ASC draft Farm Standard outrageously proposes to have industry audit themselves.
Recently, more than 40 civil society groups from across the globe joined forces in a letter submission to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council’s Farm Standard consultation calling out the certification scheme for misleading shoppers with their “farmed responsibly” label on open net pen farmed salmon.
The ASC’s “farmed responsibly” label features prominently on farmed salmon products in seafood cases of major supermarkets around the world. The label suggests to consumers that the product was “farmed responsibly” for its complete farming cycle.
However, in actuality, the ASC label does not guarantee an ASC certified salmon was “farmed responsibly” from hatchery to harvest.
The truth is, a salmon product with the ASC logo on the package is likely to have met the ASC standard rules for only some of its production cycle: the hatchery and final growout farm stages. In fact, more than one-third of the salmon’s life is never assessed for environmental impact, such as sea lice outbreaks or chemical treatments.
Currently, the interim stage of the production cycle is excluded from auditing and compliance with the ASC Salmon Standard.
This is akin to saying an apple that was farmed using conventional non-organic methods for a significant portion of its growing season and organic methods for only some portion is still okay to label as “organic” on a supermarket shelf.
SeaChoice first uncovered that auditors in British Columbia were omitting intermediary farms (initial grow-out sites that are used between the hatchery and final grow-out stage) from ASC compliance in our 2017 What’s Behind the Label report. Our subsequent 2018 Global Review of the ASC Salmon Standard confirmed the issue was also occurring elsewhere: transfers between non-certified and certified farms were observed in Australia, Canada, Chile, Norway and Scotland (although some more so than others).
The ASC responded with an interpretation for auditors that allowed them to continue to exclude the interim farm stage of production from audits. In effect, the ASC endorsed the loophole – despite acknowledging that the intent of those that established the Salmon Standard was to address the impacts associated with the complete production cycle.
The loophole has likely resulted in irresponsible farming practices that have gone unnoticed under the guise of ASC’s “farmed responsibly” label. In fact, we know this has been the case.
Case in point: ASC certified Hardwicke farm received fish that spent 14 months at the non-certified interim farm, Larsen, where the fish received 175.308 kg of Florfenicol antibiotics. Florfenicol is often used to treat Tenacibaculum maritimum aka mouth rot in Atlantic salmon. A recent study links farm-origin T. maritimum exposure and infection with potential negative consequences to Fraser River sockeye survival . Despite this, the ASC audit report for this production cycle of fish states zero antibiotics were used.
With their credibility at stake, it appears the ASC is finally taking note. The draft ASC Farm Standard proposes closing the loophole by requiring that the complete farming production cycle shall comply with the standard.
But, it looks like they have been listening to the salmon farming industry too.
The draft ASC Farm Standard also proposes that the final grow-out farm applying for ASC certification takes responsibility for auditing their “suppliers” of the early production cycle stages for compliance against the standard. As grow-out salmon farms are typically owned by the same company that also owns and operates the hatchery and early net pen sites, this will result in companies auditing themselves for ASC compliance for a substantial portion of the production cycle (from 12 to 30 months out of a 36~ month farmed salmon production cycle) – rather than a third-party accredited auditor.
As the joint submission letter makes clear: any potential gains from closing the loophole will likely be undermined by ASC’s allowance for companies to essentially certify themselves.
According to ISEAL, an organization that defines Credibility Principles for sustainability standards for which ASC is a member, certification schemes should ensure that auditing processes are impartial and independent.
In other words, ‘the fox guarding the henhouse’ scenario has no place in sustainability claims.
As consumers, we place our trust in these promises. More than two-thirds of Canadian shoppers have checked for eco-labels, including certifications, when shopping. By preferentially choosing eco-labelled seafood products over ones without, shoppers place their trust in that eco-certification and its sustainability promise.
But consumers are also overwhelmingly concerned about greenwashing. The majority of shoppers would stop purchasing a seafood product if its claim was found to be greenwashing.
Eco-labels, including the ASC, must live up to their promises or risk being seen as industry greenwash. The proposal to allow the industry to audit how “responsible” they are against the ASC Standard is not a credible solution.
SeaChoice and fellow signatories will be closely watching the next draft of the Farm Standard, due out for public consultation in September 2022, to see if ASC chooses credibility or industry greenwash. Stay tuned!
