When we cannot see everything, we see nothing
Many people think that meat has a greater impact than fish. This is not always true, especially for tuna.
It is true that on average, meat has twice the environmental impact offish, but this is not the case when comparing tuna with chicken. In fact, the production of one kg of albacore tuna fillet (caught in the north-east Atlantic Ocean) has approximately twice the environmental impact of the production of one kg of chicken in France.
The tuna you find in supermarkets is usually caught in an industrial way with large boats with refrigerated holds. The impact of these huge boats is greater than the impact of an average French chicken farm (impact per kg of meat/fish).
The conclusions of Glimpact's analysis, carried out according to the PEF method (adopted by the EC), are based on data from a representative sample of products observed. They therefore do not take into account the specificities of production conditions or means of production.
Wild fish are usually considered to be less environmentally damaging than animals raised for meat. It is not always correct, especially when comparing tuna to chicken.
According to the PEF method adopted by the EC, the environmental impact should take into account 16 impact categories. It is defined by a score that aggregates the different results obtained for each impact by normalisation and weighting. This score is expressed in points (Pt) on a continuous scale, it allows products to be compared with each other.
Although wild-caught fish does not require production infrastructure as animal raised for meat does, the main environmental impact of tuna production comes from the fishing boats. Indeed, these boats consume a lot of diesel and usually use refrigerated equipment on board.
Below, a comparative chart of the overall environmental impact of chicken meat (raised in France) and canned yellowfin tuna (caught in the North-East Atlantic Ocean).
For a given quantity produced, canned yellowfin tuna will have about twice the impact of chicken. Note that the products compared do not have the same type of processing. Indeed, one is cooked and canned and the other is raw. The comparison considered aims to compare the products as they are commonly consumed. However, cooking and canning account for about 20% of the whole environmental impact of tuna. In fact, it only increases the gap between the two products but does not change the final conclusion: Tuna is more impactful than chicken.
Finally, when it comes to choosing between fish and meat to minimise your environmental footprint, the answer is not always fish!
The environmental impact calculated does not take into account the use phase (refrigerated storage of the consumer, cooking, washing of utensils and dishes required for preparation). The results were reported per kilogram of tuna/chicken without taking into account nutritional issues.
