From an aquaculture producer’s standpoint, animal health and welfare are the most important components of biological performance. And, accordingly, economic sustainability. Few would argue the fact that stress plays a crucial role in the health status of aquaculture stocks, and most successful operations have learned to minimize stress throughout the production cycle. However, recent concerns over welfare of cultured fishes and crustaceans have resulted in regulatory updates and public awareness campaigns that often portray aquaculture in a less than flattering light. For many consumers, perception is reality, and we as a diverse and often fragmented global food-producing sector continue to struggle with misperceptions on many fronts.

Equally concerning, however, is the precedent being set by recent events related to aquatic animal welfare in Europe and elsewhere: these regulatory and corporate policy changes affect food security in spite of often being based on inadequate scientific evidence. This follows a general trend in society wherein many individuals increasingly embrace only those scientific findings that align with their world (and political) views, whether the topic is vaccine efficacy, climate change, the utility of GMO crops and animals, or in this case the question of sentience in various aquatic organisms. Consider the impact of one particular document that was published in 2021 and included a number of aquatic animal welfare recommendations that shaped subsequent legislation. The study incorporated eight arbitrary criteria to attribute sentience to a number of aquatic invertebrates. Perhaps even more arbitrarily, the authors assigned categorical levels of confidence to their own conclusions.

Recent arguments as to whether fish, crustaceans and now, even insects and fungi can 1) make “conscious” deliberated decisions, 2) exhibit the capability to learn and remember, and 3) experience pain and suffering all conveniently sidestep the question of whether these organisms are “conscious of” or simply “responsive to” stimuli associated with potential injury or benefit. Clearly, there is a profound difference. And, the available science is generally unconvincing when research results are interpreted through the critical lens of assigning sentience. In the case of decapod crustaceans a number of authors have made the decision (albeit subtly) to simply equate “responsive to” with “conscious of.” No studies to date have objectively and definitively described stressful pain in crustaceans, nor have any investigations confirmed the existence of such a phenomenon scientifically.

Very few multicellular organisms would have evolved to their current form without some means of perceiving their immediate environment and avoiding negative outcomes in general. Yet when the proposed criteria for “some evidence of sentience” in aquatic organisms are critically evaluated, apparently everything from clams, to copepods, to jellyfish should qualify. This, however, has encouraged a number of pundits, philosophers and pseudo-scientists to disregard the traditional scientific approach while claiming that specific avoidance behaviors in a number of aquatic species are “suggestive of,” or “consistent with,” or “likely” associated with the “concept” of pain, without any definitive, repeatable proof.

Those who insist on declaring that numerous aquatic organisms are sentient have generally dismissed or failed to entertain any discussion of flaws in their conclusions, ignoring more rigorous reviews that have demonstrated scientific evidence to the contrary. While aquaculture in general has made great strides in advancing animal welfare in recent years for both economic and ethical reasons, our focus now must, unfortunately, be two-fold: to continue our progress in welfare practices while discrediting the proliferating propaganda based on flawed “science” and biased agendas. Fortunately, there is an abundance of sound science available to answer some of the sensationalism. An excellent and quite thorough review exposing both the shabby and solid science behind arguments raised by some sentience advocates was published several months ago. I strongly recommend every aquaculture stakeholder (and critic) read it.

It will take substantial time and effort to package and deliver objective information on animal welfare in aquaculture in a format that can effectively reach policy makers and the general public. We all must redouble our efforts to be familiar with these issues and the legitimate science behind the debate.
— C. Greg Lutz, Editor-in-Chief