tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81155938640244070822024-03-04T21:41:45.341-08:00Salmon FactsNews and commentary on environmentally sensitive and sustainable aquaculture.Beyond AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04433676076842115357noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-27858338454950757742009-02-10T08:00:00.000-08:002009-02-10T08:08:07.758-08:00Repeating the Farmed Salmon PCB Smear ... AgainOver at <span style="font-style: italic;">US News and World Report</span>, environmental blogger Maura <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Judkis</span> is passing along a list of "<a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/2/4/not-just-hfcs-and-peanut-butter-here-are-10-other-dangerous-foods.html">10 Risky Foods</a>," that have been <a href="http://www.sprig.com/10_Most_Dangerous_Foods">compiled by Sprig</a>, one of those helpful environmental groups trying to create some hysteria in the wake of the recent peanut butter recall.<br /><br />As it turns out, we've dealt with this issue before, <a href="http://salmonfacts.blogspot.com/2009/01/facts-about-salmon-and-pcbs.html">most recently in January</a>. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a greater risk from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">PCBs</span> from salted butter, homemade brown gravy and -- wait for it -- roasted chicken. Mitigating the risk further is the fact that Americans consume so little seafood, setting up a situation where overall diet of Americans would be better off if they consumed more, not less, fish.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-34256423626417263342009-01-23T16:20:00.000-08:002009-01-23T16:24:12.634-08:00Ian Roberts on Dining Around in San FranciscoBack on January 17, our buddy Ian Roberts was in San Francisco for a seafood show, and he stopped by the studios of KGO Radio to be <a href="http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=1117071&nId=2&spid=19442">a guest on Dining Around with Gene Burns</a>. Give it a listen.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-37105385603765443182009-01-23T09:35:00.000-08:002009-01-27T19:52:11.336-08:00The Color of Farmed Salmon is No Dye JobA couple of days ago, <span style="font-style: italic;">USA Today</span> printed a story regarding counterfeit foods. That's essentially the practice of <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-19-fake-foods_N.htm">taking a product and labeling it as something else in the supermarket</a>. Here's an interesting explantion that includes a quote from our friend Gavin Gibbons at the <a href="http://aboutseafood.com/">National Fisheries Institute</a>:<br /><blockquote>Fish is the most frequently faked food Americans buy. In the business, it's called "species adulteration" — selling a cheaper fish such as pen-raised Atlantic salmon as wild Alaska salmon.<br /><br />When Consumer Reports tested 23 supposedly wild-caught salmon fillets bought nationwide in 2005-2006, only 10 were wild salmon. The rest were farmed. In 2004, University of North Carolina scientists found 77% of fish labeled red snapper was actually something else. Last year, the Chicago Sun-Times tested fish at 17 sushi restaurants and found that fish being sold as red snapper actually was mostly tilapia.<br /><br />"It's really just fraud, plain and simple," says Gavin Gibbons of the National Fisheries Institute, an industry group.</blockquote>When SOTA members (salmon producers from North and South America) ship their product, it's labeled as farmed, and that's the way it should stay. But the problems with the story began with the following quote. Due to some editing error at the paper, the person who said the following was not correctly identified, but a little digging and a conversation with the reporter, <span style="font-style: italic;">USA Today</span>'s Elizabeth Weise, revealed that the person in question is Spring Randolph, a safety officer with the <a href="http://www.foodsafety.gov/list.html">Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition</a>:<br /><blockquote>"When you cook it, the wild salmon retains its color, and in the aquaculture salmon, the color tends to leak out," she says. Suspicious consumers can call the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition hotline at 1-888-SAFEFOOD.</blockquote>Huh? We should back up here for a moment. In the wild, salmon consume this natural pigment -- called a carotenoid -- while feeding on krill. Salmon flesh, like trout, retains this pigment, giving it the pleasing pink flesh the fish is famous for. Besides changing the color of the flesh, this carotenoid is also a powerful antioxidant and pro-vitamin A source. The industry maintains that it also influences the growth and survival of young salmon.<br /><br />In salmon aquaculture, the industry endeavors to mimic the diet that salmon would normally get in the wild, so it supplements salmon feed with a synthetic replacement. It's called astaxanthin, and chemically, it's identical to the pigment that salmon get in the wild. Biologically, it's processed and absorbed by wild and farmed fish in exactly the same manner, though some species retain more color than others.<br /><br />The bottom line is simple here: we're not talking about the sort of food coloring you buy at the supermarket and use in a cake mix. The color of salmon flesh, no matter how it's raised, can't leak. It's physiologically impossible.<br /><br />So how did that quote get into <span style="font-style: italic;">USA Today</span>? As I mentioned earlier, I got hold of the reporter, Elizabeth Weise, via phone on Wednesday evening. I explained the science to her and asked how Ms. Randolph had backed up her preposterous claim and if she had cited any study that might back it up. At the time, Weise said that Randolph had told her she had observed this phenomenon while cooking salmon in her own kitchen. Weise added that because Randolph was an employee of the FDA, she had no reason not to doubt her expertise.<br /><br />To say the least, I was taken aback, and I pressed Weise to contact FDA again to see if they could produce any evidence to buttress Randolph's claim. Late at home on Thursday evening, I received the following response from Weise:<br /><blockquote>FDA says that Spring Randolph was speaking from her own experience, not FDAs. So there's no research paper she can point to to support her statement. However it doesn't call for a correction, because we did not quote the FDA expert incorrectly, that's exactly what she said.. I think the best way for you to make your point would be to send in a letter to the editor.</blockquote>I disagreed and insisted that the paper was obligated to print a correction or a clarification. Instead of a letter to the editor, I'll be sending talking to her editor at the paper, Sue Kelly. Stay tuned for further developments.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-9996302291896911672009-01-21T12:05:00.000-08:002009-01-21T12:05:00.677-08:00An Update on the "Go Wild" Kayaking ExpeditionBack on January 13, Mary Ellen Walling of BC Salmon <a href="http://salmonfacts.blogspot.com/2009/01/reaching-out-to-go-wild-kayaking.html">reached out to Phil Magistro and Apryle Craig</a>, a couple <a href="http://www.elevatedattitude.com/dailylife/inside-passage-kayaking-expedition-encourages-all-to-%E2%80%9Cgo-wild%E2%80%9D-for-wild-salmon">planning on taking a canoe expedition along the coast of Washington state and British Columbia</a> to survey the health of wild salmon stocks. After reading of the plans for their expedition, Mary Ellen offered to give the couple a tour of a salmon farm in British Columbia, as well as provide an opportunity for them to meet some of the folks who work on the farms.<br /><br />Just a few hours after Mary Ellen sent that message, this is what she received in return:<br /><blockquote>Mary Ellen,<br /><br />Thank you for your email and for your work in the coastal community. I immediately recognized your name from the Salmon Farmers Association website, where I learned there are tours available. There is a lot of controversial information out there and we definitely want to get a full picture of the situation for the survival of the salmon, ecosystem, and community.<br /><br />We are very interested and grateful for your offer to visit a farm and to speak with your aquaculture scientists. It sounds like a great chance to ask questions to folks who have first-hand experience and knowledge. Thank you for suggesting this opportunity.<br /><br />We have not yet outlined exactly where we expect to be and when. I don't think I was able to find on the website which location the salmon tours are at, but if you could let me know, we would look forward to putting this on our itinerary.<br /><br />Thanks, again, for the email and please be in touch,<br /><br />Apryle</blockquote>Though the trip isn't scheduled for a number of months, we promise to keep our readers looped on the progress. Please stay tuned.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-26180854481879349512009-01-20T11:06:00.000-08:002009-01-20T11:07:58.514-08:00Facts About Salmon and PCBs<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicRHPRIiTPCwaZNqxM_RPecph89thhyu3FhLBZ_RZmB29xquLh8ffilUB9g0YTpgwBHEYrv_JgCa6XbiAjEdPInKZb4V0cUB_woc4zyBVcwdKMYp9TK_Pm5rkZBBMLQRZUoRBGqUp5ST6s/s1600-h/PCB+Levels+in+Foods.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 318px; height: 275px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicRHPRIiTPCwaZNqxM_RPecph89thhyu3FhLBZ_RZmB29xquLh8ffilUB9g0YTpgwBHEYrv_JgCa6XbiAjEdPInKZb4V0cUB_woc4zyBVcwdKMYp9TK_Pm5rkZBBMLQRZUoRBGqUp5ST6s/s320/PCB+Levels+in+Foods.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293414922835340402" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Over the past few days, newspapers in both Canada and the U.S. have been passing along the results of a study that claims that <a href="http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2009/01/18/8061446-sun.html">killer whales living off the coasts of Washington state and British Columbia are slowly being poisoned by PCBs</a> carried by wild salmon stocks in the region. Though the study obviously doesn't refer to the farmed Atlantic salmon produced by facilities in Chile and British Columbia, the folks at SOTA thought it was important to put some facts into play that activists often obscure when it comes to this issue.<br /><br />Though the use of PCBs has been banned since the 1970s, they still persist in the food chain to this day, though at steadily decreasing levels. But as the chart from the <span style="font-style: italic;">Seattle Post-Intelligencer</span> sourced from the U.S. FDA shows, the level of PCBs in salmon found in supermarket seafood sections and served in restaurants is lower than you find in a staple like salted butter or other common dinnertime fare like meatloaf, chicken breast and even brown gravy. Please keep this in mind whenever you hear media reports about this issue.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-79627069449054882862009-01-13T14:25:00.000-08:002009-01-13T14:25:01.645-08:00Challenging Monterey Bay on the Facts About Farmed SalmonWhen you take a look at Monterey Bay Aquarium's <a href="http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_faq.aspx">Seafood Watch FAQ</a>, they list the following reasons why farmed salmon is on their red list. We'll address them one at a time:<br /><blockquote>Currently, farmed salmon are raised in coastal net pens, where they’re in direct contact with the surrounding marine environment. This open access results in at least five distinct problems when farming salmon, that often aren’t native to the area:<br /><br />When farmed salmon escape from ocean pens, they threaten wild salmon and other fish by competing with them for food and spawning grounds.</blockquote>A 2006 study by The Fraser Institute, <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/3144.aspx">Escaped Farmed Salmon: A Threat to BC's Wild Salmon?</a>, came to some starkly opposite conclusions:<br /><ul><li>There is little risk of Atlantic salmon establishing viable populations in the Pacific northwest;</li></ul><ul><li>The number of escaped salmon has not increased radically as the production of Atlantic salmon has increased;<br /></li></ul><ul><li>Cross breeding of Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon is highly unlikely, as they are different species (Onchorynchus vs Salmo)<br /></li></ul><ul><li>The numbers of public hatchery releases far exceed the accidental release of farmed Pacific salmon and will have a great impact; and<br /></li></ul><ul><li>The transfer of disease between escaped farmed salmon and wild salmon is unlikely.</li></ul>A <a href="http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/2/198">2006 study published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science concluded the following</a>: "Exceptional marine survival of pink salmon that entered the marine environment in 2003 suggests that farmed Atlantic salmon and pacific salmon can coexist successfully in a marine ecosystem on the Pacific coast of Canada."<br /><br />The authors noted that even with the fallowing that occurred in 2003 the biomass of farmed salmon in the Broughton during this period was consistent with levels in the preceding years. Climate regime shift and environmental conditions may have contributed to increased sea lice production as well. Their overall conclusion: conditions in the marine ecosystem around salmon farms in the study area in 2003 suggest that it is possible to have sustainable wild and farmed salmon in a common ecosystem.<br /><br />Finally, <span style="font-style: italic;">Escaped Farm Salmon: Environmental and Ecological Concerns</span>, a report compiled by Natural Resources Consultants Inc. for the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/cabinet/SAR_recommend.pdf&ei=EtZsSfv2IpCk8ASonO2rDA&sig2=_Tu8JR2-UUbz-9RdQ9Jlxw&usg=AFQjCNGksAQMVon9r-AJfNq-eZ_FKyGbvw">Salmon Aquaculture Review</a> (SAR) concluded:<br /><ul><li>The potential establishment of Atlantic salmon populations in Pacific rivers and streams as a result of reproductive success and survival of progeny in a series of years is considered unlikely.</li></ul><ul><li>Existing farm technology and practices have probably contributed to the recent reduction in the number of reported fish escaping from farms. Nevertheless, a standard process for preventing escapes, recapture or escaped fish, and more comprehensive reporting could lead to further escape reductions.</li></ul>It's important to note that report’s conclusions were arrived at in the mid-nineties, prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the SAR and that since this time, the number of escapes have continued to decline despite an increase in overall production.<br /><br />Next up, fish poop:<br /><blockquote><li>Waste from most salmon farms is released directly into the ocean.</li></blockquote>As the result of a study completed for the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/cabinet/SAR_recommend.pdf&ei=EtZsSfv2IpCk8ASonO2rDA&sig2=_Tu8JR2-UUbz-9RdQ9Jlxw&usg=AFQjCNGksAQMVon9r-AJfNq-eZ_FKyGbvw">Salmon Aquaculture Review</a>, the province of British Columbia enacted the <a href="http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20E%20--/Environmental%20Management%20Act%20%20SBC%202003%20%20c.%2053/05_Regulations/22_256_2002.xml">Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation</a> (FAWCR). The regulation acts to mitigate and monitor the impacts of wastes from salmon farms:<br /><blockquote>The regulation includes provisions for farm registration, pre-stocking sampling, domestic sewage handling, best management practices, monitoring and reporting, remediation, offences and penalties.<br /><br />Farm registration under the regulation has been completed, and compliance and inspection programs conducted by MOE and MAL are underway.<br /><br />The standards are “performance-based,” meaning that specific thresholds for defined chemical and biological indicators should not be exceeded at any time during production (previously, production levels and feed usage were regulated, rather than their actual impact on the environment).<br /><br />Farmers must carry out specific monitoring/remediation activities on the farm if the indicator levels are exceeded.</blockquote>That's certainly a lot different than the picture Monterey Bay painted of salmon farms directly releasing waste into the ocean and not caring. Instead, the province relies on scientifically-derived regulation to protect the environment.<br /><blockquote><li>Parasites and diseases from farmed salmon can spread to wild fish swimming near the farms.</li></blockquote>Indeed, this is a concern (and it can go both ways). That's why all salmon culture operations both public and private must have a Fish Health Management Plan (FHMP) which is reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Upon return to the company, the fish health staff of each are trained using the procedures developed in the manual and enforce its use across the organization.<br /><br />The majority of culture operations in BC maintain a broodstock program where all milt and egg donor fish are screened for pathogens and disease to ensure that any possible illnesses are not passed to the next generation. Fish are vaccinated prior to seawater entry against common fish disease – this not protects the farmed fish from getting infections from the environment and wild fish but also obviously protects the wild fish from getting infected from the farmed salmon.<br /><br />Additional protection against introduction of exotic pathogens is provided for in the <a href="http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Science/enviro/ais-eae/code-eng.htm">National Code on Introductions and Transfers of Aquatic Organisms</a>.<br /><blockquote><li>Salmon farmers may use pesticides and antibiotics to control outbreaks of disease among the fish. When consumers eat this fish, the residues from the chemicals may affect their health or interfere with medicines they’re taking.</li></blockquote>To answer this question, we consulted with Dr. Sonja Saksida at the Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences. She passed the following onto us in a note.<br /><br />"In BC we don't use pesticides - we just use medicines - all currently used products in Canada (antibiotics and sea lice products) are licensed and regulated by the Veterinary Drug Directorate (VDD) of Health Canada, not the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which regulates pesticides," Saksida wrote in a note to BC Salmon's Mary Ellen Walling.<br /><br />She continued:<br /><blockquote>SLICE® is an approved drug in most other major salmon aquaculture countries including Norway, Scotland, Ireland and Chile. In Canada SLICE® has been in the drug registration process since 2000 and as of mid-2008 is still unregistered. As a result, access to the therapeutant has only been available under a special release (an emergency drug release - EDR) from the Veterinary Drug Directorate (VDD) - a branch of Health Canada. The veterinarian responsible for a particular fish farm must submit a written request to VDD for an emergency drug release to Ottawa. The veterinarian must specify the location of the farm, the number of fish to be treated, the size of the fish and the amount of drug required. After verifying the information, VDD evaluates the request and upon approval authorize the manufacturer of the drug to sell a specified quantity of a drug (e.g., SLICE®) to the veterinarian to medicate the infested fish. Only veterinarians can access veterinary drugs through the EDR program. The treatment regime for SLICE® is the same as that used in other regions (seven day treatment at 0.05 mg/kg fish/day).</blockquote>The following is from the <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/faq/faq_slice-eng.php">Health Canada website</a>:<br /><blockquote>Health Canada has recently amended its policy on permitted SLICE residues after completing a reassessment of available data. SLICE continues to be approved for limited use under the EDR program. Under the program, the modified Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) of 42 parts per billion (ppb) has been established. This compares to established MRLs in the European Union of 100 ppb. In addition, a revised WP has been established at 68 days from the latest treatment when used at a water temperature of 5 °C or greater.</blockquote>"So in Canada the permitted residue levels is lower than in Europe, and withdrawal periods are longer," wrote Dr. Saksida. "For comparison, withdrawl levels in Europe for SLICE are 0 days (Scotland and Ireland), 175 degree days (i.e. 7.5days at 10C water temperature). In Canada the withdrawal period is 68 days," she wrote.<br /><br />"With regard to antibiotic usage – all antibiotics used in aquaculture are only available through prescriptions obtained by a veterinarian. There are stringent withdrawal periods associated with all antibiotics used in aquaculture in Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) closely monitors and routinely tests fish to ensure that they are clear of residues."<br /><br />Thanks to Dr. Saksida for that clarifying information. <br /><blockquote><li>It takes three pounds of wild fish to grow one pound of farmed salmon. As a result, farming salmon actually uses more fish than it produces, which puts more pressure on wild populations.</li></blockquote>Simply put, that figure is old news. Currently, farmed salmon operations are converting fish meal to edible protein at a rate closer to 1.2:1. Due to protein substitutes, this will soon be less than 1:1, which means salmon farms will be a <span style="font-style: italic;">net protein producer</span> -- a detail that has escaped Monterey Bay's Seafood Watch program since they last looked at the industry in 2004. Lastly, this feed is only taken from sustainable sources.<br /><br />We've passed research buttressing these claims onto MBA, but we've yet to get a response. When and if we do, we'll pass it on.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-75988741517649469842009-01-13T10:12:00.001-08:002009-01-13T10:24:34.212-08:00Reaching Out to the "Go Wild" Kayaking ExpeditionA couple of days back, an employee at one of BC Salmon's member companies passed along a <a href="http://www.elevatedattitude.com/dailylife/inside-passage-kayaking-expedition-encourages-all-to-%E2%80%9Cgo-wild%E2%80%9D-for-wild-salmon">blog post from Phil Magistro and Apryle Craig</a>, a married couple from Colorado who are planning to take a kayaking adventure this Spring that will take them from the coast of Washington state, up the British Columbia coastline and eventually to Alaska.<br /><br />But Craig and Apryle aren't there just to have fun, they're also looking to, "examine and document the effects of salmon farming on the environment and coastal communities."<br /><br />Here's more:<br /><blockquote>As part of their investigation, Craig and Magistro are making plans to:<br /><br /> * Document the salmon farms and surrounding environment through photography, videography, and written reports.<br /> * Attend a salmon farm tour.<br /> * Interview First Nations and Canadian residents from various industries along the route regarding their knowledge about and stance on salmon farming.<br /> * Actively participate in salmon research.<br /> * Promote sustainable seafood choices and encourage people to “Go Wild,” by supporting sustainable fishing and ocean-use practices.<br /> * Build awareness for “The Eyes and Ears of the Coast” program and encourage the coastal community to participate.<br /> * Educate the community about the threatened state of pink and chum salmon.<br /> * Raise donations for Living Oceans Society with funds going towards the preservation of the magnificent coastal environment.</blockquote>As you might imagine, BC Salmon has taken note of the trip and wanted to reach out to the couple. The following is a note Mary Ellen Walling of BC Salmon sent to them just a few minutes ago.<br /><blockquote>January 13, 2009<br /><br />Dear Phil and Apryle:<br /><br />Earlier this week an employee at one of the salmon farms here in British Columbia passed along a link to the post on your blog announcing your plan to kayak your way from Washington state along the British Columbia coast all the way to Alaska. It sounds like a wonderful adventure, and as someone who moved to the west coast of Canada many decades ago in part because of the incredible natural beauty in this region, I know that your trip will be filled with memories that will last a lifetime.<br /><br />Like you both, my industry shares your concern about the local wild salmon population. At the same time, we also believe strongly that decisions about our environment not be based on emotional appeals and anecdotal evidence, but on a solid foundation of scientific research. I saw in your blog post that your trip will include a trip to a local salmon farm here in BC, and I'd like to offer you not only an opportunity to visit one of our farms, but also to get a personal briefing from some of our aquaculture scientists on the latest developments in our industry.<br /><br />Needless to say while the salmon farming business shares many of the goals of local environmental preservation advocates, we often differ significantly when it comes to how we go about achieving those goals. In many cases, we believe that our operations have been characterized unfairly, and we'd like the opportunity to set the record straight.<br /><br />Here's hoping that you take us up on our offer. In the meantime, good luck with your planning and best wishes for a safe journey.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Mary Ellen</blockquote>If and when we hear anything back from the couple -- and whether or not they take Mary Ellen up on her offer -- we'll let you know.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-72975900361641326282009-01-08T06:43:00.000-08:002009-01-08T06:46:22.793-08:00The Value of BC Farmed SalmonBack in December, a publication called <a href="http://www.straightgoods.ca/">The Straight Goods</a> ran a story about the wild salmon population in British Columbia. Yesterday, the publication ran <a href="http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewLetter.cfm?REF=318">Mary Ellen Walling's response</a> to the piece:<br /><blockquote>As Stephen Leahy considers "the real price of farmed salmon" (December 15) he raises some important points about the need to protect wild fish.<br /><br />Mr Leahy takes issue with salmon farming but for those concerned about the protection of wild fish and the environment a few more facts about aquaculture are in order.<br /><br />Today, around the world, consumption of fish is on the rise. This is a good thing as fish is a healthy and nutritious component of a good diet. However, the roughly 85 million tons a year of commercially caught fish has brought many species to the point of collapse and is no longer sufficient to meet growing global demand. For many, the best way to meet increasing demand without putting undue pressure on wild stocks to eat sustainably farmed fish, such as those raised in British Columbia, Canada.<br /><br />Farmers recognize the marine environment is their most valuable asset and must meet stringent regulatory requirements for the siting and operating of ocean farms. Farm stocks are carefully monitored to ensure both fish health and protection of the environment. In combination with fallowing, underwater inspections help to make sure the marine environment under the farms is in good condition. Mr Leahy describes himself as an environmental "journalist" but sadly there is little evidence of the basic tenets of journalism — accuracy and balance — in this piece.<br /><br />For example, while it is true that some First Nations do not support salmon farming, others do. This year Marine Harvest celebrated the 10th anniversary of its partnership with the Kitasoo First Nations in Klemtu. As a result of salmon farming this remote First Nation community has seen unemployment levels drop dramatically and many young people now have both jobs and opportunities within their traditional territory. The 6000 men and women who work in British Columbia's sustainable aquaculture sector take great pride in raising a healthy, nutritious fish that is in demand around the world. And as residents of the coast they are some of the strongest, most knowledgeable, stewards of the environment. That's how we measure the real value of farmed salmon.<br /><br />Mary Ellen Walling<br />Executive Director,<br />BC Salmon Farmers Association<br />Campbell River, BC</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-47966000548807266852009-01-06T13:01:00.000-08:002009-01-06T13:03:03.551-08:002009 Looks Good for BC SalmonFrom the <a href="http://www.bclocalnews.com/businessexaminer/vancouver_island/news/Business_braces_for_a_bruising_in_2009.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Business Examiner</span></a>:<br /><blockquote>Sales of B.C.’s farmed salmon remain brisk. “We have not been able to meet demand for several years now, especially in the U.S. market, our largest customer, with about 85 per cent of the product we grow in B.C. heading across the border,’ says Mary Ellen Walling, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, based in Campbell River. “2008 has seen fair prices for farmed salmon with a slight drop in the last quarter,” she says. Production and staffing levels, moreover, are expected to remain unchanged throughout 2009.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-20335289833579012692008-12-29T14:52:00.000-08:002008-12-29T15:01:23.158-08:00Taking Issue with Mark Hume on BC Salmon FarmingAn article/column by Mark Hume, printed in the December 26, 2008 edition of the <em>Globe and Mail</em>, lays the blame for declining wild salmon stocks on salmon farming. Unfortunately, he fails to look at this critical issue in the context of all factors that affect wild salmon populations and have resulted in declines along the entire west coast of North America. Our wild salmon and their protection deserve a more thorough assessment of all factors that influence wild salmon populations – anything less is a disservice to wild salmon and to Mr. Hume’s readers.<br /><br />Here’s how we responded to Mr. Hume. In a letter to the editor of the <em>Globe and Mail</em>, Mary Ellen Walling, BCSFA Executive Director, writes the following:<br /><br />Mark Hume flags an important issue for BC: the protection of wild salmon. It is unfortunate that his passion is not matched by a willingness to look a little deeper at the causes of the current problem.<br /><br />The easy thing is to blame salmon farming for wild fish declines. But the reality is much more complex. All up and down the coast, from Alaska to California, in areas with farms and in many areas without farms, salmon populations are in decline. The causes appear to include increased salinity, changes in water temperature, loss of habitat, urbanization and a host of other factors.<br /><br />As Mr Hume correctly notes, salmon farmers can mitigate the impacts of farming to ensure we raise a healthy nutritious and sustainable product. A lot more work on the part of the larger population will be required if we are to move beyond rhetoric and take a hard look at making changes to address the larger environmental issues. To read Mr. Hume’s <em>Globe and Mail</em> article/column click <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081226.BCHUME26/TPStory/Environment">here</a>.<br /><br />A February 2008 report from the BC Pacific Salmon Forum “Broughton Archipelago: A State of Knowledge” reviews all impacts of human development and industry during the past 50 years in this ecosystem. To read this report click <a href="http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/pdfs-all-docs/BroughtonStateofKnowledgeMay08.pdf">here</a> (Note: file size is >20 MB). Not all scientists agree with Mr. Hume. To read a commentary from the December 2008 issue of <em>Science</em> magazine click <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5909/1790b">here.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-32433203729536135632008-12-19T14:44:00.000-08:002008-12-19T14:51:48.197-08:00Just Who is Monterey Bay Aquarium Connected To?Yesterday we took a closer look at some background information about <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/">Monterey Bay Aquarium</a> and the <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch.asp">Seafood Watch Program</a>. After going over yesterday's information, I think it's pretty clear that Monterey Bay isn't exactly an outsider organization, but rather a firmly established member of the environmental activist community.<br /><br />What it all comes down to is money. And while <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/">Monterey Bay Aquarium</a> and its Seafood Watch Program have become self-sustaining over the years, the Packard Foundation has plunged ahead to fund an extensive Web of eco-activist groups that work together formally and informally, share information and coordinate activities.<br /><br />While <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/">Monterey Bay Aquarium</a> doesn't directly fund these organizations, the Packard Foundation more than makes up for it. The following is a list of organizations that received grants from Packard in the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 under the category of “Oceans and Coasts”. Most prominent must be the over $1.5 million in grants provided to the <a href="http://www.msc.org/">Marine Stewardship Council</a>, an “independent” NGO chartered to establish a global environmental standard for sustainable fisheries:<br /><br />American Littoral Society<br />Blue Ocean Institute<br />Center for Environmental Law and Policy<br />Center for Resource Economics (Island Press)<br />Community Conservation Network<br />Conservation International Foundation<br />Coral Reef Alliance<br />Coral Reef Research Foundation<br />Environmental Defense Fund<br />Environmental Law Institute<br />Environmental Media Services (now Science Communication Network)<br />Friends of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories<br />Global Greengrants Fund<br />International Center for Journalists<br />International Community Foundation<br />Living Oceans Society<br />Marine Conservation Biology Institute<br />Marine Science Institute<br />Marine Stewardship Council<br />National Environmental Trust<br />Nature Conservancy<br />NatureServe<br />New England Aquarium<br />Ocean Conservancy<br />Pacific Marine Conservation Council<br />Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research<br />SeaWeb<br />Surfrider Foundation<br />Sustainability Institute<br />Sustainable Fishery Advocates<br />Trust for Conservation Innovation<br />Union of Concerned Scientists<br />Wildcoast<br />Wildlife Conservation Society<br />World Resources Institute<br />World Wide Fund for Nature (World Wildlife Fund in the USA)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-50972203431806210452008-12-18T14:31:00.000-08:002008-12-19T14:43:49.044-08:00An Inside Look at Monterey Bay AquariumAs a followup to <a href="http://salmonfacts.blogspot.com/2008/12/taking-case-for-farmed-atlantic-salmon.html">the letter</a> from the <a href="http://www.salmonfarmers.org/">BC Salmon Farmers Association</a> to <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/">Monterey Bay Aquarium</a> (MBA), we thought it might be a good idea to take a closer look at MBA and how they operate. For the most part, non-profit organizations like MBA are seen as scrappy underdogs taking on evil corporations. But if you take a closer look at MBA and their operations, you'll find that it and its Seafood Watch program aren't scrappy underdogs at all. Instead, they're really a very powerful eco-lobbying organization backed by one of the largest non-profit foundations in the world.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/">Monterey Bay Aquarium</a> (MBA) is one of the best-connected and funded charities in North America, if not the world. It was initially endowed by the <a href="http://www.packard.org/home.aspx">David and Lucile Packard Foundation</a>, which was established by the late Hewlett-Packard co-founder. The Packard Foundation owns more than 70 million shares of Hewlett-Packard and is the company's largest shareholder with several family members serving on the Board of Directors. The Packard Foundation's endowment totals about $6.3 billion, making it one of the top 20 charitable foundations in the world.<br /><br />The Monterey Bay Aquarium was founded in 1978 by the Packards at the behest of their daughters Nancy and Julie with an initial contribution of $55 million. To this day, <a href="http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/302">Julie Packard</a> serves as the Aquarium's Vice Chairman and Executive Director and draws a salary. A third sister, Susan Packard Orr, is chairman of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and serves on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. The aquarium opened in 1984.<br /><br />For tax purposes, MBA is broken into three distinct, but affiliated organizations:<br /><br />• Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation – concerned with the day-to-day operations and financing of the aquarium itself. The Seafood Watch Program is an initiative of this arm of the Aquarium;<br /><br />• Monterey Bay Aquarium Support Services – which manages the real estate upon which the aquarium resides; and<br /><br />• <a href="http://www.mbari.org/">Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute</a> – an oceanographic research center based in Moss Landing, California. It was founded in 1987 and immediately endowed with a $13 million grant from the Packard Foundation. It has a staff of 200 and an operating budget of about $40 million per year and operates a fleet of three ocean-going research vessels.<br /><br />In 2006, the last year that the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation filed an IRS Form 990, total revenue for Monterey Bay and its affiliates totaled well over $55 million – over $9 million in contributions, more than $339,000 in government grants, more than $26 million in program services, and over $12 million in investment income.<br /><br />The largest single line item in financial support comes from admissions to the aquarium. For all intents and purposes, through a combination of paid admissions (2 million visitors per year), special events, charitable giving, membership dues and prudent management of its investment portfolio, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation is a self-sufficient entity financially.<br /><br />Despite spending almost $45 million in 2006, Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation was still able to end the year with a surplus of almost $10.5 million. For the tax year ending December 31, 2007, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation boasted over $307 million in total assets, $55 million in revenues and more than $13.5 million in investment income .<br /><br />The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is the major funding source for the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. In the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, the Packard Foundation distributed grants to the Research Institute totaling nearly $41 million.<br /><br />Also of note are the extensive links between the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and the U.S. Government. Several large agencies, including the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Department of Energy and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory made contributions totaling nearly $5.5 million to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. In 2004, NOAA awarded the Research Institute a $530,000 grant to <a href="http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/aug04/noaa04-r979.html">tag and track tuna in the Pacific Ocean</a>.<br /><br />In addition, a review of the Research Institute’s tax returns reveals that outside of grants to Stanford University to support a collaborative research program, it does not provide direct financial support for any outside organizations.<br /><br />While the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation does bestow grants on a number of outside organizations, the total dollar amount is a mere fraction of its overall budget. For the most part, these grants have been distributed to organizations engaged in direct marine biological research (white sharks, squids and sea otters).<br /><br />More details, later.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-10188245768921009462008-12-18T11:23:00.000-08:002008-12-18T11:24:18.841-08:0025 Years of Salmon Farming in British ColumbiaClick <a href="http://www.salmonfarmers.org/attachments/121708_MHC_25Years.pdf">here</a> for more from the <span style="font-style:italic;">Vancouver Sun</span>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-75109159182941575622008-12-18T11:20:00.000-08:002008-12-18T11:22:53.472-08:00First Nations Delegates Impressed By Norwegian Aquaculture Experience<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MnBtGPkp1RI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MnBtGPkp1RI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object><br><br>A Canadian group of First Nations Chiefs and delegates from Vancouver Island recently joined staff from <a href="http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/">Marine Harvest</a> and <a href="http://www.griegseafood.ca/">Grieg Seafood</a> to attend Norway’s Aquavision 2008 and to visit numerous aquaculture facilities. "The purpose of the trip was to share information about global aquaculture and to visit the birthplace of salmon farming," says Ian Roberts of Marine Harvest Canada.<br /><br />Veteran commercial fisherman James Walkus was one of the guests on the tour. "I found it very fascinating," said Walkus. "Their science efforts, of studying the Atlantic salmon, was very good. It is truly remarkable how much effort they put into fish farming to make it a success in their country."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-53437856088142446802008-12-12T09:15:00.000-08:002008-12-12T09:29:46.260-08:00Taking the Case for Farmed Atlantic Salmon to Monterey BayOver the past several months, <a href="http://www.salmonoftheamericas.com/index.cfm">Salmon of the Americas</a> has attempted to engage <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch.asp">Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch Program</a> in a dialogue about our industry and our practices. In particular, the industry as a whole believes that Monterey's Bay's evaluation of our operations are both are both out of date and unfair.<br /><br />In the case of the latter, we're referring specifically to the fact that "wild-caught" salmon from Alaska -- which should more accurately be described as ranched -- is rated "green" by Monterey Bay, despite the fact that the Alaskan industry engages in many of the very same sustainable practices that take place in both Chile and British Columbia.<br /><br />In short, we believe our industry has a compelling case, one that Mary Ellen Walling from the <a href="http://www.salmonfarmers.org/">BC Salmon Farmers Association</a> made directly to Monterey Bay's Geoff Shester in the following email that she asked me to share:<br /><blockquote>Hi Geoff, first of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time over the past few months to discuss your organization's approach to the evaluation of the sustainability of farmed salmon in both Chile and British Columbia.<br /><br />As I said earlier we're frustrated that Monterey Bay published an evaluation of our operations in the guide to sustainable sushi that relied on limited research material more than four years old -- the last complete report on farmed salmon published on the Monterey Bay Web site is dated April 27, 2004.<br /><br />One of our frustrations is that Monterey Bay continues to classify Alaska Salmon as wild, when ranched is a far more accurate term. In addition, while the Monterey Bay Web site lists several objections to farmed salmon, there is no mention that many of the practices that led Monterey Bay to place farmed Atlantic salmon on the red list are also regularly practiced in Alaska. Can you please explain this disconnect?<br /><br />In particular we note:<br /><br />Salmon escapes are listed as a concern. Modern farm practices, staff training and equipment improvements have ensured that escapes have been drastically reduced. As well, Monterey Bay does not recognize the 1.5 billion salmon that the Alaskan industry releases annually into the Northern Pacific and their effect on other wild fish populations.<br /><br />The report lists waste as a concern. We’ve done a lot of work in BC and elsewhere to ensure that farms are well sited, and that we have developed feeding strategies and fallowing techniques to reduce impacts, yet this is not recognized. We are concerned about the continued linkage of effects from fish waste and human waste as this is, from our perspective, scientifically inaccurate. Fish waste does not contain the contaminants carried by the human equivalent and has little, if any, measurable effect on local ocean life.<br /><br />In addition, we'd also like to express concern about the conclusion that it takes three pounds of wild fish to grow one pound of farmed salmon. In the BC farms as an example, this ratio has been lowered to near one-to-one thanks to the use of plant based proteins and other process improvements. In addition, our operations only use fishmeal and fish oil from operations that we have rated as sustainable.<br /><br />We would be happy to provide detailed scientific and veterinary data backing up this information and wish to ensure that this information is included in the upcoming review of the standards by Monterey Bay. I would like to discuss how we might provide this information to you and the timeline and process for the review in order that we might work with you to ensure an accurate assessment of our farm practices. I also encourage you to get in touch to discuss any of the questions regarding Sea Choices. I am more than happy to speak with you about sustainable farming practices and look forward to future discussions.</blockquote>That note was sent to Shester on December 4. We've yet to receive a response. If and when we do, we'll share it with you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-66235153708122049382008-12-03T09:06:00.000-08:002008-12-03T09:13:12.482-08:00A Look Back at the Pocket Sushi GuidesBack in October a trio of ENGOs <a href="http://salmonfacts.blogspot.com/2008/10/nfi-on-sushi-pocket-guides.html">simultaneously released guides to sustainable sushi</a>. Our friend over at the <a href="http://seafood.org/">National Fisheries Institute</a> did a Q&A with Intrafish on the guides a few weeks back, and we neglected to share it with you. The dialogue is below:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Even if the guide’s aren’t perfect, isn’t it good it keeps people away from the worst-fished species – or at least gets them talking about seafood and sustainability?</span><br /><br />The imperfection of the guides and the competing number of them could have the very real possibility of driving confused consumers away from healthful and in many cases sustainable seafood. Monterey Bay Aquarium's guide was released on October 22nd and lists Alaska pollock in its “Best Choices” column. On October 9th, Greenpeace announced people should not eat Alaska pollock because it is "on the verge of collapse." (Alaska pollock was also featured on Greenpeace's “red list” back in June.) Meanwhile, the messages these guides and lists give go beyond sustainability. The environmental lobbying organizations that produce them often stray into giving health advice, which is outside their purview. And the advice they offer in that realm is as confusing and even contradictory as some of the sustainability messages we see. For instance, the very first fish on the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Best Choices list is "Aji." If they then read the legend, consumers will notice the asterisk next to this specie corresponds with a message to "limit consumption due to concerns about mercury or other contaminants." So, is it the best choice or should I be limiting my consumption? What's more, consumption limits with regard to mercury apply only to pregnant women, women who may become pregnant and small children.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Who can provide the proper oversight to bring uniformity to the guides? Who will pay for all this oversight and checking?</span><br /><br />NOAA is a good start when it comes to an agency that could provide uniformity and oversight to these types of guides. And as far as who will pay for all of this oversight and checking-- you will and quite frankly already are. NOAA already has a dynamic, constantly updated Web site called FishWatch that gives consumers the latest on the status of the stocks. It is a great tool and is one that we would hope will receive more attention and resources and be able to reach a wider audience.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Are these guides really that influential? How many times have you seen someone pull one out at a restaurant?</span><br /><br />When it comes to healthy food choices, guides that have the potential to misinform and confuse consumers should not be written off. Americans only eat 16.3 lbs of seafood a year when doctors and dietitians suggest we should eat closer to 39 lbs for optimum health. Guides that are misinformed and create impediments to seafood consumption, even if well meaning for environmental reasons, can impact public health and should be thought of that way.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Is the objection to the guides in general, or just the number of them available? Should there be just one or two “official” guides? And whom should put them out?</span><br /><br />Guides that are printed and folded and tucked away in your pocket or wallet cease almost immediately to keep up with the changing nature of seafood stocks. Some stocks are up, some are down, some run into sustainability challenges, while others should be heralded for their successes. But the card in your wallet stays the same. Guides like these are not created with the input and expertise of the seafood community. Watermen and women are the true stewards of sustainability and should be consulted on projects of this nature, but are not.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Additional Comments from NFI</span><br /><br />The advice we see from environmental lobbying groups is sometimes confusing and contradictory, and has a potentially detrimental effect on public health. These efforts are arguably most misguided in that they seek to boil sustainability down to a neat wallet card or a handy list. This is an unrealistic and improper goal because it ignores the three facets that must be considered in order to truly assess sustainability; (in alphabetical order) economic, environmental, social. Cards that distill the sustainability story of any one species down to a list or a ranking rarely take in to account all three considerations and therefore fail in their goal.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-36061269433316261182008-12-02T08:17:00.000-08:002008-12-02T08:45:09.857-08:00Responding to Alexandra Morton and the New York TimesMary Ellen Walling also passed us the following note that she wrote in response to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/science/04prof.html">a <span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span> profile of British Columbia-based environmental activist, Alexandra Morton</a>:<br /><blockquote>Alexandra Morton's efforts to save the orcas off the coast of British Columbia are admirable. As Cornelia Dean discovered in her profile, Ms. Morton is passionate about her environment. Ms. Dean also learned Ms. Morton "doesn't come from a scientific background but she has had a lot of influence" when it comes to scrutinizing the salmon farming industry in British Columbia.<br /><br />The problem is that readers of the article are likely to come away endorsing Ms. Morton's view that sea lice from salmon farms are decimating wild salmon populations in the Broughton Archipelago. That would be unfortunate because the article neglects to mention a couple of key points and misrepresents a couple of others.<br /><br />A fisheries biologist quoted in the article notes, "A lot of wild salmon populations have been on the edge for quite a long time, threatened by logging, dams and plain old overfishing". Up and down the Pacific Coast this year there have been reports of declining salmon populations: many of the areas of concern are not conducive to aquaculture or are places where there are no farms. The main culprit seems to be climate change, which has caused increased water salinity and changes in water temperature and currents.<br /><br />In British Columbia, where Ms. Morton lives, salmon farming is the most stringently regulated agricultural industry in the province, and of any salmon farming region in the world. In recognition of the fact that sea lice, a naturally occurring marine parasite, could infest salmon farms, breed and then transfer back to wild fish, farmers are required - as a condition of their operating license - to monitor fish for lice. More than three lice on any fish triggers treatment using a product called SLICE, which even critics such as Ms. Morton's research partner Martin Krkosek has found to be very effective in eradicating lice while being benign to the marine environment.<br /><br />Ms. Dean describes how Alexandra Morton inspects farmed salmon to see if they have been fed chemicals to colour their flesh pink. What isn't mentioned is that all salmon - farmed and wild - have naturally pale flesh. The pink colour that we associate with salmon comes from beta carotene: wild fish get it from eating krill; farmed fish get it from carotenoids (either astaxanthin or canthaxanthin) an ingredient that can be purchased in health food stores for human consumption as it has strong anti-oxidant qualities.<br /><br />In the video that accompanied the article we hear Ms Morton direct us not to eat farmed salmon but to eat wild fish instead. This statement is both alarming and irresponsible. Global demand for fish has doubled since 1973. As a result, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization states that "the maximum wild-capture fisheries potential from the world's oceans has probably been reached." For those who wish to protect wild fish the best thing to do is to eat sustainably farmed fish - such as those we raise in British Columbia - as a way to meet increasing demand without putting undue pressure on wild stocks<br /><br />Ms Morton and salmon farmers in BC have many points of disagreement but we share a common concern. British Columbia's wild salmon are a precious resource that deserves to be protected -- both from environmental risks and emotional rhetoric.</blockquote>For more on the salmon farming operations in British Columbia, click <a href="http://www.salmonfarmers.org/">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-89473216631198435772008-12-02T07:54:00.000-08:002008-12-02T08:45:36.615-08:00A Response to Mark Bittman and the New York TimesBack on November 15, Mark Bittman the <span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span> published a piece by Mark Bittman entitled, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/weekinreview/16bittman.html">A Seafood Snob Ponders the Future of Fish</a>." Mary Ellen Walling of the BC Salmon Farmers Association penned the following response:<br /><blockquote>As Mark Bittman "ponders the future of fish" he raises some important points about the need to protect wild fish. For example, he points out that most commercial fisheries are not well managed. The result?<br /><br />The roughly 85 million tons a year of commercially caught fish has brought many species to the point of collapse and is insufficient to meet growing global demand.<br /><br />It therefore seems incongruous to be proposing that we should eat more wild fish. Surely we should be eating sustainably farmed fish as a way to meet increasing demand without putting undue pressure on wild stocks.<br /><br />Mr. Bittman takes issue with what he calls the "industrial farming" of fish but for those concerned about the protection of wild fish and the environment a few more facts about salmon farming are in order.<br /><br />First of all, the health benefits of eating wild and farmed salmon are exactly the same. That's good news for consumers. Farmed salmon means there is a year-round supply of fresh fish and the price is typically less that one would pay for wild fish in season. That's more good news for the consumer.<br /><br />Farmers recognize the marine environment is their most valuable asset and must meet stringent regulatory requirements for the siting and operating of ocean farms. Farm stock are carefully monitored to ensure fish health and should antibiotics be required to treat illness they can only be used under a veterinarian's prescription: over the life of a farmed raised salmon more than 97 per cent of its feed is free of any type of antibiotic. That's good for both the environment and consumers.<br /><br />Millions of people enjoy the mild flavor of Atlantic salmon but for Mr.Bittman and others who prefer a fuller flavor they might try sockeye, the species raised on ocean ranches in Alaska and farmed elsewhere, or Chinook another native Pacific species farmed in British Columbia.<br /><br />There are many different choices consumers can make but if you are concerned about protecting the wild fishery the best thing you can do right now is eat sustainably farmed fish.</blockquote>Mary Ellen also tells me that Mr. Bittman has an open invitation to visit any of the facilities in British Columbia to see for himself how the facilities operate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-73252191507119732842008-10-22T09:45:00.001-07:002008-10-22T09:47:05.678-07:00Questions for the Authors of the Sustainable Sushi GuidesIf you'd like to take a look at the sushi pocket guide published by the <a href="http://www.edf.org/">Environmental Defense Fund</a>, click <a href="http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=29774">here</a>. While you're reading it, keep the following questions in mind:<br /><ul><li>Why is nutritional guidance being given to the public without any peer review or even the availability of the underlying medical assertions?<br /></li></ul><ul><li>Since the guides conflate “mercury and other contaminants” – even citing fish like salmon with scant trace amounts, how can consumers avoid confusion about the specific health threats being alleged?<br /></li></ul><ul><li>If these guides actually dissuade some consumers from eating seafood altogether, as the federal government has warned can occur from alarmist nutritional information, wouldn’t that deny Americans proven and vital health benefits of eating fish?<br /></li></ul><ul><li>Is it appropriate for environmental lobbying groups to be providing nutritional advice to the public in the first place? </li></ul>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-3248236518653299852008-10-22T08:19:00.000-07:002008-10-22T09:47:57.413-07:00NFI on the Sushi Pocket GuidesAnother CounterPoint client, the <a href="http://www.aboutseafood.com/">National Fisheries Institute</a>, just posted an item about the sushi pocket guides that were published today -- <a href="http://www.aboutseafood.com/press/media-blog/confusing-guidance">give it a read right now</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8115593864024407082.post-18937296364494871962008-10-22T07:00:00.000-07:002008-10-22T09:47:28.013-07:00Welcome to Salmon FactsHi, I'm Eric McErlain of <a href="http://counterpointstrategies.com/">CounterPoint Strategies</a>, and we're working with the trade group Salmon of the Americas to bring you Salmon Facts, a blog about salmon aquaculture.<br /><br />The issue we're watching today concerns a trio of guides on "sustainable sushi" that are being published simultaneously by the <a href="http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/">Monterey Bay Aquarium</a>, the <a href="http://www.blueocean.org/">Blue Ocean Institute</a> and the <a href="http://www.edf.org/">Environmental Defense Fund</a>. We've known for a few days that each of these guides were going to place farmed Atlantic Salmon on their red list for some time now, and we're watching the resulting media coverage very closely.<br /><br />Needless to say, the folks at <a href="http://salmonfacts.org/">Salmon of the Americas</a> in Chile and British Columbia don't agree with their findings. Here's a portion of a media advisory that the National Fisheries Institute and Salmon of the Americas issued jointly yesterday:<br /><blockquote>Reporters and editors are urged to question the overall viability of the guides while keeping in mind there is little if any independent oversight and or uniformity in production of these types of materials. By causing confusion in the marketplace, these guides might actually dissuade consumers from eating seafood, something that would deny them the proven health benefits of cause direct harm to public health.<br /><br />What’s more, use of guides produced by environmental lobbying groups in order to obtain nutrition information is completely inappropriate.<br /><br />You are urged to consult with members of the seafood community to provide a fuller picture of the issues involved.<br /><br />The following spokespeople are available to provide input from the global fisheries industry regarding the guide's recommendations:<br /><br />Gavin Gibbons<br />National Fisheries Institute<br />703-752-8891<br /><br />Mary Ellen Walling<br />Salmon of the Americas/BC Salmon Farmers<br />250-286-1636</blockquote>For more, on salmon sustainability questions, click <a href="http://salmonfacts.org/issues/environment/index.cfm">here</a>. Keep watching this space all day long.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0