Donate
Support us in the fight for a better food system.
You may have heard the expression ‘swearing like a fishwife’ or sung along to ‘Molly Malone,’ (also known as ‘Cockles and Mussels’). But have you ever wondered where sayings and songs like these come from?
To celebrate International Women’s Day, we are going to dig into the history of fishwives and explore how women still play a vital role in the global fishing industry, including in the farmed salmon supply chain.
What is a fishwife?
Step back in time to Scotland in the 19th and early 20th century, where fishing was mainly seen as a man’s job. However, on shore, women played critical roles within the industry.
Whilst caring for their large families, these women were responsible for cleaning fishing lines, attaching new bait, gutting, processing the catch, carrying the fish to the marketplace and selling the fish. Sometimes the work even included wading out to the anchored boats to carry the men back to shore on their backs! You can see how this old east coast saying is no exaggeration; “No man can be a fisher and lack a wife“.
They managed the work alone as their husbands were away fishing for extended periods of time, making them self-sufficient. Their role as a salesperson gave birth to the saying ‘swearing like a fishwife,’ as the women were known to be loud and foul-mouthed. However, like any good salesperson, they had to be loud and persuasive. Especially given the highly perishable nature of the fish.
Fishwives were an essential part of the local economy and culture of Scotland until industrialisation in the mid-twentieth century made small-scale fisheries obsolete.
Women in the modern-day fishing industry
Whilst fishwives, such as the ones described, may have vanished from Scotland and elsewhere, women continue to play a vital role in the modern-day fishing industry around the world.
Today, millions of lives and livelihoods are supported by aquatic food systems. According to the FAO, 58.5 million people were employed in the primary fisheries and aquaculture sector in 2020, half of whom are women (including pre- and post-catch). However, women also constitute a disproportionately large percentage of the people engaged in the informal, lowest paid, least stable and less skilled segments of the workforce, and often face gender-based constraints that prevent them from fully exploring and benefiting from their roles in the sector.
When it comes to salmon farming, in our recent report Blue Empire, we found a repetition of these patterns, where women are being negatively impacted by the industry. Salmon are carnivores and depend on wild fish in their diet, in the form of fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO). For the Norwegian salmon farming industry, much of this wild fish is being sourced off the coast of West Africa, depriving local communities and women of this fish.
Traditionally, women play a central role in processing and selling fish throughout the region. They dry, salt, ferment, and smoke fish such as sardinella and bonga, a vital source of affordable protein, then store and sell them for local consumption. This craft is handed down from mother to daughter across generations and is a source of pride.
However, now they are bearing the brunt of the damage caused by the industry which is gobbling up valuable micronutrients in a region where millions of women suffer from anaemia and simultaneously driving up the price of fish, pushing women out of business.
The small fish targeted by the FMFO industry contain key nutrients including iron, zinc, and calcium. These nutrients are critical for children’s cognitive development and for women’s health in West Africa, where more than half of the female population suffer from anaemia.
The increasing scarcity of fish stocks has also driven more and more women out of business as they are unable to compete with ever-increasing prices per crate of fish. Following a major on-the-ground investigation in January this year, The Financial Times quoted Fatou Thoiye, who lives in a Senegalese fishing town:
“A case of yaboi [round sardinella] used to cost 3,000 francs [5 euros], now it costs 50,000”.
Women are fighting back
To survive, in the past, Senegalese women processors came together in so-called economic interest groups (“groupements d’intéret économique”, or GIE) to ensure purchasing strength through numbers. But in recent years, more and more GIEs have lost a substantial number of their members who, despite mobilizing, could no longer make a living through fish processing and sales.
To counteract this problem, processors and fishmongers have been calling for a recognition of their profession which would grant them a better place in decision-making and policy-making processes to defend themselves against powerful fishing and FMFO industries. However, their call has yet to be acted upon despite the economic, social and cultural significance of their work.
Ultimately Norway’s and other countries’ appetite for FMFO to feed farmed fish is creating relentless pressure on West African fisheries, making it increasingly challenging for people in West Africa to defend their livelihoods.
What’s the solution?
To combat these issues, we’re calling on Norwegian decision-makers to stop further growth in salmon farming, mandate genuine transparency throughout the supply chain, and ensure that Norwegian companies’ activities and feed sourcing practices do not run counter to the country’s own development policy, which puts women and Africa centre stage. Feedback will continue to work with local community groups in West Africa, as well as groups challenging the farmed salmon industry in the UK and Norway.
Despite the many issues of the industry, much of the Norwegian farmed salmon ends up being sold as a ‘luxury’ product in restaurants across the UK, like Wagamama. Take action to help stop this injustice by signing our petition, in partnership with Eko and Wild Fish, calling for restaurant chain Wagamama to drop farmed salmon from its menu.
Photo © Clément Tardif / Greenpeace
It’s been a big week for Feedback this week, with the launch of our Blue Empire report detailing the impact of Norway’s enormous salmon farming industry on communities in the Global South.
The report is the fruit of months of careful research and collaboration with our partners to gain insights into the Norwegian salmon farming industry’s global supply chain with a specific focus on its feed sourcing in West Africa.
Our findings have literally made font-page news, having been picked up both in a major investigation by the Financial Times: The hidden cost of your supermarket salmon and by Norwegian Business daily Dagens Næringsliv (DN): Europeisk miljøorganisasjon slakter norsk oppdrett: – Matkolonialisme.
So, what did we find out about this massive industry, second only in value terms to Norway’s oil and gas sector?
Norway’s Salmon Farming Industry
Norway is the world’s biggest salmon farming country, supplying more than half of global production. Norwegian companies occupy eleven out of the top 20 slots in the list of global producers of farmed salmon. Norway is also home to the world’s largest salmon farmer, MOWI, which had a turnover of nearly €5 billion in 2022, and supplies supermarkets across Europe.
Why is this an issue?
Salmon farming is often plugged as the ‘sustainable solution’ to relieving the burden on ocean life. However, this could not be further from the truth.
In fact, Norway’s ‘blue empire’ has created a new type of food colonialism which fuels hunger and unemployment in regions such as West Africa and entrenches the existing power imbalance between rich and poor countries.
Farmed fish, such as salmon, consume millions of tonnes of wild-caught fish in their feed, in the form of fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO). In 2020, nearly 2 million tonnes of wild fish were required to produce the fish oil supplied to the Norwegian farmed salmon industry. This is equivalent to a staggering 2.5% of global marine fisheries catch. Just to supply fish oil to the Norwegian salmon farming industry!
On top of this, this system is inefficient. Norway’s annual output of farmed salmon is one quarter (27%) lower than the volume of wild fish required to produce the fish oil used in Norwegian farmed salmon feed.
But where does this wild fish come from?
Much of this wild fish is sourced from Northwest Africa, threatening the livelihoods, health, food security and nutrition of coastal and inland communities, in direct contradiction with the Norwegian government’s stated development goals, the overall objective of which is to “fight hunger and increase global food security” according to Anne Beathe Kristiansen Tvinnereim, Norway’s Minister of International Development.
But our findings show that beneath shiny promises of a ‘blue revolution’ lies a ‘blue empire’. The industrial scale of FMFO production in West Africa is driving up the price of fish and depleting marine resources in traditional fishing areas. This is reducing the availability of fish for human consumption – in Senegal alone, fish consumption declined by 50% in the 10 years between 2009-2018 – and resulting in the migration of fishers between West African coastal states.
“This is big business stripping life from our oceans, and depriving our fishing communities of their livelihoods. The science is clear, it will soon be too late. They must stop now. These industries established in West Africa use fish to produce fish meal and fish oil to feed animals in Europe and Asia while the African population needs this fish to feed themselves.”, Dr Aliou Ba, Senior Oceans Campaign Manager for Greenpeace Africa
How does Norwegian salmon link to the UK?
Norwegian salmon is now available in most European markets and is sold as a premium product all around the world, including the UK where it can be found in Sainsburys, Tesco, Costco, Aldi and Lidl. Even restaurants in the UK, such as Wagamama, which sees itself as “support[ing] the planet, whilst spreading positivity… from bowl to soul”, source Norwegian farmed salmon.
This is a global issue which is being driven by companies seeking to create demand in high-income markets for farmed seafood such as salmon, seabass and prawns. Each year, around one-fifth of the world’s annual marine catch (over 16 million tonnes in 2020) is used to produce FMFO, the bulk of which goes to producing feed for the aquaculture industry. Astonishingly, while salmonid production only accounts for 3.9% of farmed fish produced globally, it uses up 58% of fish oil and 14% of fish meal destined for aquaculture.
Is there a solution?
Luckily, the solutions are already on the table. Our modelling shows that an alternative aquaculture-fisheries model combining the direct consumption of wild-caught fish alongside salmon fed on fish oil and fishmeal exclusively made from trimmings (waste from processing), rather than whole fish, can deliver the same amounts of key micronutrients for the same number of people, whilst freeing up nearly 1 million tonnes of wild fish to feed people, or to continue playing their critical role in the marine ecosystem.
When it comes to Norway’s salmon farming industry, our report points to a clear disconnect between the Norwegian government’s industrial strategy – under which salmon farming is set to expand massively by 2050 – and its development goals. In light of our findings, we’re calling on Norwegian decision-makers to stop further growth in salmon farming, mandate genuine transparency throughout the supply chain, and ensure that Norwegian companies’ activities and feed sourcing practices do not run counter to its own development policy.
What can I do?
Sign our petition, in partnership with Eko and Wild Fish, calling for Wagamama to drop farmed salmon from its menu!
A tumultuous moment for America from which sprung a community food initiative worth revisiting during Black History Month.
1968, in the United States of America, was turbulent. The year’s unrest included the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and Bobby Kennedy, violence at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago, the iconic black power salutes at the Mexico Olympics, and on-going protests over the Vietnam war. From this chaotic context emerged a grassroots initiative in Oakland, California, with a simple yet somehow groundbreaking offer – free breakfasts for children.
These meals were launched in January 1969 by Rev. Earl Neil, a key player in organising the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, and held at St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church in Oakland where he served as pastor. He ran the breakfasts under the banner of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP), a radical black power political organisation infused with communist ideology, recently founded by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. The BPP’s reputation centres on their militia style confrontation the police and armed patrols of Black neighbourhood, however their social mission to support the Black community is less well known about.
The Community Survival programmes that the BPP ran were geared around empowerment for African Americans and reclaiming power at the social and economic level. As well as food these initiatives included providing transportation, education and healthcare services, alongside connecting people around cultural and sporting activities. “The food component of the BPP was a big part of our organizing.” Melvin Dickson, an organiser for the Oakland breakfast program said, “this included our free breakfast program. Because one thing you can guarantee in an oppressed community is that you’re going to find hunger.” Within a few months of the launch in Oakland, the Breakfast for Children Programme (BCP) was rolled out across the country by the BPP, feeding over 20,000 children in 19 cities by the end of 1969.
On a basic level the meals addressed the self-evident truth that “children can’t learn on an empty stomach,” but going deeper, it’s clear the breakfast clubs successfully embodied an ethic of grassroots organising and anti-oppressive practice. Cooking and eating were entry points for discussions about racism, capitalism, and the possibility of revolutionary change. Corporate power was challenged too – after organisers unsuccessfully attempted to get the support of businesses to donate food, the Black community in Oakland boycotted dairy products at Safeway and forced the supermarket to get behind the effort to feed kids.
Perhaps the clearest indicator that the meals made waves is seen from the way in which the authorities identified them as a threat. In an internal FBI memo, Hoover wrote: “[BCP] represents the best and most influential activity going for the BPP and, as such, is potentially the greatest threat to efforts by authorities to neutralize the BPP and destroy what it stands for”. In 1975, in a move widely considered to be influenced by the BPP, the US government started offering free breakfast in public schools.
Image Credit: It’s About Time / BPP
So what lessons can Britain learn today from the BPP’s free breakfast programme?
The Black Panther Party made food central to their political action because food, and hunger, have always been political issues. All too often in modern Britain, food support for hard up members of society has failed to face up to home truths about entrenched structural inequality, and instead treats the provision of food to those in need as apolitical acts of charity. In 2012, then prime minister David Cameron spoke in Parliament of ‘welcoming-the-work’ of food banks at the same time as his government’s austerity project pulled away the rug of social support for those in poverty. Since then, there has been a 10-fold increase in the number of food parcels being provided by food banks, and yet ministers have praised the effort required to meet the need as ‘uplifting’. This chasm between the political conditions of food poverty and the feel-good food philanthropy carried out by the political elite was epitomised last Christmas, as Rishi Sunak was photographed serving hot food at a London shelter. In these instances and many other moments in modern Britain, philanthropic food provision risks becoming political cover for structural inequality which is remedied and repeated without addressing root causes.
The Black Panther Party also shows us how food is a chance for us to come together. Community meals are by definition collective moments that provide the chance for relational power to build – contacts to be made, background stories of others to be better understood and shared visions for a better future to be discussed. Any grassroots campaign is stronger by placing food at the centre – as much as anything it makes it easier for people to attend if they don’t need to squeeze in a meal before or afterwards. On top of nourishment a shared meal is a chance for a conversation and connection, a hook for forming better relationships in the public realm.

Additional resources:
BBC World Service History Hour (2021) Black History: The Black Panthers
Huffington Post (2016) The Black Panther Party: A Food Justice Story
Vox (2016) The most radical thing the Black Panthers did was give kids free breakfast
Wikipedia entry on Black Panther Breakfast for Children
[Feature Image Credit: William P. Streater, Granger/Rex/Shutterstock. Bill Whitfield of the Black Panther party serves breakfast To local children in Kansas City, April 1969]
The COVID-19 pandemic made us more aware of the air we share between us. A hushed conversation between lovers, and its sticky heat of promise; the sliver of cool wind that blows in through the cracks of a crowded tube during a muggy ride; and the frosting, oh, the frosting! slick with air-droplets and birthday wishes, smeared atop a birthday cake after the candles are all blown out. My air is never mine, but yours, and ours. And as we yelled hello and goodbye at each other from 6 feet apart, it bound us together, like marriage, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health.
But when Black people started dying at a disproportionately high rate compared to our white counterparts, this pandemic reminded us that, despite possessing the same windpipe, and the same weary lung tissue, some air is ours alone to endure.
To take a breath in London, as a Black resident, is to produce life from toxic air. A report commissioned by the city of London showed that Black people are living in areas with disproportionately worse air quality. Nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, a Black child with sparkling eyes from inner London, was the first person in the world to have air pollution listed as a cause of death.
The surfaces of our lungs have always been contested territory. Our babies’ first breaths are less likely to be heard by their mothers – black women in the UK are 4 times more likely to die in childbirth compared to white women. Throughout history, white supremacy erected oppressive structures across the world, from slavery and colonisation, to the imperial new world order, that suffocated us. Race scientists justified our asphyxiation: they ran biased tests on enslaved people to conclude that “the deficiency in the negro (lung)” was about “20 per cent” compared to that of a white person. Never mind that these test subjects likely spent months crammed into the hull of a slave ship, sucking on just centimetres of expired oxygen. The brand of a deficient lung still follows Black people around, from hospital to hospital, getting in the way of life saving diagnoses, treatment and disability benefits. It is through these systems and their justifications, that the levers of white supremacy enact Necropolitics– using political power to determine if we live or die, if we breathe or not.
Each soul left gasping for air in a sinking dingy off the Mediterranean coast, is a political choice made by members of the European Union. Even as we bore witness to George Floyd’s murder, a live-streamed execution by suffocation, at the hands of American police, the Met Police still strangle our sons as a form of social control. When a Black woman in south London got into an argument with a non-black shop owner, he responded by throwing his hands around her neck. George Floyd’s last words to us were “I can’t breathe.” When Black people took to the streets in the US to protest police killings, they found their own throats closing up, as they choked on teargas sold to US riot police by UK manufacturers. In this way, Black life becomes an appeal for air, if not for basic survival, then to simply have some space. Give me air! As in, let me be. Allow me pause. Let me think, and feel, and live, and love, and process; comfortably, without want; away from hardship, and violence, and scrutiny.
Even outside of the smog city, and the riot gear, Black folk still find themselves battling for clean air. In hog country, eastern North Carolina, the pigs outnumber the mostly Black, Latine and Indigenous residents 35 to 1. Millions of pigs packed into factory farms mean billions of tonnes of pig-waste, which gets dumped, sprayed and crammed into the surrounding areas. What’s sprinkled into the air settles on people’s cars and clotheslines, into the backs of their throats, and into the swell of their lungs. In the shadow of the hog farms, breaths – and lives – become difficult to catch. The old men wheeze as they settle onto their rocking chairs. The young ones cough into the wind.
The UK doesn’t have as many factory farms as the US, but meat producers are always angling for more. Our factory farms already emit tonnes of noxious fumes into the atmosphere. Continuing expansion becomes a question of how much more our government expects us to bear.
But if the UK keeps building its factory farms, and rams the rooms with poultry, and swine, and excess, what then must we think? What then of our Black Girls, and Black Boys, with their Black Lungs, and Black Fists, and Black Dreams? What then of the smog, the strangle, and the fumes that follow? What should we make of this all? What else will come after your factories if not clouds of toxic air like the ones we know from our cities? Whose lungs will they fill but ours?
Foodrise hosted Joao Henrique Borges Azevedo and Daniel Fulga of Year 10 Duke’s Academy, Tottenham for a week of work experience. Here is what they had to say about their time:
Joao Henrique Borges Azevedo:
This week in Foodrise has been an unforgettable experience. I have learned very useful things, like finance, how charity campaigns work , how food waste is damaging ecosystems and climate and ecosystem…etc. I appreciate the opportunity!
Something that caught my attention and I loved learning is how sugar can affect our environment and how the fish industry in the UK is ruining our lives and harming everyone (even if not many are noticing). Also, the co-workers I got to know were very nice to me. Especially thanks to Azalea and Claire for all the lessons I learned with you.
In addition to learning about the environment, finance and many other things, we also learned about some of the different jobs around the office. My favourites were the work of Azalea (Operations Manager) and the work of Caela (Digital Campaigner).
Daniel Fulga:
I’ll start with the beginning. The whole week before work experience I felt excited and scared of the work experience which built up a bit of stress up to Sunday. I knew, however, that adults at work are very nice and helpful. My mentoring courses at LinkLaters really helped.
Anyways, the work experience week.
Day 1 (Monday) – Quite excited for work experience. Had a little trouble finding the workplace but Joao (school friend) showed me which was unexpected as I didn’t know he would be here as well for work experience. I met Azalea and she showed us the work Claire gave us which me and Joao started doing. It was really calm and relaxing in the office. Lunch passed and then we (me and Joao) had a nice conversation with Azalea about her job and other stuff. Great day.
Day 2 (Tuesday) – Got to the office and met Claire. She is a nice person. The work for that day was also quite easy and interesting, I could listen to music. At the end of the day me and Joao had been given a task to research games and artists. It was another great day.
Day 3 (Wednesday) – Another day in the office. Joao got there very early and read a book about the sugar beet campaign Foodrise did. That day we both read some of the book, then we had a talk with Claire about the task she gave us as well as the sugar and other campaigns which were quite interesting to know more about. However, the part where Claire, me and Joao were talking about how to make a campaign was fairly boring and about 60% into it I started zoning out. Overall though it was another great day.
Day 4 (Thursday) – Today is my last day here in the office. I found out about working only 4 days back on Friday last week. Today we talked about funding and some examples of foundations and where money comes from. We talked about an example of how much money can be needed for a campaign as well as planning how to use that budget. This time it was interesting but I was soo surprised at how complex the planning actually is. Me and Joao gave the office colleagues some chocolate which, from their reaction, I’m sure they loved.
Overall, this was much better than my most optimistic expectations and it’s an unforgettable experience that I will only see as a happy memory of my life. I also learned more about nature, campaigns and organisations more than I did in the last 10 years of my life.
Thanks to everyone for the help and support you all gave me and I’m happy to have my work experience here.
Thank you Joao and Daniel for all your hard work!
Alexandra Maruntu and Kyrel Ibrianne Sawal of Year 10, Waterside Academy, spent a week doing work experience at Foodrise’s head office. Here are their reflections.
This week has been our chance to experience what life is like in the working world. Foodrise is an organisation that specializes in how agriculture and food effects our environment but also how this food effects our bodies in the process.
We spent some time researching their campaigns and looking through their reports and found out just how much meat makes up of our global emissions. We even got a chance to make our own campaigns for our school suggesting implementing Meatfree Mondays. We got to try make our own posts and tweets using Canva, though at first, we found it a bit hard to navigate.
Over the course of the week, we got to meet staff from all sectors of the organisation. We got to talk and ask about their journeys as well as their daily routines. It was interesting to see what office life was like by having keys, having desks, going out for lunch and interacting with co-workers.
Near the end of the week, we found out we would have the chance to go to court and excitedly agreed. Reading the briefing we realized it was very hard to follow. Ultimately, we agreed that the government should be upholding their policies regarding taking CO2 emissions into account. Surprisingly, at the court the barristers were wearing wigs which we found laughable. It was our first time entering the royal courts of justice and seeing what it’s like in court.
Overall, we enjoyed learning more about the environment and considered the next steps to take in the future. Thank you to everyone from Foodrise for being very welcoming during this week.
Thank you Alexandra and Kyrel for all your hard work!
‘The Scottish Government supports the industry’s growth strategy to double the production of salmon by 2030’ – a statement now broadcast by every Scottish salmon producer in some variation or other.
But what might the consequences of this huge growth be?
Evidence of the negative impacts of salmon farming is piling up. It seems reasonable, given the magnitude of the salmon farming sector’s ambitions, to question whether there are unaccounted for social, environmental and economic costs to this increase in production and if the industry really is providing the benefits it claims it is.
A billion-pound industry
Growing at a rapid pace since the ‘70s, the Scottish salmon farming industry has gone from producing just 14 tonnes of fish for commercial sale in 1971 to more than 203,000 tonnes in 2019. That same year, the industry turned over more than £1 billion and claimed its position as the UK’s largest food export by value. No two ways about it, over the past five decades, the Scottish salmon farming industry has become a highly profitable and lucrative business. Today, you can find hundreds of salmon farms all along the west and north coasts of Scotland and the fish they produce in every UK supermarket. But as Feedback’s research and investigations have shown, the industry is built on a highly extractive business model which incurs significant external costs for Scottish society and the environment. These findings are backed up by economic analysis which shows that the total environmental and social cost over a seven-year period is in the region of £2 billion. And yet a big chunk of the financial returns generated by the industry are flowing out of the country: in an article published last year, we revealed that the industry is Scottish in name only, with all five of the major salmon farming businesses owned by foreign companies, including several Norwegian companies and a US investment firm.
Key to this industry’s expansion is the Scottish Government. Despite a 2018 parliamentary inquiry showing just how environmentally damaging the salmon industry is, the Government supports the expansion of the industry on account of the contribution it makes to the economy. However, a recent review of the economic contribution of Scottish salmon farms by the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) shows that the Gross Value Added (GVA) used by Marine Scotland to measure the industry’s contribution to the economy has potentially been exaggerated by 124% and the number of people it employs by a massive 251%. SIFT states that the evidence and reasoning for expansion are “partial, incomplete, unreliable and even irrelevant” and should not be used to increase production without further evidence. This didn’t stop cabinet secretary Mairi Gougeon MSP from using these potentially inflated figures to promote the Scottish salmon farming industry at COP26, when she stated, “the Scottish aquaculture sector supports almost 12,000 often highly skilled and well paid jobs”. Even if we consider this figure to be true, it represents a mere 5% of the number of people employed by the tourism industry across Scotland.
The incomplete picture relied upon by the Government fails to include the loss of jobs and income in other marine-based businesses. This is a particularly shocking omission if we consider the significant levels of pollution the industry generates and the rapid decline of Scotland’s wild salmon stocks, threatening the jobs and income of commercial shellfisheries, recreational fishing, recreational diving, and tourism all over Scotland. If the idea behind the Government’s endorsement is to create jobs, then perhaps it would be better off rebuilding wild stocks or supporting the farming of less harmful species. For instance, the shellfish farming industry is dwarfed by salmon and yet it generates proportionally far more jobs. For every £1 million of industry value, 23 shellfish jobs are generated for every 2 salmon jobs. With native mussel farming requiring no feed, helping to clean up waters and providing habitat for other species, it could be a far more beneficial and sustainable industry to support.
The true cost of salmon feed
Another challenge facing the salmon farming industry, in Scotland and elsewhere, is the true cost of salmon feed. The problem with farming a carnivorous species like salmon is the inclusion of fish in their diet. Current practices rely upon wild fish being caught, sometimes thousands of miles away, ground up into fish meal and fish oil (FMFO) and then included in compound feed which is fed to caged salmon along the Scottish coast. Salmon makes up just 4.5% of global aquaculture yet consumes 60% of global supplies of fish oil and 23% of fish meal destined for aquaculture. In 2014, the Scottish industry used at least 460,000 tonnes of wild fish to produce the fish oil necessary to feed just 179,000 tonnes of salmon – roughly equivalent to how much fish is purchased every year by the UK adult population. To meet its growth projections by 2030, the industry would have to increase its use of wild fish by 310,000 tonnes, to a total of 770,000 tonnes!
Up to 90% of the fish in FMFO are nutritious food-grade species, many of which contain a higher nutrient density than the farmed salmon they produce. After they’re fed to salmon, 50-99% of the essential nutrients they contain are lost. Despite the industry’s current reliance on wild fish, there are alternatives. It is possible for the industry to switch to 100% by-product derived FMFO and eliminate wild fish entirely from its supply chain. Furthermore, it has been shown, that by redirecting wild fish and diversifying our plates, we could reduce pressure on wild stocks and increase our nutrition from the ocean. While the Scottish Government endorses the expansion of the salmon industry, some of the fisheries that prop up its operations are showing signs of decline. An especially troubling thought when you consider many of the feed fish are taken from places where coastal communities wholly rely on fish as a vital source of key nutrients. The Government could do more to reduce this reliance and improve transparency by requiring the industry to produce impact reports on feed and regulate the use of wild-caught fish in FMFO.
Given its track record to date, it seems fair to say that the Scottish salmon industry’s focus on extraction, growth, and profit-at-all-costs will always come at the expense of rural communities, coastal ecosystems and a supply chain of exploited farmers and fishers. Ultimately, Scottish salmon is a high-value product sold in affluent markets. And the current usage of wild fish in salmon feed means that critical nutrients are not being distributed to people who need them the most. If we want fair nutrition around the globe, the industry should not be allowed to grow. If we want to reduce pollution and create long-term solutions for thriving fishing communities, the industry should not be allowed to grow. And, if we want to reduce pressure on wild fish stocks, the industry should not be allowed to grow. In short, rather than uncritically endorsing the salmon farming industry’s growth strategy, the Scottish Government needs to adopt firmer regulations to prevent further economic and environmental damage in Scotland and beyond.