The AIM Model: How Industry Influence Muddied the Waters of Seafood Labelling

Australia's recent implementation of the AIM (Australian, Imported, Mixed) seafood labelling model marks a significant step towards transparency in the food service industry. Diners can now identify the country of origin of their seafood, shedding light on the fact that over 70% of seafood consumed in Australia is imported. This revelation has sparked discussions about the sustainability, traceability, and ethical standards of foreign fisheries compared to local practices. It also brings attention to broader issues of consumer trust, supply chain integrity, and the role of informed choice in building a more sustainable seafood economy.

However, while the AIM model addresses the origin of seafood, it stops short of providing information on the production method—specifically, whether the seafood is wild-caught or farmed. This omission leaves consumers without crucial details about the environmental impact and sustainability of their choices. Whether a fish is netted from the wild or raised in a controlled aquaculture facility can have significant implications for ocean health, fish welfare, carbon emissions, and the livelihoods of traditional fishing communities. Without this knowledge, consumers are denied the opportunity to align their purchases with their values.

Seafood Industry Australia (SIA), the national body representing the Australian seafood industry, played a pivotal role not just in promoting basic country-of-origin labelling—as noted in the previous blog—but also in shaping the scope of the new rules. Their advocacy helped drive the adoption of the AIM model, yet their influence appears to have contributed to the deliberate omission of production method labelling, which would have more clearly distinguished wild-caught from farmed seafood. SIA's membership encompasses a broad spectrum of the industry, including wild-catch, aquaculture, and post-harvest sectors. Notably, aquaculture has become the largest sector of Australia's domestic seafood industry, accounting for a significant portion of production and value. SIA has established an Aquaculture Advisory Committee to support the growth of this sector, highlighting its commitment to promoting aquaculture as a significant component of the industry. While this support is not inherently problematic, the absence of production method labelling arguably serves the commercial interests of industrial aquaculture operators, who benefit from avoiding potential consumer resistance to farmed products.

The strong representation of aquaculture within SIA likely played a role in shaping the labelling framework, particularly in sidelining the inclusion of production method disclosures. Rather than allowing consumers to differentiate between wild-caught and farmed seafood, the current system opts for simplicity—at the cost of clarity. For instance, farmed seafood, especially from intensive operations, often raises concerns related to water pollution, antibiotic use, and habitat disruption—issues that are increasingly important to ethically minded consumers. By not highlighting these differences, the current model places wild-caught and farmed seafood under the same banner, diluting consumer awareness and undermining the efforts of sustainable wild fisheries.

In contrast, the U.S. state of Mississippi has implemented more comprehensive seafood labelling laws—building on the same transparency goals discussed in the previous article, but going a step further by including details about production methods. Under House Bill 602, effective July 1, 2025, all seafood and crawfish sold in Mississippi must be clearly labeled with the following designations:

• Farm-raised domestic: Hatched, raised, harvested, and processed in the United States.

• Wild-caught domestic: Harvested in U.S. waters and processed within the United States.

• Foreign: Harvested or processed outside of the United States.

  
  

These labels are required to be prominently displayed on menus, packaging, and advertisements, providing consumers with transparent information about the origin and production methods of their seafood. The approach is not only clearer and more comprehensive—it also respects the right of the consumer to understand what they are buying and eating, and the real-world impacts of those choices. It recognises that labelling is not just about marketing, but about ethics, sustainability, and accountability across the entire seafood supply chain.

Australia's AIM model, while a step forward, falls short of providing the full picture. By not distinguishing between wild-caught and farmed seafood, consumers are left without critical information to make informed choices. This not only obscures the nature of seafood production, but inadvertently masks the environmental and social footprint of different sourcing methods. As demand for transparency grows, it is imperative that Australia consider more comprehensive labelling practices that encompass both origin and production methods. Only then can we align with international standards and genuinely empower consumers to make ethical, sustainable, and informed decisions—and ensure that those working in sustainable, low-impact fisheries are given the recognition and market support they deserve.