Quantifying the accessibility of sustainable seafood in south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Introduction

One of the greatest sustainability challenges is feeding a further two billion people without incurring an overwhelming environmental impact. Seafood will continue to play a key role in solving this challenge because it is generally more environmentally efficient than other sources of animal-based proteins (Hilborn et al. 2018; Poore and Nemecek 2018; Halpern et al. 2022). Globally, fish consumption has increased, at a rate of 3.1% each year from 1961 to 2017 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2020). Increased demand for fish has caused fisheries catch and wild-caught fish populations to stagnate or decline across the globe (Pauly et al. 2002), which has serious consequences for marine biodiversity, ecosystem function, and human nutrition and welfare (Worm et al. 2006; Myers et al. 2007; Marschke and Vandergeest 2016). Improving the sustainability of seafood benefits the ocean and associated ecosystems, as well as the people it supports.

There are multiple ways of defining sustainable seafood, but environmental sustainability is typically the focus of wild-caught and aquaculture-produced seafood (Bogard et al. 2019). For example, fisheries are considered to be sustainable when the stocks of target species are well managed, destructive fishing practices and bycatch levels are minimised, and the system is deemed as viable into the future (Hilborn et al. 2015). Similarly, aquaculture systems are considered to be sustainable when there is efficient production with minimal pollution and waste generated, a high production to feed ratio, and minimal impacts on the surrounding environment (Valenti et al. 2018; Ahmed et al. 2019; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2021).

The demand from consumers to have access to sustainable seafood products is growing as sustainability awareness and education grows, and consumers are sometimes willing to pay more for these sustainable products (Witkin et al. 2015; McClenachan et al. 2016; Lawley et al. 2019). This has spurred an increase in prevalence of ecolabels and seafood certification schemes such as the Marine Stewardship Council for wild-capture fisheries, and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council for farmed-seafood products (Aquaculture Stewardship Council 2020; Marine Stewardship Council 2022). In addition, sustainable seafood guides have been developed to help consumers determine the sustainability of the seafood available within specific countries; for example, The GoodFish guide assesses the sustainability of common seafood products found in Australia.

However, sustainability guides and certification schemes will help people choose sustainable seafood products only if they are readily available to consumers. Further, sustainability guides can be difficult to use because they require information that is not always available from seafood vendors, such as the species and where or how it was caught or produced. There can be substantial variability in the environmental sustainability of seafood products, even for the same species, contingent on the farming or fishing location and the type of fishing gear (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a). This complexity makes the sustainability of seafood especially difficult to communicate to consumers. In Australia, for example, seafood labelling laws do not mandate that this information is provided to consumers, especially in the case of cooked seafood. The European Union arguably has the most comprehensive seafood labelling laws, whereas the more limited requirements in Australia are typical of many developed markets (Cawthorn et al. 2018).

Here, we aim to determine how accessible sustainable seafood is to consumers in Australia, with a focus on south-eastern Queensland. Given the environmental and socioeconomic importance of fishing and seafood in this area, sustainability must be a key component of the seafood seascape now and looking forward (Steven et al. 2020). By determining the range of sustainable seafood products in this region, we show where key gaps and opportunities exist to make real improvements in seafood consumption behaviours in developed markets such as coastal Australian cities.

Methods

Results

We surveyed 1050 different establishments, covering 8497 products across south-eastern Queensland (Fig. 1, Table 1). The lead author conducted the vast majority (estimated 96%) of the surveys, with anonymous citizens contributing the remaining 4%. Of these products, 2705 (31.83%) contained enough information to assess sustainability using the AMCS GoodFish guide, 2271 (26.73%) did not have enough information (could not be categorised), and 3521 (41.44%) were not listed in the guide (Table S1 of the Supplementary material). We found that 361 (4.25%) of the products were categorised as a Better Choice, 2059 (24.32%) as Say No and 285 (3.35%) as Eat Less. There were 156 species (n = 3521 products) that were not listed in the guide (or the guide did not have a listing for the information, such as a specific origin), and were therefore categorised as NA. Skipjack tuna (n = 490) and Atlantic salmon (n = 230) from imported origins were the most common species categorised as NA.

Fig. 1.

Seafood products (n = 8497) from 1050 establishments were surveyed across south-eastern Queensland (SEQLD), Australia, and assessed for their sustainability using Australia’s GoodFish guide (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a).

The greatest number of seafood product surveys was conducted in supermarkets (n = 5851), where 4.05% (n = 237) of seafood products were categorised as a Better Choice option (Fig. 2a). Farmers markets had the highest proportion of Better Choice options (32%, n = 7), followed by specialty seafood stores (13%, n = 27), supermarkets (4.05%, n = 237) and restaurants (4.2%, n = 56) (Fig. 2a). Although supermarkets had a low proportion of Better Choice options (4.05%, n = 237), they had the highest number of Better Choice seafood products of all the establishment types, owing to their supplying the greatest number of seafood products to consumers overall (n = 5851). Cooked seafood items were the most common product type for seafood products (n = 2619); however, only 3.2% (n = 85) were categorised as a Better Choice (Fig. 2b). The most common sustainable, Better Choice seafood products were in their fresh or raw form (3%, n = 255) (Fig. 2b). The majority of products were imported (58.26%, n = 4950), with only 22.62% (n = 1922) of seafood products coming from Australia (0.5%, n = 44 products were a mix of origins and 18.61%, n = 1581 were of unknown origin).

Fig. 2.

The sustainability of seafood products (n = 8497) was assessed using Australia’s GoodFish guide (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a) across (a) a range of establishments and (b) for a variety of products. The guide categorises seafood products into the following three categories: ‘Better Choice’, ‘Eat Less’ and ‘Say No’. Some of the seafood products could not be categorised because of a lack of information, or were not in the guide (NA).

We found that across the surveyed products listed in the GoodFish guide, only 32.21% (n = 1603) had all three types of information required to determine their sustainability category. Production method information was the most commonly lacking element (48.09%, n = 2393), followed by adequate origin information (43.99%, n = 2189) (Fig. 3a). Of the 2271 products that did not have enough information to be categorised for their GoodFish guide sustainability category, 83.97% (n = 1907) were completely missing origin information or did not have detailed enough information to allow the sustainability category of the product to be determined (Fig. 3b, c). We found that 35.27% (n = 1755) of surveyed seafood products listed in the GoodFish guide did not have clear species names (Fig. 3a). Cooked products were most commonly lacking information (n = 1222), whereas canned (n = 112) products usually provided enough information to categorise them (Fig. 3b). Restaurants or café and takeaway shops were more likely to lack the required information to assess sustainability than were supermarkets and had a much higher proportion of products unable to be categorised (59.1%, n = 792) than did supermarkets (14.56%, n = 852) (Fig. 3c). When queried about missing information, staff were often unable to provide the information (54.97%, n = 3324, Appendix 4). With the inclusion of this information to consumers, an additional 1448 surveyed seafood products may have been considered to be a Better Choice, sustainable option. This increases the potential availability of sustainable seafood products to 21.29%, instead of only 4.25% of seafood products being a Better Choice. However, without this additional information, consumers looking to use the GoodFish guide to purchase sustainable seafood products are, often unnecessarily, further limited in their choices.

Fig. 3.

(a) Seafood products listed in the GoodFish guide (n = 4976) (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a) were assessed to see what type of information was available to consumers. ‘All information’ represents the products that had species, origin, and catch method known (a). The seafood products that did not have enough information (n = 2271) to be assessed for their sustainability category by the GoodFish guide (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a) were analysed to determine which types of information were unknown or not specific enough, for different types of (b) products and (c) establishments.

We found some discrepancies between the GoodFish guide sustainability categories and the FRDC stock status reports (Table 2). There were inconsistent categorisations for 31 of the species (n = 218 products). For example, 11 stocks were considered to be sustainable by the FRDC and unsustainable (Say No) by the GoodFish guide (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a). If consumers use the FRDC statuses as their guide when purchasing sustainable seafood products, 3.41% (n = 290) of seafood products surveyed would be considered sustainable (compared with 4.25% with GoodFish guide alone), or 6.68% (n = 568) of products were sustainable if considering the best listing from either guide.

We summarised the most common products in each sustainability category and found that the most common Better Choice options surveyed were farmed Australian seafood (Table 3). The exception is farmed Australian Atlantic salmon, which was the most common farmed species and is categorised as Say No. Blue grenadier was one of the most common species available to consumers (n = 217); however, the sustainability categorisation is determined by the origin of the fish, with the less sustainable option from New Zealand being more prevalent than the more sustainable option from Australia (Table 3). There were eight species listed in the GoodFish guide, which we did not encounter during the survey (e.g. Australian salmon and luderick); however, as there were numerous unknown species (categorised as not enough information), the species may still be present in the surveyed products.

Discussion

We found that it is difficult for consumers to access sustainable seafood products in south-eastern Queensland. There are many detrimental impacts from producing unsustainable seafood products for both fisheries and aquaculture systems, including overfishing and bycatch, habitat destruction, and pollution. Overfishing of target and non-target (bycatch) species is a fundamental challenge for a wide range of fisheries in Australia and globally, and combatting overfishing is a core tenet of sustainable seafood initiatives (Roberson et al. 2020). Habitat destruction from fisheries often refers to damage to the benthic structure from certain fishing methods (e.g. trawling), but fishing can also create disturbances that negatively affect non-target organisms (e.g. resuspending sediments), or reduce overall benthic diversity (Collie et al. 2000; O’Neill and Ivanovic 2016). Fishing methods differ substantially in their environmental impacts. For instance, tuna caught from hand-line fisheries typically affect the environment less than does tuna caught from longline, purse seine, or gillnet fisheries, even for the same species and fishing area (Bailey et al. 2012; McCluney et al. 2019). This is why, in some cases, a particular seafood species may be sustainable in one place (or for one fishery) and not in another place (or fishery). Unsustainable aquaculture systems can also cause habitat destruction of marine, coastal, and terrestrial ecosystems through habitat clearing, depending where the farm is based (Ahmed et al. 2019; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2021). Pollution is a serious issue for aquaculture, especially eutrophication and sedimentation of the surrounding environment from effluent, which can lead to anoxic conditions and harmful algal blooms (Tovar et al. 2000; Ahmed et al. 2019). The major source of fisheries-based pollution is discarded (‘ghost’) fishing gear, which is a direct threat to marine biodiversity and results in measurable economic losses for fisheries (Hardesty et al. 2015; Eric Gilman et al. 2016). If better options are accessible, consumers have the power to shift demand towards seafood products with fewer deleterious environmental impacts, which can drive industry to produce more sustainable products.

There are some limitations and potential biases to our results. For example, when asking a server at a particular establishment questions about the product, the answer may have differed depending on who answered the question. Thus, the results may differ if the survey was conducted at the same places at different times, which mimics the problem consumers’ face when purchasing seafood products. Some severs were more willing to search for the information, or were able to get a manger, owner or chef who was able to answer the questions. Others had no idea and were unwilling to investigate, or no one with the information was available at the time. There may have been some social desirability bias with some of the answers, because some servers may have given a dishonest answer (mostly in regards to origin information), depending on what they thought the person surveying wanted to hear, so as to give them a higher likelihood of a sale. For example, claiming the seafood was of Australian origin as opposed to imported, because it may sound higher quality. Another limitation was that not all areas were surveyed in person, meaning that the range of sustainable seafood products for those areas were not represented in this study. However, the majority of in-person surveys were completed in the most populated areas with the highest number of seafood vendors. Additionally, the accuracy of the labels was not tested, and numerous recent studies have shown through genetic testing that many products are mislabelled (Kroetz et al. 2020). Further, the availability of seafood may vary depending on the season, especially for fresh seafood products, which would have influenced our results.

The main legislation in Australia governing labelling laws is the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (ANZFSC). Currently, the ANZFSC requires only country of origin labelling for packaged seafood products, such as canned and frozen seafood (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 2014; Australian Government 2016). This explains why there are a high number of products with inadequate information for cooked products and restaurant or café and takeaway shops, in comparison to supermarkets. Removing the labelling exemption for cooked food in places including restaurants and café would greatly improve the transparency of seafood labels and allow the sustainability of more seafood products to be determined. This would make Australia a world leader in this regard, as cooked seafood products in most countries, including the European Union, Canada and America, do not mandate country of origin labelling for cooked seafood products served in the hospitality industry (Agricultural Marketing Service 2009; European Parliament and Council of the European Union 2013; Government of Canada 2019). An Australian senate inquiry into this issue was conducted in 2014, which determined that the exemption for cooked seafood in the food service industry should be removed (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 2014). This further supports changing the country of origin requirements for seafood products in hospitality establishments across Australia. However, when the federal labelling laws were updated in 2016, the origin exemption for the hospitality industry was not removed (Australian Government 2016). The Northern Territory already requires hospitality establishments to label if seafood is imported and demonstrates that concerns about high additional costs to implement country of origin laws for seafood are unfounded (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 2014). Queensland has recently passed a Bill (Food (Labelling of Seafood) Amendment Act 2021), which is due to come into effect in July 2023, which requires the hospitality industry in Queensland to label seafood items as Australian or imported on their menus, in line with the Northern Territory. This will help improve the transparency of where seafood products are from and, thus, make it easier for consumers to determine the sustainability of seafood. Transparency in seafood production chains could help improve the responsibility and accountability of producers to use more sustainable practices (Bailey et al. 2016; Lewis and Boyle 2017), and therefore reduce their overall environmental impact on the ocean.

The number of canned and frozen products missing information, which are typically packaged and are predominately found in supermarkets, is still quite large considering the Australian labelling laws. This is likely to be due to a generic name such as ‘fish’ being an acceptable species label (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 2014; Australian Government 2016), with 996 products being labelled as ‘fish’ and 135 of those products provided fish as the most detailed species information, after examining the label or asking a server. In addition, there were 41 products labelled as flake (shark), another common generic name, with 28 products not providing any extra details even after enquiry. Furthermore, lax species labelling laws are facilitated by the lack of an official compulsory naming standard for seafood species. The seafood industry (funded by the FRDC) created the only available guide, the Australian Fish Names Standard, which is voluntary for businesses to use (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 2014). Therefore, adopting a mandatory labelling system will improve consistency and allow consumers to know exactly what species they are consuming. The framework for this to occur is already in place with the Australian Fish Names Standard, which covers over 4000 species, including both imported and domestically produced seafood (see https://www.fish.gov.au/).

We found that almost half of products were missing origin information, despite current labelling laws, which was likely to be due to two factors. First, in many cases, more detailed origin information (e.g. at Australian state level instead of just ‘Australia’) was required to successfully categorise a species by using the GoodFish guide. Second, many products (mostly packaged) that listed a country of origin, labelled only the country of processing (satisfying the labelling requirements), but did not list where the seafood in the product was caught or farmed (Australian Government 2016). It is common for seafood products to be transported to numerous destinations before reaching a consumer’s plate; for instance, the animal may be caught or farmed in one country then sent to one or more additional countries for processing, before ultimately being sent to another country (or sometimes back to where it was caught) for final sale and consumption (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2020). Therefore, adding more specific origin of seafood labelling for processed seafood products (e.g. the fishery or farm where the species was caught) will also allow the consumer to have a better understanding of where the product has come from as well as where it was processed, giving greater transparency of the supply chain for the seafood product. For farmed seafood, the country of the farm and the species is sufficient detail for consumers to understand its geographic origin. Additionally, including the specific farm name on products could be beneficial for consumers because individual farms may have differing sustainability standards. It is more difficult to label the origin of wild-caught seafood, for instance, when there are multiple stocks of the same species in a country. Furthermore, the GoodFish guide recommends that labels also include which gear was used and the name of company to increase the accountability of the company and encourage them to ensure a high standard of environmental management, which will allow consumers to pick products with the best sustainability practices (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019b).

Requirements for more detailed product origin information would bring Australia in line with countries such as America and the European Union that already enforce specific country of origin laws for packaged seafood products, including detailing where the seafood was caught or farmed as well as listing of the catch method (Agricultural Marketing Service 2009; European Parliament and Council of the European Union 2013). These regulations by the United States and the European Union have been put in place in an attempt to reduce the amount of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) seafood products entering their markets (Bailey et al. 2016; Lewis and Boyle 2017). Improving traceability of seafood in an equitable and economically viable manner is a major challenge, especially for wild-caught products, owing to the nature of their production and trade, but the USA and EU initiatives have made some progress. Examples from the manufacturing or other food product sectors demonstrate that traceability is technically achievable where there is political will.

The GoodFish guide has a limited number of products classified as a Better Choice for consumers (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a). The guide currently lists 45 Better Choice options of 130 options, potentially making the choice limited for consumers and harder to find among the large range of species that are consumed (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a). A large portion of seafood species was not included in the guide, especially imported species. Furthermore, the missing Australian species were often common in major supermarkets, such as sweetlip and blacktip shark, which is concerning because supermarkets were the most common place for consumers to access seafood products. Because Australia imports 70% of seafood products (Steven et al. 2020), the addition of commonly available species is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the guide to consumers. The inconsistency in information between the GoodFish guide and the FRDC also has the potential to confuse consumers because different species have different sustainability categorisations when it comes to wild-caught Australian seafood. When used individually, both sources of sustainability information had low (less than 5%) availability of sustainable products. Combining the availability of sustainable products increases the availability to 6.68%. However, this is still quite poor, given the large number of seafood products available to consumers. Furthermore, it is unrealistic for people to refer to two different sources of sustainability information when purchasing seafood.

The conflicting results when comparing the FRDC with the GoodFish guide can be explained by the differences in their assessment criteria. The GoodFish guide for wild-caught species uses a holistic view of the ecosystem, focusing not only on the stock status of the target species, but also on environmental impacts, bycatch, and management, when assessing the categorisation of a species fishery (Australian Marine Conservation Society 2019a). In contrast, the FRDC considers a species only on an individual level, and assesses how that specific stock is performing in terms of biomass and fishing pressure to determine sustainability. However, in the future they are planning to consider broader ecosystem, social and economic impacts in their reports (see https://www.fish.gov.au/). These differences in assessment and sustainability information highlight the inconsistencies in the definitions of sustainable fisheries and seafood (Hilborn et al. 2015), and could cause confusion for consumers.

These results have highlighted how challenging it is for consumers to access sustainable seafood in south-eastern Queensland, despite the existence of sustainable options, including products that cost the same or less than ‘Say No’ or ‘Eat Less’ options. The effort involved in obtaining the necessary information may discourage them from buying seafood products altogether. When information is not presented to the consumer in enough detail and staff cannot provide the missing information, guides such as the GoodFish guide and America’s Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch are unable to be successfully used (Kemmerly and Macfarlane 2009; Roheim 2009). However, when there is sufficient information, guides are an excellent resource for consumers to utilise and not only aid in increasing knowledge and awareness of sustainability issues in the seafood industry, but also help change consumer purchasing habits (Kemmerly and Macfarlane 2009). Thus, our recommendations broadly apply to countries with seafood guides that are looking to improve the availability of sustainable seafood to their consumers. As a general rule for Australian seafood consumers, we recommend choosing local Australian products because they are usually the most sustainable option owing to regulated legislation, such as the Fisheries Management Act 1991, that ensures generally well-managed fisheries and aquaculture systems compared with those in many exporting countries. Farmed prawns, mussels, oysters and barramundi are the most common sustainable seafood products available.

Overall, there needs to be a higher standard of seafood production to increase the accessibility of sustainable seafood products to consumers and give them a greater variety of choices. Stricter laws for Australia’s seafood imports in terms of sustainability and traceability would further increase the relative availability of sustainable seafood options for consumers. Improving the sustainability of trade and food production in Australia would not only benefit people looking to make sustainable choices, but also help the Australian Government meet the United Nations Sustainable Development goals, specifically Goals 12 and 14 (Responsible Consumption and Production and Life Below Water). Ultimately, efforts to improve the production component of sustainable seafood will be wasted if complementary actions are not taken to close the supply loop and communicate that information to consumers.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available online.