Opinion by Amy P Wilson
Claims that farmed fish are a sustainable and ethical source of protein are fantasy, warns Amy P. Wilson on website “Wicked Leeks”.
Amy P. Wilson, a doctoral candidate and research associate at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. She is also an attorney and the first South African to graduate with a Master’s degree in Animal Law.
Let’s cut to the chase here: aquaculture is not a “sustainable” or “ethical” solution to food insecurity, nor is it an “alternative” to terrestrial animal factory farming or to wild-caught fishing.
In fact, these ‘farming’ systems perpetuate some of the worst harms – towards animals, humans, and the environment. And it’s time to unhook ourselves from these misleading claims and our own problematic perceptions. Better yet – to restrict and regulate it, before it’s too late.
For some time now, governments across the world have been pushing for the harvesting and farming of aquatic beings, with the “Blue Economy” punted as the ‘catch of the day’. The rationale? Food security, economic benefits, employment, trade… But what if we’re opening Pandora’s box to release myriad potentially irreversible impacts?
Fast (fish) food
Aquaculture, the farming of aquatic species (plant and animal), is the fastest growing food production sector in the world, having recently surpassed wild-caught fishing. In 2022, global production was at an all-time record high of 130.9 million tonnes. If it is difficult for you to understand what that means in practical terms, you are not alone.
Much like their counterparts on land, aquacultural animals are not treated “humanely” and are subjected to extremely cruel and harmful practices, meaning various animal welfare issues arise: mutilations, overcrowding, in-fighting, injuries, diseases, parasites, stress, depression, deformities, suffocation, food withdrawal, lack of enrichment, harmful transportation or cruel slaughter – it’s no fun to be a farmed fish. .
To many, the idea of caring about, or mitigating suffering for aquatic beings is laughable. While many care about their pet dog – or even African elephants in the Savanna – we rarely extend this consideration to aquatic beings (except for perhaps whales, dolphins, and polar bears).
This is why World Aquatic Animal Day was created to make these issues more visible. Indeed, if we don’t grasp these biases, they’ll be further perpetuated through AI – an increasingly common tool used in aquaculture.
Sentience and sentiment
Furthermore, aquatic animals are systematically excluded from legal protections. In the US Animal Welfare Act, cold-blooded and farmed animals are excluded, meaning aquaculture animals are firmly outside the protection remit. Even if you don’t connect with the animals impacted there are other reasons not to support aquaculture.
From an environmental perspective: it causes (water) pollution; release of antibiotics, pesticides and greenhouse gases; habitat loss and destruction; negatively impacts on ecosystems, wildlife (including threatened and endangered species) and biodiversity, (through escapements, invasions, diseases, inter-breeding and otherwise); is extremely resource intensive, and has various other environmental harms.
If you’re still not convinced, there are potential human health harms to take into account (due to the use of antibiotics, and rise of antimicrobial resistance, contamination, toxicity, microplastics, mercury and rising allergies). Aquaculture is also an extremely high risk job causing many diseases and injuries, and linked with another extremely dangerous job – fishing (not to mention the human rights abuses).
Despite this, there are growing calls to de-regulate the industry in the USA and delegate protections in South Africa. When we should be trying to more strictly regulate the harms and look at this issue from all perspectives.
But there is some hope – thanks to the tireless work of advocates, push back is happening. Several US states have pre-emptively banned octopus farming, with a federal bill in the works, and states including Washington have prohibited commercial finfish net pen aquaculture.
Footnote: For full article see https://wickedleeks.riverford.co.uk/opinion/wl-op-ed-hook-line-sinker-the-real-truth-about-farmed-fish/
I see a report that fishing communities are leading a global fight to stop the industrial farming of shrimp and fish. They say these farms are toxic for their territories and that the world’s food needs can be better met by revitalising wild fisheries and small scale, sustainable aquaculture systems. But they are up against powerful corporate opponents. Industrial aquaculture is a US$300 billion business controlled by large multinational corporations and powerful local businessmen. With the support of governments, the corporates are moving aggressively to not only keep their farms afloat, but to expand production to new territories. Greed and more greed and to hell with the environment and the people. And the NZ coalition government with Shane Jones championing fish farming are with the greed. I guess it’s not surprising.
In Norway and the west coast of Canada, escaped farm salmon and chronic infestations of sea lice and disease on overcrowded industrial salmon farms have devastated the wild salmon populations. Get hold of a book “The New Fish.” It’s a horrific story of greed, manipulation and at times corruption, not forgetting the environmental damage.
4kgs of Wild caught fish to produce 1kg of farmed fush (doesn’t earn the right to be called fish) has seen wild fisheries such as the Chilean Sardine population devastated, with rolling impacts for entire food chains. It’s a no from me.
The parallels with dairying are obvious. Screw the environment and ignore the rights of others, as long as you make a buck. Surely we need a better Ministry of Regulations rather than deregulations when it comes to consumer, environment and public interest? Lets start with removing the artificial pigment in farmed salmon.
This article raises important concerns about industrial aquaculture that deserve serious consideration, particularly regarding animal welfare, environmental impacts, and worker safety. The documented issues with overcrowding, disease, escapement, and resource inefficiency (like the 4:1 feed conversion ratio) are legitimate problems that need addressing.
However, the blanket condemnation of all aquaculture seems overly broad. There’s significant variation within the industry – intensive salmon net pen farming presents very different challenges than extensive pond farming of herbivorous species, and shellfish/seaweed cultivation can actually provide environmental benefits. The article also doesn’t adequately address what alternatives exist to meet growing global protein demand without further pressuring wild fish stocks.
Rather than opposing all aquaculture, a more constructive approach might focus on:
– Strict regulation of industrial operations
– Supporting truly sustainable, small-scale farming methods
– Eliminating the most harmful practices
– Improving feed efficiency and reducing wild fish dependence
The call for better regulation over deregulation is spot-on. We need policies that prioritize environmental protection and animal welfare over pure economic interests, while recognizing that some forms of aquaculture, done responsibly, may be part of a sustainable food system.
Money rules.