Aquaculture Ethical UNESCO11

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions
Energy Flow, Environment & the Ethical Implications of Aquatic Meat Production
Preliminary Draft and Outline calling for contributions to the second report of ECCAP Working Group 13
Ethics and Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific (ECCAP) Project, RUSHSAP, UNESCO, Bangkok Preliminary Contributors in alphabetical order: Gerard Foley, Robert Kanaly (*), Lea Ivy O. Manzanero (*) (27 August 2011)
Please email to: Dr. R. Kanaly (Email: rkanaly@yahoo.com); Ms. Lea Ivy Manzanero (Email: leaivymanzanero@yahoo.com) Dr. Darryl Macer (Email: d.macer@unesco.org) * Co-chairs
Preface This report will follow the first publication of WG13: Energy Flow, Environment and Ethical Implications for Meat Production (Robert A. Kanaly, Lea Ivy O. Manzanero, Gerard Foley, Sivanandam Panneerselvam and Darryl Macer; RUSHSAP, UNESCO Bangkok, 2010), which focused on industrial style agriculture with land animals. This second report will examine similar issues from the expanding use of aquaculture. Submissions of case studies from different communities are requested, along with general contributions to the relevant sections listed below.
ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions Draft Outline
I. Background information on aquaculture in general and intensive aquatic meat production. II. Intensive aquatic meat production as it relates to harvesting wild stocks (including intensification in open sea capture fisheries). III. Past and future trends in global consumption and production of aquatic meat. IV. Forces that are driving increases in demand for aquatic meat. V. General explanation of energy flows and economics in aquatic meat production. VI. Impacts of climate change on intensive aquatic meat production and vice versa VII. Discussion that highlights some of the major sectors of intensive aquatic meat production, including inputs and outputs in each sector and negative cost externalizations. Issues that may be explored in regard to negative cost externalization include: 1. Coastal and deep sea pollution, ecosystem deterioration, mangrove destruction. 2. Fate and consequences of the production of multi-antibiotic-resistant bacteria through the heavy use of pharmaceuticals. 3. Effects of escaped farmed fish from enclosures: interbreeding with the natural populations, eating or displacing them including issues of genetic modification. 4. The relationship of aquatic meat production to avian influenza and the potential for causing regional and global infectious disease pandemics. 5. As is the case for intensive land-based meat production, there are disease issues that are a direct result of growing animals in high density, severely crowded conditions where the animals are already under a high amount of stress: (a) Sea lice infestation (b) Infectious salmon anemia virus (c) Bacterial kidney disease (d) Vibrio salmonicida (e) Enteric septicemia (f) Salmon rickettsial disease (g) Vibrio species in penaeid aquaculture (which contributed to collapse in aquaculture industry) 6. Protein consumption versus production: Large finfish must eat many smaller fish for every kilogram of finfish. 7. Socioeconomics. 8. Retail aquatic meat labeling and product traceability 9. Contamination of aquatic meat with heavy metals. 10. Contamination of aquatic meat with persistent organic pollutants. 11. Hormone administration. 12. Fish feed production and application from intensive land-animal meat production
ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions systems - Rendered meat and bone meal (MBM). 13. Prions 14. Considering issues related to radiosotopes in the aquatic meat food chain 15. Lack of testing and/or release of data to the public.
VII. Ethical worldviews and their influence on the decisions related to the consumption of intensively produced aquatic meat. VIII. Experiences and/or case studies from countries that use/have used such systems. IX. Current policy and regulatory frameworks and policy options.
I. Background information on aquaculture in general and intensive aquatic meat production. Aquaculture is defined by FAO (2007) as the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Aquaculture differs from capture fisheries by having some control of the natural environment such as stocking, feeding, and water management (BFAR-PHILMINAQ, 2007). Aquaculture grew faster than any other food-producing sector and if sustained, will continue to augment capture sheries production in response to global demand, supplying more than 50 per cent of aquatic food consumption by 2015 (Bostock et al. 2010). Aquaculture produces one third of all fish with almost half of all fish eaten (FAO, 2007) and is also one of the fastest growing food production sectors in the world (Fishsite, undated). In 2008, FAO reported that aquaculture reached 142 million tonnes. Annual growth rate is at 6.2 percent from 38.9 million tonnes in 2003 to 52.5 million tonnes in 2008 while total global capture production on the other hand stayed very steady at about 89.8 million tonnes (FAO, 2008). ASEAN is a globally important aquaculture region (Worldfish and Primex, 2007) with China generating 62 percent of world aquaculture production of fish, crustaceans and mollusks at 32.7 million tones (FAO, 2008). India produced 3.5 million tonnes, Viet Nam at 2.5 million tones, Indonesia at 1.7 million tonnes, Thailand at 1.4 million tonnes and Bangladesh at 1 million tonnes (FAO, 2008). Aquaculture production in the Philippines reached 2,407,698 metric tonnes in 2008 (BAS, 2009). The volume of production in aquaculture doubled with 1,220,456 metric tonnes in 2001 to 2,545,967 metric tonnes in 2010 (BAS, 2011). Species utilized in aquaculture production include carp for China and the rest of Asia, while salmonids in Europe and South America. Prawns and shrimps, catfish, bivalves and salmonids dominate North American production (Worldfish and Primex, 2007). Philippine aquaculture statistics indicate that at least 18 species are currently being utilized with only 6 commodity groups or species namely seaweeds, milkfish, tilapia, penaeid shrimps (primarily the black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon, mussels and mud crabs (Scylla spp)contributing substantially either by volume or value (FAO, 2007) China is by far the main exporting country followed by Norway, Thailand and Denmark. Developing countries play a major role in such exports, with the top nine exporters accounting for two-thirds of the developing country total by value (FAO, 2008).
II. Intensive aquatic meat production as it relates to harvesting wild stocks (including intensification in open sea capture fisheries) IAM production can be defined as the high density production of aquatic animals in a controlled environment for all or parts of their lifecycles. Examples include finfish such as catfish, trout, salmon, carp, and tilapia; mollusks such as clams, mussels, abalone, scallops and oysters; nonfood species such as ornamental fish and baitfish; and others such as alligators, turtles, and frogs. At the same time, the industry is continuously examining the potential production of other aquatic species (Harvey, 1998). In economic terms, externalities are third-party effects arising from the production and consumption of goods and services for which no appropriate compensation is made. Externalities may cause market distortions if the price mechanisms do not take into account the social costs and benefits of production and consumption. Negative externalities occur when production and/or consumption impose external costs on third parties outside of the market for which no appropriate compensation is made. IAM production methods result in various negative externalizations and they may take different forms depending upon the type of production, location, environmental policy and the degrees of enforcement and compliance among many other factors. A well-documented negative externality of IAM production is ecosystem deterioration. Many forms of ecosystem deterioration as a result of IAM production have been reported over the last 30 years in many different regions around the world including from both developed and developing countries (Dierberg and Kiattisimkul, 1996; Barbier and Cox, 2002; Paez-Osuna et al., 2003; Cao et al., 2007; Stokstad, 2007; Rosenberg, 2008; Azad et al., 2009; Mayor and Solan, 2011) and the extents and types of deterioration are dependent upon many factors. Ecosystem deterioration may occur through the application and subsequent release of large amounts of chemical pollutants through IAM production processes, through the production of large amounts of untreated biological waste materials or by direct and indirect effects on native species as a result of IAM production practices for example (Graslund and Bengtsson, 2001; Stokstad, 2007; Rosenberg, 2008; Bendell, 2011). Some of the potential risks and negative externalities of IAM production under consideration are: (1) Ecosystem deterioration, coastal and deep sea pollution and mangrove destruction, (2) Consequences of the production of antibiotic-resistant and multi- antibiotic-resistant microorganisms through heavy application of pharmaceuticals, (3) Effects of escaped farmed species from enclosures and potential for interbreeding with the natural populations, and/or eating or displacing them, (4) The relationship of IAM production to avian influenza and the potential for causing regional and global infectious disease pandemics, (5) The consequences of using fish feeds derived from wild-caught species, (6) Contamination of aquatic meat with heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, (7) Contamination of aquatic meat with hormone and pharmaceutical residues, (8) Potential consequences of using rendered meat and bone meal (MBM) in fish feeds originating from intensive land-animal meat production systems and (9) the potential effects of IAM production practices on native species.
III. Past and future trends in global consumption and production of aquatic meat. By 2008, worldwide aquatic meat production, often times called aquaculture, exceeded 50 million tons and this represented a more than tripling of production when compared to 1990. Additionally, the proportional contribution of aquatic meat production to total food fisheries output increased from approximately 4% in 1970 to almost 43% in 2008. FAO projections indicate that total annual global fish harvesting, including wild and farmed species, is expected to increase from 129 million tons in 2000 to over 170 million tons by 2015, and included in this assessment is the fact that aquatic meat production may account for greater than 70% of the total increase (FAO, 2011; Sapkota et al., 2008). In 2008, China accounted for greater than 70% of total worldwide aquatic meat production and overall, Asian countries accounted for greater than 90% of total global production (Sapkota et al., 2008). Current trends indicate that the majority of the increase in global production to 2030 will come from South and Southeast Asia where India, Indonesia and Thailand projected to become larger producers (Fishsite, undated). Major producer countries such as China and Vietnam will continue their drive towards export to European and North American markets. IV. Forces that are driving increases in demand for aquatic meat a) Market demands Increasing prosperity and urbanization are the key factors driving demand for animal protein, including sh. Another factor is the relative price of other protein sources and increased awareness of health benets. The global biogeography of aquatic resources has ensured long-standing and varied patterns of consumption and trade throughout history (Young & Muir 2002a) while the recent globalization has been characterized by a decline in the costs of cross-border trade in farm and other products by reductions in governmental distortions to agricultural production, consumption and trade (Anderson, 2001). Demand for fish in line with other protein foods will increase especially in parts of East and South Asia in which there is strong preference and majority of this extra demand will be met by aquaculture (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010). b) Ethical concern The ASEAN demand for meat is increasing which is already having impacts on the environment (Worldfish and Primex, 2007). Ethical concerns may play an increasing role in affecting the production and consumption of livestock products (Thorton, 2010). In this respect, sh has an important advantage compared to livestock in terms of food conversion efficiency since fish relatively score well in the way they convert a higher percentage of the food they eat into consumable protein. This efficiency is attributed to the low energy required to maintain a high body temperature. Compared with livestock which needs extensive skeleton, fish provides more portions available as food. On the average, it takes 3 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of meat, given that part of the production is based on other sources of feed, rangeland and organic waste (FAO, 2006).
ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions c) Environmental sustainability
Aquaculture has some advantages over other types of animal source food production for human consumption. On average, sh have a lower potential to cause eutrophication than pork or beef (Worldfish and Primex, 20070). Evidence also suggests that aquaculture contributes less to global emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus than production of pork and beef (FAO, 2007). Aquaculture use of water is variable and can, in fact be lower than other animal production systems (Worldfish and Primex, 2007). For example, coastal aquaculture makes use of sea water rather than fresh. Inland aquaculture ponds are drained and lled on a periodic basis but the water is often a form of water storage and seepage losses from ponds represent an ecosystem service, serving to recharge groundwater reserves (Worldfish and Primex, 2007). V. General explanation of energy flows and economics in aquatic meat production. Aquaculture production is market-driven (Muir, 2005). More than 10 years ago Naylor et al. (2000) reported that although aquatic meat production may be considered as a means to relieve pressure on ocean fisheries, the effects of some intensive production models have opposite effects and this is due to the requirements for massive amounts of wild caught species that are used in the fish feeds for intensively-produced carnivorous species. This outcome is one of various negative externalities that arise as a result of intensive aquatic meat (IAM) production practices. In the future, many developed countries will see a continuing trend in which livestock breeding focuses on other attributes in addition to production and productivity, such as product quality, increasing animal welfare, disease resistance and reducing environmental impact (Thorton, 2010) and with this, greater consideration of the impact of fishing at the ecosystem level, and not only on individual species, will be an important part of improving fisheries management (Pikitch et al. 2004) VI. A. Impacts of intensive aquatic meat production 1. Environmental Impact While producing food, employment, livelihood and wealth, fisheries can also generate a significant level of environmental impact on target and non-target resources as well as on sensitive habitats (NRC, 2002). In European Community waters, more than 80 per cent of stocks are overexploited or depleted (European Commission, 2007). Central to these concerns are the demands that aquaculture places on biophysical resources and the demands placed on the environment from wastes (Worldfish and Primex, 2007). Globally inland pond culture is the predominant production system and contributes the greatest impact (Worldfish and Primex, 2007). Concerns of overshing of marine ecosystems also arise with a growing demand for shmeal and sh oil from capture sheries. 2. Dependence on raw (trash) fish and fish meal Feed for aquaculture is a major bottleneck due to the limitations to the available oil and fish for aquaculture feed (FAO, 2008). These materials are generally derived from
shoaling marine pelagic species such as anchovy and sand eels, with the majority of world production originating in South America. World production remains fairly constant (67 mt/yr) in the face of rapidly increasing use in aquaculture, particularly for salmon, sea bass and sea bream, and shrimp (FAO, 2008) Marine fishes appear to require high levels of mainly marine lipids. Fishmeals have long been the protein source of choice, for reasons including their protein concentration, quality in terms of essential amino acid balance and digestibility, palatability, freedom from toxin and/or anti-nutritional factors which is a common problem with feedstuffs of plant origin and their competitive cost per unit of protein (Hardy & Tacon 2002). Reliance on high protein, fishmeal-based feed for carnivorous species often requires many pounds of wild fish to produce one pound of edible aquaculture product. There is an extreme dependence of cultured fish on wild-caught fish. Fish oil and fish meal, which are essential ingredients of feeds, ultimately come from wild stocks. Tacon & Barg (1998) estimated that in 1995, global production of farmed carnivorous fishes and crustacean, just over 3 mt, were fed with 1.5 mt of fishmeal, equivalent to some 5 mt of small pelagic fishes. It has been estimated that aquaculture now uses some 20% of current world fishmeal production. It has also moved towards using higher grades of meal, made from the freshest fish and processed at low temperatures, as these offer improved protein digestibility and palatability, leading to faster growth and lower FCRs (kilograms of food required per kilogram produced) (Pike & Barlow 2003). It has been estimated that for every hectare of intensive salmon production, some 40 000 to 50 000 ha of sea area are required for feed supply and waste processing (Folke & Kautsky 1992, 1996). Studies have shown that one-third of all wild-caught fish is used to make feed for aquaculture. It takes 10 to 22 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of tuna and takes 5-12 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of finfish such as grouper, snapper, and seabass using wet fish diets (WWF, undated) and 2 to 4kg of wild fish using dry diets. About 160,000 tons of wildfish/feeds are wasted in tilapia pens, cages, and ponds while more than 180,000 tons are wasted for bangus culture (BFAR-PHILMINAQ, 2007). In 2008, approximately 90 per cent of the fish oil available worldwide, and 71 per cent of the fish meal, was consumed in aquaculture practices (Tacon & Metian, 2009). Highlighted in part by ecological critiques of the development of modern intensive aquaculture (Naylor et al. 1998, 2000) there is also increased pressure from conservation groups and consumer interests to limit industrial fishing for meal and oil. While the aquaculture sector competes on global markets with other livestock producers, its marginal value per unit of fishmeal, or more critically fish oil, has tended to be greater and it has remained a highly competitive purchaser and may ensure acceptable levels of future market access to raw materials (Barlow & Pike 1997). Unless alternative higher value markets develop, aquaculture will continue to consume the majority of fish meal and oil produced but this will not be sufficient to meet ever-increasing demands for aquafeed ingredients (Bostock et al, 2010) 3) Socio-economic Impact Though many agencies understand aquaculture to contribute to development aims, public sector investment has often supported export production and foreign currency
earnings for justified structural adjustment and for targeted potential beneficiaries but do not always benefited poorer groups (Muir, 2005). Heavy investment, both local and international, has flowed into more obviously profitable areas of aquaculture especially in shrimp and marine fish and often at some cost to local resources and environments (Gujja & Finger-Stich 1996; Primavera 1997). Fishery dependent communities may face increased vulnerability in terms of less stable livelihoods and loss of already insecure entitlements (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010).
Environmental impacts of aquaculture 1) Biological, chemical and physical impacts of aquaculture on the environment a) Biological impacts of aquaculture may include fecal discharge of fish, waste food, and impacts on genetics and biodiversity. In intensive aquaculture, increased deposition of organic wastes such as uneaten food, faeces, and excreta increases biochemical oxygen demand, nitrates and phosphates in receiving waters. b) Chemical impacts include oxygen depletion and eutrophication which are caused by the production of nutrient-loaded effluents, presence of antifoulants used in boats and nets, industrial wastes and medications and treatments for fish, shellfish, and seaweeds (although minimal chemical used for seaweed culture) which can harm wildlife and the environment, and may lead to antibiotic resistance. c) Physical impacts range from the aesthetics to altering critical habitats such as wetlands and mangroves. Alteration of physical environment happens when nets of cages, pens, and associated moorings prevent efficient water exchange and changing the current patterns caused by friction to the water currents. Friction from the nets can alter the residence time of water in a bay. Sometimes these structures can also cause obstruction to navigation routes and migration paths of different species of fish. 2) Habitat loss and modification Aquaculture affects sensitive coastal environments either by conversion like in the case of mangroves, or habitat alteration such as in coral reef, seagrass and benthic substrates where fish pens and cages are located. In the Philippines, more than 300,000 hectares of mangroves have been converted to fish ponds, salt beds, agriculture, and industrial and commercial establishments (BFAR-PHILMINAQ, 2007). 3 00,000 hectares of mangroves were converted to give way to fish and shrimp ponds, salt beds, agriculture, and industrial/commercial establishments in the Philippines (Primavera, 1995). 3) Spread of pests and diseases
10
Intensive aquaculture potentially has several adverse effects on wild species, including disease transmission, escape, and capture for broodstock or rearing. Diseases and parasites from outside the farm can easily be introduced by transporting fry/fingerlings from other parts of the country and by importing fish from abroad with proper quarantine procedures. The introduction of species or strains into productive habitats for aquaculture, for stock enhancement, or for culture-based fisheries can have significant implications for biodiversity (Beveridge et al. 1994). Exotic species may also have adverse effects on aquaculture and wild species, either through introduction of new diseases or competition with native species (BFAR-PHILMINAQ, 2007). The Philippine aquaculture relies on alien species, particularly in freshwater systems such as Nile tilapia which is a major farmed freshwater fish and most of the lesser farmed freshwater species including bighead carp, African catfish, common carp and freshwater aquarium species which are actually alien species (BFAR-PHILMINAQ, 2007). VI. B. Impacts of climate change in intensive aquatic meat production The vulnerability of fishers and fishing systems to climate change would be determined by three factors: their exposure to a specific change; their sensitivity to that change; and their ability to respond to impacts or take advantage of opportunities (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010). Natural climatic oscillations, particularly those at medium (decadal) scale, have always affected fisheries as well as their management performance. The impact of global climate change on ocean capture fisheries will be important for the availability, distribution and resilience of resources as well as for the sector structure and performance. Climate change impacts will likely be as varied as the changes themselves and will be felt through changes in fishing opportunities (resources available and entitlements), operational costs (in production and marketing) and sales prices, with increased risks of damage or loss of infrastructure and housing (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010) VI. C. Impacts of intensive aquatic meat production in climate change Impact of aquaculture packaging and labeling materials in climate change The global supply chain developed together with the development of packaging and enabled the transfer of products even to far-flung areas. Since goods travel great distances, they are usually made durable to protect the product. Nowadays, packaging has an important role in the marketing of the product and in conveying information required by law to the consumers. Another role of packaging is to respond to customers convenience by minimizing the amount of effort required to prepare and serve food such as oven-safe trays, boil in the bag and microwaveable packaging which allow customers to cook an entire meal without virtually any preparation. In the UK, 30 million tonnes of household waste is generated annually and there is now a pressure on brand owners and producers both governments and consumers to curb the level of waste generated from packaging products. According to the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP of UK), 40 percent of this waste eventually ends in landfill. Production and sale of packaging has implications in terms of competitiveness
11
for the manufacturer since weight reductions made that do not compromise the structural strength of the packaging also reduce costs, not only in terms of raw materials used, but also with regard to fuel, logistics and overall production costs. Some of the wastes come from food wastage which better packaging can help address. Plastics are inexpensive, lightweight and durable materials, which can readily be moulded into a variety of products that find use in a wide range of applications. As a consequence, the production of plastics has increased markedly over the last 60 years. However, current levels of their usage and disposal generate several environmental problems. Around 4 per cent of world oil and gas production, a non-renewable resource, is used as feedstock for plastics and a further 34% is expended to provide energy for their manufacture (Hopewell et al, 2010). A lot of disposable items of packaging or other short-lived products produced each year are made up of plastic which are discarded within a year of manufacture. It is an indicator that current use of plastics is not sustainable. Usage of plastic is increasing and annual production is likely to exceed 300 million tonnes by 2010 (Thompson et al., 2009). Lots of discarded end-of-life plastics are accumulating as debris in landfills and in natural habitats worldwide. (Barnes, et al., 2009) mentioned that the longevity of plastic is estimated to be hundreds to thousands of years, but is likely to be far longer in deep sea and non-surface polar environments. Another issue associated with plastic involves physical problems for wildlife resulting from ingestion or entanglement in plastic, the leaching of chemicals from plastic products and the potential for plastics to transfer chemicals to wildlife and humans (Thompson et al., 2009). Barnes, et al. in 2009 also added that plastic debris poses considerable threat distributing non-native and potentially harmful organisms and degrading to microplastics that may subsequently be ingested and the environmental consequences of such microscopic debris are still poorly understood. According to Hopewell et al. (2010) around 4 per cent of world oil production is used as a feedstock to make plastics and a similar amount is used as energy in the process. Yet over a third of current production is used to make items of packaging, which are then rapidly discarded. Given our declining reserves of fossil fuels, and finite capacity for disposal of waste to landfill, this linear use of hydrocarbons, via packaging and other short-lived applications of plastic, is simply not sustainable. Mega- and macro-plastics have accumulated in the highest densities in the Northern Hemisphere, adjacent to urban centers, in enclosed seas and at water convergences or fronts. Remote island shores and in the continental shelf seabed have lower densities and lowest densities in the deep sea and Southern Ocean (Barnes, et al., 2009). Hickman (2007) added that existing regulations were too weak in EU due to the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations of 2003 wherein large amounts of packaging is allowed if there is consumer acceptance or it is judged necessary for marketing. Trading standards depots have the power to prosecute companies that use excessive packaging (Hickman, 2007). The government will set the ideal weight for different classes of packaging to prevent waste of resources and transportation pollution and to increase the target for the recycling of packaging from the current 60 per cent. VII. Discussion that highlights some of the major sectors of intensive aquatic meat production, including inputs and outputs in each sector and negative cost
12
externalizations. Issues that may be explored in regard to negative cost externalization include: Responses of key players in aquaculture production The emerging increase in aquaculture production is also coupled with the increasing demand from consumers for safe aquaculture products produced in a sustainable and ethical manner Science and technology together with an environmentally sensitive and ethical set of policies and procedures which meet demands of consumer safety need careful consideration in order to address the intensification of aquaculture production. To continue to expand their market at a pace beyond just the rate of population growth, the seafood industry, including aquaculture producers will have to develop ways of making their products more appealing to consumers to gain a larger share of total protein consumption (Aquaculture Outlook Report, 2004). Another concern of aquaculture industry is maintaining ecological integrity to ensure that environmental degradation does not lead to decrease in production and retail consumer through awareness such as from certication schemes and purchasing preferences. Government agencies from all over the world which bear the responsibility of looking after the environment by means of regulatory standards and protecting the consumers poses a challenge amid the backdrop of intensifying aquaculture production. Intensification in meat production has already been reported to have negative externalities in the environment and intensification in capture fisheries and aquaculture is another area that needs careful attention. Food safety standards Global concern on feed and food safety and quality led to the establishment of Codes of Good Practices, Quality Assurance Programs, Herd Health Surveillance Programs, and education programs as important part of good husbandry as well as aquaculture practices. Food Safety is defined by Codex Alimentarius as the assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and/or eaten according to its intended use. For food to be safe, it must be free from hazards to health, categorized as biological hazards which may come from pathogenic bacteria, virus, parasites, worms and others; chemical hazards such as natural toxins, agricultural chemicals, environmental contaminants, food additives, and others; and physical hazards such as presence of stones, metal fragments, bone shards, and others. Government response to assuring food safety standards focus on implementing regulations for mandatory compliance of companies. Some government of countries become signatories in WTO and adopted CODEX Alimentarius. 1) Philippines In relation to national and international trade through CODEX, Administrative Order No. 13 Series of 2009 Designates FDC of the NFA as the official Laboratory of the DA for the analysis of contaminants in agricultural, fisheries and animal foods and food products in order to strengthen market confidence in agricultural, animal and fisheries foods and product exports; to consolidate trace level analysis of residues in all
13
agricultural, animal, fisheries foods and food products in one single laboratory; and to ensure strengthening of food safety and food security policies. Moreover the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) also implements inspection system for import and export of fishery/aquatic products and fish processing establishments consistent with international standards to ensure product quality and safety. The Department of Agriculture (DA) in 2001 banned the importation and culture of live shrimp and prawns in the country to protect the local shrimp industry from contamination by the Taura virus that had nearly wiped out shrimp farms in various parts of Asia. The administrative order states that the brood stock must come only from the eight brood stock facilities in the United States that are known to have the capacity to produce brood stock that are specific pathogen-free or specific pathogen-resistant. The eight brood stock facilities are High Health Aquaculture, Inc. (Hawaii), Kona Bay Marine Resources (Hawaii), Molokai Sea Farms International (Hawaii), Rainbow Hawaii Farms (Hawaii), Shrimp Production Hawaii, Inc. (Hawaii), Shrimp Improvement Systems, Inc. (Florida), Harlingen Shrimp Farms, Ltd. (Texas) and SyAqua USA (Kentucky) to ensure that the feed supplies are safe and food are compliant with Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs). The BFAR Fish Health Section is involved in disease control and food safety through its residue monitoring program. In a Memorandum of Agreement executed by BFAR and the BAI, the Fish Health Section of BFAR is recognized as having the capability for the monitoring of feeds, veterinary drugs, and biologics in aquaculture. Together with the Department of Health (DOH), BFAR implements regular activities to identify/ban certain substances proven harmful to fish health (GAIN Report, 2007) Among the banned substances per DA-DOH Administrative Orders No. 61 and 90, Series of 1990, and DA-DOH AO. No. 2, series of 2000 include antibiotics such as chlocramphenicol and nitruforans due to its carcinogenic, mutagenic and genotoxic properties. The use of Cloramphenicol in food animals may lead to residue build up in animal tissues which may lead to aplastic anemia and/or resistance when ingested by humans, considering that it is valued as an antibiotic for life-threatening infections in humans; while Carbadox, lanquinox and Nitrofurans have been recognized as mutagenic and carcinogenic drugs possessing genotoxic potentials; use of these are banned in food animals such as livestock, poultry and aquaculture production whether through feeds or water or other means. Also, beta-agonist drugs such as but not limited to Clenbuterol, Salbutamol, Tributalin and Pirbuterol which are being used as tocolytic agents for humans but used as lean meat-enhancing agents in animals promoting reduction in body fats are banned for use in food animals whether through feeds, water or other means considering that thee safety profile of these products have not been established. Presence and residues of banned veterinary and beta-agonist drugs in meat, fishery products, milk, eggs have been detected, analyzed and identified. In relation to GMOs, the Rules and Regulations for the Importation and Release into the Environment of Plants and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology (AO8) was signed into law in 2003 and became effective on July 1, 2003. Under this, all GE plant varieties must be evaluated by a third party panel of Philippine scientists for food, feed and environmental safety prior to entering the Philippines. Any commodity or food containing an unapproved variety regardless of country of origin will be prohibited from entering the Philippines. However, in China, achievements have also
14
been made in animal biotechnology R&D. China is leading the research on transgenic fishes and the technology is ready for large-scale commercial production. Chinese scientists have successfully cloned carp, goats, cattle and rats, and have the capability of producing medicinal proteins from transgenic animals. China's animal cloning techniques are now among the most advanced in the world (Chen et al., 2007) 2) US The safety of food and drugs in fish and fish products is regulated by FDA while meat and poultry and egg products which are regulated by USDA (FAO, 2008). However, veterinary biologics are regulated by APHIS's Center for Veterinary Biologics according to statutory guidelines in the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act. Manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding fish for consumption in the United States of America is also governed by FDA. A voluntary fee-for-service Seafood Inspection Program, managed by NOAA, ensures food safety by offering inspection services to the seafood industry, and providing assurances for products in compliance with food safety regulations. NOAA authorizes the use of official federal seals (such as U.S. Grade A) to production facilities that are compliant with applicable food standards. The Seafood Inspection Program does not replace FDA inspections, or exempt a seafood processor from regular FDA inspections. The seal is used only to demonstrate that quality of the product meets applicable food standards. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) All seafood processors must comply with FDA Fish and Fishery Products HACCP regulation. The FDA HACCP program focuses on food safety hazards associated with fish species and processes. The federal HACCP plan must list the food safety hazards associated with fish species and processes that are likely to occur, and identify the conditions that must be controlled for each type of fish. 3) UK The Food Safety Act of 1990 covers Great Britain and also provides the framework for all food legislation. In 2000, the Food Standards Act (1999) and the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA), was established to protect the public's health and consumer interests in relation to food. The Food Standards Agency Scotland (FSAS) also established in 2000 handles issues in Scotland involving food quality and food safety, including fish and shellfish and also the regulation of animal feeding stuffs. The Fish Health Regulations (1997) applies to Great Britain and implement Council Directive prohibiting the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products unless certain requirements relating to their health status are met. The Regulations are made under the Food Safety Act and the European Communities Act (1972). At present there are two parallel systems for the approval and control of pesticides in the United Kingdom. The first system operates under the Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR, 1997). These regulations implement the objectives of the Food and Environment Protection Act (1985). This system of control is at a national level and applies to agricultural and non-agricultural use of pesticides. The second system of
15
legislation has been introduced to enable the development of a common market for pest control products across all EU member states in Europe. 1. Coastal and deep sea pollution, ecosystem deterioration, mangrove destruction. 2. Fate and consequences of the production of multi-antibiotic-resistant bacteria through the heavy use of pharmaceuticals. Anti-microbial resistance Antibiotics/antimicrobials may be defined as drugs of either natural/synthetic origin that have the ability to kill or to inhibit the growth of microorganisms. According to FAO, antibiotics are agents that are sufficiently non-toxic to the host and used as chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of infectious diseases of humans, animals and plants. The role of antibiotics has been one of the greatest contributors to health in modern medicine. However, there has been both a resurgence of older infectious diseases and an emergence of new diseases over the last couple of decades. One of the main factors for this new prevalence of disease is that disease-causing micro-organisms are developing a tolerance for antibiotics. This phenomenon is termed antibiotic-resistance. For the most part, this resistance stems from the misuse and abuse of antibiotics. These micro-organisms undergo rapid and prolific growth, allowing them to adapt to their environment very quickly. When they are over-exposed to antibiotics, they are allowed the evolutionary space to adapt and develop resistance to them. The threat of antibiotic resistance is summarized in this quote from the Institute of Medicine, Antibiotic resistance as a phenomenon is, in itself, not surprising. Nor is it new. It is however, newly worrying because it is accumulating and accelerating, while the worlds tools for combating it decrease in power and number. While the use of antimicrobials and the associated anti-microbial resistance are well recognized as a growing concern in public health worldwide, it is more difficult to measure, and therefore harder to assess, the impact of their use in aquaculture. The trend of increasing resistance against antimicrobials can be attributed in large part to human medicine, and also to their usage in industrial-scale animal meat production facilities. Although aquaculture has to date received less attention, this area may yet prove to be an important factor in antimicrobial resistance. The quality and quantity of data available for the use of antimicrobials in aquaculture is limited, and few countries have definite records. In addition there is a lack of regulation and guidance on their use in many developing countries. It has been shown in many investigations that the particular genes conferring resistance in organisms can be extremely similar (Kruse et al., 1994; Rhodes et al., 2000), therefore one of the main concerns is that of gene transfer. The intensive application of antimicrobials in aquaculture, as in animal production, can lead to selective genetic pressure. Antibiotic-resistance as a result of drug use in aquaculture has already been associated with several strains of bacteria, including Yersinia rukeri (DeGrandis et al., 1985), A. Salmonicida (Aoki et al., 1971), Aeromonas hydrophila (Akashi et al, 1986)
16
and V. Salmonicida (Husevag et al., 1991). There is then the possibility that genes conferring resistance in aquatic pathogens could transfer over to human pathogens directly, or stepwise via different bacterial hosts (horizontal gene transfer). Some of the more common bacterial infections found in aquaculture include blood septicemia, diarrhea and various skin conditions. The bacteria responsible for these infections are very closely related to their human equivalents. It is common that the same anti-microbials used in human medicine are also used in aquaculture, such as ormethoprim and oxytetracycline. Also, the trend of using antimicrobials as growth promoters in food production is of great concern as they often bypass veterinary prescription and regulation. By administering the drugs at sub-therapeutic levels and over prolonged periods of time, the potential for pathogens developing resistance increases within the fish species, can disseminate into the environment and ultimately lead to human exposure. With the increasing expansion of aquaculture, the improved distribution networks and transportation systems for bringing fish to market both nationally and internationally have also vastly improved. Just like other areas of food production, this creates a situation whereby potential health risks are increasingly of concern. In one experiment (Kruse et al., 1994), it was investigated how easily resistance genes could be transferred from a fish pathogen to human Escherichia coli on a cutting board where salmon was prepared at room temperature. They found that the frequency of gene transfer between bacteria was almost identical to that seen in growth media in laboratories. This example went on to show the extent of transferability of resistance from aquatic bacteria to human bacteria, and that this may serve as an important potential reservoir for increasing anti-microbial resistance in human medicine. In another study, an investigation into the prevalence of anti-microbial resistance in ready-to-eat shrimp was performed (Duran et al., 2005). Taking 13 different samples of ready-to-eat shrimp from 4 countries, over 160 species of bacteria were isolated and identified. Of those bacteria, it was found that approximately 80% displayed antimicrobial resistance. Furthermore, the fact that ready-to-eat shrimp does not require cooking increases the likelihood of introducing these resistant strains into the micro-flora of the human gut. Again, this would serve as a potential reservoir of resistance genes that could be horizontally transferred to human bacteria. The environmental impact of anti-microbial use in aquaculture has received less assessment than other areas of animal food production thus far. Although the current trend of large-scale fish production is in closed pens and tanks, open-sea aquaculture is increasing and therefore the potential impact on the environment will also increase. The most common routes of antibiotic administration in aquaculture are either by directly adding the drugs to water, or by using medicated feed. This type of drug administration points towards whole batches of fish being treated at once. Therefore, following the harvest of one fish batch, generally the pens/tanks are not drained which then exposes the new fish batch to residual anti-microbials. This may lead to bio-accumulation, increasing the likelihood of resistance. In a report by FAO (FAO, 1997), concern was expressed over the use of natural waters in aquaculture (such as fjords) and the potential impact of drug use on the environment at large. As an example of this impact, in a stream that received effluent run-off from a trout aquaculture facility, it was found that resistance to a certain anti-microbial (a quinolone) was increased 10-fold (Guardabassi et al., 2000).
17
Furthermore, in another FAO report (Hernandez et al., 2005), research indicates that between 70% and 80% of certain drugs used in aquaculture ends up in the environment. Authors of a survey into the dissemination of antibiotics in areas surrounding shrimp aquaculture farms in Vietnam found that much higher concentrations of the drugs were present and concluded that they posed a potential ecological hazard (Le et al., 2004) As an example of the lack of regulation and guidance on antibiotic use in IAM production, one may look to a study performed by Graslund et al (2004). Here it was reported that of the large amounts of antibiotics used in Thai aquaculture as a whole, 74% of farmers in shrimp production used these drug agents. It was also noted that more than 13 different types of antibiotic were used, and in some cases were used on a daily basis in prophylaxis. More stringent regulation policy and practice is required in this area of food production, and recently has been garnering more attention. For example new policy has been introduced in India regarding the administration, food-labelling and over-thecounter availability of antibiotics used in aquaculture. Whether these new policies will be transformed into actionable practice remains to be seen however. Although there is a growing trend towards the use of vaccines over antibiotics in parts of the world (particularly Europe and Latin America), the issue of antimicrobial resistance cannot be put to one side. Aquaculture is an industry that is undergoing rapid growth in many parts of the world, and with the intensive use of antimicrobials the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance is also growing and gaining more attention. As with other areas, such as terrestrial animal food production and human medicine, there is an increasing need to develop, regulate and maintain a full strategy for the responsible use of drugs in aquaculture in order to protect human health. With a more controlled and guided use of antibiotics in aquaculture, this would result in a more positive effect not only on human health as a whole, but also the individual facilities, their workers and the natural ecosystem at large. 3. Effects of escaped farmed fish from enclosures: interbreeding with the natural populations, eating or displacing them including issues of genetic modification. 4. The relationship of aquatic meat production to avian influenza and the potential for causing regional and global infectious disease pandemics. 5. As is the case for intensive land-based meat production, there are disease issues that are a direct result of growing animals in high density, severely crowded conditions where the animals are already under a high amount of stress: (a) Sea lice infestation (b) Infectious salmon anemia virus (c) Bacterial kidney disease (d) Vibrio salmonicida (e) Enteric septicemia (f) Salmon rickettsial disease (g) Vibrio species in penaeid aquaculture (which contributed to collapse in aquaculture industry) 6. Protein consumption versus production: Large finfish must eat many smaller fish for every kilogram of finfish.
18
7. Socioeconomics. 8. Retail aquatic meat labeling and product traceability Labeling Labels in packaging have important roles in the marketing of the product such as the name of manufacturer and product as well as weight or volume and pertinent information required by law to the consumer such as nutritional information, ingredients, presence of allergens. Labeling laws in relation to food safety 1) Philippines The state shall enforce compulsory labeling and fair packaging to enable consumer to obtain accurate information as to the nature, quality and quantity of the contents of consumer products and to facilitate his comparison of the value of such product. The Republic Act No. 3720 or the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act 1963 was enacted to ensure the safety and purity of foods, drugs and cosmetics made available to the public. Under the Food Act, the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) was created under the DOH Executive Order No. 175 (EO 175) to ensure the safety, proper handling, efficacy, purity and quality of processed foods, drugs, diagnostic reagents, medical devices, cosmetics and hazardous household substances. It also oversees the control of the manufacture and sale of processed foods, where the major concerns are adulteration and mislabeling of food products. It is responsible for the surveillance of imported food products at legal ports of entry. Under Republic Act No. 8435 or the Agriculture Fisheries and Modernization Act the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (BAFPS) was established in 1997 in order to formulate and enforce standards of quality in the processing, preservation, packaging, labeling, importation, exportation, distribution and advertising of fresh and primary agricultural and fisheries products. BAFPS also provides assistance in establishing the scientific basis for food safety, trade standards and codes of practice and harmonizes them with internationally accepted standards and practices. BAFPS serves as the National Enquiry Point for Codex Alimentarius and other food safety and standards regulatory bodies. Labeling Requirements in the Philippines according to BFAD AO No. 88-B (1994) should include: a) Name of the food; List of ingredients used in the product (in decreasing order of proportion), including additives, flavorings and preservatives used; b) Net contents and drained weight; c) Name and address of manufacturer/packer or distributor, including country of origin for imported products and name and the address of Philippine importer/distributor; d) Lot identification.
19
Codex Alimentarius and USFDA regulations serve as the Philippine BFADs main reference guidelines for policy pertaining to good manufacturing practices and suitability of packaging materials for food use. Compliance with Codex and/or U.S. regulations for packaged foods will almost always assure compliance with Philippine regulations. Currently, there is however no labeling for biotechnology or organic products required by the Philippine government. In relation to importation, the Fisheries Code Administrative Order 195 allow fresh/chilled/frozen fish and fishery/aquatic when certified as necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture as well as to achieve food security taking into consideration public welfare and safety.. All importation must satisfy the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) standards as provided under Section 67 of RA 8550. All fish and fishery/aquatic products imported into the Philippines intended for distribution and further processing must be accompanied by an International Health Certificate issued by the authorized or competent regulatory agency from the country of origin which met the following criteria: a) Fish and fishery/aquatic products which meet the quality of fresh fish prior to freezing and be graded accordingly to size; b) Fishery products must be handled and processed hygienically in processing plants and/or freezer vessels; c) Frozen fishery products must be kept and maintained at -18C or lower during transport; d) Fish and fishery/aquatic products must be subject to visual inspection for parasite check. Fish infested with parasites, must be removed from the batch; e) Total viable count 10/gram E. coli 10 to 100/gram; f) Salmonella absent in 25 gram sample; and g) Shigella and Vibrio cholerae absent. Fishery/aquatic products must be packed under hygienic condition to prevent contamination from lubricants, oils, fuels or any hazardous substances. The following information should appear on the packaging and on the accompanying documents: the country of origin written out in full; species of fish/fishery products weight and content; address of supplier; and BFAR Inspection stamp mark. Frozen fishery/aquatic products imported in bulk intended for further processing are not covered by this requirement. GMOs The Rules and Regulations for the Importation and Release into the Environment of Plants and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology (AO8) took effect on July 1, 2003. Under AO8, all GE plant varieties (regulated article) must be evaluated by a third party panel of Philippine scientists for food, feed and environmental safety prior to entering the Philippines. Any commodity or food containing an unapproved variety regardless of country of origin will be prohibited from entering the Philippines. 2) U.S.A. Farm Bill 2000 Public Law 107-171
20
This law directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop regulations that would require U.S. retailers to provide country-of-origin labels (COOL) for red meats (beef, lamb, and pork), fish and shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, and peanuts. In addition, fish and shellfish must be identified as either wild or farm-raised. The purpose of the requirements is to provide consumers with greater information when purchasing seafood. The rule defines covered commodities as wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, including fillets, steaks, nuggets, and any other seafood flesh. Thus, the rule covers fish such as salmon, trout, tuna, cod, and other species whether they are farmraised trout from Idaho or wild harvest cod from Iceland. The rule also covers shellfish and mollusks such as shrimp, crawfish, oysters, clams, scallops, and mussels. Businesses affected by this rule are retail food stores and their suppliers, from fish farmers and harvesters through processors and wholesalers. Under the law, retailers required to provide country of origin and method of production information are those defined as retailers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Thus, retailers affected by the rule are chiefly supermarkets, and most fish markets would be exempt. Food service establishments are exempt from the requirements of the law. This basically would be seafood sales through restaurants and similar establishments. The rule also defines food service establishments to include food service facilities within retail stores. An example would be a deli in a retail store that sells ready-to-eat foods to be consumed either on or off the retailers premises. Products that are exempt from the rule are those defined as ingredients in a processed food item. An ingredient is a component, either in part or in full, of a finished retail food product. A processed food item is defined as seafood products that have changed in character through specific processing or has combined with another covered commodity or other substantive food component. There are numerous examples of processed items such as canned tuna, fish stews, smoked salmon, and breaded catfish fillets (USDA, undated). HACCP is a mandatory program for seafood processors under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and with additional authority for seafood processors. Under the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there is a program requiring the analysis and management of critical processing variables that impact upon the healthiness and safety of seafood products. As a result of the proposed step-wise reduction of oil in feed as well as the sourcing of oil from fisheries with the lowest levels of contaminants and treating oil to remove contaminants (supported by 2107(a)(6) periodic residue testing), there will be more farmed fish with substantially reduced levels of contaminants relative to wild or conventionally produced fish. For US standards, the marks are: US Grade A, Processed Under Federal Inspection (PUFI), Lot Inspection Mark, Retail Mark and HACCP Mark. HACCP principles are also employed to certify products. 3) EU The Fish Labeling (Scotland) Regulations (2003), which extend to Scotland only, make provision on the markets in fishery and aquaculture products and implement rules governing informing consumers about fishery and aquaculture products. Council Regulation (EC) 104/2000 imposes inter alia requirements regarding the provision of information about the commercial designation, production method and catch area of
21
certain fishery and aquaculture products offered for retail sale to the final consumer (FAO, 2008). The Animal and Animal Products (Examination for residues and Maximum Residue Limits (1997) applies to aquaculture animals and establishes community procedures for fixing maximum limits for veterinary drug residues in foodstuffs of animal origin. The Regulations prohibit the sale, possession or administration to animals of specified unauthorized substances, prohibit the possession, slaughter or processing the meat of, animals intended for human consumption which contain, or which have been administered with, specified unauthorized substances GMOs There are presently two main areas of potential application of GMO technologies in aquaculture. The first is the use of GMO vegetable products in fish feed and the use of GMOs in medicines and pharmaceuticals, and the second application is the use of GMO technologies more specifically, transgenics in breeding fish for commercial aquaculture use. The use of GMOs plays no part in Scottish commercial aquaculture production yet. The application of genetic techniques may be expected to play some role in the future. However, Scottish research institutions supporting the industry continue to develop their knowledge and any proposal to use transgenic fish would require the consent of the Scottish Ministers. If granted, approval would be based on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) and would also take into account advice from other relevant agencies such as the FSA and Scottish Natural Heritage. ACRE is a statutory advisory committee appointed under the Environmental Protection Act to provide advice to the government regarding the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Scotland Regulations of 2002 implements the Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. The amendment in 2004 covered the areas of genetically modified food and animal feed. The Council Regulation has as its objective the facilitation of accurate labeling, monitoring of effects on the environment and on health as well as the implementation of the appropriate risk management measures including withdrawal of products Mislabeling case In Ireland and UK, cod is the most popular imported whitefish consumed and demand remains high even though local Atlantic cod stocks have largely been depleted. There were mislabeled smoked, breaded or battered cod products which were actually less expensive fish species substituted for cod and sold to consumers at premium price. Another more subtle form of mislabeling is when cod products were mislabeled to specifically match a demand for more sustainable seafood choices according to Dr Mariani (Fishsite, undated).
22
Traceability With the intensification of aquaculture and stiff competition, knowing where the fish, shellfish or crustaceans originate is becoming more important. As news of problems with fish diseases in some fish farms becomes more publicly known, consumers want assurance that the products they are eating are safe. Safety assurance left to individual countries while industries set their own transparent standards to develop their own strategies. Traceability is used more as a marketing tool rather than a designation of quality and safety. Comparing with meat industry which had quality assurance and traceability systems for a long time, with most dating back to the outbreak of BSE in the UK in the mid '90s, the fish and shellfish industries had been lagging behind, according to Chris Harris, Senior Editor for TheFishSite. Traceability has been burdened with difficulties since most fish in the past comes from the wild. However, in Scotland, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labeling) (Scotland) Regulations of 2004 make provision for the execution and enforcement of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the traceability and labeling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms. The Council Regulation provides a framework for the traceability of products consisting of or containing genetically modified organisms and food and feed produced from genetically modified organisms. The Council Regulation has as its objective the facilitation of accurate labeling, monitoring of effects on the environment and on health as well as the implementation of the appropriate risk management measures including withdrawal of products. On the same line, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) works with partners to transform the world's seafood markets on a sustainable basis. It has developed standards for sustainable fishing and seafood traceability and also affirms that MSC-labeled seafood comes from sustainable fishery and can be traced back. However, its certification process is not traceable and food safety is not assured since certification is more for environmental and ecological assurance. Other countries and authorities are out to start setting full fish and seafood inspection and control procedures that employ traditional traceability measures and audited quality assurance systems such as the ministry of fisheries in Viet Nam which has a National Fisheries Quality Assurance and Veterinary Directorate (NAFIQAVED). Thailand's Department of Fisheries also has developed a Fish Inspection and Control System and the entire processing industry is monitored under the General Principle on Food Hygiene and Good Manufacturing Practices under HACCP systems. Thailands DOF has a computerized traceability system for shrimp which allows every step of raising, production and processing of the shrimp to be monitored and recorded. The system is open to the shrimp farmer and harvester, processor and feed manufacturer. Mostly, national authorities from various countries set out regulations that will cover the fish and seafood when it enters into a processing plant. As with most food processing establishments, the fish being prepared for the retailer, wholesaler or foodservice outlet will have to be processed under strict safety regulations and under the traditional HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) criteria. The government authorities also lay down strict food safety criteria for the import of fish and
23
seafood products, but do not necessarily constitute full assurance and traceability certification. Challenges associated with traceability a) Faulty assignment of lot code since most companies, the lot code can only immediately trace the date of production and not the production batch b) Inadequate production records in relation to documentation and personnel training needs c) Inadequate dispatch record since many companies do not tract the lot code of deliveries to customers so in the event of recall it would be difficult to zero in on specific areas that would have been affected d) Illegible markings because with frozen goods lot labels used are not always waterproof e) No written protocol for recall procedure which poses a challenge since the food safety problems of the food industry can occur at any stage of the food chain and at any of the steps during the processing of the product
Eco-labeling in fisheries products For most food products a label will give a fairly accurate account of how it was produced, in turn this gives the consumer the insight to choose those that are sourced in an ethically appropriate manner. Aquaculture had a delayed introduction to this race. Only recently has the idea of organic aquaculture been taken seriously on a global scale. The goal of eco-labeling is to harness the power of the market to achieve environmental goals according to Roheim and Sutenen (2006). When offered a choice between an ecolabeled product and a non-eco-labeled product, some consumers might prefer the ecolabeled product (e.g. seafood from sustainable fisheries). The farming method can affect seafood's sustainability. Some methods are low impact, such as growing mussels on suspended ropes, whereas others, such as certain types of prawn or salmon farming, can be notably more damaging to the environment. The MCS has since created a supermarket league in the UK to praise those supermarkets that do the most to support ethical fish companies and add pressure on those that don't. But for all the effort of organizations and supermarkets, the farmers and the trawlers at the end of the day it is the consumer, who has the real power to change. By being aware of the issues involved and knowing what the labels means, choosing which supermarkets to shop at and what products to buy. Seafood eco-labeling may not only apply to fisheries, but may also apply to aquaculture. This might lead to things such as a price premium for the eco-labeled product and/or increased market shares. It might also allow access to markets to which products from certified fisheries previously did not have access. A significant portion of seafood exports are coming from the developing world and are being exported to three major markets: the European Union (EU), the United States of America (USA) and Japan. For all the organic labels on the market, there is still no globally recognized organic model but the sustainable seafood movement is active in the USA and the EU
24
and in the small markets of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The sustainable seafood movement uses the market, via consumers, chefs and the supply chain, to influence demand for seafood in an effort to affect ultimately management of either fisheries or aquaculture of a variety of species. Generally, these movements are initiated and run by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or at least private non-profit organizations. Among the tools being used are: boycotts, consumer guides to sustainable seafood (such as wallet cards), and labeling. A detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of each approach appears in Roheim and Sutinen (2006). How ethical is eco-labeling and who benefits? a) Corporation What is motivating major corporations to sign up to procuring sustainable seafood? What are some of the things that are driving these companies to supply eco-labeled products, most particularly MSC-labeled products from MSC-certified fisheries? On their side of the fence, it is a minimization of supply risk because if fisheries continued to be overfished, the company would not have anything to supply to their customers. In Europe, there have been some issues related to purchase of illegally-caught fish which made its way into the supply chain of well respected processors and brands (Leigh and Evans, 2006). So companies are now requiring increased traceability in the supply chain and demanding that boats provide proof that they caught their fish in a legal and sustainable manner. Price premiums are what most people focus on as the measure by which they wish to quantify success of certification. If we look specifically at the MSC, MSC-labeled products are sold in more than 25 countries worldwide (MSC, 2006). Retail sales, in US dollar terms, showed a 76 percent increase between 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, to US$236 million. From this, it can be seen that there is a market arising from the participation of these companies or corporations and they would not want to be left out. b) Environment The purpose of eco-labeling is not to just provide a market benefit but it is intended to provide an environmental benefit. The point is to improve the environment, to create sustainable fisheries if they do not already exist or to reward those that do exist. The MSC recently posted an environmental benefits conducted by Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) (Agnew et al., 2006). This study looked at the environmental benefits generated from certification of fisheries. Results show that there has been a reduction in seal mortality as a result of the assessments in the case of the Western Australian rock lobster fishery. There has been a reduction in hooks that have been discarded and a reduction in albatross mortality in the Patagonian toothfish fishery of South Georgia. Eco-labeling is also about providing market incentives to improve fisheries that do not currently meet the standards such as the case of the Alaska pollock and had increased market access into markets that it did not have previously. The entry of the Russian Pollock fishery into pre-assessment which would require making changes to their fishery management institutions and policies to improve their practices, is the incentives created by losing high-value markets to the Alaskans post-certification (Rogers, 2007).
25
c) Animal Welfare Compared to the livestock sector, fish have not been receiving much attention on welfare grounds. However, things are now set to change after a torrent of research concluded that fish have the same feelings of pain and suffering as birds and animals do. Consumers are increasingly concerned about the characteristics of the products that they purchase and, in the context of farm animal welfare, increasing numbers are looking to buy those with a stated welfare provenance (FAWC, 2006). Ocean mammals also suffer in the event of trawler fishing operations, so dolphin and turtle friendly labels have been applied to fish caught with advanced nets. In response to ocean problems, some consumers have turned to fish produced by farming, but there are still large and often misunderstood repercussions for fish farms both inland and offshore. Some questions which consumers try to answer include: Is the species threatened or endangered? Where was the fish caught? How was the fish caught? Is it the right time of the year to buy this fish? If consumers are provided with adequate information to enable them to act on their animal welfare preferences and purchase the animal welfare attributes that they desire, producers will have a powerful incentive to produce welfare friendly products and retailers to source them. The market may then encourage producers to adopt higher welfare production practices, thus improving the welfare of farm animals. Welfare encompasses the animals health and general physical condition, its psychological state and its ability to cope with any adverse effects of the environment in which it is kept. Consumers make purchasing decisions based on the information they have about the attributes or characteristics of alternative products that they might buy. The satisfaction that consumers derive from a food product depends on its different attributes such as taste, nutritional value, appearance, convenience and animal welfare provenance. The better, and more informed, the purchasing decision, the greater the benefit derived from the purchase. At the present time there is a scarcity of appropriate information for consumers concerning the animal welfare attributes and consumers wishing to purchase products with high animal welfare attributes face a difficult and time-consuming task in sourcing these products. Thus, the transaction costs for such consumers are, in many cases, prohibitively high for them to locate and purchase the products that they would like. On the contrary, the absence of a welfare label may lead to an uninformed or unintended choice by the concerned consumer. People cannot make purchasing decisions which maximize the benefit they might derive from their expenditure if they are not provided with adequate information to make a rational choice. Markets also cannot function efficiently without enough information available to both buyers and sellers. The provision of appropriate information can therefore help improve market efficiency; help consumers make informed choices and improve customer satisfaction; and help producers to better understand the market and their customers and so potentially benefit the whole of society.
26
The European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 229 on Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals (June 2005) classified product characteristics into three broad groups depending on how consumers get to know about them: a) Search characteristics are those that are largely self-evident, i.e. ones that the consumer can discover, verify and validate against personal preferences before purchase; b) Experience characteristics are mostly those that are not evident prior to purchase but are discovered during consumption. Information is then available to guide subsequent purchases; c) Credence characteristics cover animal welfare origin, production method, biological safety, best-before dates, etc. They can only form the basis of choice if labeling in some form is used. The EC proposal on animal welfare and trade in agriculture (2000) viewed animal welfare as being at the crossroads of economic, ethical, animal health, public health, food production and legal issues. Whilst the existing WTO Agreements provide a basis on which some of the issues related to animal welfare can be discussed, the EU has pressed for animal welfare to be addressed globally in a consistent manner within the WTO framework. Within this context appropriate labeling, compulsory or voluntary, could facilitate the wish of consumers to make an informed choice as regards the animal welfare provenance of food products, whether domestically produced or imported. Quality characteristics of food which fall into the class of credence are characteristics as the products environmental provenance, location of origin and the animal welfare standards under which it was produced. While many consumers may be indifferent to these particular attributes, to others they are real and important elements. They count strongly in the preferences, and is fundamental component of the satisfaction gained from consumption. In order to meet this preference, information about those characteristics should be evident prior to purchase, specifically attached to the food product, and in a form that is accessible, understandable, meaningful, accurate, certified and dependable. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) 2 is establishing guidelines on international welfare standards. There is a strong consensus regarding the benefits of recognizing high animal welfare standards and communicating them to consumers. In May 2005, the 167 members of the OIE adopted guidelines on sea and air transport of animals, on slaughter of animals for human consumption, and on killing animals for disease control. This represents an important achievement for animal welfare: an agreement on global animal transport and slaughter. Organic Labeling . The damaging and unethical aspects of intensification in livestock influence the rise of the organic movement as a public response. When sustainable practices are acknowledged such as organic aquaculture farming, it gives the organic product market power and the potential to increase the value of its product and of the industry as a whole. The same concerns are now arising in the aquaculture industry. According to a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) report, the market potential for organic aquaculture seems to be promising in Europe as well as in the U.S.
27
1) Organic Labeling in U.S. One of the aspects included in the U.S. proposed organic aquaculture standards (2008) is on fish feed which recognizes he nutritional needs of aquatic animals for fish meal and fish oil but looks at other feed alternatives which have potential of becoming certified organic. However, the commercial availability of such alternatives is currently an open question. Certified organic fish meal and fish oil would be expected to become increasingly available in the future as the certified organic aquaculture industry grows (NOSB, 2008). The producer of organic aquatic animals shall not: a. incorporate or introduce any type of antibiotic or hormone in feeds, the water supply, or the environment; b. provide feed supplements or additives in amounts above those needed for adequate nutrition and health maintenance of the species at its specific stage of life; c. feed by-products from mammalian or poultry slaughter products to aquatic animals; d. use feedstuffs extracted with synthetic solvents not approved ; e. use feed, feed additives, and feed supplements in violation of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or f. use any genetically modified organism, or any organism produced by any other excluded method, or product thereof, as a feed ingredient. Another provision on fish meal or fish oil is that it should not be sourced from any fishery classified by relevant state/provincial, national, or international fisheries authorities as at risk of reduced reproductive capacity; suffering reduced reproductive capacity; harvested outside precautionary limits; over-exploited; depleted; overfished; overfishing is occurring; or at significant risk of those conditions within the next recruitment cycle. All fish meal and fish oil must be monitored for heavy metal levels and persistent organic pollutants including persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) and mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic and tin. Standards in Organic Labeling a) Products sold, labeled, or represented as 100 percent organic A raw or processed agricultural product sold, labeled, or represented as 100 percent organic must contain (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) 100 percent organically produced ingredients. b) Products sold, labeled, or represented as organic A raw or processed agricultural product sold, labeled, or represented as organic must contain (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) not less than 95 percent organically produced raw or processed agricultural products. Any remaining product ingredients must be organically produced, unless not commercially available in organic form, or must be nonagricultural substances or non-organically produced agricultural products. Aquatic animals (and their products) that have been fed wild caught sustainable fish meal or oil as a feed supplement pursuant and that are used as ingredients, must indicate (Fed sustainably-sourced wild fish) next to the name of the fish.
28
2) Common standards for organic aquaculture on EU Certification in the Member States used to be based on private standards or national specification and only Denmark and France have national laws on organic aquaculture. Ireland drafted legislation in 2007 but left it dormant pending adoption of the European text. The new regulation on organic aquaculture animal which covers fish, mollusks, and crustaceans and seaweed production imposes minimum criteria to be used in all countries of the European Union. This was enforced on 1 July 2010 and a logo of the Euro-leaf is affixed to pre-packaged organic aquaculture products produced in the EU. Under this single logo, it is possible to market pre-packaged organic aquaculture products throughout the EU internal market. The existence of a common standard based on minimum criteria will help improve the identification of organic aquaculture animals and minimize costs of multiple audits for exports and at the same time guarantee the production of wholesome and high quality foods while reducing to a minimum the impact on the aquatic environment. To guarantee that organic fish farms remain as close to nature as possible, the Regulation prohibits the use of hormones and has a major impact on certain farms which previously used hormonal induction for fish reproduction. This is the case for carp produced mainly in Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Poland. The ban will also affect the production of sturgeon in Spain and France as well as tilapia, a fish found in a number of organic fish farms in the Netherlands. Here too, however, fish farm operators have three years to develop a reproduction process that meets the new criteria (2). Adaptation periods for EU give organic fish farms until 2013 to meet the criteria in certain cases spelled out by the Regulation. Any new organic farm will have to comply with the European specifications immediately. The new rules apply on a progressive basis such that 80 per cent of juveniles can still be non-organic in 2010 and 50 per cent in 2013. It is not until 2015 that all juveniles will have to be organic. 9. Contamination of aquatic meat with heavy metals. 10. Contamination of aquatic meat with persistent organic pollutants. 11. Hormone administration. 12. Fish feed production and application from intensive land-animal meat production systems - Rendered meat and bone meal (MBM). 13. Prions Prions are considered a special class of infectious agent. Prions are defined as proteinaceous infectious particles, and they are known to be the causative agent of fatal neurodegenerative diseases in both humans and animals. Among these diseases are included Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (CJD) in humans, Scrapie in sheep, and Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE) in Cattle. As compared with bacterial or viral infectious agents, prions have an unusually high resistance to thermal and chemical inactivation (Casolari, 1998, Danner, 1991). It is this resistance that is believed to have been the main contributing factor to the BSE outbreak in cattle in the UK. It was found that scrapie prions from sheep which were subsequently fed to cattle in meat-and-bone meal were not
29
inactivated through the as-then-standard physical and chemical treatments (Nathanson et al., 1997). Prions can be found in all body tissue of dead animals, however they are in far higher concentrations in tissue belonging to the central nervous system (Smith et al., 2003, GAO, 2002). These parts of the animal are termed SRMs (Specified Risk Materials) and include brain, segments of spinal cord and eyes. These SRMs are now prohibited from use in animal feed in the EC and the USA, although there is lack of such regulation in other parts of the world. The feeding practices used in IAM production are similar to that of animal practice. In many cases fishmeal, constituted from the likes of fish and animal offal, trash fish (fish of no real commercial value) are re-fed to fish in production facilities. Although there has not been any reported instance of prion-related disease in fish to date, there are fish molecules homologous to animal prions which have been found in various species (Gibbs et al., 1997, Miesbauer et al., 2006, Madison et al., 2005, Oidtmann et al., 2003). Considering that prion proteins are extremely stable and not easily degraded or denatured, this could lead to amplification/bioaccumulation in aquaculture species. In addition, offal from terrestrial sources is also sometimes used in fishmeal including those of bovine and porcine origin. The available literature on prion-related disease is still growing, but is particularly scant with regard to fish. The species barrier between humans and fish is substantial however and in one study it was reported that the transmissible risk of prions to humans via fish was negligible (Ingrosso et al., 2006). However prion-related disease has already been shown to cross from sheep to cattle, and from cattle to humans. Taking this into consideration then, the feeding practices associated with large-scale aquaculture, as with other industrial-size animal production facilities, should be carefully considered. 14. Considering issues related to radiosotopes in the aquatic meat food chain 15. Lack of testing and/or release of data to the public.
30
VII. Ethical worldviews and their influence on the decisions related to the consumption of intensively produced aquatic meat. Ethical issues in aquaculture intensification 1) Competition between food for human consumption and feeds/fish meal for fish The majority of aquaculture production is currently from extensive and semi-intensive systems. However, the inevitable increase in intensication, coupled with growth in the current systems, will place increased demand on both crop-based and shmeal resources Feed is predominantly crop based. Increased demand for crop-based feeds will intensify competition with crops grown for human consumption. While some argue that trash fish is not suitable for human consumption, in less developed countries such as the Philippines, even trash fish is eaten. The process in aquaculture transforms sh protein from low to high value for human consumption (Bostock et al, 2010) However, the efficiency of this is both an ecological issue and one of social justice since consumers who can afford farmed salmon and shrimp may effectively outcompete rural poor for this sh resource; Rising consumer health awareness has also increased competition for fish oils from other users such as new high n-3 margarines or as encapsulated human health food products but increased concerns have arisen for the potential contamination of marine food chains, particularly with fat-soluble molecules, of which dioxins and PCBs are particularly noted (Jacobs et al. 2002; Lindstrom et al. 2002) 2) Exploitation of other species for use in fishmeal The use of trash sh which are usually small pelagic species in shrimp and carnivorous sh production is considered problematic because it exploits other marine resources and contributed to increase in capture sheries. Reducing the shmeal and sh oil component in aquaculture feeds is a high priority for intensive and semi-intensive systems. Some recommendations for addressing this issue include the increased use of locally sourced agricultural by-products such as oil cakes and rice bran, and the development of pre-treatment methods that increase the digestibility and nutrient availability of the food source. Development of alternative sources of high quality feed from plants or microorganisms may offer another method of solving the problem. Better use of the high quality shmeal and sh oil supplies may be made by restricting their inclusion in the diet to only those periods when they are essential, or by use only as nishing diets to improve the nutritional value of the product for the consumer. Future research may yield new feeding technologies and management systems that optimize the conversion of feeds into aquatic animal biomass, thus reducing the need to rely on shmeal and sh oils. 3) Competition between feeds for animals and feed for fish Feeds for other animals vs. feeds for fish: Aquaculture will increasingly compete with other animal production sectors for use of feedstuff crops and agricultural by-products. The sector will continue to secure access only if it can afford the going rate and if the
31
role of aquaculture in food security and economic development is sufficiently recognized to motivate an enabling policy environment. 4) Method or farming and capture fisheries The farming method can affect seafood's sustainability. Some methods are low impact, such as growing mussels on suspended ropes, whereas others, such as certain types of prawn or salmon farming, can be notably more damaging to the environment. How can consumers make a conscious choice of buying products that are farmed in a sustainable way? . 5) Animal welfare Research into animal behaviour has provided evidence of animals motivations and their mental capacities, which by extension provides strong support for the notion of animal sentience (i.e. animals capacity to sense and feel), which in turn has provided the basis for EU and UK legislation that enshrines the concept of animal sentience in law (Lawrence 2009). While some species of aquatic animals may appear to thrive on terrestrial plant sources of feed, other species farmed in aquaculture may have specific composition of their nutritional and changing their diets may undermine the health and well-being of these animals. Terrestrial animal and plant-based feeds do not provide the marine-based fatty acids that marine animals need to thrive and that also result in the fatty acid profile. Another issue is the triploidisation of organic aquaculture animals wherein females are sterilized. Triploidisation was allowed in France and used widely in organic farms that produce large trout for smoking according to the Interbranch Technical Committee on Aquaculture Products (Comit interprofessionnel des produits de laquaculture (CIPA). Welfare encompasses the animals health and general physical condition, its psychological state and its ability to cope with any adverse effects of the environment in which it is kept. Some of the ethical questions on animal welfare include: a) Do farmed aquaculture species have the same rights compared to animals humans considered as pets if they are considered as sentient beings? What type of distinction should humans use in terms of classifying animals? b) Are the conditions in aquaculture production in which they are subjected supportive of their welfare? c) Do species used as trash fish or components of feeds for other aquaculture farmed fish deserve have less intrinsic value? d) As sentient beings, do farmed aquaculture species and captured fish in the wild have a right to life? Or a right not to undergo triploidisation or ablation? VIII. Experiences and/or case studies from countries that use/have used such systems. IX. Current policy and regulatory frameworks and policy options.
32
References Agnew, D. J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., Watson, G., Beddington, J. & Pitcher, T. J. 2009 Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE 4, 1 8.Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Akashi, A., and T. Aoki. 1986. Characterization of transferable R-plasmids from Aeromonas hydrophila. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 52:649655. Anderson,K. 2010. Globalizations effects on world agricultural trade, 1960-2050. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 3007-3021 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0131 [accessed July 23, 2011] Aquaculture 2006. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome, 2007. Aoki, T., S. Equasa, T. Kimura, and T. Watanabe. 1971. Detection of R-factors in naturally occurring Aeromonas salmonicida strains. Appl. Microbiol. 22:716717. Azad, A. K., K. R. Jensen, and C. K. Lin. 2009. Coastal aquaculture development in Bangladesh: unsustainable and sustainable experiences. Environ. Manage. 44:800-809. Barbier, E., and M. Cox. 2002. Economic and demographic factors affecting mangrove loss in the coastal provinces of Thailand, 1979 - 1996. Ambio. 31:351-357. Barlow, S. & Pike, I. 1997 Future world fish supplies should be enough for farm needs. Fish Farm. Int. 24, 1416. Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C. & Barlaz, M. 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 364, 1985-1998 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0205 [Accessed July 27, 2011] Bendell, L. I. 2011. Sea ducks and aquaculture: the cadmium connection. Ecotoxicology. 20:474-478. Beveridge, M. C. M., Ross, L. G. & Kelly, L. A. 1994 Aquaculture and biodiversity. Ambio 23, 497502 BFAR-PHILMINAQ. 2007. Managing aquaculture and its impacts: a guidebook for local governments. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)-PHILMINAQ Project, Diliman, Quezon City, 80 p Bostock, J. et al. 2010 Aquaculture: global status and trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 28972912. (doi:10. 1098/rstb.2010.0170) [Accessed July 27, 2011] Bostock,J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen,K., Little, D., Ross, L., Handisyde, N., Gatward, I., and R. Corner. Agriculture: global status and trend Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 2897-2912 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0170 [Accessed July 27, 2011] Bureau of Agriculture Statistics (BAS). Undated. Fisheries statistics of the Philippines, 2003-2005. Bureau of Agriculture Statistics, Quezon City, Philippines, 138 p. Casolari, A. 1998. Heat resistance of prions and food processing. Food Microbiology 15, 59-63 Cao, L., W. Wang, Y. Yang, C. Yang, Z. Yuan, S. Xiong and J. Diana. 2007. Environmental impact of aquaculture and countermeasures to aquaculture pollution in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 14:452-462. Danner, K. 1991. bertragung spongiformer Encephalopathien durch Arzneimittel, Grundzge einer Risikobetrachtung. Die Pharmazeutische Indistrie 53, 614-619 DeGrandis, S. A., and R. M. W. Stevenson. 1985. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and R plasmid-mediated resistance of the fish pathogen Yersinia ruckeri. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 27:938942.
33
Dierberg, F. E. and W. Kiattisimkul. 1996. Issues, impacts and implications of shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Environ. Manage. 20: 649-666. DurN, Gianna M; Marshall, Douglas L. 2005. Ready-to-Eat Shrimp as an International Vehicle of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Journal of Food Protection, Volume 68, Number 11, November 2005, pp. 2395-2401(7). European Commission. 2007 Fishing opportunities for 2008. Policy statement from the European Commission. Com (2007) 295 final, Brussels, 12p. FAO/NACA/WHO. 1997. Report of a joint FAO/NACA/WHO study group on Food Safety Issues Associated with Products from Aquaculture. WHO technical report series no. 883, Geneva. WHO. (in press) FAO Working Paper SCS/76/WP/24. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2007. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome, 2007. FAO. 2011. Technical guidelines for responsible fisheries 5, Suppl. 5. Aquaculture development, 5. Use of wild fish as feed in aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Folke, C. & Kautsky, N. 1992 Aquaculture with its environment: prospects for sustainability. Ocean Coast. Mngmt 17, 524. Foresight, 2011. The future of food and farming. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London Furushita, M., Shiba, T., Maeda, T.,Yahata, M., Kaneoka, A., Takahashi, Y., Torii, K., Hasegawa, T. and Ohta, M. 2003. Similarity of tertracycline resistance genes isolated from fish farm bacteria to those from clinical isolates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 5336-5342. GAIN Report Global Agricultural Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. GAO. 2002. Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts. GAO-02-183. Washington, DC:General Accounting Office. Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf [accessed 18 July 2011]. Garcia, S.M. & A.A. Rosenberg. 2010. Food security and marine capture fisheries: characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 2869-2880 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0171.Review [Accessed July 27, 2011] Gibbs CJ Jr, Bolis CL. 1997. Normal isoform of amyloid protein (PrP) in brains of spawning salmon. Mol Psychiatry 2, 146-147. Graslund, S., and B. E. Bengtsson. 2001. Chemicals and biological products used in South East Asian shrimp farming, and their potential impact on the environment-a review. Sci. Total Environ. 280:93-131. Graslund S, Holmstrom K, Wahlstrom A. 2003. A field survey of chemicals and biological products used in shrimp farming. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003;46:81-90. Guardabassi, L., Dalsgaard, A., Raffatellu, M. and Olsen, J. E. 2000. Increase in the prevalence of oxolinic acid resistant Acinetobacter spp observed in a stream receiving the effluent from freshwater trout farm following the treatment of oxolinic scid medicated feed. Aquaculture, 2000; 188: 205-218.
34
Gujja, B. & Finger-Stich, A. 1996 What price prawn? Shrimp aquacultures impact in Asia. Environment 38, 1215. Harvey, D. 1998. An analysis of the feasibility of providing federal multiple-peril crop insurance to aquaculture. A report of the Risk Management Agency from the Economic Research Service, USDA. Hernandez Serrano, P., 2005. Responsible use of antibiotics in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 469, FAO, Rome, Italy. Husevag, B., B. T. Lunestad, P. J. Johannessen, O. Enger, and O. B. Samuelsen. 1991. Simultaneous occurrence of Vibrio salmonicida and antibioticresistant bacteria in sediments at abandoned aquaculture sites. J. Fish Dis. 14:631650. Ingrosso L, Novoa B, Valle AZ, Cardone F, Aranguren R, Sbriccoli M, Bevivino S, Iriti M, Liu Q, Vetrugno V, Lu M, Faoro F, Ciappellano S, Figueras A, Pocchiari M. 2006. Scrapie infectivity is quickly cleared in tissues of orallyinfected farmed fish. BMC Vet Res 2, 21. Jacobs, M., Ferrario, J. & Byrne, C. 2002 Investigation of polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins, dibenzo-p-furans and selected coplanar biphenyls in Scottish farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Chemosphere 47, 183191. Kruse, H., Srum. H. 1994. Transfer of multiresistance plasmids between bacteria of diverse origin in natural micro-environments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60:4015-4021. Lawrence, A. B. 2008 Applied animal behaviour science: past, present and future prospects. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 115, 124. Le TS, Munekage Y. 2004. Residues of selected antibiotics in water and mud from shrimp ponds in mangrove areas in Vietnam. Mar Pollut Bull 2004;49:922-9. Leigh and Evans, 2006. Ecolabelling of Fisheries Products: Assessment of its Benefits. The Fishsite, http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/721/ecolabelling-of-fisheries-productsassessment-of-its-benefits [Accessed July 23, 2011] Lindstrom, G., Smastuen Haug, L., Nicolaysen, T. & Dybing, E. 2002 Comparability of world-wide analytical data of PCDDs, PCDFs and non-ortho PCBs in samples of chicken, butter and salmon. Chemosphere 47, 139146 Maddison BC, Patel S, James RF, Conlon HE, Oidtmann B, Baier M, Whitelam GC, Gough KC. 2005. Generation and characterization of monoclonal antibodies to Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) prion protein. J Immunol Meth 306, 202-210. Mayor, D. J., and M. Solan. 2011. Complex interactions mediate the effects of fish farming on benthic chemistry within a region of Scotland. Environ. Res. 111:635-642. Miesbauer M, Bamme T, Riemer C, Oidtmann B, Winklhofer KF, Baier M, Tatzelt J. 2006. Prion protein-related proteins from zebrafish are complex glycosylated and contain a glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 341, 218-224. Muir, J.F. 2005. Managing to harvest? Perspectives on the potential of aquaculture. Phil. Trans. R.Soc. B (2005) 360, 191-218. Doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1572 [Accessed July 27, 2011] National Organic Standards Board Livestock Committee (NOSB), 2008. Proposed organic aquaculture standards: fish feed and related management issues. September 28, 2008
35
Nathanson, N., Wilesmith, J., Griot, C. 1997 . Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): causes and consequences of a common source epidemic. American Journal of Epidemiology 145, 959-969. Naylor RL.1996 Energy and resource constraints on intensive agricultural production. Annu Rev Energy Environ 1996;21:99123 Naylor, R. L., R. J. Goldburg, J. H. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M. C. M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney, and M. Troell. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. NRC. 2002 The effects of trawling and dredging on seaoor habitat, 136p. Washington, DC: National Research Council. /doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0170 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010 365, 2897-2912 Oidtmann B, Simon D, Holtkamp N, Hoffman R, Baier M. 2003. Identification of cDNAs from Japanese pufferfish (Fugu rubripes) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) coding for homologues to tetrapod prion proteins. FEBS Lett 538, 96-100. Paez-Osuna, F., A. Gracia, F. Flores-Verdugo, L. P. Lyle-Fritch, R. Alonso-Rodriguez, A. Roque, and A. C. Ruiz-Fernandez. 2003. Shrimp aquaculture development and the environment in the Gulf of California eco-region. Mar Pollut. Bull. 46:806-815. Pike, I. H. & Barlow, S. M. 2003 Impact of fish farming on fish stocks. Fish Farmer 26, 1416. Pikitch E. K., et al. 2004 Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science305, 346347. (doi:10.1126/science.1098222) Primavera, J. H. 1997 Socio-economic impacts of shrimp farming. Aquacult. Res. 28, 815827. Primavera, J.H. 1995. Mangroves and brackishwater pond culture in the Philippines. Hydrobiologia 295, 303-309. Rhodes, G., Huys, G., Swings, J., McGann, P., Hiney, M., Smith, P. and Pickup, R.W. 2000. Distribution of oxytetracycline resistance plasmids between aeromonads in hospitals and aquaculture environments: implication of Tn1721 in dissemination of the tetracycline resistance determinant Tet A. Appl Environ Microbiol 66, Rogers, 2007.Is eco-label for Russia Pollock unlikely?. Intrafish. http://www.intrafish.no/multimedia/archive/00018/pdf20070606_18407a.pdf [Accessed July 23, 2011] Roheim and Sutinen. 2006. Trade and market-related instruments to reinforce fisheries management measures to promote sustainable fishing practices. http://www.illegalfishing.info/uploads/Roheim_Sutinen_Final_draft_March_8.pdf [Accessed July 23, 2011] Rosenberg, A. A. 2008. The price of lice. Nature. 451:23-24. Sapkota, A., 2008 Smith, PG. 2003.The epidemics of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: current status and future prospects. Bull WHO. 2003;81:123 130. Stokstad, E. 2007. Parasites from fish farms driving wild salmon to extinction. Science. 318:1711.
36
Tacon, A. G. J. & Barg, U. C. 1998 Major challenges to feed development for marine and diadromous finfish and crustacean species. In Tropical mariculture (ed. S. S. De Silva), pp.171207. New York: Academic. Tacon, A. G. J. & Metian, M. 2008. Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285, 146158. (doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015) [Accessed July 27, 2011] Tacon, A. G. J. & Metian, M. In preparation. Global trends in feed ingredient use within the aquaculture industry: a review. Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F.S. & S.H. Swan. 2009. Plastics, the environment and human health:current concensus and future trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (2009) 364, 2153-2166 doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053 [Accessed July 27, 2011] Thompson, R.C., Swan, S.H. Moore, C.J.& F.S. vom Saal. 2009. Our plastic age. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009) 364, 1973-1976 doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0054 [Accessed July 27, 2011] Thornton, P.K. 2007. Livestock Production: recent trends, future prospects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 2853-2867 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0134 [Accessed July 27, 2011] WorldFish and PRIMEX Final Report. 2007. Final Report Submitted to the Asian Young, J.A. & Muir, J.F. 2002a. Marketing fish. In Handbook of fish and fisheries, vol. II (ed. P.J.B. Hart & J.D. Reynolds), pp 37-60. Oxford:Blackwell Science. Zhu Chen, Hong-Guang Wang, Zhao-Jun Wen & Yihuang Wang, 2007. Life sciences and biotechnology in China. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2007) 362, 947-957 doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2025 [Accessed July 27, 2011] Website http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/580/catching-the-ethical-fish-no-strings-attached accessed July 23 2011 http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/1165/cod-mislabeling-disguises-cheaper-fishproducts accessed July 23, 2011 http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/721/eco-labeling-of-fisheries-products-assessment-ofits-benefits accessed July 23 2011 http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/1147/managing-the-environmental-costs-ofaquaculture accessed July 23, 2011 http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/580/catching-the-ethical-fish-no-strings-attached accessed July 23, 2011 http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/559/organic-aquaculture-whats-in-a-label accessed July 23, 2011

Aquaculture Ethical UNESCO11

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Aquaculture Ethical UNESCO11

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions Draft Outline

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions c) Environmental sustainability

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

ECCAP WG13 Aquaculture draft for contributions

También podría gustarte