The federal government recently released new dietary guidelines aimed at “ending the war on protein” and steering Americans toward “real foods” — those with few ingredients and no additives. Seafood plays a starring role. But the fish that health advocates envision appearing on our plates probably won’t be caught in the crystal blue waters we’d like to imagine.

Over the past few decades, the seafood industry has completely revolutionized how it feeds the world. As many wild fish populations have plummeted, hunted to oblivion by commercial fleets, fish farming has become all the rage, and captive-breeding facilities have continually expanded to satiate humanity’s ravenous appetite. Today, the aquaculture sector is a $300-billion juggernaut, accounting for nearly 60% of aquatic animal products used for direct human consumption.

Proponents of aquaculture argue that it helps feed a growing human population, reduces pressure on wild fish populations, lowers costs for consumers and creates new jobs on land. Much of that may be correct. But there is a hidden crisis brewing beneath the surface: Many aquaculture facilities are breeding grounds for pathogens. They’re also a blind spot for public health authorities.

On dry land, factory farming of cows, pigs and chickens is widely reviled, and for good reason: The unsanitary and inhumane conditions inside these facilities contribute to outbreaks of disease, including some that can leap from animals to humans. In many countries, aquaculture facilities aren’t all that different. Most are situated in marine and coastal areas, where fish can be exposed to a sinister brew of human sewage, industrial waste and agricultural runoff. Fish are kept in close quarters — imagine hundreds of adult salmon stuffed into a backyard swimming pool — and inbreeding compromises immune strength. Thus, when one fish invariably falls ill, pathogens spread far and wide throughout the brood — and potentially to people.

Right now, there are only a handful of known pathogens — mostly bacteria, rather than viruses — that can jump from aquatic species to humans. Every year, these pathogens contribute to the 260,000 illnesses in the United States from contaminated fish; fortunately, these fish-borne illnesses aren’t particularly transmissible between people. It’s far more likely that the next pandemic will come from a bat or chicken than a rainbow trout. But that doesn’t put me at ease. The ocean is a vast, poorly understood and largely unmonitored reservoir of microbial species, most of which remain unknown to science. In the last 15 years, infectious diseases — including ones that we’ve known about for decades such as Ebola and Zika — have routinely caught humanity by surprise. We shouldn’t write off the risks of marine microbes too quickly.

My most immediate concern, the one that really makes me sweat, is the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria among farmed fish. Aquaculturists are well aware that their fish often live in a festering cesspool, and so many growers will mix antibiotics — including ones that the World Health Organization considers medically important for people — into fish feed, or dump them straight into water, to avoid the consequences of crowded conditions and prevent rampant illness. It would be more appropriate to use antibiotics in animals only when they are sick.

Because of this overuse for prevention purposes, more antibiotics are used in seafood raised by aquaculture than are used in humans or for other farmed animals per kilogram. Many of these molecules will end up settling in the water or nearby sediment, where they can linger for weeks. In turn, the 1 million individual bacteria found in every drop of seawater will be put to the evolutionary test, and the most antibiotic-resistant will endure.

Numerous researchers have found that drug-resistant strains of bacteria are alarmingly common in the water surrounding aquaculture facilities. In one study, evidence of antibiotic resistance was found in over 80% of species of bacteria isolated from shrimp sold in multiple countries by multiple brands.

Many drug-resistant strains in aquatic animals won’t be capable of infecting humans, but their genes still pose a threat through a process known as horizontal transfer. Bacteria are genetic hoarders. They collect DNA from their environment and store it away in their own genome. Sometimes, they’ll participate in swap meets, trading genes with other bacteria to expand their collections. Beginning in 1991, for example, a wave of cholera infected nearly a million people across Latin America, exacerbated by a strain that may have picked up drug-resistant adaptations while circulating through shrimp farms in Ecuador.

Today, drug-resistant bacteria kill over a million people every year, more than HIV/AIDS. I’ve seen this with my own eyes as a practicing tuberculosis doctor. I am deeply fearful of a future in which the global supply of fish — a major protein source for billions of people — also becomes a source of untreatable salmonella, campylobacter and vibrio. We need safer seafood, and the solutions are already at our fingertips.

Governments need to lead by cracking down on indiscriminate antibiotic use. It is estimated that 70% of all antibiotics used globally are given to farm animals, and usage could increase by nearly 30% over the next 15 years. Regulation to promote prudent use of antibiotics in animals, however, has proven effective in Europe, and sales of veterinary antibiotics decreased by more than 50% across 25 European countries from 2011 to 2022. In the United States, the use of medically important antibiotics in food animals — including aquatic ones — is already tightly regulated. Most seafood eaten in the U.S., however, is imported and therefore beyond the reach of these rules. Indeed, antibiotic-resistance genes have already been identified in seafood imported into the United States. Addressing this threat should be an area of shared interest between traditional public health voices and the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which has expressed serious concerns about the health effects of toxins.

Public health institutions also need to build stronger surveillance infrastructure — for both disease and antibiotic use — in potential hotspots. Surveillance is the backbone of public health, because good decision-making is impossible without good data. Unfortunately, many countries — including resource-rich countries — don’t robustly track outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in farmed animals, nor do they share data on antibiotic use in farmed animals. By developing early warning systems for detecting antibiotic resistance in aquatic environments, rapid response efforts involving ecologists, veterinarians and epidemiologists can be mobilized as threats arise to avert public health disasters.

Meanwhile, the aquaculture industry should continue to innovate. Genetic technologies and new vaccines can help prevent rampant infections, while also improving growth efficiency that could allow for more humane conditions.

For consumers, the best way to stay healthy is simple: Seek out antibiotic-free seafood at the supermarket, and cook your fish (sorry, sushi lovers).

There’s no doubt that aquaculture is critical for feeding a hungry planet. But it must be done responsibly.

Neil M. Vora is a practicing physician and the executive director of the Preventing Pandemics at the Source Coalition.

Residents and advocates gathered Saturday to demand the ban of a chemical that’s used at a Torrance oil refinery and that they say has the potential to cause a mass casualty disaster.

Hydrofluoric acid is used in about 40 gasoline refineries across the United States, according to the National Resources Defense Council. The defense council states that “exposing as little as 1% of a person’s skin to HF (about the size of one’s hand) can lead to death. When inhaled, HF can fatally damage lungs, disrupt heart rhythms, and cause other serious health effects.”

The Torrance Refinery uses modified hydrofluoric acid, or MHF, which the refinery considers to be a safer alternative to HF, though the claim is disputed by advocates. Steve Goldsmith, president of the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, which hosted the Saturday event, said that if MHF were to be been released into the air, it would create irreversible health effects within 6.2 miles of the refinery, trickling into other parts of Los Angeles County.

And in 2015, he said, this almost happened.

On Feb. 18, 2015, there was an explosion at the refinery, then operated by ExxonMobil, caused by the rupture of an eroded valve. The incident, which released flammable hydrocarbons, injured four workers and forced 14 schools into lockdown.

The Saturday event, held at North High School’s Performing Arts Center in Torrance, marked the 11th anniversary of the explosion.

Goldsmith described the chemical as “murderous.”

“Torrance Refinery had an enormous explosion, and a piece of equipment the size of a bus came within five feet of the hydrofluoric acid, causing a near miss,” Goldsmith said. “We’ve been working to get rid of it.”

Residents like Christopher Truman say replacing MHF with an alternative option is the least that can be done. His parents live near the refinery.

“I’m born and raised in the South Bay, and my family lives in, effectively, what would be the blast radius if another accident happened,” Truman said. “So just in that aspect, I’m very worried about it.”

MHF is also used to clean semiconductor surfaces and produce pesticides and herbicides in the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries, according to the Torrance Refinery.

County Supervisor Janice Hahn said residents should not assume “they will be lucky” if another refinery accident were to occur.

“Only two refineries in California use MHF, Torrance Refinery and the Valero Refinery in Wilmington,” Hahn said. “MHF is simply too dangerous to use. It is a flesh-eating, low-crawling, toxic vapor cloud. Our communities will not be safe until this chemical is gone.”

Goldsmith said a Chevron refinery in Salt Lake City found an ionic-liquid alkylation process as an alternative to MHF. He added that the 2025 Chevron refinery explosion in El Segundo “would have been different if they had been using MHF.”

“They used another chemical that did not endanger the community,” Goldsmith said. “And that’s the thing about refineries, they have explosions. But that’s why you can’t have [MHF] around things that can blow up.”

U.S. Representative

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) appears on a video message explaining her legislation, which she says will have a positive impact for communities in the Los Angeles region.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-Los Angeles), who represents the city of Torrance, greeted attendees in a prerecorded message, in which she reintroduced her bill, the “Preventing Mass Casualties from Release of Hydrofluoric Acid at Refineries Act,” which targets plants using MHF.

“I originally introduced this bill in December of 2024,” Waters said in the video. “I faced considerable opposition, especially from the United Steel Workers Union, [who were] concerned that if refineries converted to safer technologies, some of the refineries might close, leaving workers without jobs. They agreed with me that hydrofluoric acid is dangerous. But they still would not support my bill. So I decided to go ahead and reintroduce this bill, [without] union support.”

The bill would give refineries five years to find an alternative to the dangerous chemical. Violators may be subject to fines up to $37,000 per infraction.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn speaks out against the use of hydrofluoric acid.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Some residents stressed the need for transparency from local officials.

Ian Patton, a Long Beach resident, said most parts of the investigation into the 2015 explosion were withheld.

“Why can’t they not make this report public? The [Torrance Refinery Action Alliance] has been asking for it for years,” Patton said. “The next step was to look at litigation under the California Public Records Act. It’s not something that we want to do, but the public deserves to know whether these plants are safe.”