Which fish are still safe to eat?

In short, the simple answer is: "With a clear conscience, virtually none!"

Fish guides, such as those published by WWF and Greenpeace, offer limited help, but they focus on only one issue, albeit a very important one: species conservation. However, when it comes to human health, these guides do not provide the necessary guidance. Scientific research into microplastics is still in its infancy. Today, no scientist knows precisely what microplastics, which are ingested through fish consumption among other sources, do to our bodies.

The situation is different for methylmercury. Here, there is clear research and highly explicit warnings from the WHO, the EU, and federal ministries.

In summary: avoid shark, swordfish, and tuna as long-lived predatory fish that accumulate increased levels of methylmercury in their bodies over their long lives. Children up to the age of 18 and women of childbearing age in particular should heed this, but male consumers also put themselves at risk by consuming these fish species.

Anyone who believes that methylmercury only occurs in these fish is mistaken. This highly toxic substance, which takes many years to break down in the human body and accumulates with every consumption, is present to a greater or lesser extent in almost every fish, depending on its age.

Therefore, our prudent advice is: avoid fish, even if some find it difficult.

Where and how is ethical cooking practised?

This question inherently involves the issue of "trust".

Often, even long-established restaurateurs do not know what is being delivered by their wholesalers and, above all, where it originates! Certification labels are widespread, available to consumers, and often gratefully accepted. Whether certified as "organic" or by the "MSC" – who really knows if it actually corresponds to what an informed consumer expects? Is all "organic" the same? Is "MSC-certified" the gold standard?

Admittedly, understanding the world of certification labels has now become a science in itself!

With organic products, we know that depending on the certification, there is a wide spectrum ranging from genuine animal welfare to industrial fattening involving suffering. The situation is similar with sustainability labels for fish, foremost among them the MSC label. There are MSC-certified fisheries, such as "pole and line" fisheries (angling), which, when operated correctly, can be truly sustainable. But does this apply to the MSC label in general? We say no!

And that brings us directly to the tactics used by certification bodies to suggest sustainability and quality to the consumer.

Which tactics should you know about (to avoid falling for them)?

The MSC label covers a wide spectrum from sustainable to unsustainable fisheries. Founded in the 1990s by Unilever in cooperation with the WWF, the fundamental idea was a good one. Truly sustainable fisheries were to be certified, demonstrating to the consumer that fish can indeed be caught and consumed sustainably.

What has developed from this over the years has little to do with sustainability. Today, 83% of MSC-certified fisheries are large-scale industrial fisheries. Only 17% of MSC-certified fisheries still correspond to the original 1997 concept of genuinely sustainable fishing.

Another problem relates to fanciful commercial names for fish products, such as "Schillerlocke", which is actually the smoked belly flaps of the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Behind names like Karbonadenfisch, Seeaal, Seestör, Kalbfisch, Steinaal, Speckfisch, Wildstör, Forellenstör, Dornfisch, and Königsaal, the product is always shark. Fish merchants do not hesitate to invent ever more fanciful names to market the otherwise unpopular shark product to consumers. It has become a dense jungle of regulations, labels, names, and provisions that the consumer can no longer navigate.

One might think this is intentional. We assert that in some respects "yes", and we are happy to provide detailed clarification.

You can find our detailed brochure on the subject in our downloads.