Fish farming doesn’t reduce fishing—it entrenches it. Most farmed species consumed in high-income countries, like salmon, require large amounts of wild-caught fish for feed. This keeps pressure high on small coastal fish populations, particularly in vulnerable regions such as West Africa and South America, where these fish are also a critical source of local food security.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that global fishery catches and aquaculture production have risen together—aquaculture is not replacing fishing. Capture fisheries have simply plateaued at their ecological limits—they cannot decline further because aquaculture continues to demand millions of tons of wild fish for feed each year.

This was never about protecting wild fish—it’s about finding additional ways to produce fish after wild fisheries became completely tapped out. Industrial aquaculture has always been a profit-driven enterprise, using greenwashing and lobbying to market itself as a conservation solution and secure government and NGO support for its expansion.

Just like factory farms on land, fish aquaculture is a highly inefficient way to produce protein to feed the world when compared to plant-proteins. This is because fish are high on the food chain—to raise fish for human consumption we need to feed them plants and often other fish. Many “high-value” farmed species depend on millions of tons of wild fish caught from waters in Africa and South America, disrupting local food systems. We are literally taking fish from poor countries, to feed to bigger fish, to feed to people in wealthy countries. This extraction fuels a form of food colonialism, where resources are diverted from food-insecure regions to feed wealthier countries.

A more just and resilient food system would curb demand for these farmed products in high-income countries, reducing pressure on wild fish populations and making space for healthier, more equitable, and plant-forward food solutions that nourish more people with fewer resources.

Aquaculture is often promoted as a solution to global hunger, but large-scale fish farming rarely produces more food than it consumes. Research from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future found that across nine farmed aquatic species, only about 19% of protein and 10% of calories are retained for human consumption—meaning the majority of nutrients are lost in the process. In some cases, farmed fish convert resources into edible protein less efficiently than land animals like pigs and chickens, undermining the narrative that fish aquaculture is an efficient way to feed the world.

Rather than meeting an existing demand, the aquaculture industry has helped create new demand for seafood, normalizing previously niche products like salmon and shrimp as everyday staples in wealthy markets. Since the 1980s, global per-capita seafood consumption has climbed about 64%, nearly double the rate of population growth. This surge has been driven not by hunger, but by industry marketing and lobbying that recast farmed seafood from a luxury item into a “sustainable” necessity.

By flooding the market with cheap farmed products, aquaculture has entrenched seafood overconsumption and kept wild fisheries under constant pressure to supply feed. Far from feeding the world, this model diverts valuable wild fish from food-insecure regions to feed high-value farmed species for export, worsening global food inequities.

Industrial aquaculture often threatens the rights and livelihoods of small-scale and Indigenous fishing communities. Open-net salmon farms pollute shared waters with waste, disease, and escaped fish, making it harder for wild species to thrive and undermining traditional fishing grounds.

Indigenous leaders have been speaking out against these impacts. In British Columbia, for example, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has called for “zero tolerance” for fish farms, citing disease, habitat destruction, and contamination that threaten wild salmon populations. In 2020, an alliance of First Nations leaders called for an end to salmon farming in the province.

In Chile, the 2016 red-tide crisis—which devastated coastal fisheries—was worsened by government-approved dumping of thousands of tons of dead salmon from aquaculture operations into nearby waters. The added nutrient load and pollution intensified the bloom and fueled widespread die-offs of wild species. Coastal Indigenous communities, whose livelihoods depend on small-scale fishing and shellfish harvesting, led mass protests as they were left to clean up the mess. Chile is the largest supplier of salmon to the U.S.

Our work focuses on reducing demand for industrial farmed seafood—especially salmon and shrimp—in North America. By holding this industry accountable, we help protect coastal ecosystems and strengthen the ability of local and Indigenous communities to maintain control over their waters and sustain their cultural traditions.

Despite being marketed as a “climate-smart” protein, many farmed species have emissions profiles comparable to—and in some cases higher than—pork and chicken. Farmed salmon in particular often carries a higher carbon toll than pork, while farmed shrimp ranks among the most greenhouse-gas-intensive seafoods available. Both are several times more carbon-intensive than plant-based proteins like beans, peas, or soy.

Most of industrial aquaculture’s climate impact comes from feed production, which accounts for the majority of its emissions. For farmed salmon, feed makes up roughly three-quarters of its total footprint, while shrimp farming adds a constant energy burden for aeration and pumping that drives emissions even higher.

Beyond emissions, fish aquaculture also destroys critical carbon sinks. Small pelagic fish harvested for feed help sequester carbon in the deep ocean, while soy production for feed drives deforestation of carbon-rich rainforests. Shrimp farming has also been a leading driver of mangrove loss, permanently erasing some of the planet’s most efficient coastal carbon stores.

Farmed fish ads show clear waters and vibrant salmon, but in reality, crowded aquaculture pens are breeding grounds for parasites and disease, with mass die-offs common. To keep production afloat, farms rely heavily on antibiotics and chemicals—and are projected to use more per kilogram than any other food animal industry by 2030. Many of these drugs are critical for human medicine, and their overuse fuels antimicrobial resistance, a global health crisis that threatens the effectiveness of life-saving treatments. Farmed seafood can also carry risks to consumers: shrimp have been linked to Salmonella outbreaks, and Listeria in smoked salmon has caused serious illness and deaths. Parasites like sea lice spill over to wild salmon, contributing to population declines and ecosystem harm. Far from being a clean, healthy protein, industrial fish farming spreads disease, pollutes oceans, and creates public health risks.

Plant-based aquaculture, including seaweed and kelp farming, is a very different system from industrial fish farming—and one we strongly support. Seaweeds require no feed, freshwater, antibiotics, or fertilizers, and studies show they can absorb excess nutrients, improve water quality, and sequester carbon, helping to restore coastal ecosystems. Research highlights seaweed’s potential to support climate mitigation, enhance biodiversity, and provide sustainable food and livelihood opportunities without depleting wild fish populations.

Stronger standards can achieve some improvements, but they can’t solve the root problem: scale. At the volumes we are producing and consuming seafood, even so-called “best practice” fish farming relies on finite wild fish for feed, generates large amounts of waste, and requires antibiotics and chemicals to keep fish alive in crowded, disease-ridden conditions.

Certifications are marketed as rigorous safeguards, but in practice they function more like marketing tools for factory farming. They have low standards, weak enforcement, and deep industry ties—allowing farms to keep harmful practices in place while still earning a green label.

Ultimately, factory farms can only be reformed so much. The only way to truly reduce the harm of fish farming is to scale back our consumption.

Improving welfare for farmed fish is important in reducing suffering for the animals who enter these systems. But welfare reforms alone don’t change the structural problems inherent to industrial aquaculture: the reliance on crowded net pens, chronic disease, chemical use, pressures on wild fish for feed, and the industry’s rapid global expansion.

The AAP focuses on upstream solutions—slowing the growth of fish farming and reducing overall seafood demand—because shrinking the system prevents billions of additional fish from being brought into intensive conditions in the first place.

These strategies are complementary. Welfare reforms can improve conditions for the fish being farmed, while consumption reduction tackles the systemic pressures that perpetuate ecological harm and drive the industry’s continued expansion.

Over 90% of the world’s fisheries are already fully exploited or overfished, leaving only a small fraction with any capacity to recover. Fish play essential roles in keeping ocean ecosystems balanced, yet many species are disappearing fast, and industrial fishing and aquaculture are accelerating this loss. 

Research shows that fish are capable of feeling pain, learning, and complex behaviors. Cleaner wrasse (small reef-dwelling fish who help remove parasites from larger fish) have passed a version of the “mirror test,” a classic marker of self-recognition, and tuskfish have been filmed using rocks as tools to crack open clams. Fish even respond to anti-depressant drugs. These findings remind us that fish are sentient, intelligent beings who deserve moral consideration.

Caring about fish means protecting the diversity and vitality of ocean life, safeguarding ecosystems, and ensuring a healthier planet for generations to come.

Universities, corporations, and environmental groups are powerful trendsetters. By removing endorsements of weak certifications, reducing seafood purchasing, and embracing plant-forward menus, they can demonstrate leadership on climate and ocean protection while making dining more accessible and aligning with student and employee values. Learn more about solutions here.