The world of seafood PR abounds with terms such as sustainable, responsibly sourced and environmentally friendly. In general, these terms are understood by the trade, and are taken to mean that seafood has been subjected to the scrutiny of a certification scheme of some sort.
They are less well understood by the general public, so much effort is expended in trying to make them more familiar. Each certification scheme has a product or pack logo, to provide instant recognition and a feeling of confidence in the product. However, a number of recent consumer surveys show that whilst the public want their seafood to be sustainable, universal awareness of the finer points of sustainability is still a long way off.
Despite relentless media interest in the subject, it appears that most consumers are indifferent, unaware or confused. Clearly the certification bodies need to undertake a more effective public information campaign, otherwise the sustainable certification exercise will become another vanity mark sales tool provided for retailers, at the expense of the producer.
What is obvious is that understanding of the finer points of such messages is slower and more limited in the public mind than it is within the trade itself. I mention this because I recently came across both a shellfish aquaculture producer and a restaurant using the word ‘organic’ alongside mussels and oysters. Now unlike the terms sustainable and responsibly sourced, in the UK, ‘organic’ has legal protection and certification bodies such as Naturland and the Soil Association, define use of the word explicitly. I believe that they also have a duty to uphold the value of the designation, by policing its use.
The producer in question does not have certification to back use of the term organic, and when challenged, told me that his mussels “must be organic because we do not add anything unnatural to the product, they are entirely naturally fed, they are safe and wholesome to eat, and our customers understand what is meant by organic.” What is more, he objected strongly to certification bodies hijacking the word in order to make money from producers of a natural product. A similar story came from the restaurant selling ‘organically produced’ oysters.
I asked the Soil Association for advice, and was told that unless someone was using their logo illegally, the matter would need to be deal with by Trading Standards, rather than their organisation.
This set me thinking. Firstly, if certification bodies do not police the ‘organic’ brand then it becomes worthless to those who actually pay for it. Secondly, the general public does not have a clue about, and is probably not interested in the legal definition of the term ‘organic’. They understand that organic means safe, wholesome and natural, but do not realise that the legal definition now includes issues such as carbon footprint and workers’ welfare.
Organic status has been around for a long time and the certification bodies and their customers have spent a great deal of money and energy promoting the term, yet the public still does not fully understand its meaning. This does not bode well for ‘sustainability’ and ‘responsibly sourced’. These terms have no legal definition, they are awarded by a bewildering array of bodies, and even within individual standards, there are variations in the degree of sustainability that can be achieved.
It seems likely that long before the terms are fully accepted by the public and the differences between standards are understood, the consumer will have suffered from ‘responsible buying’ fatigue and reverted to a default position of ‘if it’s in the shops, then its OK for me to buy it.’
Perhaps now is the time for a radical consolidation and rationalisation of the various standards and legal definitions created for the terms that are used? If this does not happen, then the consumer may simply tune out the whole message.
