Jason Holland writes that whilst he tries to like his films, he is not a fan of Woody Allen. He always leaves the films feeling that he missed something and wonders whether it is his own ignorance that prevents him enjoying Allen’s genius. He was therefore surprised to read that many of the stars that feature in Woody Allen’s films do so not for the money but because of the quality of the scripts, the freedom to act and the opportunity to win awards. In essence, the reason that many actors want to be associated with Woody Allen is because of his creditability.

In much the same way, Mr Holland says that companies want to be associated with seafood certification and eco-labelling is because of the credibility it brings.

However, drawing such a comparison is fine if both are considered credible. This week, the Guardian newspaper arts guide took a look at Woody Allen’s new movie, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, which he filmed in Spain. John Patterson writes that ‘here is Woody Allen hopping from one country to another looking for all the world like a man who is two steps ahead of Interpol’. He suggests that America has already called Woody Allen’s bluff, which is why he has based all his latest films in Europe. Having filmed three very indifferent movies in Britain, Woody Allen seems to have persuaded the Spanish film community that he is still an important film maker and they have happily financed what Mr Patterson calls his latest duffer. Woody Allen has convinced Europe that he is still important but Mr Patterson warns that we shouldn’t fall for it. Woody Allen lacks credibility. He is all front.

This leads us to ask the same of the Marine Stewardship Council. Does it have any real credibility or like Woody Allen, is it living on what it could have been?

We are prompted to ask this question following the news that the MSC has passed a new milestone with the appearance of the 2,000^th MSC product on supermarket shelves. IntraFish reports that this is the French supermarket Carrefour’s 500g box of Patagonian scallops.

Whilst there may now be 2000 products made from MSC certified fish and seafood, we wonder how many are actually still available in stores. Whilst some are considered to be standard products that are always available, others tend to have a finite life cycle before being delisted and withdrawn from the shelves. The length of the life cycle ultimately depends on how well they sell. Consumers are expected to react positively to sustainable products and so all MSC certified products should be able to justify their presence on the shelves but actually this is not the case. A tour round all the major retailers shows that there is only a smattering of MSC products in the fresh, chilled and frozen sections. The number depends on each individual retailer as some are keener to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability than others whilst some are less willing to stock the imported species that tend to carry the MSC certification than others. The overall picture is very mixed. Interestingly, the MSC have illustrated the home page of their website with a number of pictures, one of which shows TTD Pesto Crusted Alaskan Salmon, a product which is certainly no longer available in store.

The frozen section is one area where the presence of MSC certified products would be expected to be greatest. This is because Alaskan pollock has increasingly replaced cod in many coated fish products due to its sustainable credentials (and the fact that it is cheaper). Although own label products continue to dominate the frozen fish section, the move to the use of MSC sustainable fish was driven by the two largest brands, Birds Eye and Young’s.

Back in September 2006, James Turton, Marketing Manager for Young’s said that the rationale behind the use of Alaskan Pollock is straightforward – ‘we are driving for better consumer understanding of sustainability and acceptance of alternatives to standard white fish’. These comments were made as Young’s launched their MSC accredited Alaskan pollock skinless & boneless fillets in Young’s trademark Chip Shop bubbly batter. According to the Young’s press release, ‘the pack is overtly labelled on-pack with explanations of both the species and the MSC initiative’.

        Labelling of Chip Shop nuggets with MSC logo

The Chip Shop range has been significantly extended since that launch to include a whole variety of different presentations from fishcakes and fish fingers to battered fish in different flavours. What is interesting now is that with the exception of a couple of products, none of the packs now carry the MSC logo nor any information about the MSC programme, even though the products are still made from Alaskan pollock.

Clearly something has changed to prompt the removal of the MSC logo on packs. When interviewed by IntraFish recently, Mike Parker of Young’s Seafood said that they buy Alaskan Pollock from both the Russian and US fisheries because recent quota cuts in the Alaskan fishery means that supplies cannot be guaranteed. However, fish from the Russian fisheries are not certified by the MSC so products containing them cannot display the MSC logo. The removal of the MSC logo from their packaging means that Young’s can chop and change when necessary. Yet surely this also means that they no longer committed to the MSC’s view of sustainable fisheries. Mike Parker’s response is that Young’s Seafood have developed their ‘Fish for Life’ programme which puts everything they buy, including aquaculture produce, through a stringent audit and assessment programme. He says that anyone buying their products can be reassured that the sustainability box has been ticked. This seems to imply that Young’s now have their own sustainability logo in their brand and thus the MSC is now considered secondary.

It is not just Young’s that have adopted a different approach to sustainability. Bird’s Eye, whose former owners helped establish the MSC, also appear to have dropped the MSC logo from their packaging. Recently, IntraFish carried a story about Bird’s Eye that was illustrated by a package of omega 3 fish fingers. The MSC logo can be clearly seen in the image. Yet, whilst their promotional material may include the MSC logo, packs sold in-store do not.

       Omega 3 fingers with MSC logo.    Below - pack bought from store

All the products so far mentioned are made from Alaskan pollock. This fish was hailed as ‘the’ sustainable fish and has been widely used as a substitute for cod in many frozen and coated products. However, Pacific cod has also been certified by the MSC and has also been used as a substitute for Atlantic cod. One example is Young’s Great Grimsby cod fishcakes, which when launched carried the MSC logo. A recent change in packaging saw the removal of the logo which further examination showed was the result of the replacement of MSC pacific cod by Atlantic cod, the very fish which was once considered unsustainable.

Clearly, the MSC message has failed to make the necessary impact, not only on consumers, but also on the processing companies. It is even questionable as to whether the certified fisheries are actually sustainable given the cuts in fishing quotas that have been recently enforced. The fishing effort applied to any sustainable fishery must surely be matched to the recruitment so that any fishery requiring a cut in quota must have applied excessive fishing pressure. We have written previously that the award of sustainable certification probably encourages over-fishing in order to supply the greater demand for these so-called sustainable fish.

Now it seems that even the fishermen themselves have doubts about the credibility of the MSC’s sustainable certification programme. The Alaskan salmon certification is due for renewal later this year and it appears that there is a general unwillingness to reapply. This is because the Alaskan State Department originally applied for certification but has now indicated that it is not prepared to act in this role. Instead, the industry in one form or another must apply but as yet no-one has stepped forward to take this on. This is because the MSC insist that the fishery should be certified as a whole but most companies have only a local interest.  If no company or group is forthcoming, the certification will expire on October 30^th.

In a letter to IntraFish, Kevin Adams, an Alaskan fisherman and ASMI board member has said that they are being warned that they will never sell another fish unless they continue with the certification. He says that in this time of tough economics, the MSC offers nothing but cost to the product. He wonders whether Tony Soprano (of the Sopranos mafia TV programme) came up with the extortion scheme in which the client pays for certification and then charges him for the copyright to use the certification scheme. He is even more aggravated because he claims that the MSC learnt about sustainability from the ways of Alaskan salmon fishermen

With an ASMI member expressing such a view it does seem that the re-certification of Pacific salmon is unlikely to proceed without a major rethink. Again, this does little to improve the credibility of the MSC.

However, what makes us, at Callander McDowell, wonder even more about the point of the MSC is the latest news from the WWF. IntraFish reports that the WWF have upgraded Barents Sea cod caught by Norwegian and Russian fishermen from the yellow list to green on its seafood sustainability list for consumers. The WWF have responded to massive reductions in over-fishing and scientifically proven increases in spawning stock. Currently, Barents Sea cod are not certified as sustainable by the MSC although the fishery is undergoing assessment. If the WWF can deem fish to be sustainable without the need for the MSC assessment process, then why bother with the MSC at all?

The MSC might be 10 years old but as we wrote at the start of this commentary, it has been only in the past few years that the MSC really took off. This coincided with the dire warnings of the imminent collapse of key fish stocks such as cod. This prompted the rise of the sustainability movement, yet all these dire warnings have proved to be unfounded with key stocks now showing signs of recovery. In the current economic climate consumers have more pressing concerns than the state of fish stocks. They appear to be leaving the question of sustainability to their retailer, preferring to focus on whether the fish represents the best value for money. The price of the fish they buy is of much more interest than its sustainable credentials. The sustainable movement has lost the fight as well as its credibility.

Now the co-founders of the MSC, the WWF, are to launch a similar scheme to the MSC for aquaculture produce, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. The ASC is to implement standards for the certification of fish farms as sustainable as well as hiring third party auditors to carry out the certification. We are left to wonder that if the MSC is not really considered credible, how credible will be the aquaculture version?

As soon as news of the ASC began to circulate, doubt about its credibility began to set in. Seafood.com described the ASC as a redundant effort motivated by an arcane and restrictive view of governance. This is because the Global Aquaculture Alliances Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC) has already gained the confidence of many retailers and stakeholders.  In the US, over 40% of shrimp sold at retail now comes from ACC certified farms.

There have been suggestions that the WWF can link into the ACC set up to form one single certification body but surely the WWF could have joined in from the start rather than go down their own route. The WWF have had plenty of opportunity to consider aquaculture certification before now. It was first raised even before they helped establish the MSC, but they weren’t interested. Even the MSC are not interested.

What has changed is the realisation that aquaculture could eventually out-supply wild catch fisheries as the main source of fish and seafood. However, aquaculture by its very nature is already sustainable. This is because it can be strictly managed throughout the whole process, unlike wild catch fisheries which are very hit and miss.