What evidence exists on salmon farming? An overview of reviews

The global expansion of salmon aquaculture has transformed marine food systems, offering economic benefits while amplifying environmental and socio-economic challenges. The shift from wild-caught to farmed salmon has led to widespread concerns, including disease transmission, genetic introgression, pollution, and conflicts with Indigenous communities. Additionally, salmon feed supply chains have global implications, such as overfishing in West Africa. Although many studies exist, research is fragmented and dispersed across disciplines, and the influence of industry funding raises questions about bias. This overview of reviews synthesises existing systematic reviews on salmon farming to evaluate the scope, quality, and findings of the secondary literature on its environmental, economic, and social impacts. Specifically, we ask the question: "What systematic review evidence exists on Atlantic and Pacific salmon aquaculture, and what are the characteristics, thematic focus, and methodological quality of this evidence?".

This overview of reviews follows guidelines from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) and the ROSES reporting standards. Systematic reviews (broadly defined as reviews either claiming to or actually using some form of systematic methodology) were identified via searches in Scopus, Web of Science, and Lens.org using a structured, validated search strategy. Inclusion criteria focused on reviews explicitly targeting Atlantic or Pacific salmon aquaculture (including rainbow trout). Metadata were extracted on study methods, topical focus, production stages, and funding sources. Review quality was assessed using the CEESAT critical appraisal tool, and visualisations were produced to identify gaps in coverage and assess methodological rigour.

Out of 327 unique records, 37 reviews were included. Most reviews focused on production-related topics (e.g. fish health, sea lice, feed supply), with very few addressing environmental or social impacts. No reviews met the threshold for high methodological rigour, and only four were rated as moderate quality; the remainder were judged as low or exceptionally low quality. Common weaknesses included absence of a priori protocols, lack of critical appraisal, poor reporting of screening and extraction methods, and inappropriate synthesis techniques such as vote counting. Industry co-authorship was present in 7 reviews, and 8 were industry-funded. Research on sustainability was hindered by methodological inconsistency and limited transparency.

Despite a growing body of literature on salmon aquaculture, high-quality evidence syntheses remain rare. Most systematic reviews are methodologically flawed and overly focused on productivity, with limited assessment of environmental or socio-economic externalities. Greater attention is urgently needed to unbiased, interdisciplinary, and high-quality evidence synthesis-especially on the broader impacts of salmon farming. Decision-makers should interpret existing evidence syntheses on salmon aquaculture with caution, given the generally low methodological rigour and high risk of bias identified across reviews. Apparent consensus or patterns in the literature may reflect methodological artefacts rather than robust underlying evidence. We therefore call for enhanced rigour in review methods, transparent reporting, and increased scrutiny of industry influence on research agendas.