On Friday, May 27, a group of pro-fish farm scientists responded to recent testimonies before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans through an opinion article in the Globe and Mail.
Four of the authors are from British Columbia.
Dr Tony Farrell is a professor and Canada Research Chair for fish physiology, culture and conservation at the University of British Columbia. Farrell has previously gone on record stating he was ‘absolutely delighted‘ that the BC Salmon Farmers Association funds research projects.
Three of his co-authors have past or present connections to the BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences in Campbell River.
Prior to relaunching his consulting firm Fidelis Aquaculture Management in 2020, Dr Jim Powell was CEO at the BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences for six years. At the time of his retirement, Powell told SeaWestNews, “those opposed to farming in the ocean need a stability to ensure their concerns are addressed, and the fish farmers need a stability to grow sustainably…we don’t have that now.”
Dr Ahmed Siah, a research scientist at the BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences, was the presenter of Marine Harvest Canada’s Environment Award in 2014. Dianne Morrison of Marine Harvest Canada (now known as MOWI) was one of the co-authors of Dr Siah’s 2015 paper on Piscine Reovirus. They were also co-authors of another paper on the same topic. Morrison is currently the Chair of MOWI. Dr Siah recently took part in a two year study of bacterial diseases in farmed and wild salmon. The DFO index page names John Paul Fraser, then Executive Director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association, as a collaborator.
Dr Spencer Russell is an associate professor at the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture at Vancouver Island University. In the bio accompanying a recent lecture, it states Dr Russel provided ‘veterinary, technical and scientific support for aquaculture clients globally.’ He sits on the board of the BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences. Two of his fellow directors work in the fish farm industry.
In their Globe and Mail article, Farrell et al. state:
“The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans heard from an organized group of scientists and anti-salmon farming activists who alleged that the DFO withheld certain studies. The group also criticized recent Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat reports concerning potential risk to wild salmon of pathogens from farmed salmon as being unreliable, because the reports did not support the activists’ claim that salmon farming poses significant harm to wild salmon.
As scientists who have contributed to many peer-reviewed analyses on salmon conservation and farming for the DFO, we’re compelled to respond to prevent propagation of any misinformation. Canadians can trust the scientific facts and advice presented by CSAS, the science evaluation body of the DFO.
Home-grown, ocean-farmed salmon is a valuable food resource for Canadians. It is an affordable, highly nutritious protein with year-round access.”
Speaking directly to the question of their research, they added:
“All-in-all, the CSAS reports with which we participated did an excellent job of assembling and evaluating all the relevant scientific facts as a current state-of-affairs of the topics we studied.
First, the Fishing-Related Incidental Mortality for Pacific Salmon report of 2016 assigned salmon mortality percentages to those fish that encounter fishing gear (for example, hooks and nets) but are not actually caught, an alarmingly high number in some instances.
Second, the Closed Containment Salmon Aquaculture report of 2008 noted a major concern with the need for a high electrical usage in production, a problem that is still not fully resolved today.
Third, the 2019 report on Piscine orthoreovirus heard about experiments that deliberately injected the virus into sockeye salmon to infect them. The infected salmon’s ability to take up oxygen, to exercise and to withstand hypoxic water was not significantly harmed.
Consensus opinions were reported in the CSAS reports. While scientific facts are invariant, opinions on these facts can understandably differ. Dissenting voices are also noted in the process. So, should Canadians trust the CSAS process and their reports? Having collectively participated in many CSAS reports, our answer is: Yes, we should.”
Top image credit: Globe and Mail watermelon – Photo by Sarah Marshall via Flickr (CC BY SA, 2.0 License)
Sign-up for Cortes Currents email-out:
To receive an emailed catalogue of articles on Cortes Currents, send a (blank) email to subscribe to your desired frequency:
- Daily, (articles posted during the last 24 hours) – [email protected]
- Weekly Digest cortescurrents – [email protected]