In an overall sense, the departure of the majority of Alaska salmon processors from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification program may not seem to mean much to the MSC.

The group has some 130 fisheries certified and around 250 fisheries in assessment. Around 10,000 MSC-labelled products are on store shelves across the globe. Some 1,600 companies across 80 countries hold chain of custody, and the group’s annual report notes that some $2.5 billion (€1.9 billion) in MSC-labelled seafood is sold around the world.

The MSC’s future is not dependent on Alaska salmon. But Alaska salmon is a critical part of the group’s past. When it joined the program in 2000, Alaska salmon lent credence to a program that was under threat of dying before it was even born. Without that first commitment, I’m not sure that the MSC would even exist today. It certainly wouldn’t dominate the sustainable seafood landscape the way that it does.

And while the MSC’s dominance in the world of eco-labels isn’t likely to abate as a result of last week’s news, Alaska salmon’s departure raises some big questions for both parties.

For the MSC, it raises questions about how the group can protect the interests of those fisheries that have made commitments to the MSC, while at the same time working to bring new fisheries into the program. Getting fisheries on-board is only one part of the equation.

Alaska salmon producers face questions of their own -- and the industry will be watching closely at what, if any, impact the move has on the industry.

The most interesting question, though, is how major buyers will react. Certainly some retailers and foodservice groups will find it a challenge to meet their MSC commitments as a result. But it may also provide breathing room for buyers around the world who were beginning to wonder if the little blue fish was their only hope in convincing consumers and NGOs that the fish they carry is truly sustainable.

If anything, the failure or success of this move for both groups is a referendum on the marketing value eco-labels in general. If the original eco-labeled fishery says it doesn’t need an eco-label anymore, what does that mean for all the rest? Just as Alaska salmon gave credibility to the MSC, it may also lend credibility to the notion that eco-labels do not a sustainable fishery make.

It's not you, it's me