Christopher Golden et al. reply — Our argument is that most farmed fish are not reaching nutritionally vulnerable people in the low-income, food-deficit countries of sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific islands (Nature 534, 317–320; 2016). In those nations, fish is a traditional food source that comes primarily from capture fisheries, including subsistence harvests (M. M. Dey et al. Mar. Policy 67, 156–163; 2016). Domestic consumption and import of aquaculture products are still relatively insignificant (see go.nature.com/2dinzuc).
In such places, aquaculture policy interventions need to be optimized for nutritional value and distribution to food-insecure populations. This could be achieved through appropriate regulations and market instruments (such as tax incentives or subsidies) and public-health campaigns, in close alliance with conservation strategies for sustainable fisheries.Footnote 1
See also 'Aquaculture: Are farmed fish just for the wealthy?’ by Belton et al.
About this article
Cite this article
Golden, C. Are farmed fish just for the wealthy? Golden et al. reply. Nature 538, 171 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/538171e
Current Environmental Health Reports (2020)