When we purchase farmed fish that has a certification, we expect that behind that brand there are also precise guarantees on the way in which the animals are raised. But not all certifications include the same requirements to protect their well-being, as highlighted by a new international report.
The Aquaculture Certification Schemes Benchmark 2026, published by the Aquatic Life Institute (ALI), takes stock, examining the animal welfare requirements of 12 certification schemes and 2 international evaluation programmes.
Among the certifications analyzed for the first time there is also the Italian one, Sustainable Aquaculture, which unfortunately did not stand out positively.
What the report assessed
The ALI did not generally judge whether an aquaculture system was sustainable, safe or environmentally friendly. The report exclusively analyzed the presence and clarity of the animal welfare provisions contained in the certification standards.
Among the aspects taken into consideration were water quality, animal density on farms, feed composition, environmental enrichment, transport and handling and stunning and killing methods.
The Benchmark also considered some specific particularly controversial practices, including the farming of octopuses, the ablation of eyes in shrimp, the use of insects in feed, the use of genetically modified organisms to accelerate growth and the improper or preventive use of antimicrobials.
However, overall environmental sustainability, food safety, social responsibility, governance or how standards were actually applied and respected on farms were not assessed.
How the Italian “Sustainable Aquaculture” certification went
Sustainable Aquaculture was assessed for the first time in the 2026 Benchmark and achieved an overall score of just 2.55 out of 10. The result derives from the evaluation of six main areas related to animal welfare, with rather marked differences between one criterion and another.
The highest score concerns breeding density, with 0.75 points out of 1. It is the only parameter, among the six considered, in which the certification achieves a significant result. For feed composition it obtained 0.25 points out of 1, while it received no points for water quality, environmental enrichment, transport and handling and stunning and killing.
It is precisely this last aspect that deserves attention. The standard does not include requirements that the ALI has deemed sufficient to obtain a score in the area of stunning and killing, i.e. in the phase that precedes and includes the death of the animals, an obviously very critical phase. Also for transport and handling the score was zero.
These findings, however, do not mean that every animal raised under certification is necessarily subjected to cruel practices. The Benchmark did not directly verify what happens on individual farms, but examined the requirements set out in the standard. The data therefore indicates that, according to the methodology adopted by the ALI, these areas lack requirements that are sufficiently solid or detailed to guarantee a score.
Another gap highlighted concerns the“environmental enrichment“, that is, the enrichment of the breeding environment.
This is an increasingly important topic in studies on the well-being of aquatic animals, because it does not only concern survival or physical health, but also the possibility of expressing natural behaviors and living in conditions that take into account the behavioral needs of the species. In the case of Sustainable Aquaculture the score is, once again, zero.
The Benchmark also takes into consideration some specific practices that may have consequences on animal welfare.
For Sustainable Aquaculture, several prohibitions considered by the ALI are absent or insufficiently explicit, including those relating to the farming of cephalopods, the improper or preventive use of antimicrobials, genetically modified organisms used to achieve faster growth and the use of insects in feed.
Even with regard to the ablation of the eyes in shrimps, the prohibition is absent or not explicit in the certification standards. Eye ablation, practiced in some breeding shrimp farms to stimulate ovarian maturation, has long been the subject of discussion in the field of animal welfare.
@Aquatic Life Institute (ALI)
How other certifications perform
International comparison shows that standards are not all the same. In 2026 the highest score was assigned to Certified Humane, with 9.5/10, which maintained first position for the second consecutive year and improved its result after introducing new provisions on animal welfare also on the basis of the indications emerging from the previous ALI Benchmark.
RSPCA follows, with 8.45/10, while ASC (Aquaculture Stewardship Council) reaches 7.95/10. Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) also saw one of the largest improvements since the previous assessment.
However, the comparison does not serve to establish which certification is more “sustainable” in an absolute sense. The Benchmark measures only one specific aspect: how much animal welfare criteria are explicitly integrated into the standards.
Certifications that prohibit the breeding of octopuses
Among the most interesting elements of the new Benchmark there is also that relating to cephalopods. There are 5 certifications that in 2026 include a ban on the farming of octopuses or cephalopods in their standards: Certified Humane, ASC, Global Animal Partnership (GAP), Friend of the Sea and BAP.
The topic is particularly discussed because the possible development of industrial octopus farming raises specific questions related to their well-being, biology and behavior of these animals.
Certifications play an important role because they can become a tool through which producers, companies and consumers try to distinguish products obtained according to certain criteria.
For this reason, according to the ALI, strengthening animal welfare standards means intervening not only on the quality of written rules, but also on practices that can influence the lives of a huge number of aquatic animals.
In this sense, the 2026 Benchmark represents a snapshot of the current state of the main certifications: some schemes have made progress, while others still show significant gaps. And the Italian certification, at its debut, certainly did not start off on the right foot.
