Fish Consumption: Choices in the Intersection of Public Concern, Fish Welfare, Food Security, Human Health and Climate Change

Articles
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

Future global food insecurity due to growing population as well as changing consumption demands and population growth is sometimes suggested to be met by increase in aquaculture production. This raises a range of ethical issues, seldom discussed together: fish welfare, food security, human health, climate change and environment, and public concern and legislation, which could preferably be seen as pieces in a puzzle, accepting their interdependency. A balanced decision in favour of or against aquaculture needs to take at least these issues into consideration. It is further argued that in the parallel discussion on increased livestock production animal welfare is an inevitable element both in relation to current legislation in many countries but also in relation to our perception of moral, whereas awareness of fish welfare is low. Both EU legislation and labelling concerning fish is mainly limited to environmental aspects. It is argued that EU shows a split perception of fish, on the one hand acknowledging scientific evidence of fish capacities but on the other excludes fish from detailed legislation. Combining the claim of the Treaty of Lisbon to pay full regard to animal welfare and scientific evidence fish are sentient it is concluded that fish welfare need to be considered in any farming practice and any ethical consideration of increased aquaculture. This might be facilitated taking a basis in our own vulnerability and interdependence, combined with moral responsibility to show sentient beings a ‘loving kindness’—an extension of Cora Diamond’s argument regarding mammals.

Keywords

Fish welfare Ethics Food security Public health Public concern 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is an elaborated and restructured version of the paper Röcklinsberg (2012a) presented at the 11th conference of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics in Tübingen, “Climate change and sustainable development. Ethical perspectives on land use and food production”. I’m most grateful for valuable comments at the conference and from the special issue editors Thomas Potthast and Simon Meisch as well as from two anonymous reviewers on a previous version of the manuscript. The author is board member of the Swedish Centre of Excellence in Animal Welfare Sciences at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science, and part of the research project “OrAqua’ European Organic Aquaculture - Science-based recommendations for further development of the EU regulatory framework and to underpin future growth in the sector”.

References

  1. Ababouch, L. (2009). Fish utilization and trade. In Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien Fisheries, sustainability and development. Fifty-two authors on co-existence and development of fisheries and aquaculture in developing and developed countries (pp. 377–398). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA).Google Scholar
  2. Algers, B., Blokhuis, H., Boetner, A., Broom, D. M., Costa, P., Domingo, M., et al. (2009). Scientific opinion: General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. The EFSA Journal, 954, 1–27.Google Scholar
  3. Alistair, J. H., & Evans, K. (2013). Detecting climate impacts with oceanic fish and fisheries data. Climatic Change, 119, 49–62.Google Scholar
  4. Andreoletti, O., Budka, H., Buncic, S., Collins, J. D., Griffin, J., Hald, T., et al. (2009). Scientific opinion: Food safety considerations concerning the species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing farmed fish. The EFSA Journal, 1190, 1–16.Google Scholar
  5. Ashley, P. J., Ringrose, S., Edwards, K. L., Wallington, E., McCrohan, C. R., & Sneddon, L. U. (2009). Effect of noxious stimulation upon antipredator responses and dominance status in rainbow trout. Animal Behavior, 7, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barman, M., Johansson, S., Hesselmar, B., Wold, A. E., Sandberg, A.-S., et al. (2013). High levels of both n-3 and n-6 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in cord serum phospholipids predict allergy development. PLoS One 8(7):e67920. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067920.
  7. Behdadi, D. (2012). ‘The Compassionate Stock-keeper’ and other virtuous ideals values and definitions in the animal welfare legislations of the United Kingdom, Spain and Argentina. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Report no 36 (published within the project Legal systems and ethical values behind official and stakeholder-based animal welfare control, funded by the Centre of Excellence in Animal Welfare Science).Google Scholar
  8. Bentham, J. (1789). A utilitarian view. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (1989) (pp. 25–26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Bergqvist, J., & Gunnarsson, S. (2013). Finfish aquaculture: Animal welfare, the environment, and ethical implications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2013). Fish welfare in aquaculture: Explicating the chain of interactions between science and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braithwaite, V. A. (2010). Do fish feel pain?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Braithwaite, V. A., Huntingford, F., & van den Bos, R. (2013). Variation in emotion and cognition among fishes. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bremer, S., Haugen, A. S., & Kaiser, M. (2012). Mapping core values and ethical principles for livelihoods in Asia. In T. Potthast & S. Meisch (Eds.), Climate change and sustainable development. Ethical perspectives on land use and food production (pp. 419–426). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandroo, K. P., Duncan, I. J. H., & Moccia, R. D. (2004). Can fish suffer?: Perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 86, 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colin, A. (2013). Fish cognition and consciousness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collste, G. (2004). Globalisering och global rättvisa. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  17. COM 2011 (748) Action plan against the rising threats from antimicrobial resistance. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council.Google Scholar
  18. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing.Google Scholar
  19. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97.Google Scholar
  20. Diamond, C. (2001). Injustice and Animals. In Carl Elliott (Ed.), Slow cures and bad philosophers. Essays on Wittgenstein, medicine and bioethics. Durham: Duke University Press Books.Google Scholar
  21. Diamond, C. (2008). The difficulty of reality and the difficulty of philosophy. In S. Cavell, et al. (Eds.), Philosophy and animal Life. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. EU Directive (2008/120/EC). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs.Google Scholar
  23. EU Directive (2010/63/EU). DIRECTIVE 2010/63/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.Google Scholar
  25. Ellingsen, N., & Aanondsen, S. A. (2006). Environmental impact of wild caught cod and farmed salmon—A comparison with chicken. International Journal of Life Cycle Analysis, 11(1), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. EU Directive (98/58/EC) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2007). Attitudes of citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1 - TNS Opinion & Social. Brussels: Eurobarometer.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (EC). (2006). Commission staff document, annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006–2010.Google Scholar
  29. European Commission (EC). (2007). 2007/C 306/01. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007.Google Scholar
  30. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2010). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2010. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.Google Scholar
  31. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2012). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2012. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.Google Scholar
  32. Frewer, L., Kole, A., Van De Kroon, S., & De Lauwere, C. (2005). Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gavinelli, A., & Ferrara, M. (2009). Animal welfare: The risk manager’s perspective. In F. J. M. Smulders & B. Algers (Eds.), Food Safety assurance and veterinary public health. Volume 5. Welfare of production animals: Assessment and management of risks. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Gillund, F., & Myhr, A. I. (2010). Perspectives on salmon feed: A deliberative assessment of several feed resources. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guede, R. S., Piovesan C., Antunes J. L., Mendes F. M. & Ardenghi, T. M. (2014). Assessing individual and neighborhood social factors in child oral health-related quality of life: A multilevel analysis. Quality of Life Research. 2014 Apr 17. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 24740326.Google Scholar
  36. Hambraeus, L. (2009). Seafood in human nutrition. In Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien Fisheries, sustainability and development. Fifty-two authors on co-existence and development of fisheries and aquaculture in developing and developed countries (pp. 325–340). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA).Google Scholar
  37. Hoffsten, L., Bjurman, S., & Örn, S. (2013). “Only the dead fish follow the stream”, contribution (blues) to Swedish song contest 2013. The entire text at http://www.svt.se/melodifestivalen/artister/2013/louise-hoffsten/bidragsbibeln-louise-hoffsten-only-the-dead-fish-follow-the-stream.
  38. Honkanen, P., & Olssen, S. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice. The case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Horgan, R., & Gavinelli, A. (2006). The expanding role of animal welfare within EU legislation and beyond. Livestock Science, 103, 303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huntingford, F. A., Adams, C., Braithwaite, V. A., Kadri, S., Pottinger, T. G., Sandøe, P., et al. (2006). Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology, 68, 332–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huntingford, F., Jobling, M., & Kadri, S. (2012). Aquaculture and behaviour. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. ICUN. (2007). Guide for the sustainable development of mediterranean aquaculture. Interaction between aquaculture and the environment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Malaga.Google Scholar
  43. Jalmlöv, M. Steén, M., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2011). “Kan fiskar känna smärta och/eller uppleva lidande?” Rapport från Nationellt centrum för djurvälfärd (SCAW).Google Scholar
  44. Kalshoven, K., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2013). Sustainability at the crossroads of fish consumption and production. Ethical dilemmas of fish buyers at retail organizations in the Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kiessling, A. (2009). Feed—The key to sustainable fish farming. In Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien Fisheries, sustainability and development. Fifty-two authors on co-existence and development of fisheries and aquaculture in developing and developed countries (pp. 303–323). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA).Google Scholar
  46. Kupsala, S., Jokinen, P., & Vinnari, M. (2013). Who cares about farmed fish? Citizen perceptions of the welfare and the mental abilities of fish. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langeland, M. (2014). Nutrition of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) and evaluation of alternative protein sources (Vol. 39). Diss. (summary) Uppsala: Sveriges lantbruksuniv, Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae, 80 p.Google Scholar
  48. LOV 2009-06-19-103. Lov om dyrevelferd. Norge. (Animal welfare legislation, Norway).Google Scholar
  49. Lund, V., Mejdell, C., Röcklinsberg, H., Anthony, R., & Håstein, T. (2007). Expanding the moral circle: Farmed fish as objects of moral concern. Disease of Aquatic Organisms: Disentangling socio-political, moral, ethical and scientific aspects., 75, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marinoff, L. (2007). Ethics, globalisation and hunger. The ethicist’s perspective. In P. Pinstrup-Andersen & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Ethics, hunger and globalization: In search of appropriate policies (pp. 29–49). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal Welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 103–117.Google Scholar
  52. Mozaffarian, D., & Rimm, E. B. (2006). Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: Evaluating the risks and the benefits. Journal of American Medical Association, 2006(296), 1885–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C. M., Clay, J., et al. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405, 1017–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Bureau, D. P., Chiu, A., Elliott, M., Farrell, A. P., et al. (2009). Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 15103–15110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nijdam, D., Roed, T., & Westhoek, H. (2012). The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy, 37, 760–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. OIE. (2009). World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). In The OIE aquatic animal health code. 2012. http://www.oie.int/international-standard-setting/aquatic-code/access-online/ Accessed March 7th, 2013.
  57. Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2007). Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? Aquaculture, 272, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Preece, Rod. (1999). Animals and nature: Cultural myths, cultural realities. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  59. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Röcklinsberg, H. (2001). Das Seufzende Schwein. Zur Theorie und Praxis in deutschen Modellen zur Tierethik. Erlangen: Harald Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Röcklinsberg, H. (2012a). Fish for food in a challenged climate—Ethical reflections. In T. Potthast & S. Meisch (Eds.), Climate change and sustainable development. Ethical perspectives on land use and food production (pp. 326–334). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Röcklinsberg, H. (2012b). Vegetarismens lange tidslinje. I mere end 2000 år er der blevet argumenteret for en vegetarisk kost. In M. Gjerris, M. G. Klingenberg, & G. Tveit (Eds.), Det meningsmættede kød (pp. 125–146). Viborg: Tiderne førlag.Google Scholar
  63. Ryckebosch, E., Bruneel, C., Termote-Verhalle, R., et al. (2014). Nutritional evaluation of microalgae oils rich in omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids as an alternative for fish oil. Food Chemistry, 160, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sandøe, P., & Christiansen, S. (2008). Ethics of animal use (p. 179). Singapore: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Schlag, A. (2010). Aquaculture: An emerging issue for public concern. Journal of Risk Research, 13(7), 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. SFS 1998:534 Swedish Animal Welfare Act.Google Scholar
  67. Sharma, C. (2009). Fisheries, development and human rights. In Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien Fisheries, sustainability and development. Fifty-two authors on co-existence and development of fisheries and aquaculture in developing and developed countries (pp. 443–450). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA).Google Scholar
  68. Shelton, C. (2014). Climate change adaptation in fisheries and aquaculture. Compilation of initial examples. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1088 FIPI/C1088 (En), Rome.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, P., et al. (2014). Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Working group III contribution to the IPCC 5th assessment report (final draft). http://mitigation2014.org. Accessed 28 April 2014.
  70. Sneddon, L. U. (2002). Anatomical and electrophysiological analysis of the trigeminal nerve in the rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Neuroscience Letters, 319, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sneddon, L. U. (2003). Trigeminal somatosensory innervation of the head of the teleost fish with particular reference to nociception. Brain Research, 972, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sneddon, L. U. (2006). Ethics and welfare: Pain perceptions in fish. Bulletin European Association of Fish Pathologists, 26(1), 6–10.Google Scholar
  73. Solgaard, H., & Yang, Y. (2011). Consumer’s perception of farmed fish and willingness to pay for fish welfare. British Food Journal, 113(8), 997–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Subasinghe, R. (2009). Aquaculture development—The blue revolution. In Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien Fisheries, sustainability and development. Fifty-two authors on co-existence and development of fisheries and aquaculture in developing and developed countries (pp. 281–302). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA).Google Scholar
  75. Swedish National Food Agency. (2013). www.slv.se. Accessed 14 Feb 2013
  76. Thrane, M. (2004). Energy consumption in the Danish fishery. Identification of key factors. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 8(1–2), 223–239.Google Scholar
  77. Tjärnström, E. (2010). Ethical impact on EU animal welfare policies: The example of Article 13. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Student report no. 336. http://stud.epsilon.slu.se/1572/.
  78. Tyedmers, P. (2004). Fisheries and energy use. In C. Cleveland (Ed.). Encyclopedia of energy (Vol. 2, pp. 683–693). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  79. Umesh, N. R., Chandra Mohan, A. B., Ravibabu, G., Padiyar, P. A., Phillips, M. J., Mohan, C. V., et al. (2010). Shrimp farmers in India: Empowering small-scale farmers through a cluster-based approach. In S. S. De Silva & F. B. Davy (Eds.), Success stories in Asian aquaculture (pp. 41–66). Berlin: Springer E-books. ISBN 978-90-481-3087-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vanhonacker, F., Altintzoglou, T., Lutan, J., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Does fish origin matter to European consumers? Insights from a consumer survey in Belgium, Norway and Spain. British Food Journal, 113(4), 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vapnek J., & Chapman M. (2010). Legislative and regulatory options for animal welfare, FAO legislative study 104, Rome.Google Scholar
  82. Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S. (2007). Perceived importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: A consumer behaviour perspective. Ambio, 36(7), 580–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. von Barun, J., & Mengistu, T. (2007). On the ethics and economics of changing behaviour. In P. Pinstrup-Andersen & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Ethics, hunger and globalization: In search of appropriate policies (pp. 181–200). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. von Schacky, C. (2014). Omega-3 index and cardiovascular health. Nutrients, 6, 799–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wild, M. (2012). Fische. Kognition, Bewusstsein und Schmerz. Eine philosophische Perspektive. Beiträge zur Ethik und Biotechnologie, EKAH (Eidgenössichen Ethikommission für die Biotechnologie im Ausserhumanbereich, und Willemsen, A., Bern, Vol. 10.Google Scholar
  86. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). (2009). Terrestrial animal health code. 2009. Kap. 7.1, article 7.1.1.Google Scholar
  87. Ziegler, F. (2006). Environmental life cycle assessment of seafood products from capture fisheries. Doctoral thesis, Gothenburg university/SIK rapport 754.Google Scholar
  88. Ziegler, F. (2008). Minskad klimatpåverkan vid produktion och fiske av fisk och skaldjur. Underlag till klimatcertifiering. Göteborg, SIK, Rapport 2008:1.Google Scholar
  89. Ziegler, F. (2009). A catch for the future—Methods for more sustainable production of seafood products. In Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien Fisheries, sustainability and development. Fifty-two authors on co-existence and development of fisheries and aquaculture in developing and developed countries (pp. 341–351). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA).Google Scholar
  90. Ziegler, F., Winther, U., Hognes, E. S., Emanuelsson, A., Sund, V., & Ellingsen, H. (2012). Carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood on global market. Journal of Industrial Ecology,. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00485.x.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Environment and HealthSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations