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 reveals that analytical methodological choices, rather than on-farm performance differences, are the primary driver of the wide divergence (>50-fold variation) observed in reported environmental impacts. The authors demonstrate this through quantitative comparison of identical farm data under different LCA methodologies, and identify critical blind spots—including land use change, biodiversity loss, and antibiotic use—that are neglected by most studies. They propose methodological harmonisation, mandatory impact category inclusion, and improved reporting transparency as essential reforms to build a robust and comparable evidence base for sustainability guidance.

UK applicability

Whilst the review focuses on global shrimp aquaculture, its findings on LCA methodological fragmentation are directly applicable to UK aquaculture policy and certification schemes. Improved harmonisation and transparency standards recommended here could inform UK and European regulatory frameworks for evaluating farmed seafood sustainability claims.

Key measures

Global warming potential estimates; methodological variability across 16 LCAs; farm-level impact variability across 37 farming cycles; transparency and reproducibility assessment; coverage of impact categories including land use change, biodiversity loss, and antibiotic use

Outcomes reported

The study quantified how methodological choices in life cycle assessment (LCA) of shrimp farming drive divergent environmental impact estimates across 16 peer-reviewed studies, with reported impacts varying more than fiftyfold. It identified critical analytical blind spots and transparency gaps that undermine comparability and reproducibility of shrimp aquaculture environmental impact estimates.

Topic tags