Lice-cense or just Nonsense
On 28 May, the Norwegian firm AquaCon announced plans to build a $300 million land-based salmon farm on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay, with ambitions to invest almost $1 billion in three salmon farms on the Delmarva Peninsula by 2027.
At first glance, moving salmon farming onto land may appear to be a meaningful step forward. Land-based systems are often presented as an answer to some of the most troubling aspects of open-net aquaculture: disease outbreaks, sea pollution, and the escape of diseased farmed fish into wild populations. Yet the deeper question remains unchanged. Is this progress, or simply a more sophisticated way of preserving an already broken model?
There is growing concern around the ethics, health implications and environmental costs of intensive salmon farming. Once disease enters a confined system, the consequences can be catastrophic, often resulting in the deaths of vast numbers of fish and major financial losses. In open-net systems, escaped farmed salmon may also mix with wild populations, potentially spreading disease and adding pressure to already fragile ecosystems.
Scottish investigative journalist Rob Edwards, writing for The Ferret, reported that mortality levels in conventional salmon farms had reached record highs. According to his analysis of official figures, more than 25,770 metric tonnes of caged salmon died prematurely in 2019, equivalent to well over ten million fish. He also noted that mortality rose from 3.1% of the annual harvest in 2002 to 13.5% in 2019.
Here is what he revealed a few days ago:
“The amount of salmon killed by diseases and other problems at [conventional] fish farms has reached record levels, with death rates quadrupling over the last 18 years, according to an analysis of official figures... More than 25,770 metric tons of caged salmon died prematurely in 2019, higher than in any previous year. That equates to over ten million fish.”
He continues: “The analysis also reveals that the mortality rate at fish farms has risen faster than salmon production over the years... In 2019, 13.5% of the annual harvest died prematurely, compared to 3.1% in 2002.”
“The main causes of deaths are said to have been viral, bacterial and fungal infections, along with algal blooms, and “treatment losses” from mistakes with chemicals or de-licing machines... Estimates of the number of fish who died stopped being routinely published in 2013 after the industry complained the information was commercially damaging. But based on previous years, 25,772 metric tons could represent between 10 and 20 million fish deaths, depending on their size.”
“13.5% of the annual harvest died prematurely... That equates to over ten million fish.”
Those figures raise uncomfortable questions about the industry’s operating model. When losses on that scale become normalised, the issue is no longer one of isolated error. It points to a system in which overcrowding, disease pressure and industrial methods are being treated as acceptable costs of doing business.
Supporters of land-based salmon farming argue that new facilities can reduce many of these problems. AquaCon has stated that 99.994% of the operation’s water would be reused, that microbes would remove dissolved waste, and that solid waste would be converted into fuel-grade methane. From a technological perspective, that may sound impressive. But it does not automatically resolve the wider ethical and ecological questions surrounding intensive fish production.
One of the industry’s most disturbing practices is the use of so-called cleaner fish to manage lice in sea pens. These fish are introduced into an artificial environment, transported across regions, and expected to survive under conditions that are often deeply stressful and biologically unnatural. Many do not. Estimates suggest that millions of cleaner fish die in the process each year.
On average, 40% of the cleaner fish released in farms die — estimated to be around 24 million cleaner fish (2018), although the real figure is probably much higher.
“Cleaner fish do not make a cleaner industry.”
The problem extends beyond fish welfare alone. Fish farming also places pressure on marine food chains through the use of wild fish in feed. Although feed formulations have changed over time, the basic contradiction remains: large quantities of marine resources are used to produce farmed fish that are then marketed as a sustainable choice.
There are also nutritional questions worth considering. Farmed salmon differs markedly from wild salmon in fat composition, texture and overall quality. Wild salmon typically has a firmer flesh structure and a naturally richer omega-3 profile, while farmed salmon tends to contain more unhealthy fat overall. Appearance, too, has become part of the illusion, with synthetic pigmentation used to achieve the colour consumers expect.
This is where the issue moves beyond aquaculture and into the wider food system. The same industrial logic appears again and again: produce more, grow faster, standardise appearance, minimise loss, and protect margins at every stage. The result is not only compromised animal welfare, but a system increasingly detached from ecological reality.
Wild salmon, a rich, tightly-packed meat structure rich in omega-3 fatty acids.
Farm salmon, dyed meat (still barely pink, and often appearing grey in stores), more prominent layers of unhealthy fat (from an obese, stressed and sick animal).
What can we do?
Plans from the Norwegian firm AquaCon may sound noble but they will not do anything to rectify the problem plaguing a poorly-regulated industry, and will still contribute to worldwide problems. In conventional fishing, too many fish are collected from the seas and yet many will never make it to fish markets, instead they are thrown back (dead) because they are not of the right size, age, or species. And we wonder why the sea is emptied of fish at an increasing pace each year.
So what can consumers do? First, question the assumption that farmed fish is automatically the responsible option. Second, support producers and retailers that prioritise genuinely sustainable methods. Third, recognise that purchasing choices still shape markets. Supermarkets and large-scale supply chains respond when enough people decide they no longer accept poor quality, waste and suffering as the hidden cost of convenience.
For now, wild sockeye salmon remains one of the more distinct alternatives for those who choose to eat salmon, partly because of its size and natural diet; it feeds exclusively on plankton and doesn't grow as big and as old. But the larger point is not about finding a perfect product. It is about asking harder questions of an industry that has become far too comfortable presenting efficiency as progress.