Last month, headlines swept the national press over the absence of mackerel in supermarket tinned mackerel, raising wider questions about communication, corporate responsibility and fisheries governance.
Here, we look at what happened, why it trigged such as strong reaction, and the lessons it’s taught us.
Why supermarkets switched
On September 12, The Times reported that most supermarket tinned mackerel contained no real mackerel, following a switch to a species with a similar name.
The business in the hotseat – Princes, which moved from its branded North-East Atlantic mackerel to MSC-certified Chilean Mackerel (Jack Mackerel) last year.
This follows Northeast Atlantic mackerel fisheries losing their MSC certification status in 2019, due to lack of meaningful progress on agreeing quota shares in line with scientific advice.
“Princes took the decision to move its branded range away from North-East Atlantic mackerel following years of concern over unsustainable catch levels and insufficient progress towards a science-based management agreement,” a spokesperson from the business told Food Manufacture.
“We chose MSC-certified Chilean jack mackerel as an independently certified sustainable alternative, following extensive product and consumer testing.”
While they share a similar name, Chilean jack mackerel is not a “true mackerel in the taxonomic sense,” Hannah Fennell, CEO designate at the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association, explained. “It belongs to the Carangidae family, whereas Atlantic mackerel belongs to the Scombridae (true mackerel) family.”
Skimpflation or sustainability?
The headlines quickly reeled in debate, prompting criticism from some that it could mislead the public – notably into buying a product with less omega 3.
“We are very concerned that the British public could be misled into believing they are purchasing Atlantic mackerel when they are actually buying Chilean jack mackerel,” Fennell told Food Manufacture.
“Consumers should be aware that Atlantic mackerel and Chilean jack mackerel are different species and are not nutritionally equivalent. Atlantic mackerel contains more than twice as much omega-3, and is higher in other essential nutrients such as selenium.”
Sue Davies, Which?’s head of food policy, held similar concerns, labelling the move as an act of “skimpflation”.
“When brands swap to a cheaper alternative that delivers roughly half the omega-3s while keeping retail prices steady, shoppers take a hidden hit to both their health and their wallets.
“People buy tinned oily fish as a budget superfood, relying on brands to be honest about what’s actually inside the tin. Using a name that consumers aren’t familiar with feels like cost-cutting disguised as a sustainability move.
“If manufacturers need to switch species to protect stocks, good practice means being transparent in plain English, rather than relying on naming loopholes.”
Retail expert Ged Futter held other views, however; calling claims of skimpflation “unfair”.
“All they’re doing is that they’re trying to ensure that there’s a product available for customers,” he contended.
“If it can be called Jack Mackerel and if the customer doesn’t know what it is, it’s the customer’s responsibility. It’s not difficult, everyone’s got smartphones.”
While Chilean jack mackerel may have a different nutritional profile to northeast Atlantic mackerel, it’s worth pointing out that it is still high in the two key marine omega-3 fatty acids. These are EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid), associated with cardiovascular and anti-inflammatory health benefits; and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), which is important for brain and eye health.
A fisheries management failure
Commenting on the headlines, Aoife Martin, executive chair of the North Atlantic Pelagic Advocacy Group (NAPA) said the switch is “not a simple commercial decision but rather the result of longstanding governance problem. She stressed that this point has been “absent from the narrative” across the media.
“This collective effort arises from the persistent failure of decision‑makers to agree comprehensive, equitable quota‑sharing arrangements that allocate fishing fairly amongst Coastal States, in line with scientific advice,” she explained.
“For six years NAPA has tried to work with governments and the fishing industry to address these management failures, but with limited success. The market response now visible on supermarket shelves is not sudden; it follows a period of sustained effort to prevent exactly this outcome.”
She added that, historically, jack mackerel prices have been lower than Northeast Atlantic Mackerel. However, as with any finite resource facing increased demand, prices have since risen (+40-60% over the past 12 months).
“While consumer preferences vary, jack mackerel is a legitimate and appropriate substitute,” she continued, adding that while many would prefer to source Northeast Atlantic Mackerel it’s not an option until the aforementioned management issues are resolved.
‘It’s not the UK’s fault’
Fennell acknowledges challenges around the international management of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel stock, but argues it “should not be confused with the sustainability of the UK mackerel fleet”.
She continued: “The UK has remained steadfast in its commitment to reducing overall fishing pressure and has encouraged other Coastal States to follow suit. Through no fault of our own, we have been caught up in this mackerel quota share dispute between national governments, and as such, we feel we deserve the support of UK retailers to recognise this,” she said.
“The UK fleet has invested heavily in protecting the long-term sustainability of the stock and improving the science used to manage it. Through the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG), the industry has provided vessels, funding, expertise and extensive fisheries data to support scientific research and improve understanding of mackerel distribution, migration and stock dynamics.
“If retailers move away from Northeast Atlantic mackerel, they are unfairly punishing the UK industry while instead sourcing a different, less omega-3-rich species from the other side of the world with a significantly higher carbon footprint to the UK market.”
What can we take from this?
The mackerel row uncovers the tension that can emerge when sustainability commitments collide with consumer expectations for ethical, healthy and affordable food.
The sector faces scrutiny for switching species, yet continuing to source from fish stocks under pressure would no doubt attract criticism of its own.
As Martin outlined in her post, this is a failure of international governance with consequences for economic growth, trade, and food security. Until those issues are resolved, businesses, fishing fleets and consumers will all be left to manage the fallout. For manufacturers, the lesson may be that transparency must be more explicit.
