A series of lawsuits related to seafood sustainability claims and eco-labels have scared the seafood industry and led many companies to be more careful about the language they use to describe their products.
One of the first suits was filed by catering firm Neversink General Store in November 2020, alleging Mowi's messages using the terms “sustainable” and “eco-sustainable” in marketing its Ducktrap smoked salmon brand were false. Mowi agreed to settle the case for USD 1.3 million (EUR 1.1 million) in March 2021.
Most recently, two lawsuits against ALDI were dismissed after the retailer agreed to change its marketing tactics for its farmed salmon products. Additionally, in September 2022, Gloucester, Massachusetts, U.S.A.-based Gorton’s Seafood settled a lawsuit out of court that alleged its tilapia products were falsely advertised as being sustainably sourced. A federal judge also recently denied Red Lobster’s motion to dismiss a class-action fraud lawsuit alleging it sold Maine lobster and farmed shrimp that is not as sustainable as the company claimed.
Irvington, New York, U.S.A.-based law firm Richman Law and Policy has represented the plaintiffs in several of these cases. SeafoodSource recently talked with Richman Law Animal Welfare Legal Fellow Brooke Dekolf to determine whether seafood suppliers are changing their practices and marketing claims as a result of these lawsuits. Despite the bevy of lawsuits, many seafood companies remain unable to legitimately substantiate their sustainability claims, according to Dekolf.
SeafoodSource: Why do you believe courts have ruled in plaintiffs’ favor – or at least allowed litigation to proceed – in seafood sustainability cases?
Dekolf: Courts are correctly recognizing that modern consumers want to leverage their preferential purchasing power to align their purchasing decisions with ethical concerns such as minimizing their contribution to the climate crisis and minimizing harm to farmed animals, including farmed aquatic animals. These consumers, therefore, seek animal-based products that are marketed as sustainable and promise to be made from farmed animals treated as humanely as possible.
However, while many consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental and welfare harms perpetuated by land-based industrial animal agriculture, the industrialization of aquatic animal farming is a relatively recent phenomena. Consumers want to purchase products made from aquatic animals in line with their welfare and sustainability concerns, but they often lack the industry-specific knowledge to trace backwards a supply chain and evaluate whether a specific company’s supply chain does in fact live up to its environmental and animal welfare marketing.
Courts are recognizing that the combination of these factors put consumers in a difficult position, as they want products sourced in accordance with high environmental and animal welfare standards but can’t determine for themselves whether marketing on these issues is actually accurate.
SeafoodSource: Why do you believe we are hearing more about false or misleading sustainability claims in the seafood sector? What are the problems unique to the seafood industry?
Dekolf: The problem here is that, just as courts are increasingly recognizing the value consumers place on products sourced in a manner that minimizes environmental harm and farmed animal exploitation, the seafood industry has also caught on to this shift in consumer purchasing behavior. The seafood industry knows that consumers will seek out, buy more of, or pay more for products made from aquatic animals when those products are marketed as sustainable and humane.
The seafood industry also knows that a consumer likely can’t trace back the supply chain and determine whether that [a] fish farm complied with local environmental laws, leeched antibiotics and biocides into surrounding natural bodies of water, had outbreaks of sea lice, had farmed fish escape that then outcompete or prey on natural fish populations, slaughtered their fish while fully conscious and without pain management or stunning, or kept their fish in conditions of high-stocking density and poor water quality without providing enrichments necessary to ensure those fish can express their natural behaviors. Many consumers, therefore, can’t know about – nor can they see – the conditions on these fish farms and have no choice but to trust that the industry’s marketing is accurate.
In short, the seafood industry knows it will sell more products when those products are labeled with environmental or animal welfare claims – even if those claims aren’t completely accurate – and that, absent this type of consumer protection litigation, there is no way for the industry to be held accountable when those claims are false or misleading. There’s a system in place here where it can be more profitable to mislead consumers about how aquatic animal products are produced than to be honest.
SeafoodSource: Have your attorneys seen a decrease in seafood mislabeling or claims that cannot be backed up as a result of the lawsuits you have filed? In other words, are seafood suppliers, retailers, and foodservice companies taking note and changing their marketing, packaging, and menus?
Dekolf: This is a difficult question, since we can’t speak to the seafood industry’s internal processes and decision-making. That said, typically, when there is a high-profile case concerning sustainability or animal welfare marketing claims and subsequent consumer backlash, we might see companies become more cautious about marketing statements. This caution could manifest in various ways: Some companies may choose to permanently discontinue similar marketing language, while others may modify existing language.
Our consumer and nonprofit clients hope that when companies make or modify claims concerning environmental and animal impact that those companies are diligently working to ensure that those claims are substantiated and align with consumer expectations. While, unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that many companies are working to legitimately substantiate their claims, we hope that there are good actors taking these claims as seriously as consumers do.
SeafoodSource: Will Richman file additional misleading claims complaints against seafood suppliers this year?
Dekolf: Richman is dedicated to improving the lives of aquatic animals raised in aquaculture facilities, increasing transparency in aquaculture supply chains, ensuring third-party aquaculture certifications align with consumer expectations, and protecting consumers from false and deceptive advertising. Richman will continue to advocate for our nonprofit and consumer clients to ensure that the industrial animal agriculture sector – whether land- or water-based – is providing accurate information to consumers concerning the environmental and animal welfare impacts of its supply chains.
Photo courtesy of Richman Law and Policy
