Canned tuna 'eco' claims put to the test

Australians are being urged to ‘check their cans’ and take a closer look at where their favourite canned tuna has been sourced from.

An academic study from the University of Tasmania, alongside consumer insights from YouGov, has revealed which brands can back up their environmental claims — and which may fall short on evidence. According to YouGov, canned tuna is a pantry staple for 78% of Australians, yet the new report shows many Australians are being left in the dark when it comes to how their tuna is sourced.

The University of Tasmania’s study, ‘Greenwashing in the Tuna Industry’, has scored 14 commonly purchased canned tuna brands against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) principles for making environmental claims.

The study found that many brands lacked sufficient evidence to support their environmental claims. There were widespread issues with omitting key information, and broad, unqualified claims were common. Some brands effectively conveyed their sustainability claims, while others used complex language.

While four in five (79%) Australians say they look to find out if the canned tuna they purchase is sustainable, most rely on unverified brand claims, leaving them vulnerable to ‘greenwashing’. Only 15% of Aussies are looking for independently verified ecolabels, raising concerns about how consumers can tell if their tuna is truly sustainable.

“Without independent verification, consumers can’t know if their tuna came from healthy, responsibly managed fisheries — or if it’s contributing to overfishing and the destruction of marine habitats,” said Anne Gabriel, Program Director, Oceania at the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

“Overall, this report underscores the need for clearer sustainability messaging and improved accountability among brand packaging to ensure consumers can make informed choices. The MSC certification process involves rigorous, science-based standards, impartial audits, and ongoing assessments to ensure fisheries continuously improve.”

According to the study, Coles, John West, The Stock Merchant, Little Tuna, Walker’s Tuna and Safcol provide credible, transparent information communicating their sustainability practices and adherence to ACCC guidelines.

Based on scoring patterns, the research concluded that brands with third-party sustainability accreditation such as MSC certification achieved a better alignment with the ACCC principles than other brands.

“Our analysis shows that independent certification isn’t just helpful — it’s essential,” said Associate Professor Dan Daugaard, lead researcher at the University of Tasmania. “Brands with verified claims are more aligned with regulatory standards and far more likely to win consumer trust.

“Environmental claims need to be honest, accurate, and backed by robust evidence,” Daugaard added. “Certification by independent bodies like the MSC can help brands meet these expectations — but it’s also up to retailers and producers to lift the standard of communication and transparency.”

The research found over half (54%) of all wild-caught tuna globally is now MSC-certified sustainable. Gabriel concluded that the only way consumers can be sure the seafood they purchase is caught by an MSC-certified sustainable fishery is to look for the MSC blue fish tick label on the packaging.

“With 2030 fast approaching, it is critical we align our sourcing and shopping habits with the UN Sustainable Development Goals — particularly those focused on life below water, responsible consumption and sustainable growth,” Gabriel said.

“This isn’t just a matter of corporate vs consumer responsibility — it’s a collective imperative. Every purchasing and sourcing decision is a chance to protect our oceans and secure a healthier future for people and planet.”

Image credit: iStock.com/Milos Ljubicic