The salmon It is one of the most loved and consumed fish, but it is also one of the most controversial due to the environmental impact of the intensive farms and the little ethical conditions in which it is produced. Precisely for this reason, many companies rely on certifications such as The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) To reassure consumers and communicate greater sustainability and transparency. But how reliable are they really?
What the ASC toner promises
The ASC Bollino ASC is one of the best known certifications for aquaculture fish And on the official website it is guaranteed transparency “from breeding to the table” and “along the entire supply chain”.
The ASC standard for salmon includes over 150 requirements that touch environmental issues, animal welfare and social aspects. The sticker promises quality of water and seabed, health of fish, limits to the use of antibiotics and chemicals, feed from sustainable sources and much more.
The great illusion of traceability
Foodwatch has analyzed 22 products based on ASC certified salmon, available in German supermarkets, To understand how real the promised traceability is. The result was truly disconcerting: Over 85% of producers were not able to indicate the specific breeding from which the fish came. In 13 cases they didn’t even reply, and in 6 others they even refused to provide this information, invoking alleged “data protection reasons”.
But how do you reconcile all this with the “transparency along the entire supply chain” that the Ascorrale? It does not reconcile at all. At least according to what emerged from the investigation, the certification would seem to work more as a marketing tool than as a real guarantee for the consumer. In fact, traceability information remains mostly internal to the supply chain and inaccessible to the public.
An emblematic example is that of the Norwegian company Mowi, which sells two types of smoked salmon at the Edeka supermarket: the “Signature Fjord” product (€ 5.99/100 g) reports a QR code that refers to specific breeding, while the “Essential Norway” (3.99 €/100 g) does not present any traceability. When Foodwatch asked for information on the latter, Mowi refused to reveal the breeding of origin. Transparency, therefore, seems to be a privilege reserved for those who pay more.
What he did (or did not do) the ASC
After the report “Rotten fish“, Published by Foodwatch in December 2024, which denounced dramatic breeding conditions and the serious environmental impact of salmon farms in Norway, the ASC Foundation promised improvements, including the development of a digital tool for traceability.
But seven months later, the system is still in the test phase and in the meantime we continue to ask for confidence in a label that – to the proof of the facts – does not maintain its promises.
Who has to really do their part?
It is not only the fault of the ASC brand, producers and retailers are also responsible for this situation, says Foodwatch. If the label is printed on the packaging without the information on the origin of the fish being truly accessible, sustainability is transformed into mere advertising advertising. Since consumers have neither the skills nor the time to investigate, they should be able to count on clear and easily available information.
The ASC is also present in the Italian market, where it stands on salmon, sea bream, sea bass, prawns and other fish products of aquaculture sold in many supermarkets and discount stores. Here as in Germany, the blue sticker is promoted as a guarantee of environmental sustainability, animal welfare and total traceability of the supply chain.
But to make this promise truly credible, a concrete commitment by everyone is needed.
