Problems with GMO, AquaBounty Atlantic Salmon

An issue that has been simmering along beside the push to get old-tech, dinosaur fish farms out of the ocean and set up on land, is GMO Atlantic salmon that grow to harvestable size sooner than non-modified fish.

AquaBounty has been growing such fish with pout, chinook and other genes inserted in the fish genome, and working them through the FDA system in the USA. The Canadian connection is that they have been producing these fish in the province of PEI, and rearing them in Panama.

Joyce Nelson has done a well-researched article on the issue. There are several problems with the GMO fish. The FDA seems not to have done thorough work, while the Canadian science shows several problems. The fish grow at greatly inconsistent rates, they are more susceptible to diseases, particularly ISA and contain a chemical leading to increased cancer risk.

The FDA received two million complaints - hard to believe but apparently true - and looks to be doing some real work before reconsidering the issue of bringing these fish to consumer plates - or letting them be put in the ocean.

The Nelson article may be found here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/12/frankenfish-flops-risk-assessment/#.VXrmRn-j7fU.email.

Another thing to consider is that on-land fish farms can raise fish faster than in the ocean by holding the water temperature the same rather than it fluctuating, and photoperiod can be controlled, which also improves growth rate. The point being, if fish farms move to land, GMO fish would not be necessary, because unmodified fish will grow much quicker, and without the problems in the AquaBounty fish.

Fish Farms are Floating Pig Farms - Daniel Pauly, UBC

"The conditions of traditional salmon farms can only be compared to a floating pig farm," says the University of British Columbia's Daniel Pauly, a renowned marine biologist. "Some people argue that every farmed salmon has a wild counterpart that's dead." June, 2015.

(Here is a reference for the pig farm comment: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/fish-the-new-factory-farmed-animals/. )

This is why I have said that fish farms exist in the ocean so they can use it as a free, open sewer. This seems harsh language, but it’s not, compared with what Daniel Pauly says.

But there is more.  We subsidize fish farms $1.64 million to use our ocean as a free open sewer.  In Norway, they pay $1.69 Million just for a licence. In BC they pay $5000. So we subsidize fish farms to the tune of $1.65 Million just to set up shop in our ocean  and pollute it. Not smart.

And how much does that sewage damage cost? My preliminary estimate, using the conservative conversion rate of 10 fish for the sewage of 1 human being, comes out at the very large subsidy of: $10.4 Billion. We BC taxpayers pay this much for the industry as it is today. And they want to expand? (See the Oct 2014, Index, on this site, for the link to the calculation).

I don’t think so. The people of BC, understandably, want fish farms on land or they can go back to Norway.

I should add that at other conversion rates, the already astronomical sewage cost to BC taxpayers, exceeds $31 Billion. That is how bad fish farms are. Hmm. Now I see why Daniel Pauly says they are floating pig farms.

And, how big is that licence subsidy you ask? Well, at $1.65 M per farm, and 130 licences in BC, the licencing subsidy comes in at a whopping $214.5 Million in BC alone. That is in addition to the sewage figure. Fish farms don't make much money and don't result in many jobs, and still we subsidize them to the point where their revenue (from BC Stats) of $400 M comprises only 3.8 % of the environmental damage they cause just from being in our oceans. This does not make sense

Fish Farms are Not Sustainable - Feed Prices Rising - Rabobank

Fish farms like to claim they are sustainable, and that claim usually surrounds the feed they feed their fish. But feed companies and commercial fishers, sometimes fish farm operations themselves, can no longer catch enough forage fish to form fish feed.

Fish farms have fished down these stocks, for example, anchovy and Jack Mackerel off Chile, and currently, anchovy off Peru, that the cost of the fish meal has become too high. So fish farms have made wild fish unsustainable, and increased the price so much that the feed is too expensive to be put in feed. In other words, both ends of fish farming feed are unsustainable.

I should add that substituting soy, has lead to complaints over moving aboriginals off their lands, clear cutting the forest and planting soy. Soy also has GMO issues. And fish feed companies are now using chicken feathers instead of fish where they can. Would you eat chicken feathers? Fish feed sometimes uses land animal feces in their feed. I asked EWOS six times whether they use feces in their feed. No response.

Here is a good article on the sustainability of fish meal in fish feed  by Rabobank: http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/06/09/fishmeal-will-move-from-being-commodity-to-high-price-strategic-marine-protein/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=ea63c2bf44-Americas_briefing_Jun_09_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-ea63c2bf44-92426209.

Rabobank says that Peruvian harvest is down, just as I have mentioned: In 2014/15, fishmeal was in short supply due to thecancelation of last year's second Peruvian fishing season, linked to an El Nino weather phenomenon." 

The same can be said for jack mackerel and sardines in Chile, and capelin and other small species off Europe itself.

Rabobank ponts out that fish farms are in direct competition with third world countries that want their humans to eat anchovy and other small pelagics: 

"The decline in supply has been driven by both lower wild catch of small pelagics and, more importantly, increasing direct human consumption of these species, which is likely to put ongoing pressure on animal and aqua feed producers -- the key competitors for fishmeal."

So, how much do fish feed producers buy? A very large amount of feed that can be sold to humans:

"The aquaculture industry is the main buyer for fish oil globally, consuming some 74% of available supply, primarily for use in salmon feed."

And those Omega 3 fatty acids?

"The salmon industry currently uses approximately 7-9% fish oil in the feed formula. This amount could probably be reduced to 5-6%, but any lower than this could negatively impact the performance of the feed," Rabobank said.

Rabobank further says that the health image of farmed salmon, at least to companies like Marine Harvest, Cermaq (Mitsubishi) and Grieg Seafood, is largely tied to that Omega-3s:

"... omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Without fish oil, the most known health befits of eating salmon would not be present,"

Fish farms sustainable? I don't think so.

Yet Another Corrupt Fish Farm Award, Updated June 25, 2015

I have pointed out that fish farm awards and certifications are not real, as fish farms largely put money into them, the BAPs say, and then award themselves their own awards. The WWF, ASCs are also not real because they are awarded to in-ocean fish farms, of which none are sustainable nor environmentally sound.

In-ocean fish farms are in the ocean to use it as a free, open sewer. Just Google sewage problems in the industry, in Norway, Atlantic Canada, Scotland and Chile, for instance. And for BC, Canada, my estimate of the sewage cost of in-ocean fish farms is $10.4 Billion, that we citizens, in essence, pay for. We don't want to pay.

But now, the most well-known and largest, the Marine Stewardship Council that certifies in-ocean fish farms, is on the receiving end of criticism that it is corrupt. Look at this article:  http://www.savingseafood.org/opinion/john-sackton-its-time-for-the-msc-to-reform-its-commercial-model-where-it-is-corrupt/.

John Sackton, Editor, Seafood news has much to say on the biggest certification scheme for fish farms and fisheries. For example: "The MSC’s ‘pay to play’ is not explicit bribery, but it is a complex structure of exclusivity that gives some clients the ability to hijack public resources for their own gain.  This goes directly against FAO ecolabel guidelines, and this arrangement directly helps the MSC sell certifications, and thereby derive logo revenues.

We have no news yet on how the Marine Stewardship Council is going to resolve its horrendous mis-management of Alaska Salmon certifications. Its current inaction however shows that its commercial model is now morally bankrupt, and must be reformed.

As of today, numerous Alaskan companies, both large and small, are being stonewalled by a rogue client group whose manager, Rob Zuanich, is largely seen in the industry as being driven by personal vendettas."

Sackton goes on to say: " But they are also a registered public charity in the UK, and even more importantly, they make an assertion of absolute credibility for their standard and claim it is the best mechanism for verification as to whether a wild caught fishery is sustainably harvested.  Their business is measuring the effectiveness of public governmental fishery management and giving a third party seal of approval."

As well, there is a problem with credibility: "Like any organization with a product to sell, the MSC has a sales team whose job is to go out and recruit fishery clients.  These are groups who will sponsor MSC certification for their fishery, and who will hire and pay for an assessment body to measure them against the MSC standard.

Without these clients, there would be no revenue to the MSC from the MSC ecolabel." 

And: "This promise of exclusivity to a subset of companies is a key driver of the MSC sales process. Companies have been promised help with market access, or introductions to new retail buyers if they sign on as clients. Without the promise of exclusivity, the MSC might have a harder time recruiting companies to be fisheries clients."

And, now, we move to fish farms. The Global Seafood Sustainablity Initiative (I will deal with their claims in an upcoming post. In essence, it's the same old stuff and environmentally damaging in-ocean fish farms rather than environmentally sound ones on land).

Sackton says: "To avoid multiple certifications for the same fishery, the MSC should simply enact a contractually enforceable mechanism to add eligible clients to the certificate if the client group fails to adhere to the MSC requirements for certificate sharing.  Currently the MSC claims the requirements are ‘guidance’ only, and not legally enforceable.  That is a corrupt and morally bankrupt stance if the MSC aspires to be the leader in seafood sustainability certification."

In other words, like the other awards, schemes and certifications, the senior one, the MSC, is not a real certification. The bottom line is this: if the scheme does not include the requirement that the fish farm be an on-land operating, the award or certification is not valid.

Go back to the index I put on this site in October 2014. You can read my list of 79 on-land fish farms that I have found, that comprise more than 10,000, actual, on-land fish farms around the globe. When Marine Harvest, Cermaq (Mitsubishi), Grieg Seafood, and the othes come out of the water, then let's talk again about environmental award credibility.

See the index: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/index-to-wwwfishfarmnewsblogspotcom.html. 

And here is an update on the byzantine MSC system. Does it sound like an award system to you? Sounds more like antitrust court cases and big time lawyer bills rather than a pristine environment and etc.

Fairness” Alaska Governor Walker Contacts MSC On Salmon Certification

Alaska’s Governor Walker urged “fairness” from the Marine Stewardship Council in the certification of Alaska salmon, in a letter sent to MSC executive Rupert Howes. Gov. Walker’s letter was in response to the failed mediation attempt between the 20 Alaskan salmon processors and the ASPA to work on a deal to allow the processors re-entry into the MSC through the ASPA’s existing salmon certificate. “This is an issue of fairness for fishermen and coastal communities in Alaska, even for Alaska herself,” Walker wrote. Howes responded to the letter and said binding arbitration may be the only solution to the problem at this point. “MCS’s board believes that the only workable solution is time bound, binding arbitration,” Howes wrote. The groups have mutually selected Seattle attorney Lou Peterson to oversee the arbitration.

Weblink: www.seafoodnews.com. 

Seventeen ways the Government is Helping Kill Wild Salmon

Jeff Mathews, in a strongly worded article in today's Huffington Post, details a list of 17 ways the federal government, Harper Government, DFO, and the CFIA is helping kill wild BC salmon.

Go look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jeff-matthews/wild-salmon-farmed-salmon-aquaculture_b_7419712.html?fb_action_ids=1673064862922068&fb_action_types=og.likes.

The list is well dotted with references and makes many of the points that I have been making on fishfarmnews. Do secure the link. I have been finding recently that government bodies tend to delete important parts of the fish farm environmental damage narrative that they do not agree with.

The obvious example of this is DFO deleting the Cohen Commission, as a way of leaving that all behind. However, so many journalists, citizens and environmentalists complained, DFO had to repost an archival version of the site: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/pco-bcp/commissions/cohen/cohen_commission/LOCALHOS/EN/INDEX.HTM.

Global Aquaculture Loses One Third to One Half of all Production to Disease

I post once again the seminal work of Dr. Fred Kibenge on global losses for all of aquaculture: one third to one half, some $32 - $49 Billion.

The reason for giving you this link is that the OIE copy of it has been removed from the internet, presumably after the Canadian CFIA asked for his being de-accredited, and the OIE did so.

The link is: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EKNKFOjnazZcKaOMnYa2Hwek4b6tCnCaPY3B9htJYtE/present?slide=id.p92.

Control over the narrative to do with fish farming rests in the hands of government departments that have high budgets. The CFIA has an annual budget of $740 Million. It simply ignores narratives that don't agree with it.

I repost this link because, like the Cohen Commission - his entire website - was deleted by DFO and it only resurrected it because journalists and environmentalists complained so much that it brought back an archival version.

I suggest you take this list and keep it aside for the time when you are needing to have a reference for the disease problems of aquaculture.

Norwegian Fish Farm Disease and Lice Costs

Two recurrent themes in fish farm environmental damage are: disease losses and out of control sea lice and their associated diseases.

See: http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/03/02/norway-salmon-farmers-q4s-confirm-sea-lice-as-key-driver-in-2015-supply/.

You judge for yourself::

1.      February 2015, Rabobank analyst Gorjan Nikolik suggested sea lice management will continue to define the global salmon picture this year.

2.      In 2015, Chile is once more constrained by its own biological situation.

3.      In Norway: Capacity growth is hard to come by... will involve managing all sanitary conditions, including pancreas disease (PD) and amoebic gill disease (AGD).

4.      In Norway, Marine Harvest: spent on sea lice problems: NOK 53m in Q1, NOK 80m in Q2, NOK 74m in Q3 and NOK 96m in Q4, for a year total of NOK 303m, or $40m.

Comment: The cost of seal ice chemicals was 70% higher than in 2013.

5.      Marine Harvest noted: NOK 199m… relating to sea lice mitigation and extraordinary mortality. [Pancreatic Disease and Amoebic Gill Disease].

6.      Salmar had: a challenging situation with respect to salmon lice and PD” in its central Norway region.

7.      Norway Royal Salmon: production cost was still high as a result of costs associated with AGD and PD.

8.      Norway Royal Salmon: was indicted by Norwegian government over misrepresenting sea lice numbers.

9.      Grieg’s costs were up: as a result of lice treatment, and mortality due to gill disease in Shetland, as well as fish that had been affected by PD in Norway's Rogaland region.

Then go back and read this post, a study that says one third to one half of global aquaculture product is lost to diseases. That was 2002, and in 2015, disease and lice are still big killers. All of this could be eliminated by on-land fish farms, and no exposing of wild Pacfic salmon to lice and disease from fish farms: