Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Aquaculture

Are farmed fish just for the wealthy? Golden et al. reply

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also 'Aquaculture: Are farmed fish just for the wealthy?’ by Belton et al.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Golden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links