McDonald’s. Hilton. IKEA. Each of these corporate titans enjoys an enormous customer base, but what most of their customers might not realize is that these companies are leaders in ocean stewardship: They all sell sustainable seafood.
This is an important precedent — but it is not enough.
When it comes to harvesting and selling seafood, “sustainable” is not just an empty label. It represents accountability throughout the value chain, beginning the moment a fish leaves the water, to ensure that the entire process is conducted in a way that enables fisheries — and the ocean ecosystem — to continue to thrive.
The sustainable seafood movement has grown rapidly. Just 20 years ago, sustainability was a niche concept in the seafood industry. Hardly anyone in the business talked about it. Most companies failed to recognize the long-term business consequences of overfishing, let alone place a high priority on conservation.
At that time, the environmental groups that advocated for sustainable seafood were met with suspicion, if not outright rejection. A 1997 cover of Seafood Business magazine asserted that seafood companies should not “crawl under the covers with greenies.”
Much has changed in the past 20 years.
Consumers all over the world increasingly expect that the seafood they purchase — whether at a grocery store or a five-star restaurant — qualifies as sustainable. The Marine Stewardship Council’s iconic blue product label is now found in nearly 100 nations, illustrating the increasing demand for sustainably sourced products.
People are becoming more engaged in their food choices and their habits are evolving. We expect our food, which we share with our children, to be safe and nutritious. We also increasingly expect the companies whose products we consume not to contribute further to the overfishing, warming waters, and pollution that are putting pressure on the oceans. We express those expectations in how we spend our money.
However, equally important, attitudes among industry leaders are also shifting.
Many are now engaging with marine conservation groups to address how to help exhausted fisheries recover and keep healthy ones thriving. This partly reflects their desire to satisfy their customers, but as much as shifting demand and weakening brand loyalty are bad for businesses, nothing is worse than exhausted supply.
Companies now realize that it is impossible to sell fish if there are not any left and it takes only a few companies to make a difference.
Seafood may be consumed by millions around the world, but it is traded by just a handful of firms. Relatively small changes on the part of a few entities would therefore go a long way toward protecting the future of the entire industry.
This effect is compounded when major players work together to tackle issues in the seafood supply chain. Already, collaborative efforts among industry leaders, such as the Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) initiative, have played a major role in propelling progress on sustainability.
Until recently, international seafood companies might have had one-on-one partnerships with conservation non-governmental organizations, but they were not collaborating with one another. SeaBOS changed that.
A science-based initiative, SeaBOS has engaged the chief executives of 10 of the largest seafood companies, with the goal of stimulating transformative change toward sustainable seafood production that supports a healthy ocean, but the sustainable seafood movement’s work is far from done.
If we are truly to safeguard the future of fish, even more seafood businesses must commit to sustainability. For those that already have, the imperative is to recruit their counterparts around the world — from Japan to China to Chile — to join the effort.
Moreover, at a time when pressure on the oceans is intensifying rapidly, advocacy groups and scientists must work equitably with small fisheries and the communities that depend on them to ensure that they can manage the challenge of implementing sustainable practices, while a larger share of consumers must be even more resolute in demanding a transparent seafood supply chain and supporting sustainability with every purchase.
By choosing the ethically sourced Pacific cod over the discount mystery fish, consumers drive real change.
Technology can support this emerging international commitment to sustainability, including by facilitating data collection and ocean management. Before long, artificial intelligence may be able to tell fishers exactly where they can catch the most fish of the needed size, while minimizing adverse effects on ecosystems.
Perhaps even sooner, consumers would be able to glimpse a fish’s entire journey from the sea to the local grocery store, simply by scanning a QR code with their smartphone.
However, the ultimate hope is for the “sustainable” label to be so commonplace and legitimate that consumers one day are more surprised by its absence than its presence. The default expectation — among seafood companies, fishery managers, conservation groups and consumers — will be that all seafood is harvested sustainably.
We are hopeful that sustainability becomes the norm soon — in a matter of years, not decades.
Teresa Ish is a program officer at the Walton Family Foundation Environment Program. Henrik Osterblom is a professor and science director at the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS