FISH

Expansion of Factory Fish Farms in the

Ocean May Lead to Food Insecurity in
Developing Countries
Fact Sheet • June 2010

“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient,
safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” – The
State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

F actory fish farming in the ocean, a practice also known as offshore aquaculture, is
the mass production of fish in huge, often overcrowded cages in the open water.
Over the past decade, the fish farming industry, the U.S. Congress and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have discussed creating a plan for
expanding offshore aquaculture to federal waters.1 Proponents of this industry have
often boasted that it will lead to increased seafood for our country, or even the world.

Ocean-farmed fish are fed pellets that contain wild fish,

lipids and cellulose, among other ingredients.2 The wild
fish are mostly converted to the fishmeal and fish oil that
make up approximately 40 percent of the pellets fed to
farmed fish.3 In 2006, the aquaculture sector alone con-
sumed nearly 90 percent of small “pelagic” fish captured
worldwide.4 This category of fish, which larger fish, marine
mammals, birds and people alike depend on for food,
includes anchovies, herring, mackerel, sardines and more.
Turning these fish into aquaculture feed is a questionable
use of resources, because many developing countries rely
on these types of fish to feed people and provide employ-
ment in traditional fisheries.

Factory Fish Farming Hurts the World’s

Hungry
Aquaculture promoters claim that factory fish farming will
help feed developing countries in two ways. First, they
claim that more fish farming should equal more fish to
eat. A Web site for the global aquaculture industry stated:
“Declining wild fish stocks has limited the annual catch
to 90 million tonnes. In response aquaculture has risen
to fill this gap.”5 The second argument is that aquaculture
will create more jobs, creating wealth and allowing people
to buy more food. According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, “Beyond its direct role
in the fight against hunger, aquaculture can also indirectly
improve food security by reducing poverty, providing jobs
A factory fish farm off the coast of Hawaii. Photo by NOAA.
and boosting foreign exchange earnings in the developing
world.”6 In the United States, NOAA mimics this thinking,
claiming that U.S. aquaculture will “meet the growing de-
mand for safe, healthy seafood, create jobs for U.S. coastal
communities, increase regional food supply and security,
and help restore depleted commercial and recreational
marine species.”7 Unfortunately, over consumption of
small prey fish, along with environmental and social rami-
fications, make factory fish farming a detriment rather than
a help to food security.
Traditional fishermen in Ghana. Photo by Aprescindere/Dreamstime.
Source of Direct Food
The nutritional profile of small prey fish is extensive, and
plays a key role in promoting the health of people in devel-
oping countries. These fish contain essential vitamins and
minerals, co-enzymes, and fatty acids, all beneficial for
optimal health.8 Additionally, because these food fish are
often eaten whole, people benefit from the bones, which
are a significant source of calcium.9 These fish are not
only a rich source of nutrients, but also a primary source of
Use of Fishmeal by Sector29
Ocean aquaculture proponents sometimes respond to
arguments regarding fishmeal/oil, such as those in this
paper, by shifting blame to other industries. They claim,
for example, that livestock farms are also dependent on
fishmeal and oil. The sustainability of that practice cer-
tainly merits further discussion, but in reality, aquacul-
ture consumes the majority of fshmeal and oil.
Sector 2002 2010
Aquaculture 46% 56%
Pigs 24% 20%
Poultry 22% 12%
Ruminants 1% <1%
Other 7% 12%
Fished to Farmed Conversion
It takes approximately three to seven pounds of small
wild fish to produce one pound of farmed fish, de-
pending on the species being produced. NOAA has a
production target of 2.2 billion pounds of farmed fish by
2025. Multiply 2.2 billion lbs by the most conservative
conversion rate of 3 pounds of wild fish for 1 pound of
farmed fish and it equals 6.6 billion pounds of prey fish
needed for the United States alone to fulfill this goal.
protein for many people in developing countries. Food fish
contribute more than 25 percent of the total animal protein
supply for approximately one billion people (one sixth of
the world’s population) in 58 countries.10 While develop-
ment of offshore aquaculture in the United States may
supply more seafood to consumers in Europe and Japan,
places where much of the United States’ seafood is already
exported, it will likely decrease supply to populations that
are much more dependent on fish for nutrition.
Although forage fish are sometimes thought of as a low-
value commodity, more and more consumers in the United
States and abroad are recognizing the value of eating “low-
er on the food chain” and returning to species like sardines
and anchovies, long valued in Italian and other regional
cuisines. Marine biologist Dr. Daniel Pauly has pointed out
the mistake of labeling these fish as “low” in value: “We
should never have followed the fish meal industry on the
slippery slope of naming edible fish ‘forage fish’ in the first
place. These fish could provide humans with large quanti-
ties of protein, but we waste them by using them as raw
material for fish meal.”11
Factory Fish Farming Threatens Livelihoods
Larger corporations are increasingly automating the opera-
tions at their aquaculture sites, reducing labor needs and
boosting profits.12 This trend threatens small-scale aqua-
culture, which has traditionally been a successful way for
people in developing countries to improve their standard
of living.13 Unfortunately, large factory fish farms are
unlikely to create a significant number of valuable, local
jobs. For instance, in Norway, farmed salmon production
doubled in a six-year period while employment decreased
by four percent.14 Furthermore, flooding the market with
farmed fish drives down the price of wild fish, threaten-
ing the livelihoods of traditional fishermen.15 Fishermen
and women who are willing to switch to aquaculture face
obstacles such as skill transfer issues, lack of employment
opportunity and safety issues.16 In Hawaii, four safety- Export Model: The Cobbler’s Children Have
related lawsuits are pending against a single aquaculture No Shoes
company.17 It may be much more difficult for injured
Exporting food often means the local population suffers
employees to seek retribution in developing countries that
from food insecurity, because of a competitive market
have fewer regulations in place to protect laborers.
rather than an actual food shortage. Nine of the top 40
fish-exporting nations are qualified as low-income food
Price Increases deficit countries (known as LIFDCs).22 LIFDCs are encour-
aged to export food in exchange for money to buy cheaper
Given the importance of prey fish in people’s diets, (as
food. However, they are often left vulnerable to the
well as for wildlife like larger fish, marine mammals and
fluctuations of the global market, which can result in being
birds), it is problematic for people to compete with the
unable to afford nutritious food with the money earned
global aquaculture industry for access to this resource.
from their goods. Statistics from the Food and Agriculture
The increasing demand for fish feed by the aquaculture
Organization of the United Nations show that fish exports
industry has increased the market price of prey fish, driving
from LIFDCs only cover half of the cost of food imports.23
prices up and out of reach for people in countries where
Furthermore, a recent study found no demonstrable cor-
these fish, until recently, were a critical and typical part
relation between fish trade and well-being indicators in
of their diet. Increasingly, these fish are being diverted to
sub-Saharan Africa.24 If forage fish were used to feed the
feed carnivorous farmed fish (such as salmon), pigs, poultry
local population, a country could be more food secure.
and pets in high-income countries.18 Since the late 1970s,
In Africa, for example, there is enough fishmeal to reduce
per-capita fish supply declined by 3 percent in Africa and
the protein shortage of the continent by 50 percent.25
8 percent in South America while consumption of fish in-
In Indonesia, half of the children of fishing families are
creased starkly by 28 percent in North and Central Amer-
stunted, and in India, the infant mortality in fishing vil-
ica during the same decade.19 The increase in aquaculture
lages is relatively high, while both of these countries are
since these statistics were published has only exacerbated
leading exporters of fish and fish products.26 This export
the decline of availabile fish in lower-income countries.
model takes an accessible, nutrient-rich food source from
Availability of prey fish in sub-Saharan Africa, for example,
developing countries and feeds it to fish and other animals
is expected to fall even further by 2020, even while pro-
that will be consumed by people in developed countries,
duction of fish for export (both wild-caught and farmed) is
creating malnutrition in some of the very areas where the
increasing.20 Meanwhile, the United States imports twice
fish are plentiful. Aquaculture consumption of small forage
as much fish just to feed livestock as do all the low-income
fish essentially takes them from the poor to feed the rich.
countries combined.21

Conclusion: Development of Offshore

Aquaculture in the United States will worsen
food insecurity
Nearly one sixth of the world’s population is considered
food insecure.27 Meanwhile, the current development of
the open-ocean aquaculture industry in the United States
could worsen food insecurity in developing countries by
placing an increased demand on an already dwindling
prey fish population. Furthermore, ocean fish farming in
the United States does not equal more food security for
most U.S. consumers either. As it is, the United States
exports over 70 percent of its seafood to the European
Union and Japan, which have higher standards for seafood
and are willing to pay more for fish produced with more
stringent environmental, health and labor regulations. Un-
less trade patterns change, which is highly unlikely under
current regulatory conditions, most fish farmed offshore in
the United States would likely be shipped abroad, leav-
ing the United States with only the ecological problems.
Already, Kona Kampachi®, a farmed fish from Hawaii, is
sold for $17 per pound — far out of the price range of the
average U.S. consumer.28 Expanding U.S. offshore aquacul-
ture simply means more high-end fish available for those
who can afford it.

Sardines, a forage fish used in traditional cuisines. Photo by K. Rayker/

Stock.Xchng.
Offshore aquaculture will not significantly increase the
supply of quality seafood to U.S. consumers, and products
will certainly not make their way to developing countries.
Further, using wild fish to feed farmed fish is an unsus-
tainable practice that depletes forage fish populations,
threatens the food security of many people in developing
countries, and takes a valuable food source away from
people who need it.

Policy Recommendations:
Do not support legislation that will open U.S. waters to
offshore aquaculture.

Support an alternative form of aquaculture, recirculating

land-based systems, with fish species that do not require
wild fish in their feed.

Encourage more U.S. seafood to be consumed domesti-

cally and increase inspections of imported seafood, thus
decreasing the global seafood trade to a level that will
cause less negative ramifications on global food security.

Recommendations for Consumers:

See Food & Water Watch’s Smart Seafood Guide for choic-
es that are environmentally, economically and socially
sustainable.
Endnotes
1 Federal waters generally begin 3 miles off the coast in the United States and
extend to 200 nautical miles.
2 Tacon, Albert et al. “Use of Fishery Resources as Feed Inputs to Aquaculture
Development: Trends and Policy Implications.” FAO Fisheries Circular No.
1018, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2006
at V. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ao604e/ao604eoo.pdf.
3 Ibid
4 Tacon, Albert and Marc Metian. “Fishing for Feed or Fishing for Food:
Increasing Global Competition for Small Pelagic Forage Fish.” Ambio , Vol. 38,
no. 6, September 2009 at 294.
5 “Raising the Developing World with Aquaculture.” The Fish Site, January
2009, Available at: www.thefishsite.com/articles/610/raising-the-developing-
world-with-aquaculture
6 “Aquaculture: not just an export industry.” FAO NewsroomFocus,, August 2003,
Available at: www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/aquaculture.htm
7 “About the NOAA Aquaculture Program.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, March 1, 2010. Available at: www.aquaculture.noaa.gov/
about/welcome.html
8 “Report of the FAO Expert Workshop on Climate Change Implications for
Fisheries and Aquaculture.” FAO Fisheries Report. No. 870, Rome, April 7-9,
2008 at 160.
9 Thilsted, Shakuntala H. et al. “The Role of Small Indigenous Fish Species in
Food and Nutrition Security in Bangladesh.” Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly,
July – December 1997 at 83.
10 Tacon, Albert G., “Increasing the Contribution of Aquaculture for Food Security
and Poverty Alleviation.” FAO: Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2001 at
12.
11 Jacquet, Jennifer. “Save our oceans, eat like a pig.” Alternet.org, April 20,
2007. Available at www.alternet.org/environment/50807/save_our_oceans,_
eat_like_a_pig/
12 Cardia, Fracesco and Alessandro Lovatelli. “A review of cage culture:
Mediterranean Sea.” In Halwart, Matthias, Doris Sota and J. Richard Arthur
(Eds.) Fisheries Technical Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. “Cage Culture: Regional reviews and global Overview.” (498)
2007 at 185.
13 Ahmed, Mahfuzuddin. “Outlook for Fish to 2020: A Win-Win-Win for Oceans,
Fisheries and the Poor?” In Fish, Aquaculture and Food Security: Sustaining
Fish as a Food Supply, Conference Record, ATSE Crawford Fund, Parliament
House, Canberra, August 11, 2005 at 69- .
14 “Environmental and Economic Effects of Net Cage Finfish Farming: Talking
Points,” The Sitka Conservation Society, Accessed February 2010. Available at:
www.sitkawild.org/images.../coastal.../Environment_and_Economics_I.pdf
A fish market in the United States. Photo by Food & Water Watch
15 Public Hearing Draft to the Generic Amendment to: Coral and Coral Reef
FMP, Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP, Red Drum FMP, Reef Fish FMP, Shrimp
FMP, Spiny Lobster FMP, and Stone Crab FMP TO Provide for Regulation of
Offshore Marine Aquaculture. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
National Ocean & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. September 2007 at ix.
16 MacAlister Elliott and Parners Ltd. “Forward Study of Community
Aquaculture.” European Commission, Fisheries Directorate General,
Hampshire, United Kingdom, September 1999 at 57.
17 Kona Blue Water Farms LLC Query. PACER Service Center. March 1 2010.
18 Alder, Jackie and Daniel Pauly. “On the Multiple Uses of Forage Fish: From
Ecosystems to Markets.” Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol 14, number 3,
2006 at 30.
19 Kent, George. “Fish Trade, Food Security and the Human Right to Adequate
Food.” FAO Fisheries Report No. 708, Report to the Expert Consultation on
International Fish Trade and Food Security, Casablanca, Morocco, January 27-
30, 2003.
20 Bene, Christopher. “Global Change in African Fish Trade: Engine of
Development or Threat to Local Food Security.” OECD Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries Working Papers, No. 10. 2008 at 9-12.
21 Kent, George. “Food trade: the poor feed the rich.” Ecologist, vol. 15, iss. 5/6,
1985 at 232.
22 Pauly, Daniel et al. “Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine
ecosystems and food security.” Philosophical Transactions of The Royal
Society, vol. 360, 2005 at 9.
23 “Report of the FAO Expert Workshop on Climate Change Implications for
Fisheries and Aquaculture.” 2008 at 113.
24 Bene, 2008 at 13-14.
25 Kent, 2003 at 3.
26 Ahmed, 2005 at 70.
27 Hannah, Bill. “Food Insecurity, Aquaculture, and the Nature of Technology.”
Health Law Review, vol. 16, iss. 4, 2008 at 22.
28 Food & Water Watch, Fishy Farms, Oct 2007 at 11
29 Miles, R. and F.A. Chapman. “The Benefits of Fish Meal in Aquaculture Diets.”
TheFishSite.com, July 2006. Available at: www.thefishsite.com/articles/200/
the-benefits-of-fish-meal-in-aquaculture-diets
For more information:
web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
email: info@fwwatch.org
phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA)
Copyright © June 2010 Food & Water Watch