Why does this matter? The global fish meal market is a rapidly growing industry, valued at $11.04bn in 2025 and projected to reach $20.97bn by 2034. Where fishmeal and fish oil were once predominantly used in pig and poultry farming – accounting for 98% of consumption – the aquaculture industry now consumes 87% of fishmeal and 74% of fish oil globally.

Although stringent rules govern the labelling and traceability of seafood sold for human consumption, these do not extend to the feed those fish are raised on, which remains vague. The DNA study exposes a significant industry gap in labelling requirements and raises important questions around supply chains, sustainability and disclosure as demand continues to grow in line with global protein need.

Questioning sustainability – The ecological consequences of current feed ingredient sourcing run deep. Seven of the world’s top ten fisheries by volume target wild forage species including herring and anchovies, around 90% of which are processed into fishmeal and fish oil. These species form the cornerstone of marine food webs, sustaining seabirds and marine mammals.

Depleting populations create cascading risks that extend well beyond supply shortages in aquaculture. However, efforts to reduce wild fish dependency by switching to plant-based substitutes have been found to shift environmental pressures rather than resolve them.

Production emissions – Between 2000 and 2020, European aquaculture cut wild fish for food use by 13% but saw greenhouse gas emissions rise 314%, land use increase 594% and water consumption grow 236%. This reflects a stark balancing act between protecting marine and land environments. Critically, environmental impact varies dramatically depending on where ingredients are sourced rather than what they are.

Soybean production in Brazil, for instance, generates over ten times the emissions of equivalent US production due to land use change, underlining the importance of monitoring sourcing and reducing emissions at the point of origin.

Supply chain vulnerability – The study’s finding of a largely Northeast Atlantic supply chain highlights a regional dependency. Forage fish are highly sensitive to temperature change and increasingly unpredictable climate patterns are driving periodic population declines that create market volatility.

Furthermore, the Northeast Atlantic’s three key pelagic species are currently fished without confirmed quota-sharing arrangements, with combined national catches consistently exceeding scientific advice. The concentration of aquafeed sourcing in a single contested region is a structural risk the sector must address.

Alternative ingredients – The answer lies in low-impact alternatives that prioritise circularity. The potential of the black soldier fly (BSF) has been recognised in Europe, with the International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) urging the EU to set mandatory inclusion percentages in aquafeed. Recent trials also suggest insect feed has antibacterial properties that support fish health.

Companies such as Enthos utilise BSF larvae to convert organic food waste into high-quality protein meal and oil, solving two sustainability challenges simultaneously. Marine microalgae has also been acknowledged as an alternative but is yet to scale.

Future direction – The feed supply chain has been overlooked in aquaculture’s sustainability credentials. Greater transparency, diversified sourcing and investment in circular alternatives are not optional extras – they are the foundation the sector must build on for continued growth.