The Blue Food Labeling and Sustainability Act, introduced in the US Senate back in 2021, marked a curious yet inevitable evolution in food labeling policy. For years, various advocacy groups had lobbied for a way to help consumers distinguish between seafood sourced responsibly and that harvested in ways less kind to marine ecosystems. The bill, still working its way through the legislative process in fits and starts, represents the most comprehensive attempt yet to codify what it means for fish and other seafood to be branded as sustainably caught. The act doesn’t just gesture at broad principles. It sets out fairly rigorous due diligence expectations, which, if implemented as envisioned, would place new data and reporting burdens on everyone from fishers to processors to retailers.
At the heart of this initiative lies the notion of traceability—one of those concepts that everyone in the seafood business talks about, but which in practice has proven remarkably hard to pin down. The act’s labeling provisions would require seafood processors to document, in a manner both detailed and verifiable, the origins of the fish they handle. Specifically, the bill calls for linking individual catches to recognized sustainable harvest zones as defined by NOAA Fisheries data. On paper, that sounds straightforward enough. In reality, of course, seafood supply chains often weave a complex, opaque web. The mixing of catches from different vessels, ports, and even countries is routine. And the task of untangling that web, of mapping individual fish or batches back to particular coordinates or harvest zones, is anything but trivial.
Some processors have begun exploring how NOAA’s open data resources—particularly its vessel tracking and harvest reporting datasets—might help bridge this gap. These databases, updated regularly, offer insights into where and how fish are caught, information that can be invaluable when attempting to validate sustainability claims. But again, the devil is in the details. The quality and granularity of available data can vary. Some smaller operators may lack the technical infrastructure or know-how to ingest and act on the data efficiently. And then there is the challenge of matching internal records—purchase orders, inventory logs, processing records—with NOAA’s external datasets. Few firms have cracked that nut entirely, though a number of pilot programs are starting to hint at viable models.
One promising avenue gaining traction involves the use of QR code technology. By embedding QR codes on product packaging, processors can offer consumers a direct window into the provenance of the fish they’re buying. The idea is simple enough: scan the code and see, in near real-time, the path your fillet or can of tuna took from harvest to plate. But the back-end work required to support that level of transparency is, as one might expect, considerable. Processors looking to build such a system will need to start by creating a database that links their batch-level production records with NOAA’s harvest zone data. That means not just logging where fish were caught, but matching that information to specific processing runs, packaging dates, and distribution channels. The result, if done well, is a system where a consumer’s scan retrieves meaningful, verified data—not generic marketing platitudes.
The technical implementation of such a QR system raises its own set of challenges. Firms will need to ensure their data architecture can support dynamic links between QR codes and real-time databases rather than relying on static pages that quickly become outdated. And they’ll need to invest in front-end design that presents complex data—coordinates, sustainability certifications, vessel IDs—in a way that’s digestible for the average shopper. There’s also a trust factor at play. Consumers, rightly wary of greenwashing, will be quick to spot inconsistencies or data gaps. Which is why it’s not enough for processors to build the tech; they’ll need to subject their systems to third-party verification, or at least align closely with recognized standards like those proposed under the Blue Food Labeling Act.
The broader question, still unresolved, is whether these traceability efforts will meaningfully shift consumer behavior or industry practices. Some processors and retailers report growing demand for transparency. Others remain skeptical, seeing the initiative as largely symbolic unless backed by rigorous enforcement. And as is often the case with sustainability initiatives, the cost of compliance looms large—particularly for small processors operating on thin margins. Yet there’s little doubt that the tide is turning. Whether driven by regulation, market demand, or simply the desire to future-proof supply chains, seafood firms that embrace traceability are likely to find themselves better positioned in a marketplace increasingly defined by data, accountability, and trust.