The recent global growth of aquaculture has been such that, for some scholars, we are entering a new era of a ‘blue revolution’ (Sachs, 2007; Nunes, Ferreira et al., 2011). Yet, despite the emergence of aquaculture both internationally and within the European Union (EU) since the 1980s, there has been no social construction of European aquaculture as a distinctive industry requiring a common policy along the lines of a Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) or a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Rather, aquaculture has been housed within the CFP. This, however, has not resulted in its being regulated therein. For although EU funding has been provided for aquacultural development from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), otherwise aquacultural practices have been predominantly governed by EU general instruments. The underlying aim of this chapter is to explain this form of incompleteness. Our approach seeks to explain incompleteness through analysing how the industry has been socially constructed as a space for EU government. For, we contend, underlying actor choices over whether and how to govern at the scale of the EU is a reductionist construction of this industry – both in economic and biophysical terms - which condenses it to the broad category of ‘seafood’ production. We ask why has its distinctiveness as an industry, compared with fisheries or agriculture, never been politicised? Drawing on empirical material generated in an ANR-funded project, including over 60 interviews with industry public and private actors in Scotland, Aquitaine and Greece, we seek to answer this question. The answer we contend lies in how a certain vision of this industry is constantly being sustained in actor business and reglementary practices. Our explanation goes beyond classic applications of public policy analysis focused on how actors define industrial conditions as public problems, to controlling also for how social constructions of professional identities themselves work upon government choices.