Overseas
The alert linked to recent cases of Hepatitis A in Campania has already triggered a reaction that the seafood sector knows all too well: it has erased distinctions.
Dozens of infections, hospitalizations, and reports beyond the region. And in public discourse — across headlines, social media, and everyday conversations — one word has taken over: mussels.
Not “mussels from untraceable sources.”
Not “shellfish marketed outside official channels.”
Simply “mussels.”
The health risk is real and must be addressed with the utmost rigor.
Yet the narrative risks suggesting that mussel farming itself is inherently unsafe. As if every producer operating in areas such as the Campi Flegrei, Taranto, the Gulf of La Spezia, or Scardovari were, indiscriminately, part of the problem.
This must be stated clearly: what happened in the area between Bacoli and Varcaturo cannot be simplistically attributed to mussel farming. Evidence emerging from health inspections instead points to a possible link with critical issues in wastewater management and discharge systems, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall and pressure on already fragile infrastructure.
The HAV virus, detected in some of the analyzed samples, likely reached farming waters not because of aquaculture practices, but due to external factors affecting the surrounding environment.
This is the distinction currently missing from public debate.
Producers operating within the legal system — registered, subject to health controls, included in water classification schemes, and required to comply with EU purification and traceability standards — are not the problem. On the contrary, they are a fundamental part of the food safety system.
When contamination occurs, it signals a failure upstream. And that “upstream” is rarely the farm itself, but rather the environment in which it operates.
Despite this, these very operators are paying the highest price. Cooperatives, authorized facilities, and seafood markets dealing in certified and documented products are already experiencing the consequences of distorted perception. With the Easter holidays approaching — a key period for shellfish consumption — the risk of a significant economic backlash is tangible.
There is a crucial point that must be emphasized: the end consumer does not distinguish between traceable and unregulated products. Consumers react to the news, not to the supply chain. And when communication is vague, the result is always the same — widespread distrust.
This creates a dangerous paradox. By placing legal and illegal products on the same level, the system ends up weakening those who comply with the rules and, indirectly, creating space for those who circumvent them.
Traceability is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the primary tool for consumer protection.
A mussel sourced from an authorized facility, complete with labeling, batch number, and production area identification, cannot be equated with a product of uncertain origin. These are fundamentally different realities, and confusing them is a mistake the sector can no longer afford.
This situation should bring attention back to a structural issue: water quality. Shellfish safety is not ensured solely at the farming or purification stage, but above all at the environmental level. Without effective control of wastewater and adequate infrastructure, every effort along the supply chain risks being undermined.
Producers who comply with the rules are not asking for protection. They are asking for accountability to be clearly identified.
And above all, they are asking for the courage to look in the right direction.
Not at the sea — but at the land.
