The FishProf was reading about the new/revised U.S. Grade Standard for Frozen Battered or Breaded Shrimp announced by NOAA Fisheries and wondering why Australia does not have a full equivalent to US-style federal seafood grading.
Australia is a nation defined by the sea, with a proud tradition of sustainable, high-quality safe seafood production. Yet, when it comes to formal national standards, especially for processed retail seafood like those mentioned above Australia takes a notably different approach.
Hence FishProf asks the questions ‘what are NOAA’s seafood standards, why does the U.S. use them, and where does Australia’s seafood standards framework diverge or excel?’
This article aims to unpack these critical, but often misunderstood, systems.
What Are NOAA’s Seafood Standards?
The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Office of International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce operate arguably the world’s most extensive formal seafood grading and inspection framework. Recent updates, including broadening the “U.S. Grade Standard for Frozen Raw Breaded Shrimp” to now encompass all “Frozen Battered or Breaded shrimp” reflect the U.S. desire to regulate and certify seafood quality and wholesomeness at a federal level.
NOAA, via its Seafood Inspection Program (SIP), offers:
» Mandatory and voluntary product grading standards for a wide suite of major species and presentations: shrimp, salmon, crab, tuna, catfish, mollusks, and more.
» Fee-for-service inspections to guarantee compliance with U.S. and international food safety, quality, and labelling requirements for domestic and export markets.
» Detailed grading manuals and product-specific standards (e.g., shrimp size, breading percentage, moisture, defects, and handling protocols).
» Sensory workmanship, and analytical assessments — such as moisture retention, quality defects, and sensory scoring.
NOAA’s standards dovetail with broader FDA and USDA rules, but their grading and inspection protocols are uniquely stringent, reflecting the U.S. consumer and retailer preference for clearly ranked, gradelabeled foods across many food categories.
Authority for the USDC Seafood Inspection Program (SIP) to provide product inspection (audit) services can be found within the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. This handbook provides procedures of how services shall be scheduled, planned, conducted, documented and describes services that conform to global activities that harmonize inspection protocols.
Additionally, USDC (United States Department of Commerce) — NOAA grades (A, B, C) displayed on packaging as official marks of quality. Other features include grading for products like catfish, shrimp, salmon, and mollusks and defined criteria for defects (blood spots, bruises, foreign matter, breading %).
The Inspection Manual (can be seen at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/seafood-commerce-trade/seafood-inspection-manual) are aligned to HACCP-based protocols, and regular updates (as per NOAA’s recent revisions to breaded shrimp standards).
NOAA and the USDC have established guidelines and regulations aimed at standardizing fish species naming to ensure clarity and consistency among scientists, fishermen, and consumers. However, despite these efforts, gaps remain, particularly in the comprehensive and consistent use of scientific names, which are crucial to avoid confusion and ensure accurate communication across all stakeholders.
Furthermore, there is a recognized need for enhanced consumer education programs to promote awareness of scientific names and to combat seafood fraud effectively. This patchy approach to fish naming can create significant confusion among consumers, potentially undermining trust and leading to misinformation regarding seafood products.
Unlike Australia’s Australian Fish Names Standard (AS 5300) — a comprehensive, although voluntary, national standard containing over 5,000 standard fish names — NOAA/USDC’s fish naming approach lacks a fully codified, universally applied standard, which some may argue diminishes regulatory clarity and consumer protection in the US market.
FishProf believes this situation calls into question NOAA/USDC’s current framework and highlights the potential benefits of adopting a more formalized, enforceable fish naming standard to reduce confusion and better safeguard consumer interests.
Why Doesn’t Australia Have Equivalent Federal Seafood Grading Standards?
Australia has strict, but fundamentally different, standards for seafood built around food safety, suitability, and traceability not product quality “grade” or sensory benchmarks per se. The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code — particularly Standard 4.2.1 — establishes comprehensive requirements for seafood safety, hygiene, and traceability, ensuring that every step of the supply chain is strictly regulated from wild catch or aquaculture through to processing, transport, and retail sale.
To support businesses and enforcement agencies, the “Safe Seafood Australia” guide offers plain language interpretation and practical examples for meeting these legal requirements. Additionally, all seafood retailers and food businesses must adhere to detailed state health laws and stringent labelling standards, which cover critical information like species identification, origin, storage conditions, and allergen declarations — letting consumers make safer, more informed choices.
Australian seafood — both wildcaught and farmed — is regularly tested under the National Residue Survey (NRS), with aquaculture and wildcaught products averaging over 99% compliance with safety standards in 2023–24. Currently, SafeFish is conducting a comprehensive review of contaminant monitoring practices in Australian seafood, aiming to ensure ongoing confidence in the safety and quality of local products and to identify any emerging risks or opportunities for strengthening surveillance and industry standards (SafeFish Issues Paper, September 2025).
While Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) sets the national standards for seafood safety, labelling, and traceability through the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, it plays no role in policing or enforcement. Instead, responsibility for compliance and oversight falls to individual state and territory agencies, resulting in a patchwork system where rules may be interpreted and enforced differently across jurisdictions.
This decentralized approach creates significant challenges for Australian consumers, as gaps and inconsistencies between various bureaucracies can undermine effective regulation and erode public trust. For example, while traceability requires rigorous record-keeping at each point in the supply chain and labelling legislation references AS5300 for fish names, adherence to the Australian Fish Names Standard (AFNS) remains voluntary for domestic sales.
Consequently, species warnings for pregnancy, food recalls, and the prevention of mislabeling are compromised, allowing untrained retailers to persistently use incorrect naming without uniform consequences. The lack of FSANZ enforcement and the resulting inconsistencies reveal a major vulnerability in the seafood regulation framework that urgently needs to be addressed for robust consumer protection.
Australia maintains robust export standards for seafood products that include high-level product testing, comprehensive documentation, facility accreditation, and strict adherence to importing countries’ requirements. Exporters must ensure their fishery operations are approved and undergo frequent audits under the Environmental Protection Biosecurity and Conservation Act.
While seafood exporters must comply with the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS5300) to guarantee accurate species identification, they are notably not provided with any formal sustainability certification aligned with the export health certification process. This means that while health and biosecurity compliance is rigorously enforced, including necessary testing and traceability, sustainability assurances remain outside the scope of mandatory export certification.
This regulatory framework is designed to maintain market access, protect public health, and ensure the integrity of products sold internationally, yet highlights a gap in formally recognizing or verifying sustainable practices within export protocols (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2025; SafeFish Issues Paper, 2025).
Despite this, Australia does not operate a national, consumer-facing product grading or quality certification scheme for seafood comparable to NOAA’s system. The primary reason FishProf believes is that Australia’s seafood system was engineered primarily around safety (reducing illness/ outbreaks), quarantine (biosecurity), and compliance, not “fine-grained” product quality or sensory grades.
Australia’s seafood industry enjoys a prestigious platform through the Royal Sydney Show Aquaculture Competition, an event that uniquely showcases the excellence and diversity of Australian aquaculture products. FishProf used to be a volunteer in this process and found the experience to be top level.
This competition provides harvesters with an invaluable opportunity to present their seafood for evaluation by independent specialists who judge entries based on stringent criteria such as visual presentation, flavor, texture, and overall condition. Medals — gold, silver, and bronze — are awarded to highlight outstanding products, conferring significant credibility and recognition within industry circles. Established officially in 2001 but with seafood judging history dating back to the 1870s, the competition has evolved into a highly respected arena where aquaculture producers benchmark their products against the best in the country.
Given its role in driving product excellence and consumer trust, this competition should be more widely promoted as a hallmark of the quality, sustainability, and innovation encompassed by Australia’s aquaculture industry.
Conclusion: Different Roads to “World-Class” Seafood – Challenges and Opportunities
While the United States, through NOAA and USDC, employs detailed, federally regulated, consumer-facing seafood grading and inspection protocols catering to a vast and complex domestic and export market, Australia’s seafood system emphasizes robust safety, transparency, and compliance frameworks. Both countries are failing consumers regarding harmonized fish names processes.
Although Australia boasts the comprehensive Australian Fish Names Standard (AS5300), its voluntary status domestically creates gaps — undermining clear species identification, consumer safety, and the management of recalls or pregnancyrelated warnings. This gap contrasts with the U.S., where fish naming regulations, albeit incomplete, fall within an integrated federal oversight system. This situation adds complexity and risks confusion despite Australia’s advanced safety regimes.
On the positive side, Australia holds distinctive strengths in prestigious quality recognition, notably exemplified by the Royal Sydney Show Aquaculture Competition. This competition offers a respected, independent platform where aquaculture producers showcase their products and have them rigorously judged against key sensory and quality criteria by expert panels.
The awarding of medals serves as a high-profile endorsement of product excellence, sustainability, and innovation. This competition not only drives continuous improvement across Australia’s aquaculture sector but also presents a valuable opportunity to promote Australian seafood globally as a premium, credible choice — filling some of the void left by the absence of formal grading.
Looking forward, Australia’s seafood sector has the opportunity in the coming decade to leverage its worldclass safety compliance and sustainability credentials, coupled with respected peer-reviewed quality recognitions, to meet growing consumer and export demands for premium, branded quality. Selective adoption of formal product grading or certification schemes, possibly aligned with existing frameworks, could complement its current strengths, provide clearer consumer guidance and further reduce species mislabeling risks.
In essence, the Australian and U.S. seafood frameworks reflect different historic, cultural, and regulatory paths: one leaning towards federally mandated product grades and integrated quality standards, the other prioritizing stringent safety controls, voluntary naming standards, and industry-driven quality awards. Through targeted policy evolution and enhanced certification, both countries are well-positioned to learn from each other, bridge current gaps and build a globally competitive, trusted seafood industry for the future.
References and sources consulted by the author on the elaboration of this article are available under previous request to our editorial staff
