Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“Only the dead fish follow the stream” (pop song title; Louise Hoffsten et al. 2013).

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here the focus is limited to the situation in the European Union.

  2. The OIE Resolution (Article 7.1.1 of the Terrestrial Code): Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment (OIE 2009).

References

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • Alistair, J. H., & Evans, K. (2013). Detecting climate impacts with oceanic fish and fisheries data. Climatic Change, 119, 49–62.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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 

  • Bergqvist, J., & Gunnarsson, S. (2013). Finfish aquaculture: Animal welfare, the environment, and ethical implications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, V. A. (2010). Do fish feel pain?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colin, A. (2013). Fish cognition and consciousness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collste, G. (2004). Globalisering och global rättvisa. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • COM 2011 (748) Action plan against the rising threats from antimicrobial resistance. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council.

  • COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • EU Directive (2008/120/EC). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs.

  • 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.

  • EFSA. (2009). Fish welfare. www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/fishwelfare.htm?wtrl=01.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU Directive (98/58/EC) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

  • European Commission. (2007). Attitudes of citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1 - TNS Opinion & Social. Brussels: Eurobarometer.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, R., & Gavinelli, A. (2006). The expanding role of animal welfare within EU legislation and beyond. Livestock Science, 103, 303–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntingford, F., Jobling, M., & Kadri, S. (2012). Aquaculture and behaviour. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Jalmlöv, M. Steén, M., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2011). “Kan fiskar känna smärta och/eller uppleva lidande?” Rapport från Nationellt centrum för djurvälfärd (SCAW).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • LOV 2009-06-19-103. Lov om dyrevelferd. Norge. (Animal welfare legislation, Norway).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2007). Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? Aquaculture, 272, 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preece, Rod. (1999). Animals and nature: Cultural myths, cultural realities. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röcklinsberg, H. (2001). Das Seufzende Schwein. Zur Theorie und Praxis in deutschen Modellen zur Tierethik. Erlangen: Harald Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., & Christiansen, S. (2008). Ethics of animal use (p. 179). Singapore: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlag, A. (2010). Aquaculture: An emerging issue for public concern. Journal of Risk Research, 13(7), 829–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SFS 1998:534 Swedish Animal Welfare Act.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Sneddon, L. U. (2002). Anatomical and electrophysiological analysis of the trigeminal nerve in the rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Neuroscience Letters, 319, 167–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon, L. U. (2003). Trigeminal somatosensory innervation of the head of the teleost fish with particular reference to nociception. Brain Research, 972, 44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon, L. U. (2006). Ethics and welfare: Pain perceptions in fish. Bulletin European Association of Fish Pathologists, 26(1), 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Swedish National Food Agency. (2013). www.slv.se. Accessed 14 Feb 2013

  • Thrane, M. (2004). Energy consumption in the Danish fishery. Identification of key factors. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 8(1–2), 223–239.

  • 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/.

  • Tyedmers, P. (2004). Fisheries and energy use. In C. Cleveland (Ed.). Encyclopedia of energy (Vol. 2, pp. 683–693). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vapnek J., & Chapman M. (2010). Legislative and regulatory options for animal welfare, FAO legislative study 104, Rome.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Schacky, C. (2014). Omega-3 index and cardiovascular health. Nutrients, 6, 799–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). (2009). Terrestrial animal health code. 2009. Kap. 7.1, article 7.1.1.

  • Ziegler, F. (2006). Environmental life cycle assessment of seafood products from capture fisheries. Doctoral thesis, Gothenburg university/SIK rapport 754.

  • Ziegler, F. (2008). Minskad klimatpåverkan vid produktion och fiske av fisk och skaldjur. Underlag till klimatcertifiering. Göteborg, SIK, Rapport 2008:1.

  • 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).

  • 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 

Download references

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”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7068, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Helena Röcklinsberg

Authors
  1. Helena Röcklinsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena Röcklinsberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Röcklinsberg, H. Fish Consumption: Choices in the Intersection of Public Concern, Fish Welfare, Food Security, Human Health and Climate Change. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 533–551 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9506-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9506-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation