IN THIS EDITION - Seafood allergens • Menu transparency • ACCC advocacy • Victoria governance correction • Recognising good practice
SEAFOOD ALLERGENS: KNOW THE THREE
The essential message - Fish, crustaceans and molluscs are three separate allergen categories. Ask, check and never assume.
Australia’s rules have changed—but does everyone know?
Australia’s strengthened Plain English Allergen Labelling requirements are now fully in effect. New labelling rules applied from 25 February 2024, and the two-year allowance for older stock ended on 25 February 2026. Yet discussions with allergen specialist Jasmine Lacis-Lee suggest that awareness across parts of the seafood supply chain may still be uneven.
For consumers with food allergy, this is not a technical labelling issue. Incorrect, incomplete or poorly communicated information can cause serious harm. The Seafood Consumers Association believes the seafood sector must now turn regulatory compliance into reliable everyday practice.
Seafood is not one allergen
The Food Standards Code requires separate declaration of fish, crustacean and mollusc. This matters because a person may react to one category and not another—but only an appropriately qualified clinician should advise an individual about what is safe.
Seafood products can also contain other allergens. Batter, crumbs, sauces, marinades and seasonings may introduce wheat, egg, milk, soy or sesame. Sulphites, sometimes used in crustaceans such as prawns, must be declared when added at 10 mg/kg or more.
Where can things go wrong?
- A packaged product uses unclear, incomplete or outdated allergen wording.
- A fishmonger, café or restaurant employee guesses rather than checks.
- Supplier information does not reach the person serving the customer.
- Shared fryers, utensils, boards, display areas or marinades create cross-contact.
- “May contain” is treated as a substitute for proper allergen management.
For food that does not require a label, including food supplied by cafés and takeaways, required declarations must be displayed with the food or provided to the purchaser on request using the required names.
FOR CONSUMERS Tell staff about your allergy every time. Ask them to check ingredients and cross-contact risks. If they cannot provide reliable information, do not assume the food is safe. |
FOR SEAFOOD BUSINESSES Know what is in every product, keep current supplier information, control cross-contact, train staff and ensure the correct information—and the correct meal—reaches the correct customer. |
A shared responsibility
Good regulation is essential, but regulation alone cannot protect consumers. Safety depends upon knowledgeable suppliers, trained staff, accurate communication and consumers feeling confident enough to ask questions.
The first step is simple: know the three—fish, crustaceans and molluscs.
FSANZ allergen labelling for food businesses
Free All about Allergens food-service training
Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australia
SCA provides general consumer information and advocacy. It does not provide individual medical or legal advice.
TRANSPARENCY IN PRACTICE: ORIGIN IS THE START
A menu photographed at a Tasmanian restaurant provides a useful real-world example of Australia’s new seafood country-of-origin requirements. The venue is not being identified because the purpose is education—not criticism.
A Tasmanian restaurant menu identifies Australian scallops and imported Flathead, squid and a seafood basket. The venue is correctly giving consumers the information required by the AIM country-of-origin system.
The restaurant is doing the right thing
“Crumbed Tassie Scallops” carries an (A) for Australian, while Beer Battered Flathead, Salt and Pepper Squid and the Seafood Basket carry an (I) for imported. This is exactly the kind of visible information the new hospitality requirements were designed to provide.
From 1 July 2026, covered hospitality businesses must tell customers whether seafood is Australian (A), imported (I) or of mixed origin (M). The Tasmanian example shows that the system can be incorporated simply into an everyday menu.
But origin does not answer the species question
The menu also exposes the next transparency gap. “Imported Flathead” tells the consumer where the product was not harvested, but it does not provide the complete accepted fish name. For Percophis brasiliensis, the current Australian Fish Names Standard name is South American Flathead. Shortening that name to “Flathead” removes the very words that distinguish the imported product from Australia’s true flathead species.
The venue should therefore be commended for its country-of-origin disclosure while being encouraged—and properly supported by suppliers—to use the complete name South American Flathead.
SCA’S POSITION Consumers should be told both where seafood comes from and what it is. AIM country-of-origin information and accurate Australian Fish Names are complementary—not competing—forms of transparency. |
Australian Government guidance on AIM seafood labelling
WHEN ORIGIN, SPECIES AND PROVENANCE WORK TOGETHER
Ocean and Paddock demonstrates the full opportunity
The Tasmanian menu shows welcome progress on country of origin. Albany’s Ocean and Paddock demonstrate what becomes possible when origin disclosure is combined with accurate species information, close supplier relationships and a strong story about provenance.
Ocean and Paddock was named Australia’s Best Takeaway Fish and Chips at the 2026 National Seafood Industry Awards. Its recognition matters to consumers because the business makes transparency part of the experience rather than treating it as a compliance burden.
The lesson from both examples is constructive. The AIM system gives hospitality businesses a practical starting point. The strongest operators can build on it by naming species accurately, knowing their suppliers and explaining provenance clearly. Transparency should become a competitive advantage for honest seafood businesses.
THE STANDARD TO AIM FOR Origin tells us where. The accepted fish name tells us what. Provenance tells us the story. Consumers deserve all three. |
Read SCA’s Ocean and Paddock story
CORRECTION: VICTORIA’S NEW AUTHORITY HAS PASSED
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT An earlier SCA blog reported that the proposed Outdoor Recreation Victoria legislation had been shelved. Subsequent parliamentary developments confirm that this is not correct. SCA corrects the record here. |
What the official record shows
- The Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026 was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 1 April 2026.
- The Legislative Assembly passed the Bill on 4 June 2026.
- The Legislative Council passed an amended Bill on 19 June 2026.
- The amendments included changing the proposed body’s name to Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Victoria.
- On 13 August 2026, the Legislative Assembly agreed to the Council amendments.
- The Victorian legislation website now records the Bill’s status as “Passed both Houses”.
Accordingly, this is not a shelving of the proposal. It is a reshaped, renamed and amended governance model that has completed passage through both Houses. At the time of preparing this newsletter, the official page records passage through Parliament; SCA will continue monitoring assent, commencement and implementation arrangements.
The consumer question remains
The corrected parliamentary position does not resolve SCA’s underlying concern. Fisheries and aquaculture are not merely recreational activities. They produce food, support employment and regional communities, contribute to food security and manage resources owned collectively by Victorians.
Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Victoria will bring fisheries-related responsibilities into a structure also concerned with hunting, boating and outdoor participation. That makes balanced governance essential.
SCA will seek:
- A genuine seafood-consumer voice within the new governance and advisory arrangements.
- Recognition of commercial fishing and aquaculture as food-production sectors.
- Transparent board and advisory-panel appointments.
- Clear management of potential tensions between promotion and regulation.
- Public reporting on fisheries enforcement, seafood supply and consumer outcomes.
SCA’S MESSAGE The legislation may have passed, but the governance conversation is only beginning. Victoria’s seafood consumers must have a seat at the table. |
Official Victorian Parliament status and chronology
ACCC ACKNOWLEDGES SCA’S FISH-NAMING CONCERNS
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has acknowledged receipt of SCA’s correspondence concerning truth in food labelling and the continuing voluntary status of the Australian Fish Names Standard, AS 5300.
SCA’s letter asked the ACCC to consider AS 5300 as an objective benchmark under Australian Consumer Law, support targeted market surveillance, publish findings and help establish a national pathway toward consistent fish naming.
The acknowledgement is welcomed, but it should not be mistaken for a substantive decision or endorsement. SCA will await the ACCC’s detailed response and continue advocating for the principle of one fish, one accepted name.
The Tasmanian menu in this edition demonstrates precisely why the issue matters. The new country-of-origin rules can tell consumers that a seafood item is imported, but Australia still needs consistent naming to ensure consumers are also told what species is being sold.
HELP SCA BUILD THE EVIDENCE
Have you seen a restaurant, café, pub, club or takeaway using the new AIM labels particularly well? Have you found seafood origin information missing, an incomplete fish name, excessive ice or water, or staff unable to provide allergen information?
Send SCA a photograph, the location, date and a short explanation. Constructive examples allow us to recognise good businesses, identify education needs and raise systemic problems responsibly. Please forward your evidence and comments to email seafoodsdg@outlook.com with Subject: EVIDENCE thanks.
Twenty-six million voices. One seafood future.
Comments
No comments yet.