The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is far and away the most successful fisheries certification standard available.
Retailers, restaurants and (though sometimes reluctantly) seafood companies all recognize that it is the gold standard and a ticket to entry for many markets. And if you ask the MSC, it's widely recognized by consumers as well in many markets.
Lately, though, the group has been getting attention for the wrong reasons. Seafood eco-labels have come under fire in general, leaving the industry (and consumers) scratching their heads: aren't all these acronyms supposed to ensure seafood is problem-free?
As we've discussed earlier, eco-labels can only do so much. That gives the MSC a little wiggle room, but that's not the only heat the group is now taking. The first draft of its version 3 sustainability standard is being blasted by several companies for being nearly unattainable. Meanwhile, it's facing attacks from the NGO community for the standard being too weak.
Just last month, it was the target of a direct-action campaign, which staged an elaborate protest including dead mermaids and giant tuna cans. We haven't seen these kinds of public stunts in awhile, so it's notable.
And don't forget that it is still taking heat for allowing Russian fish to carry the eco-label.
For all these criticisms, the MSC shows no signs of slowing. Hundreds of dollars worth of MSC products are sold each year, and that helps the MSC bring in around $40 million (€37.6 million), mainly from logo licensing.
But the landscape for sustainability is changing rapidly, and some numbers indicate that the MSC is not growing the way it once was. Listen to us discuss it on this week's IntraFish Podcast.
