Under American federal regulation, prisoners are considered a vulnerable population because of their diminished autonomy, and their ability to make informed and voluntary decisions is considered compromised. There are ongoing discussions around the possibility of prisoners giving informed or free consent; the majority of these conversations revolve around the ethics of biomedical research on prisoners. The two requirements under American law to establish informed consent are “information and voluntariness.” Voluntariness demands that the person consenting must be able to exercise free power of choice without any element of force or coercion. As prisoners are involuntarily confined, it can be challenging to verify free consent.

Recently, attention has been drawn to seafood raised and processed by prison laborers. While most uses of prison labor are not illegal, UN guidelines regarding the use of prison labor are not always followed and can be difficult to monitor, which may cause abusive or exploitative situations. The following case studies illustrate the complicated nature of using prison labor in seafood. 

In the United States, the Colorado Correctional Institute (CCI) has a large and varied prison work program. Prison laborers do jobs that range from sewing garments to rearing livestock. CCI also has an aquaculture program that uses prison labor to farm tilapia, trout, and other seafood. U.S. farm-raised tilapia and trout are generally regarded as sustainably produced environmentally. However, companies should consider that environmental sustainability and social responsibility are measured separately. An environmentally sustainable product may not meet measures of social responsibility, and vice versa. 

For example, in 2015, several food products from CCI, including tilapia, were found in the supply chain of Whole Foods. The tilapia labeling and packaging did not reveal that the fish had been farmed by incarcerated laborers, indicating a larger transparency issue. In fact, most products exported from prisons are not labeled for consumers with their points of origin. In the case of CCI, the prison partners with companies who buy its fish and then process, prepare, and repackage the product under the companies’ own brands. While the fish may be labeled as originating from a prison when it leaves CCI, the point of origin information is no longer accessible by the time it reaches the retailer. When the connection to CCI became public, consumers demanded that Whole Foods pull those products from the shelves and halt the practice of sourcing food produced with prison labor. Whole Foods promised to do so. 

Seattle Fish Co., a sustainable distributor, also sources its rainbow trout from CCI. It practices transparency in its supply chains and openly shares that this fish is raised using prison labor. The brand believes that, by sourcing from the prison, it is supporting a positive rehabilitation program, since prison work may contribute to lower rates of recidivism. With complete transparency, the company then leaves it to their customers to decide whether or not to purchase the product and support prison labor programs.

An Associated Press investigation published in January 2024 revealed that U.S. prison labor is integral to the global food supply chain, with major companies like McDonald’s, Walmart, and Cargill sourcing agricultural products—such as soy, corn, and wheat—from prison farms in states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and Ohio. These raw materials are used in aquafeed production and are often exported, including to China.

Prison labor programs, prevalent in Southern states, often involve unpaid or minimally compensated work. Inmates typically lack access to federal safety standards and cannot file complaints about working conditions. Refusal to work may result in punitive measures, including solitary confinement..

In Thailand, proposed 2024 amendments to the Fisheries Act have raised concerns about a return to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and labor abuses. The changes aim to reduce legal burdens on commercial fishers, but critics fear they will weaken worker protections, relax penalties for violations, and increase IUU fishing. This could harm Thailand’s reputation and jeopardize seafood export markets, especially with the EU and U.S. The proposed reforms have sparked debate, with calls to ensure the protection of human rights and sustainable fishing practices.

Thailand’s Department of Corrections and Industrial Estate Authority proposed a policy, in February 2021, to invest in vocational training for inmates. The program would hire prisoners for labor-intensive jobs, including seafood processing, with the intent of helping them secure similar jobs once released. The Thai government believes that successful prisoner training could reduce reliance on migrant workers. However, a 2015 plan to recruit prisoners to work on fishing vessels raised significant concerns. With Thailand’s fishing fleet already prone to exploitation, the idea of using prisoners, who would have even less agency and fewer protections, posed a great risk for forced labor and other abuses. The Thai government rescinded that plan after the International Labor Rights Forum and other civil society organizations (including FishWise) condemned the project.

Thailand’s Corrections Department issued a directive prohibiting prisons from entering new contracts to produce fishing nets for private companies in June 2022. This decision followed a Thomson Reuters Foundation investigation revealing that some inmates were compelled to manufacture nets under duress, facing threats of physical punishment or delayed release if they failed to meet production targets. The Khon Kaen Fishing Net company, Thailand’s largest net producer, and the Corrections Department denied allegations of forced labor. However, former prisoners reported being paid only a fraction of the minimum wage, with some receiving no compensation at all. In response, the Corrections Department announced pay increases of up to 30% for certain prison labor tasks, including net production.

These developments highlight the ongoing tension between efforts to address labor shortages and the need for stronger protections for workers, particularly in the high-risk fishing sector. Critics argue that both the proposed legal changes to the fishing industry and the use of prison labor for seafood processing could exacerbate human rights violations and undermine Thailand’s international standing on labor and environmental issues.

Sourcing goods from prison work programs creates reputational risk for a company. Prison labor is not often supported by consumers and can be controversial. When it was revealed that Whole Foods was sourcing goods from CCI, for example, there were calls to boycott the store and demands to stop selling all goods made with prison labor.

Prison labor also poses legal risk for businesses. Federal trade bans may be enacted against countries or regions known to use forced labor. Trade holds, such as Withhold Release Orders (WRO), may also be issued against specific companies or regions known to use forced labor and exploitative practices in prisons. If you are not aware of the country and company of origin of a product, you run the risk of violating federal trade laws. While you may not be buying directly from companies on the WRO list, your suppliers may still be sourcing from those companies or regions.

Map your supply chains and prioritize transparency in order to assure consumers, governments, and other stakeholders that your products are free from exploitation.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding informed or free consent and voluntary prison work, it is difficult to guarantee that businesses that engage with prison labor have supply chains free of exploitation. Meeting all the safeguards outlined by the ILO, including those listed below, requires thorough investigation, financial resources, and capacity.

The ILO gives five recommendations:

1. Businesses should verify whether suppliers use any form of prison labor, and, if so, that prison laborers are freely consenting without coercion or threat of penalty.
2. Businesses should observe the conditions of prison work programs to guarantee that prison laborers:
   • Are working under the same conditions as a free labor arrangement.
   • Have access to similar wages and the same occupational health and safety standards as a free laborer doing the same work.
3. Businesses should establish methods for engaging directly with prison laborers to verify that they are working freely and voluntarily. (Note: The privacy and anonymity of prisoners volunteering information should remain confidential in all such activities.)
4. Businesses should assess the occupational health and safety of prison work programs by conducting active inspections.
5. Businesses should speak directly with suppliers to review prison labor contracts, practice, and policy and:
   • Ensure that prisoners do not suffer loss of privileges if employers have reduced work.
   • Review wage records to ensure wages are comparable to those of free laborers.