Good stories start with better questions.
We believe the best seafood stories are the ones that make you look twice.
At SALT., curiosity guides what we cover, but evidence shapes what we publish.
Our editorial approach brings together research, specialist knowledge, cultural perspectives and an interest in how seafood connects to the wider world.
We don't believe every article needs to follow the same formula. A story about food culture shouldn't read like an industry report. A scientific explainer shouldn't require a PhD to understand. And an investigation shouldn't hide complexity simply to make a better headline.
Different subjects deserve different ways of telling their stories.
How we approach a story.
We start with relevance.
Why is this worth someone's time? What's changing? Is there a question that hasn't been properly answered, an assumption worth challenging or a perspective that's missing?
We follow the evidence.
We look for credible sources, original research, official statistics and relevant expertise. We distinguish between established facts, interpretations, forecasts and claims that remain disputed.
We value context.
A statistic can be accurate and still give the wrong impression when presented without a timeframe, denominator or meaningful comparison.
Context isn't a footnote. It's part of the story.
We make specialist knowledge accessible.
Seafood involves biology, economics, regulation, food production and environmental science. We want readers to understand these subjects without unnecessarily complicated language.
Accessibility should never come at the expense of accuracy.
We leave room for personality.
Interesting writing doesn't have to sound like a research paper. We appreciate a good observation, an unexpected detail and, occasionally, the absurdity of modern food culture.
The facts still come first.
Our perspective.
We should be upfront about where we stand. SALT. is close to the seafood industry, and we don't pretend otherwise.
We think seafood is one of the best foods the world can produce, and that the people who catch, farm, process and sell it deserve better coverage than they usually get.
We also believe aquaculture and wild fisheries need each other. Farming isn't the enemy of fishing, and fishing isn't a relic that farming will replace. Feed, by-products, markets, jobs and food security connect the two, and we cover them together.
Being close to an industry doesn't mean defending every practice within it. Welfare problems, labour abuse, illegal fishing and weak oversight hurt the operators who do things properly, and we report them for that reason.
Knowing our perspective, you can weigh what we publish. We think that's fairer than claiming to have none.
Where our information comes from.
Our coverage may draw on peer-reviewed research, public records, official data, interviews, company disclosures, industry publications and other relevant sources.
We aim to make the basis of important factual claims clear, particularly in investigations, fact-checks and technical analysis.
We distinguish independently verified information from statements made by companies, organisations, researchers or campaigners.
And when the available evidence doesn't support a definitive conclusion, we say so.