Ethical Seafood, Aquatic Animal Welfare, & Marine Conservation with Wasseem Emam - Part 2
SPEAKERS Erin McCann, Wasseem Emam
Wasseem Emam 29:59
And actually, that's what, that's the next thing I was going to say is that where there's not enough science, we look at, you know, well, is there comparables we can get from other species? Even though it's not ideal, it's sometimes, you know, the best starting point. But there are some generalities across all species. You know, for example, like the suitable environment. You know, all animals need a suitable environment and, you know, water quality parameters they'll be different for each species. But there's some things that we know we had to pick some to start with. Dissolved oxygen is always going to be an important one for any aquatic animal. So we always start with the bare bones that, you know, how they talk about negative welfare and positive welfare. So within negative welfare, we know there are some things that are stressors. So, we're just trying to reduce the most stressful things, like a lack of oxygen, like very high stocking density, like not, you know, lack of feed or underfeeding, let's say. Yeah, so we try to work with the things that we know for sure are likely to be causing issues where the science is not there yet.
Erin McCann 31:11
Certainly makes sense. And when you're thinking about these particular areas where there is a lack of a clear protocol or a particular standard, how do you and your team go about addressing that? When you think about evaluating the practices that are in use -- and let's stick with the stress example, the particular impact on a particular species and that species' experience of stress, how do you navigate the gap?
Wasseem Emam 31:43
Yeah, so, I mean, animal welfare science, one of the issues is that it's not an exact science. It's like kind of a mixture of different fields that have come together. So, there's always a degree of ambiguity. But best practice dictates that when there's a lack of clear protocols for one species, you know, okay, let's talk about welfare assessments at least, right?
So, there are things that we know even -- people always confuse production and welfare, right? So, just because a fish is growing doesn't mean it's doing well. It just means it's doing well enough to grow. So we see basic necessities that they need -- the fish's basic needs.
But if you're lacking any evidence or scientific literature to back up, there's no indicators, let's say, that exists for that species, the next best thing would be to look at what production parameters. So, there's things like growth rate, there's things like, you know, they can dissect fish and look at the liver, the weight of the liver, in comparison to the weight of the fish, and the index there. There's a condition index, a bit like BMI in fish that can tell you, you know, they're overweight, underweight.
And then there's a feed conversion ratio to see how efficient the farms production parameters are, like how much feed they're putting in versus the fishes, the output they get from the farm. These are all telling you how the farm is doing. And they're not great for welfare at all. But sometimes they're all we have.
But also water quality is, you know, is usually some tests that all species will have some studies done on them to show that, you know, below this they die. So we have that to work with.
And I was thinking of the example of cortisol. There's usually tests that you can do where to test for cortisol levels in water to show stress, you know, but that's a bit pricey and there's some kind of technical issues, so I tend to stay away from it.
If we're really lacking any protocols at all, we go for what we know are like kind of safe bets, like, you know, growth and, you know, obvious signs of disease, like, you know, fin erosion, like scales missing -- that's clearly not, regardless of the species, that can't be a good indicator of good welfare. Yeah.
Erin McCann 34:28
I want to circle back on an example you had shared earlier that really resonated with me and also ties back to the recent podcast discussion with Doctor Fritha Langford. And that had to do with the issue of lice and the solution in practice is to bring in a cleaner fish. And yet that cleaner fish's welfare may not be part of the conversation or may not be as much of a priority. Whether we're thinking about how you've addressed that particular issue or that type of challenge, where we're essentially widening the lens of animal welfare considerations, how would you go about addressing that, particularly in this case, where many may view that approach as a solution, and the concept of also considering the welfare of that cleaner fish may not have been a priority until your team is involved?
Wasseem Emam 35:25
Yeah, I mean, it's a tricky one. So, the RSPCA in the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which were one of the first to create a welfare standard for salmon, they correctly recognized that cleaner fish are a concern and need to have their welfare considered. They now have some requirements in their standard for how to look after cleaner fish better, and not just -- because actually they were just leaving them to die, they were putting more in and there was absolutely no care at all. But now there's more protocols in place. The good thing about RSPCA is that they, so at least in Scotland, where the scheme is from, or the UK, almost all the farms are certified. So, whenever they come up with something, we know that basically the industry is doing it because they all adhere to their standards. They're kind of like setting a minimum bar where government has failed, unfortunately, because a government's standards are too low or not ambitious enough. And that's where certifiers come in, right? So that's the example of -- I'm thinking of lumpfish in particular, which are the main ones that are used in Scotland.
But, actually, when you were saying that, I was thinking of insects, you know. So, there's a lot of people in the aquaculture industry that think of insects as part of the solution to feed. You know, they're like, oh, I know, we can -- they're used already. Is it called insect meal? I think. I believe the official word is, you know, that they make protein out of them and they add them to fish, fish feed, and we don't know anything about insects. We know even less about them and their welfare and their sentience and all that. So, you know, it's a murky water to get into to start, you know, extending farming to them. So, that was one thing that came to mind when you said that, and of course, there are farms that farm fish to be used for fish meal, not just wild-capture fisheries. So, I was actually thinking about tuna farming. So, one of the projects I've worked on and was quite close to my heart is bluefin tuna. So, or we could talk about all kinds of tuna. But bluefin tuna is particularly fascinating because these are like large, large animals. They migrate across huge distances in the ocean, and they're called the tigers of the sea because they're apex predators. They're very carnivorous, and they used to be wild caught, and it was mostly small industry used for the sashimi trade. But as you know, global appetite for sashimi-grade tuna expanded, and the whole industry grew of farming tuna. It used to be just a catch of juveniles from the wild, and then they fattened them or ranched them or put them in ranches, but now they've actually closed the cycle on that, and they can breed juveniles in captivity.
However, actually, we haven't talked about this at all, but there's all kinds of ethical issues. Like a number of, like, fish that die in these systems is really high. It's very experimental, and you can only really feed tuna, not live, a whole fish. They've tried to create pellets and feed for them, but the solutions so far are not sufficient or good enough, and they rely on, you know, feeding the whole fish. And actually, there are farms that are supplying them, and there's some examples, various examples of that. But, yeah, it's like, doesn't feel like we're really solving the problem by creating more problems, right? And.
Erin McCann 39:34
When you describe this, what I'm hearing is that this example alone is illustrative of so many of the challenges you've been talking about, as well as many of the rationale for why to the earlier podcast discussion with Doctor Elliot Swartz, that industry and other collaborators are now focused on cell-based agriculture. And we can certainly expand that to, say, cell-based aquaculture or cell-based fish -- sea life, because when we think about the challenges, number one, there are efficiency concerns, and to your point, about farming fish for the sake of feeding other farmed fish in and of itself, there are efficiency issues there. When we think about the welfare of all involved. There are certainly illustrative examples of why this is problematic for the bluefin tuna, as well as, presumably, for the fish being fed to the bluefin tuna. And the alternatives, whether small in number or not when we think about wild caught, when we think about your point about the evolution of industry from ranching to farming, all of these are fraught with animal welfare considerations.
So, certainly from the beginning, I know you mentioned that you're not only focused on finfish, that you're also focused on sea life -- whether we think about seaweed or other products, I would certainly welcome any thoughts or feedback you have. When we think about broadening that conversation and we think about alternatives that offer improvements, even if they are in development and not yet a full alternative today, such as cell-based options, it certainly seems directly relevant from what you're describing and we know that there has been at least some interest in investment in that area. But when I'm hearing you walk through all of these issues, that's where my mind is going, is, yes, there are problems being created to solve or attempt to solve this problem, and we have to think about all of these layers when we think about alternatives and solutions.
Wasseem Emam 41:56
Yeah, no, absolutely. And I didn't touch upon it, but I do believe that alternative proteins, which is obviously a big category, it has to be part of the solution. So, like you said, cell-based, you know, there are options already for cell-based seafood that are promising. Tuna, I think, is an easy one, you know, because it's a high-end luxury product. Do we really need to be doing that to these animals? You know, that seems like low-hanging fruit, let's say.
And I was also actually thinking, as you're saying that, that another topic close to my heart is caviar. A lot of people don't talk about caviar, but people don't even know where caviar comes from I think mostly, but it comes from these fish, sturgeon fish, which are like dinosaurs of the sea. They've been around for ages. You know, they're long-lived -- They live for a long time. They're absolutely fascinating animals, and they're just used for, you know, their eggs, which seems, you know, tragic.
And also, it also seems like a really -- there's no argument for food security when it comes to something like, you know, caviar. It's just like, you know, something you put on top, you know, it's a bit like foie gras, you know, which seems really excessive. So I think we could do away with that. And I think that's something that, you know, cell based alternatives are likely to -- there already are some promising advancements there. I think I've seen, I've read something about caviar alternatives. Taste is similar. So I think we can probably you know, just replace that practice altogether.
But also like, not just cell-based meat. I'm thinking of the other one, like -- there's a California company that does a tuna, but actually tastes very similar to tuna, not just like cell culture, but there are alternatives like that, which I think are very promising, especially for high-end products, you know, salmon, tuna, caviar, maybe not realistic in the short term for some of the other animals, but I would personally love to see us make much faster progress towards that.
Erin McCann 44:18
We can make sure that we've got links to any of these products that we want to highlight for listeners included with the podcast. And as a quick summary, I certainly agree. When we think about luxury products, when we think about people's willingness to pay for the products you mentioned and more, there are cell-based options.
There are also some alternatives, whether plant-based. We're looking at other options within the alternative protein category that at least provide some improvements when we think about animal welfare, sustainability and more, and when we think about innovation and improvement, recognizing there is complexity, to your earlier point, about all the different species. And, as you mentioned from the beginning, there are low-hanging fruit.
And one way to think about low-hanging fruit are these very severe animal welfare challenges, severe problems to sustainability and ocean life. And in any of these cases, as someone that wasn't always vegan, I think we can focus on a particular facet of selecting a choice of what to eat. And we may think that we're addressing a problem because one option is more sustainable than another, or we have preconceived notions or some level of information about one trade-off versus another.
What I really appreciate about this conversation is you're illuminating how many layers need to be factored in with any of these different decisions, as well as what we define as improvement and alternatives and how we achieve improvement across these issues and more.
Wasseem Emam 46:09
Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. I was just realizing, by the way, that we haven't even talked about shrimps, you know, which is the food category that affects the most number of animals, of course, it is like trillions, I think, of the numbers of shrimps that are killed each year for food. And I don't really know much about, like alternatives, plant-based alternatives to them that apparently are quite, quite, quite good. But I don't think enough people are talking about that issue, really, you know, and we think of them. I don't say we, but people tend to think of them like insects of the sea or something, but we know that they're sentient and we know that they suffer in the conditions that they're kept in, and the scales are atrocious.
And, even more the, every day you see more reports of, like these, the way they treat the workers in these farms and in the processing plants to peel, like the, these women in India that are peeling these shrimp to make sure that people in the west are getting these peeled shrimp. To me, that's a whole other ethical issue. And, you know, I feel like I don't see it being talked about enough. But another layer of complexity, let's say.
Erin McCann 47:32
Absolutely, when we think about the human side of the conversation. I appreciate that you've mentioned from the beginning that there are so many issues, and we may have greater awareness of some of those human rights challenges or some of those workplace issues in some industries and not others. And I would say from my own vantage point, there's not enough conversation about these issues and more in the food industry and the spaces we're talking about.
And, when we think about the sentient side of the conversation, it applies to insects. It applies to any species.
And I really appreciate the point you made earlier. I want to echo it again, that my interpretation of your comment extends beyond fish -- that we need to assume species are capable of pain, that even if there is lack of evidence today that a particular species experiences pain, or even experiences pain to the degree other species do, that's not a reason to exclude that species from an animal welfare conversation.
There are particular nuances when it comes to prioritization, when it comes to thinking about the species-specific animal welfare lens that we may need to factor in. For instance, an example I talk about often is octopus, incredibly brilliant species, which we have benefited from documentaries and other recent research to help elevate that in many cases is compared to a young child. And that matters when we think about some of the recent advancements, as I see them in the US, in terms of banning things like octopus farming because of the major challenges that those types of farms would raise given how brilliant octopus are, that does matter.
And two things can be true. We also need to make sure that we are not excluding species from the animal welfare conversation, from animal welfare frameworks, simply because they may not have that level of cognitive ability, or there is not that evidence of pain. We need to include all species in those animal welfare considerations, including insects, and including species that are not insects, but make it compared to insects. I really appreciate everything that you've highlighted there.
Wasseem Emam 50:10
Actually, can I intervene? Just because you said about octopus, it really brought -- Obviously, I keep thinking of things we haven't brought up because there are so many different facets of the sector and the industry. I'm very supportive, of course, of all the efforts that people are doing to highlight how brilliant octopus are. But the part for me about farming that I don't get is that -- of course, we shouldn't be farming these animals, I personally believe, but we shouldn't be catching them or eating them anyway. I've been saying all this about caviar, but, like, it's not a food security issue. You know, that's a bit of a delicacy. You know, it seems like one of these really unnecessary things. So practices.
And so some people ask me, like, you know, what can we do to improve the state of, you know, fisheries and aquaculture? And one thing I say is, well, what about these, like, you know, unnecessary practices or, you know, unnecessarily cruel? But also, you know, I just don't see any need for it. You know, the wild capture of octopus is also very brutal and horrible and unsustainable and involves, you know, labor violations and other human issues, too. So even farming aside, I still feel like it's one of these aspects that kind of troubles me, let's say.
Erin McCann 51:34
I'm absolutely with you. I so appreciate you saying that. I always try to preface this conversation acknowledging I am vegan. And I wasn't always vegan, and trying to talk about any positive improvement for the well-being of people, animals, and the planet as being the focus. And I absolutely agree. There are species, there are practices, there are any number of different facets to this conversation that we can have a much broader discussion on. Is this necessary? What is the benefit? And to exactly where you started the conversation, our ethical framework may influence that answer -- whether we're thinking about a utilitarian framework and we're optimizing for the greatest good. I think everything you just said could suggest what is the actual benefit of this practice compared to the costs, both in terms of animal welfare, human rights and well-being, and more?
I really greatly appreciate you mentioning that and just want to further emphasize those points for those listening, because I think we can raise that question with any part of this conversation. And what I really hope listeners take from any conversation about food, including and especially this one, is that we have an opportunity to make choices. If we follow three meals a day, then at least three times a day, that we can not only benefit ourselves, but we can benefit sustainability, the planet and animals. And these questions matter. There's a great reflection and meditation of sorts as we think about choices that we get an opportunity to make multiple times a day.
Wasseem Emam 53:35
That's true. Yeah, absolutely.
Erin McCann 53:39
I'd love to delve into a bit more on a positive success story. So, you've shared some examples of the kind of work that you do and focusing on unconventional solutions. Could you share an example that just resonates with you deeply, that you find a lot of meaning in, where you were able to achieve some measurable improvement for your collaborators?
Wasseem Emam 54:06
Yeah, that's a good question. So I sometimes struggle with the word innovation, you know, but sometimes innovation can be simple things. So, one of our close collaborators and partners is FAI Farms, which is a UK and US-based. What's the word? I mean, they're a consultancy, but they're for profit, but they work with farmers, both chicken, fish, across multiple species to make improvements, and animal welfare is one of the areas close to their heart.
And they developed an app that helps farmers basically assess the welfare of their fish and shrimps and other species, too. But the one I work with them is tilapia in particular. So we are their official implementing partner in Egypt for their tilapia welfare app. And in the beginning, I was a bit skeptical, you know, like, how are farmers going to receive this app? We have some issues with literacy in areas, and now we're asking them to, like, kind of, you know, use these technical solutions.
But actually, it was received really well by many of the people we worked with, and they've wanted to see more features being added, you know, for example, a feed calculator for some of the more advanced or, you know, larger-scale farmers that they can use to make sure their feeding practices are right. And they're even telling us, okay, how can you make this an even better tool, you know, about introducing a feature that tells them about the price of fish that day, which means that they can, you know, economically also benefit from the use of the tool, as opposed to just, you know, seeing it as like, this is something that you should do for the animals, but we always have to pitch in a way that they see the benefit to them as well.
But the app is simple to use, it's user-friendly and doesn't require internet connection, and it's actually also a very good way for them to -- One of the things that they frequently farmers complain about is that the fish are dying. We don't know why they're dying. They call a vet or they call a pharmacist to help them, and they never have a record of just kind of how many fish were dying yesterday or what, you know, weather conditions were like or whatever.
And the app really not forces them, encourages them to keep better records of their practices and what they're finding is that when they have issues, then they can -- whoever's helping them can go, ah, well, obviously this happened some weeks ago and you didn't realize that that's actually what's leading to you having this kind of issue.
And we've been really happy with the uptake among farmers of that tool, and we're still early in that project, but I can see more and more success coming out of that partnership that we've created and working in other countries as well. We hope to replicate that. Yeah, that's something we're very proud of.
Erin McCann 57:19
A great example, really measurable improvement, as you mentioned, immediately demonstratable impact for people and the economics and the record keeping, as well as being able to use that data to improve the care and well-being of the animals.
Wasseem Emam 57:38
Yes. Actually, I was just thinking, because I think earlier you asked me about, like, how we know that we're successful, and I feel like I never actually answered that, but can I take a minute to answer it?
Erin McCann 57:48
Yeah, absolutely.
Wasseem Emam 57:50
So, it is hard. It's a really hard question, especially with things like when you're working with fish farmers. I keep coming back to fish farmers, even though it's not the only thing we do, but it is a lot of what we do. You'll tell them, okay, try changing this practice and they'll expect to see immediate improvements, but sometimes it takes months within a production cycle.
At the end of the cycle, they've actually noticed, oh, well, yeah, we've had less mortalities or disease outbreaks than the previous cycle, or they start doing things differently and the next year they see benefits from having, you know, treated their land a bit better. Let's say, you know, like, left it to dry for longer so that diseases don't prevail -- there are simple practices.
So we go by farmer feedback a lot and we see the more people come to us, we're less having to go to people and more people are coming to us, which means we must be doing something right, you know, because farmers are typically not the easiest bunch to work with in that sense. But then for things like policy work, which is what we're doing, a bit, like I mentioned Zanzibar this year, that's harder to implement. It'll be interesting to see, do people follow the strategy in five years time when it comes to check in? Have things gone according to how we imagined or how do we readjust?
So that'll be a new learning experience for us, but at least for the on the ground stuff, we -- it's a bit of intuition and, you know, also sorry now I was going to say, we have a team on the ground that visits these farms regularly so they can see for themselves. They take measurements, so has water quality improved, are farmers reporting less diseases, and how is overall production? And are people happy? So that's what I would have added earlier.