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 farmed shrimp. 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
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This is a linkpost for a new paper called Preparing for the Intelligence Explosion, by Will MacAskill and Fin Moorhouse. It sets the high-level agenda for the sort of work that Forethought is likely to focus on. Some of the areas in the paper that we expect to be of most interest to EA Forum or LessWrong readers are: * Section 3 finds that even without a software feedback loop (i.e. “recursive self-improvement”), even if scaling of compute completely stops in the near term, and even if the rate of algorithmic efficiency improvements slow, then we should still expect very rapid technological development — e.g. a century’s worth of progress in a decade — once AI meaningfully substitutes for human researchers. * A presentation, in section 4, of the sheer range of challenges that an intelligence explosion would pose, going well beyond the “standard” focuses of AI takeover risk and biorisk. * Discussion, in section 5, of when we can and can’t use the strategy of just waiting until we have aligned superintelligence and relying on it to solve some problem. * An overview, in section 6, of what we can do, today, to prepare for this range of challenges.  Here’s the abstract: > AI that can accelerate research could drive a century of technological progress over just a few years. During such a period, new technological or political developments will raise consequential and hard-to-reverse decisions, in rapid succession. We call these developments grand challenges.  > > These challenges include new weapons of mass destruction, AI-enabled autocracies, races to grab offworld resources, and digital beings worthy of moral consideration, as well as opportunities to dramatically improve quality of life and collective decision-making. > > We argue that these challenges cannot always be delegated to future AI systems, and suggest things we can do today to meaningfully improve our prospects. AGI preparedness is therefore not just about ensuring that advanced AI systems are alig