July 15, 2026 — An article published today by Gaea Cabico in Sentient Media criticizes the use of fishmeal in livestock feeds, including feeds used in raising pigs and chickens, and argues that converting wild-caught fish into animal feed can come at the expense of marine ecosystems.
That is a legitimate subject for examination. But the article’s treatment of forage-fish science is incomplete.
To support its argument, the article relies heavily on the 2012 report Little Fish, Big Impact, produced by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force and chaired by Ellen Pikitch. It cites the task force’s findings concerning the importance of forage fish to marine predators and repeats its recommendation that forage-fish catch rates generally be limited to half the rate associated with maximum sustainable yield.
What the article does not tell readers is that the Lenfest report’s analysis and broad management recommendations later became the subject of a significant peer-reviewed scientific debate.
Prominent Scientists Challenged the Lenfest Conclusions
In 2017, fisheries scientists Ray Hilborn, Ricardo O. Amoroso, Eugenia Bogazzi, Olaf P. Jensen, Ana M. Parma, Cody Szuwalski, and Carl J. Walters published When Does Fishing Forage Species Affect Their Predators? in the journal Fisheries Research.
Their analysis directly questioned whether the Lenfest task force’s generalized conclusions could reliably be applied across different forage species, predator populations, and marine ecosystems.
Among other concerns, Hilborn and his coauthors argued that the Lenfest analysis did not adequately account for:
- The extreme natural variability of forage-fish populations, even in the absence of fishing;
- The geographic distribution of forage fish and the spatial overlap among predators, prey, and fishing activity;
- Differences between the sizes of forage fish consumed by predators and those harvested by fisheries;
- Predators’ ability to switch among prey species; and
- The distinction between a predator consuming a forage species and the predator population actually being controlled by the abundance of that species.
The authors reported that there was limited evidence of a consistently strong relationship between aggregate forage-fish abundance and changes in predator abundance. They concluded that the effects of forage fishing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that broad reductions in harvest rates are not necessarily appropriate for every fishery or ecosystem.
The Lenfest Authors Responded — and the Debate Continued
The Lenfest task force authors responded in the same journal, defending the strength of the connection between forage fish and their predators. Hilborn and his coauthors then published a further rebuttal.
That exchange is important because it shows that the Lenfest report was not the final word on the issue and that its conclusions were not universally accepted.
The scientists on both sides generally agreed that ecosystem effects should be considered in fisheries management. But they disagreed substantially over:
- The strength and consistency of predator-prey relationships;
- The adequacy of the models and assumptions used in the Lenfest analysis;
- The extent to which fishing affects predator populations; and
- Whether broad precautionary harvest rules should be applied across very different fisheries.
A responsible account of the science should acknowledge that disagreement.
The Article Presents One Side as Settled Science
The Sentient Media article quotes Pikitch, summarizes the Lenfest task force’s findings, and presents its recommended catch-rate reduction without identifying the scientists or research that challenged those conclusions.
That omission creates the impression that the Lenfest recommendations reflect an uncontested scientific consensus. They do not.
This matters because the article makes broad claims about reduction fisheries and the use of fishmeal in livestock production around the world. Forage species, ecosystems, predator dependencies, fishing methods, end uses, and management systems vary considerably.
A small pelagic fishery in one region cannot automatically be assumed to have the same ecological effects as a fishery targeting a different species in another ecosystem. Nor can all species commonly grouped under the label “forage fish” be treated as ecologically interchangeable.
The later peer-reviewed research cautions against exactly that kind of broad generalization.
Fishmeal Policy Should Be Based on Fishery-Specific Evidence
There are valid questions to ask about the sourcing and use of fishmeal, including whether particular fisheries are sustainably managed, whether stocks are healthy, whether ecosystem needs are incorporated into management, and whether fish are being used efficiently.
But those questions should be answered using fishery-specific evidence, not by treating a disputed 2012 report as though it settled the science for every forage fishery in the world.
A meaningful evaluation should examine, at minimum:
- The status of the individual stock;
- The fishery’s harvest controls;
- The natural variability of the population;
- The species’ role in the local food web;
- The availability of alternative prey;
- The spatial relationship between fishing activity and predators; and
- The actual end uses of the harvested fish.
Some fisheries may warrant greater precaution. Others may already be conservatively managed and operating within ecosystem-based frameworks. Those distinctions are essential.
Readers Deserve the Full Scientific Record
Acknowledging the criticism of the Lenfest report would not require Sentient Media to adopt Hilborn and his coauthors’ conclusions.
It would simply require the publication to tell readers that a major scientific disagreement exists.
A balanced treatment would note that, in 2017, a group of prominent fisheries scientists challenged the generality of the Lenfest task force’s findings. It would also explain that the Lenfest authors disputed that criticism and that the two groups continued the debate in the peer-reviewed literature.
That context is particularly important when an article uses the Lenfest report to support broad policy claims about fishmeal, livestock production, and marine ecosystems.
Readers should be given the complete scientific picture, not one side of a contested debate presented as settled fact.
Relevant Research
Hilborn, Ray, Ricardo O. Amoroso, Eugenia Bogazzi, Olaf P. Jensen, Ana M. Parma, Cody Szuwalski, and Carl J. Walters. “When Does Fishing Forage Species Affect Their Predators?” Fisheries Research 191 (2017): 211–221.
Pikitch, Ellen K., and other members of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force. “The Strong Connection Between Forage Fish and Their Predators: A Response to Hilborn et al. (2017).” Fisheries Research.
Ray Hilborn and coauthors. “Response to Pikitch et al.” Fisheries Research 198 (2018): 224.
Pikitch, Ellen K., P. Dee Boersma, Ian L. Boyd, David O. Conover, Philippe Cury, Timothy E. Essington, Selina S. Heppell, Edward D. Houde, Marc Mangel, Daniel Pauly, Éva Plagányi, Keith Sainsbury, and Robert S. Steneck. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Washington, D.C.: Lenfest Ocean Program, 2012.