Written by Natalia Freitas, for atuna.com
“Sustainability†seems to be the word of the hour in the tuna industry, but maybe “responsibility†is the term that should be used instead.
The awareness of the industry about the existing risk of overfishing and a possible future depletion of the tuna stocks is present worldwide. Common sense, some would say.
The problem is now gradually being addressed by tuna companies and as a consequence, the number of eco-labels in the market is growing.
It’s too simplistic to believe that tuna consumption is growing and as a result the global tuna fleet has increased its catches. Tuna consumption is growing because the tuna industry is constantly seeking for new markets. The current abundance of raw material gives retailers the capability to continue to offer tuna at very cheap prices, and as an important source of protein, tuna remains very attractive to consumers.
To continue the supply of such important food, the tuna industry should be constantly aware that it works with limited source of raw material. This means that business growth – exclusively based on tuna supply – can only reach a certain maximum level, and that’s a reality that not all tuna companies are willing to face.
In order to follow the market developments, tuna fishermen, processors, canners etc, constantly aim for higher production year after year. Annual growth is an important factor to valorize a company share prices and create value for its shareholders, but this concept cannot continue to be applied to the tuna sector if only relying on raw material supply.
Value-added products are showing to be a nice alternative to use less tuna, plus we heard that some companies clearly expressed no interest in conquering new markets. The tuna industry risks going towards a dead-end in the near future if it tries to keep up with the industries’ growth rates.
Regardless of this fact, most of the scientific recommendations on tuna stocks’ conservation were recently ignored by the RFMO’s member countries, representatives of the industry that will soon suffer from the lack of raw material supply.
Governments seem to have passed on the responsibility to manage the stocks completely to the RFMO’s, relying on their low enforcement power, instead of making effective laws. They justify it with the fact that tuna is a highly migratory species and conservation measures should be taken by all RFMOs simultaneously.
Indeed, that would be the best scenario, but different economic interests are preventing that to happen. So, let’s move away from the consensus ideal.
Studies have proved that consumer awareness of tuna environmental issues is a growing trend. However, is consumer pressure going to stop overfishing? Is it sensible to ask a working mother to check, brand by brand, which can of tuna comes from a sustainable source?
I wonder how many people check the criteria of a “dolphin safe†or “eco-friendly†label once they’ve decided to make the “right choice†at the supermarket. Only people familiar with the tuna industry are aware of the sustainable gaps and difficult traceability of many of them.
A report prepared by Seafood Choices showed that 78% of seafood retailers and 72% of the wholesalers in
The study not only shows retailers’ awareness of overfishing, but also their acknowledgment of consumer’s preference for sustainable tuna.
By finger pointing the overfishing issue, it all comes to one question: why are retailers still giving consumers the bad option – why not the “good tuna†option - sustainable caught and well managed tuna?
Seafood Choices’ results demonstrate that, both in Europe and the
However, these buyers may be missing the opportunity to change the tuna industry and profit from it at the same time. Retailers and wholesalers are the ones with a much heavier hand to address tuna overfishing by putting pressure on the industry, on governments and lowering prices of sustainable tuna.