FISH

What Does Soy Have to Do

with Fish?
Fact Sheet • August 2010

M ore than half of our global seafood supply comes from aquaculture, also known
as fish farming. This practice requires large amounts of manufactured fish food
to feed the captive fish. Fish food is often made with small wild fish that have been
ground into a fishmeal or pressed into oil. Normally, fish farms produce fewer fish
than the farm consumes (to feed the fish). The industry has faced intense criticism
for inefficient use of small wild fish that are an important food source for larger fish,
marine mammals and birds in the wild, and are often the primary protein in diets
of smaller and lower income coastal communities worldwide. Because of this, and
because fishmeal and oil have become increasingly costly, the industry is exploring
alternative feed ingredients.

Soy meal is the most popular replacement for wild fish in

aquaculture feed, and some aquaculturists have boasted
that soy will allow for a more sustainable form of fish
farming. However, feeding soy to typically carnivorous fish
comes with a new set of environmental, social and human
health problems.

Increased Soy Demand Impacts Latin

America
Soy has become a prevalent ingredient in many processed
foods and livestock feed, leading to a growing demand for
soy from China and the United States. In response, many
countries in Latin America — including Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — are increasing soybean
cultivation. Brazil’s soy industry, for instance, has a growth
rate of 3.2 percent per year.1 This industry seriously threat-
ens tropical biodiversity, causes soil erosion and promotes
significant deforestation, affecting the Atlantic forest in
Paraguay and the Amazonian rainforest in Brazil. Since the
mid-1990s, Brazil has built eight new industrial waterways,
three railway lines and numerous new roads to meet the Ninety-one percent of soy produced in the United States is
needs of the soybean industry.2 genetically modified.12 Worldwide, genetically modified soy
accounts for over 75 percent of all soy production.13 GMOs
Soy production has also harmed local communities. Even (genetically modified organisms) are the result of crossing traits
with subsidies, only corporations and large agribusinesses from one type of plant to another, which may expose people
to harmful allergens.14 For example, consumers may have a
can afford the capital needed for machinery and other
severe — possibly fatal — reaction to a soybean with genes
start-up soy farming costs. Because large-scale soy culti- taken from a peanut plant.
vation is highly mechanized, these farms do not provide
meaningful employment opportunities. Local farmers who
had previously planted diverse crops are not likely to find
work in the new monoculture system. In fact, for every
agricultural worker finding employment in the new soy
production system in Brazil, 11 are displaced.3 The intense
production of soy also leads to increases in local food
prices because land that once produced food crops is now
used to grow soy for export.
Other disturbing practices often surround the development
of soy farms, including the displacement of indigenous
people from their homes in the rainforest.
Fish, Soy and Human Health
Consuming significant amounts of soy may also be harmful
to human health due to chemicals compounds naturally
found in soy. Seventy-five percent of all processed foods
contain soy4 and soybean oil accounts for 10 percent of
total calories consumed in the United States.5 Health advo-
cacy groups have challenged the touted health benefits of
soy, saying that it can lead to certain cancers, lowered tes-
tosterone levels and early-onset puberty in girls.6 Using soy
in aquaculture feed while this challenge remains unsettled
by the scientific community is problematic and unneces-
sarily increases soy in our diets.
Fish do not naturally eat soy. It is a land-based protein not
found in the aquatic environment. Fish that are fed an un-
natural soy diet may be lower in omega-3s than their wild
counterparts, and thus may not be as healthful for con-
sumption.7
Effects of Soy on the Aquatic Environment
In open-water or offshore aquaculture, uneaten fish feed
flows directly into the water. There is a lack of research on
the implications of introducing soy — a terrestrial plant
— into open waters. Soy is high in phytoestrogens — es-
trogen-like chemicals produced by plants. Studies have in-
dicated that estrogen may have a damaging effect on wild
fish populations by impacting their ability to reproduce.8
Alternatives to Fishmeal and Soy
There are promising alternatives to fishmeal that can
provide the proper nutrients for fish without the problems
that come with soy. Freeze-dried worm meal can provide
a high-protein option that is environmentally sustainable,
even on a large-scale.9 Studies have shown that worm meal
can replace up to 36 percent of fishmeal in aquaculture
feed while maintaining a similar fish growth rate.10 Algae
could be another viable alternative to fishmeal because it
requires only sunlight and carbon dioxide, making it easy
to grow in a variety of environments. In addition to other
nutrients, algae also have the same heart-healthy, omega-3
fatty acids as wild fish that are used in aquaculture feed.11
Conclusion
Given the detrimental effects of soy production on the
environment and various communities, and the uncertain
long-term effects of further integrating soy into so many
aspects of the human diet, the aquaculture industry cannot
depend on soy as a long-term sustainable substitute for
using fishmeal in feed for farmed fish. Scientists should ex-
plore the alternatives above and continue to develop other
innovative solutions.  
Carnivorous fish exhibit significantly less growth when fed with
soy15 than with fishmeal because phytic acid, naturally found in
soy, prevents them from fully digesting the nutrients.16 Carnivo-
rous fish fed a soy-based diet are also deficient in omega-3
fatty acids, which are known to help prevent cardiovascular
disease and certain cancers.17
Endnotes
1 Altieri, Migueal A., GM Soya Disaster in Latina America, ISIS Report (2005).
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php
2 Ibid.
3 Fearnside, Philip M., Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in
Brazil, Environmental Conservation Vol. 28 (1): pg 24.
4 Lohan, Tara. “The War on Soy: Why the ‘Miracle Food’ May be a Health Risk
and Environmental Nightmare.” November 21, 2009. <http://www.alternet.
org/water/144074/the_war_on_soy:_why_the_&#39;miracle_food&#39;_may_
be_a_health_risk_and_environmental_nightmare>
5 Gupta, Sanjay. “If we are what we eat, Americans are corn and soy.” CNN
Health. <http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/22/kd.gupta.
column/index.html>
6 Lohan, Tara. “The War on Soy: Why the ‘Miracle Food’ May be a Health Risk
and Environmental Nightmare.” November 21, 2009. <http://www.alternet.
org/water/144074/the_war_on_soy:_why_the_&#39;miracle_food&#39;_may_
be_a_health_risk_and_environmental_nightmare>
7 Li, Menghe H., et al. Effects of Dried Algae Schizochytrium sp., a Rich Source
of Docosahexaenoic Acid on Growth, Fatty Acid Composition, and Sensory
Quality of Channel Catfish Ictalurus Punctatus. Aquaculture 292 (2009) 232-
236.
8 Kidd, Karen. Freshwater Institute, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. “Effects of
Synthetic Estrogen on Aquatic Population: A Whole Ecosystem Study.”
9 Nandeesha, M.C., et al. Influence of Earthworm Meal on the Growth and
Flesh Quality of Common Carp. Biological Wastes 26 (1988) 189-198.
10 Ibid.
11 Li, Menghe H., et al. Effects of Dried Algae Schizochytrium sp., a Rich Source
of Docosahexaenoic Acid on Growth, Fatty Acid Composition, and Sensory
Quality of Channel Catfish Ictalurus Punctatus. Aquaculture 292 (2009) 232-
236.
12 ISAAA. 2008 at Table 1 of Executive Summary
13 GMO Compass. <http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri _biotechnology/gmo_
planting/ 342. genetically_modified_soybean_global_area_under_cultivation.
html> Accessed July 9, 2010.
14 Food & Water Watch. The Bad Seeds: The Broken Promises of Agricultural
Biotechnology. (2009).
15 Gabriel, U.U., et al.  The Role of Dietary Phytase in Formulation of Least Cost
and Less Polluting Fish Feed for Sustainable Aquaculture Development in
Nigeria.  African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 2(7), pp279-286 (2007).
16 Ibid.
17 The American Heart Association. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.
jhtml?identifier=4632, 2009.  Referenced November, 2009.
For more information:
web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
email: info@fwwatch.org
phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA)
Copyright © August 2010 Food & Water Watch