Concern over future food and nutritional security is rapidly rising on the global agenda amidst studies showing a growing agricultural shortfall. Simply, crop yields are far from increasing at the rates needed to meet projected demands for 2050.   Indeed, an estimated 60% more food will be required by mid-century to feed a projected 9.6 or so billion people, assuming a continuing increase in demand for meat, dairy products and vegetable oils and no significant reduction in food waste.   This will have to be accomplished amidst a changing climate, growing competition for natural resources, such as water, energy and land, and biodiversity loss due to land use practices, among numerous other challenges.    
Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that the global food system is itself one of the most important drivers of detrimental change to the Earth system.    At the same time, the increasing adoption of Western diets – typically centered around meat and dairy products and highly processed foods – is the main factor fueling a crisis of another sort: a global surge in obesity rates and non-communicable diseases.  
Whether one considers food security and the challenge of feeding growing human numbers, improving unhealthy diets or charting a path to increased environmental sustainability, the production and consumption of protein – one of the crucial building blocks of the human diet – is involved. This has provoked increased attention on the use of farmed animals for food, a significant source of protein, particularly for those living in more affluent countries.
Livestock production, however, as generally practiced is highly resource-intensive and is now an important factor behind detrimental environmental change at both regional and global scales; if current trends of meat and dairy consumption continue as projected, and barring significant technological achievements, livestock production may ultimately reduce the world’s potential food supply.  The substantial resource requirements of livestock are particularly evident when viewed within the context of the agricultural sector as a whole:
- approximately 75% of the world’s agricultural land, an area nearly the size of Africa, is devoted to raising livestock;
- about 40% of the crop calories produced worldwide is used as livestock feed;
- some 20% of the 80 million tonnes of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers used in agriculture each year – a significant factor in detrimental environmental change – is devoted to producing livestock feed;   
- approximately 29% of agriculture’s global freshwater use is devoted to livestock production.
Farmed animal production also accounts for an estimated 14.5% of global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), an amount more than the combined emissions emanating from the world’s road vehicles, boats, airplanes and trains. If current global-average diets continue along income-dependent pathways, for example, then per capita dietary GHG emissions would be expected to increase about 32% by 2050 (relative to 2009). That projected increase, however, would be much reduced under healthier dietary regimes – some 30% less for Mediterranean, 55% for vegetarian and 45% for pescetarian (i.e., vegetarian with seafood) diets.
The urgency and anticipated difficulty in substantially reducing GHG emissions to levels “well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels” as per the recently adopted Paris Agreement suggests there is increasingly limited space for an expansion of farmed animal use, at least as currently practiced. Nonetheless, reducing consumption of livestock products in order to reduce the impacts of climate change has been the conclusion of numerous studies in recent years,      as well as that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
There is a great deal of uncertainty associated with projecting current trends in consumption decades into the future given the potential for rapid and unexpected changes within complex political, economic, social and environmental systems.   Current public awareness of the links between animal protein use and environmental degradation appears to be low,  though few surveys have apparently been conducted. As well, the difference among nations in protein demand is particularly stark: per capita use of meat protein from ruminants (e.g., cows, sheep), pork, poultry and seafood within the world’s 15 richest nations in 2009 was 750% greater than that for the 24 poorest.
Navigating a shift away from meat-heavy diets sourced from terrestrial livestock in particular and meeting the demand for healthy, nutritious and more sustainable protein is, nonetheless, generating often high-profile responses from a range of actors:
- the conclusion by Microsoft founder Bill Gates that the solution to environmentally detrimental levels of meat consumption lies in technology to transform plant proteins into meat equivalents;
- the publication of a major document by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in 2013 – Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security – for the purposes of developing the edible insects sector of protein and essential nutrient production;
- the United Nations declaration of 2016 as the International Year of Pulses, an action in large part to position pulses (e.g., beans, lentils, chick peas) as a primary source of protein and essential nutrients for humans;
- the announcement by China’s Ministry of Health in May of 2016 of its aim to ultimately reduce that country’s per capita meat consumption by 50%;
- the formation of a partnership in June of 2016 between WildAid and the Chinese Nutrition Society to produce television PSAs and billboards geared to reducing terrestrial meat consumption; the ads—destined for China and the U.S. – will feature renowned director James Cameron, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chinese megastar Li Bingbing.
While a variety of high-quality protein products from sources other than terrestrial livestock are either readily available (e.g., legumes, oil seeds), under development (e.g., insects) or show potential (e.g., fungal and microbial fermentation products, algae),    the value of seafood’s contribution to the global food system in general, and to nutrition and food security in developing countries in particular,  is often overlooked.   For example, it is not included in the Food and Agricultural Organisation’s (FAO) food trade database and was only just recently included in its food price index, after being omitted for more than two decades.  These exclusions are all the more surprising given seafood’s historic role in providing food security and livelihood, and that fishing predates agriculture by many thousands of years.  
Indeed, the importance of seafood can scarcely be overestimated:
- seafood currently accounts for about 17% of humanity’s intake of animal protein and 6.7% of all protein consumed;
- seafood is an important source of essential fats and micronutrients, particularly for the world’s poor;
- seafood products are one of the most highly traded food commodities internationally, comprising around 10% of all food trade by value;
- capture fisheries and aquaculture currently engage approximately 56.6 million people, either fully or partially;
- approximately 520 million people rely on income from seafood production;
- aquaculture is the world’s fastest growing food production sector.
Sustainable diets have been recently defined by the FAO as:
“[D]iets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.”
It is clear that seafood can be an important component in line with the FAO’s above-stated concept of a sustainable diet and that immense opportunities exist to develop and promote increasingly sustainable seafood production.      However, the poor state of capture fisheries   and a variety of concerns associated with aquaculture expansion   are significantly undermining seafood’s potential. A recent analysis concluded that global fish stocks are still in decline, and that if contemporary management practices continue then a massive 88% of stocks are expected to be overfished by 2050. This same study notes, however, that “common-sense reforms to fishery management” could rapidly increase annual catch by over 16 million metric tons, thus augmenting food security along with delivering profits exceeding US$53 billion.
Tremendous momentum for a more sustainable future appears to be developing given recent international resolutions, agreements and announcements, in particular, the following:
- publication of Laudato Si’: On Care for our Common Home in May of 2015 by Pope Francis.
- adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September of 2015 by the Member States of the United Nations;
- adoption of the Paris Agreement (COP21) in December of 2015 by 195 countries;
- resolution proclaiming the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition from 2016 to 2025 in April of 2016—and thereby the endorsement of the Rome Declaration on Nutrition and Framework for Action—by the United Nations General Assembly.
Please email SeaWeb if you would like to receive a PDF that is not available by hyperlink below.
 Ray, D.K. et al. 2013. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66428.
 Ray, D.K. et al. 2012. Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation. Nature Communications
 Tilman, D. et al. 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(50): 20260-20264.
 Gerland, P. et al. 2014. World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science 346(6206): 234-237.
 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. FAO, Rome. 200pp.
 Newbold, T. et al. 2016. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353(6296): 288-291.
 Steffen, W. et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223): 1259855.
 Boonstra, W.J. et al. 2015. What are the major global threats and impacts in marine environments? Investigating the contours of a shared perception among marine scientists from the bottom-up. Marine Policy 60: 197-201.
 Vermeulen, S.J. et al. 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 195-222.
 Haberl, H. et al. 2014. Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns, trends, and planetary boundaries. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39: 363-391.
 Pingali, P. 2006. Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and policy. Food Policy 32(3): 281-298.
 Rockström, J. et al. 2016. Acting in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission. The Lancet 387 (10036): 2364-2365.
 Springmann, M. et al. 2016. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change co-benefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113(15): 4146-4151.
 Steinfeld, H. et al. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome. 390pp.
 Pelletier, N. and Tyedmers, P. 2010. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000-2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107(43): 18371-18374.
 Foley et al., op cit.
 Foley et al., op cit.
 Erisman, J.W. et al. 2013. Consequences of human modification of the global nitrogen cycle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 368(1621): 20130116.
 Steinfeld et al., op cit.
 Mekonnen, M. and Hoekstra, A. 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15(3): 401-415.
 Gerber, P.J. et al. 2013. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. FAO, Rome. 204pp.
 IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer, O. et al. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York.
 Tilman, D. and Clark, M. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515(7528): 518-522.
 Lewis, S.L. 2016. The Paris Agreement has solved a troubling problem. Nature 532(7599): 283.
 Popp, A. et al. 2010. Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Global Environmental Change 20(3): 451-462.
 Gerber et al., op cit.
 Hedenus, F. et al. 2014. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic Change 124(1-2): 79-81.
 Ripple, W.J. et al. 2014. Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nature Climate Change 4(1): 2-5.
 Bajželj B, et al. 2014. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change 4(10): 924-929.
 Pierrehumbert, R.T. and Eshel, G. 2015. Climate impact of beef: an analysis considering multiple time scales and production methods without use of global warming potentials. Environmental Research Letters 10(8): 085002.
 IPCC, 2014, op cit.
 Ericksen, P.J. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change 18(1): 234-245.
 Holling, C. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems.Ecosystems 4(5): 390-405.
 Kopp, R.E. et al. 2016. Tipping elements and climate-economic shocks: Pathways toward integrated assessment. Earth’s Future: DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000362.
 Bailey, R. et al. 2014. Livestock – Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption. Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK. 28pp.
 Fabinyi, M. et al. 2016. Aquatic product consumption patterns and perceptions among the Chinese middle class. Regional Studies in Marine Science 7: 1-9.
 Tilman and Clark, op cit.
 Accessed June 18, 2016 at: https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Future-of-Food
 van Huis, A. et al. 2013. Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry Paper 171. FAO, Rome. 200pp.
 Milman, O. and Leavenworth, S. 2016. China’s plan to cut meat consumption by 50% cheered by climate campaigners. The Guardian: June 20, 2016.
 WildAid. 2016. James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger speak out for reduced meat consumption. Accessed June 17, 2016 at: http://wildaid.org/news/james-cameron-arnold-schwarzenegger-speak-out-reduced-meat-consumption
 Boland, M.J. et al. 2013. The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends in Food Science & Technology 29(1): 62-73.
 Day, L. 2013. Proteins from land plants — Potential resources for human nutrition and food security.Trends in Food Science & Technology 32(1): 25-42.
 Lux Research. 2014. WhooPea: Plant Sources Are Changing the Protein Landscape. Lux Research, Boston.
 van Huis, A. 2013. Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annual Review of Entomology 58: 563-583.
 Béné, C. et al. 2016. Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: assessing the current evidence. World Development 79: 177-196.
 Charlton, K.E. et al. 2016. Fish, food security and health in Pacific Island countries and territories: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health 16(1): 285.
 Youn, S.-J. et al. 2014. Inland capture fishery contributions to global food security and threats to their future. Global Food Security 3(3-4): 142-148.
 Gephart, J.A. and Pace, M.L. 2015. Structure and evolution of the global seafood trade network. Environmental Research Letters 10: 125014.
 Tveterås et al., op cit.
 Marean, C.W. et al. 2007. Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449(7164): 905-908.
 O’Connor, S. et al. 2011. Pelagic fishing at 42,000 years before the present and the maritime skills of modern humans.Science 334(6059): 1117-1121.
 Cortés-Sánchez, M. et al. 2011. Earliest known use of marine resources by Neanderthals. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24026.
 FAO, 2016, op cit.
 Beveridge, M.C.M. et al. 2013. Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture. Journal of Fish Biology 83(4):1067-1084.
 Asche, F. et al. 2015. Fair enough? Food security and the international trade of seafood.World Development 67: 151-160.
 FAO, 2016, op cit.
 Tveterås et al., op cit.
 Burlingame, B. and Dernini, S. (Eds.). 2012. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity – Directions and Solutions For Policy, Research and Action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger, 3–5 November 2010, FAO Headquarters. Rome. FAO, Rome. 307pp.
 Diana, J.S. et al. 2013. Responsible aquaculture in 2050: valuing local conditions and human innovations will be key to success. BioScience 63(4): 255-262.
 Troell, M. et al. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111(37): 13257-13263.
 Nielsen, M. et al. 2014. Green growth in fisheries. Marine Policy 46: 43-52.
 Béné, C. et al. 2015. Feeding 9 billion by 2050 – Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security 7(2):261-274.
 Thilsted, S.H. et al. 2016. Sustaining healthy diets: The role of capture fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-2015 era. Food Policy 61: 126-131.
 Watson, R.A. et al. 2013. Global marine yield halved as fishing intensity redoubles. Fish and Fisheries 14(4): 493-503.
 Costello, C.; et al. 2016. Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113(18): 5125-5129.
 Britten, G.L. et al. 2016. Changing recruitment capacity in global fish stocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113(1): 134-139.
 Ertör, I. and Ortega-Cerdà, M. 2015. Political lessons from early warnings: Marine finfish aquaculture conflicts in Europe. Marine Policy 51: 202-210.
 Knapp, G. and Rubino, M.C. 2016. The political economics of marine aquaculture in the United States. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 24(3): 213-229.
 Ottinger, M. et al. 2016. Aquaculture: relevance, distribution, impacts and spatial assessments – A review. Ocean and Coastal Management 119: 244-266.
Key papers: CONSUMER TRUST GlobeScan. 2017. Trust and Transparency In the Supply Chain. GlobeScan eBrief. 5pp.“Diminishing trust in a range of institutions has become a central issue, especially when it comes to the relationships between business and...
Seafood and sustainable protein consumption
Scientists are looking at new methods to assess both the health and the sustainability of protein production, rather than assessing those aspects independently. Seafood, along with a more plant-based diet, should fare well in this new approach.
The Sustainable Seafood Coalition unites retailers, food service companies and seafood suppliers to work toward making sure all seafood sold in the UK comes from sustainable sources. The coalition has developed voluntary codes of conduct for its members that address...
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with meat-free diets that include fish are remarkably similar to those from fully vegetarian diets—and both are substantially less than diets containing meat.
Why did the Knights Templar, a religious military order holding sway for nearly two centuries during the Middle Ages, live exceptionally longer lives than their contemporaries? While generally attributed to divine providence, a more recent conjecture has suggested that strict adherence to the order’s lifestyle precepts, particularly around diet, was the key factor.
As the largest campus dining operation in the nation, UMass Dining has an opportunity to take the lead and set a good example with young consumers.
The double-edged sword of seafood health—the importance of omega 3’s for health, coupled with the over-generalized significance of mercury and other toxins to a person’s diet—creates a challenge for the seafood industry. Health should be a major part of seafood’s branding in the protein market, but it has become a qualified statement in an unqualified marketplace. The truth is, for women of childbearing age, it is essential that their diets are rich and inclusive of seafood, but they should avoid a small group of species high in mercury.