Factory-Fed Fish: How the Soy Industry Is Expanding Into the Sea

7/31/2019 Factory-Fed Fish: How the Soy Industry Is Expanding Into the Sea

1/20

Factory-Fed

Fish


2/20

About Food & Water Europe

Food & Water Europe is the European programof Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer

organization based in the United States that

works to ensure the food, water and fish we

consume is safe, accessible and sustainable.

So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat

and drink, we help people take charge of where

their food comes from, keep clean, affordable,

public tap water flowing freely to our homes,

protect the environmental quality of oceans,

force government to do its job protecting citizens,and educate about the importance of keeping

shared resources under public control.

Food & Water Europe

Rue dEdimbourg, 26

1050 Bruxelles

Belgium

[email protected]

www.foodandwatereurope.org

Copyright June 2012 by Food & Water Europe.

All rights reserved.

This report can be viewed or downloaded at

www.foodandwatereurope.org.


3/20

Factory-Fed FishHow the Soy Industry Is Expanding Into the Sea

Executive Summary 2

Findings 3

Introduction 3

Why Should We Be Concerned? 4

Fishy raditions 5

State o the Soy Industry 6

Who is lobbying or the soy industry? 6

How much soy is genetically modifed 6

How much soy is in our ood now? 6

What Does Soy Have to Do With Fish Feed? 7

Te soy industrys championing o soy diets or actory armed fsh 7

Cargill and Monsanto: Corporate interest in soy or armed fsh 8

Impacts o a Soy Diet on Fish and Teir Environment 8

Issues o indigestibility and nutrient defciency 8

Potential impacts on the marine environment 9

Impacts on Consumers 10

Missing omega-3s 10

General impacts o soy consumption 10

Environmental and Human Rights Inringements in Soy Consumption 11

Other Alternatives 12

Conclusion 13

Recommendations 14

Endnotes 14


4/20

2 Food & Water Europe www.foodandwatereurope.org

Executive SummaryIn 2010, the CEO o the American Soy Association

reported that the organization has been closely

monitoring progress in the development o oshore

sh arming legislation and meeting with congres-sional sta on the topic1 In March 2011, it endorsed

a controversial plan that would allow such sh

arming or aquaculture in the Gul o Mexico2

In September 2011, a press release was issued

announcing a new marine sh arm project that

would revolutionize sustainable agriculture3 Te

source o the release? Te Illinois Soybean Associa-

tion4

Why are trade associations or an agricultural

commodity that is grown on land involved in poli-

cies and marketing that aect the use and steward-

ship o our oceans?

Seaood is one o our last wild ood sources Fish

are a vital part o many peoples diets because

o potential health benets, resh taste and the

connection that sh give us to our oceans and

coasts Around hal o the worlds seaood, however,

now comes rom arms rather than rom the wild5

In some o these arms, sh are grown in crowded,polluting cages and may be attened on commer-

cially prepared diets6

Feed has been one o the aquaculture industrys

greatest challenges Many o the species grown

by the ocean nsh industry are highly valued

carnivorous sh,7 which have typically been ed

diets consisting o shmeal and oil made rom

smaller, wild sh8 Te excessive use o wild sh to

grow armed sh can make aquaculture inecient9

Further, aquaculture has been accused o spurring

the depletion o these small sh, which is problem-

atic not only or their own populations, but also to

the other animals that rely on them or ood10

With little public scrutiny, soy has been hailed by

some as a sustainable alternative to eed based on

wild sh, thus supposedly solving some o the sh

arming industrys sustainability problems11

In this report, the rst to address the relationship

between the soy and actory sh arming indus-

tries, Food & Water Watch reveals that, while the

soy industry stands to make large prots rom

the expansion o actory sh arming,12 there is

no guarantee that soy-based aquaculture eed

can consistently produce healthy sh or promote

ecological responsibility In act, by causing sh toproduce excess waste,13 soy could lead to an even

more polluting sh arming industry

By supporting actory sh arming, the soy industry

could not only help to expand an industry that

degrades marine environments, threatens wild sh

populations and damages coastal communities, it

could also extend its own negative impacts Already,

industrial soy production has led to the prevalence

o genetically modied crops on US armland14

and in consumer ood products,15 caused massive

deorestation in South America16 and displaced

indigenous communities living in areas now used to

grow soy17

Rather than actually promoting sustainability in a

developing industry, the involvement o soy associ-

ations in aquaculture could spur the growth o two

industries that have extremely negative impacts

on our land, our oceans and the communities that

depend on them


5/20

Factory-Fed Fish: How the Soy Industry Is Expanding Into the Sea 3

Findings I the soy industry succeeds in helping the

aquaculture industry meet the annual produc-

tion goals or marine nsh set by the ederal

government, and in getting a substantial portion

o soybean meal included in the diets o these

armed sh, it could net an additional $201million each year; this doesnt include revenue

it may earn rom supplying soy as a eed

ingredient or other types o sh arming in the

United States or abroad

Although the soy industry claims that soy is an

environmentally riendly alternative or sh

eed, sh that are ed soy have been shown to

produce more waste; thus, an increase in the

amount o soy ed to sh in sh arms could

increase the pollution load on the environment

surrounding these arms

In open ocean sh arming, uneaten eed fows

directly rom the cage into the environment

Because 94 percent o the soy grown in the

United States and much o the soy grown inter-

nationally is genetically modied, eeding soy

to armed sh means that genetically modied

ood will enter the environment and diets o

other marine organisms

Te rising use o soy in sh arming industries

will mean that notorious agribusinesses like

Monsanto, which has sponsored eed trials

with genetically modied soy and salmon, and

Cargill, which has an aquaculture eed division,

will play a hand in seaood production

Deorestation to clear land or soy arms, which

is already a problem in South America, could

increase given the large quantity o soy thataquaculture would require to meet US targets

or nsh production

A growing number o researchers has noted

that the potentially negative impacts o the

increasing amount o soy in our diets are under-

researched, and it is even less apparent what

the long-term human health impacts could be

o consuming soy secondarily, through sh and

meat raised on soy

IntroductionAs you take your rst bite o a reshly grilled sh

llet, you may be imagining the weathered boat that

reeled it in or the seaside town where it was brought

to shore Perhaps you are contemplating the lie it

led in the seas and eeling content that you chose a

healthier, resher alternative to the mass-producedhamburger you considered ordering But what you,

along with most people, are probably not picturing

is a deorested plantation in Argentina, the dead

zone growing in the Gul o Mexico or a US soy

industry executive signing o on a press release to

promote actory sh arming

Around hal o the seaood consumed in the world

is now produced through aquaculture, or sh

arming18 Tere are various types o sh arming,

including production in coastal ponds, near-shorecages, or cages placed arther o the coast Open

ocean actory sh arming, also known as oshore

aquaculture, is the practice o growing nsh in

huge, oten overcrowded cages miles o the coast-

line Tis method o arming can be problematic or

both the environment and the economy

Te waste ecal matter, uneaten ood and the

chemicals or drugs used in these operations

fows directly into the ocean, where it has thepotential to damage ecological equilibrium19 Fish

tend to escape rom cages, and once in the wild

they can interbreed with or outcompete wild sh,

leading to decreased genetic viability and access

to resources20 Even beore escape, sh can spread

diseases and parasites which may be prevalent on

some arms due to crowded conditions to nearby

wild sh21 I arms damage wild populations, shing

communities and local coastal economies could be

seriously threatened

A variety o concerns also come into play with

regard to eed or armed sh Farmed sh have

generally been raised on eed that is ormulated

with shmeal or oil made rom small, wild sh22

But now, both ecological and nancial obstacles to

this practice are arising23 As a result, the industry is

seeking out potential alternative ingredients to eed

armed sh, and the soy industry has positioned

itsel as a viable option Te American soy industryis powerul It has been able to und many studies


6/20


on using soy or sh eed24; it has built relationships

in the aquaculture industry25; and it has publicly

supported ederal policies in avor o oshore

aquaculture26

Supporters o the soy-aquaculture alliance claim

that using soy or sh eed could allow or a new,

more environmentally riendly type o aquacul-

ture27 Soy does not have the ull array o nutrients

demanded by sh, however28; nor is it a natural sh

ood or substance in the marine environment In

act, using soy may cause some sh arms to pollute

more by producing extra waste29

Further, the negative ramications o the soy

industry on the environment and potentially on

our health are reasons to resist the allure o soy as

a savior o the aquaculture industry Te cultiva-

tion o soy is associated with agricultural runothat is contributing to the dead zones in the Gul o

Mexico,30 with deorestation in Latin America31 and

with the displacement o many indigenous peoples

rom their homes and work32

As soy becomes increasingly ubiquitous in our diets

in processed oods and the meat rom animals

that have been raised on it33 we must ask what

health impacts this high level o soy consump-

tion may have on us Scientists are beginning toquestion claims about the benets o eating soy

and to suggest that the plant-based estrogens that

occur naturally in soy, many o which are endo-

crine disruptors, could potentially have adverse

impacts34 In light o these concerns and unan-

swered questions, it is troubling to know that much

o our sh one o our last wild oods could be

attened on this crop

Why Should We Be Concerned?People who are looking to sh or a lighter,

healthier or more sustainable ood option may have

no idea that mega-industries rom both land and

sea are wielding infuence on the types o seaood

that we can consume35

US policy and much o the research and develop-

ment on aquaculture, however, is currently ocused

on the development o actory-style oshore sh

arms and on soy as an ingredient in sh eed36

In 1999, the US Department o Commerce (DOC)

released a policy calling or a quintupling o the total

value o the nations annual aquaculture production

by the year 2025 rom $900 million a year to $5

billion37 Te policy listed DOC objectives including

osetting the seaood trade decit, creating more

jobs and bringing more high-quality seaood to US

consumers38

o completely oset the seaood trade decit

through open ocean aquaculture would require

producing an almost unimaginable 200 million sh

in oshore cages each year39 But the seaood decit

is more complicated than simply producing more

sh Te United States exports 74 percent o the

seaood caught or grown domestically and, in turn,

imports 85 percent o the seaood available in the

United States, primarily rom Asian countries40 Tis

problem could be better met by increasing import

inspections in order to keep cheaper, lower-quality

seaood out, and keeping more US-produced

seaood in the country41

Te likelihood that open ocean aquaculture

would produce a signicant number o jobs is also

dubious i Kona Blue Water Farms, a prototypical

open ocean arm in Hawaii, is taken as a potential

indicator o what an expanded US industry might

look like Although the company once employed 49

people, it projected in 2009 that it would eventuallyemploy only 14 Te company said that sta reduc-

tion would be necessary to achieve protability42

Further, a large-scale oshore sh arming industry

could cause major environmental damage Placing

sh arms in the open ocean has been pitched as a

way to minimize pollution by diluting or dispersing

waste43 Tere is not enough inormation available

yet to know what the long-term eects o these

arms will be,44

and research rom Italy indicatesthat pollution rom oshore arms may aect the

marine ecosystem well beyond the local scale45

Te ecosystems around arms could also be

disrupted by chemicals and drugs used on arms,

potentially leading to negative health consequences

or people One study ound that the use o antimi-

crobials on sh arms can lead to the development

o drug-resistant genes in sh pathogens genes

that could be transerred to bacteria that inect

humans Tis could make human illnesses moredicult to treat46


7/20


Despite indications that oshore sh arms are

economically uneasible, environmentally unsound

and unlikely to provide major benets to US

consumers or the regional economies that could

most benet rom a revitalized seaood industry,

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-

tion (NOAA) has hung on to it as a pet project and

continued pushing or it47

Various environmental, consumer-interest and

shing groups, as well as many individual citizens,

have raised concerns about NOAAs aquaculture

policy48 But the agency has held on to allies in the

soy industry, who are interested in new markets

Fishy TraditionsFeeding sh is one o the central challenges in

the sh arming industry o grow and producemarketable quantities or seaood, sh must be ed

a sucient diet On arms, carnivorous nsh are

typically ed commercial diets containing shmeal

and/or oil, which can be produced rom smaller

sh species or, in some cases, rom shermens

unwanted catch49

Te use o shmeal and oil in sh arming began in

Europe and North America in the early 19th century

as a way to utilize excess herring catch50 Unor-

tunately, what started as a creative way to utilize

extra catch has now become a motivation to exploit

small, orage sh populations and a burden on

marine ood webs On average, it takes one to two

pounds o wild sh processed into shmeal or oil

and included in commercial eed to produce one

pound o armed sh (rates vary between species;

or some it takes much more)51 Tereore, as aqua-

culture production increases, so does the demand

or shmeal and oil Between 1995 and 2010, the

aquaculture industrys use o shmeal increased75 percent, and its use o sh oil has risen by 62

percent52

Te growing demand or shmeal and oil does not

appear to be without consequence Some species

o the small sh used to create these products are

considered to be ully exploited or overexploited,

which, according to the Food and Agriculture

Organization o the United Nations, means that no

sustainable increases in catches rom these species

can be expected53 Exploitation o these species can

threaten not only their own populations, but also

those o the predatory nsh,54 marine birds and

mammals that depend on them or survival55

In addition to these ecological problems rom using

increasing amounts o shmeal and oil in the sh

arming sector, nancial impediments have arisen

As demand has gone up and supply has been

squeezed, the price o shmeal has risen sharply It

doubled between 1995 and 2010, and now consti-tutes the sh arming industrys largest production

expense56


8/20


State of the Soy IndustryIn light o the burden that actory sh arming

places on the marine ood web, any alternative

plant-based sh eed may seem like a welcome

alternative But beore soy is accepted as the savior

o the sh arming industrys sustainability, the state

o the soy industry and soy productions impacts onthe environment and our diet must be analyzed

Who is lobbying for the soy industry?

Te soy industry is well organized and represented

in Washington, DC and other parts o the world57

Te American Soybean Association (ASA) repre-

sents 32,000 soybean producers and is primarily

concerned with policy development and infuencing

the legislative process in avor o soy growers58 In

addition to the national association, 26 aliated

Soybean Associations represent various states or

regions o the United States,59 and the US Soybean

Export Council has nine international oces60

Te ASA states in a policy resolution that it

supports expansion o the domestic aquaculture

industry, including oshore aquaculture, and

encourages ederal unding or research that

would optimize the use o soybean protein and oil

in aquaculture eed61 It even has included a resolu-

tion that it supports the recommendation o theGul Coast Fishery Management Council to allow

oshore sh arms in the Gul o Mexico,62 reer-

ring to a controversial actory sh arming plan that

was challenged in ederal courts63

How much soy is genetically modified?

According to the 2007 Census o Agriculture, the

number o soy arms in the United States, at 279,110,

was second only to the number o corn arms64 In

the 2008 Organic Survey, only 1,336 soybean armswere reported as certied organic65 Te standards

or certied organic ood do not allow the use o

genetically engineered crops

I arms arent producing or the organic market,

there is a good chance that they are using geneti-

cally modied seeds, and that they are whether

intentionally or not looped into the major transna-

tional companies that control large portions o our

current ood system While the seed industry oncerelied on universities or most o its research and

development, a ew major chemical and pharma-

ceutical giants now dominate66

Between 1996 and 2007, Monsanto acquired more

than a dozen smaller companies67 Te company

controlled approximately 625 percent o soybean

seeds and seed trait licenses in the United States

by 201068 By 2009, because o this dominance,

93 to 94 percent o the soybeans produced in the

United States are genetically modied according

to Monsanto patents69 Te increase in geneti-

cally engineered soybeans, which are resistant

to Monsantos herbicide Roundup, has led to an

increase in herbicide use70

How much soy is in our food now?

From 1996 to 2009, the sales o oods containing

soy increased rom approximately $1 billion to

almost $45 billion71 Soybeans are a key ingredient

in many oods that Americans eat every day, even

though they may not know they are eating them

Soybeans are a key eed ingredient or cattle, hogs

and chickens, and products known as textured

soy protein and soy protein isolate are used in a

wide variety o processed oods including hot dogs,

hamburgers, baked goods, cereal, pasta and snack

oods72 Soybean oil is also commonly used to ry

rench ries at ast ood restaurants73 According to

various estimates, soy is ound in 60 to 70 percent o

our processed oods74


9/20


Beyond the soy that we consume directly, large

amounts o soy are entering our ood chain indi-

rectly, through our consumption o meat rom

animals that have been raised on soy An estimated

47 percent o the soy produced in the United States

is consumed by livestock75

What Does Soy Haveto Do With Fish Feed?Te US soy industry is powerul and successul at

expanding its markets Te American Soy Associa-

tion testies beore and lobbies Congress,76 and

counts many successes in encouraging Congress

and ederal agencies to enact policies in its avor77

The soy industrys championingof soy diets for factory farmed fish

In 2002, the United Soybean Board and the Illinois,

Indiana and Ohio State Boards unded the Soy in

Aquaculture Initiative, with the goals o increasing

the use o soy in sh eed and developing a program

or international marketing o soy-based aquacul-

ture eed78 Under this initiative, the industry has

unded many research projects to investigate the

inclusion o soybeans in diets or salmon, marine

shrimp and marine nsh Tese studies have

been carried out by researchers at numerous US

universities, and with commercial armers in Latin

America, Asia and the Mediterranean79 In China

alone, where the ASA began work in 1989,80 the

industry has successully increased the volume o

soy used annually in aquaculture eed rom close to

zero to approximately 6 million metric tons81

Although the industry has also given some support

to the inclusion o soy in the diets in more sustain-

able means o sh production, such as re-circu-

lating land-based aquaculture, it has ocused mucheort on oshore cage-based aquaculture82 In

2004, the Soy in Aquaculture Initiative began an

Ocean Cage echnology Project to experiment with

eeding soy to sh raised in oshore cage proto-

types For the next two years, trials were completed

o the coast o Hainan, China Although the study

ound that these sh, which were kept at densities

o 9,600 sh per cage, perormed as well on soy-

based diets as on the sh meal-based control, the

author concluded that growth rates were at leastpartially caused by the eects o antibiotics that the

sh were given ater contracting a parasitic inec-

tion83

Te industry appears eager to bring this type o

oshore arming to the United States as well Te

ASA gives support to policies that will encourage

the development o a US oshore aquaculture

industry, and it has stated not merely that it

applauds the release o a national aquaculture

policy that includes the controversial plan or

oshore aquaculture in the Gul o Mexico, but also

that it will work toward [the policys] implementa-

tion84

Further, both the Illinois Soybean Association (ISA)

and Indiana Soybean Alliance are members o the

Ocean Stewards Institute, a trade organization that

advocates or the open ocean sh arming industry

and provides testimony and public comments toCongress and ederal agencies on policies regarding

oshore aquaculture85 Te Director o the ISA has

been vocal in the organizations support o NOAAs

aquaculture plans, stating: We want to see aqua-

culture grow and fourish Economic activity within

the industry would be the best driver or economic

opportunity or soybean armers, too, and we hope to

see that86

Te ISA has also worked closely with KampachiFarms, ormerly known as Kona Blue Water Farms,

in Hawaii In August 2011, the ISA recognized

Kampachis Neil Sims with an Excellence in Market

Development award or research on soy inclusion

in the diets o the companys sh87 Te ollowing

month, a press release listing the ISA as a source

announced Kampachis new project to test oshore

cage technologies in which sh would be ed a

diet with signicant portions o shmeal and oil

replaced by soy and other agricultural proteins88

In the past, the Kona Blue Water Farms has also

listed the United Soy Board, Nebraska Soy Board

and mega-agribusiness Monsanto as partners in its

research89

Te soy industrys enthusiasm or expanding open

ocean aquaculture is not surprising given the

potential market it oers soybean producers Te

ederal government has estimated that marine

nsh production could be raised to 590,000 tons

annually by 202590 Te ISA has said that soy may


10/20


be able to comprise 35 percent o shes diets91 I

the ederal governments goal is reached, and each

o these sh is ed on a 35 percent soy diet, the

soy industry could stand to net an additional $201

million each year by supplying eed or marine

nsh armed in the United States92 Tis does not

include additional revenue that could be made

supplying soy-based eed or reshwater sh, likecatsh, or anadromous sh like salmon and trout

Nor does it include earnings made by supplying

soy-based eed to rapidly expanding aquaculture

industries in other countries93

Cargill and Monsanto:Corporate interest in soy for farmed fish

It isnt only soybean trade associations that have a

stake in supporting the development o open ocean

sh arming Other large corporate soy interestshave a role to play, too For instance, Monsanto

supported a study on incorporating soy into sh

diets by providing both genetically modied and

non-genetically modied soy or the researchers to

give salmon in eed trials94

Cargill, the worlds largest trader in agricultural

commodities and the third largest soybean-

crushing rm,95 is also extending its role in the sh

eed business Cargill created a team dedicated to

aquaculture eed products in the 1990s96 In April

2001, Cargill acquired Agribrands International,

Inc97 Combined, the two companies control 178

animal nutrition acilities/ actories98 Agribrands

Purina, owned by Cargill, is now producing several

lines o sh eed,99 and in May 2004 Cargill acquired

another sh eed production company, Burris

Mill100 According to the vice president o Cargill

Animal Nutrition, Aquaculture is the primary ocus

o Burris Mill, and Cargill intends to increase its

presence in this industry101

Impacts of a Soy Dieton Fish and Their EnvironmentDespite the industrys best eorts, there are still

serious limitations and challenges to eeding soy

to armed sh which is not entirely surprising

considering that it is not a ood that sh would ever

encounter naturally Even the America SoybeanAssociation has stated that, despite years o

research unded both by government and industry,

there are still unidentied actors in plant eedstus

that limit its use in diets or carnivorous species,

including most marine species o commercial

importance, as well as salmon and trout102

Issues of indigestibility and nutrient defi-ciency

Various inherent qualities o soybeans make thema less-than-ideal ood source or sh Although,

as the ASA and researchers have said, there are

unidentied soybean meal components limiting its

use, there are also many diculties that have been

identied A review article o studies on plant-based

eeds or sh indicates that soy is not easily digest-

ible or sh, a problem that can lead to reduced

growth rates and inecient eed use103

Soybeans contain lower levels o some o thenutrients that sh need, and excessive concentra-

tions o others Tey are lower than shmeal in nine

o the 10 essential amino acids, crude at and ash104

Crude at and ash can be made up or through

supplementation, and amino acid concentrations

could be increased by processing soybeans into soy

protein concentrate or isolate, but these products

are relatively expensive compared to shmeal105

On the surplus side, soybeans contain high levels o

carbohydrates, including two types that are indi-


11/20


gestible or sh106 One o these types, non-starch

polysaccharides (NSPs), intereres with the ability

o sh to digest eed, thus making it dicult or the

sh to obtain the energy they need107

Additionally, soybeans contain protease inhibitors,

natural components that help make the bean more

resistant to pests but that damage the enzyme

balance in sh digestive tracts, also impeding their

ability to digest and utilize soy108

o make things worse, when the raction o

soybeans in sh eed is too high, sh may develop

an infammation o the lower intestine called

enteritis109 Tis infammation may be sparked by

immunological ood intolerance essentially, like

some people, sh may be allergic to soy110 rout and

salmon that are ed soy, or example, sometimes

mimic the human allergic reaction, suering skinlesions, alterations o the digestive tract and exces-

sive mucus in the eces111

Potential impacts on the marine environment

Because certain characteristics o soy make it

dicult or sh to digest, eeding sh soy and other

plant-based eeds causes them to produce higher

levels o excrement112 Even without unusually high

waste production, waste fowing directly through

sh arms into the ocean can damage the ecologicalequilibrium o the sea foor and cause habitat

destruction or disrupt the ecology in the area113

In addition, soybeans contain phytoestrogen, an

estrogen-like chemical produced by plants Tere

is inadequate research on what the impacts are o

introducing phytoestrogen to the marine environ-

ments around arms Various research has conrmed

the [o]estrogenic activity o soybeans in sh114 In

other words, the phytoestrogens in soybeans havebeen shown to produce physical eects on sh that

are ed soy or injected with phytoestrogens in clinical

settings

Tere is insucient evidence to understand how

severe these eects can be, but one study ound

that when eels were ed one type o phytoestrogen

present in soy, 11 times more eels became emales

than in the control group115 Tere is inadequate

research to know whether levels o soy eed being

released into the aquatic environment are harmul

to the reproduction o native sh species in the

surrounding areas But this lack o understanding

should give regulators and the open ocean aquacul-

ture industry pause beore the wholesale adoption

o soy diets or armed sh

Dj vu?Fish are certainly not the first animal to

be fed an unnatural diet on factory farms.

Ninety-eight percent of soybean meal in the

United States goes to livestock feed,116 and

either corn, soybeans or a combination is

the main ingredient of most feed mixtures

for factory farmed cows, chickens and pigs.117

Soy and corn became cheap feed options for

livestock operations after a series of policy

changes culminating with the 1996 Farm Bill,

which marked the end of policies designed to

stabilize farm prices.118 Change in farm policy

eliminated requirements that some land be

kept fallow and resulted in large increases in

the amounts of soy and corn produced, thus

leading to price decreases for these crops.119

Rather than addressing the root cause of

this problem in the 1996 Farm Bill, Congress

issued emergency payments for farmers to

offset their losses.120 These subsidies have

continued to encourage overproduction,

and livestock producers can often buy corn

and soy feed below the cost of production.121

Unfortunately, these farm animals arent

naturally suited to corn and soy diets. Cows,

for instance, are ruminants their four-part

stomachs are made specifically to digest

grass. When they eat other foods, their gut

health may be impaired. Studies show that

artificial diets increase the amount of time

that E. coli strains live on in the manure of

cows, which can be passed on to the meat

itself.122 Increased antibiotic use to counter

E. coli contributes to the development

antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains.123


12/20


Impacts on ConsumersEvidence indicates that soy-based aquaculture

eeds may not be the best option or the sh that eat

them or the marine environment into which they

are released But what about the people who eat the

sh?

Unortunately, there are lots o unanswered ques-tions about both eating soy in general, and eating

sh raised on soy However, several potential health

problems associated with soy consumption, as well

as concerns about the nutrient prole o sh that

are ed soy, indicate that we should proceed with

caution

Missing omega-3s

Consumers increasingly preer ood products that

are high in omega-3 atty acids124 Omega-3 attyacids are thought to promote human health and

lessen the likelihood o various diseases, including

coronary heart disease125 Tere are three types o

omega-3 atty acids, which all into two general

categories One, -linolenic acid (ALA), is a plant-

based atty acid, and the other two, eicosapentae-

noic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),

are marine atty acids We get these by consuming

sh, which become enriched with them by eating

algae126 Te American Heart Association recom-mends that adults eat sh at least twice a week in

order to gain the positive benets o EPA and DHA,

which it says are more potent than ALA127

Unortunately, substituting the sh oil used in

eed or armed sh with terrestrial plant oils, like

soybean, reduces the concentration o these omega-

3s in eed128 I sh armers do not want to produce

a nal product low in omega-3s, they must switch

their sh o o a soy diet and on to a high-sh oildiet shortly beore harvest129 Doing so, however,

means that the industry will continue to consume

small, wild sh the very problem that soy use was

intended to avoid Researchers have also explored

genetically engineering soy and other plants to

increase the amount o omega-3s in them130 Tis

would be a troubling proposition, however, or

those who turn to sh or a more natural, sustain-

able ood product, and it may bring other unin-

tended consequences

General impacts of soy consumption

Perhaps more complicated is the issue o increasing

soy in human diets Although eating sh that are ed

soy is a less direct way to consume soybeans than

eating soy products or snacks made with soybean

oil, it needs to be questioned whether some compo-

nents o soy such as the phytoestrogens could

also be passed on to human consumers through

their consumption o sh

Soy is oten associated with healthy eating131 A

central component in some Asian diets, such as the

Japanese cuisine, soy has been associated with the

historically lower rates o cardiovascular disease,

menopausal symptoms, breast cancer, diabetes and

obesity in these populations than in Western popu-

lations132 However, some researchers are calling

this linkage into question,133 or suggesting that theselow rates may be caused by dierent actors134

Moreover, the soy in these diets may not be equiva-

lent to the soy now present in the American diet

due to diering levels o isofavones organic

compounds that have been associated with some

o the potentially negative impacts o soy135 New

Zealand-based toxicologist Dr Mike Fitzpatrick

has pointed out that the soy in traditional Asian

diets is typically ermented, a process that lowersits levels o isofavones136 Additionally, the strains

o soybeans grown in Asia are lower in isofavones


13/20


even beore ermentation than those grown in

North America, which have been bred to be higher

in isofavones to make them more pest resistant137

Te debate over soys impacts on human health

has been contentious and complicated Although

researchers have connected consumption o the

phytoestrogens in soy to potential lowered risk

o osteoporosis, heart disease and breast cancer,

scientists Heather Patisaul and Wendy Jeerson

have pointed out that phytoestrogens are also

endocrine disruptors with a range o potential

negative impacts that likely depend on a persons

age and health status138 Tey state: While the

potentially benecial eects o phytoestrogen

consumption have been eagerly pursued, and

requently overstated, the potentially adverse

eects o these compounds are likely underappreci-

ated139

In addition, the jury is still out on whether the

phytoestrogens in soy are helpul or harmul in

protecting against breast cancer Although many

studies have been conducted in both humans and

animals, the results have been conficting140 For

instance, a meta-analysis supported by the Susan

G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation ound that the

risk o developing breast cancer decreased as soy

intake increased among Asian women, but that soyintake was unrelated to breast cancer risk in studies

conducted in Western populations141

Another study that looked at the eects o soy

consumption on pre-existing cancers suggested

that highly processed soy, like the sort commonly

consumed in the United States, may be harmul

to post-menopausal women with breast cancer

Te study ound that mice that were ed minimally

processed soy four, like that typically consumed inAsian diets, had no tumor growth, whereas tumors

in mice that were ed more processed orms o

soy grew Te study concluded that the benecial

impacts o soy may be eliminated during certain

types o processing, and cautioned against the

common practice o natural hormone replacement

therapy via increased soy intake or menopausal

women, particularly those with breast cancer142

Tere is also evidence that phytoestrogens could

potentially be harmul or males A study geared

at determining the negative impacts o eeding

soy ormula to male human inants ound that

eeding soy ormula to monkeys reduced the

typical neonatal rise in testosterone expected at a

certain age, an eect that they expected would be

equal, or perhaps more marked, in human inants

under the same conditions Although researchers

are not sure what the impacts o suppressing thisneonatal rise in testosterone are, they write that

it would seem prudent to avoid eeding inants

with SFM [soy ormula milk] whenever alternatives

are possible143 Another researcher has suggested

that the isofavones present in soy reduce sperms

mobility, thus having a great impact on male

ertility144

While the potential health impacts o soy consump-

tion are yet to be ully understood, it appears that,

as Patisaul and Jeerson state, moderation is likely

key145

Environmental and Human RightsInfringements in Soy ProductionRather than provide a sustainable eed or armed

sh, soy-based eed simply shits the burden and

potential risks onto other ecosystems Ninety-our

percent o soy grown in the United States is geneti-

cally modied,146 as is the majority grown in Argen-tina and Brazil147 Monsanto introduced genetically

engineered soy in the mid 1990s Te companys

Roundup Ready soy plants are designed to be

resistant to Roundup, a herbicide that the company

also sells, so that armers can chemically control

weeds without damaging crops148 Increased use

o herbicide has been shown to lead to herbicide-

resistant weeds, which can in turn lead to even

heavier herbicide use in a vicious cycle Tis intense

chemical application raises concerns about poten-tial environmental and human health impacts149

As the soy industry has expanded into South

America, most notably in Argentina and Brazil,

but also in Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia,150 it has

led to deorestation and corresponding reduc-

tion o tropical biodiversity and soil erosion151 An

estimated 10,000 hectares (24,711 acres) o orest

is lost in Argentina each year to expanded soy

production152 Tis is damaging not only to plantsand animals,153 but also to human populations


14/20


As soy arms take over, indigenous people have

been pushed rom their homeland154 An estimated

300,000 peasant and indigenous amilies have

been displaced in the last decade as a result o soy

expansion in Argentina, and our out o ve previ-

ously existing arming jobs have been lost

In response, groups o small armers and peas-

ants, such as La Via Campesina and the National

Indigenous Campesino Movement o Argentina,

have organized against the monoculture-based soy

industry155 Even more shocking, there have been

documented instances o orced labor on soy plan-

tations in Brazil In 2004, the government created

a registry o agricultural rms ound to have used

slavery156 According to an October 2011 search o

the governments database, six soy operations have

been cited or enslaving a total o 241 workers157

I the US governments estimation that the country

can increase marine nsh production to 590,000

tons a year by 2025 is achieved, and an average o

35 percent o soy is included in the shs diets, as

the Illinois Soy Association says is possible,158 then

the industry would need to utilize an entire 456,292

tons o harvested soy a year to eed these sh It

would take approximately 172,838 hectares o land,

or around 427,000 ootball elds, to produce this

much additional soy each year159 Tis is over twotimes the size o greater New York City,160 and is 173

times the amount o orest already lost to soybean

cultivation in Argentina each year161 It is unclear

what land would be used to meet this growing

need will it be ound through additional tropical

deorestation?

Soy production in South America can also be

problematic or national ood security Even the

Argentine government has blamed the soybeaneconomy or diverting agricultural capacity toward

soy exports, which have orced the country to

import crops that it used to produce domestically162

Te environmental eects o soybean production

are by no means exclusive to South America In Illi-

nois, Iowa, Ohio and southwest Minnesota, under-

ground drainage pipes are used to make the land

dry enough to plant corn and soybeans Te water

that these pipes collect rom arms, which is mixed

with nitrogen ertilizers, drains into tributaries that

eventually eed into the Gul o Mexico163

Te nitrogen ertilizer rom these pipes is possibly

the largest source o nutrient pollution in the Gul164

Tese pollutants eed harmul algae blooms that

take oxygen out o the water, and can cause sh,

shrimp, crabs and other marine lie to suocate i

they cannot swim quickly enough to a more oxygen-

rich area o the water Tese oxygen-depleted

areas are known as dead zones, and in 2011 the

dead zone in the Gul o Mexico equaled and likely

exceeded the size o New Jersey165 I aquaculture

were to create a demand or much more soy, it could

potentially lead to more harmul runo rom soyarms, and more destruction o wild sh

Other AlternativesTere are other options or working toward seaood

sustainability On the most basic level, consumers

can restrict their consumption to wild seaood rom

well-managed sheries or sustainable arming

operations Research, government unding and

private entrepreneurial eorts can be shited away

rom open ocean actory sh arming and toward

other alternatives, such as land-based recirculating

sh arms Because conditions in these closed-loop

systems can be careully controlled, growth rates

can be higher in closed-containment sh arms

than in others166 Plus, sh convert eed eciently

when the water they are in is at the optimum

temperature,167 so the ability to control temperature

in recirculating systems could potentially lead to

lower overall eed requirements Instead o being

ed wild sh or soy, these sh could be ed alterna-

tive ingredients such as algae


15/20


Because algae are rich in omega-3s and oils168 and

are produced in marine environments, they seem

likely to be a better option or sh eed than soy

Whereas soybeans contain only 18 percent oil, algae

contain as much as 70 percent by weight169 Tey

can also be ecient to grow, with some species

able to double their population in only 24 hours170

Several researchers around the world, includinga team at the University o Maryland, which also

houses a demonstration closed-loop recirculating

sh arm, have been studying possibilities or using

algae as sh eed171 For algae to be a good option,

however, water use will need to be monitored and

genetically engineered varieties avoided

ConclusionTe soy industrys involvement in aquaculture is

a tale o how ar-reaching the infuence o a large,powerul, well-organized agribusiness can be

Although soy is an unexpected and unnatural ood

or sh to eat, the research and outreach unded by

the soy industry has propelled it to the oreront

o alternative eed research in the aquaculture

industry Because o the widespread concern about

sh armings reliance on small, wild sh or eed,

the industry has been able to position soybeans as

an answer to aquacultures sustainability problems

Unortunately, however, eeding soy to sh is ar

rom sustainable Increasing the global demand or

soy through the aquaculture industry could exac-

erbate the negative ramications that already exist,

including pollution to the Gul o Mexico, deoresta-

tion in South America, displacement o indigenous

peoples, and an increase in genetically modied

crops It also raises questions about the rising ubiq-

uity o soy in the ood chain and concerns about

potential human health impacts

Even i soy alleviates the eed problem in aquacul-

ture, open ocean actory sh arming would still be

plagued with the burden o potentially spreading

disease to wild sh, threatening many types o

marine mammals, birds and sh, and disrupting

coastal shing communities Even worse, soy eed

could increase some o the pollution impacts o

ocean sh arming by increasing the amount o

waste that sh produce

Rather than a partnership or innovation, therelationship between the soy and aquaculture

industries is one that could spread damage on both

land and sea

RecommendationsConsumers:

Choose local or domestic seaood that is rom

sustainable, wild sheries or rom conscientious

land-based arms Tis helps you get better sh,protects the environment rom the damage

caused by sh arming and supports economies

in coastal communities


16/20


Look beyond the label Not all sustainable

schemes are as helpul as you might think See

De-Coding Seaood Eco-Labels: How the Euro-

pean Commission Can Help Consumers AccessSustainable Seaood or more

Oppose expansion o commercial sh arming

operations Tey promise clean, green jobs, but

they dont deliver See No Jobs Hereor more

Policymakers:

Support research and eorts to sustainably

manage wild sh stocks, and explore other

methods o aquaculture, such as land-basedrecirculating systems

Shit research unding away rom soy into

investigating alternative sh eeds like algae

Support communities eorts to prohibit expan-

sion o commercial sh arming operations in

avor o jobs and industries with a genuinely

sustainable uture

Shit arming policies toward research intoalternative breeds and eeds to help break

Europes dependence on imported soy that

enables industrial meat and sh production and

exports our environmental damage to other

countries

Support moves or the European Union to with-

draw its soybean commitments under the Blair

House Agreement and the current WO Agree-

ment on Agriculture Te EU should be able to

reassess and reestablish arm programs without

the limitations posed by agreements designed

to suit industrial armers in other countries

See Te Perils o the Global Soy rade: Economic,

Environmental and Social Impacts or more

Endnotes1 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.CEOReporttotheBoardandStates.

March2010.

2 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.ASAPolicyResoluons.March5,2011at

2.23.09.

3 IllinoisSoybeanAssociaon.[PressRelease].VelellaResearchProject

PromisestoRevoluonizeSustainableAquaculture.September14,2011.

As reprinted in The Sacramento Bee.

4 Ibid.

5 FoodandAgricultureOrganizaonoftheUnitedNaons(FAO).TheState

oftheWorldsFisheriesandAquaculture2010.2010atForeword.

6 Weber,MichaelL.SeawebAquacultureClearinghouse.WhatPriceFarmed

Fish:Areviewoftheenvironmentalandsocialcostsoffarmingcarnivo -

roussh.2003at18and43;Rana,KrishenandMohammedHasan.FAO.

ImpactofRisingFeedIngredientPricesonAquafeedandAquaculture

Producon.(FisheriesandAquacultureTechnicalPaper541.)2009ativ.

7 Naylor,RosamondandMarshallBurke.AquacultureandOceanResources:

Raisinggersofthesea.Annual Review of Environmental Resources,vol.

31.2005at185to218.

8 Shamshak,GinaandJamesAnderson.FutureAquacultureFeedsandFeed

Costs:TheRoleofFishMealandFishOil.InNaonalOceanicandAtmo -

sphericAdministraon(NOAA).Oshore Aquaculture in the United States:

Economic Consideraons, Implicaons and Opportunies.2008at73to96.

9 Inthatitresultsinanetlossofproteinifitrequiresmorethanoneunitof

wildshtoproduceoneunitoffarmedsh.SeeWeber(2003)at24.

10 Sles,Margotetal.Oceana.HungryOceans:Whathappenswhentheprey

isgone?Undatedat2,4,9and18;Cury,Philippeetal.GlobalSeabird

ResponsetoForageFishDepleonOne-thirdfortheBirds.Science,vol.

334,iss.6063.December2011at1703to1706.

11 Forexample,theMarineAquacultureTaskforcerecommendedin2007thataenontoalternavefeeds,suchassoy,wouldbeadvisablefortheaqua -


17/20


cultureindustry.See:MarineAquacultureTaskforce.SustainableMarine

Aquaculture:FulllingthePromise;ManagingtheRisks.January2007at

95and99.

12 Basedon2011pricesforsoyofapproximately$12abushel,anaverage

feedconversionrateof1.75andstascalconversionsoftheSoybean

ExportCouncil,weesmatethatthesoyindustrycouldpotenallynet

$201millionannuallybysupplyingsoyasaningredientforthefeedofthe

590,000tonsofmarinenshthatNOAAhasesmatedcouldbeproduced

annuallyby2025.MethodologyonlewithFood&WaterWatch.

13 Gatlin,Delbertetal.Expandingtheulizaonofsustainableplantproducts

inaquafeeds:Areview.Aquaculture Research,vol.38.2007at557,558and

566.

14 Duetothefactthat94percentofsoygrownintheUnitedStatesisgene-

callymodied.See:UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA),

EconomicResearchService.AdoponofGenecallyEngineeredCropsin

theU.S.:SoybeanVariees.July1,2011.

15 Barne,Anthony.TheyHailedItasaWonderfood.The Guardian(Lon-

don).November7,2004.

16 Ibid.

17 Wallace,Sco.LastoftheAmazon.Naonal Geographic,vol.211,iss.1.

January2007at40to71.

18 FAO(2010)atForeword.

19 Alston,DallasE.etal.EnvironmentalandSocialImpactsofSustainable

OshoreCageCultureProduconinPuertoRicanWaters.FinalReport

SubmiedforNOAAFederalContractNumber:NA16RG1611.April2004at

12.

20 NaylorandBurke(2005)at202.

21 Upton,HaroldandEugeneBuck.OpenOceanAquaculture.Congressional

ResearchService.August9,2010at12to13;NaylorandBurke(2005)at

203.

22 UptonandBuck(2010)at11.

23 Tacon,AlbertandMarcMean.Globaloverviewontheuseofshmeal

andshoilinindustriallycompoundedaquafeeds:Trendsandfuture

prospects.Aquaculture,vol.285.2008at154;FAO.Fishmeal.Globesh.

March2010;Slesetal.(undated)at2,4,9and18;Curyetal.(2011)at

1703to1706.

24 U.S.SoybeanExportCouncil,UnitedSoybeanBoardandAmericanSoybean

AssociaonInternaonalMarkeng.SoyProteinConcentrateforAqua -

cultureTechnicalBullen.2008at8;AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.Com-

mentsSubmiedtotheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgricultureinregards

totheResearchEducaonandEconomicsOceRoadmap.May2009;Hart,

Steven.SoyAquacultureAlliance.PresentaonatAquacultureCoalion

Meeng.March2012.

25 Forinstance,asillustratedbytheIllinoisSoybeanAssociaonworkingwith

andcommemorangtheworkofKonaBlueWaterFarms:KonaBlueWa-

terFarmsCo-founderWinsAward.Pacic Business News.August2,2011;

alsobythesameorganizaonspartnershipwithaquaculturistsinIllinois:

IllinoisSoybeanAssociaon.[PressRelease].IllinoisAquacultureSurfaces

asNewSoybeanPartner.September9,2010;andbytheU.S.SoyExport

CouncilandtheIndianaSoybeanAlliancesmembershipintheGlobalAqua -

cultureAlliance:GlobalAquacultureAlliance.AssociaonMembers.2011.


2.23.09.

27 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.[PressRelease].ASAOutlinesPotenalofOshoreAquacultureforSenateCommiee.April6,2006.

28 Gatlinetal.(2007)at553to554.

29 Naylor,RosamondL.etal.Feedingaquacultureinaneraofnitere-

sources.Proceedings of the Naonal Academy of Sciences,vol.106,iss.36.

September8,2009at15106.

30 Marder,Jenny.FarmRunoinMississippiRiverFloodwaterFuelsDead

ZoneintheGulf.PBS.May18,2011.

31 Barne(2004).

32 Wallace(2007)at40to71.

33 Pasaul,HeatherB.andWendyJeerson.Theprosandconsofphytoes-

trogens.Froners in Neuroendocrinology,vol.31.March2010at402;

Barne(2004);InstuteforAgricultureandTradePolicy.Below-CostFeed

Crops:AnIndirectSubsidyforIndustrialAnimalFactories.June2006.

34 PasaulandJeerson(2010)at400.

35 See,forexample,Food&WaterWatch.WhosBenengfromFactory

FishFarming.September2011.Availableatwww.fwwatch.org

36 Asevidencedbythevariousbillsregardingoshoreaquacultureintroduced

inthepast15years,theGulfFisheryManagementPlanforOshoreAqua -

culture,andthediscussionofsoyintheNOAA/USDAFutureofAquafeeds

report,whichstatesthattheexpertpanelconvenedtodiscussalternave

feedingredientsforaquacultureendorsesthestrategicresearchplanlaid

outbythePlantProductsinAquafeedsWorkingGroupwithsponsorship

fromtheUnitedSoybeanBoard.See:S.1192,104thCong.(1995);S.1195,

109thCong.(2005);S.1609,110thCong.(2007);H.R.2010,110thCongress

(2007);H.R.4363,111thCongress(2009);H.R.2373,112thCongress

(2011);GulfofMexicoFisheryManagementCouncil.FisheryManagement

PlanforRegulangOshoreMarineAquacultureintheGulfofMexico.

January2009at18to19;Rust,Michaeletal.TheFutureofAquafeeds,

NOAA/USDAAlternaveFeedsIniave.November2010at45;Plant

ProductsinAquafeedWorkingGroup.StrategicResearchPlan.November

2005at2;UptonandBuck(2010).

37 U.S.DepartmentofCommerce.AquaculturePolicy.1999.

38 Ibid.

39 CalculaonsconductedbyandonlewithFood&WaterWatch.Formore

informaon,seeFood&WaterWatch.FishyFarms:TheGovernments

PushforFactoryFishFarmsinOurOceans.October2011.

40 NaonalMarineFisheriesService.FisheriesoftheUnitedStates.NOAA.

2010at50and63.

41 Forfurtheranalysisandinformaon,seeFood&WaterWatch.Import

Alert.May2007;Food&WaterWatch.LaboratoryError.December

2008.

42 KonaBlueWaterFarms,LLC.FinalSupplementalEnvironmentalAssess-mentforaModicaontoNetPenDesignsWithintheExisngProducon

CapacityandFarmLeaseAreaforKonaBluesOshoreOpenOceanFish

FarmoUnualohaPoint,Kona,Hawaii.April21,2009at10,22and23.

43 Forinstance,anarcleinScienc Americanwrites:Atoshoresitessuch

asKonaBlueWaterFarms,polluonisnotanissue,Sims[companypresi -

dent]explains.Thesevensubmergedpaddocks,eachoneasbigasahigh

schoolgymnasium,areanchoredwithinrapidcurrentsthatsweepawaythe

waste,whichisquicklydilutedtoharmlesslevelsintheopenwaters.See

Simpson,Sarah.TheBlueFoodRevoluon:Makingaquacultureasustain -

ablefoodsource.Scienc American.February7,2011.

44 MarineAquacultureTaskForce.SustainableMarineAquaculture:Fullling

thePromise;ManagingtheRisks.January2007at6.

45 Sar,G.etal.Impactsofmarineaquacultureatlargespaalscales:

evidencesfromnandpcatchmentloadingandphytoplanktonbiomass.

Marine Environmental Research.AcceptedFebruary24,2011.

46 Heuer,Ole.E.etal.HumanHealthConsequencesofUseofAnmicrobial

AgentsinAquaculture.Clinical Infecous Diseases,vol.49,iss.8.2009at

1248to1253.

47 Formoreinformaonsee,forexample,Food&WaterWatch(2011).

48 Asdemonstratedbypubliccommentssubmiedin2011inregardto

NOAAsDraAquaculturePolicyincluding:Commentssubmiedby2,325

individualsandbySarahAlexanderonbehalfofFood&WaterWatch

supporters;Raney,Dave.SierraClub.SierraClubCommentsonNOAA

andDepartmentofCommerceDraAquaculturePolicies.April11,2011;

Keever,MarcieandEricHoman.FriendsoftheEarth.NOAAsDraAqua-

culturePolicy.April11,2011;Witkowski,JillM.SanDiegoCoastkeeper.

CommentsonNOAAsDraAquaculturePolicy.April11,2011;Coastal

ConservaonAssociaon.CommentsontheNOAADraAquaculturePol -

icy.April11,2011;Vinsel,Mark.UnitedFishermenofAlaska.Comments

onNOAADraAquaculturePolicy.April11,2011;Kelley,Dale.Alaska

TrollersAssociaon.DOCandNOAADraAquaculturePolicies.April10,

2011;Kimbrell,Andrew.TheCenterforFoodSafety.CommentstoDepart-

mentofCommerceandNOAADraNaonalAquaculturePoliciesonthe

NeedforaProgrammacEnvironmentalImpactStatement.April11,2011;

Mitchell,JamesandMarianneCufone.Food&WaterWatch.Comments

ontheFebruary2011NaonalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministraon

DraAquaculturePolicyandtheDepartmentofCommercesDraNaonal

AquaculturePolicy.April11,2011.

49 NaylorandBurke(2005)at194.

50 FAO.Theproduconofshmealandoil.(FAOFisheriesTechnicalPaper

142.)1986at1.

51 UptonandBuck(2010)at14.

52 TaconandMean(2008)at146to158.

53 FAO.Reviewofthestateofworldmarinesheryresources.(FAOFisheries

TechnicalPaper457.)2005at6to7.


18/20


54 Upho,J.H.Jr.Predator-preyanalysisofstripedbassandAtlancmenha-

deninupperChesapeakeBay.Fisheries Management Ecology,vol.10,iss.

3.2003at313to322.

55 Cury(2011)at1703to1706;Bearzi,Giovannietal.Ecology,statusand

conservaonofshort-beakedcommondolphinsDelphinus delphisinthe

MediterraneanSea.Mammal Review,vol.33,iss.3.2003at236.

56 U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,NOAA,NaonalMarineFisheriesService.

BudgetAcvity:NaonalMarineFisheriesService.FiscalYear2012at117

and118.

57 TheAmericanSoybeanAssociaonisrepresentedinWashington,D.C.by

thermGordleyAssociates.See:DelaneyMovestoAmericanSoybean

Associaon.The Hagstrom Report,December19,2011;CenterforRespon -

sivePolics.OpenSecrets.AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.Availableat

www.opensecrets.org.AccessedFebruary2012.

58 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.StatementtotheUnitedStatesDepartment

ofAgricultureResearch&PromoonProgramsJointTaskForce.Wash-

ington,D.C.March9,1999;AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.ASASoybean

Success.2008.

59 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.FirmlyRootedinSuccess:2011Soybean

SuccessReport.AnnualReport.2011at11.

60 U.S.SoybeanExportCouncil.AnnualReport.2009.


2.23.07

62 Ibid.at2.23.09.

63 GulfRestoraonNetwork,Inc.etal.v.NaonalMarineFisheriesServiceetal.730F.Supp.2d157(D.D.C.2010).

64 USDA.FarmNumbers,Demographics,Economics.2007CensusofAgricul-

ture.2007.

65 USDA.2008OrganicSurvey.2008atTable7,OrganicFieldCropsHar-

vestedfromCeredandExemptOrganicFarms.

66 Howard,Phil.MichiganStateUniversity,AssistantProfessor.SeedIndustry

Structure,1996-2008.2009.OnleatFood&WaterWatch;Fernandez-

Cornejo,Jorge.TheSeedIndustryinAgriculture.USDAEconomic

ResearchService,AIB-786.January2004at25to26and36(Table18).

67 Fernandez-Cornejo(2004)at33to34.

68 See:Moss,DianaL.TheAmericanAntrustInstute.TransgenicSeedPlat-

forms:CompeonBetweenaRockandaHardPlace?Addendum.April

5,2010at5;Moss,DianaL.TheAmericanAntrustInstute.Transgenic

SeedPlaorms:CompeonBetweenaRockandaHardPlace?October23,2009at13to14.

69 AdoponofGenecallyEngineeredCropsintheU.S.:SoybeanVariees.

DataSet,EconomicResearchService,USDA;Whoriskey,Peter.Monsantos

dominancedrawsantrustinquiry.Washington Post.November29,2009.

70 Benbrook,Charles.GenecallyEngineeredCropsandPescideUseinthe

UnitedStates:TheFirstNineYears.BioTechInfoNet,Paper7.October2004

at2,4,22and34.

71 Soyatech,LLCandSPINS.SoyfoodsAssociaonofNorthAmerica.TheU.S.

Market2010.OnlewithFood&WaterWatch.


73 Jahren,A.HopeandRebeccaA.Kra.Carbonandnitrogenstableisotopes

infastfood:Signaturesofcornandconnement.Proceedings of the Na-

onal Academy of Sciences,vol.105,iss.46.2008at17859.

74 PasaulandJeerson(2010)at402;Barne(2004).75 InstuteforAgricultureandTradePolicy(2006).

76 See:AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.ASASoybeanSuccess.2008;Censky,

Stephen.AmericanSoyAssociaon.CEOReporttotheBoardandStates.

July2011.

77 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.FirmlyRootedinSuccess:2011Soybean

SuccessReport.AnnualReport.2011at4.

78 Hart,Stevenetal.Soybeanannutrionalfactorsandtheirrelave

importanceinlimingtheuseofsoybeanmealinsalmoniddiets.Funded

byIndianaSoybeanAlliance,IllinoisSoybeanAssociaon,IowaSoybeanAs -

sociaon,OhioSoybeanCouncilandtheUnitedSoybeanBoard.Undated.

79 Hart,Steven.SoyAquacultureAlliance.PresentaonatAquacultureCoali-

onMeeng.March2012.

80 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.StatementtotheUnitedStatesDepartment

ofAgricultureResearch&PromoonProgramsJoinTaskForce.Washing-

ton,D.C.March9,1999.

81 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.Aquaculture.PosionPapers.Onleat

Food&WaterWatch;Gatlinetal.(2007)at552.

82 See,forexample:VirginiaCobiaFarms.IndustryExperienceinGood

PracceRecirculaonSystems.PresentedattheWWFsSeriolaandCobia

AquacultureDialogues(SCAD)II,Veracruz,Mexico.September25,2009at

31;BellAquacultureandIndianaSoybeanAlliance.[PressRelease].Bell

AquacultureTeamswithIndianaSoybeanAlliance,VirginiaCobiaFarmsand

theConservaonFundsFreshwaterInstute.January25,2012.

83 Hsiang,PinLan.GrowthPerformanceofPompano(Trachinotus blochii)

FedFishmealandSoyBasedDietsinOshoreOCATOceanCages.Results

of2007OCATCageFeedingTrialinHainan,China.

84 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.Aquaculture.Undated.

85 Sims,Neil.OceanStewardsInstute.TesmonytotheHouseSubcom-

mieeonInsularAairs,OversightHearingonOshoreAquaculture.

September9,2009;OceanStewardsInstute.Commentssubmiedduring

publiccommentperiodondrapolicy.CommentsontheNaonalDra

DOCNaonalAquaculturePolicy.NOAA,DepartmentofCommerce,2011.

86 IllinoisSoybeanAssociaon.[PressRelease].ISAEncouragesU.S.Aquacul-

tureIndustrytoMoveForward.June6,2011.

87 KonaBlueWaterFarmsCo-founderWinsAward.Pacic Business News.

August2,2011.

88 IllinoisSoybeanAssociaon(September14,2011).

89 Sims,Neil.KonaBlue,andtheFutureofFish.PresentaonattheAmeri-

canSoybeanAssociaonAquacultureInvestmentSeminar,Miami,Florida,

August24,2010.

90 NOAA,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce.NOAA10-YearPlanforMarine

Aquaculture.October2007at12.

91 IllinoisSoybeanAssociaon(June6,2011).

92 Basedon2011pricesforsoyofapproximately$12abushel,anaverage

feedconversionrateof1.75forthisproduced,andstascalconversions

oftheSoybeanExportCouncil.MethodologyonlewithFood&Water

Watch.

93 AccordingtotheFAO,aquacultureisdeveloping,expandingandintensify-

inginalmostallregionsoftheworld,exceptinSub-SaharanAfrica:FAO.

StateofWorldAquaculture2006.(FisheriesTechnicalPaperNo.500.)

2006.

94 Sissener,N.H.etal.AlongtermtrialwithAtlancsalmon(Salmo salar

L.)fedgenecallymodiedsoy;focusinggeneralhealthandperformance

before,duringandaerparr-smolttransformaon.Aquaculture,vol.294,

iss.12,September2009at108to115;Sissener,N.H.etal.AnAssessment

oforganandintesnalhistomorphologyandcellularstressresponsein

Atlancsalmon(Salmo salar L.)fedgenecallymodiedRoundupReady

soy.Aquaculture,vol.298,iss.12,December2009at101to110.

95 Blas,Javier.CargillBuysAgriumsGrainTradeUnit.The Financial Times

(London).December15,2010;Hendrickson,MaryandHeernan,William.

ConcentraonofAgriculturalMarkets.UniversityofMissouri.April2007.

96 Whiy,Gerry.SmallPondsServeaBigFish.Feed & Grain.June/July2007.

97 AgribrandsShareholdersApproveMergerwithCargill.PR Newswire.April

26,2001.

98 Grainnet.CargilltoAcquireAgribrands.December8,2000.

99 Cargill.AgribrandsPurina(JiaXing)FeedmillCo.,Ltd.AccessedonJune10,

2011.OnlewithFood&WaterWatch;CargillBuysStakeinPurina.Food

Navigator.May22,2001.

100 CargilltoacquireBurrisMills&FeedInc.TheFishSite.

101 Ibid.

102 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.[PressRelease].ASAOutlinesPotenalof

OshoreAquacultureforSenateCommiee.April6,2006.

103 Gatlinetal.(2007)at557,558and566.

104 Ibid.at553.

105 Ibid.

106 Chou,R.L.etal.Substungshmealwithsoybeanmealindietsofjuve-

nilecobiaRachycentron canadum,Aquaculture,vol.229,iss.14.2004at

325to333.

107 Gatlinetal.(2007)at557and558.

108 Ibid.at559.

109 Ibid.110 Bakke-McKellop,etal.Changesinimmuneandenzymehistochemical

phenotypesincellsintheintesnalmucosaofAtlancsalmon, Salmo salar


19/20


L.,withsoybeanmeal-inducedenteris.Journal of Fish Diseases,vol.23.

2000at115to127;Gatlinetal.(2007)at559.

111 Gatlinetal.(2007)at559.

112 Nayloretal.(2009)at15106.

113 Alston,DallasE.etal.EnvironmentalandSocialImpactofSustainable

OshoreCageCultureProduconinPuertoRicanWaters.FinalReport

SubmiedforNOAAFederalContractNumber:NA16RG1611.April2004at

12.

114 Gatlinetal.(2007)at560to561.

115 Ibid.at561.

116 Ash,Mark.SoybeansandOilCrops:Background.USDA,EconomicRe-

searchService.May7,2010.

117 Starmer,E.,andT.A.Wise.FeedingattheTrough:IndustrialLivestock

FirmsSaved$35BillionfromLowFeedPrices.GDAEPolicyBriefNo.07-03.

GlobalDevelopmentandEnvironmentInstuteofTusUniversity.Decem -

ber2007.

118 Eand,AnneB.W.USDA,EconomicResearchService.U.S.FarmPolicy:

TheFirst200Years.AgriculturalOutlook.March2000at25.

119 Beitel,Karl.U.S.FarmSubsidiesandtheFarmEconomy:Myths,Realies,

Alternaves.FoodFirst/InstuteforFoodandDevelopmentPolicy.Sum-

mer2005.

120 Ray,Darrelletal.AgriculturalPolicyAnalysisCenter,UniversityofTennes-

see.RethinkingUSAgriculturalPolicy:ChangingCoursetoSecureFarmer

LivelihoodsWorldwide.September2003at9.

121 Ibid. at13.;StarmerandWise(2007).

122 Franz,Eelcoetal.EectsofCaleFeedingRegimenandSoilManage-

mentTypeontheFateofEscherichiacoliO157:H7andSalmonellaenterica

SerovarTyphimuriuminManure,Manure-AmendedSoil,andLeuce.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology,vol.71,iss.10.October2005at

6165and6172;Callaway,T.R.etal.Foragefeedingtoreducepreharvest

Escherichiacolipopulaonsincale,areview.Journal of Dairy Science,

vol.86,iss.3.2003at858.

123 Schroeder,CarlM.etal.AnmicrobialResistanceofEscherichiacoliO157

IsolatedfromHumans,Cale,Swine,andFood.Applied and Environmental

Microbiology,vol.68,iss.2.February2002.


125 Li,MengheH.etal. EectsofDriedAlgaeSchizochytriumsp.,aRichSource

ofDocosahexaenoicAcidonGrowth,FayAcidComposion,andSensory

QualityofChannelCaishIctalurusPunctatus.Aquaculture,vol.292.2009at232.

126 Jenkins,DavidandAndreaJosse.Fishoilandomega-3fayacids.Cana-

dian Medical Associaon,vol.178,iss.2.January2008at150.

127 Kris-Etherton,PennyM.etal.AmericanHeartAssociaon.Omega-3Fay

AcidsandCardiovascularDisease:NewRecommendaonsfromtheAmeri -

canHeartAssociaon.Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology,

vol.23.2003at151to152.


129 Ibid.

130 Ibid.

131 Lawrence,Felicity.ShouldWeWorryAboutSoyainOurFood?The Guard-

ian(London).July25,2006.

132 PasaulandJeerson.2010at400.133 Ibid.

134 Lawrence(2006).

135 Ibid.;Barne(2004).

136 Lawrence(2006).

137 Ibid.


139 Ibid.at413.

140 Ibid.at406to407.

141 Wu,A.H.etal.Epidemiologyofsoyexposuresandbreastcancerrisk.Brit-

ish Journal of Cancer,vol.98iss.98.2008at9to14.

142 Allred,ClintonD.etal.Soyprocessinginuencesgrowthofestrogen-

dependentbreastcancertumors.Carcinogenesis, vol.25,iss.9.2004at

1649to1657.

143 Sharpe,RichardM.etal.Infantfeedingwithsoyformulamilk:eectson

thetessandonbloodtestosteronelevelsinmarmosetmonkeysduring

theperiodofneonataltescularacvity.Human Reproducon,vol.17,iss.

7.2001at1692,1699and1701.

144 Barne(2004).


146 AdoponofGenecallyEngineeredCropsintheU.S.:SoybeanVariees.

DataSet,EconomicResearchService,USDA.

147 AlmostallofArgennassoybeancropisnowfrombiotechnologyseeds:

Mergen,DavidandAndreaYankelevich.USDA,ForeignAgriculturalService.

ArgennaAgriculturalBiotechnologyAnnual.July15,2011at2;In

2007/08anesmated5261percentofBrazilssoycropwasgenecally

modied:EuropeanCommission,Health&ConsumersDirectorate-General,FinalreportofamissioncarriedoutinBrazilfrom22Aprilto30April2009

inordertoevaluateocialcontrolsystemsforfood,feedandseedconsist-

ingoforproducedfromgenecallymodiedorganisms(GMOs)intended

forexporttotheEU.(DG(SANCO)/2009-8301-MRFINAL.)2009at4.

148 Paarlberg,Robert.Food Polics: What Everyone Needs to Know.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress.2010at163.

149 Binimelis,Rosaetal.Transgenictreadmill:Responsestotheemergency

andspreadofglyphosate-resistantjohnsongrassinArgenna.Geoforum,

vol.40,iss.4.July2009at623to633.

150 AmericanSoybeanAssociaon.SoyStats,AReferenceGuidetoImpor-

tantSoybeanFacts&Figures.2011at30;Garca-Lpez,GustavaA.and

ArizpeNancy.ParcipatoryprocessesinthesoyconictsinParaguayand

Argenna.Ecological Economics,vol.70,iss.2.December2010at196to

206.

151 Nepstad,Danieletal.TheEndofDeforestaonintheBrazilianAmazon.

Science,vol.326.December2009at1350to1351;Grau,H.Ricardoand

MitchellAide.GlobalizaonandLand-UseTransionsinLanAmerica.

Ecology and Society,vol.13,iss.2.2008atarcle16(onlinepublicaon).

152 Barne(2004).

153 vanSolinge,TimBoekhout.DeforestaoncrimesandconictsintheAma-

zon.Crical Criminology,vol.18,iss.4.December2010at263to277.

154Wallace(2007)at40to71.

155 Garca-LpezandArizpe(2010)at196to206.

156 ReporterBrasil.SlaveLabourLaundryList.AccessedOctober23,2011.

157 InternaonalLabourOrganizaon,EthosInstuteandReprterBrasil.Slave

LabourLaundryList.AccessedOctober23,2001.

158 IllinoisSoybeanAssociaon.(June6,2011).

159 CalculaonsconductedbyandonlewithFood&WaterWatchbasedon

averagefeedconversionraosof1.75.

160 CalculaonsconductedbyandonlewithFood&WaterWatch.

161 Anesmated10,000hectaresoflandarelostinArgennaeachyear,and

weesmate172,838hectaresoflandwillbeneeded.172,838/10,000=

1.73.Barne(2004).

162 Lewis,Steven.SouthAmericansoybeanboomposeslogiscalchallenges.

Food Chemical News.March1,2010.

163 Marder(2011);David,MarkB.,etal. SourcesofNitrateYieldsintheMis-

sissippiRiverBasin.Journal of Environmental Quality,vol.39.September

October2010.

164 Ibid.

165 Ibid.

166 Timmons,M.B.andJ.M.Ebeling.RecirculangAquaculture.CayugaAquaVentures.2007at7.

167 Masser,Michaeletal.SouthernRegionalAquacultureCenter.Recirculat-

ingAquacultureTankProduconSystems:ManagementofRecirculang

Systems.No.452.March1999.

168 Li,MengheH.,etal.EectsofDriedAlgaeSchizochytriumsp., aRich

SourceofDocosahexaenoicAcidonGrowth,FayAcidComposion,and

SensoryQualityofChannelCaishIctalurusPunctatus.Aquaculture,vol.

292.2009at232to236;Mata,Teresaetal.Microalgaeforbiodiesel

produconandotherapplicaons:Areview.Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews,vol.14.Spring2010at221.

169Mata(2010)at221.

170 Chis,Yusef.Biodieselfrommicroalgae.Biotechnology Advances,vol.25.

February2007at126.

171 Block,Ben.WorldwatchInstute.NewFishFarmsMovefromOceantoWarehouse.May2008.


20/20

Food & Water Europe

Food & Water Europe

Rue dEdimbourg, 26

1050 Bruxelles

Belgium

[email protected]

www.foodandwatereurope.org

FOOD & WATER EUROPE IS A PROGRAM OF

Documents

Factory-Fed Fish: How the Soy Industry Is Expanding Into the Sea