Tuna is the third most consumed seafood in the United States. It’s eaten fresh, frozen, or in shelf-stable condition. It can be enjoyed on a budget or served in the most expensive fine dining restaurants. But how sustainable is tuna in 2025?
Like most seafood questions, tuna sustainability is full of nuance. The answer depends on which of the five species of tuna you’re eating, how it was caught, and where it came from.
This post gives an overview of tuna consumption and sustainability to help you make informed choices for your next trip down the canned tuna aisle or the next reservation at your favorite sushi restaurant.
TL;DR What to know about tuna sustainability in 2025:
- Look for MSC-certified tuna or tuna caught in the U.S.A.
- Avoid tuna with no sourcing or fishing method information on the package.
- Skipjack and albacore are generally the most sustainable choices, but there are plenty of sustainable yellowfin and bigeye fisheries. Some bluefin fisheries are recovering and finding sustainable bluefin tuna is possible.
- Tuna has a lower carbon footprint than land-based animal protein, but not all tuna is equal.
Skip ahead to the following sections:
What is sustainable tuna?
As you’ll come to learn by reading this post, tuna sustainability is a complex and controversial topic. For this post and our consumer recommendations we define sustainable tuna as coming from sources that are:
- Rated “Best Choice” or “Good Alternative” on the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program.
- Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified
- Fair Trade USA certified
- Caught in an active Fishery Improvement Project (FIP)
The pillars of these benchmarks are: the abundance of the stock, the impact of the harvest method on other species and the surrounding habitat, and the management effectiveness of the fishery in question. But some important considerations for tuna fisheries are lacking. For example, rebuilding tuna stocks that are still classified as overfished, but are making measurable steps towards sustainable improvement, are sometimes overlooked. These standards also lack carbon footprint considerations and struggle to encompass social responsibility best practices. Despite blind spots, these benchmarks are the best tools for consumers seeking sustainable tuna offerings at the store or in a restaurant in the U.S.
The assessment methodologies and conclusions for each standard are transparent and publicly available. They encapsulate most of the fisheries relevant to North American markets, allowing for a representative review of the products relevant to most of our readers. Perhaps most importantly, these standards are used by the largest retail stores and most major foodservice operators to create sustainability and responsible sourcing programs.
In this post, we will add caveats and context around this basic sustainability blueprint to give you enough information to make your own informed decision.
In practical terms, a sustainable choice means the tuna you buy was caught from a healthy population, with minimal harm to ocean life, with accountability to regional fishing agreements, and by fishers who were paid and treated fairly.
How to buy sustainable tuna at a grocery store or restaurant
The first consideration when purchasing tuna is the product form:
Canned and Shelf-Stable Tuna
Shelf-stable tuna products (in cans or pouches) include labels with key pieces of information to make an informed decision:
- Canned Species – if it’s skipjack or albacore (most common for canned tuna), there is a higher likelihood of sustainability. If the species is yellowfin, bigeye, or bluefin, there is a lower likelihood of sustainability. These are generalizations because any canned tuna product can be sustainable or unsustainable regardless of species. When in doubt, choose skipjack or albacore to increase your sustainability odds.
- Fishing Method – if the product is pole-and-line caught, it will indicate on the label. This fishing method is more expensive than net or longline fishing, and the producer will want to put it on the packaging to justify the higher price. Pole-and-line fishing is typically considered more environmentally sustainable than other methods, as it produces less bycatch. However, it also has a higher carbon footprint. Regardless of fishing method, tuna is still a more climate-friendly than most land-based animal proteins.
- MSC Certification – if the product is MSC-certified, you will see the blue checkmark logo displayed on the label. This sustainability certification is expensive, and the producer will not hide the accomplishment. Under the logo will be a chain of custody code “MSC-C-*****”. You can look up the code on the MSC directory if you want to verify its active certification status.
In our general guide to buying sustainable seafood at the grocery store, we recommend to first look at country of origin to determine sustainability. However, canned tuna is one of the few seafood products where the country of origin is not particularly helpful for determining environmental sustainability. Since tuna is often caught on the high seas, the fishery management laws of the production country won’t impact the harvest event. You can research the country of origin’s participation in Regional Fishery Management Organizations (more on these later), but even then, the fishing vessel might be flagged to a different country, making that search irrelevant.
However, the country of origin can be used to assess human rights risks. The country’s human rights record and labor practices can be reviewed online. The parent company itself is also a relevant consideration. For example, the mainstream canned tuna brand, Chicken of the Sea, is owned by Thai Union, which has a labor practices code of conduct, specific policies to combat slavery at sea, and other recent measures toward a more transparent supply chain. You’ll also notice that Thai Union was implicated in labor abuse reports ten years ago, so research carefully with date filters to get the most current information.
Fresh and Frozen (non-canned) Tuna Products
Raw tuna, whether at a sushi bar, poke shop, or grocery store kiosk, is increasingly popular amongst American consumers and accounts for most of the non-canned tuna consumption. Yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna are the most common species for raw preparations. Most offerings will be ready-to-eat products at a retail store, and dishes prepared at a restaurant. This means that you probably won’t have a detailed label to read with the fishing method or sourcing information.
The first question for your server or fishmonger is: fresh or frozen? If the raw tuna was never frozen, it must be extremely fresh and relatively local because tuna meat oxidizes and turns brown quickly after exposure to oxygen. Local tuna means it was likely caught in the U.S., under U.S. fishing regulations which are arguably the most environmentally sustainable and socially responsible in the world. Fresh sushi tuna in the U.S. means you’re likely eating a sustainable product. You’ll most often see these fresh tuna offerings in Hawaii, California, Florida, and a few Atlantic states during the summer. If you are not in a coastal state and your fishmonger says the tuna is fresh, they might be lying. Some boutique markets fly or truck in fresh tuna to inland states. But such situations are rare and very expensive.
Most likely, raw tuna will originally be frozen. Tuna’s deep red color is caused by dense hemoglobin that will turn brown if exposed to air at most temperatures. One solution is freezing the meat at extremely low temperatures (-76° F) primarily for food safety parasite prevention measures. But in the U.S., super freezers are rare and expensive. The more cost-effective method is treating the tuna with carbon monoxide (CO) before freezing at normal commercial freezer temperatures (-10° F to -40° F). The CO treatment inhibits oxidation and yields a pink watermelon color, a bit lighter and more artificial-looking than raw, fresh tuna meat. This practice is banned for all tuna consumed in Japan because it can disguise the age, quality, and origin of the fish. But unlike in Japan, super freezer technology is expensive and rare in the U.S., meaning CO-treatment is the norm for most frozen seafood suppliers.
There is nothing dangerous or toxic about CO-treated tuna, but it certainly hides the age of the fish and allows cheaper, older products to appear fresh and bright on your plate. Cheaper tuna often means less sustainable and less socially responsible tuna, for all the reasons explained in this post.
If you are choosing a frozen tuna product, try to determine the fishing method and country of origin. Chances are your server or fishmonger won’t know, but if you can somehow get that information, you can look up the source on the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch directory to make an informed decision. Traceability is key to sustainability. Avoid tuna products that don’t come with any sourcing or harvesting information.
Price doesn’t guarantee sustainability, but it is a good indicator
Price is the best indicator of tuna quality and is often synonymous with tuna sustainability. However, there are some important exceptions to this rule.
Consider a can of skipjack tuna made from fish caught on the high seas where at-sea transshipment was used and no MSC certification was attained. The producer saved money by reducing labor costs, possibly catching more fish than was allowed, and not paying for third-party audits required by the MSC. This product will be the cheapest can on the shelf. Somewhere nearby will be the pole-and-line caught, MSC-certified, dolphin-safe offering that is much more sustainable but at least twice the price.
But in some cases, the opposite may be true. Consider bluefin tuna o-toro (tuna belly) sushi at an omakase tasting menu in New York City. This product was carefully harvested from a pole and line fishery or maybe hand-selected from a boutique tuna ranch. Most likely, it was frozen with liquid nitrogen to perfectly preserve the color with ice crystals too small to create freezer burn and then flown first-class to the Fulton fish market in the Bronx. It was then trucked down to the sushi restaurant and carefully prepared for elite clientele. Is this product sustainable? It might come from a rebuilding bluefin tuna fishery under improved management, with legitimate grievance mechanisms for crew and workers. It may even be from one of the handful of yellow-rated or MSC-certified bluefin fisheries. But how do we reconcile the obscene carbon footprint on such products? Meanwhile, if you are enjoying a poke bowl in Honolulu made with local bigeye tuna for a fraction of the price, you’re enjoying one of the most environmentally sustainable non-canned tuna products in the world, and it didn’t require any jet fuel to get there. In this example, a high price does not buy sustainability.
Tuna sustainability challenges
Tuna stock health is generally improving
The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) publishes a report each year on the status of global tuna stocks. Their two primary indicators are abundance, which measures the number of individual fish in a geographic area, and exploitation rate (or fishing mortality rate), which measures the amount of fish harvested as part of commercial fishing activity.
In the 2024 report, the authors determined 65% of tuna stocks were at a healthy level of abundance, only 13% were overfished, and 22% were at an intermediate level. It also determined 87% of global tuna stocks are not experiencing overfishing, while only 9% are experiencing overfishing, and 4% are at an intermediate level. 88% of all tuna caught in 2024 came from healthy stocks in terms of abundance levels. That percentage is steadily climbing up from 85% in 2023 and 80% in 2022.
These data counter persistent narratives of rampant overfishing in global tuna fisheries. Significant sustainability challenges remain for some tuna fisheries, and this post will explain those in greater detail. However, ISSF reports are well-supported and tuna stock health is improving year over year for every species, even bluefin.
Fishing methods and bycatch
Tuna are commercially caught by a variety of fishing gear, all with varying degrees of bycatch: marine life unintentionally caught by commercial fishing activities.
Purse seine vessels account for most tuna landings (Figure 1). The ISSF reported 66% of all tuna landings were from purse seine gear in 2024. This method surrounds a school of fish with a large net and then draws the net inwards (like the strings of a purse) to efficiently capture a large quantity of fish in one set. The dolphin-safe certification was created specifically because in the past, tuna purse seines accidentally caught dolphins as “unintended bycatch”. But these days, many purse seine fleets have significantly reduced bycatch and receive high sustainability grades or MSC-certification.
However, other purse seines that use fish-aggregating devices (FADs), also called “associated” purse seines, are broadly criticized for significant bycatch. FADs deploy a man-made floating object in the water to attract fish, making net sets more efficient. But these devices also attract other marine creatures and increase the risk of unintended bycatch. These floating objects are often made of non-biodegradable materials, and if lost, they contribute to ocean pollution.
The most consistently red-rated fishing method for tuna (aside from FADs) is longline fishing, which accounts for 9% of global tuna landings. This method drops a floating string of fishing hooks in the water and leaves them to “soak” for a certain amount of hours. Afterward, they collect the gear and whatever creature has bitten the line during the soaking time. This method is more efficient than pole and line, but bycatch is much more likely. Hooked creatures can be struck for hours before gear retrieval, leading to a slow death. Even sea birds are threatened by longlines. They can see the hooked bait under the surface, dive down to grab it, and then become hooked themselves and left to drown.
Luckily, longliners can reduce bycatch through a variety of methods. Setting fishing lines at night, deeper in the water, or with streamers attached to “tori lines” above the baited hooks can all reduce seabird bycatch. Using circle hooks designed to dislodge from the mouths of sea turtles but stay in the mouths of target finfish species, is extremely effective. The Hawaiian longline fleet uses these techniques and is rewarded with higher sustainability ratings. But they are still the exception, and enforcement remains the primary concern.
Pole and line fishing (including all hand-operated fishing lines and trolling lines) is the most consistently green-rated tuna fishing method, accounting for 7% of global tuna catch. These methods eliminate virtually all bycatch concerns because if the wrong creature is hooked it can be removed before the hook becomes fatal. It’s also unlikely that these gear types will interact with the seafloor and accidentally damage marine habitat.
Other fishing gear like gillnets or trawls have their own bycatch challenges, but account for only a small percentage of global tuna landings.
Carbon footprint
Greenhouse gas emissions are an important consideration when discussing seafood sustainability because they can sometimes counter the conclusions made from only analyzing traditional seafood sustainability metrics like bycatch and abundance. For example, a tuna fishery using FADs reduces its fuel consumption by precisely attracting target species to a convenient location and catching many fish in one set. Pole and line fishing, on the other hand, requires fuel to find the stock, more fuel to hold the vessel in place or troll at a precise speed to catch the fish, and then even more fuel to return to port, all with a relatively small fish yield compared to its purse seine counterpart.
By these measurements, the FAD purse seine fishery is far more fuel efficient than the pole and line fishery. However, contemporary environmental sustainability ratings systems like the Seafood Watch program do not consider greenhouse gas emissions in conclusions – not yet at least. They are working on it, but today the FAD tuna fishery would be “Avoid” rated, and the pole and line tuna fishery would be “Best Choice” rated, without carbon considerations in those determinations.
We’ve reported on greenhouse gas emission considerations in fisheries in the past, but we still lack a definitive benchmark that mainstream seafood sustainability certifications and ratings systems can rely on to inform consumers. Generally, however, tuna is a lower-carbon source of protein than most terrestrial meat.
Transparency, transshipment, and enforcement challenges
Tuna are highly migratory, meaning they travel long distances and cross international borders. This requires tuna fishing fleets to operate far from shore, often beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) boundary. In these international waters, jurisdiction is less binding and monitoring is limited. Fishing quotas and bycatch limitations can be ignored when a vessel is fishing many miles from shore without an onboard monitoring system (onboard observer or electronic system).
Perhaps more concerning is the human risks of such isolation. A crew member needing assistance has limited options in the middle of the ocean. Even if a satellite phone is available, aid could be days away. Practices like at-sea transshipment – when a refueling vessel meets the fishing vessel out at sea to unload catch and refill supplies, allowing the fishing vessel to continue operating without docking at port – can further jeopardize fishing regulations and worker safety. Some large tuna buyers have banned at-sea transshipment from tuna supply chains (Albertsons Companies is one notable example), but at-sea transshipment is still very common, especially in canned tuna supply chains.
Assuming these oversight problems can be solved, how is fishing quota determined on the high seas where no single state has jurisdiction? Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) are charged with answering that question. These international bodies are composed of relevant national stakeholders that fish in those waters. RFMOs are sometimes bound by international agreements and treaties, but like any international body, they can struggle to reach a consensus and make binding regulations. Each RFMO operates a bit differently, but generally, they have scientific committees that conduct stock assessments and other research on fishery resources in the region and then recommend fishing quotas and other policies to the representative countries. Some manage more successfully (Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission) than others (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission). Virtually all major RFMOs revolve around tuna fishery management because of its commercial significance.
Sustainability by Species
The five major commercial tuna species cannot be lumped together in one sustainability summary. Each species has different physical characteristics, life cycles, and culinary applications that dictate its place in the market and susceptibility to fishing pressures.
Skipjack is the most targeted and most abundant commercial tuna species by far. (Figure 2). However, skipjack is also the most sustainable of the five major commercial tuna species. (Figure 3). The key is skipjack tuna’s unique reproduction cycle, which occurs early and often. Skipjack matures at 1 year old, spawning throughout the year in tropical waters. Females can produce up to 2 million eggs per year. (NOAA 2025). Skipjack can also spawn as often as once per day during a spawning season, and once fertilized, eggs hatch in about 24 hours. These characteristics help skipjack stocks withstand tremendous fishing pressure, even when total allowable catch quotas are exceeded. Albacore is targeted less often but shares many of these same resilient characteristics.
The larger species, yellowfin, bigeye, and especially bluefin, are a different story. Yellowfin tuna reproduces between 2 and 3 years old, bigeye around 3.5 years old, and bluefin at 8 years old. (NOAA 2025). Yellowfin is the most productive of the larger species, spawning almost daily during most of the year in tropical seas. But bluefin only spawns 2 or more times per year. This makes them especially susceptible to overfishing.
Bluefin is also sometimes specifically targeted during the spawning season. The best example is the East Atlantic bluefin stock which breeds in the Mediterranean Sea. This breeding cycle has historically been met by eager fishing fleets happy to target bluefin in relatively nearby Mediterranean waters on a predictable schedule. Because of bluefin’s limited reproductive cycle, this fishing practice has a lasting impact on the sustainability of the stock.
It should also be noted that bluefin tuna are far more valuable than the other tuna species. This is due to their unique culinary characteristics that make them perfect for high-end sushi preparations. This higher value will always incentivize illegal fishing. However, recent studies and new ratings from environmental sustainability organizations show an encouraging recovery of bluefin tuna stocks in the Pacific and Atlantic. There are many reasons for cautious optimism about global bluefin tuna fisheries.
How much tuna is caught each year and where does it come from?
Over 5 million metric tons of the five primary tuna species (albacore, bigeye, bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin) are caught each year. (Figure 3). Skipjack ranks first, accounting for 57% of all landings. (Figure 3). Skipjack and Albacore, the two tuna species most often canned or sold in shelf-stable condition, account for about 62% of all tuna production. Yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin, the tuna species most popular in the sushi industry, account for about 38% of total production. Skipjack and yellowfin landings have increased considerably since 1990, but landings for the other three species have stayed relatively stable. (Figure 2).
Indonesia is the top tuna producer in the world, accounting for about 15% of total tuna production. (Figure 4). Twelve countries follow closely, each responsible for between 6.3% and 2.5% of global production. Of these top thirteen countries, ten of them border the Pacific Ocean. The U.S. produces about 115,000 mt of tuna annually, only about 2% of global production. (Figure 5). Surprisingly, China – the world’s top seafood producer, in wild and farmed production – produces even less tuna than the U.S., only about 91,000 metric tons annually.
Farmed tuna production doesn’t exist, but ranched tuna is sometimes mistakenly referred to as farmed tuna in the market. The important distinction is that ranched tuna is originally wild caught, then carefully contained and fed in open net pens until ready for harvest. Bluefin tuna is the most common ranched species, due to its high value that justifies this expensive process. This tuna ranching industry produces less than 6,000 metric tons annually. Experimental research for truly farm-raised tuna is ongoing, but not yet commercially relevant.
56% of global tuna production in 2024 was sustainable. That percentage is slightly lower than 2023 (60%) and 2022 (58%), but an overall improvement since 2020 (48%). (Certifications and Ratings Collaboration 2024).
Nearly 60% of global production of yellowfin and skipjack was classified as sustainable in 2024. Bigeye and Albacore followed with just over 1/3 of production as sustainable. (Figure 3). Only a tiny percentage (129 metric tons) of bluefin landings were classified as sustainable in 2024.
U.S. Tuna Consumption
According to the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), Americans eat about 2.2lbs of canned tuna per capita annually. But this total does not include raw or other non-canned tuna consumption. Reliable data on non-canned tuna consumption in the U.S. remains absent, but we reviewed NOAA’s tuna import data to make an informed estimate.
In 2023, the U.S. imported about 500,000lbs of tuna, measured in round weight. 59% were classified as “for canning”, with 41% classified as other product categories.
We also reviewed processed tuna imports from 2024. Products with “whole,” “fresh,” or “frozen” in the description were grouped as “Non-Canned” in the chart above. These accounted for 23% of tuna imports. Such imports probably aren’t meant for the canning industry. Canned tuna production is expensive in the U.S. and the industry has long since moved overseas. Imports already in shelf-stable form with descriptions like “oil-packed” or “pouch” were grouped as “Canned.” These accounted for 77% of U.S. tuna imports in 2024.
The true non-canned tuna consumption rate lies between these two percentages, 41% and 23%. If we assume the average (32%) and reference the 2.2lbs of canned tuna consumed per capita annually, then Americans consume about 1lb of non-canned tuna per capita annually. This elevates the tuna category to the same annual consumption level as salmon.
Conclusion
Tuna is an important part of global diets both at home and abroad. Shelf-stable tuna is one of the healthiest products in the grocery store, making it especially important for developing countries with reduced access to refrigeration. Consumer information about raw or non-canned tuna is lacking from U.S. consumption measurements, but it should be added as an important additional consideration to understand this seafood species category more accurately.
Seafood sustainability is a moving target, perhaps more so with tuna than any other species group. The inherent risks are unique in these fisheries, and the environmental and human costs can be severe. But in 2025, there are more success than failures in tuna fishery management.
Jack Cheney
Jack has sourced, sold, cooked, and sustainably certified seafood over the past 15 years. In addition to his contributions to Sustainable Fisheries UW, he is working to increase traceability into supply chains and educate consumers, chefs and retailers on the value of environmentally sustainable seafood. He earned a Master's in Marine Affairs from the University of Washington in 2015.
