Seafood is seen as promising for more sustainable diets. The increasing production in land-based closed Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RASs) has overcome many local environmental challenges with traditional open net-pen systems such as eutrophication. The energy needed to maintain suitable water quality, with associated emissions, has however been seen as challenging from a global perspective. This study uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to investigate the environmental performance and improvement potentials of a commercial RAS farm of tilapia and Clarias in Sweden. The environmental impact categories and indicators considered were freshwater eutrophication, climate change, energy demand, land use, and dependency on animal-source feed inputs per kg of fillet. We found that feed production contributed most to all environmental impacts (between 67 and 98%) except for energy demand for tilapia, contradicting previous findings that farm-level energy use is a driver of environmental pressures. The main improvement potentials include improved by-product utilization and use of a larger proportion of plant-based feed ingredients. Together with further smaller improvement potential identified, this suggests that RASs may play a more important role in a future, environmentally sustainable food system.

The growing base of information about ecosystem services generated by ecologists, economists, and other scientists could improve the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of commodity-sourcing standards being adopted by corporations to mitigate risk in their supply chains and achieve sustainability goals. This review examines various ways that information about ecosystem services could facilitate compliance with and auditing of commodity-sourcing standards. We also identify gaps in the current state of knowledge on the ecological effectiveness of sustainability standards and demonstrate how ecosystem-service information could complement existing monitoring efforts to build credible evidence. This paper is a call to the ecosystem-service scientists to engage in this decision context and tailor the information they are generating to the needs of the standards community, which we argue would offer greater efficiency of standards implementation for producers and enhanced effectiveness for standard scheme owners and corporations, and should thus lead to more sustainable outcomes for people and nature.

Blue foods, sourced in aquatic environments, are important for the economies, livelihoods, nutritional security and cultures of people in many nations. They are often nutrient rich1, generate lower emissions and impacts on land and water than many terrestrial meats2, and contribute to the health3, wellbeing and livelihoods of many rural communities4. The Blue Food Assessment recently evaluated nutritional, environmental, economic and justice dimensions of blue foods globally. Here we integrate these findings and translate them into four policy objectives to help realize the contributions that blue foods can make to national food systems around the world: ensuring supplies of critical nutrients, providing healthy alternatives to terrestrial meat, reducing dietary environmental footprints and safeguarding blue food contributions to nutrition, just economies and livelihoods under a changing climate. To account for how context-specific environmental, socio-economic and cultural aspects affect this contribution, we assess the relevance of each policy objective for individual countries, and examine associated co-benefits and trade-offs at national and international scales. We find that in many African and South American nations, facilitating consumption of culturally relevant blue food, especially among nutritionally vulnerable population segments, could address vitamin B₁₂ and omega-3 deficiencies. Meanwhile, in many global North nations, cardiovascular disease rates and large greenhouse gas footprints from ruminant meat intake could be lowered through moderate consumption of seafood with low environmental impact. The analytical framework we provide also identifies countries with high future risk, for whom climate adaptation of blue food systems will be particularly important. Overall the framework helps decision makers to assess the blue food policy objectives most relevant to their geographies, and to compare and contrast the benefits and trade-offs associated with pursuing these objectives.

Food lies at the heart of both health and sustainability challenges. We use a social-ecological framework to illustrate how major changes to the volume, nutrition and safety of food systems between 1961 and today impact health and sustainability. These changes have almost halved undernutrition while doubling the proportion who are overweight. They have also resulted in reduced resilience of the biosphere, pushing four out of six analysed planetary boundaries across the safe operating space of the biosphere. Our analysis further illustrates that consumers and producers have become more distant from one another, with substantial power consolidated within a small group of key actors. Solutions include a shift from a volume-focused production system to focus on quality, nutrition, resource use efficiency, and reduced antimicrobial use. To achieve this, we need to rewire food systems in ways that enhance transparency between producers and consumers, mobilize key actors to become biosphere stewards, and re-connect people to the biosphere.

Aquaculture and fisheries hold promise for supplying a growing world population with healthy food produced without undermining the earth’s carrying capacity. However, just as livestock production and agriculture, seafood production can have negative environmental impacts and if a continuous or even increased supply is to be guaranteed, the pressure on affected ecosystems needs to be limited. Due in part to a perceived failure of other governance mechanisms in improving the environmental performance of the sector, a large number of voluntary market based standards for farmed and wild caught seafood have been developed. Nonetheless, the knowledge base on the extent to which implementation leads to environmental improvements remains limited. Moreover, the role of consumers in driving demand for eco-labeled seafood is presently an under-researched area. This thesis aims at reducing this knowledge gap through an examination of the potential environmental effectiveness of aquaculture eco-certification and internal, psychological variables predicted to be of importance for sustainable seafood consumption. Put differently, what is the potential of eco-certification in greening the blue revolution and fuel ‘turquoise growth’, and how can consumer demand be spurred?

In Paper I, the role of eco-certification in improving the growing aquaculture sector at large was explored. Results showed that environmental effects at global scale likely will be limited due to e.g. partial coverage of species groups and environmental impacts, and a lack of focus on Asian markets and consumers. In Paper II the environmental performance of eco-certified and non-certified mangrove-integrated shrimp farms in Vietnam was compared by using Life Cycle Assessment and put in relation to conventional, more intensive farms. While there was no substantial difference between certified and non-certified farms in terms of environmental impacts, emissions of greenhouse gasses were higher for mangrove-integrated than conventional farms due to mangrove land use change. The results from Paper III demonstrated that the body of literature investigating ecological effects of seafood eco-certification is limited. ‘Spatially explicit ecosystem service information’ (ES-information) on e.g. key ecosystem services and biodiversity in a given area is suggested to have potential to improve sustainability standards. Taking guidance from the pro-environmental behavior literature, consumers in Stockholm, Sweden were consulted on awareness of and attitudes towards eco-labeled seafood (Paper IV-V). Two variables, concern for environmental impacts and knowledge about seafood eco-labels were the best predictors for stated eco-labeled seafood purchasing. Moreover, there seemed to be a misalignment between consumers’ expectations on eco-labeled food in general and certification requirements for eco-labeled seafood.

From this set of findings, a number of improvements of current seafood eco-certification are suggested. First, include an LCA-perspective in standards to a higher degree than presently done and provide readily available ES-information in the implementation and evaluation phase of certification. Second, introduce standardized mechanisms for capturing potential environmental improvements over time. And finally, stimulate demand by targeting Asian consumers and markets as well as strengthen consumer eco-label awareness and emotional involvement.

Interactions between aquaculture and the environment remain a debated issue, especially in areas where the aquaculture sector is still expanding, such as in the Mekong delta in Vietnam. In response to environmental concerns, various eco-certification schemes have been introduced for seafood, aiming to improve production practices. In order to reflect upon the criteria of these certification schemes, life cycle assessment (LCA) was applied to conventional and certified extensive organic mangrove-shrimp farms in the lower Mekong. In total, 21 organic and 20 non-organic farms were included in the study for evaluation of effects on global warming (including emissions from land transformation and occupation), eutrophication and acidification. Monte Carlo simulations and random sampling were applied to aggregate contributing processes into results. The emissions of greenhouse gasses per ton of shrimp produced were substantial for both groups, and almost solely caused by the release of carbon during mangrove land transformation. Differences in the land area needed to support shrimp production explain the discrepancy. Organic farms emitted less CO2-equivalents (eq.) than the non-organic farms in 75% of the Monte Carlo iterations. Acidification impacts were similar for the two groups, with higher emissions from the non-organic farms in 67% of the iterations. Meanwhile, most mangrove-integrated farms showed a net uptake of eutrophying substances, indicating that both types of mangrove-shrimp production systems are nutrient limited. In order to put the results into perspective, a comparison with intensive and semi-intensive shrimp farms was made. While the extensive mangrove-shrimp farms showed higher emissions of CO2-eq. per ton shrimp produced (20 tons in average for organic and non-organic farms compared to 10 tons from intensive/semi-intensive production), results indicated lower impacts in terms of both acidification and eutrophication. We recommend LCA to be used as a central tool for identifying practices relevant for eco-certification audits, including considerations for land use. However, a better understanding of the consequences of land quality change and linkages to impacts at the ecosystem level e.g. effects on ecosystem services, is needed.

Eco-certification is widely considered a tool forreducing environmental impacts of aquaculture, but whatare the likely environmental outcomes for the world’sfastest growing animal-food production sector? This articleanalyzes a number of eco-certification schemes based onspecies choice, anticipated share of the global seafoodmarket, size of eligible producers, and targeted environ-mental impacts. The potential of eco-certification to reducethe negative environmental impacts of aquaculture at scalepresently appears uncertain as: (a) certification schemescurrently focus on species predominantly consumed in theEU and US, with limited coverage of Asian markets; (b)the share of certified products in the market as currentlyprojected is too low; (c) there is an inequitable and non-uniform applicability of certification across the sector; (d)mechanisms or incentives for improvement among theworst performers are lacking; and (e) there is incompletecoverage of environmental impacts, with biophysical sus-tainability and ecosystem perspectives generally lacking.

Farmed salmon has become an important export commodity for many countries and regions. The expanding salmon aquaculture industry has, due to its rapid increase, resulted in environmental concerns, most notably relating to the interaction with wildlife, effects of effluents and discharges in local ecosystems, in some regions overuse of antibiotics and development of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and high dependence on fish resources in feeds. As a response to these concerns, the industry has strengthened their efforts to improve practices and private led sustainability initiatives, including certification and eco-labelling, has become increasingly important. This study examines the differences between salmon farming governance policies in the four largest salmon producing regions; Norway, Chile, Scotland (UK) and British Columbia (Canada) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council's (ASC) salmon standard. The purpose of the study is to clarify how the standard from a well-established eco-certification program compares to national or regional conventional standards, using additionality as measuring method. The paper concludes that at present the ASC standard has mainly three strong advantages over existing regional/national standards and these relate to; escape numbers allowed, antibiotic usage and fish resources in feed. Changing these three main divergences in the national/regional regulations would significantly improve some of the main sustainability issues with uncertified salmon fanning. The study also finds that the potential additionality of the ASC standard can differ between regions, with the highest difference in Chile and lowest in Norway.

In this paper, we critically analyze how sustainability is considered in aquaculture policies and strategies using the Nordic countries as a case. The strong versus weak sustainability concepts are used to define and clarify what sustainability aspects are central to each state. To illustrate these concepts further, we draw on and modify four mainstream environmental discourses defined by John Dryzek and apply them to the strong and weak sustainability dichotomy to help categorize how environmental sustainability is portrayed in Nordic aquaculture policies and strategies. Subsequently we apply the characteristics of the concepts to aquaculture and sustainability in the Nordic countries. This allows us to identify each state's depiction of sustainable aquaculture, compare these to one another and assess where the Nordic states position themselves regarding sustainability and aquaculture. Our findings show that the policies emphasize technological advancements, intensification, and economic growth, which correlates with weak sustainability. Environmental sustainability receives a significant role in the documents too but does not seem to trump increased intensification or profitability. All policies are heavily focused on fed aquaculture and in order to reduce negative impacts from aquaculture there is a need to incorporate key elements of strong sustainability in policies, including measures to reduce impacts from pollution and the spread of pathogens, use of high-grade food resources and energy consumption. This to transform the industry to sustainability rather than just making it less unsustainable.

Background: The global food system is causing considerable environmental harm. A transition towards more sustainable consumption is needed. Targeted public policy interventions are crucial for stimulating such transition. While there is extensive research about the promotion of more environmentally sustainable food consumption, this knowledge is scattered across different sources. This systematic map aims to collate and describe the available evidence on public policy interventions such as laws, directives, taxes and information campaigns, for achieving sustainable food consumption patterns.

Methods: We will search bibliographic databases, specialist websites, Google Scholar and bibliographies of relevant reviews. Searches for academic literature will be performed in English, while searches for grey literature will be performed in English, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian. Screening, including consistency checking exercises, will be done at two levels: title and abstract, and full text. We will use machine learning algorithms to support screening at the title and abstract level. Coding and meta-data extraction will include bibliographic information, policy details and context, and measured environmental outcome(s). The evidence base will be summarised narratively using tables and graphs and presented as an online interactive searchable database and a website that will allow for visualisation, filtering and exploring systematic map findings, knowledge gaps and clusters.

Eco-certification has become an increasingly popular market-based tool in the endeavor to reduce negative environmental impacts from fisheries and aquaculture. In this study, we aimed at investigating which psychological consumer characteristics influence demand for eco-labeled seafood by correlating consumers’ stated purchasing of eco-labeled seafood to nine variables: environmental knowledge regarding seafood production, familiarity with eco-labels, subjective knowledge, pro-environmental self-identification, sense of personal responsibility, concern for negative environmental impacts from seafood production, perceived consumer effectiveness, gender and education. Questionnaires were distributed to consumers in Stockholm, Sweden, and the data were tested with multiple regression analysis using linear modeling and model averaging (n = 371). Two variables were the best predictors of stated purchasing of eco-labeled seafood: (i) recognition and understanding of eco-labels for seafood (Marine Stewardship Council, Fish for Life, Aquaculture Stewardship Council and KRAV); and (ii) concern for negative environmental impacts associated with seafood production. Meanwhile, consumer environmental knowledge was a weaker predictor. Results from this study suggest that strengthening the emotional component of consumer decision-making and improving the level of consumer familiarity with seafood eco-labels could stimulate more pro-environmental seafood consumption.

Purpose - This study focuses on drivers and barriers for furthering consumer driven demand for eco-labeled seafood in Sweden. The purpose was to increase the understanding of two internal variables identified in earlier work as particularly important for pro-environmental seafood consumption: (1) concern for negative environmental impacts from seafood production and (2), recognition and understanding of seafood eco-labels.

Design/methodology/approach - Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 seafood consumers in Stockholm, Sweden.

Findings - The majority expressed concern about how seafood is produced but few stated that they buy eco-labeled seafood. A number of potential barriers against increased consumer demand for eco-labeled seafood were delineated: (i) limited knowledge of how seafood is produced, (ii) lack of affective narratives stimulating concern, (iii) animal welfare is less of a concern for seafood in comparison to other animal sourced foods, (vi) lack of familiarity with seafood eco-labels, and (v) a mismatch between motives for eco-labeled food purchase and criteria for eco-labeled seafood.

Practical implications - The results suggest that consumer demand likely is a limited driver for a transformation towards seafood sustainability. The burden of responsibility for environmentally sound seafood production may therefore need to be shifted towards large market actors and governmental institutions.

Originality/value - To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate internal drives and barriers for increased demand for eco-labeled seafood in Sweden. Moreover, qualitative studies on consumer perceptions of sustainable seafood have to date been rare. 

A greater focus on governance is needed to facilitate effective and substantive progress toward sustainability transformations in the aquaculture sector. Concerted governance efforts can help move the sector beyond fragmented technical questions associated with intensification and expansion, social and environmental impacts, and toward system-based approaches that address interconnected sustainability issues. Through a review and expert-elicitation process, we identify five engagement arenas to advance a governance agenda for aquaculture sustainability transformation: (1) setting sustainability transformation goals, (2) cross-sectoral linkages, (3) land–water–sea connectivity, (4) knowledge and innovation, and (5) value chains. We then outline the roles different actors and modes of governance can play in fostering sustainability transformations, and discuss action items for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to operationalize activities within their engagement arenas.

Comprehensive but interpretable assessment of the environmental performance of diets involves choosing a set of appropriate indicators. Current knowledge and data gaps on the origin of dietary foodstuffs restrict use of indicators relying on site-specific information. This Personal View summarises commonly used indicators for assessing the environmental performance of diets, briefly outlines their benefits and drawbacks, and provides recommendations on indicator choices for actors across multiple fields involved in activities that include the environmental assessment of diets. We then provide recommendations on indicator choices for actors across multiple fields involved in activities that use environmental assessments, such as health and nutrition experts, policy makers, decision makers, and private-sector and public-sector sustainability officers. We recommend that environmental assessment of diets should include indicators for at least the five following areas: climate change, biosphere integrity, blue water consumption, novel entities, and impacts on natural resources (especially wild fish stocks), to capture important environmental trade-offs. If more indicators can be handled in the assessment, indicators to capture impacts related to land use quantity and quality and green water consumption should be used. For ambitious assessments, indicators related to biogeochemical flows, stratospheric ozone depletion, and energy use can be added.

Background The global food system is inflicting substantial environmental harm, necessitating a shift towards more environmentally sustainable food consumption practices. Policy interventions, for example, information campaigns, taxes and subsidies and changes in the choice context are essential to stimulate sustainable change, but their effectiveness in achieving environmental goals remains inadequately understood. Existing literature lacks a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on the role of public policies in promoting sustainable food consumption. Our systematic map addressed this gap by collecting and categorising research evidence on public policy interventions aimed at establishing environmentally sustainable food consumption patterns, in order to answer the primary research question: What evidence exists on the effects of public policy interventions for achieving environmentally sustainable food consumption?

Methods Searches for relevant records (in English) were performed in WoS, Scopus, ASSIA, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, EconLit, Google Scholar and in bibliographies of relevant reviews. A grey literature search was also performed on 28 specialist websites (searches were made in the original language of the webpages and publications in English, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian were eligible) and Google Scholar (search in English). Screening was performed at title/abstract and full-text levels, with machine learning-aided priority screening at title/abstract level. Eligibility criteria encompassed settings, interventions (public policies on sustainable food consumption), target groups and outcomes. No critical appraisal of study validity was conducted. Data coding covered bibliographic details, study characteristics, intervention types and outcomes. Evidence was categorised into intervention types and subcategories. Visual representation utilised bar plots, diagrams, heatmaps and an evidence atlas. This produced a comprehensive overview of effects of public policy interventions on sustainable food consumption patterns.

Review findings The evidence base included 227 articles (267 interventions), with 92% of studies in high-income countries and only 4% in low-income countries. Quantitative studies dominated (83%), followed by mixed methods (16%) and qualitative studies (1%). Most interventions were information-based and 50% of reviewed studies looked at labels. Information campaigns/education interventions constituted 10% of the sample, and menu design changes and restriction/editing of choice context 8% each. Market-based interventions represented 13% of total interventions, of which two-thirds were taxes. Administrative interventions were rare (< 1%). Proxies for environmental impact (85%) were more frequent outcome measures than direct impacts (15%). Animal-source food consumption was commonly used (19%) for effects of interventions on, for example, greenhouse gas emissions. Most studies used stated preferences (61%) to evaluate interventions.

Conclusions The literature assessing policies for sustainable food consumption is dominated by studies on non-intrusive policy instruments; labels, information campaigns, menu design changes and editing choice contexts. There is a strong need for research on sustainable food policies to leave the lab and enter the real world, which will require support and cooperation of public and private sector stakeholders. Impact evaluations of large-scale interventions require scaling-up of available research funding and stronger multidisciplinary research, including collaborations with industry and other societal actors. Future research in this field should also go beyond the European and North American context, to obtain evidence on how to counteract increasing environmental pressures from food consumption worldwide.

The food system is a major driver of climate change, changes in land use, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs. Here we show that between 2010 and 2050, as a result of expected changes in population and income levels, the environmental effects of the food system could increase by 50-90% in the absence of technological changes and dedicated mitigation measures, reaching levels that are beyond the planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity. We analyse several options for reducing the environmental effects of the food system, including dietary changes towards healthier, more plant-based diets, improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste. We find that no single measure is enough to keep these effects within all planetary boundaries simultaneously, and that a synergistic combination of measures will be needed to sufficiently mitigate the projected increase in environmental pressures.

Seafood certifications are a prominent tool being used to encourage sustainability in marine fisheries worldwide. However, questions about their efficacy remain the subject of ongoing debate. A main criticism is that they are not well suited for small-scale fisheries or those in developing nations. This represents a dilemma because a significant share of global fishing activity occurs in these sectors. To overcome this shortcoming and others, a range of fixes have been implemented, including reduced payment structures, development of fisheries improvement projects, and head-start programs that prepare fisheries for certification. These adaptations have not fully solved incompatibilities, instead creating new challenges that have necessitated additional fixes. We argue that this dynamic is emblematic of a common tendency in natural resource management where particular tools and strategies are emphasized over the conservation outcomes they seek to achieve. This can lead to the creation of hammers in management and conservation. We use seafood certifications as an illustrative case to highlight the importance of diverse approaches to sustainability that do not require certification. Focusing on alternative models that address sustainability problems at the local level and increase fishers' adaptive capacity, social capital, and agency through relational supply chains may be a useful starting point.

Blue foods play a central role in food and nutrition security for billions of people and are a cornerstone of the livelihoods, economies, and cultures of many coastal and riparian communities. Blue foods are extraordinarily diverse, are often rich in essential micronutrients and fatty acids, and can often be produced in ways that are more environmentally sustainable than terrestrial animal-source foods. Capture fisheries constitute the largest wild-food resource for human extraction that would be challenging to replace. Yet, despite their unique value, blue foods have often been left out of food system analyses, policies, and investments. Here, we focus on three imperatives for realizing the potential of blue foods: (1) Bring blue foods into the heart of food system decision-making; (2) Protect and develop the potential of blue foods to help end malnutrition; and (3) Support the central role of small-scale actors in fisheries and aquaculture. Recognition of the importance of blue foods for food and nutrition security constitutes a critical justification to preserve the integrity and diversity of aquatic species and ecosystems.

The dominant sustainable seafood narrative is one where developed world markets catalyze practice improvements by fisheries and aquaculture producers that enhance ocean health. The narrow framing of seafood sustainability in terms of aquaculture or fisheries management and ocean health has contributed to the omission of these important food production systems from the discussion on global food system sustainability. This omission is problematic. Seafood makes critical contributions to food and nutrition security, particularly in low income countries, and is often a more sustainable and nutrient rich source of animal sourced-food than terrestrial meat production. We argue that to maximize the positive contributions that seafood can make to sustainable food systems, the conventional narratives that prioritize seafood's role in promoting 'ocean health' need to be reframed and cover a broader set of environmental and social dimensions of sustainability. The focus of the narrative also needs to move from a producer-centric to a 'whole chain' perspective that includes greater inclusion of the later stages with a focus on food waste, by-product utilization and consumption. Moreover, seafood should not be treated as a single aggregated item in sustainability assessments. Rather, it should be recognized as a highly diverse set of foods, with variable environmental impacts, edible yield rates and nutritional profiles. Clarifying discussions around seafood will help to deepen the integration of fisheries and aquaculture into the global agenda on sustainable food production, trade and consumption, and assist governments, private sector actors, NGOs and academics alike in identifying where improvements can be made.

Despite the growing knowledge that food system solutions should account for interactions and drivers across scales, broader societal debate on how to solve food system challenges is often focused on two dichotomous perspectives and associated solutions: either more localized food systems or greater global coordination of food systems. The debate has found problematic expressions in contemporary challenges, prompting us to revisit the role that resilience thinking can play when faced with complex crises that increase uncertainty. Here we identify four ‘aching points’ facing food systems that are central points of tension in the local–global debate. We apply the seven principles of resilience to these aching points to reframe the solution space to one that embeds resilience into food systems’ management and governance at all scales, supporting transformative change towards sustainable food systems.