Greenwashing is rife on packaged fish and seafoods in Aotearoa New Zealand, according to new research out of Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland.
Most environmental claims on seafood labels found in major New Zealand supermarkets are vague and ambiguous, according to a new study.
The study looked into the labelling and claims on packaged fish and seafood products, such as canned tuna or other fish, vacuum-packed salmon, or frozen fish.
“Altogether, we investigated 369 fish and seafood products, that were available in major New Zealand supermarkets at the time of our study,” says lead author Dr Kathryn Bradbury, a senior research fellow in the School of Population Health at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland.
The researchers found fewer than half (41 percent*) had any environmental claims on their labels and, of those that did make claims, 80 percent were ambiguous.
“They said things like ‘sustainably sourced’ or ‘responsibly fished’, or ‘dolphin safe’ or ‘dolphin friendly’,” Bradbury says.
“They are implying an environmental benefit, but are vague and therefore meaningless, because you don’t know exactly what it about them that is ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’.
“Consumers should know what exactly these companies are doing and that they can back up their claims,” she says.
In New Zealand, manufacturers are not required to state the harvest location or method, e.g. pole and line caught, mid-water trawled or dredged.
The researchers found that about half (48 percent) of the products did not state the harvest location and almost all (93 percent) did not state the harvest method.
In total, just under a quarter of the products (24 percent) carried an environmental certification, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) credential.
Surveys have shown New Zealand consumers prefer to get their information about seafood at the point of purchase. Therefore, it is important that what is on the label is accurate, specific and clear, Bradbury says.
The Commerce Commission provides general guidance for all products, which states environmental claims should not be vague. Rather than enforcing the guidelines, it asks consumers to report breaches.
“The Commerce Commission gives ‘dolphin safe’ as an example of a claim that should not be used, but we found 42 products had that claim on them,” Bradbury says.
The researchers, from the universities of Auckland and Otago, and AgroParisTech, France, were surprised to discover the extent of the problem.
“We found these unclear claims were rife in New Zealand, so we think there needs to be more proactive enforcement,” she says.
“There needs to be a really strong message to companies that you can’t make these false claims that are not backed up and are really meaningless.”
Australia and countries in the European Union are bringing in strict regulations over green claims on labels and Bradbury says New Zealand needs to follow suit.
“The results of this study indicate widespread greenwashing by fish and seafood manufacturers, and that stronger enforcement of existing regulations is needed so that consumers are not misled.”
As well as ensuring accountability, this would enable consumers to make informed choices.
In turn, this could put pressure on manufacturers to be more environmentally responsible, she says.
“It’s about helping consumers, but also about encouraging changes in practices.”
Read: An overview of environmental labelling and claims on fish and seafood products in New Zealand supermarkets. J Royal Society NZ. [From 5am 5 September] (paper attached to this email)
*Percentages rounded to nearest denominator.
