70% of the salmon consumed is farmed. These farms generate dreadful social, economic and environmental impacts.
Why?
Open net salmon farms are ocean feedlots, where millions of fish are confined in floating cages, treated with chemicals and antibiotics, while their waste, parasites, and pollutants flow directly into the sea.
These farms destroy marine ecosystems, threaten wildlife and coastal livelihoods, and expand into new regions under the false label of “sustainable seafood.” Behind this global industry lies a deep power imbalance that deepens global inequalities. It depletes coastal ecosystems in the Global South to produce a luxury product for the Global North. While local communities face it with scarce resources, corporations invest millions to control the narrative.
The concentration of organic waste + the feed that is not consumed + the faeces + floating plastic waste + chemicals + nets + sunken structures = dead zones.
Impacts
Since salmon farming affects its surrounding and whole ecosystems, it is impossible for it not to affect the local communities and economies, as well.
Local communities and economies
Salmon farms are usually placed along cold-water coastlines. They are typically the same places where local fisheries operate.This affects them in two different ways: on the one hand, they occupy the space where the local fisheries could circulate, and on the other hand, they pollute those traditional fishing grounds, spread viruses and parasites to wild fish, and threaten livelihoods. Hydrogen peroxide, for instance, is used to control sea lice and is toxic for krill (*), a staple for wild salmon and whales found in the south. It can also harm juvenile salmon.
It is worth mentioning that the salmon produced in those cages is mainly for exports. If the local fish is scarce, it affects not only the fisheries, but everyone who relies on them: the local communities in general, and also the local restaurants and gastronomy, which in many cases are one of the main tourist activities.
Tourism is also affected in other ways: who would want to visit a once pristine place, which is now plagued with cages?
Apart from an economic perspective, it also has patrimonial and cultural impacts:
In places like Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania, salmon farming has depleted oxygen levels so severely that it pushed the endangered Maugean skate to the brink of extinction, an animal that has survived since the dinosaur era. In Chile and Canada, farms often operate on Indigenous territories without proper consent, affecting local rights, food sovereignty, and economies.
Feed
Salmon farming relies heavily on fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) made from small pelagic fish such as sardines, largely sourced from West Africa and Latin America. These species are essential to the diets of millions, so diverting them to feed salmon deprives coastal communities of affordable protein, deepens food insecurity, and places additional pressure on already overfished stocks. Greenpeace Africa estimates that the fish currently used to supply fish oil for Norwegian salmon farms could instead meet the annual nutritional needs of up to 4 million people — a stark illustration of what is being taken from local communities. According to the FAO, 22% of the world’s wild fish catch is processed into FMFO, and producing just 1 kg of farmed salmon can require up to 6 kg of wild fish. The scale of extraction has surged: FMFO factories in West Africa have jumped from 5 to 49 in the past decade, and as highlighted in
FoodRise’s Blue Empire report, the region has become a major sourcing hub for the industry, placing immense strain on vital fish stocks at a time when hunger is rising across sub-Saharan Africa.
Ultimately, although the capital driving salmon farming comes from the Global North, its social and environmental costs fall disproportionately on the Global South.
Jobs
Job conditions are even more appalling. In Chile, there have been 83 deaths during the last 12 years.
Although salmon farming operates across many regions of the world, the companies behind it are largely the same. Eleven of the world’s twenty largest salmon producers are Norwegian, with MOWI, SalMar, Lerøy Seafood Group, and Cermaq occupying the top four positions in Norway in 2021 — together responsible for roughly half of the country’s production. As a result, profits rarely stay in the countries where farms are located; instead, they flow back to corporate headquarters abroad.
The jobs created are also minimal. In Norway — the birthplace and powerhouse of salmon farming — the cultivation of Atlantic salmon has become one of the country’s most profitable food-production industries. The scale is enormous: Norway now produces over half of the world’s farmed Atlantic salmon. In 2024 it produced 1,542,480 tonnes.
Employment, however, remains limited by comparison. According to The Directorate of Fisheries, the Norwegian aquaculture industry directly employed around 10,157 people in 2022. When the ripple effects across the supply chain are included, that number rises to around 52,500 jobs. These figures account for 0,18 and 0.93% of the total population respectively.
This demonstrates a key dynamic: enormous production and global reach, but modest employment relative to other major sectors.
Open-net salmon farms are not only detrimental to the environment, but the farmed salmon they produce is less nutritious than wild salmon. It contains higher levels of saturated fat, lower levels of Omega 3, and is more calorific. They are often contaminated with microplastics, chemicals such as PCBs, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, posing risks to both consumers and ecosystems.
For more detail:
In Norway — often presented as the “sustainable model” of the global salmon industry — each production cycle at sea lasts about a year and a half. When the cycle ends, farms are typically left fallow for two to six months. However, even with these practices, many sites eventually have to be relocated due to severe degradation of the seabed, which in some cases becomes hypoxic or biologically inactive.
Top producers/hotspots
“Certification schemes offer no real guarantees. Despite claiming “higher standards,” evidence shows they still permit serious environmental damage, high mortality rates, and the use of harmful chemicals. Many rely financially on the companies they audit, creating clear conflicts of interest and undermining true independence.”
For more detail, see the report: “Responsibly sourced?”
