MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
Middle School Fisheries 1NC
SUMMARY – page 2
NEGATIVE ON-CASE
1st Negative Constructive HARMS – pages 3-4
1st Negative Constructive SOLVENCY – page 5
1st Negative Constructive HARMS – Food Security – page 6
1st Negative Constructive HARMS – Environment – page 7
NEGATIVE OFF-CASE
1st Negative Constructive Employment Disadvantage – pages 8-9
1st Negative Constructive Fishmeal Disadvantage – page 10
These files were possible due to the substantial work of the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance and
Boston Debate League – thanks to them.
1
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
Summary
On-Case:
This packet offers answers to the specific claims made in the affirmative
advantage and solvency contentions.
Against the Overfishing and Economy Harms, you will find arguments that world
fish populations are recovering and that offshore fish farming hurts biodiversity.
You will also find arguments that trade deficits aren’t harmful to the US
economy.
Against the food security harms, you will find arguments that aquaculture doesn’t
address the larger set of factors that create world hunger.
Against the Environment Harms, you will find reasons why Aquaculture hurts the
environment and doesn’t address other key environmental issues
To answer the affirmative’s solvency claims, this packet includes a variety of
arguments detailing how offshore fish farming operations will face a multitude of
logistical problems that will deter investors from funding these projects.
Off-Case:
This negative argues that the United States should not try to increase the number
of aquaculture operations in the ocean. This packet contains 2 main reasons why
expanded aquaculture operations would be a bad thing:
First, aquaculture is bad because it currently relies on fishmeal, a type of fish
food that is made out of wild-caught fish and unwanted fish caught on accident
(“bycatch”). If we expanded aquaculture operations, we’d need a lot more
fishmeal – which means we would have to catch a lot more fish in the wild,
which ultimately defeats the purpose of the affirmative and results in overfishing.
Second, aquaculture is bad because it would be a large scale industry that would
drive small coastal economies and fisher-folks out of business, creating massive
unemployment. These operations are almost entirely automated, so there
wouldn’t be enough replacement jobs to accommodate the new unemployed
workers.
2
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
Fisheries NEGATIVE - 1NC HARMS (1/2)
1. AQUACULTURE CAN’T MEET THE DEMAND OF THE WORLD’S GROWING POPULATION
AND ISN’T EFFECTIVELY ADMINISTERED
COSTA-PIERCE 2010 [Barry A. Costa-Pierce, Department of Fisheries, Animal & Veterinary Science, Rhode
Island Sea Grant College Program, University of Rhode Island, “Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Systems: The Need for
a New Social Contract for Aquaculture Development,” http://www.ecologicalaquaculture.org/Costa-PierceMTSJ.pdf]
To meet seafood demands due to projected population growth to 2030, UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (2009) has estimated that at least an additional 40 million metric tons of aquatic
food will be required to maintain the current per capita consumption. This forecasts that world aquaculture
production will exceed 90 million tons and surpass global capture fisheries production. I argue that such an
expansion of aquaculture globally in the rich and poor countries outside of China might not occur because of the
following: (1) The current industrial aquaculture development paradigm is inadequate at all levels of government
and that without major government subsidies, aquaculture will not spread as rapidly in the next two decades as it
has in the past two unless ecological aquaculture as an alternative development model for aquaculture becomes the
dominant development model. (2) Most national decision makers are unaware of and are not planning for the
magnitude of the world’s coastal urban, land, energy, and water crises, and the implications on food production of
these vast societal challenges that need to occur—Brown (2009) calls this “mobilizing to save civilization”— and are
continuing to be duped by “20th century thinking” into believing that there are vast areas of a virgin ocean planet and
adequate food just waiting for a large expansion of “fed aquaculture” developments, which there are not. (3)
Professional, regulatory “decisionmaker communities” in aquaculture and fisheries are so separate structurally and
functionally in many countries to the point that they have lost track of their common goal of delivering
environmentally friendly, safe, sustainable seafood to the people they serve. Professional fisheries managers are
working everywhere to recover damaged capture fisheries in both developed and developing nations. Recovered
fisheries will add price and volume competition to aquaculture in many regions of the world, in some cases making
aquaculture development not economically feasible, a fact which may not be captured in global statistics. The world
will need all the fish it can produce sustainably from capture fisheries as well as develop aquaculture. Management
conflicts and educational deficiencies between fisheries and aquaculture managers will need to end as products
that sustain livelihoods will be needed from both.
2. SOLVING THE SEAFOOD TRADE DEFICIT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE OVERALL ECONOMY
KITE-POWELL 2011 [Hauke Kite-Powell, aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
“Where Will We Get Our Seafood?” Sept. 21, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-our-seafood]
What conclusions did you reach about the U.S. seafood trade deficit? Kite-Powell: Two key
facts were highlighted in the colloquium discussions. First, the U.S. seafood trade deficit is
important to the seafood industry, but it's not a big contributor to our national trade
picture—it's swamped by our trade in petroleum and manufactured goods. So eliminating the
seafood trade deficit is not going to make a noticeable dent in our nation’s overall trade
situation. And second, trade in seafood is not necessarily a bad thing. If there are other
countries that can produce high-quality seafood much more efficiently than we can, it
makes sense for us to buy it from them. There are species that we may not want to grow in
large quantities in the U.S.—possibly shrimp, which comprises a big chunk of our seafood trade
deficit. Shrimp are farmed most efficiently in coastal ponds, and we don't have a lot of spare
coastal real estate for ponds in the U.S. So it may not make sense to try to become self-sufficient in
shrimp.
3
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
Fisheries NEGATIVE - 1NC: HARMS (2/2)
3. RECENT REPORTS SHOW US FISH POPULATIONS ARE RECOVERING – EFFECTIVE
MANAGEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROTECTED SPECIES FROM OVERFISHING.
PLUMER, EDITOR OF VOX MAGAZINE AND FORMER ENVIRONMENTAL
CORRESPONDENT FOR HUFFINGTON POST, 2014 (Brad, “How the US stopped its fisheries from
collapsing,” Vox.com, May 8, Online: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/8/5669120/how-the-us-stopped-its-fisheries-from-collapsing)
We hear a lot of grim stories about overfishing and the decline of fisheries around the world. Bluefin tuna is
vanishing. Chilean sea bass is dwindling. Pretty soon, it sometimes seems like, all that'll be left is the jellyfish. So it's
worth highlighting a country that has actually done a lot to curtail overfishing and rebuild its fisheries in the
past decade — the United States. Back in the 1980s and '90s, many fisheries in the US were in serious trouble. Fish
populations were dropping sharply. Some of New England's best-known groundfish stocks — including flounder, cod,
and haddock — had collapsed, costing the region's coastal communities hundreds of millions of dollars. But the
picture has improved considerably in the last decade, thanks in part to stricter fishing regulations. Last week,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its annual fisheries update for 2013 — and the
news was encouraging. Yes, progress has been uneven. About one-fifth of assessed stocks are still overfished. But on
the whole, US fisheries are steadily recovering. Back in 1999, NOAA listed 98 stocks as "overfished." Today,
that's down to 40. What's more, 34 previously depleted fish stocks have now been "rebuilt" — meaning that
they've rebounded to a level that supports the maximum sustainable yield. Those numbers improved again between
2012 and 2013: This rebound has been a boon to the fishing industry: US commercial fishermen caught 9.6
billion pounds of seafood in 2012, the second highest total in more than a decade (2011 was the highest year).
The rebound in US fisheries was also noted last year in a separate study by the Natural Resources Defense
Council, which studied 44 key fish stocks that had been seriously depleted and found that about 64 percent
showed significant signs of recovery.
4
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
Fisheries NEGATIVE - 1NC: Solvency Frontline
1. REGULATORY CONFUSION MEANS THE PLAN CAN’T SOLVE
SMITH 2012 [Turner, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Harvard Law
graduate, “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,”
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11938741/Smith_2012.pdf?sequence=1]
While the United States has made strides in regulating aquaculture over the last several decades, the current
regulatory framework is too complex and, ultimately, too lenient, to realize aquaculture’s full potential and mitigate
aquaculture’s environmental problems in light of the challenges the industry will face in the coming century. Without
cooperation and coordination among federal agencies, perhaps achievable a single piece of federal legislation
devoted to aquaculture development, aquaculture’s role as the creator of polluting and exploitative tragedies of the
commons will continue. Many federal agencies with very different missions and jurisdictional reaches govern
aquaculture in disparate, often overlapping, and often inconsistent ways, including the Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”), the FDA, NMFS/NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Fisheries, the
FWS, the Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), and the United States Coast Guard.
2. OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE WON’T WORK- IT’S COSTLY AND TECHNOLOGICALLY
DIFFICULT
AQUASOL 2014 [AquaSol is a US-based aquaculture consulting company, “AquaSol, Inc. is Going Offshore,”
http://fishfarming.com/aquasol-inc-going-offshore.html]
Why has the transition not occurred sooner? A number of reasons come to mind. First, we can describe what we refer
to as the "low hanging fruit" theory. People naturally gravitate to doing what's easiest first using locally available
resources on land, where they are more comfortable. A parallel can be drawn to the oil industry which started on land,
then moved offshore, then moved further offshore, and now is tapping into the hardest and most expensive reserves to
access like oil sands. We believe a similar trend will emerge in the aquaculture industry whereby the industry will
eventually be forced to go offshore due to increasingly greater competition for scarce freshwater resources, while
simultaneously developing more sustainable yet typically more expensive forms of production like recirculating
aquaculture systems (RAS). A second reason is it's expensive to build offshore platforms and to access these
platforms with sophisticated and specialized vessels and it takes a sizeable investment to rationalize these high fixed
costs. A third reason is mother nature. Offshore aquaculture is exposed to the forces of nature and the fury of the
seas and it is rarely an easy place to work. A final reason is technology. A strong argument can be made that we
simply have not imagined or built the type of robust offshore aquaculture structure that can withstand the forces of
nature over time.
3. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN DOESN’T CREATE A SUCCESSFUL AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY
UPTON AND BUCK 2010 [Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy for the Congressional
Research Service, Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy for the CRS, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” August
9, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf]
The future of aquaculture in the U.S. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE is still an open question. Setting a regulatory
framework might be necessary but not necessarily sufficient to spur development of an open ocean aquaculture
industry. Aquaculture in other countries may have advantages related to lower costs and superior sites. Although it
might be argued that a highly regulated U.S. industry is unlikely to be competitive with aquaculture in other countries,
minimal regulation does not guarantee that the U.S. aquaculture industry will succeed. A complex and unpredictable
mix of technological, biological, and economic factors will also determine the future profitability of open ocean
aquaculture. Although government may play a role in funding research and pilot projects, large-scale production
will likely depend on private initiatives and innovation.
5
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
FISHERIES NEGATIVE – 1NC FOOD SECURITY HARMS FRONTLINE
AQUACULTURE CAN’T SOLVE FOOD INSECURITY – THE INABILITY TO TRANSPORT FISH, STORE
FISH UNTIL EATING, AND AFFORD FISH AREN’T RESOLVED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE.
HANNAH, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AT KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, 2008
(Bill, “Food Insecurity, Aquaculture, and the Nature of Technology,” University of Alberta Health Law Review, 16:4,
Online: http://www.hli.ualberta.ca/HealthLawJournals/~/media/hli/Publications/HLR/16- 4-hannah.pdf)
Food insecurity remains a devastating reality for people across the globe. 1 The problem persists despite multiple,
ongoing aid and development programs. One global program recently offered as a part of the solution for food
insecurity is modern aquaculture.2 Its purported benefits for food insecurity are increased food production,
employment, and income. However, there is a perspective that views aquaculture as yet another technofix,
doomed to fail as other technofixes have.3 There are those that believe that aquaculture will not alleviate food
insecurity, instead it will further entrench corporate or developed-world control. The reasons for the persistence
of food insecurity are diverse. The simple explanation, that starvation is simply a matter of supply or production,
has been challenged and overcome. It is now accepted that food supply and production is a factor in causing food
insecurity, but that it is not the only, or even the most important factor. Food insecurity is now mostly explained in
terms of availability and access to the food supplies. National access to food trade, regional infrastructure to allow
transport, local stores of food remaining secure and most importantly, the ability of households to afford to
buy the food, all seem more impactful than production problems on food insecurity.
6
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
SHERIES NEGATIVE – 1NC ENVIRONMENT HARMS FRONTLINE
1. OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE DEVASTATES ECOSYSTEMS
WHEELER 2013 [Garrett, Research Editor and Editorial Board Member for the GGU Environmental Law Journal,
Doctor of Jurisprudence, Golden Gate University School of Law, “A Feasible Alternative: The Legal Implications of
Aquaculture in the United States and the Promise of Sustainable Urban Aquaculture Systems,”
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gguelj]
New technologies are allowing operators to cultivate fish and other seafood in exposed, open-ocean environments that
were inaccessible only twenty years ago However, the rise of offshore aquaculture poses significant threats to
sensitive marine environments and “represents a fundamental transition in the human claim on the Earth’s surface.”
Open-ocean aquaculture facilities operate in largely pristine areas and are intimately connected with their surrounding
aquatic ecosystems Common species cultivated in the open ocean include mostly finfish such as salmon, cod, and
tuna. Large underwater cages are placed in the water, and as ocean currents flow through the cages, the spread of
waste and chemical byproducts can implicate the health of the seafloor and the surrounding water column.
Escaped fish also pose a threat to marine ecosystems by introducing non-indigenous species, compromising the
genetic fitness of native populations through interbreeding, and disease translocation. Disease and parasites may
also spread to nearby native populations, and attempts by operators to apply drugs and chemicals to contain those
threats can damage the surrounding ecosystem. Predatory fish and marine mammals are also drawn to cages full
of captive fish, leading to injury, death, and harassment by operators trying to protect their stocks. Finally,
operational failures are all but inevitable: in at least one instance, an entire fish cage broke free from a tow vessel
and was sent floating adrift in the open ocean, endangering marine species as well as any ocean-going vessels
unfortunate enough to cross its path.
2. AQUACULTURE CAN’T SOLVE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR FISH GOING EXTINCT –
CLIMATE CHANGE
SIELEN, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, 2013
(Alan, “The Devolution of the Seas: The Consequences of Oceanic Destruction,” Foreign Affairs, November/December, Online:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the- devolution-of-the-seas)
On top of all these problems, the most severe impact of the damage being done to the oceans by climate change
and ocean acidification may be impossible to predict. The world’s seas support processes essential to life on
earth. These include complex biological and physical systems, such as the nitrogen and carbon cycles;
photosynthesis, which creates half of the oxygen that humans breathe and forms the base of the ocean’s biological
productivity; and ocean circulation. Much of this activity takes place in the open ocean, where the sea and the
atmosphere interact. Despite flashes of terror, such as the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami of 2004, the delicate
balance of nature that sustains these systems has remained remarkably stable since well before the advent of human
civilization. But these complex processes both influence and respond to the earth’s climate, and scientists see certain
recent developments as red flags possibly heralding an impending catastrophe. To take one example, tropical fish
are increasingly migrating to the cooler waters of the Arctic and Southern oceans. Such changes may result in
extinctions of fish species, threatening a critical food source especially in developing countries in the tropics. Or
consider that satellite data show that warm surface waters are mixing less with cooler, deeper waters. This
reduction in vertical mixing separates near-surface marine life from the nutrients below, ultimately driving down the
population of phytoplankton, which is the foundation of the ocean’s food chain. Transformations in the open
ocean could dramatically affect the earth’s climate and the complex processes that support life both on land and at
sea. Scientists do not yet fully understand how all these processes work, but disregarding the warning signs could
result in grave consequences.
7
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
EMPLOYMENT DISADVANTAGE 1NC
A. UNIQUENESS: COASTAL FISHING COMMUNITIES ARE THRIVING – THEY PROVIDE STABLE
EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRIBUTE BILLIONS TO THE US ECONOMY.
MATHESON, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, 2013
(Fiona, “NOAA report finds commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated $199 billion in 2011,” NOAA, March, Online:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/07_noaa_report_finds_commercial_and_recreational .html)
U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales and supported 1.7
million jobs in the nation’s economy in 2011, according to a new economic report released by NOAA’s
Fisheries Service. The report, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011, is published annually on a two-year lag
to allow data collection, analysis, and peer review. It provides economic statistics on U.S. commercial and recreational
fisheries and marine- related businesses for each coastal state and the nation. Key to the report are the economic
effects--jobs, sales, income, and value added to Gross National Product--of the commercial and recreational fishing
industries. “Economic impact” measures how sales in each sector ripple throughout the state and national economy as
each dollar spent generates additional sales by other firms and consumers. The seafood industry—harvesters,
seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and retailers—generated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37
billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011, the most recent year included in the report.
Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs
in 2011. Compared to 2010, the numbers are up for all of these impacts except commercial seafood sales.
“Commercial and recreational fishing are integral parts of the nation’s social and economic fabric,” said Sam
Rauch, deputy assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “While there’s still work to do, to see
landings and value climb in 2011 shows we’re moving in the right direction, even in this time of challenging transition
for many fishing communities.”
8
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
EMPLOYMENT DISADVANTAGE 1NC
B. LINK AND IMPACT: AQUACULTURE SUBSIDIES HARM COASTAL COMMUNITIES – THEY
DRIVE LOCAL FISHERS OUT OF BUSINESS AND SHIFT PROFITS TO CORPORATIONS, CREATING
UNEMPLOYMENT.
FOOD & WATER WATCH, 2006 (A nonprofit organization monitoring food and water access, “Net Loss: Aquaculture Drags Down
Fish, Jobs,” Online: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/net-loss- aquaculture-drags-down-fish-jobs/)
Now it appears that U.S. federal waters are the next target for exploitation. These large aquaculture producers,
highly subsidized by governments around the world in the name of research and technological progress, can
produce massive quantities of fish at relatively low costs. So intense is the competition in the aquaculture
industry, and so high are the start-up costs, that new firms are virtually excluded from entry. Smaller fish
farms are not able to produce fish at such low cost, and are driven out of business. “Pan Fish‚ acquisition of
Marine Harvest] is a terrifying prospect for the Scottish industry,” an industry insider said. This will give the one
company control of most of the mainland and the Western Isles. There are now just over 20 small independent
companies left.” Also, although there were 50 aquaculture companies in British Columbia in 1989, by 2003 only 12
remained. With headquarters far from fish farms, these corporations funnel most of their profits away from
local communities; they have little or no interest in making long-tern investments in communities or
protecting ecosystems. NO REPLACEMENT FOR FISHING The claims of job-production made by aquaculture
proponents generally rely on the “multiplier effect” to amplify their statistics. Under this assumption, each farm job
created generates six additional jobs in other parts of the industry, such as processing or transport. Scotland, for
example, estimated that the salmon farming industry created 8,600 full-time jobs by 2004.8 However, without the
multiplier effect, this number actually may be closer to 1,230 jobs. The bulk of new jobs are therefore not in remote
coastal areas, as claimed, but in more accessible and urban areas where food processing takes place. MORE
FISH, FEWER JOBS As aquaculture has become increasingly efficient in the past 20 years, output has increased
dramatically, while employment in the industry has remained stagnant or even declined. In British Columbia, for
example, production of salmon has tripled without creating any additional jobs. And In Sweden and Scotland, salmon
production has increased while employment has actually decreased. An equally sad story is unfolding in Norway,
where the industry greatly expanded from 1985 to 2000, but employment decreased by 20%. “Numbers of jobs in
salmon farming in remote areas have already dropped like a stone, with now a third of the workforce on farm sites and
loch systems compared with eight years ago.” Dr Michael Foxley, of Scotland explained. “There will be a tendency to
even larger salmon farm production units with smaller crews and threats of disease outbreaks.” WHAT KIND OF
FUTURE? Contrary to the enthusiastic claims of policymakers and industry representatives, aquaculture is not the
answer to the problems of rural coastal unemployment. Jobs created by aquaculture are largely urban-based and
vulnerable to layoffs as the highly mechanized industry becomes more efficient. At the same time, environmental
destruction wrought by aquaculture threatens the livelihoods of fishing communities, which depend on clean
oceans and healthy fisheries for survival. Offshore aquaculture promotes corporate profits over social equity,
clean seas and healthy fish.
9
MNUDL Middle School 2014-15
Fisheries
FISHMEAL DISADVANTAGE 1NC
A. UNIQUENESS: MARINE ECOSYSTEMS ARE SUSTAINABLE NOW BUT INCREASED DEMAND
FOR FISHMEAL COULD THREATEN THEM.
MERINOA, PLYMOUTH MARINE LABORATORY, 2012 (Gorka, “Can marine fisheries and aquaculture meet fish
demand from a growing human population in a changing climate?,” Global Environmental Change, Volume 22, Issue 4, October 2012, Pages 795–
806)
We conclude that marine ecosystems may be able to sustain current and increased per capita consumption rates
through 2050, provided that effective fisheries management measures are implemented and that significant
technological adaptations are developed.
If fisheries management remain suboptimal and fishmeal prices rose as a consequence of greater demand, these
conclusions would not hold. Our analysis was predicated on assumptions about how changes in climate affect
marine fisheries, the effectiveness of fisheries management, trends in human population size and the capacity to
reduce FIFO in aquaculture.
B. LINK AND IMPACT: AQUACULTURE OPERATIONS USE WILD-CAUGHT FISH TO FEED
CARNIVOROUS FARMED FISH – THIS DRIVES OVERFISHING.
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 2008 (World Wildlife Fund, ‘Aquaculture problems: Fish feed,’ Feb 29,
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/aquaculture/fish_feed/index.cfm)
Aquaculture is contributing to overfishing through the use of wild-caught fish as feed for farmed fish. Most
farmed marine fish and shrimp species are carnivorous. They are either fed whole fish (mainly in the case of tuna) or
pellets made of, amongst other things, fishmeal and fish oil. In both cases, the fish used as feed are caught from
the wild. The amount of feed needed for farmed fish and shrimp is staggering. For example: up to 22kg of wildcaught fish is needed to produce just 1kg of farmed tuna 4kg of wild-caught fish is needed to produce 1kg of
farmed salmon up to 2kg of wild-caught fish is needed to produce 1kg of farmed marine shrimp This means
that the aquaculture industry is using a large proportion of the fish caught in the world’s oceans each year.
Currently, one-third of the world’s fish catch is used to produce fishmeal and fish oil. In 2004, the aquaculture
industry used 87% of the world’s fish oil and 53% of the world’s fishmeal, with salmon farming alone using
over half the global production of fish oil. Many of the fish stocks used as feed - mostly anchovies, pilchards,
mackerel, herring, and whiting - are already fished at, or over, their safe biological limit. So instead of relieving
pressure on the marine environment, aquaculture is actually contributing to the overfishing crisis that plagues
the world's fisheries.
10