Aquaculture in offshore zones.

THE EDITORIAL BY ROSAMOND NAYLOR, “Offshore aquaculture legislation” (8 Sept., p. 1363), suggests that the motivation for moving aquaculture into the open ocean is that “marine f ish farming near the shore is limited by state regulations.” Although unworkable regulations may exist in a few states, in the larger scheme this is irrelevant. Of the offshore aquaculture projects currently under way, none are occurring in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); rather, they are happening in state waters. Even historically, only two aquaculture projects have ever occurred in federal waters (1). Much of Naylor’s stated concern over offshore aquaculture is based on historical experience with near-shore fish farms. This is in spite of years of more relevant offshore operations that reveal little, if any, negative impact on the environment or local ecosystems (2, 3). Naylor criticizes the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 because it lacks specific environmental standards. Yet, she recommends California’s recent Sustainable Oceans Act as a legislative model, although it is similarly silent, leaving those details to rule-making in response to the best available science. Naylor criticizes the use of fishmeal as an aquaculture ingredient, ignoring the fact that industrial fisheries are well managed and would occur with or without aquaculture’s demand. Naylor ignores the higher efficiency of using fishmeal to feed fish compared with its use in land-based livestock operations (4). Also ignored is the inefficiency of using small pelagic fish in the natural setting to feed predator fish (5). Researchers and entrepreneurs currently developing the technologies needed for offshore aquaculture share a vision of a well-managed industry governed by regulations with a rational basis in the ecology of the oceans and the economic realities of the marketplace. CLIFFORD A. GOUDEY