Environmental groups from several global salmon-farming regions have voiced criticism of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council's new farm standard, alleging that it serves the industry much more so than the environment.
“These new standards from the ASC merely illustrate the degree to which the ASC has been captured by the industry it now serves,” WildFish Scotland Director Andrew Graham-Stewart said in a joint press release. “Until such time as this industry can demonstrate conclusively that it can stop the appalling impact on wild salmonids and on the wider marine environment in Scotland, no one should buy or eat Scottish farmed salmon nor should anyone be fooled by meaningless slogans like 'responsibly sourced.'"
The release was jointly issued with a number of organizations, such as Living Oceans, SeaChoice, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, Naturvernforbundet, Environment Tasmania, and Defendamos Chiloe.
A key complaint made in the release relates to the problem of sea lice on salmon farms, arguing that the new standard allows for a high number of chemical treatments to treat sea lice infestations – in Chile and Scotland, for instance, up to nine parasiticide treatments are allowed.
The groups also objected to the new ASC farm standard’s allowable rates of antibiotic treatments, which the organizations argue increase the danger of antibiotic resistance – a risk which has been studied but which is not yet fully understood.
Additionally, the organizations objected to the amount of wild fish which the new standard allows in fish feed, the ratios of which have remained unchanged since 2017, despite advances made in feed since then.
The release named a number of other objections, including the ASC’s willingness to certify farms located in protected areas.
Ultimately, the release suggested the ASC standard was no longer protecting the environment or consumers who prioritize sustainability as a top reason for purchase.
“There is mounting evidence that farmed seafood certifications including ASC, BAP, and GLOBALG.A.P. are not fit for purpose and are contributing to the greenwashing of unsustainable practices," Living Oceans Sustainable Seafood Campaigner Kelly Roebuck said. "The ASC has consistently relaxed their standards over the years to accommodate industry norms, and as a result, sections of the final ASC Farm Standard actually have a lower environmental bar than that of the first Salmon Standard launched in 2012.”
Atlantic Salmon Federation Vice President of Communications and Special Projects Neville Crabbe agreed, saying that certification schemes have become misleading to consumers.
“Consumers rely on third-party certification programs to make responsible seafood choices. These labels signal that companies are exceeding basic legal requirements, going the extra mile to be better than the competition," he said. "Unfortunately, the ASC is bending toward the industry, not creating a high standard that challenges companies to do better.”
Denmark-based aquafeed company BioMar Group told SeafoodSource, however, that the new standard was helping the company to rigorously audit its environmental footprint.
BioMar Vice President for Salmon Paddy Campbell said that the new standard is pushing “raw material producers to improve their conditions” and, thus, helping to “future-proof” businesses like BioMar as well as those of its supply chain partners.
In its official response to the criticism, ASC said that the "statements made about the Farm Standard do not accurately reflect the new requirements and in some cases are simply incorrect."
It continued: "We recognize that meaningful and lasting change requires time and collaboration throughout the supply chain. OUr NGO partners play a vital role in challenging and advancing the sector. ASC welcomes critical reflection; however, the challenge must be accurate, and evidence based."
