Seafood labeling is fashionable today. But, asks a new report from Sea-matters.com, is it really necessary?
Some denote a measure of sustainability and some indicate provenance, while others relate to the fishing or farming process. “We have found that industry itself is confused by such a profusion, so imagine how the consumer feels,” said Marie Christine Monfort, the fisheries economics and marketing specialist who co-authored the report with fisheries resource management expert Pascale Baelde.
French consumers eat more than 2.2 million metric tons of seafood annually, making it Europe’s largest seafood market. National production falls far short of consumption, so France relies on imports of 1.5 million metric tons annually from some 80 countries worldwide. These feed into a market that is complex, diversified and highly competitive. It is also suffering from a slow growth rate, a drop in the number of buyers, and an abundance of products with similar nutritional attributes.
“The problem for processors is firstly in gaining a place on retail counters or shelves, then attracting and retaining consumers’ attention thereafter,” explained Monfort. “This leads them to seek differentiation of their products through labels.”
The problem of which to choose and which offer the best value is the subject of the report, which the authors hope will help fishermen and processors to understand the rationale behind labeling and to make the best choice. “Putting a label on a product is an expensive business, especially those which involve certification of the fishing method, product or process by a third party,” she said.
Titled “Why and how to label seafood products? A practical guide,” the report is written from the point of view of seafood producers, exporters, wholesalers and retailers, rather that the promoters of labels. “By cutting through the hype, we make it more valuable to these sectors,” said Monfort. “It may lead some to the conclusion that labeling is not the best option and that a better option for differentiation is to rely on straightforward quality and price.”
A thorough review of the application procedures, advantages and disadvantages of 15 schemes makes up the body of the report. It does not, however, review the standards behind each label. And it doesn’t examine whether fish bearing the Marine Stewardship Council eco-label are more sustainable than others, or whether Label Rouge seafood is of higher quality or tastes better. Instead, it aims to help companies to select the scheme or schemes that will best reflect their values and match the needs of their customers.
“We were surprised to find, when we starting looking at the different schemes in-depth, that although there is competition between labeling schemes, is was not what we had expected. We found that seafood operators and consumers do not necessarily choose between labels that advertise the same attribute such as sustainability, superior taste, origin, etc., but between all labels on display and all attributes promoted. This makes it more important for producers to get it right. And, in an effort to do so, they may use several different labels on one product,” said Monfort.
The report concludes that on its own, a label has little value. “To be effective, it needs to be integrated in a well thought-out communication strategy that includes everyone in the distribution chain,” said Monfort. “It also needs to be understood by the consumer and be relevant to their purchasing needs. Much work needs to be done to achieve this, but we hope our report will help kick-start the process.”
To download the report, visit www.sea-matters.com.
