Future Of Food Must Be Blue Along With Green

Aquatic foods will not be a silver bullet for mending the global food system – but they are a part of the puzzle we cannot afford to ignore.

Fremont, CA: Our present fixation on land-based food production has come at an enormous cost. For example, agriculture is the principal driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss worldwide and is responsible for about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The ecological footprints of aquatic foods ('blue foods') can vary significantly. Some fisheries and farms are responsible for considerable greenhouse gas emissions or ecological impacts. But several aquatic foods outcompete terrestrial livestock in terms of environmental effects. One cause is that compared to terrestrial animals, fish do not require to waste energy on maintaining body temperature or battling gravity and can invest more of their metabolic energy into growth.

Blue foods are a principal source of protein for some 3 billion people. In addition, many of the most vulnerable countries are also an important source of vital micronutrients, like iron and zinc, and constitute a key preventive measure against premature deaths and stunting.

Given their relative health advantages, comparatively small environmental footprint, and the prospect for a substantial expansion of global production, foods from the ocean and freshwater systems have a key role in achieving a healthy and sustainable food system. Yet several discussions of food neglect blue foods altogether. And when they include blue foods, they tend to deal with them in sweeping generalizations – typically calling for a huge expansion of aquaculture.

When we ignore this major food group, we make terrible decisions. Terrestrial & aquatic food systems are deeply interconnected, so if we don't think of them as one integrated system, we create tradeoffs we regret. For instance, intensification of fertilizer use in agriculture has created huge dead zones in coastal waters, devastating impacts on aquaculture and the nursery areas that support capture fisheries. Likewise, demand for fishmeal to feed livestock has driven massive extraction of small pelagic fish, decimating local fisheries that are frequently the most crucial source of nutrition for vulnerable communities. When decision-makers neglect blue foods and view aquatic environments simply as providing inputs to, or absorbing the waste from, terrestrial production, they incur high costs and miss important opportunities.

Aquatic foods also vary in environmental footprint, depending on how they're produced, processed, sold and consumed. Clams and bivalves that graze on nutrients in the water have a much less footprint than shrimp and salmon that require huge amounts of protein in feed (and, in intensive cultivation, also require inputs of pesticides and antibiotics). Even fish caught or raised close to the market can pick up a heavy carbon footprint when they are sent across the ocean for processing and then sent back for sale. Fishers that function locally may have much lower greenhouse gas emissions than factory trawlers that drag heavy nets across the ocean floor and stay out at sea for months.

Aquatic foods will not be a silver bullet for mending the global food system – but they are a part of the puzzle we cannot afford to ignore. So as we bring them fully into debates and decision-making about the future of food, we must be thoughtful about these details – about the interconnections that shape tradeoffs and the diversity that presents challenges to policy and markets and also great opportunities for prosperity and resilience.