* By FishProf
For years, sustainable seafood certification has been touted as a market-based solution, a shining beacon guiding shoppers, restaurants, and retailers towards a healthier ocean. But if sustainability is the goal, why did the entire edifice of certification collapse into irrelevance the moment politics took center stage and U.S. tariffs entered the scene?
For years, sustainable seafood certification has been touted as a market-based solution, a shining beacon guiding shoppers, restaurants, and retailers towards a healthier ocean. We have been told that labels like Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) “blue tick” or Aquaculture Stewardship Council’s (ASC) farmed fish mark are powerful enough to reshape industry behavior, weed out the bad actors, and offer consumers an ethical compass at the seafood counter. But if sustainability is the goal, why did the entire edifice of certification collapse into irrelevance the moment politics took center stage and U.S. tariffs entered the scene?
Recent developments in the American seafood tariff landscape have exposed a brutal truth: certification meant nothing in the battle over market access, price, and trade policy in ‘Make America Great Again 2025’.
If sustainability labels are supposed to reward responsible producers — driving change through recognition and access — how did, they play absolutely no role in the outcome?
FishProf suggests the answer isn’t just a story about tariffs, but a fundamental provocation and asks, “Is third-party certification obsolete in today’s world? And is it time to demand something radically better?”
Tariffs, Trade Wars, and the Vanishing Impact of Certification
In April 2025, the Trump administration imposed sweeping new tariffs on seafood imports from nearly all trading partners. 10% across the board, with additional, country-specific penalties scaling much higher for top exporters like China. The justification? Protecting American jobs, restoring reciprocity, and “liberating” the U.S. seafood market from unfair foreign competition.
Notably absent from the calculus was any mention of environmental standards, traceability, third-party sustainability certification or the reliance on seafood imports. The new tariffs were set with crude arithmetic based on the U.S. trade deficit, not ecological responsibility or transparent supply chains. Whether a shipment was tagged with the MSC, ASC, or Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) label made zero difference — at the border, a certified tuna loin was hit just as hard hit as a slab of IUU-riddled, uncertified fish.
Certification: Side-Lined by Realpolitik
This is not a story of missed opportunity, but one of massive systemic failure. Certification schemes have repeatedly argued that market recognition — preferential access, tariff exemptions, or even simple differentiation at the border — will accelerate the shift toward sustainability. And yet, when the biggest seafood market on earth re-engineered its trade regime, certification was simply ignored.
Instead, the U.S. system prefers its own regulatory approaches, namely the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIM), requiring basic catch documentation for a handful of vulnerable species, not private sustainability labelling. Even as U.S. authorities tout “confidence in seafood” through regulatory controls, there’s scant acknowledgment that well-intentioned thirdparty standards are even relevant to the policy conversation.
In fact, federal deregulation trends suggest that not only is certification an afterthought, but even bedrock science-based management and environmental oversight being deliberately sidelined. When it comes to trade rules, it’s national security, deficit math’s, and electoral calculation, not ecological responsibility, that calls the shots.
So far, from what the FishProf has seen, there is little to no public evidence that major USA seafood retailers or leading certification/accreditation bodies have issued strong public defenses of certification or directly challenged the U.S. tariffs based on sustainability credentials.
What the FishProf has observed:
» Trade and Retail Response: Large U.S. seafood retailers and companies are primarily focused on adapting to supply chain disruptions and higher costs caused by the tariffs, rather than advocating for preferential treatment for certified products. Industry leaders have publicly discussed scrambling to move production and source products from lower-tariff nations. A pragmatic business response rather than a sustainability or certification defense. There’s an emphasis on maintaining supply and managing price increases, not on advocating for certification as a route to tariff relief.
» Industry Associations: The National Fisheries Institute (NFI), the main U.S. seafood trade association, has been active in urging the U.S. government to eliminate or soften tariffs and other trade barriers. However, their advocacy centers on overall industry competitiveness and market access, not on defending certification as a means of sustainability or trade benefit. Their responses highlight the negative impact of tariffs on Americans buying seafood, the health of the nation and jobs that rely on imported seafood and argue for fairer trade policies, but do not advocate for certification-based exemptions or elevating eco-labels as a criterion for tariff waivers.
» Certification Bodies: There are references to the prevalence of sustainability certifications — such as Oregon fisheries being MSC certified — when communicating with government agencies and the public. However, neither MSC nor other major international certification organizations appear to have launched any targeted campaign or high-profile statements demanding that certified seafood products be exempted from tariffs. Their messaging, both on their websites and in public forums, stays focused on promoting the broader benefits of certified seafood, not on the tariff fight.
» Industry Frustration: Across trade publications and industry commentary, there is a striking silence — no public defense of the “value” of certification in the context of tariffs, nor calls for the government to recognize certifications as part of the tariff regime. Instead, most industry leaders see tariffs as disconnected from environmental certification, driven by domestic politics and international trade disputes rather than sustainability goals.
FishProf feels this absence is telling. Certification bodies and major retailers have not been able to influence U.S. trade policy to reward or recognize sustainability certification as a factor in tariff decisions. The U.S. tariffs have been imposed indiscriminately, regardless of third-party certification, and industry advocacy has focused on competitiveness, not sustainability exemption. Instead, certification remains a private, market-driven tool primarily for brand reputation and access to voluntary markets, with little leverage in hard policy discussions like tariffs.
If Certification Is Irrelevant, What Is It For?
The implications are profound and, the FishProf believes, if we are honest, a devastating critique of the certification movement. The FishProf wants us all to be clear:
» Certification cannot guarantee market access — labels don’t shield you from tariffs.
» Certification does not drive national trade policy — politics, not evidence, runs the show.
» Certification has lost its carrots and sticks — incentives evaporate if governments don’t care.
If sustainability standards matter so little at the highest policy levels, what are we really buying each time we select the “eco-labelled” product?
Critics have increasingly charged that certification has become little more than a marketing tool — one that reassures consumers, profits industry, and yet does little to move the needle on deep systemic issues like overfishing, human rights violations, and market distortion. Labels are expensive to maintain, out of reach for small producers, and most damning used by some companies to “green-wash” business-as-usual. FishProf has often spoken of certification as a ‘business between harvester and consumer, adding costs but few benefits.
When trade policy views a certified fish as indistinguishable from an uncertified one, the premise that certification confers unique value is fundamentally undermined.
A System Ripe for Disruption — or Replacement?
Some champions of certification will argue that these setbacks are temporary, or that the solution is more lobbying for certification-based trade incentives. But if the result is that the U.S. (and, by extension, global) trade policy doesn’t care about labels in its biggest market interventions, the writing is on the wall for the future of seafood eco-labels.
Has there been any global authority that has awarded certificated product a clear way through to their country Fish Prof wonders? While most major seafood-importing nations, including the U.S. and key markets in the EU, have not offered certified seafood a privileged or expedited entry through their tariff or regulatory systems, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) stands out as a notable exception FishProf believes.
In recent years, KSA authorities have explicitly recognized internationally accredited seafood certifications, such as those from the BAP and ASC, as key criteria for product acceptance and market access. In practical terms, this means that exporters possessing these certifications are granted a more streamlined route through the kingdom’s import controls and are generally favored for government procurement, institutional contracts, and broader market entry. Noting, they give priority to KSA products, of course.
This policy, unique in its overt preference for certified product, demonstrates that at least one national authority has chosen to reward third-party eco-labels not only for their sustainability assurances but as a mechanism to assure imported food safety, etc. effectively connecting private certification to tangible regulatory and market benefits. MSC does not meet their guidelines.
So, what next? Here are uncomfortable but necessary questions for the seafood sustainability movement:
» If governments (apart from KSA) aren’t aligning trade with sustainability, are certifications just virtue signaling for Northern consumers?
» Is it time to demand mandatory traceability, public transparency, and regulatory reform — instead of private labels?
» Should advocacy shift towards making sustainability a minimum market requirement, not an optional feel-good premium?
» Are certification bodies willing to publicly acknowledge their current impotence in shaping policy — and reinvent themselves for real impact?
The End of Certification as We Know It?
No significant U.S. retailers or certification/accreditation organizations have come out to publicly and robustly defend or advocate for the recognition of certification in the 2025 tariff debate.
Their response has focused overwhelmingly on business adaptation and general market access, not on sustainability credentials or the role of certification in policy exemptions. This lack of defense underscores the current powerlessness of eco-labels in high-stakes, politicized trade processes.
The spectacular failure of certification to influence the U.S. tariff process is a wake-up call. If the goal is sustainable seafood and certification is sidelined in the most important market decisions then it’s not only the end for certification’s primacy, but the beginning of a reckoning for the sustainability movement.
The time for ‘feel good’ labels is over. Real change now requires systems-level thinking, stronger demand for public accountability, and the courage to admit that what’s “certified” sustainable must mean more than a paid for marketing badge. Until then, we must be honest: certification may not be dead, but it’s certainly irrelevant in the battle that matters most.
The future? A data-driven, benchmarked aquaculture industry unlocks a virtuous cycle of improvement, risk reduction, and trust. It delivers more profitable, sustainable operations for producers; smarter policies and oversight for governments; lower risks and costs for financiers and insurers; and stronger confidence, safety, and choice for consumers instead of trying to understand what the thousands of labels mean. FishProf believes that stakeholders willing to invest in robust data infrastructure today will shape the most resilient, competitive, and trusted aquaculture systems of tomorrow.
References and sources consulted by the author on the elaboration of this article are available under previous request to our editorial staff.
