Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) demands collective action to reduce and mitigate its threats. The Quadripartite collaboration of the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) has led development and implementation of National Action Plans (NAPs) that describe approaches each country will take to tackle AMR. All antimicrobial users and sectors should be included, and the Quadripartite encourages a One Health approach. Aquaculture has received mixed coverage in NAPs: Here, we argue why aquaculture requires special consideration. Aquaculture is a diverse, global collection of industries and activities, with heterogeneity in systems and species greatly exceeding terrestrial food-animal production, with products traded internationally in huge volumes. Almost 6 % of global total antibiotic usage is estimated to be applied in aquaculture, with per-biomass quantities in some species exceeding usage in human and terrestrial food-animals. The watery nature of aquaculture interconnects it with other One Health compartments: humans, other animals and the wider environment. Rapid industry growth challenges relatively detached stakeholders such as regulators and NAP creators to remain abreast of changing practices, whilst support capabilities and capacity, e.g., health services, typically lag behind growing needs. To integrate aquaculture effectively into next-generation NAPs, ensuring policies cover the One Health spectrum, NAP creators need to recognise the diversity of aquaculture and initiate engagement across associated value chains, especially health service providers. Disentangling the industry can assist formulation of realistic policies for heterogenous contexts and identify pathways to implementation. Resource allocation must be appropriate and include relevant government departments, whilst improved ways to track and monitor AMR, including those international activities that impact AMR domestically, through suitable data collection are key to monitoring and evaluating policies. Better NAPs are crucial to addressing AMR and this coordinated global approach provides our best opportunity for success.

Animal-source foods provide essential nutrients for humans, however, the use of nutrient-dense (i.e., high in nutrients but low in calories) and digestible resources for animal feeds is controversial as it may reduce the net contribution of farmed animals to global food supply, and hence to food security. Redirecting resources edible by humans to direct consumption as food can increase resource use efficiency and food supply, however, what can be considered as edible by humans is context dependent. The objective of the present study is to assess the net contribution of ten contrasting tilapia production systems from eight different countries to the supply of nutrients of importance for human health. To do so we calculated the human-edible nutrient conversion ratio (HeNCR), which is the human-edible nutrients in the inputs (feed) divided by the human-edible nutrients in the outputs (animal products) of the systems. We showed that tilapia systems can be net producers of proteins, but that in general, much more human edible micronutrients (5 to 175 times) and EPA + DHA (about 7 times) were in the feed used than in the fish produced. Four scenarios combining different definitions for feed and fish edibility were tested to explore the effect of different dietary changes on the performances of the tilapia systems. Scenario analysis revealed that the direct use of edible ingredients as food generates more nutrients than the consumption of fish. Consumers’ preferences, and therefore our definition of what is edible, may have to evolve in order to maximize food resource use.

The scale and speed of human activities and technological developments have substantially increased since the 1950s resulting in reshaping of the biosphere and moving humanity into a new geological epoch — the ”Anthropocene”. This is characterized by changes in several Earth system processes and structures on which human life depends. The global food system is a major driver of changes in the biosphere – for example greenhouse gas emission and other environmental changes including global biodiversity loss. Blue foods (aquatic foods) have slowly made their way into international high-level sustainability discussions and increasingly now form part of nutritious, climate smart and low environmental impact food narratives. Today farmed and captured aquatic animals and plants play a central role in food and nutrition security for billions of people, and constitute cornerstones for many livelihoods, economies, and cultures. The blue food portfolio is highly diverse and also supported by a wide range of ecosystems, cultural practices and production modalities. This diversity poses both potential for supporting food system resilience in uncertain times, and challenges for making simple guidance on sustainable development of food production. The anticipated continuous growth of aquaculture trigger questions related to “what, how and why”. Many blue foods are rich in bioavailable micronutrients and can be produced in ways that are more environmentally sustainable than some terrestrial animal-source foods. However, blue foods are diverse and planning for future expansion through i.e. aquaculture involves identification of properties for different species and systems, as well as identification of development priorities and acknowledging trade-offs and context specificity out from a broader Sustainable Development Goal framework. Environmental stressors may narrow the window for blue food production and climate change is a main driver affecting the function and productivity of aquatic and supportive terrestrial ecosystems.

Deep-ocean seaweed dumping is not an ecological, economical, or ethical answer to climate-change mitigation via carbon “sequestration.” Without sound science and sufficient knowledge on impacts to these fragile ecosystems, it distracts from more rational and effective blue-carbon interventions. We call for a moratorium on sinking seaweeds to deep-ocean ecosystems until its efficacy is established, and there is robust, evidence-based assessment of its environmental, economic, and societal sustainability.

The intensification of aquaculture industries around the globe has led to increased susceptibility and exposure to diseases. To ensure the well-being of animals and the profitability of the industry, many aquaculture farms resort to antibiotic treatments. However, with the increasing presence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), it has become important to regulate and limit the use of antibiotics, especially in animal production and regarding the antibiotics that are deemed as critically important for human health by the World Health Organization (WHO). This review describes how AMR mitigation strategies have developed over time in international settings and how they relate to aquaculture. Furthermore, we analyzed how different countries and regions abide by these statutes, as well as the antibiotic standards from a selection of certification schemes. Our results show that the role of aquaculture has been inexplicitly addressed in international guidance documents and that there is a need to further increase the activities of aquaculture operations in combating AMR, with an emphasis on alternatives to antibiotic use. We also found that most countries and regions allow the highest priority-, or critically important antibiotics in aquaculture, which could have detrimental effects on animal, environmental, and public health. As a result, most countries fail to comply with the recommendations and standards set by international organizations and certification schemes.

Aquatic foods are highly traded, with nearly 60 million tonnes exported in 2020, representing 11% of global agriculture trade by value. Despite the vast scale, basic characteristics of aquatic food trade, including species, origin, and farmed vs wild sourcing, are largely unknown due to the reporting of trade data. Consequently, we have a coarse picture of aquatic food trade and consumption patterns. Here, we present results from a database on species trade that aligns production, conversion factors, and trade to compute apparent consumption for all farmed and wild aquatic foods from 1996 to 2020. Over this period, aquatic foods became increasingly globalized, with the share of production exported increasing by 40%. Importantly, trends differ across aquatic food sectors. Global consumption also increased by 19.4% despite declining marine capture consumption, and some regions became increasingly reliant on foreign-sourced aquatic foods. To identify sustainable diet opportunities among aquatic foods, our findings, and underlying database enable a greater understanding of the role of trade in rapidly evolving aquatic food systems.

The Health Impacts of Artificial Reef Advancement (HIARA; in the Malagasy language, “together”) study cohort was set up in December 2022 to assess the economic and nutritional importance of seafood for the coastal Malagasy population living along the Bay of Ranobe in southwestern Madagascar. Over the course of the research, which will continue until at least 2026, the primary question we seek to answer is whether the creation of artificial coral reefs can rehabilitate fish biomass, increase fish catch, and positively influence fisher livelihoods, community nutrition, and mental health. Through prospective, longitudinal monitoring of the ecological and social systems of Bay of Ranobe, we aim to understand the influence of seasonal and long-term shifts in marine ecological resources and their benefits to human livelihoods and health. Fourteen communities (12 coastal and two inland) were enrolled into the study including 450 households across both the coastal (n = 360 households) and inland (n = 90 households) ecosystems. In the ecological component, we quantify the extent and health of coral reef ecosystems and collect data on the diversity and abundance of fisheries resources. In the social component, we collect data on the diets, resource acquisition strategies, fisheries and agricultural practices, and other social, demographic and economic indicators, repeated every 3 months. At these visits, clinical measures are collected including anthropometric measures, blood pressure, and mental health diagnostic screening. By analyzing changes in fish catch and consumption arising from varying distances to artificial reef construction and associated impacts on fish biomass, our cohort study could provide valuable insights into the public health impacts of artificial coral reef construction on local populations. Specifically, we aim to assess the impact of changes in fish catch (caused by artificial reefs) on various health outcomes, such as stunting, underweight, wasting, nutrient intake, hypertension, anxiety, and depression.

The terms “offshore” and “open ocean” have been used to describe aquaculture sites that are further from the coast or in higher energy environments. Neither term has been clearly defined in the scientific literature nor in a legal context, and the terms are often used interchangeably. These and other related terms (for example “exposed”, “high-energy”) variously refer to aspects of a site such as the geographic distance from shore or infrastructure, the level of exposure to large waves and strong currents, the geographic fetch, the water depth, or some combination of these parameters. The ICES Working Group (ICES, 2024) on Open Ocean Aquaculture (WGOOA) therefore identified a need to define the terminology to reduce ambiguity for these types of aquaculture sites or more precisely, to: (1) promote a common understanding and avoid misuse for different classifications; (2) enable regulators to identify the characteristics of a marine site; (3) allow farmers to be able to assess or quantitatively compare sites for development; (4) equip developers and producers to identify operational parameters in which the equipment and vessels will need to operate; (5) provide insurers and investors with the terminology to consistently assess risk and premiums; and (6) circumvent the emergence of narratives that root in different cognitive interpretations of the terminology in public discourse. This paper describes the evolution of the use of the term “offshore aquaculture” and define the most relevant parameters to shift to a more definitive and robust term “exposed aquaculture” that can inherently relay clearer information. Adoption of this more definitive definition of “exposed” will allow the user to define a site with more than just distance from shore. Key differences and the importance of these terms are discussed that affect various interest groups. Follow-up articles in this compilation from scientific members of the WGOOA as well as other scientists outside ICES are incorporated that develop a set of definitions and a rigorous exposure index.

Notably, 56 worldwide experts gathered for the Antimicrobial Assessment on Global Aquaculture Production (AGAP) series of workshops to (1) evaluate the current state of knowledge on antimicrobial use and identify existing gaps; (2) formulate strategies to identify ecologically relevant impact indicators and establish thresholds for assessment; (3) identify pivotal socioeconomic factors and effective governance mechanisms essential for implementing monitoring practices in aquaculture and extending them across sectors and countries for aquaculture sustainability; (4) develop pathways to enhance our comprehension between antibiotic use in aquaculture and antimicrobial resistance; and (5) explore potential antibiotic monitoring tools that can be universally adapted and implemented across region and sectors. The main outcomes were a roadmap for establishing investigation priorities on the relevant topics regarding antibiotic use in aquaculture, socioeconomic drivers for using antibiotics and behaviors that need more robust and transparent regulatory frameworks to guide farmers, training on antimicrobial use, and access to veterinarians and extension services agents for education. Overall, the workshop evidenced the power of collaboration in addressing complex global challenges to achieve sustainable aquaculture. Despite diligent efforts, some constraints may have inadvertently narrowed the possibility of having more experts and left some pertinent topics unaddressed, but they are needed in the discussion.

A circular economy is considered one way to reduce environmental impacts of human activities, by more efficient use of resources and recovery, resulting in less waste and emissions compared to linear take-make-dispose systems. Muscat et al. developed five ecological principles to guide biomass use towards a circular economy. A few studies have demonstrated environmental benefits of applying these principles to land-based food systems, but to date, these principles have not been explored in aquaculture. The current study expands on these principles and provides a narrative review to (i) translate them to aquaculture, while identifying implications for the main species and production systems, and (ii) identify the main pathways to make aquaculture more circular. We show that the underlying concepts of the ‘safeguard’, ‘entropy’, and ‘recycle’ principles have been well researched and sometimes well implemented. In contrast, the ‘avoid’ and ‘prioritise’ principles have been explored much less; doing so would provide an opportunity to decrease environmental impacts of aquaculture at the food-system level. One example is prioritising the production of species that contribute to food and nutrition security, have low environmental impacts and thinking at wider food system scale to avoid feed-food competition in aquaculture. We identified six priorities that could make aquaculture more circular: (i) increase production and demand for the most essential species, (ii) decrease food loss and waste at farm and post-harvest stages, (iii) support nutrient recycling practices at multiple scales, (iv) adapt aquafeed formulations, (v) inform consumers about benefits of species of low trophic levels and other environmentally friendly aquatic foods, and (vi) address urgent research gaps.