Pain In Fish: Should We Care?

Whether or not the fish that ends up on our plates has experienced pain and suffering in its last moments of life is a concern among some consumers. As science is developing, the welfare of all animals – including fish – is increasingly in focus. How a fish was caught, how it was handled when pulled onboard, and what method was used to kill it are potential questions the industry could be faced with by customers and NGOs alike in the future. With other issues such as sustainability having seen immense growth on the global market in the last few years, will pain in fish become the new worry of both shoppers and companies? Or is it a concern that will remain with only a small group of animal activists?

Thanks to the daily evolution of science, we are learning more and more about the wellbeing of creatures living underneath the ocean surface. While it was previously widely thought that fish did not feel pain in the same way as other animals, or humans, new research is suggesting otherwise. “We have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do,” said evolutionary biologist and ethologist, Richard Dawkins.

Despite this, some scientists are still convinced that fish do not feel pain the way humans do. An international research team consisting of neurobiologists, behavioral ecologists and fishery scientists conducted studies where they revealed that fish do not have the neurophysiological capacity for a conscious awareness of pain. Other experts however argue that fish lack a type of fiber that is present in the bodies of mammals, which is known to be involved in the sensation of pain. Additionally, fish do not have a part of the brain called the neocortex, which is also linked to feelings of pain in mammals. Philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers for example eats both fish and chicken, but not other types of meat, as he believes that cows and pigs have a more complex consciousness.

Although Chalmers avoids only certain types of meat, there is an increasing trend of veganism among consumers. Not only are there people who choose to cut red meat out of their diets – fish, eggs and dairy are also basic household food ingredients that some are increasingly avoiding. There are several reasons why one would decide to be either vegetarian or vegan, but many follow this lifestyle because of the moral issue of breeding and killing animals for consumption, and the suffering that can come with it. While some do not choose to cut out eggs entirely, for instance, they may choose to purchase only free range eggs, due to concerns about the welfare of the chicken. In the UK, the annual production of free range eggs doubled between 2006 and 2016 –hinting at a general growing notion of animal wellbeing.

Conflicting opinions on the topic show that pain in fish is a disputed issue, which is difficult to get any concrete answers to. When it comes to tuna, research on pain has mostly been conducted within the European aquaculture sector. EU regulations protect farm animals, including fish, at the time of death by requiring member states to guarantee that owners “take reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals under their care and to ensure that those animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury”. According to a European food safety scientific report from 2009 on the slaughtering and killing of tunas, the fish do feel severe pain and distress, but this varies depending on what methods are being used.

In 2009, the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, issued a report on the stunning and killing, as well as pre-slaughter handling, of farmed Atlantic bluefin in the EU.

According to the report there are three methods used in tuna farming; underwater shooting with a shotgun, shooting a shotgun from the surface, and spiking. Based on the assessment, underwater shooting caused fewer welfare problems for bigger fish, compared to shooting from the surface, as surface shooting often means the fish will have to be shot more than once.

When it comes to smaller fish, spiking was the best option. However, pulling the tuna out of the water before the slaughtering led to poor welfare and involved severe pain and distress, with the authors noting this practice needs to be improved. “The opportunity to develop new methods for slaughtering tuna is considerable and should be encouraged,” they say.

“Many existing commercial killing methods expose fish to substantial suffering over a prolonged period of time.” Furthermore, “for many species, there is not a commercially acceptable method that can kill fish humanely,” according to the EFSA.

The EFSA also notes that “different species of fish react differently to similar situations.”

“It would be as unreasonable to assume that a process developed for killing trout in freshwater would be suitable for killing tuna in the sea as it would be to assume that a system developed for quail would be effective on ostriches.”

According to Eurogroup for Animals, an organization that seeks to improve the treatment of animals throughout the EU, fish are capable of feeling fear and pain just as any other animal is. Douglas Waley, Leader of the group’s Fish Welfare Program tells Atuna there are currently no regulations in place that ensure the welfare of fish in wild fisheries.

When it comes to fishing, Waley points to more artisanal fishing methods such as handline as practices that cause less pain. Although he acknowledges that the hooks used to catch the fish do cause agony, it is often an efficient process when the fish is hauled onboard, as it is then spiked and killed instantly. As for purse seining, a large volume of tuna are crowded together in the same net, which can cause them to be squashed and bruised, and their tales and fins to be damaged.

The majority of the suffering, however, occurs when the fish is hauled onboard, says Waley. There are different ways to slaughter fish, ranging from suffocation to electrical stunning. He says it is important to conduct research to find the least painful technique for killing fish, however emphasizing that instant killing is the best way to go.

If the industry would want to avoid causing suffering to tunas, it would mean significant restructuring and change to the purse seine fishing technique, which is responsible for the majority of global tuna catches. While efforts have been taken in some more small scale fisheries, where for example electrical stunning has been trialed, the implementation of more humane methods are tougher to enforce in net fisheries. Instantly killing the fish is difficult, as a large amount of fish is caught at the same time. But do the people that purchase canned skipjack or yellowfin, the species most commonly caught by purse seine, care about this issue?

Atuna contacted a major European-based canned tuna company, and was told that not once has it encountered a question from a consumer about the suffering or pain experienced by the fish in their tuna can.

Although this source claims suffering is not a concern for canned tuna consumers at this stage, it is becoming a more widely covered topic both in the media and in the scientific field. Waley however states that there is a long way to go before people start eating less fish as a response. He says that people tend to identify less with fish and their behaviors compared to other animals, and therefore some vegetarians do not eat meat, but do eat fish. They do not have the same moral obligations towards fish and seafood, as they would to for example a cow. “The uglier the fish, the less they care,” he says.

As well as the moral aspect of the cause, limiting pain in fish during catching and slaughtering can also enhance the quality of the meat. A tuna being slaughtered immediately after it is caught better ensures the taste of its meat. Spiking the fish right after it is brought onboard is a common practice in bluefin fisheries, of which most catch goes to the sashimi market in Japan. The technique used by the Japanese is called Ikejime, and entails a metal rod being spiked down the brain and the spine of the fish to paralyze and kill it instantly.

Eating raw tuna, in the form of sushi and sashimi, compared to cooked tuna, such as in a can, better reveals how the fish was treated in its last moments of life. When a fish dies of suffocation, or struggles on a hook for a long period of time, lactic acid accumulates due to the stress, and this can be tasted in the fish when consumed uncooked. Tuna with a high amount of this acid, known as “yake” in Japanese, looks almost burnt.

In the traditional Spanish bluefin trap fisheries, known as Almadraba, the catching practice was known for being especially violent. However, changes have been made to this method in recent years. The previous practice entailed lifting up the horizontal net laying below the tunas to get all of the catch out in one time, and they died a slow death of suffocation. New techniques have however now been developed, and the bluefin is now either shot or spiked, one by one, and instantly killed while still in the water. This method, which leads to a quick death, minimizes suffering. While pain has been limited as a result of these alterations, the main motivation behind the shift was to maintain the quality of the meat, inspired by the Japanese and the Ikejime method, and not a concern for fish welfare.

The bluefin caught in Japan and in the Spanish Almadraba fisheries is mostly meant for the sashimi market, where quality is of upmost importance. Purse seine caught yellowfin and skipjack is however mostly used for canning, and canning-grade tuna does not have to follow the same standards as it will not be consumed raw, and is cooked before reaching the market.

Apprehension about pain in fish might be limited to animal activists and vegans for now, and changes to fishing methods are mostly done to ensure better quality of the meat. However, fish welfare could one day be on the horizon as one of the next concerns consumers have when purchasing their seafood. Suffering in animals is one common factor for people that choose to cut meat, fish, dairy and eggs out of their diets. And veganism is on the rise. Brands and retailers are continuously bringing new ‘meatless meat’ products to the market to cater to the increasing demand for plant based foods. And companies are developing tuna that contains no fish, such as Ocean Hugger Foods’ tomato based tuna sashimi, which is being sold at Whole Foods.

However, the health benefits of eating fish, and the need of it for populations around the world can be argued to far outweigh the concern that fish feel pain. Fish such as tuna are a crucial source of a long list of nutrients, like omega-3, protein and vitamin D. The importance of fish as a protein source is especially prominent in third world countries, where access to other forms of protein can be scarce.

Whether fish feel pain or not is a disputed topic. While some consumers such as vegans can see the suffering of tuna as a reason not to buy the product, the popularity of canned tuna does not indicate that all customers have this concern in mind. Although some efforts have been taken in fisheries to kill fish instantly and hence minimize suffering, the reasoning behind this practice seems to be much more motivated by enhanced quality, and fetching higher prices at the market. When it comes to the main commercial fisheries however, practices to lessen pain are not yet being developed. While the growth of veganism and animal welfare regulations can lead to such measures having to be taken in the future, consumer demand is not calling for this to change just yet.