Abstract
The global food system is facing the challenge of producing sufficient nutrients to accommodate future demands within planetary boundaries, while reducing malnutrition. Although nutrient-rich seafood can play a prominent role in resolving this challenge, seafood from capture fisheries is currently partly wasted. Here we quantified the nutrient contribution from capture fisheries through a hypothetical scenario that assumed all captured seafood and byproducts from seafood processing would be used for human consumption. Our simulations show that available seafood per capita can be doubled without increasing the pressure on global fisheries when all reported, illegal, and discarded capture is used as food, complemented with processing byproducts. In such a scenario, seafood contributes greatly to daily nutrient requirements – e.g., omega-3 can be fully met. Although uncertainty should be considered, these results indicate that putting the whole fish on the table can increase nutrient availability from capture fisheries substantially and sustainably.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Introduction
With nearly one in three people having no adequate access to food in 2020 and an increasing rather than decreasing trend in the prevalence of malnourishment worldwide1, Sustainable Development Goal 2 (to end world hunger and malnutrition in all its forms by 2030) is not within reach. Moreover, the environmental costs of food production challenge the future availability of nutrients to reduce the triple burden of malnutrition. Animal source foods like meat, eggs, dairy and farmed fish, require a large share of global agricultural land and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, the loss of natural ecosystems, and a decline in biodiversity2,3. Nevertheless, these animal foods are a valuable source of the nutrients in highly bioavailable forms and therefore play an important role in achieving food security worldwide4,5. Seafood, both wild caught or farmed, is a rich source of nutrients including vitamin B12, D and A, iodine, zinc, selenium, and calcium6,7. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are the most potent long chain omega-3 fatty acids for the human body and brain, and these can only be derived from marine sources. In general, seafood provides more nutrients at lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to terrestrial animal source foods8. However, nutrients from capture fisheries are currently underutilized for human consumption and thereby wasted, which is in conflict with both Sustainable Development Goal 2 and 14 (to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development).
Each year, more than 10% (i.e., > 20 million tonnes) of all seafood is produced specifically for other uses than for food – mainly for the purpose of feed (fishmeal and fish oil or bait)9. Seafood for feed production mainly comes from wild capture fisheries while species captured for this purpose could play an important role in food security as they are suitable for direct human consumption as well10,11. Moreover, 11% of seafood caught annually is discarded; this capture is not brought to land because it is undersized, unsaleable, or otherwise undesirable12. Furthermore, most fish is consumed as fillet which results in large volumes of byproducts from processing. Only about one-third of these byproducts, including head, skin, bones and other trimmings, are used as fishmeal and fish oil, while the remainder is used to produce bioenergy or fertilizer, incinerated, or sent to landfill13,14. Alternatively, these byproducts could be used for human consumption15,16. At the same time, around one-third of global fish stocks that are assessed are currently overexploited17 which could ultimately lead to declining fish stocks and a lower availability of nutrients from seafood18. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which is estimated at 20% of all fish sold19, increases the risk for overexploitation as it complicates defining sustainable fishing levels and keeping track of compliance to those.
It is increasingly acknowledged - e.g., in line with circularity principles - that to reduce the environmental impact and enhance global food security, catch suitable for human consumption should be used directly and waste avoided20,21,22. We therefore evaluated the maximum utilization potential of global capture fisheries to provide essential nutrients and to enhance global food security. We created an explorative, hypothetical scenario that is embedded within a redesigned future food system in which technologies, regulations and practices are in place that enable a circular approach to nutrient utilization. In this scenario, we put the whole fish on the table by assuming that all capture and edible byproducts are used for human consumption. This No Waste Scenario was compared to the current use of captured seafood (Current Scenario). The results show that available seafood per capita can be doubled without increasing harvest. Moreover, seafood contributes greatly to daily nutrient requirements - e.g., omega-3 can be fully met – and commonly deficient nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D and iron can be largely sourced from byproducts. Putting the whole fish on the table has the potential to greatly enhance food security and to contribute to future sustainable food systems.
Results
Scenarios
Our calculations show that the amount of seafood for direct human consumption could be almost doubled from 49 million tonnes (Mt) in the Current Scenario to 88–109 Mt in the No Waste Scenario (Fig. 1, Table 1), equal to 16.0–18.7 and 31.4–38.8 g per person per day, respectively.
In the No Waste Scenario daily human requirements for omega-3 would be more than covered (108–120%). Moreover, this scenario could contribute to meeting requirements for several other nutrients, with highest contributions to calcium (38–46%), vitamin B12 (27–31%) and selenium (15–17%) (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 1). In the No Waste Scenario there is a relatively larger contribution from pelagic fishes to daily nutrient requirements (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 2). This results in a higher availability of calcium, iodine, and iron, which are among the nutrients that have inadequate intake levels at a global level23,24.
Current seafood from global fisheries
In the calculations of available capture, we started from what is captured and brought to land, both reported to the FAO and unreported from IU fishing. From 2015 to 2019, a yearly average of 93 Mt was brought to land and reported with the largest contribution from Asia. Estimated capture from illegal and unreported (IU) fishing was 20–26 Mt, to which Africa contributed the most relative to its reported capture, which is in line with previous reporting that states Africa being the epicentrum of IU fishing25. The landed seafood was divided into a filleted or shelled fraction and byproducts, which in the Current Scenario is partly used for direct human consumption (45–53 Mt) and partly for other uses like animal feed, uses outside the food system (not quantified in this study) or disposal (62–72 Mt) (Fig. 1). The approximate 17.5 g per person per day that is available for human consumption in the Current Scenario provides an important share of some nutrients that are mainly sourced from seafood, instead of from other animal source or from plant source foods. The highest contributions are for the requirements for omega-3 (48–57%), vitamin B12 (21–24%), selenium (11–13%), and vitamin D (6–7%).
Fish for food instead of feed
When all seafood brought to land is used for human consumption, instead of partly for other uses, there would be 107–124 Mt for human consumption, instead of 93 Mt. This can potentially increase the daily availability of seafood to 19.6–23.0 g per person and can increase the availability of nutrients up to 49% (based on upper estimate). For example, omega-3 per person per day from 127.6 to 162.6–190.5 mg (equivalent to 66–78% of the daily human requirement). The achieved increases from the Current Scenario differs between nutrients due to additional species added for human consumption that were previously destined for other uses, e.g., more small pelagic fishes previously fished for animal feed (Supplementary Table 2).
Utilize waste during and after fishing
When all currently discarded seafood is used for human consumption in addition to the reported and illegal captures, the capture production can be further increased to 117–143 Mt (60–75 Mt filleted and shelled equivalent), or 21.5–26.8 g per person per day. Although marginal, this frees up an additional amount of nutrients (Fig. 3). On the other hand, consuming all edible parts of the fish – instead of using the edible byproducts for other purposes – increases some essential nutrients to a large extent. To this regard, we defined edible as anything that would not be regarded inedible, that is, toxic or poisonous to eat. Edible in this sense is therefore not equal to eatable, which describes something with acceptable flavour26. The main edible byproducts (i.e., trimmings and bones) can be processed via the extraction and re-incorporation of valuable compounds (e.g., protein, gelatin, chitin), by producing new products from mechanically separated meat (e.g., restructured fish steaks and patés) or by creating food products from the byproducts (e.g., bone flour)27,28,29. Directing these byproducts from the reported, IU and discarded capture to human consumption, increases the total availability of calcium 27-fold, phosphorous four-fold, and iron and magnesium three-fold compared to the Current Scenario. That is, by consuming seafood products made from trimmings and bones, as well as reported, IU and discarded capture (No Waste Scenario), 38-46% of global calcium requirements could be met by capture fisheries compared to 1.5–1.8% in the Current Scenario (Fig. 2). We find that the seafood groups that contribute most nutrients from previously wasted sources are pelagic fishes (Fig. 2).
Consider nutrient distribution
If all capture production would be consumed within the continents that captured the seafood (i.e., that operate the fishing vessels) without being traded, nutrients would be unequally distributed. Our calculations on the continent-level for the No Waste Scenario showed that per capita per day nutrient availability would be lowest in Africa and Asia and highest in Oceania (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 3). Africa would not be able to provide the daily requirement for omega-3, while Oceania could provide 200%. In addition, the availability of individual nutrients can be relatively high or low, depending on the species caught. For example, vitamin B3 and B6 are relatively high in Oceania due to high capture levels of yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Whereas in Asia, a high capture of mollusks and crustaceans – i.e., eight times higher than in Europe – leads to a high availability of copper. For food security, nutrients should be equally distributed by trade among regions30, with special attention to those countries with no direct access to fishing waters.
Discussion
Our results show that in a scenario in which all captured seafood that is captured is used for food and the use of edible byproducts is increased, seafood availability can be nearly doubled compared to the current situation (around 34.2 g per person per day compared to 17.5 g). This scenario should be interpreted as an exploration of the potential contribution that wild capture fisheries can make to the food system. although multiple limitations avoid exploiting this potential in the near future.
When seafood previously used as animal feed or other uses is directed to human consumption, the species composition of the total seafood directed to human consumption changes. As a result, unique nutrient profiles from species and byproducts that were not available before are now used for human consumption. This indicates how nutrient availability does not linearly increase with increasing yields – which is in line with previous findings6. The fish captured but not used for human consumption are mainly small pelagics that are particularly rich in calcium31,32. These fish can be essential in enhancing food security as they are accessible and affordable10,11,33. “Encouraging people to eat low-trophic aquatic foods is undoubtedly the prime strategy for using our aquatic nutrient resources more efficiently and mitigating the environmental impacts of food production”, as stated by the UN10. In addition to fish brought to land but not used for human consumption, nutrients from discarded fish that are not brought to land are also wasted. However, seafood that is returned to the sea may survive and become part of the ecosystem again. Therefore, the assumption that all fish would die and brought to land would i) risk double counting of discarded fish that can be harvested again after survival and ii) suggest that it is preferable to let all unwanted capture die to be used for human consumption instead of aiming for a higher survival rate. Survival rates of unwanted and discarded seafood depend on many factors – e.g., capture method, species, capture size and environmental factors34. More so, there is currently no agreed method to determine survival rates, which leads to a high variability in study results35. And even when survival at the point of discarding is high, delayed mortality may still occur36. Thus, there was no reliable data to apply to our dataset and 100% mortality was assumed in the No Waste Scenario. The effect of assumptions around discards on the results were tested in a sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Discussion 2). This showed that including conservative estimations for survival rates of discards would decrease edible capture and nutrient availability by only 4%.
Not only nutrients from captured seafood are wasted: several other nutrients from fish bones and trimmings, such as calcium, magnesium and zinc, are highly under-utilized. At the same time, reducing preventable food waste and valorizing non-preventable waste are at the top of the international political agenda and, especially in the EU, the principle of circularity is gaining ground37,38. Circularity and circular food systems aim to use resources for human consumption first and avoid waste, or reuse unavoidable waste back in the system20. From an ecological perspective, utilizing all nutrients from capture fisheries for human consumption provides space to reduce fishing pressure while maintaining the same nutrient availability as currently. Therefore, our study shows how applying circularity principles to capture fisheries can also be beneficial from an ecological perspective and that it contributes to achieving SDG14: conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.
Putting the whole fish on the table would require transforming the entire food system, including changes in regulation (e.g., of discard practices and illegal fishing), legislation (e.g., the use of animal byproducts as food), and consumption (e.g., change dietary patterns). For example, it is not straightforward to bring otherwise discarded catch to land, as there is only a limited amount of capacity on a fishing boat39. Moreover, because captured fish is used as bait in other fisheries as well as feed in aquaculture and livestock production, these sectors are interlinked40,41. Therefore, using the full capture production and edible byproducts for human consumption implies that these sectors are either compromised in productivity or should rely on other sources as feed. In our study, we assumed fisheries that currently rely on bait, can maintain their fishing level by, for example, using artificial bait or lure42,43. Moreover, based on estimated bait fractions per fishing country44, we calculated that less than 1% (i.e., 0.16 Mt) of reported capture is currently used for bait, with high use in some areas but none in most. These calculations could not be verified by other data sources because to our knowledge, no global estimates of bait use are available. From our calculations, however, it can be concluded that continuing current bait use would have negligible effects on global nutrient availability, although accounting for bait use may be relevant in certain regions41 or for certain taxonomic groups. On the other hand, replacing the feed input in the aquaculture sector sustainably may be more difficult because the use of human edible crops increases food-feed competition and contradicts circularity principles45,46. Additionally, using plant source feeds may lead to micronutrient deficiencies for carnivorous farmed fish47 which could ultimately lower the nutrient density of the fillet48,49. This study did not consider aquaculture in the scenarios and therefore the question remains how wild capture fisheries can be supplemented by sources that do not rely on human edible inputs. In this regard, low-input or non-fed aquaculture can be part of the solution50,51.
Wild capture fisheries play an essential role in achieving SDG2: to end world hunger and malnutrition, in all regions of the world. While nutrients in fish like iron and zinc are more available compared to plant source foods5, the consumption of omega-3 fatty acids has been shown to lower the risk of non-communicable diseases52,53. Dietary guidelines generally recommend eating 150–300 g (i.e., 2–3 servings) fish per week54, which can be covered globally by the availability of fish in the No Waste Scenario but not with the current fish use (Current Scenario). For Europe specifically, it was shown that only 13 out of 31 dietary recommendations can be fulfilled by national seafood supplies55. We found the second highest daily availability of seafood in Europe which makes it questionable if other national dietary guidelines can be met at all. Moreover, the unequal distribution of production from capture fisheries shown by our continent-level analysis suggests that nutrient availability is not highest in the places where it may be most needed to combat nutrient deficiencies. Capture fisheries may be even more valuable in low- and middle income countries where iodine, vitamin D and iron deficiencies are of concern56.
The consumption of small pelagics as well as edible byproducts from seafood processing may seem a far cry from current consumption patterns but may be feasible with radical food system changes. Such changes would include a change in quota systems to allow landings for human consumption, a conversion of fishing fleets as well as the development of new markets and products57. Also, the potential for human consumption largely relies on evolving techniques to separate a greater fraction of edible products from the whole fish or extract specific nutrients16,58,59. To this regard, nutrients may be available for human consumption after extraction and incorporation in novel products instead of through direct consumption of the whole fish or its byproducts. Still, unfamiliarity and negative associations limits the consumption of whole fish or its byproducts60 and processing techniques to change shape and structure may be required for a higher acceptance rate by consumers60,61. We acknowledge that attempts to consume whole fishes or byproducts have had limited success in the past57 and that this barrier may make it impossible to achieve our explored scenarios. However, the results shown here emphasize the importance of staying invested in the required developments.
For this theoretical exploration of wild captures seafood’s potential, we assumed fishing would be sustained at current levels. However, it is increasingly understood that for some stocks, current fishing levels are not sustainable9, while other stocks are currently underfished62. This is why maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels are being incentivized. Although MSY levels are not a target- but rather a maximum fishing level, fishing at MSY levels can increase the total capture production in the long-term63. Therefore, we assessed the impact of better nutrient utilization from global capture fisheries when fishing would be done at MSY levels in Max Sustainable Scenarios (Supplementary Discussion 1). These scenarios take the same approach as the No Waste Scenario while using MSY estimates instead of reported capture production, and either exclude IU fishing and discards (Max Sustainable Scenario) or not (Max Sustainable+ Scenario). The results showed that, because MSY levels would lead to an 11% increase in capture production, nutrient availability would still be increased to 28.2 g per person per day even when IU fishing and discarding practices are abandoned. The latter would be more in line with sustainable fishing practices but underestimates the potential production from wild fisheries because MSY estimates are calculated from current fishing levels64. When IU fishing and discards were included, the Max Sustainable+ Scenario showed that total seafood availability could increase to 32.7 g per person per day and 138% of omega-3 requirements could be covered (Supplementary Table 1). Moreover, a larger amount of anchovies, sardines and mollusks could be captured under MSY, contributing to micronutrient availability (i.e., mainly calcium and iron). Putting the whole fish on the table and fishing at sustainable levels should not be regarded as separate pathways to a more sustainable use of our marine resources, but rather be combined.
Although this study relied on assumptions to fill data gaps to a certain extent, it contributes to the current state of knowledge by quantifying the potential nutrient contribution from wild capture fisheries when applying circularity principles. The uncertainty associated with the data was emphasized by presenting the results as ranges rather than exact values. These ranges showed that even at the lower estimates, the availability of seafood can still be increased substantially. However, ranges were exclusively based on upper- and lower estimates provided by the data sources used for the calculations, that is for IU fishing and discards. This does not exclusively cover all uncertainty that is expected for the results, e.g., edible yield and nutrient content is not precise enough for each reported species. To test the sensitivity of using alternative values and data sources for nutrient content and edible yield as well as the amount of fish dedicated to other uses and assumptions around discards, a sensitivity analysis was conducted (Supplementary Discussion 2). The sensitivity analysis showed that, although the results would slightly shift when calculated differently – i.e., −29% to + 35% in nutrient availability – the overall message that nutrient availability can be substantially increased when more fish is used for human consumption still stands when using alternative data sources or assumptions (Supplementary Table 2). Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that, due to poor or non-existing data recording and collection, a high level of uncertainty cannot be avoided in assessments like these. We stress the need for more and more accurate data, especially regarding edible yield and nutrient content, to assess the role of fish in global nutrient security under future scenarios8.
Sustainable management is key to secure nutrients from global fisheries for future populations6,63,65 and this goes beyond maintaining capture levels that avoid depletion of fish stocks or the use of fishing gear that limits environmental damage66. Instead, incorporating human nutrition goals into sustainable management of global fisheries has potential to tackle malnutrition in all its forms65,67. Thus, safeguarding those essential nutrients that can be sourced largely from seafood needs to be prioritized. This would decrease the reliance on products from, and natural resources for, land-based animal production. Given current population growth and increasing food demands, we can no longer afford to waste nutrients. We show that without increasing the pressure on global fisheries, more nutrients can become available to the global population, specifically those nutrients that may be deficient, like calcium, vitamin D and iron. For some regions specifically, this could greatly contribute to nutrient security. Thus, goals for sustainable fisheries’ management should be re-defined to include putting the whole fish on the table to contribute to global food security and a sustainable food system.
Methodology
Current Scenario
Current fisheries capture
Multiple databases are available that provide catch and landings data68,69,70. In this regard, the FAO’s Global Capture Production database71 provides data on a species level which was preferred for the aim of this study, that is, to calculate a nutrient contribution from wild captured seafood. FAO distinguishes between landings data and nominal catch data, where the latter comprises whole landings and processed landings converted back to tonnes of live weight. Nominal catch data is thus the live weight equivalent of the landings and is referred to throughout this paper as capture production. FAO provides annual data from 1950 onwards and can be consulted on fish species level, structured in ISSCAAP groups72. For this study, we included all species captured in both inland and marine waters and belonging to the following groups, further referred to as seafood: Diadromous fish, Freshwater fish, Marine fish, Crustaceans and Molluscs. Additionally, aquatic animals belonging to the group of Other aquatic animals and known for their consumption, like sea-squirts, sea-urchins and jellyfish, were included73. These groups provide the majority (88%) of total food supply from aquatic foods74. The remaining 12% of aquatic food supply and its subsequent species were excluded as their consumption is negligible on a global scale (Aquatic mammals) or because they did not match the scope of this study (Aquatic plants). In total, capture production for 2167 unique species were extracted from the FAO Global Capture Production database (Supplementary Table 4). Due to annual variability among species in the capture production, the data from 2015–2019 were averaged. Capture production was extracted by continent and aggregated at a global level.
Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing
Part of the globally available seafood comes from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing practices undermine the effort to sustainably manage fisheries as it is not possible to keep track of the quantities fished. Most unreported seafood capture either ends up on the regular market or enters the food system in another way75,76. Although the exact quantities caught by IUU fisheries are unknown, it is estimated that 20% of all fish sold has been illegally caught19. Thus IUU fishing contributes to global nutrient availability while this is not reflected by the reported capture. Therefore, we complemented the reported capture to include IUU fishing estimates19. These estimates do not cover unreported capture and are thus for illegal and unreported (IU) fishing, provided as a fraction of reported capture by major fishing area (Supplementary Table 5). The upper and lower estimates were included in the calculations to provide an uncertainty range in our results. Estimates for the Mediterranean and Black sea and inland waters were not included in the referred publication but multiple authors report that also in these areas IU fishing is a serious threat77,78,79,80,81,82. Therefore, we used the average of all fishing areas (18%) as a proxy for IU fishing in these two unassessed areas. For the Antarctic, IU fishing is only an issue for toothfish and therefore the rate of IU in this region was only applied for toothfish19.
No waste scenario
The No Waste Scenario builds on the Current Scenario by assuming that all currently reported capture and capture from IU fishing is used for direct human consumption (DHC). Moreover, currently discarded fish and byproducts from fish processing is also directed to DHC.
Estimations from different sources show that approximately 20 Mt of total seafood is used for other uses than DHC9,17,44. The FAO’s most recent estimation is that 11% ( ~ 20 Mt) of the total seafood production is for other uses than DHC, which is mainly livestock and aquaculture feed9. Because aquaculture itself does not produce seafood specifically to use as feed, this 20 Mt represents 20% of wild capture production, comparable to the 27% estimated elsewhere44. All menhaden and sand eel species, as well as Norway pout, were not considered for DHC. This was based on a report22 that determined 17 out of 21 species reported for fishmeal and oil production as suitable for DHC, while four species (i.e., sand eel, gulf menhaden, Atlantic menhaden and Norway pout) being of industrial grade and generally considered too bony, too oily or unsatisfactory for other reasons83. The 17 species deemed suitable for DHC are highly nutritious, small pelagic fish traditionally consumed in different regions around the world10,11. To calculate the capture production for other uses than DHC on species level, we applied estimates for reduction fisheries specified by fishing country and fish species44. This does include byproducts of fish processing that are currently used for fishmeal and fish oil production. In addition to the reported capture, IU fishing quantities were also corrected for other uses than DHC by applying the same estimates. Besides capture not used for DHC, we calculated an additional source of seafood currently captured but not used for DHC: discards that are not brought to land because it is seen as unwanted or unregulated bycatch. Using a recent FAO publication12, the amount of discarded seafood was estimated by major fishing area, for both reported and IU capture (Supplementary Table 6). The confidence intervals provided by the FAO12 were used to calculate the uncertainty range in the No Waste scenario. Subsequently, the upper- and lower estimates presented for the No Waste Scenario were determined by applying upper- and lower estimates for IU fishing19 to the reported capture and summing this with the upper- and lower confidence intervals for discards12 applied to the reported capture.
Increased utilization of byproducts
Byproducts from fish processing generally consist of the head, skin, frame/backbone, viscera and trimmings that are largely directed to pet food, livestock feed, and aquaculture feed84. Their value for human consumption is reduced due to not fully extracting or mixing these byproducts and edible yield can increase with 21 to 33% if byproducts are well separated and edible flesh is fully removed15. For example, the edible yield of Atlantic salmon can increase from 56.2% to 77.1%15. All small pelagic fish species can be consumed whole (100% of captured weight)31,32 which we used in both scenarios to maximize the potential of capture fisheries. However, we excluded all sand eels, menhaden and Norway pout as described in the previous section and assumed that some small pelagic fishes may have to be treated before they can be consumed as whole85. For all fish species other than pelagics, we categorized byproducts into head, trimmings, skin (0–31% of total weight, depending on species) and frames (12% of total weight), but excluded viscera (a less edible byproduct)15 (Supplementary Table 7). Species previously excluded for human consumption (i.e., menhaden, sand eels, Norway pout) were included in the byproducts calculation. No literature was available for food uses of mollusk or crustacean byproducts, although nutrients in the exoskeleton may be used for pharmaceutical, industrial or agricultural purposes86. Therefore, we assumed no byproducts from these seafood sources for DHC.
Available nutrients and edible yield
To calculate the total of nutrients available in all the scenarios, the capture production was linked to data from four food composition databases that covered a wide range of fish species (Supplementary Tables 4, 8). The USDA FoodData Central87, the UK’s Composition of foods integrated dataset88, the Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan89, and the Australian Food Composition Database90 were selected based on accessibility (i.e., available online in English and in a downloadable format), reliability (i.e., included in the International Food Composition table/database directory) and coverage (i.e., cover a wide range of aquatic food items and nutrients). The following nutrients are regarded relevant for assessing the nutrient contribution of seafood: protein, omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA), sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, iron, copper, selenium, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, vitamin B1, B2, B3, B6, B9 and B12, Vitamin D and Vitamin E91. For these nutrients, the content of the raw, fillet equivalent of 169 entries were collected to compile a dataset of 66 family-specific (e.g., tilapia) and 103 species-specific (e.g., pink salmon) entries and we further refer to this compilation as the composition database (Supplementary Table 8). For presenting the results, a selection of 13 nutrients was made from all nutrients included in the composition database to visualize the most substantial changes. The composition database was further complemented by edible yield fractions for each of the 169 entries, mainly extracted from FAO92 but supplemented with other data sources as data for some specific species were lacking (Supplementary Table 8). Similar to Golden et al. (2021)67, we used a hierarchical approach to extrapolate the 169 species in the composition database to the species covered by FAO Global Capture Production database based on the assumption that species belonging to the same family have similar nutrient content and edible yield6,67,93. This assumption, that there is an association between phylogenetic relatedness and nutrient content93 has been used by others6,67 and due to a lack of nutrient content data on species level, this approach was used. The hierarchy of matching composition database to captured species started with the common name, as this is how species were named in the four food composition databases used to compile our database. If the common name did not match any entry in the composition database and neither a match was found for the scientific name, the species was matched to a composition database entry based on family first, or ISSCAAP group. This way, 53% of FAO taxa could be covered by either common or scientific name, 26% by family and 21% by ISSCAAP group (Supplementary Table 4). In addition, we calculated the average nutrient content and edible yield of all fish, all crustacean and all mollusk species in our composition database and used this to cover the remaining fish, crustaceans and mollusks, respectively, or the ones falling into the miscellaneous groups. Total available nutrients per capita was calculated by applying edible yield fractions to the capture production, multiplying by the nutrient content, and finally dividing by the 2019 population data94. The concurrent steps of calculating the total nutrient availability in the Current and No Waste scenarios is summarized by the following equation:
With catch being the landed weight converted into live weight (may include reported, IU and/or discards) for each species i included in the FAO Global Capture Production database, F being the fraction for human consumption depending on the amount of catch being directed to food or feed/other uses, edible yield being the % of edible flesh (and byproducts) for each species j in the consumption database, and nutrient content being the nutrient content for each species j in the consumption database.
To interpret the absolute quantities in relation to nutrient requirements, a weighted average of the age- and gender-specific EFSA Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) was used for reference95 (Supplementary Table 9). Although EFSA DRVs are specified for the EU population and it can therefore be argued whether they are representative of other regions, we chose EFSA DRVs because these reflect detailed nutrient requirements by sex and age group. This made it possible to calculate a global average that reflects these different requirements.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
All data used in this study is publicly available online. Capture production data was extracted from the FAO Global Capture Production database (https://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics-query/en/home). Nutrient content for fish and seafood was extracted from four food composition databases: the USDA FoodData Central (https://fdc.nal.usda.gov), the UK’s Composition of foods integrated dataset (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/composition-of-foods-integrated-dataset-cofid), the Standard Tables of Food Composition Japan (https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/science_technology/policy/title01/detail01/1374030.htm), and the Australian Food Composition Database (https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/). MSY data used for Supplementary Discussion 1 was based on previously published literature62 but provided to us directly by Prof. Ray Hilborn. Data used for calculations of IU fishing, discards and fraction of production dedicated to other uses was taken from published literature of which the references are provided throughout the Methodology section. All key data is provided in Supplementary Data 1 which is also published on FigShare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24173202).
References
FAO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all., (FAO, 2021).
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
Mbow, C. et al. in Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (eds P. R. Shukla et al.) (IPCC, 2019).
Adesogan, A., Havelaar, A., McKune, S., Eilitta, M. & Dahl, G. Animal source foods: Sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Global Food Security 25, 100325 (2019).
Mayer Labba, I.-C. et al. Lower Non-Heme Iron Absorption in Healthy Females from Single Meals with Texturized Fava Bean Protein Compared to Beef and Cod Protein Meals: Two Single-Blinded Randomized Trials. Nutrients 14, 3162 (2022).
Hicks, C. C. et al. Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574, 95–98 (2019).
Byrd, K. A., Thilsted, S. H. & Fiorella, K. J. Fish nutrient composition: a review of global data from poorly assessed inland and marine species. Public Health Nutr 24, 476–486 (2021).
Bianchi, M. et al. Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice. Communications Earth & Environment 3, 188 (2022).
FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. FAO Rome (2022).
Ahern, M., Thilsted, S., Oenema, S. & Kühnhold, H. The role of aquatic foods in sustainable healthy diets. UN Nutrition Discussion Paper. (UN Nutrition, 2021).
Tacon, A. G. J. & Metian, M. Fish Matters: Importance of Aquatic Foods in Human Nutrition and Global Food Supply. Reviews in Fisheries Science 21, 22–38 (2013).
Roda, P. et al. Third assessment of global marine fisheries discards. (FAO, 2019).
Lopes, C., Antelo, L. T., Franco-Uría, A., Alonso, A. A. & Pérez-Martín, R. Valorisation of fish by-products against waste management treatments – Comparison of environmental impacts. Waste Management 46, 103–112 (2015).
Arvanitoyannis, I. S. & Kassaveti, A. Fish industry waste: treatments, environmental impacts, current and potential uses. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 43, 726–745 (2008).
Malcorps, W., Newton, R., Sprague, M., Glencross, B. & Little, D. Nutritional Characterisation of European Aquaculture Processing By-Products to Facilitate Strategic Utilisation. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5, 378 (2021).
Abdollahi, M., Wu, H. & Undeland, I. Impact of Processing Technology on Macro- and Micronutrient Profile of Protein-Enriched Products from Fish Backbones. Foods 10, 950 (2021).
FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. Report No. 978-92-5-132692-3, (Rome, 2020).
Sumaila, U. R., Bellmann, C. & Tipping, A. Fishing for the future: An overview of challenges and opportunities. Marine Policy 69, 173–180 (2016).
Agnew, D. J. et al. Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS One 4, e4570 (2009).
Muscat, A., de Olde, E. M., de Boer, I. J. M. & Ripoll-Bosch, R. The battle for biomass: A systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Global Food Security 25, 100330 (2020).
Fréon, P. et al. Harvesting for food versus feed: a review of Peruvian fisheries in a global context. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24, 381–398 (2014).
Wijkstrom, U. N. in Proceedings of the global conference on aquaculture 2010: Farming the waters for people and food. (eds Subasinghe, R. P., et al.), 33–56 (FAO/NACA, 2012).
Beal, T., Massiot, E., Arsenault, J. E., Smith, M. R. & Hijmans, R. J. Global trends in dietary micronutrient supplies and estimated prevalence of inadequate intakes. PLoS One 12, e0175554 (2017).
Hatch-McChesney, A. & Lieberman, H. R. Iodine and Iodine Deficiency: A Comprehensive Review of a Re-Emerging Issue. Nutrients 14, 3474 (2022).
Daniels, A. et al. Western Africa’s Missing Fish: The impact of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and under-reporting catches by foreign fleets. (2016).
Merriam-Webster. Edible vs Eatable https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/edible-vs-eatable-usage (2022).
Sari, R., Suryaningrum, T. D., Ayudiarti, D., Hastarini, E. & Fransisca, D. Conversion of fisheries processing by-product into salted-egg fish skin chips. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 012117 (2021).
Surasani, V. K. R., Raju, C., Sofi, F. R. & Shafiq, U. Utilization of protein isolates from rohu (Labeo rohita) processing waste through incorporation into fish sausages; quality evaluation of the resultant paste and end product. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 102, 1263–1270 (2022).
Tsuruwaka, Y. & Shimada, E. Reprocessing seafood waste: challenge to develop aquatic clean meat from fish cells. npj Science of Food 6, 1–7 (2022).
Wood, S. A., Smith, M. R., Fanzo, J., Remans, R. & DeFries, R. S. Trade and the equitability of global food nutrient distribution. Nature Sustainability 1, 34–37 (2018).
Bogard, J. R. et al. Nutrient composition of important fish species in Bangladesh and potential contribution to recommended nutrient intakes. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 42, 120–133 (2015).
Nordhagen, A. et al. Nutrient Composition of Demersal, Pelagic, and Mesopelagic Fish Species Sampled Off the Coast of Bangladesh and Their Potential Contribution to Food and Nutrition Security-The EAF-Nansen Programme. Foods 9, 730 (2020).
Robinson, J. P. W. et al. Small pelagic fish supply abundant and affordable micronutrients to low- and middle-income countries. Nature Food 3, 1075–1084 (2022).
Uhlmann, S. S. & Broadhurst, M. K. Mitigating unaccounted fishing mortality from gillnets and traps. Fish and Fisheries 16, 183–229 (2015).
Pollock, K. H. & Pine I. I. I, W. E. The design and analysis of field studies to estimate catch‐and‐release mortality. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14, 123–130 (2007).
Kraak, S. B. M., Velasco, A., Fröse, U. & Krumme, U. Prediction of delayed mortality using vitality scores and reflexes, as well as catch, processing, and post-release conditions: evidence from discarded flatfish in the Western Baltic trawl fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76, 330–341 (2018).
Hartley, K., van Santen, R. & Kirchherr, J. Policies for transitioning towards a circular economy: Expectations from the European Union (EU). Resources, Conservation and Recycling 155, 104634 (2020).
European Commission. A new circular economy action plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 1–20 (2020).
Tsagarakis, K., Palialexis, A. & Vassilopoulou, V. Mediterranean fishery discards: review of the existing knowledge. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71, 1219–1234 (2013).
Blanchard, J. L. et al. Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. Nature ecology & evolution 1, 1240–1249 (2017).
Driscoll, J. & Chan, K. M. Net negative nutrient yields in a bait-consuming fishery. Environmental Research Letters 17, 084024 (2022).
Gilman, E. et al. Effect of pelagic longline bait type on species selectivity: a global synthesis of evidence. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 30, 535–551 (2020).
Løkkeborg, S., Siikavuopio, S. I., Humborstad, O.-B., Utne-Palm, A. C. & Ferter, K. Towards more efficient longline fisheries: fish feeding behaviour, bait characteristics and development of alternative baits. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24, 985–1003 (2014).
Cashion, T., Le Manach, F., Zeller, D. & Pauly, D. Most fish destined for fishmeal production are food-grade fish. Fish and Fisheries 18, 837–844 (2017).
Riel, A. J., Nederlof, M., Chary, K., Wiegertjes, G. & Boer, I. J. M. Feed‐food competition in global aquaculture: Current trends and prospects. Reviews in Aquaculture, https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12804 (2023).
Malcorps, W. et al. The Sustainability Conundrum of Fishmeal Substitution by Plant Ingredients in Shrimp Feeds. Sustainability 11, 1212 (2019).
Saito, T. et al. Micronutrient supplementation affects transcriptional and epigenetic regulation of lipid metabolism in a dose-dependent manner. Epigenetics 16, 1217–1234 (2021).
Sprague, M., Dick, J. R. & Tocher, D. R. Impact of sustainable feeds on omega-3 long-chain fatty acid levels in farmed Atlantic salmon, 2006-2015. Scientific Reports 6, 21892 (2016).
Sissener, N. H. Are we what we eat? Changes to the feed fatty acid composition of farmed salmon and its effects through the food chain. Journal of Experimental Biology 221, jeb161521 (2018).
Olsen, Y. Resources for fish feed in future mariculture. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1, 187–200 (2011).
Yaghubi, E. et al. Farmed Mussels: A Nutritive Protein Source, Rich in Omega-3 Fatty Acids, with a Low Environmental Footprint. Nutrients 13, 1124 (2021).
Perignon, M., Barré, T., Gazan, R., Amiot, M.-J. & Darmon, N. The bioavailability of iron, zinc, protein and vitamin A is highly variable in French individual diets: Impact on nutrient inadequacy assessment and relation with the animal-to-plant ratio of diets. Food Chemistry 238, 73–81 (2018).
Afshin, A. et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet 393, 1958–1972 (2019).
Herforth, A. et al. A Global Review of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines. Adv Nutr 10, 590–605 (2019).
Lofstedt, A., de Roos, B. & Fernandes, P. G. Less than half of the European dietary recommendations for fish consumption are satisfied by national seafood supplies. European Journal of Nutrition 60, 4219–4228 (2021).
Byrd, K. A. et al. Fish and fish-based products for nutrition and health in the first 1000 days: a systematic review of the evidence from low and middle-income countries. Advances in Nutrition 13, 2458–2487 (2022).
Majluf, P., De la Puente, S. & Christensen, V. The little fish that can feed the world. Fish and Fisheries 18, 772–777 (2017).
Wu, H., Forghani, B., Abdollahi, M. & Undeland, I. Five cuts from herring (Clupea harengus): Comparison of nutritional and chemical composition between co-product fractions and fillets. Food Chemistry: X 16, 100488 (2022).
Aspevik, T. et al. in Chemistry and Chemical Technologies in Waste Valorization (ed Carol Sze Ki Lin) Ch. Valorization of Proteins from Co- and By-Products from the Fish and Meat Industry, 123–150 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).
Bearth, A., Khunnutchanart, K., Gasser, O. & Hasler, N. The whole beast: Consumers’ perceptions of and willingness-to-eat animal by-products. Food Quality and Preference 89, 104144 (2021).
Henchion, M., McCarthy, M. & O’Callaghan, J. Transforming Beef By-products into Valuable Ingredients: Which Spell/Recipe to Use? Frontiers in Nutrition 3, 53 (2016).
Costello, C. et al. Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proceedings of National Academy of Science USA 113, 5125–5129 (2016).
Costello, C. et al. The future of food from the sea. Nature 588, 1–6 (2020).
Omori, K. L., Hoenig, J. M., Luehring, M. A. & Baier-Lockhart, K. Effects of underestimating catch and effort on surplus production models. Fisheries Research 183, 138–145 (2016).
Golden, C. D. et al. Nutrition: Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534, 317–320 (2016).
Jacquet, J. & Pauly, D. Reimagining sustainable fisheries. PLOS Biology 20, e3001829 (2022).
Golden, C. D. et al. Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature 598, 315–320 (2021).
Watson, R. A. A database of global marine commercial, small-scale, illegal and unreported fisheries catch 1950-2014. Scientific Data 4, 170039 (2017).
Ricard, D., Minto, C., Jensen, O. P. & Baum, J. K. Examining the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database. Fish and fisheries 13, 380–398 (2012).
Zeller, D. et al. Still catching attention: Sea Around Us reconstructed global catch data, their spatial expression and public accessibility. Marine Policy 70, 145–152 (2016).
FAO. Global Capture Production, https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/collection/capture?lang=en (2023).
Garibaldi, L. & Busilacchi, S. ASFIS list of species for fishery statistics purposes. (2002).
Scanes, C. G. in Animals and Human Society Ch. Invertebrates and Their Use by Humans, 181–193 (Elsevier, 2018).
FAO. FAOSTAT Database, https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (2023).
Pramod, G., Nakamura, K., Pitcher, T. J. & Delagran, L. Estimates of illegal and unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA. Marine Policy 48, 102–113 (2014).
Kearns, J. E., Stayin, R. J., Johanson, D. S., Schmidtlein, R. K. & Karpel, A. A. Seafood Obtained via Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing: US Imports and Economic Impact on US Commercial Fisheries. (2021).
Belova, G. Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the Black Sea. In International conference Knowledge-based Organization Vol. 21 408–412 (2015).
Constantino, M. M., Cubas, A. L. V., Silvy, G., Magogada, F. & Moecke, E. H. S. Impacts of illegal fishing in the inland waters of the State of Santa Catarina –Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 180, 113746 (2022).
Drammeh, O. K. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in small-scale marine and inland capture fisheries. (2000).
Öztürk, B. Nature and extent of the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 21, 67–91 (2015).
Pascual, M. et al. Socioeconomic impacts of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Ocean & Coastal Management 133, 1–10 (2016).
Swan, J. Review of activity, measures and other considerations relating to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Mediterranean. FAO Fisheries Report (FAO) (2005).
Huss, H. H., Ababouch, L. & Gram, L. Assessment and management of seafood safety and quality. (FAO, 2004).
Stevens, J. R., Newton, R. W., Tlusty, M. & Little, D. C. The rise of aquaculture by-products: Increasing food production, value, and sustainability through strategic utilisation. Marine Policy 90, 115–124 (2018).
Okada, M., Machino, T. & Kato, S. Bone softening, a practical way to utilize small fish. Marine Fisheries Review 50, 2–7 (1988).
Santos, V. P. et al. Seafood Waste as Attractive Source of Chitin and Chitosan Production and Their Applications. International Journal of Molecular Science 21, 4290 (2020).
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Center. FoodData Central, http://fdc.nal.usda.gov/ (2019).
Public Health England. Composition of foods integrated dataset (CoFID), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/composition-of-foods-integrated-dataset-cofid (2019).
MEXT. Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan - 2015 - Seventh Revised Edition, https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/science_technology/policy/title01/detail01/1374030.htm (2015).
Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Australian Food Composition Database – Release 2, https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/ (2022).
Hallström, E. et al. Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. Journal of Cleaner Production 230, 402–411 (2019).
FAO. Yield and nutritional value of the commercially more important fish species. FAO Fisheries and Technical Papers 309, 1–187 (1989).
Vaitla, B. et al. Predicting nutrient content of ray-finned fishes using phylogenetic information. Nature Communications 9, 3742 (2018).
UN. World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations, https://population.un.org/wpp/ (2022).
European Food Safety Authority. Dietary Reference Values for nutrients Summary report. EFSA Supporting Publications 14, e15121E (2017).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Prof. Ray Hilborn and Dan Ovando for sharing their expertise and data on MSY levels.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.C. and H.Z. designed and led the research, R.C. collected and analyzed data. W.S. prepared the figures. The following authors analyzed the data and edited the paper: H.Z, W.S., J.M., G.W. and F.Z. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Earth & Environment thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Clare Davis. A peer review file is available
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Cardinaals, R.P.M., Simon, W.J., Ziegler, F. et al. Nutrient yields from global capture fisheries could be sustainably doubled through improved utilization and management. Commun Earth Environ 4, 370 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01024-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01024-9
- Springer Nature Limited