The Global Fish Trade Is Quietly Starving the Poorest Nations of Essential Nutrients

While aquaculture could theoretically feed billions with essential nutrients like vitamin B12 and iron, current global trade patterns are sending these vital resources away from the countries that need them most. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined how aquaculture production and trade flows between 2015 and 2019 affect nutritional equity across vulnerable nations, revealing a troubling disconnect between where nutrients are produced and where they end up.

How Much Nutritional Potential Does Aquaculture Actually Have?

The numbers are staggering. Researchers analyzing data from over 2,800 aquatic species and more than two million trade transactions found that global aquaculture production provided enough nutrients annually to theoretically meet the needs of approximately 347 million people across all 14 nutrients studied. For specific nutrients like vitamin B12, the potential was even more dramatic—production could theoretically meet the needs of up to 2.7 billion individuals.

Aquaculture now accounts for approximately 42% of global aquatic animal food production by edible weight, and global seafood consumption has increased twofold over the last 50 years. Fish and other aquatic foods provide essential micronutrients including:

• Vitamin B12: Critical for child development and cognitive function, yet frequently exported from vulnerable countries to wealthy nations
• Iron: Essential for preventing anemia and supporting energy levels, though trade patterns show more balanced flows than other nutrients
• Zinc, iodine, and folate: Vital minerals and vitamins that support immune function, thyroid health, and fetal development
• Selenium, niacin, and vitamin A: Micronutrients that support metabolism, vision, and overall cellular health

Why Are Nutrients Flowing Away From Countries That Need Them Most?

Here's where the story takes a troubling turn. The researchers discovered that approximately 76.8% of aquaculture-produced nutrients were retained within producer countries—which sounds good until you examine who those producers are and where their exports go.

The real problem lies in fishmeal trade. Between 2015 and 2019, 62.9% of fishmeal production was traded internationally, compared with only 14.9% of farmed fish. This matters because fishmeal—made from wild-caught fish—is used to feed farmed fish in aquaculture operations. The result is a nutrient extraction pipeline: wild fish that could feed vulnerable populations are instead converted into animal feed to grow farmed fish that get exported to wealthier nations.

The data reveals a stark pattern: countries with lower nutritional vulnerability—like the United States, Japan, and France—gained the equivalent of millions of individuals' annual nutrient needs through trade. Meanwhile, Peru, Chile, and Norway experienced significant net nutrient losses. Most troublingly, approximately 57.7% of traded fishmeal nutrients and 66.3% of traded farmed fish nutrients were exported from countries with high or very high rates of inadequate nutrient intake.

What Would Happen If We Repurposed Fish for Direct Human Consumption?

The researchers modeled a hypothetical scenario: what if wild fish currently used for fishmeal were instead made available for direct human consumption? The answer is sobering. If fish used for fishmeal were repurposed, they could meet the annual nutrient needs of 31 million people globally. Retaining exported farmed fish domestically could meet nutrient needs for about 36 million people, revealing a fundamental trade-off between using fish for animal feed to support aquaculture growth and delivering direct nutritional benefits to vulnerable regions.

In some regions, the potential impact would be transformative. Small-island nations including Tuvalu, Seychelles, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Kiribati, along with countries like Peru, Iceland, and Denmark, could nearly eliminate inadequate nutrient intake by repurposing fishmeal inputs domestically. Small-island, South American, and West African regions were highlighted as particularly likely to benefit from alternative trade strategies.

The vitamin B12 trade pattern illustrates the inequity most clearly. This nutrient, which is essential for preventing developmental delays in children and has significant public health implications, was frequently exported from highly vulnerable countries to nutritionally secure nations. The iron trade via fishmeal appeared somewhat more balanced, with both exporting and importing countries often experiencing high iron-deficiency rates, yet final farmed fish products still often ended up in relatively more secure countries.

The study's authors emphasize that these estimates are conservative. Their calculations focused only on edible muscle tissue and didn't account for variations in how efficiently different populations absorb nutrients or how dietary substitution effects might play out in real-world scenarios. Still, the core finding remains: aquaculture holds tremendous potential to combat global micronutrient deficiencies, yet current trade patterns often shift nutrients away from the populations that need them most.