The Fourth Wave
Published in

The Fourth Wave

The promise and peril of manufactured seafood

By Rod Fujita, Director, Research & Development Environmental Defense Fund Oceans Program

Currently, there are only two ways to produce seafood: fishermen can catch it, or aquaculturists can raise it. Today, however, a growing number of companies are trying to develop ways of artificially producing seafood, like “tuna” made by growing tuna cells in a lab.

Will these high-tech alternatives make it commercially? If they do, will they benefit the environment or contribute to food security? There are no simple answers to these questions.


Fisheries produce about 90 million tons of seafood per year and employ about 40 million people directly — and another 200 million indirectly. Three billion people rely on seafood as their primary source of animal protein and nutrients.

Many fishermen are impoverished, live in remote communities that offer few alternative livelihoods and thus rely on fishing as a way of life and an important source of food and income.

For decades now, EDF and its partners have made great progress in reforming fisheries management around the world. The U.S., in particular, has become a world leader in sustainable fisheries management. Most stocks are no longer overfished, and yields, profits and jobs have all increased in many fisheries while the amount of waste has gone way down.

Globally, the picture is more mixed. About 33% of the fisheries that are assessed are overexploited and 60% appear to be producing their maximum sustainable yield. However, the fact that only 7% show potential for increased harvests is alarming given the urgent need to produce even more seafood to feed a hungry world. Also, many fisheries are not yet assessed, but available evidence indicates they are probably not doing very well. Moreover, some fisheries continue to kill thousands of sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, sharks and other wildlife every year.


Aquaculture produces much of the seafood we eat today — about 80 million tons per year — and employs about 200 million people, many of whom rely heavily on their fish, shellfish or seaweed farms for income.

Marine aquaculture is still dominated by seaweed and bivalves (clams, mussels, oysters) that don’t require feeding. These operations produce a lot of food and employ a lot of people. While these kinds of aquaculture can sometimes be benign and can even produce environmental benefits like improving water quality, they can also result in habitat alteration and other impacts.

The most rapidly growing sector of aquaculture involves farming shrimp, salmon and other species that need to be fed. While there are some sustainable fed aquaculture systems, many contribute to pollution and the spread of parasites and disease. They can also result in massive habitat damage, as when mangrove forests are cleared to produce shrimp ponds — which are farmed very intensively, heavily polluted, and then abandoned as shrimp farmers go on to clear more mangrove forest for new ponds.

The ecological footprint of fed aquaculture goes beyond pollution, disease and habitat degradation. The largest fisheries in the world catch small fish to convert into fishmeal, which is fed to other fish (in aquaculture facilities) and to livestock. This represents a huge loss in food and nutrition for hungry and malnourished people because more fish goes into these operations than comes out. Multiply by tens of millions of tons of small fish each year, and that starts to look like a real threat to food security. Harvesting so many small fish can also harm the wildlife populations that depend on them, like seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals.

Seafood from a petri dish

While progress is being made in reducing the environmental impacts of both fisheries and aquaculture, there is growing interest among scientists, entrepreneurs and investors in producing sustainable alternatives to caught or farmed fish. Some companies hope to produce an alternative that tastes, looks and feels just like wild or farmed fish. They believe that, vast numbers of consumers buy their products, this would reduce unsustainable fishing and fish farming, which would in turn reduce the environmental impacts of these activities.

Some of these companies — like New Wave Foods and Impossible Foods — are focused on creating “seafood” from plants. Others are trying to manufacture seafood by growing fish and shellfish cells in the lab using tissue culture techniques. Finless Foods has produced a manufactured cellular fish paste that can be mixed with real fish and other ingredients to make a palatable croquette, and is also working on creating a bluefin tuna product. Avant Meats has produced cellular “fish maw” and plans to tackle sea cucumber next. Wild Type has produced cellular salmon. Shiok Meats has made pieces of cellular shrimp that can be used in dumplings and is developing cellular lobster and crab. Blue Nalu will reportedly soon announce the creation of medallions made from 3D printed yellowtail amberjack cells, and is working on the creation of cellular orange roughy and Patagonian toothfish.

The impacts of manufactured seafood

While it is already possible to create “seafood” in the lab, no one knows exactly how “seafood” will be manufactured at scale. So it’s impossible to draw clear conclusions about what the direct environmental impacts would be.

Fish and shellfish cells appear to be easier to culture than meat cells. However, commercial viability will still depend on significant technical advances that will make it possible to culture seafood cells in large batches and on another set of breakthroughs that will allow manufacturers to process the cells into appealing products.

There is even more uncertainty about indirect ecological impacts, like wild-fish stock recovery and improvements in ecosystem health, because seafood alternatives could disrupt a complex system that includes the entire seafood supply chain. The bigger the disruption, the more uncertain ripple effects there are likely to be. Some of these effects might be environmentally beneficial, but others could harm the environment and communities engaged in fishing and aquaculture. Moreover, the benefits and costs associated with manufactured seafood will probably be distributed unevenly.

Given all the uncertainty, we can only speculate, based on our understanding of how fisheries and seafood supply chains work, about the future impacts of manufactured seafood.

The degree to which manufactured seafood becomes a substitute for traditional seafood or just adds to seafood supply is a critical question. Many of the large-scale environmental benefits that some manufactured seafood companies hope to generate will depend not only on consumers buying a lot of their product, but also on whether those consumers stop buying wild-caught or farmed seafood.

Some consumers might make the switch — maybe even in large numbers. But global seafood demand is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades, so it seems likely that many people will just buy more and more seafood of all kinds. If this happens, fishing and aquaculture activities may actually increase in order to keep up with demand.

The direct impacts of manufactured seafood on consumers are unknown. The health benefits and risks must be carefully evaluated: on one hand, manufactured seafood will probably be low in contaminants, but on the other hand, some manufacturers may choose to use a legal loophole to bypass FDA and public scrutiny.

How will fishermen and aquaculturalists react to manufactured seafood?

Fisheries and aquaculture produce hundreds of species and manufactured seafood companies will probably only produce a few, at least at first. So a lot of fisheries and aquaculture operations will not be competing in the same markets, and thus are not likely to be affected.

Some operations may sell into the same markets but have strong marketing resources and social safety nets, and so are likely to be resilient in the face of competition from manufactured seafood. Fishery and aquaculture operations that sell into the same markets but lack marketing resources and social safety nets will be the most vulnerable and potentially suffer the most job and revenue loss.

Unfortunately, the fishery and aquaculture operations that might be the most vulnerable may well be in less developed countries, and also vulnerable to many other factors, making them less able to cope with job and revenue loss.

It’s also important to consider fishermen and aquaculturalists who could be displaced by manufactured seafood are among our strongest ocean conservation champions.

Most of the world’s oceans face multiple threats, not just fishing and aquaculture. Proponents of coastal development, people who oppose regulating pollution and advocates of developing offshore gas, oil and mineral deposits and so on often wield disproportionate economic and political power. Fishermen, aquaculturalists, marine tourism operators and others who depend on intact ocean ecosystems for their livelihoods are among the most effective opponents of these threats.

Thinning the ranks of environmentally-minded fishermen and aquaculturalists by reducing demand for their products could skew things even more in favor of activities that damage ocean ecosystems.

What’s next?

The commercial success of manufactured seafood will depend on significant technical advances and consumer preferences, and the ecological footprint of manufacturing seafood will depend on how the inputs like the culture medium, energy, and water are managed. Moreover, for manufactured seafood to benefit ocean ecosystems, consumers would have to substitute it for wild and farmed seafood on a massive scale. Because manufacturing seafood and substitution of wild and farmed seafood at scales large enough to affect ocean ecosystems would represent a major disruption of a complex system, it will likely benefit some people, species and ecosystems and at the same time, harm others. Many ripple effects will probably occur, with unknown impact.

More research and reflection about the potential benefits and risks associated with manufacturing seafood will be necessary, along with transparency and intelligent regulation. The ability to create seafood from animal cells in a lab could mark a profound change, which makes it likely that it will have profound effects on natural ecosystems and society. It demands an equally profound level of analysis and planning to help ensure that this innovation enhances our blue planet.

We are entering a new era of environmental innovation that is driving better alignment between technology and environmental goals — and results. #FourthWave



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Environmental Defense Fund

We work with businesses, governments and communities to create lasting solutions to the most serious environmental problems. We’re EDF.