News
Despite having its accreditation withdrawn in March, Huon salmon is still advertised in some major outlets as RSPCA-endorsed – in potential breach of consumer law. By Gabriella Coslovich.
Salmon still being sold with invalid RSPCA tick
More than three months after Tasmanian-based salmon producer Huon Aquaculture had its RSPCA certification revoked, a national sushi chain and various fishmongers at major metropolitan markets continue to advertise Huon products as being endorsed by the animal welfare group. The false advertising is potentially in breach of Australian consumer law.
The RSPCA suspended and then cancelled its accreditation of Huon farmed salmon after the Bob Brown Foundation released aerial footage in March showing live fish being dumped into bins with dead fish at a Huon factory, amid a devastating bacterial infection that killed thousands of tonnes of salmon in Tasmanian waters this year.
Despite this, multiple fish shops continue to advertise Huon as “Australia’s only producer of RSPCA Approved Salmon”. The Sushi Jiro chain, which has 29 outlets across Australia, this week displayed the RSPCA-approved logo on its website and at its stores.
A spokesperson for the RSPCA confirmed that Huon’s accreditation was withdrawn on March 20 and said the salmon producer was responsible for removing the signs from circulation.
“RSPCA Australia reminds all consumers that Huon salmon products produced after that date are not certified RSPCA Approved,” the spokesperson told The Saturday Paper via email.
“When certification is withdrawn, the standard process is to provide a reasonable period of time for the logo to be completely removed from the market (in recognition of some aspects like fixed advertising that take some time to change), which is the responsibility of the former licensee (Huon). We are working with the former licensee throughout this period to ensure that public-facing marketing and communications are changed as necessary.”
When asked what the “reasonable” timeframe was for the removal of signs, the RSPCA declined to comment, stating “the exact terms of contracts with licensees are confidential”.
The RSPCA would only say that “in this instance, we are currently within that time period, which is why we are working with Huon Aquaculture to ensure this happens. It is the responsibility of the former licensee (Huon in this instance) to do this throughout the supply chain.”
Allan Fels, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, told The Saturday Paper that the timeframe imposed by the RSPCA for the removal of misleading signs was immaterial.
“In the end, it’s not for the RSPCA to be the arbiter of this,” Professor Fels said. “Is the advertising misleading and deceptive in terms of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act? If it’s misleading and deceptive, they should remove the signs or face possible legal consequences.
“On the face of it, the signs are misleading and deceptive three months after the withdrawal of Huon’s accreditation, and the fact that the RSPCA gives Huon time to remove them is not, in law, relevant.
“These signs have an impact. It’s a matter governed by the provisions of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act and, on the face of it, it could well be in breach of the Act if retailers still have these signs up.”
Without commenting on the specifics of this case, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission confirmed that under consumer law “businesses must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with the supply of goods or services”.
“The use of trust marks or other accreditation schemes can be an important information source for consumers and suppliers,” an ACCC spokesperson said. “Accreditation schemes and businesses that use a trust mark should take appropriate steps to ensure that labels or other information is accurate and not misleading. Whether there is any breach of the ACL [Australian consumer law] and by whom in any particular instance will depend on all the circumstances involved.”
Fishmongers spoken to by The Saturday Paper were unaware of the situation and said Huon had not been in touch about the need to remove the signs. Huon Aquaculture did not respond to The Saturday Paper’s request for comment. Nor did Sushi Jiro.
Following questions from The Saturday Paper, the RSPCA logo disappeared from the company’s website.
Since the RSPCA’s withdrawal of Huon’s accreditation, none of Tasmania’s three salmon producers – the others being Tassal and Petuna – meet the animal welfare society’s standards on criteria including stocking densities, fish handling and biofouling.
The RSPCA told The Saturday Paper that its animal welfare standards “go well above what’s legally required”.
“[The RSPCA] aim to work with medium and large-scale producers to raise the bar for animal welfare in a way that’s tangible and sustainable long-term,” the spokesperson said. “Key to the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme is a robust certification process that includes frequent, comprehensive on-site assessments. These assessments are coordinated by the RSPCA Certification Body and conducted by specially trained RSPCA Assessors.”
To gain accreditation, a producer, such as Huon, submits an application that is reviewed by the RSPCA. The RSPCA then sends an assessor to check the producer’s facilities, animals and husbandry practices against its standards. The assessor’s report is reviewed and any noncompliance addressed before the producer is granted certification.
After that, the marine sites are assessed every two years. Freshwater sites are assessed annually. All animal handling procedures, including slaughter, are individually assessed annually.
Unlike its British counterpart, RSPCA Australia does not divulge the cost of its membership and licence fees. Its website states that fees are calculated according to how much it costs a brand and its suppliers to participate and be certified.
Once a producer or brand is certified, if an assessor finds that a producer is not complying with the RSPCA’s standards, the assessor notes this in their report. This does not mean a product will have its certification revoked, however. “Most nonconformances are easily rectified through corrective action by the producer,” the RSPCA Australia website states.
If further investigation is needed, the matter is brought to the attention of the manager of certification or relevant committee for a decision. This is what happened in the case of Huon.
“While we acknowledge this was a single incident following many years of certification, the decision to withdraw a certification reflects how seriously we take incidents like this that compromise animal welfare,” the chief executive of RSPCA Australia, Richard Mussell, said in a statement at the time.
“Fish, including those farmed for human consumption, are sentient beings and, like other animals, can experience pain and suffering.
“When they’re farmed for food, the welfare of fish must be front of mind.
“While today’s decision means that there are now currently no producers certified to the RSPCA Approved Standard for salmon, the Standard still exists because salmon are one of the most intensively farmed animals and it’s important that we can demonstrate the measures needed to ensure their welfare is considered.”
Australia’s sustainable seafood guide, GoodFish, advises people to avoid non-native Atlantic salmon produced by all three Tasmanian companies – Huon, Tassal and Petuna – because of the environmental damage caused by their industrial-scale farming in Tasmanian waters, and particularly in Macquarie Harbour on the west coast, the last known habitat of the endangered Maugean skate. The guide recommends New Zealand King salmon (also known as Chinook salmon) as a sustainable alternative. In northern Tasmania, the small land-based salmon farm, 41 Degrees South, near Deloraine, is recommended by activist group Neighbours of Fish Farming. On the mainland, ButcherCrowd sources and sells Canadian sockeye salmon, and Fish & Co imports Alaskan sockeye salmon, both of which are recommended as sustainable alternatives by the international organisation Seafood Watch.
Huon Aquaculture was founded in 1986 by Tasmanian couple Frances and Peter Bender. By 2021, Huon was harvesting some 36,000 tonnes of salmon. That year, Huon was bought for $425 million by Brazilian meat-processing giant JBS, a company with a well-documented history of bribery and corruption. JBS directors, brothers Joesley and Wesley Batista, were briefly jailed in 2017 for bribing more than 1800 politicians in their native Brazil.
Last week, The New York Times reported that US regulators approved JBS to be publicly listed on the New York Stock Exchange, despite protests against the company by American beef producers, environmental groups and politicians from across the political spectrum. The New York Times noted the timing of the company’s admission to the stock exchange had “raised eyebrows”, occurring after “a U.S. firm owned by JBS made the single biggest donation, $5 million, to President Trump’s inaugural committee”.
Forbes magazine reported that a JBS spokesperson denied any link in the timing of the donation.
The New York Times also reported that JBS is facing court cases related to “price-fixing, child labour and environmental crimes in the Amazon rain forest”.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on July 5, 2025 as "Huon salmon still on a roll".
For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.
All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.
There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.
Subscriber exclusive
Send this article to a friend for free.
Share this subscriber exclusive article with a friend or family member using share credits.
