ONE FISH, TWO IDENTITIES

Why “New Zealand King Salmon” should be identified as Chinook Salmon

The photograph tells a bigger story

A photograph taken at a Victorian seafood retailer shows attractive salmon portions displayed on ice. The handwritten ticket reads “Akaroa N.Z. King Salmon”, gives a price of $68 per kilogram and carries a Product of New Zealand statement.

The retailer has disclosed the country of origin. What is missing is the Australian Standard Fish Name—Chinook Salmon—and an explanation that this commercial New Zealand product is farmed aquaculture.

A Victorian retail display identifies New Zealand origin but uses “King Salmon” rather than the AS 5300 Standard Fish Name, Chinook Salmon. The retailer is not identified because this is an upstream system issue, not an allegation against an individual business.

King Salmon and Chinook Salmon are the same fish

There is no biological distinction between King Salmon and Chinook Salmon. Both names refer to Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, a Pacific salmon species native to the North Pacific. “King salmon” is a familiar common and commercial name, particularly in New Zealand and North America.

For seafood traded in Australia, however, the Australian Fish Names Standard AS 5300 assigns the species one Standard Fish Name: Chinook Salmon. The CSIRO Codes for Australian Aquatic Biota record confirms Chinook Salmon as the AS 5300 name for Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.

It is also farmed seafood

New Zealand has introduced wild-running Chinook Salmon populations, but the commercial product exported to Australia under New Zealand King Salmon branding is aquaculture product. New Zealand government guidance describes king—or Chinook—salmon as one of the country’s principal farmed marine species. Industry information similarly describes New Zealand-farmed King Salmon production across marine and freshwater farming regions.

Aquaculture is not a negative attribute. It supplies high-quality seafood, supports regional employment and reduces reliance on finite wild harvest. But consumers should not have to infer how a premium product was produced. “Farmed” is useful, material information and should be presented positively and clearly.

The retailer may be repeating what arrives upstream

It would be unfair to assume that an individual fishmonger invented the description. Retail tickets are commonly based on carton markings, supplier invoices, product specifications and promotional material. If an importer invoices the product as “New Zealand King Salmon”, the same wording is likely to move through the wholesaler and appear at the retail counter or on a restaurant menu.

That is why responsibility should not stop with the final retailer. Farms, processors, exporters, Australian importers, distributors and wholesalers all shape the product identity before the consumer sees it.

The upstream supply chain should provide Australian customers with documentation that uses the applicable Standard Fish Name and clearly identifies the production method. Retailers can then reproduce accurate information without having to research or reinterpret the species themselves.

Branding can remain—but it should not replace identity

SCA is not proposing that New Zealand producers abandon the valuable “King salmon” marketing story. Commercial descriptors and brands can coexist with the Standard Fish Name. The solution is simple:

• New Zealand Farmed Chinook Salmon—marketed as King Salmon
• New Zealand King (Chinook) Salmon—farmed
• Akaroa Farmed Chinook Salmon—King Salmon

Each description preserves the recognised commercial language while giving Australian consumers the standard species identity, origin and production method.

Use the Standard—or use the process to change it

AS 5300 is currently voluntary for most domestic Australian sales, although it is mandatory in specified export documentation. FRDC nevertheless describes it as the Australian industry best-practice guide for the entire supply chain, including imported seafood, retailers and restaurants. Its purpose is to reduce confusion and misleading descriptions by assigning one Standard Fish Name to a species or species group.

If New Zealand producers and Australian importers believe that “King Salmon” should become the Australian Standard Fish Name, there is an established process. They may lodge an application with the Fish Names Committee, provide supporting evidence and participate in the Standard’s consultation and decision-making process.

What should not continue indefinitely is a parallel naming system in which the formal Australian name sits in a database while a different commercial identity dominates invoices, cartons, counters and menus. Either follow the Standard or make the case to change it through the recognised process.

Why this matters beyond salmon

This is not an isolated naming curiosity. A Tasmanian restaurant recently photographed by an SCA supporter correctly marked a fish dish as imported under the new AIM country-of-origin system but shortened “South American Flathead” to “Flathead”. In Victoria, the Salmon display says New Zealand but shortens “Chinook Salmon” to “King Salmon”.

In both cases, part of the truth is visible while another useful part disappears:

• Country of origin tells consumers where the seafood came from.
• The Standard Fish Name tells consumers what the seafood is.
• Production-method disclosure tells consumers how it was produced.
• Supplier provenance helps consumers understand the product’s complete story.

These disclosures should reinforce one another. Country of origin is not a substitute for species identity, and a premium marketing name is not a substitute for production information.

What SCA is asking for

The Seafood Consumers Association calls on New Zealand salmon farms and processors, Australian importers, wholesalers and retailers to work together on consistent Australian-market descriptions.

• Use Chinook Salmon prominently in invoices, carton markings, specifications, online listings, counter tickets and menus.
• Retain “King salmon” as secondary branding in brackets.
• Clearly disclose New Zealand origin and farmed production.
• Ensure information travels intact through every supply-chain transfer.

If industry or consumers prefers “King Salmon” adopted as the Standard Fish Name, submit a transparent application to the Fish Names Committee.

A constructive opportunity

This is not an argument against New Zealand salmon or aquaculture. It is an opportunity for a premium product to lead on transparency. New Zealand producers already explain on their own websites that King Salmon is also known as Chinook Salmon. Carrying that same clarity through Australian invoices and retail displays should be straightforward.

The consumer should not need a scientific database to discover that King Salmon and Chinook Salmon are the same species. Nor should an independent retailer be left to correct an upstream naming system at the final point of sale.

One fish. One accepted name. Clear origin. Clear production method. That is how seafood trust is built.

Sources and further information

CSIRO CAAB—Chinook Salmon species and AS 5300 record

FRDC—Australian Fish Names Standard and name-change process

New Zealand MPI—marine farming species

Akaroa Salmon—King Salmon is also known as Chinook Salmon

This article provides general consumer information and policy commentary. It does not allege that the retailer has breached the law. AS 5300 remains voluntary for most domestic Australian seafood sales.

---

Do you like this blog?

Yes