The Fragmented Landscape of Shrimp Life Cycle Assessments: Uncovering Methodological Dependence and Analytical Blind Spots

Summary

This systematic review of 16 peer-reviewed life cycle assessments of shrimp aquaculture demonstrates that reported environmental impacts vary by more than fiftyfold across studies, with analytical choices rather than farming practices being the primary driver of divergence. Examining 37 farming cycles, the authors show that methodological differences induce larger changes in global warming estimates than different farming practices, whilst highlighting severe transparency deficits (only 5 of 16 studies were fully reproducible) and overlooked environmental pressures. The authors recommend harmonised methodologies, mandatory inclusion of neglected impact categories, and improved reporting standards to establish a robust evidence base for sector sustainability.

Regional applicability

Whilst UK shrimp aquaculture is limited, this paper's findings on methodological standardisation and impact category completeness are relevant to UK food systems assessment and policy frameworks that increasingly rely on LCA evidence. The recommendations for harmonised methodologies and mandatory transparency in environmental accounting could inform UK guidance on aquaculture and imported seafood sustainability assessment.

Key measures

Global warming potential estimates; methodological variation across 16 peer-reviewed LCAs; reproducibility assessment; prevalence of neglected impact categories (land use change, biodiversity loss, antibiotic use)

Outcomes reported

The study quantified the extent to which methodological choices rather than actual farming practices drive wide divergence in environmental impact estimates across shrimp LCA studies. It identified critical analytical blind spots and transparency gaps that limit the comparability and reliability of shrimp aquaculture LCAs.

Topic tags