Monday, 15 October 2018

Precautionary Principle has a Defined Approach

Here is a thorough look at the precautionary principle, as applied to getting fish farms out of the water on the grounds they are detrimental to wild salmon. The reason for using the principle is that it doesn't matter how much science is done, fish farms will always say that the science done doesn't prove anything and that more science is required.

Doing science is thus a trap, because a decade will go by and still fish farms, and DFO, will say there is not enough science. Hence the reason for using the precautionary principle to save wild salmon. one example is that fish farms don't agree that lice cause problems even though there have been 30 such studies in BC, and 800 world wide, and that lice cause the greatest loss of farmed fish around the world. And Helge Aarskog, CEO of Marine Harvest says lice are their biggest problem, even though Marine Harvest in BC doesn't agree.

For links to the lice studies, see this post of mine:

There is a good coverage of the issue of precautionary principle in the Agriculture Minister's Advisory Council's Appendix 2 in the report:

Written by Tony Allard

He says: "There are constitutional, legislative, policy and international obligations that require the Minister to apply the precautionary principle.The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk, even if there is scientific uncertainty."
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect fisheries and oceans. Section 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government jurisdiction over the “Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries”.


"The history of the Oceans Act is important to understanding its legislative intent. By the early 1990s, the cod fishery on Canada’s Atlantic coast had collapsed. The Oceans Act was passed in 1996 to ensure that such a catastrophe never occurred again in Canada. The Oceans Act ext ended Canada’s jurisdiction over marine waters and required an ecosystem approach to the management of the marine environment based on the precautionary principle.

"Sections 29 and 30 of the Oceans Act expressly require the Minister to apply the precautionary principle.

"Moreover, in the Prime Minister’s Mandate Letter to the Minister, the Prime Minister expressly requires the Minister to “[u]se scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, and take into account climate change, when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management”.

"In The Uncertain Future of the Fraser River Sockeye(the “Cohen Commission”), Mr. Justice Cohen came to similar conclusion. Mr. Justice Cohen observed that the Federal Court in Environmental Defence Canada v . Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2009 FC 878 said that Canada had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (the Convention) and, since the precautionary principle was a main component of that convention, Canada had committed to apply the precautionary principle.

"Canada has also committed to the precautionary principle in several pieces of federal legislation,including the Oceans Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, SC 1999, c 33, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52."

Allard goes on to cite several cases and policy documents that show DFO is to use the precautionary principle.  For example Justice Rennie in Morton, 2016 spells out what is required:

"...although there is a healthy debate between respected scientists on the issue, the evidence, suggests that the disease agent (PRV) may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish, and therefore a “lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”: Spraytechat para 31"


"Mr. Justice Rennie’s interpretation al so sits squarely with the classic statement of the precautionary principle by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Spray Tech decision, but it shifts the emphasis away from scientific uncertainty, where the discussion is often focused, and places it back on anticipation and prevention of environmental harm:

In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Allard points out that: "Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Salmon expressly requires the precautionary principle to be applied with respect to the conservation of wild salmon"

This means it applies to the Wild Salmon Policy.


"The precautionary approach, defined in the Oceans Act as “erring on the side of caution,is a key principle to be applied in the management of ocean activities. Under the Strategy, the Government of Canada is reaffirming its commitment to promoting the wide application of the precautionary  approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine environment. 142

And, science is needed as a place to start, but not a place to say no: "Before the precautionary approach can be applied, scientific data relevant to the risk must be evaluated through a sound, credible, transparent and inclusive mechanism leading to a conclusion that expresses the possibility of occurrence of harm and the magnitude of that harm (including the extent of possible damage, persistency, reversibility and delayed effect).143"

 And the framework that government must use includes the following: "The application of precaution is distinctive within science-based risk management and is characterized by three basic tenets: the need for a decision, a risk of serious or irreversible harm and a lack of full scientific certainty.145"

Now, fish farms will always say that they have millions invested and the government can't just dump them on land, where is the science? I have pointed out several times that the sewage cost to BC is at minimum, $10.4B and this is vastly higher than the revenue, as measured by BC Stats of $469M. It would pay us well to give them $1m each to set up on land, as that total would be $85 million, given that roughly 85 farms are operating at any time.

"Since the Framework provides a series principles a decision-maker must follow to protect the environment, it is not surprising that the Framework makes it expressly clear that any impact on the assessment of trade occurs only after the decision- maker has determined the level of protection is consistent with society’s values. Accordingly, the Framework’s last principle makes it clear that the impact on trade is to be considered only after the decision to apply precautionary measures has been made"

 The precautionary approach, is summarized this way, rather than the oppposite of fish farms saying the country will never attract investment, that you have to show us 100% proof that w e cause damage, and jobs will be lost, etc.:

"First, a level of protection is chosen so that it is aligned with society’s values. Second, optionsfor protective measures that meet that level of protection are identified. Third, and only after the first two steps, the impacts on trade are assessed and protective measures that may have a lesser effect on trade may only be chosen if they maintain an equal level of protection.151 The decision-maker cannot decrease the level of protection to increase trade. Rather, once society’s chosen level of protection has been determined, the decision-maker can only choose between protective measures that maintain that level of protection. If multiple options for precautionary measures are available that provide the same level of protection, only then can the decision- maker choose the least trade-restrictive option."

 For example, DFO should refuse to let PRV infected smolts be put in the ocean, acting on the precautionary principle, not ironclad science, because fish farms say there is no ironclad science.

In closing, Allard puts it this way: "The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk even if there is scientific uncertainty."

And that the minister must do what is reasonable, not what he thinks is reasonable, but what the situation requires as the most reasonable outcome, such as putting fish farms on land. You may know that my list of on-land fish farm systems now sits at 251 such RAS systems:

Friday, 12 October 2018

ISA in Canada

Here are the ISA cases reported in Canada by the CFIA for so far in 2018. As you can see it is a pretty full list.

There are two questions:

1. Do we trust the CFIA? I am not sure, as they were the agency that conspired with DFO to find a disease testing system that would produce a negative response for disease in BC. Here is a link to that post, and brilliant work by Alex Morton: I asked the Attorney General to investigate this case of fraud. Her staff said she could not, so I asked who do I contact to start an investigation? I will let you know what the AG has to say.

Are we supposed to trust the CFIA when its lab was criticized in the Cohen Commission process and that they colluded with DFO?

2. What is to be made of the cases where the CFIA says that a particular strain is not known to cause ISA disease? Well, the issues are that each strain can become infectious and then wipe out farmed fish, taking wild fish with them. And, the CFIA is not identifying where the strain is from. Typically it is from Europe, meaning eggs imported with disease. But they don't go into this.

Note the obvious: there are many cases of ISA that could become full blown epidemics in the list below.

Locations infected with Infectious Salmon Anaemia
Date confirmed Location Animal type infected Scientific Name
September 11 Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
August 30 Table Note * New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
August 28 New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
August 24 Table Note * Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
July 27 Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
July 24 New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
June 20 Table Note * New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
June 20 Table Note * New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
May 3 New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
May 2 Table Note * Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
March 26 Nova Scotia Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
March 13 Nova Scotia Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
March 9 Table Note * Nova Scotia Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
February 13 Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
Table Notes
Table Note *
This virus strain is not known to cause disease.

Sunday, 7 October 2018

Let’s Take a Global Look at the SRKW Problem

You will recall that I did an article on the SRKW problem. I pointed out that the problem has resulted from DFO, in Ottawa, managing killer whales and wild Pacific salmon into extinction for forty years. Look at the photo in that article to see one chinook catch from the 1960s when there were healthy chinook populations in many rivers: This post has been viewed more than 10,000 times.

I made the point that you can’t save extinction levels of SRKW with extinction levels of Fraser chinook, chiefly those 4-2s and 5-2s. The answer is a dozen netpens, each of 2 million sterilized chinook, around the south coast every year for at least a decade, and money put into freshwater habitat restoration/epigenetic enhancement.

What is DFO doing? Well, it is not doing what is required to give the SRKW a better chance – putting more salmon in the water – and it is not doing much habitat restoration. It is tamping down on sport fishing and trying to feed extinction level SRKW without putting more chinook in the ocean, and the most likely result is that both salmon and SRKW will move to extinction.

You see, DFO, ignoring any other approach, is now requesting sport fishers, guides and so on to offer up more areas of critical habitat for the SRKW to feed. It has increased the current zones it has established by adding Swiftsure Bank and La Perouse Bank and giving us only the option of responding to that suggestion, by Nov 3, 2018. 

The Sport Fishing Institute has done a good post on where we are today, with a new site dedicated to the issue: Go look at it as, just as my article did, it cuts to the chase and is a good summary, with the stats. Note that it includes a cull to seals/sea lions, as my article did, and for the same reason: they eat almost half of all coho and chinook smolts in the ocean, particularly Georgia Strait, and their numbers have more than doubled over the years.

Here is the DFO page to see what they have to say:

On the issue of critical habitat, let me give you the SFI’s paragraph:

“A technical workshop held in Vancouver last year was well attended by both whale and salmon biologists and managers from OR, WA, AK and BC. The SFI's Martin Paish attended as a representative of the SFAB, SFI and the sport fishing community. The consensus reached at that workshop was that large-scale closures implemented to increase the overall abundance of chinook would NOT be an effective strategy to provide more prey to SRKW’s. Again, DFO needs to listen to its experts and not to strategically manipulated public opinion. Find details and findings of the workshop here and on the SFI website:

The SFI says this is where we are now, and asks you to send a note to DFO, as above: 

“Our “consultation” experience for SRKW’s in 2018 created great mistrust between DFO and the fishing community. The DFO Minister of the day chose to bow to political pressure in the form of a threatened lawsuit rather than listen to the advice offered by his own Pacific Region staff and the carefully and thoughtfully gathered community recommendations that incorporated the best available science of the day. This was both demoralizing to staff, insulting to those who took the time to participate in consultation, and downright irresponsible in its purely political rather than scientific justification. The result was a ridiculous farce that permits industrial scale commercial fisheries for the same species in the same areas while low impact recreational fisheries are prohibited. We know that regional staff and the local fishing community are both insulted and demoralized by the outcome, and we are fearful that a similar approach may be taken this time.”

Now, let me take this in another direction: there are more issues out there with DFO that need to be mentioned. I read all sorts of DFO material and have noticed that the many areas don’t have much connection with one another.

On the one hand, we have the Sport Fish Advisory Board, The Pacific Salmon Commission and The Pacific Halibut Commission concerned with: what poundage of fish is out there and how do we divide them among stakeholders.

In addition, loads of money is spent on putting out two fishing management plans, one for northern BC and one for southern BC. These are known as the Integrated Fisheries Management Plans. At 500 pages each, they represent huge expenditure, but only have tangential connection with the various fisheries. I say this, knowing some of the arguments between the SFAB and DFO on stock abundance, and number of fish/species retained. We seldom talk about the IFMPs. Why waste this huge amount of money? Let’s put it into freshwater habitat restoration and epigenetic enhancement.

To take this in another direction, one would think that DFO would have province wide stocks and numbers of all species. But I didn’t find this when looking for it. I found that there are a half dozen documents that looked at parts of the province, but that DFO had not brought them together to have a big picture number of salmon and species and areas of the province. 

So, I spent more than a full week with the various documents, sorted out double-counting, made do with data with holes in it, with methodological problems, with floods in one year requiring helicopter counts, but next year it was on foot, and so on. Trying to come out with a fair estimate, I made assumptions here and there, plugged the holes and felt that before all fisheries that BC has 73 million salmon in the ocean in an average year. Escapement would be about half, or 38 million. Here is a post that gives you the DFO documents I used. See item B toward the bottom: You will note that BC salmon are 99.8% of all salmon in Canada. So where is the cash for their problems?

Let me take this another direction: DFO’s take on Fraser River sockeye subcomponents is filled with wizardry, with gill net and seine net in ocean, in river, and real time DNA testing. The panel reports twice each week for close to five months of the year. A huge amount of money is spent to do this, while wild salmon are declining toward extinction levels in many areas of the province. Why isn’t this money used to put real fish in the water, rather than document their decline?

Let me take this in another direction: the SFI points out that eliminating sport fisheries that take less than commercial fisheries, and are second in line with aboriginal fisheries, will have a large negative effect on towns and businesses on the coast, without positive SRKW result. For the Pacific Salmon Foundation, I put together the take from sport in BC. Including freshwater fisheries, the sport contribution to our economy is $2.52 billion. Here is how I calculated the figure:  

The PSF did a study on Georgia Strait and found that the increased revenue from sport for coho and chinook, once brought back, is $200- $400-million in addition to the figure I calculated, or, being conservative, a total of $2.72 B. (Note that the Freshwater Fisheries Society did its own study of freshwater sport take of $937 million. I added this amount to the over all figure I calculated, so if your interest is simply saltwater sport fishing revenue, take their figure out of my $2.52B).

Whichever way you slice it, eliminating the sport fishery will have a real impact on those 13,000 jobs in the industry, from the BC Stats Report on the fishing sectors, 2012, See the bottom of this post for the BC Stats table:

Let me take this yet another direction. The laws to do with salmon and fish in Canada/BC have been weakened in many ways over many years. They need to be brought back. See: Laws and Policies to do with Pacific Salmon:

And yet another direction: once you have decent laws, then they need to be enforced. Randy Nelson’s book Poachers, Polluters and Politics points out the moribund nature of Conservation and Protection under DFO. He was director of the branch for years, and it was underfunded and understaffed. So, enforcement needs to be dramatically improved, too. See: Read this book for some of the really difficult cases he was on, and DFO’s lack of enforcement presence.

And for another direction: did you know that the BC enhancement budget is put into C&P, where it shouldn’t be? That means that it has been used as a bargaining chip when C&P budgets are haggled over every year before budget time, in Ottawa, and has resulted in BC enhancement budgets being far too low. DFO this is fake news, er, an illegitimate place to put BC enhancement in the over all scheme of DFO budgets. My recollection is that DFO’s budget is about $1.5 billion, and the max $25 million in enhancement is 1.7% of that budget. Surely, we can do better for bringing back 99.8% of all the salmon in Canada.

And yet another direction: The SFI alludes to the environmental organizations gathering up and demanding the end of sport fishing to save the SRKW, along with launching a lawsuit. I sent a long note on the issue of laws to the ED of the Georgia Strait Alliance:

I said that the GSA should start a netpen for chinook. The ED sent back that they didn’t know how to do a netpen. As this is not rocket science, I just shook my head, and also realized that the environmental organizations had little experience with the huge decline in wild salmon over the years and DFO’s intransigence on bringing them back. If they did, they would realize that stopping all sport fishing will not save the SRKW. The answer is putting more fish in the sea and eating seal flippers for dinner a few times. And looking at one another as allies, not enemies.

And in yet another direction: you will recall I pointed out that DFO specifically intended to ruin the research of Dr. John Volpe on the spread of Atlantic salmon into Vancouver Island rivers. After agreeing to give him some Atlantic fry, DFO pulled out of his study two days before he was to start. That’s because DFO is behind farmed salmon more than it is behind wild Pacific salmon. While this is disappointing, you should know that Volpe went on to do his research, while DFO refused to publish an Atlantic coast paper on Atlantic penetration of wild Atlantic stocks and an insider had to leak the paper out. 

The bottom line on Volpe’s work is that of the 40 rivers he swam in search of Atlantic fry and adults, he found them in 97% of the rivers he looked at, nothing short of shocking. Here is one link to get you into that subject:  

DFO still maintains, er, fibs that Atlantics can’t exist outside of netpens, feed, go up rivers, spawn, have viable progeny and so on. Hmm.

I could go on, but I think I have made the point that there are a whole lot of other big issues that are not being considered at the same time as DFO is only looking for input on two areas of habitat it wants to hive off from the sport fishery, Swiftsure and La Perouse. 

How does one deal with this? I think the solution is to back MLA, Adam Olsen’s Wild Salmon Secretariat of the BC government, and foster habitat restoration by funding the Pacific Salmon Foundation that leverages money 4 to 7 times. And school kids and sport fishers do most of the work, something the ENGOs don’t seem to get. If the sport fishery is curtailed, no one is going to get out and help with freshwater habitat restoration and netpens. And most sport anglers will sell their boats, which in an average year cost about $10,000 to maintain, moored in saltwater. With up to 300,000 licenced anglers each year, that adds up to big dollars pretty darn quickly.

Let me end with something in last week’s article. The comments Jim Gilbert made decades ago about DFO. The rest is at:

“Jim has long been a critic of the top brass in the federal fisheries department. He feels DFO has no flexibility on internal creative thinking to respond to a crisis. Jim has a lot of respect for the many hard-working biologists but says lack of leadership is the problem. Nobody is putting all the knowledge together to come up with a long-range viable plan. Most of the money is spent on a bureaucracy in Ottawa and little filters down to the people in the field who do the most important work.”



Update, Oct 15, 2018: DFO Can't Track Salmon - letter to Carmel Lowe from BC DFO staff, not enough $$ to track salmon:

Monday, 1 October 2018

Most Popular Posts - September 2018

There have been some very big numbers of pageviews for some of the most popular posts of September 2018.

March 2018.

2. DFO, Salmon and Killer Whales: More than 10,000 page views. May 20 2018

3. CFIA Deception in Atlantic Canada, Just like in Pacific Canada: August 2018.

4. UBCM Stacks Deck Against Fish Farms [?], Well No, Times Colonist, September 2018: All they did was say we the cities of BC want fish farms on land.

5. BAD NEWS BITES:, May 2017.

6. Toxic Sea Lice - Norway is a Disaster Zone: Also one of the biggest posts of 2018. Lice chemicals kill lots of other species than lice on salmon. September 2018.

7. 249 On Land Fish Farms Around The World: This is the perennial, all time favourite post on this site. Yes, I have found 249 on-land fish farms, even though fish farms say it can't happen.

8. Wild Salmon Plan - Contact Your MLA: February 2018. Lots of references in this one.

Friday, 14 September 2018

Toxic Sea Lice Chemicals - Norway is a Disaster Zone

Coincidentally, I am reading Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.
What is being reported here is exactly like what happened with chlorinated hydrocarbons and phosphorous based insecticides/herbicides/fungicides in the USA/UK (and several salmon rivers in BC) in the 1940s to ‘60s, and what lead to the banning of DDT and so on, after millions of birds were killed with the aftermath of chemical use.
Then there were millions of mammals, and lower forms like earthworms. The land and underground water still contain these chemicals today, as do we, particularly in our livers, PCBs for instance. Not to mention the bioaccumulation in other higher predators, like southern resident killer whales in BC – down to 75 animals, and with more chemicals in them than any other cetacean in the world.
Her book came out in 1962. It makes difficult reading, but you might want to read it.
In the present case, of the same thing, we are still in the phase where industry and chemical companies, along with governments are saying there is no problem.
Glad to see there is some research being done in Norway, to learn the same thing for the second time. Sounds like a disaster in Norway.

Norwegian text translated into English by Google Translate. Text assembled by Bill Bryden, NL.

A growing list of leading researchers are now publicly going after the Norwegian government to ban the sealice neurotoxins. The largest national papers has got involved as well. See below

Fisheries Minister: "We can not relate to what one researcher says

But, several researchers now require politicians to ban the use of environmentally hazardous chemicals in the aquaculture industry. But the Minister of Fisheries will not decide yet, and the climate and environmental minister will not answer too.
NRK has previously stated that the aquaculture industry's most widely used lucrative chemical - hydrogen peroxide - is far more dangerous for shrimp and the environment than we have thought so far .
- Nobody died the first day, no one died the other day, but on the third the rake began to die. So when we followed them in clean water afterwards, we could see that most of them died when they were exposed to a 100-fold dilution compared to the salmon getting into the fish farm, senior researcher at IRIS, Renée Bechmann, told NRK.
Bechmann is leading an international research project that started in 2017, which expires in 2019, looking into the environmental impact of chemicals used for salmon lice. In addition to hydrogen peroxide, deltamethrin and azamethifos are also tested.

120,000 tons dumped in the ocean: Research now shows that the lice poison breaks the rains

The researchers have carried out a series of tests on deepwater regimens, and they think the findings are so disturbing that the authorities should respond now - even if the research report has not yet been published.
"This long-term effect on the rains came very surprisingly on us. There is reason why the authorities should now put an end to the use of these chemicals against lice, "said Bechmann.

Minister of Fisheries: - Can not comment on this now

- What does the Minister for Fisheries think that hydrogen peroxide can be far more dangerous than expected?
"This is relatively new research, and something we need to look into. That's why it goes without saying that I can not make a decision about this now, says Minister of Fisheries Harald Tom Nesvik (Frp) to NRK.
- Would you consider stopping the use of hydrogen peroxide, as the researcher Bechmann asks for?
"We can not just relate to what one researcher says. We must go into the research report itself and see what is there. There are several ways to address the problem associated with hydrogen peroxide on. But we must first have time to put our mind in the report before we reach a final conclusion, "says Nesvik.

TAUS GOVERNMENT: NRK is informed that the use of hydrogen peroxide lies under the Ministry of Food and Fisheries. The picture is from July when climate and environmental minister Ola Elvestuen (V) traveled to Svalbard to see how tourism influences nature there.

The climate and environmental minister will not comment

NRK has also asked the climate and environmental minister Ola Elvestuen (V) to comment on the new findings on hydrogen peroxide - since it is his department responsible for nature diversity and pollution in Norway.
Elvestuen does not want to comment - but refers to the response of the Minister of Fisheries.
At the same time, the deputy head of the Nutrition Committee in Trøndelag County Council, Tove Eivindsen (V), stated that she has taken direct contact with the government apparatus to make Elvestuen look at the use of hydrogen peroxide.
"Trøndelag Venstre has raised the issue with state secretary Atle Hamar (V) at the Ministry of Climate and Environment, in order to encourage political leadership to go into this case and see if there is a need to change the regulations regarding the use of hydrogen peroxide," says Eivindsen.
She points out that for many years, Venstre has been busy with clean seas and getting down the sea. At the same time, the party believes that the aquaculture industry is important for Norway and that the industry is to grow - assuming growth is sustainable.

WISHING A PROFESSIONAL ENTERPRISE NUTRITION: Deputy Head of Nutrition in Trøndelag County Council, Tove Eivindsen (V).

- The prawns are a key species in the ocean's ecosystem

Conservationists believe the hesitation of the government is untenable. They demand that the politicians listen to the researchers who are now shouting warning.
- This is a classic letter of responsibility in the meeting with the aquaculture industry. But this we do not have time for anymore. We can not have a political leadership that closes both ears and eyes for what is happening now, says the leader of the Swedish Conservation Association, Silje Ask Lundberg, to NRK.
Lundberg believes the environmental impacts from the aquaculture industry are huge and that Norway is in many ways conducting an unknown experiment - with potentially catastrophic consequences for life in the fjords.
- The prawns are a key species in the ocean's ecosystem. And the influence now documented can lead to a host of other consequences, because crustaceans - which are not necessarily commercial shrimps - are important food for other species, explains Lundberg.

"The time has come for hydrogen peroxide to be banned

The Swedish Conservation Agency demands that the government be in favor of a conversion to closed farms, and does not allow new concessions in open cages.
"We believe that the time has come for hydrogen peroxide and other toxic solvents to be banned," Lundberg says.
Industry Association Seafood Norway states that the use of hydrogen peroxide in the aquaculture industry is significantly lower now than a few years ago. But the industry is open to review the use of this chemical - if research suggests it.
"We are keen to acquire new knowledge," said Head of Food in Seafood Norway, Ketil Rykhus, to NRK .

DYPT CONFIRMED FOR LIFE IN FJORDENE: Head of the Swedish Conservation Association, Silje Ask Lundberg.

Fishermen expect full review of the rules

The professional organization for Norwegian coastal fishermen, Norway's Coastal Fisheries, believes the authorities do not have to wait for a final report from the researchers.
"We expect the fisheries authorities to get on the track and a full review of the regulatory framework. When we look at the issue of illegal dumping of lice in forbidden zones , together with the case of preliminary results from IRIS research , we think it is more than enough knowledge for the authorities, says the head of the Norwegian Coastal Fisheries, Annsofie Kristiansen, to NRK.
They have now sent a letter to the Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority, which requires, among other things, an immediate stop in the use and discharge of chemical liqueurs at fish farms.

"Confidence in the fisheries authorities has weakened

"We are really shocked at how little control the fishing authorities have. It is quite clear that there is a gap in the rules that neither of us can accept. Moreover, the fisheries authorities have shown little interest in all the concerns they have received from fisheries teams in recent years, says Kristiansen and continues:
"The cover that NRK has done is really the job of the Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Our confidence in the fisheries authorities is weakened, there is no doubt.

HAVE HAVE THE AUTHORITIES FOR MORE YEARS: Director of the Norwegian Coastal Fisheries, Annsofie Kristiansen.

The MDG will take a ban on the Storting

The Green Party has sent a written question to the Minister of Fisheries Harald Tom Nesvik (Frp) where they demand an answer if the government agrees that "dumping of the pollutant hydrogen peroxide in the sea must be stopped?"
"When the research now shows that the fishermen have for a long time, namely that the lice pointers are much worse than previously assumed, we demand that the Minister of Fisheries immediately stop poison dumping. The aquaculture industry must - like everyone else - take responsibility for its waste, if we are to conserve the diversity of wildlife and wildlife in the ocean, "said national spokesman in MDG, Une Aina Bastholm, to NRK.
MDG will get the aquaculture industry into closed plants by 2025. The party also wants hydrogen peroxide to be phased out and eventually banned.
"Generally, the aquaculture industry has become an environmental phenomenon with serious problems like salmon lice , salmon drainages , sewage discharges , and diseases . A proper rescue action for the sea and the shrimp is needed, and I can notify that the MDG will take a ban on poison dumping at the Storting, "says Bastholm.

REQUEST ANSWER FROM THE GOVERNMENT: National spokesperson in MDG, Une Aina Bastholm.

Published  updated