The New York Times recently published defamatory articles targeting the fisheries that produce fishmeal and fish oil, attacking farmed salmon diets on the grounds that these ingredients harm ecosystems and artisanal fishermen.
Beyond the articles' obvious bias, with their talk of "food colonialism," it is worth dismantling some myths about this subject that have come to be accepted as fact. Let's start with feed.
What salmon actually eat
Some 40 years ago, farmed salmon feed relied heavily on fishmeal and fish oil. Today, in an effort to reduce reliance on marine ingredients, pellets are made mostly from plant-based raw materials, and the share of marine ingredients has fallen considerably, with fishmeal accounting for between 5% and 8% of the diet.
A significant portion of this meal and oil comes from fish that are not suitable for direct human consumption, such as sardines and anchovies caught in Chile and Peru. They are caught almost entirely by artisanal fishermen, who sell their catch to plants that produce these ingredients for animal feed.
In 2025, 35% of the world's fishmeal and 57% of its fish oil came from byproducts or discards that in the past would have ended up in landfills.
Using less, and using it better
Thanks to better diets and a commitment to using marine ingredients prudently, Camanchaca has steadily reduced its use of them. In 2024, for example, we reduced the amount of wild fish needed to produce each kilo of salmon by 36%.
All of this matters because producing food for a growing population, without adding environmental pressure on land, which produces more than 90% of the world's food, is critical to the planet's health.
Of course, we must continue to be prudent in our use of marine resources, which are finite, by innovating in feed and making the conversion of feed into digestible protein ever more efficient.
What the critics overlook
But critics too easily overlook something important: salmon provides high-quality protein and is a source of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Farming it is one of the most sustainable ways to obtain protein and increase the availability of seafood, without putting pressure on wild species that people can eat directly.
The conclusion is that The New York Times' articles on this subject were written by people who are either ignorant or ill-intentioned, and who are, as always, funded by foreign organizations that do not want productive industry in Patagonia.