Thank you for raising this thought-provoking and important discussion! At Aquatic Life Institute (ALI), we appreciate efforts to explore nuanced dietary shifts that could reduce total animal suffering, especially given the inefficiencies and welfare harms associated with farming high-trophic carnivorous species like salmon and tuna. We’ve long advocated for transitions away from such systems and support interventions that reduce reliance on farmed aquatic animals.
That said, we believe it’s critical that proposals to shift toward small pelagics like sardines and anchovies also fully account for their welfare. While often perceived as “lower-sentience” species, emerging scientific consensus supports the conclusion that these animals are sentient and capable of experiencing pain and distress. Standard wild-capture methods, particularly purse seining, typically result in prolonged deaths by asphyxiation, crushing, or decompression, with no stunning or humane slaughter protocols in place. The scale of suffering in these fisheries is enormous and remains largely invisible.
We understand that from a utilitarian or cost-effectiveness perspective, some may view small fish as a “less-worse” option due to their lower trophic level or potentially reduced capacity for suffering. However, the uncertainty around comparative sentience, and the difficulty of aggregating suffering across large numbers of individuals, warrants caution. Even if individual suffering is lower, the sheer number of animals affected may result in greater total harm. We believe this is a strong case for applying a precautionary principle and for avoiding framings that risk reinforcing speciesism or justifying harm to animals deemed “less sentient.”
On the question of tractable alternatives: there are promising interventions that deserve more attention and resources. These include accelerating the development and availability of high-quality plant-based seafood, supporting policy and institutional shifts that reduce overall seafood demand, improving welfare standards within both aquaculture and fisheries, and ensuring that small pelagic, where harvested, are redirected from feed use toward nourishing human populations in low-income, coastal regions where nutritional needs are high. Crucially, all of these must be paired with efforts to reduce the scale of suffering, particularly in wild-capture settings, by investing in the development and enforcement of more humane capture and slaughter techniques.
In short, we see this conversation not as a binary choice, but as an opportunity to elevate aquatic animal welfare within broader food system reform.
Thank you for raising this thought-provoking and important discussion! At Aquatic Life Institute (ALI), we appreciate efforts to explore nuanced dietary shifts that could reduce total animal suffering, especially given the inefficiencies and welfare harms associated with farming high-trophic carnivorous species like salmon and tuna. We’ve long advocated for transitions away from such systems and support interventions that reduce reliance on farmed aquatic animals.
That said, we believe it’s critical that proposals to shift toward small pelagics like sardines and anchovies also fully account for their welfare. While often perceived as “lower-sentience” species, emerging scientific consensus supports the conclusion that these animals are sentient and capable of experiencing pain and distress. Standard wild-capture methods, particularly purse seining, typically result in prolonged deaths by asphyxiation, crushing, or decompression, with no stunning or humane slaughter protocols in place. The scale of suffering in these fisheries is enormous and remains largely invisible.
We understand that from a utilitarian or cost-effectiveness perspective, some may view small fish as a “less-worse” option due to their lower trophic level or potentially reduced capacity for suffering. However, the uncertainty around comparative sentience, and the difficulty of aggregating suffering across large numbers of individuals, warrants caution. Even if individual suffering is lower, the sheer number of animals affected may result in greater total harm. We believe this is a strong case for applying a precautionary principle and for avoiding framings that risk reinforcing speciesism or justifying harm to animals deemed “less sentient.”
On the question of tractable alternatives: there are promising interventions that deserve more attention and resources. These include accelerating the development and availability of high-quality plant-based seafood, supporting policy and institutional shifts that reduce overall seafood demand, improving welfare standards within both aquaculture and fisheries, and ensuring that small pelagic, where harvested, are redirected from feed use toward nourishing human populations in low-income, coastal regions where nutritional needs are high. Crucially, all of these must be paired with efforts to reduce the scale of suffering, particularly in wild-capture settings, by investing in the development and enforcement of more humane capture and slaughter techniques.
In short, we see this conversation not as a binary choice, but as an opportunity to elevate aquatic animal welfare within broader food system reform.