aquaculture

The seafood industry is large, and growing, as humans are eating more fish each year. You might be surprised to learn that, per capita, annual fish consumption has increased from 9.9kg in the 1960s to 19.2kg in 2012. And the average Canadian eats slightly more than this, at 23.1kg. Americans eat an estimated 17 billion marine creatures annually.[1]

Fishing is a Global Industry

In addition to capturing spectacular worldwide demand, fish is a global industry because it is a highly traded commodity: approximately 200 countries export fish and fishery products. Canadian fish and seafood imports generally match the global trend. The top five countries of origin for our fish and seafood imports are: the U.S. (36.7%), Thailand (14.9%), China (14.6%), Chile (5.1%) and Vietnam (4.6%).

The Fishing Supply Chain

Fish and shellfish (A) living in open waters or (B) raised via aquaculture in ponds, tanks or bounded coastal waters are harvested.
They are packed and transported to processing facilities.
Processors convert the fish to consumer products (i.e. canned, frozen, filets, smoked). In some cases, processing takes multiple steps while in others fish are transported live.
Wholesalers receive the processed or unprocessed fish and distribute the product to retailers and restaurants.
You buy/eat it.

This episode focuses on just step one of the fish supply chain. Maybe we’ll cover the others in future episodes.

Overfishing

The State of Overfishing

85% of global fish stocks overfished. “Overfishing” refers to a situation when more fish are caught than can be replaced through natural reproduction. It has several causes, including rising demand, new technology, and governance gaps.

A study of catch data published in the journal Science in 2006 predicted that if fishing rates continue at the same rate, all the world's fisheries will have collapsed by 2048. The problem of overfishing is so bad that some have argued for giving the oceans their own seat at the United Nations. The global ocean plays a central role in supporting life on Earth. Oceans cover 3/4 of the planet and contain 80% of all life.

Overfishing affects the entire ocean ecosystem. But especially the top of the food chain: the population of large predatory fish has dropped by an estimated 90% since the industrialization of fisheries in the 1950s.

Overfishing is bad for workers as well as the environment: because fish stocks have been declining, vessels must take longer and longer voyages to find fish, meaning that workers are stuck aboard for long periods of time; declining stocks also make fish processing an increasingly precarious job.

You might recall the collapse of the Newfoundland Grand Banks cod fishery in the 1990s: this put between 50 000 and 40 000 people out of work. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of an estimated 200 million people. Sustainable fishing matters for the environment, for animals, and for people.

Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing

The problem of forced labour on fishing vessels is extremely difficult to tackle, as it is linked to illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing (IUU fishing also goes hand in hand with overfishing).

Because international waters are a global commons, regulating fishing has proven extremely difficult. For this reason, people often refer to overfishing as a tragedy of the commons (each individual has an incentive to overfish, even if collectively everyone would benefit from responsible stewardship).

IUU fishing is a huge problem: it is estimated that IUU fishing accounts for 30% of all fishing activity worldwide. Structural loopholes in international maritime law, specifically on the high seas, allow for IUU fishing to proliferate.

Outside of a country’s exclusive economic zone (on the “high seas”, which cover 64% of the surface area of the ocean) ships are governed by the laws of the country in which that vessel is registered (the “flag country”).

Often, fishing vessels are registered in countries with no meaningful link to their operations. IUU fishing occurs in primarily on the high seas and poorly regulated national waters. For example, along the coastline of sub-Saharan Africa forced labour is a problem on European and Asian fishing vessels in poorly regulated waters.

Seafood Fraud

A recent investigation of seafood bought in Montreal found that more than half of samples were mislabelled. 61% were mislabelled in some way, while 34% were an entirely different species than advertised.

Unfortunately, this is not an outlier. It merely highlights the endemic challenge of falsely and mislabeled seafood. Between 25 and 70 percent of seafood products in Canada are “mislabeled due to counterfeiting somewhere along the supply chain”. Globally, on average 30 percent of seafood products are mislabeled.

Why so high? As fish markets have globalized so too have the supply chains for fish products, resulting in a “notoriously opaque” system in which weak governance provides a hospitable environment for seafood fraud. Also, consumers don’t really know much about seafood – which is a very wide category. Approximately 350 species of seafood can be found in American markets.[2] So, seafood fraud is very easy.

Common frauds:

· In Canada, cod is often actually haddock[3]

· One investigation found that three quarters of red snapper was actually another species – most commonly red sea bream or tilapia.[4]

· Grouper is another seafood that will be mislabelled. It’s often actually catfish[5]

· And fish labelled as wild caught is often actually farmed[6]

Beyond being a consumer rights issue – if you buy salmon you probably want to know that you are receiving salmon – seafood mislabeling poses challenges for sustainability.

Eco-labels with traceability standards offer a partial solution to this problem, although seafood mislabeling still happens under such schemes (but it happens a lot less). Of course, private regulation has its limits – accordingly, government-mandated traceability requirements will play an important role as well. (For a good summary of traceability standards in the seafood industry, see this report.)

Finally, better tools are needed. DNA testing has generated research attention since it poses a potential solution to the deficiencies of current traceability best practices. For instance, the MSC published a report on the subject in March.

The Ecological Effects of Fishing

In addition to overfishing, sustainability also concerns the broader environmental impact of fishing processes. For example, if gear is lost during the fishing process or if fishing entails destructive processes, such as the use of dynamite and poisons, this can cause more widespread ecosystem damage.

Commercial fishing gear is becoming more efficient and less efficient, depending on how you look at it. Modern fishing devices are great at finding and catching fish. But they damage the seabed and catch a lot of unwanted species in the process. “Bycatch” refers to marine species captured in a fishing operation that aren’t the target species. Bycatch is usually thrown overboard, dead or dying.

The bycatch ratio varies dramatically from method to method, but in general about a quarter of all fish taken worldwide is bycatch.[7] Sometimes, as is the case for shrimp trawling, there is much more bycatch collected than the actual intended catch.[8] In Thailand’s shrimp industry, the bycatch ratio is 14:1.[9] Dredges, bottom trawls, and drift nets are the worst for bycatch and habitat destruction – well, also dynamite.

Bottom Trawling

Bottom trawling basically turns the bottom of the sea into something resembling a paved surface or plowed field.[10] This causes extensive and irreparable damage to coral reefs and seabed ecosystems.[11] It also stirs up sediment that makes the area unlivable for some species.[12] Bottom trawling is the “marine equivalent of clear-cutting a rain forest.”[13] The average trawling operation throws 80-90 percent of the sea animals that it captures as bycatch overboard.[14] “Imagine using a bulldozer to catch songbirds for food – that’s what it’s like.” (biologist Sylvia Earle)[15]

Dolphin-Safe

Dolphin safe: in 1987 a biologist filmed dolphins being drowned in purse seine nets for tuna fishing. The footage of dolphins shrieking as the nylon nets tore away their fins really affected people, and tuna consumption dropped almost overnight. “Dolphin-safe” tuna was maybe the first ethical seafood consumer movement

As overfishing impacts more and more species, fish farming is on the rise. For instance, if you are eating Atlantic salmon it is almost certainly from a fish farm: 300 farmed salmon are sold for every wild caught salmon.[16] Fish farming is the fastest growing form of food production in the world. In 1970 it contributed 3% of the world’s seafood, compared to more than 50% today.[17] And the weight of farmed fish exceeds the weight of beef produced globally.[18]

Here’s a description of aquaculture that I found helpful: “In the fjords and coastal inlets along the coast of Norway, Britain, Iceland, Chile, China, Japan, Canada, the United States, and many other countries, cages or nets that may be more than 200 feet long and 40 feet deep have been lowered into the sea and secured to platforms from which workers feed the fish. With salmon, 50,000 fish may be confined to each sea cage, at a stocking density that is equivalent to putting each 30-inch salmon in a bathtub of water.”[19]

Fish farming is problematic for a bunch of reasons. First, because of the intensity of farming it is not great from an animal welfare perspective. More on this in a bit.

The second problem with farmed fish is that fish farms require lots of fish feed: “Fish farming sounds like a good way of meeting the growing demand for seafood while taking pressure off wild fisheries. But that can be like thinking that if we ate more beef, we wouldn’t need to grow so much corn.”[20] What often happens is that carnivorous fish are farmed and fed high volumes of fish meal. So, in essence, these operations actually use up a lot more fish flesh than they produce – and that means putting more pressure on wild fish populations.[21] And if you’re thinking, hey, at least fish meal is from relatively abundant fish, remember that this is taking away the food supply from vulnerable apex predator populations.

Fish farming also isn’t very carbon efficient for that reason. Whereas a wild salmon will go and catch its own food, fish farmers need to get fish meal from fossil-fuel powered boats.[22]

Fish farming can also cause harm to the wider environment through the spread of farm waste, chemicals, disease and parasites.

Basically, high concentrations of fish feces and food waste are discharged, untreated, into the water around sea cages. According to WWF calculations, Scottish salmon farms discharge the same amount of waste as 9 million people (double the human population of Scotland).[23]

The pollution from fish farming can also affect the people that inhabit coastal areas. For instance, in 1996 activists in India won a class action lawsuit against shrimp farms, on the basis that these farms had cost local communities their livelihoods.[24] In Bangladesh, illegal shrimp farms have displaced thousands of local villagers.[25]

And as with factory farming on land, the intensity of fish feedlots means that fish need to be given antibiotics and pesticides. Those leach into the water and cause environmental problems like ocean dead zones.

Lastly, farmed fish sometimes escape when predators or storms cause holes in the enclosure nets. As many as half a million farmed salmon escape every year, for example.[26] These escapees can infect wild fish with diseases and parasites. For example, young wild salmon now have levels of sea lice infestation 73% times higher than previously.[27]

Some kinds of aquaculture operations are better than others. Oyster and mussel farming seems to be relatively benign.

On the other hand, shrimp farming is a major contributor to the destruction of mangrove forests, in addition to all the regular harms.

Animal Welfare

As was the case for the vegetarianism episode, there are sort of two issues here. The first is whether it is ever okay to eat a living being that feels pain. The second is whether the manner of catching or farming fish is justified on welfare grounds.

Because we’ve covered the first bit before, we’ll skip over it here. Check out part one of vegetarianism for this. I will just quickly say that seafood encapsulates a wide variety of animals, with different capacities and levels of intelligence. Some fish – like octopus – are incredibly intelligent. Most are social creatures that have demonstrated pain responses in scientific studies.

The one exception to this may be bivalves. Bivalves are a class of marine and freshwater molluscs that have laterally compressed bodies enclosed by a shell consisting of two hinged parts. They include species like oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops. The evidence for consciousness in bivalves is “barely stronger than it is for plants, which is to say it is vanishingly slight.”[28]

A Good Death? Not So Much

Wild caught fish is somewhat proximate to hunted meat. The fish live normal lives for their species, so the only question is whether the slaughter is unjustifiably cruel. There is no such thing as humane slaughter for wild-caught fish. Take longline fishing, for example. When fish are hooked, they struggle for hours trying to escape. Then they are either clubbed to death or have their gills cut and bleed to death.

In trawlers, hundreds of different species are crushed together, gashed on corals, bashed on rocks – for hours – and then hauled from the water, causing painful decompression (the decompression sometimes causes the animals’ eyes to pop out or their internal organs to come out their mouths). On longlines, too, the deaths animals face are generally slow. Some are simply held there and die only when removed from the lines. Some die from the injury caused by the hook in their mouths or by trying to get away. Some are unable to escape attack by predators […] no fish gets a good death. Not a single one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. It did.[29]

Also, your wild caught fish probably came with bycatch.

Fish Farming

Farmed fish are similar to factory farmed cows, chickens, and pigs. They are in very crowded environments. Farmed fish exhibit stress behaviours just like factory farmed mammals and birds.[30]

Eating Animals identifies six sources of suffering on salmon farms: “(1) water so fouled that it makes it hard to breathe; (2) crowding so intense that animals begin to cannibalize one another; (3) handling so invasive that physiological measures of stress are evident a day later; (4) disturbance by farmworkers and wild animals; (5) nutritional deficiencies that weaken the immune system; and (6) the inability to form a stable social hierarchy, resulting in more cannibalization.”[31]

Also like factory farming on land, farmed fish have a high death rate due to illness, abrasions, and sea lice infestations – which Lex so helpfully told us about in the food episode. A recent study found that salmon bred and raised at fish factory farms are forced to grow at such an accelerated rate that over 50% of them are going deaf. Cool. “Another study by Royal Society Open Science found that a significant proportion of farmed salmon suffer from severe depression. The fish are referred to as ‘drop outs’ because they float lifelessly in the dirty tanks they reside in.” (source: Live Kindly)

Farmed fish are typically starved for 7-10 days before slaughter.[32] Because there generally aren’t rules for the humane slaughter of fish, farmed fish are killed in brutal ways that would be illegal in land operations.[33] Sometimes they are simply allowed to suffocate on land, which can take 15 minutes.[34] They are sometimes bashed in the head with a wooden bat, which sometimes doesn’t kill them – meaning that they can be cut open while fully conscious.[35] Sometimes they have their gills cut and bleed to death.[36]

Bivalve Farming

The one type of fish farming that may be ethically justifiable is the farming of bivalves like mussels and oysters. Because these creatures likely don’t feel pain and aren’t conscious, the same cruelty concerns don’t apply. Also, bivalves feed themselves and actually clean up the water around them – theoretically getting around some of the environmental issues.

Generally speaking, “mom and pop” mussel and oyster farms seem to be fine – good, even – for the environment. However, there are some arguments that mussel and oyster farms at a large scale can have negative environmental effects. So, it’s still unclear whether they’re a good idea at an industrial scale.

Human Rights

Thailand is the third largest exporter of seafood in the world (the country’s seafood industry is worth $7.3 billion USD annually); it is also notorious for crewing fishing boats with slaves trafficked from Burma and Cambodia. A form of bonded labour is typical: in this scenario, trafficked fishermen are sold to fishing boat owners and then must work to pay off a given price (the ka hua). In addition to being enslaved, workers on such ships are exposed to overwork, violence, torture, and even executions at sea.

Each year the U.S. State Department produces its Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report. In 2014, that report downgraded Thailand to a Tier 3 ranking due to a lack of improvements. The report revealed that the Thai government ignored instances of human trafficking and even sought to punish those attempting to bring these abuses to light.

Thailand is often used as an example of human trafficking in the fishing industry because of the size of its fishing industry and inaction on the part of its government (regulation of the Thai fishing industry is woefully inadequate). Nonetheless, this is a problem that exists worldwide. While Southeast Asia is the biggest problem region for slavery on fishing vessels, this is a global phenomenon. Human trafficking is endemic in the fishing industry. Some fishing operations in at least 51 countries crew their ships with slave labour.

Sustainability Labels

Marine Stewardship Council

When purchasing sustainable seafood there may be several different eco-labels available to you, but the one that is largest and most well-known is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). MSC was founded in 1996 by WWF and Unilever.

The MSC’s standards are based on three principles:

The condition of the fish populations: are there enough fish to ensure that the fishery is sustainable?
The impact of the fishery on the marine environment: what effect is the fishery having on the immediate marine environment, including non-target fish, marine mammals, and seabirds?
The fishery management systems: the rules and procedures that are necessary to meet principles one and two.[37]

The MSC now accounts for about 10% of global wild caught seafood (as compared to aquaculture/farmed fish) but this proportion is often much higher in developed countries, where the demand for certified fish is higher. In Canada, for example, 67% of domestic wild catch seafood is MSC certified.

In addition to being the most widely used eco-label, MSC is also well-known for its rigorous standards. However, it has been criticized for focusing too narrowly on the sustainability of fish stocks instead of the overall environmental impact of fisheries and the fish supply chain, as well as for having a process that is too burdensome for small fisheries and fisheries in developing countries.

If you are looking for sustainably caught seafood, the MSC is probably your best bet: it is the most likely to actually be available in stores near you and has standards that are reasonably stringent and evaluated impartially, based on evidence.

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) was founded in 2010, also with the involvement of WWF. ASC standards focus primarily on environmental issues, like pollution reduction and protections for biodiversity. There are also a few social standards – no child or forced labour, safe working environments, consulting Indigenous communities, and regulated working hours – in ASC. There are no animal welfare standards as far as I was able to tell.

SeaChoice reviewed ASC and MSC certifications in Canada. They found some weaknesses with MSC, but bigger ones with ASC – lots of evidence of non-compliance with the standards.

What to Think About When Choosing Ethical Seafood

For my own part, I believe that seafood is largely not an ethically justified dietary choice. I would only consider eating bivalves, and in that case only if the method of farming/fishing is sustainable and environmentally responsible.

However, for those that want to cast a wider ethical net, here is what you should think about:

Species

Is it overfished or not? There’s a fairly long list of seafood species you should never eat because they are overfished. But some of the more well-known ones include: bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, Chilean sea bass, shark, Atlantic halibut, and monkfish.[38] You can usually feel comfortable that a few seafood species aren’t overfished. Those include: oysters, mussels, sardines, Pacific halibut, herring, jellyfish, mullet, and pickerel.[39]

What is its trophic level? Is it an apex predator? Bottomfeeder recommends eating only bottom-of-the-foodchain species, because the big fish are so overfished.[40]

Does it feel pain/how intelligent is it?

Fishing or farming method

Things you might want to ask yourself about the fishing or farming method include:

How much bycatch is produced?
Does it kill coral or otherwise destroy ecosystems? How polluting is it?
How cruel is this method?

The best catch methods from a sustainability perspective are hook and line fishing, harpoons and scuba, pots and traps, and purse seines.[41] Always avoid seafood caught with drift nets (“walls of death”), dynamite and cyanide, and bottom trawls.[42]

Location

Location matters too. Try asking:

How far does the seafood have to travel to get to me?
How did it travel? (e.g. really pricey fish by air freight have a large carbon footprint)

Brands/Certifications

To try to push the market you can ask: is the company that sold it a seafood leader or laggard? You can also look for seafood with MSC or ASC certification. And if there isn’t a certification, ask yourself: do you really know anything about where the seafood came from?

How to Choose Ethical Seafood

If you are going to be a selective omnivore, Taras Grescoe’s Bottomfeeder offers a generally good rule of thumb for seafood: eat as close to the bottom of the food chain as possible.[43]

Bottomfeeder also recommends:[44]

Avoiding cheap seafood, since it was probably farmed
Avoiding fish that has travelled far
Avoiding long-lived predator fish (e.g. Chilean sea bass, sharks, tuna, swordfish)
Avoiding farmed shrimp, tuna, salmon, and any other carnivorous fish
If buying farmed salmon, cod, or trout, opt for organically farmed ones (the book was written before ASC was created)
Opt for seafood at the lower end of the food chain as much as possible

In addition, there are a few useful tools that can help you pick ethical seafood:

SeaChoice is a good place to go to get informed about sustainable seafood.
Oceanwise classified seafood as recommended or not recommended. The full list is a bit overwhelming, but you can also search the website pretty easily. SeaChoice ranked this as the best resource for choosing ethical seafood.
Seafood Watch has a useful website that you can use to search species that are “best choice”, “good alternatives”, or “avoid”.

Endnotes

[1] Singer, Peter and Mason, Jim. (2006). The Ethics of What We Eat. Rodale Publishers.

[2] Grescoe, Taras. (2008). Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood. Toronto, ON: HarperCollins.

[3] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[4] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[5] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[6] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[7] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[8] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[9] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[10] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[11] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[12] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[13] Safran Foer, Jonathan. (2009). Eating Animals. New York: Back Bay Books at p.191.

[14] Safran Foer, Eating Animals.

[15] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder at p.27.

[16] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[17] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[18] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[19] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat page 122.

[20] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat page 123.

[21] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[22] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[23] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[24] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[25] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[26] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat page 122.

[27] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[28] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat at page 133.

[29] Safran Foer, Eating Animals at p. 192-3.

[30] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[31] Safran Foer, Eating Animals at p.190

[32] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[33] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[34] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[35] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[36] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[37] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[38] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[39] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[40] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[41] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[42] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[43] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[44] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.