What weighs heavy in the calculation it is food

Arrival, announced in 2011, a carbon labelling on products of high consumption will end discussions on eco-labels which agitated the seafood sector Indeed, this year, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which ten years grows fisheries to engage in responsible fisheries approaches, has been criticized by Greenpeace does not go far enough in the process. The environmentalist association wants more and militates for the prohibition of deep-sea fisheries, or even the decision of the trawl. The solution of aquaculture as a palliative to the scarcity of resources, has not favored by all environmentalists. For some, it pollutes the water, for others, it participates in the destruction of fisheries resources.

Not easy for a consumer to get a clear picture to consume fish "environmentally correct". Especially for Alain Renaudin, Chairman of DDB corporate, communication consulting firm, "the relationship of the French to seafood products is complex." In this context, the simple messages of advocacy associations spend better than the highly technical arguments of fishermen. For proof, just look in detail the specifications for certification of responsible fishing. Another difficulty: "not a label today is representative of a high environmental quality", said Eric Labouze, President of BioIntelligence Service, agency, specializing in the measurement and the Council of the environmental impact of supply chains. "The analysis of the cycle of life, reprinted in grams of CO2 emitted per 100 g of finished product, allow a better." But for each product family, need to supplement it by one or two additional criteria. In the products of the sea, the question of biodiversity has all chances to appear as relevant. "A view shared by Alain Renaudin, former Deputy General of the FIFG, which nevertheless believe that"carbon labelling, widespread, will be used as a tool of comparison by consumers between products.

"The future is aquaculture."

And where issues are just beginning. Who will have the lowest ecological footprint: fish or meat Farmed fish or wild fish Fresh fish and frozen fish "The first calculations, to be taken with great care, give the advantage to fish on the meat, because the processing cycle is shorter," refers to Eric Labouze, adding: "in the same way, whatever the kilometers to capture, wild fish often has the advantage on farmed fish." What weighs heavy in the calculation, it is food. "In fact, to look at the carbon balance of a company such as Meralliance, whose main activity is to quit and transform of farmed salmon, found that the share of upstream is colossal: 49 of carbon emissions. Packaging and transportation upstream and downstream represent respectively 22 and 11, the actual transformation that generating 18 of emissions.

However, the national Institute of agronomic research (Ania), which addressed the environmental sustainability of farming shows that number of farmed species are less intensive in energy and marine resources of cod or Norway lobster caught in Scandinavia. Also for Gilles Charpentier, President of Meralliance, there is no doubt that "wild fish be reserved for the festive periods, such as the game in the world of meat products." "The future is aquaculture, aquaculture under the carbon balance eye will enter a spiral of progress."

Rest that is, if the consumer will be able to decrypt complex labels, "green cards". But after all, why not In the appliance, it is well managed through a harmonization of approaches to industrial. "It is in progress." "The Ania, the Federation of enterprises in the trade and distribution, and the environment and energy control agency to have committed", reassures Eric Labouze. His company is also loaded in.