Is krill oil sustainable? Inside the industry’s controversies

When you buy a krill oil supplement with a blue “sustainable” tick on the label, you might reasonably assume that independent experts have verified that it causes no harm. That assumption is now being challenged — publicly, formally, and by some of the most credible conservation organisations in the world. From contested certification decisions to a fishing company co-designing its own marine protected area, the krill oil industry’s sustainability claims are under greater scrutiny than at any point in its history.

Here is what the labels don’t tell you.

The blue tick that won’t stay still: the MSC certification controversy

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) blue fish label is the most widely recognised sustainability mark in the seafood industry. Millions of consumers encounter it in pharmacies and supermarkets and use it as a shortcut for responsible purchasing. The krill oil industry has leaned heavily on this credential for over a decade: Aker BioMarine, the world’s largest krill harvesting company, first received MSC certification in 2010, and has used the label as a central plank of its sustainability marketing ever since.

In early 2026, the MSC re-certified the Antarctic krill fishery as sustainable. The decision was met with swift and formal opposition.

WWF — one of the organisations that helped found the MSC in the late 1990s — lodged a formal objection with the certification body in March 2026, calling for an immediate review. WWF’s objection argues that the Antarctic krill fishery is causing localised depletions of krill in the Antarctic Peninsula and Scotia Sea region, impacting species that depend on krill for survival, including humpback whales. WWF’s Polar Oceans Programme Manager stated that the mismanagement of the krill fishery was having major negative impacts on dependent species, and called for an immediate moratorium on krill fishing alongside a full review of the sustainability certification.

The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) filed a separate formal objection. ASOC has noted that since the 1970s, krill biomass in parts of the Southern Ocean has declined by an estimated 70 to 80 percent, and that krill is of great importance for carbon sequestration.

This is not the MSC’s first encounter with controversy. The certification scheme has faced sustained criticism for decades from environmental groups including Greenpeace and the Pew Environment Group. The MSC received criticism from Greenpeace and the Pew Environment Group over its original certification of Antarctic krill, with critics arguing that scientific data on the fishery’s impact was lacking and that the council’s decision was based on guesswork. The problems are systemic: a 2025 Greenpeace Austria assessment found that the MSC ecolabel was among the certification schemes rated as not trustworthy, concluding that the MSC does not apply the precautionary principle essential for protecting marine life and instead gives the destructive fishing industry a greenwashed image. A separate investigation found that one in five vessels on which crew members reported labour violations to the International Transport Workers’ Federation over a five-year period were MSC-certified.

A structural tension sits at the heart of the scheme. Fisheries that want certification and to use the MSC ecolabel pay between US$20,000 and more than $100,000 to an independent contractor that assesses the fishery against the MSC standard, plus $75,000 per annual audit. Critics have long argued that an industry that funds its own assessment faces an inherent conflict of interest. The krill fishery’s recertification in 2026, in the face of formal objections from two major conservation bodies and in the absence of agreement on the most basic spatial management measures, has brought these structural questions into sharp focus.

The fishing company designing its own marine protected area

In January 2026, the Sustainable Markets Initiative — a body founded by King Charles III — launched what it called the Ocean Stewardship Initiative. Its stated goal is to support the establishment of one of the world’s largest marine protected areas (MPAs) in Antarctica, covering 70 percent of the Antarctic Peninsula.

There is a significant detail embedded in the initiative’s formation that has drawn scrutiny from conservation campaigners.

The Ocean Stewardship Initiative was developed in collaboration with Aker BioMarine and Aker QRILL Company, with advice from the Marine Stewardship Council. In other words, the world’s largest krill harvesting company — responsible for catching 64 percent of all krill taken from the Southern Ocean — is a co-architect of the MPA proposal it is publicly supporting.

The MPA, as envisaged by the initiative, would be established alongside a modern science-based krill fishery management framework that would increase ecosystem monitoring and spread fishing effort across the area that remains open and regulated for fisheries. The remaining open area, according to the proposal, would be where krill fishing continues — under conditions partly shaped by the fishing industry itself.

The CEO of Aker BioMarine has been explicit about the company’s reasoning: he stated that for fishing companies, the real question is not whether marine protected areas will happen, but whether industry chooses to engage constructively and be part of the solution, or remain on the sidelines while the rules are shaped without its involvement.

Conservation campaigners have drawn a different conclusion. Designing the boundaries of a protected area is a task that ordinarily falls to independent scientists and governments — not to the commercial operators whose activity the protection is meant to constrain. A fishing company co-authoring an MPA that will determine where it can and cannot fish raises obvious questions about whose interests are being protected. The initiative has also recruited high-profile figures, including former US Secretary of State John Kerry, lending it a veneer of diplomatic credibility that campaigners argue obscures the industry’s central role in its design.

Revervia: the krill giant’s pivot to plant-based

In April 2025, Aker BioMarine — the company that has built its business on emptying Antarctica’s waters of krill — launched a new product: Revervia, a plant-based, algae-derived omega-3 supplement.

Revervia is an algae-derived omega-3 ingredient with an exceptionally high DHA concentration of up to 60 percent, marketed to vegetarian, vegan, and health-conscious consumers who demand sustainability. By September 2025, the company was distributing it across Europe, positioning it as a clean-label, vegan alternative to fish oil. The company’s own sustainability page frames Revervia as evidence of its commitment to diversifying how humanity meets its nutritional needs.

The question campaigners are asking is why now.

Aker BioMarine operated for over fifteen years before turning a profit on krill oil — a fact documented in the Changing Markets Foundation’s 2022 *Krill, Baby, Krill* report. The company’s move into algal omega-3s has coincided with a period of sustained and escalating reputational pressure: major retailers withdrawing from the krill category, formal certification objections from WWF and ASOC, a moratorium call from the world’s most prominent wildlife organisation, and documented footage of its supertrawlers operating inside proposed marine protected areas among feeding whale pods.

Algal oil, it should be noted, is exactly what krill themselves eat. The omega-3s in krill oil originate not in the krill but in the microalgae that krill consume. Producing omega-3 supplements directly from microalgae bypasses the ecological cost of harvesting at the bottom of the Antarctic food web entirely. That Aker BioMarine is now marketing this product while continuing to harvest hundreds of thousands of tonnes of krill from one of the most sensitive ecosystems on the planet is a contradiction that conservation groups argue speaks for itself.

The industry’s own analysts have been equally candid. A January 2025 report from Tharos, *How Krill Oil Reached Our Lives*, analysed the expansion of krill oil as a commercial and strategic phenomenon, noting that long-term scientific evidence for health claims is often lacking and that marketing has outpaced the science. The financial profile of the industry has also raised questions: Aker’s pivot toward algae, in markets where consumer awareness of Antarctic krill fishing is rising, suggests it is hedging against exactly the kind of regulatory and social licence erosion that campaigners have been working to accelerate.

The pattern

Taken together, these controversies describe a consistent approach: a contested sustainability label presented to consumers as independent validation; an industry-shaped marine protection initiative framed as conservation leadership; and a vegan product line quietly brought to market as the social licence for the core business wanes.

In each case, the marketing leads. The independent scrutiny follows. And the gap between the two is increasingly occupied by some of the most credible voices in global conservation — WWF, ASOC, the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, and a growing number of scientists who have called for a moratorium on Antarctic krill fishing altogether.

Aker BioMarine’s CEO has stated that the major problem facing the krill industry is a “perception issue,” and that it is “actually one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world.” The organisations filing formal objections to its certification, the retailers exiting the category, and the researchers documenting humpback whale pregnancy rates falling in areas of concentrated krill fishing have reached a different conclusion.

Consumers deserve to know that when they buy a krill oil supplement — however prominently a blue tick is displayed on the label — that label is currently being formally contested by the organisations that helped create it.

References

WWF Whales Initiative. “Mismanagement of Antarctic krill fishery putting whales at risk.” 6 March 2026. [wwfwhales.org](https://wwfwhales.org/news-stories/mismanagement-of-antarctic-krill-fishery-putting-whales-at-risk)

German Ocean Foundation. “Objection to MSC certification of krill fishing.” March 2026. [germanoceanfoundation.org](https://www.germanoceanfoundation.org/news/objection-to-msc-certification-of-krill-fishing)

Undercurrent News. “Antarctic NGOs challenge MSC’s re-certification of krill fishery.” 3 March 2026. [undercurrentnews.com](https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2026/03/03/antarctic-ngos-challenge-mscs-re-certification-of-krill-fishery/)

Marine Stewardship Council. “Sustainable Markets Initiative launches new effort to turn Ocean commitments into action.” January 2026. [msc.org](https://www.msc.org/media-centre/press-releases/press-release/sustainable-markets-initiative-launches-new-effort-to-turn-ocean-commitments-into-action)

Nutrition Insight. “Ocean Stewardship Initiative urges industry support for sustainable marine protection.” 21 January 2026. [nutritioninsight.com](https://www.nutritioninsight.com/news/sustainable-markets-initiative-ocean-stewardship-antarctica-mpa.html)

Aker BioMarine. “John Kerry joins the Ocean Stewardship Initiative as Champion.” 11 March 2026. [akerbiomarine.com](https://www.akerbiomarine.com/news/john-kerry-joins-the-ocean-stewardship-initiative-as-champion)

Nutraceutical Business Review. “Aker BioMarine launches high-potency DHA ingredient, Revervia.” April 2025. [nutraceuticalbusinessreview.com](https://www.nutraceuticalbusinessreview.com/aker-biomarine-revervia-launch-algae-dha-ingredient)

Nutrition Insight. “Next-gen algae-based omega-3 ingredient: Powering Europe’s future of nutrition.” September 2025. [nutraingredients.com](https://www.nutraingredients.com/News/Promotional-features/algae-based-omega-3-for-vegan-sustainable-supplementation/)

Wikipedia. “Marine Stewardship Council.” [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Stewardship_Council)

Greenpeace Aotearoa. “MSC’s deliberate deceit: report reveals staggering scale of fishing industry greenwash.” July 2024. [greenpeace.org](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/mscs-deliberate-deceit-report-reveals-staggering-scale-of-their-fishing-industry-greenwash/)

Palm Oil Detectives / Greenpeace Austria. “MSC and RSPO Absolutely Untrustworthy.” February 2025. [palmoildetectives.com](https://palmoildetectives.com/2025/02/09/greenpeace-report-slams-msc-and-rspo-as-absolutely-untrustworthy-for-seafood-and-palm-oil/)

The Cooldown. “Certification scheme may be skewing how safe your seafood is.” 2026. [thecooldown.com](https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/transparency-concerns-sustainability-certification-seafood-products/)

Yahoo News Australia. “Calls for ‘immediate’ rule change over controversial product at Aussie chemist.” 2 March 2026. [au.news.yahoo.com](https://au.news.yahoo.com/calls-for-immediate-rule-change-over-controversial-product-at-aussie-chemist-061532628.html)

Changing Markets Foundation. Krill, Baby, Krill. 2022. [changingmarkets.org](https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CM-WEB-REPORT-LAYOUT-KRILL-BABY-KRILL-FINAL.pdf)

Tharos. How Krill Oil Reached Our Lives. January 2025. [aquafeed.com](https://www.aquafeed.com/newsroom/reports/tharos-releases-report-tracing-krill-oils-shift-from-aquafeed-to-human-nutrition/)