish farming, while their commercial activity doesn't offer any considerable benefits for the consumers' health or the wellbeing of wildlife populations.