Hide table of contents

Who this report is for and how to access it

Only a handful of animal advocacy organizations have programs aimed specifically at preventing the exploitation of farmed shrimp. We wrote this report to provide practical guidance about how to help shrimp on farms. This public summary provides an overview of the current state of shrimp farming and potential paths forward. For a deeper dive, the full 70+ page report offers concrete, strategic recommendations and more detailed insights. The full report will be most useful for animal advocacy groups, funders, and those interested in how best to help shrimp. If you would like access to the full report, please complete this Google form.

Summary

  • Shrimp aquaculture can be bad for animals, humans, and the environment
    • At any given time, shrimp are the most numerous farmed animal (Figure 1)
Figure 1: Estimated numbers of farmed shrimp, insects, fishes, and chickens alive on farms at any time. Data from Waldhorn and Autric (2023)
  • Animals like fish are caught and farmed to feed farmed shrimp, increasing the negative welfare effects of shrimp farming
  • Farmed insects could also become an important shrimp feed
  • The shrimp farming industry contributes to carbon emissions, antimicrobial resistance, food safety, and human labor and rights issues
  • Production and consumption are concentrated in a handful of countries
    • China, Ecuador, Viet Nam, India and Indonesia are top producer countries
    • China is also a top importer, alongside the US, Japan, Spain, and France
  • Demand for shrimp is increasing
    • As the world population grows, so will shrimp consumption
    • Economic growth also correlates with increased shrimp consumption (Figure 2)
Figure 2: Per capita shrimp supply vs per capita GDP. Shrimp supply includes farmed and wild-caught shrimp. Note both axes are logarithmic. Supply data from own analysis of FAO (2024) data for 2022, and GDP data from Our World in Data’s analysis of seafood consumption and GDP.
  • To meet demand, the industry is adopting more intensive practices
    • Intensive farms use higher stocking densities, presenting new welfare threats
    • Because the most intensive farms can be located inland and in greenhouses, farms could open in new countries that are otherwise too cold for aquaculture
  • Vegan or diet-change advocacy on only environmental grounds could harm shrimp welfare in the long-term by causing people to shift from eating larger-bodied animals, like cattle, to eating shrimp, which would increase the overall number of farmed animals

Shrimp advocacy: current state, opportunities, and bottlenecks

  • In the past few years, a handful of organizations have worked to reduce shrimp suffering
    • Policy advocacy led to the inclusion of decapod crustaceans in the UK Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which legally recognized them as sentient
    • Retailer outreach has gained traction in the UK and Netherlands, indicating that companies are increasingly aware of growing public concern for crustacean welfare
      • At least six retailers in the UK and Netherlands have implemented some of the world’s first crustacean welfare policies
      • For shrimp, all of these policies commit to eliminating eyestalk ablation and half also plan to improve slaughter practices by electrically stunning all shrimp in their supply chains
    • Groups are working with producers to improve their practices, resulting in several agreements to electrically stun shrimp prior to slaughter, protocols to measure on-farm welfare, and training for farmers to monitor and improve their pond conditions
    • Some welfare standards are now included in certification schemes, with several prohibiting eyestalk ablation
  • More progress can be made. Advocates could work to:
    • Add shrimp welfare provisions, such as banning eyestalk ablation and enforcing humane slaughter, to aquaculture certification schemes (similar to certifying eggs as "free-range")
    • Encourage more retailers, especially in countries that import a lot of shrimp, to source from higher-welfare farms (similar to movement-wide efforts on cage-free eggs)—for now, this means farms that do not source from eyestalk-ablated broodstock and that humanely slaughter shrimp
    • Advocate for shrimp to be protected under animal welfare legislation—only a handful of countries have any mention of decapod crustaceans in animal welfare protections, and even fewer specifically apply to shrimp
    • Develop alternative foods that taste like shrimp to help reduce demand for farmed shrimp
  • To meaningfully help farmed shrimp, key bottlenecks need to be overcome:
    • A small scientific evidence base about shrimp’s needs means several questions remain unanswered, like what level of crowding impedes their welfare and what temperatures and enrichments they prefer
    • The biggest constraint to improving farmed shrimp lives right now is funding for the movement. Supporting shrimp work right now could provide much-needed stability to this nascent work and significantly increase the chances of the movement gaining critical momentum
      • We believe that supporting shrimp welfare is currently one of the largest opportunities for animal funders to have the greatest marginal impact
    • Despite these constraints, many options for helping shrimp remain on the table. Advocates and funders should apply the precautionary principle and act on existing evidence to help shrimp sooner rather than later.

If you would like to access the full report, which includes concrete recommendations, please request access using this Google form. Requests will usually be evaluated within 24 hours.

If you have any questions or would like further clarification on specific points, please feel free to reach out to hannah@rethinkpriorities.org. Additionally, if you're interested in a private presentation tailored to your organization, please let us know by indicating your interest here.

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
  • Animals like fish are caught and farmed to feed farmed shrimp, increasing the negative welfare effects of shrimp farming

(...)

  • Develop alternative foods that taste like shrimp to help reduce demand for farmed shrimp

FWIW, given the moral ambiguity of fishing, the catch of wild animals for (shrimp) feed could be good overall for wild (aquatic) animals, instead of bad.

This and the effects of shrimp feed (crop) production on terrestrial wild animals make me somewhat inclined not to try to shift shrimp consumption towards plant-based food (substitutes or general reduction). My best guess is that crop production tends to decrease wild arthropod populations (Attwood et al., 2008, tables 3 and 4; Newbold et al., 2015), and animal products tend to decrease wild terrestrial arthropod populations more than plant-based products due to greater land use for crops per calorie or kg of protein (e.g. Our World in Data, based on Poore & Nemecek, 2018), so shifting towards plant-based would be bad for wild terrestrial arthropods, if they have bad lives or you're suffering-focused.

However, farmed shrimp/prawns may use less land than plant-based foods per gram of protein, so maybe shifting away from them would be good by reducing wild terrestrial arthropod populations, too. This is something I'd like to look more into. I imagine land use for shrimp/prawns is only so low according to these estimates because they're assuming a high rate of wild aquatic ingredients (whose impacts are morally ambiguous!). You probably can't get lower land use than tofu per kg of protein by feeding shrimp almost entirely soy and grains, because of higher losses in feed conversion than in soy processing into tofu (and tofu having similar or less land use than other feed ingredients per kg of protein).

Thanks for sharing.

If you would like access to the full report, please complete this Google form.

I would be curious to know why you have decided to keep the full report private. Such that you keep track of who uses it, thus helping you assess its impact?

Hello.

Does this include wild shrimp?

Nitpick. I think it would be good to include "Logarithm of" in the titles of the axes, or just keep the titles you used, but display values in kg and $ instead of their logarithms, and have the axes in a logarithmic instead of linear scale.

Hi Vasco,

This graph does include wild shrimp. I've made the change to the axes you suggested and updated the figure caption to note that wild shrimp are included. Thanks for your suggestions!

Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o