Environmental performance of blue foods.

Fish and other aquatic foods (blue foods) present an opportunity for more sustainable diets1,2. Yet comprehensive comparison has been limited due to sparse inclusion of blue foods in environmental impact studies3,4 relative to the vast diversity of production5. Here we provide standardized estimates of greenhouse gas, nitrogen, phosphorus, freshwater and land stressors for species groups covering nearly three quarters of global production. We find that across all blue foods, farmed bivalves and seaweeds generate the lowest stressors. Capture fisheries predominantly generate greenhouse gas emissions, with small pelagic fishes generating lower emissions than all fed aquaculture, but flatfish and crustaceans generating the highest. Among farmed finfish and crustaceans, silver and bighead carps have the lowest greenhouse gas, nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, but highest water use, while farmed salmon and trout use the least land and water. Finally, we model intervention scenarios and find improving feed conversion ratios reduces stressors across all fed groups, increasing fish yield reduces land and water use by up to half, and optimizing gears reduces capture fishery emissions by more than half for some groups. Collectively, our analysis identifies high-performing blue foods, highlights opportunities to improve environmental performance, advances data-poor environmental assessments, and informs sustainable diets.

Life cycle environmental impacts of three products derived from wild-caught Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba).

Concern has been voiced in recent years regarding the environmental implications of the Antarctic krill fishery. Attention has focused primarily on ecological concerns, whereas other environmental aspects, including potentially globally problematic emissions and material and energy demands, have not been examined in detail. Here we apply life cycle assessment to measure the contributions of krill meal, oil, and omega-3 capsules to global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, energy use, and biotic resource use. Supply chains of one krill fishing and processing company, Aker BioMarine of Norway, were assessed. Impacts of krill products were found to be driven primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels onboard the fishing vessel and a transport/resupply vessel. Approximately 190 L of fuel are burned per tonne of raw krill landed, markedly higher than fuel inputs to reduction fisheries targeting other species. In contrast, the biotic resource use associated with extracting krill is relatively low compared to that of other reduction fisheries. Results of this study provide insight into the broader environmental implications of the krill fishery, comparisons between products derived from krill and other species targeted for reduction, opportunities for improving the fishery's performance, and a baseline against which to measure future performance.