Which fish are still safe to eat?

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

Fish consumption guides, such as those published by WWF and Greenpeace, offer limited assistance. They only address one issue, albeit a highly critical one: species conservation. However, regarding human health, these guides provide no remedy. Science on microplastics remains in its infancy; today, no scientist can state with certainty what effects the ingestion of microplastics, including through fish consumption, has on the human body.

The situation differs regarding methylmercury. Here, definitive research exists, accompanied by unequivocal warnings from the WHO, the EU, and various federal ministries.

In summary: avoid long-lived predatory fish such as sharks, swordfish, and tuna, which bioaccumulate higher concentrations of methylmercury over their long lifespans. This precaution is particularly relevant for children under 18 and women of childbearing age; however, male consumers also place themselves at risk by consuming these species.

Anyone assuming that methylmercury is only present in these specific fish is mistaken. This highly toxic substance, which takes many years to degrade within the human body and bioaccumulates with every instance of consumption, is present to a greater or lesser degree in almost every fish depending on its age.

Therefore, our measured advice is: avoid fish consumption altogether, even if this presents a challenge for many.

Where and how is ethically sourced food prepared?

This question inherently concerns the issue of "trust".

Often, even long-established restaurateurs are unaware of what they are receiving from their wholesalers, and above all, its origin. Eco-labels are widespread, accessible to consumers, and frequently accepted with gratitude. Whether certified "organic" or "MSC", who can say with certainty whether it genuinely aligns with what an informed consumer expects? Is one "organic" label equivalent to another? Is "MSC certified" the definitive standard?

Admittedly, understanding the landscape of certification schemes has now become a complex science in its own right.

With organic products, we know that, depending on the specific label, there is a wide range spanning from genuine animal welfare to intensive industrial farming involving animal suffering. A similar situation applies to sustainability labels for fish, most notably the MSC seal. There are MSC-certified fisheries, such as pole-and-line fisheries, which can be genuinely sustainable when operated correctly. But does this apply to the MSC seal in general? Our assessment is no.

This brings us directly to the strategies utilized by certification schemes to project an impression of sustainability and quality to the consumer.

Which practices should consumers be aware of (to avoid being misled)?

The MSC seal represents a broad spectrum ranging from sustainable to non-sustainable fisheries. Founded in the 1990s by Unilever in partnership with the WWF, the initial concept was sound. Genuinely sustainable fisheries were to be certified, demonstrating to the consumer that fish could indeed be harvested and consumed sustainably.

What developed over the subsequent years bears little resemblance to sustainability. Today, 83% of MSC-certified fisheries are large-scale industrial operations. Only 17% of MSC-certified fisheries still align with the original 1997 concept of genuinely sustainable fishing⁶.

Another issue involves the use of euphemistic commercial names for fish products, such as "Schillerlocke", which is actually the smoked belly flap of the spiny dogfish (*Squalus acanthias*). Products marketed using terms like Karbonadenfisch, Seeaal, Seestör, Kalbfisch, Steinaal, Speckfisch, Wildstör, Forellenstör, Dornfisch, and Königsaal are invariably shark species. Seafood retailers consistently devise new trade names to market shark products, which are otherwise poorly received by consumers. The result is a dense regulatory labyrinth of directives, labels, names, and provisions that has become opaque to the consumer.

One might surmise that this opacity is intentional. We contend that, in part, it is, and we aim to provide detailed clarification.