Under the Surface - Kjersti Sandvik - 4

Notes from the new book by Sandvik (boldfacing is her text, Google Translated, under lined are my points):

1. Norway produces 1.3 million metric tonnes of salmon per year. The first question that needs to be answered is whose figures are these and do we trust them? Typically fish farms inflate figures that make them look good, and play down or not reveal stats that make them look bad. In Norway, the government, which is so conflicted, and small in comparison, has figures that should not be relied on. Fish farms are often members of the government.

2. There are 1,011 operating concessions (this implies there being more licences unoperating. In BC we have 130 licences - a tenth of Noway - and about 80 operating at any given time). Marine harvest has 224 licences.

3.One standard license is 12 000 cubic meters, and it is at any time permitted to 780 tons of fish standing in the sea on each concession. In Troms and Finnmark is permitted Having 900 tonnes because here is the sea temperature colder. This seems very low to me, as in BC fish farms, people like Grant Wartkenton and Ian Roberts like to say that to make money, a farm has to produce 3,000 metric tonnes to be successful.

4. Sandvik tells the tale of Lovund, an island off the coast that started with 2000 fry in 1972, and got two companies off the ground, Lovunklaks (currently 12 licenses) and Nova Sea (currently 26 licenses. Nova's current turnover is 1 billion, delivering more than 1 million annually to shareholders. Marine Harvest owns 48% and thus half the money exiting the local economy. This is the Boom side of the fish farm cycle, it is linked to the Bust side of the industry. Stay tuned.


 5. In 2014, 122 million for shareholders, 150 million for bonuses. The licences are viewed as:
'concession from the state to print money.'  Boom.

But there are very few islands where owners are committed to residents. In fact, Marine Harvest, owned by Fredriksen, wanted more than 50% ownership, and thus control to move operations elsewhere.

6. Then the army of lice arrived. Bust. The government wanted the number reduced to .5 female per fish and cut production limits in half.

The industry reacted with anger and Aggression, traits seen all around the world. In 2015: 

Nova Sea also came on this list, in February 2015, stated CEO Odd Power that Nova Sea felt

"Stigmatized and stabbed in the back" by the FSA. If the FSA continued with this harassment, they would put Lawyers on saken. 4

If a fish farm company said this in Canada, and was quoted, we would think the person a lunatic. But what has to be remembered is that this attitude of contempt for government in Norway is part and parcel of the way they operate around the world. 

This is also the beginning of the story on why the industry has a push/pull method of dealing with government. A good example of this around the world, and there are many examples on this site, of saying 'we operate under the strictest laws in the world.' A year ago the fish farms were saying this in Chile, Scotland, Canada and Norway at the same time, even though it is obviously untrue because the laws are not the same around the world. After saying that to make consumers happy, fish farms then lobby for lowered standards in regulations, as happened last year on the east coast of Canada, in federal regulations. So it is the strictest in public, and the least stringent in private, while saying in the east that it was a situation of modernization of regulations, not weakening them.

7. Here was the original aim: "Profitability and competitiveness within the limits of sustainable development and contribute to value creation coast, "was the objective in the first aquaculture law from 1985.5 Act economic policy intentions were that production had to be adapted to demand in the markets. 

Aquaculture would be established in districts with little alternative employment and helping to maintain, or create, desired settlement. Salmon production would be an enhancement to already established reception centers for whitefish and processing companies when wild fish were difficult to obtain. Control of disease spread and minimum Pollution was a clear requirement in the first aquaculture law. Fish farming should not prevent traditional fishing, recreation or other uses of the coastal zone. 

Fine aims and the industry still claims these are true,  even though the corporations exist solely for shareholders. 

8. Rumors of a gilt-edged industry with huge revenue opportunity spread rapidly. Boom. Then came catastrophe - Bust. "The fish became ill, and the fish escaped. Antibiotic use soared.

Cold water vibriosis, also called hitra flu because the first was discovered on Hitra in Sør-Trøndelag, was one of the most onerous diseases. The attacks hardest winter and spring 1987."

In other words, the problems with the industry have been with it from the beginning. 

In 1990, the total losses due to illness estimated to be approximately 800 million kroner. 10

Many companies had to go into bankruptcy over disease losses. Bust. This is the natural cycle of fish farms - Boom, Bust.

9. In 1990, when the number of licenses was the same as in 1985, had salmon and trout production has increased nearly five times so big and totaled 158,147 tonnes. this huge growth was due both to technological advances and that the cages became larger. Boom.

So, then: Breeders produced now more salmon than what the market took away. The good profit opportunities had stimulated the production compared with demand and prices have fallen by over ten million per kilogram. With it came a decline in income and bankruptcies. 

Bust. Are you getting the cycle now? And, who loses? Workers lose jobs, the environment is degraded.

10. Boom. "Each single breeder earned more on producing salmon for cold store than selling fresh laks.13 It built up a salmon berg. The scheme was doomed to fail. fos collected 1.6 billion from nine Norwegian banks, which helped to finance the freezing scheme. A total of 37,000 tonnes of salmon frozen during 1991. It ended with bankruptcy that same year. team hadthen built up a debt of 2.5 billion. Norwegian authorities had entered with 400 million in funding. It was Norway's history until then biggest konkurs. 1" A salmon iceberg?Bust.

11. "During the 1990s, the industry conflict with eu, who claimed that Norwegian farmers dumped salmon in the eu. 15." In other words: Conflict of Interest -the industry started with it and it still proceeds today in 2016.

In the coming years the EU protected its own fish farms in Scotland and Ireland. 

eu would protect their own salmon producers in Scotland and Ireland, and after years of accusations whether dumping was finally Salmon Agreement between Norway and EU signed in 1997. So more Conflict of Interest.    

12. In fact the government signed a deal with the EU and later USA regarding production, and non-dumping prices. Sandvik: If the production had not been reduced, the whole industry collapsed. Bust


13. As for the USA, it began its own investigation: Sandvik: in 1987 investigated whether dye astaxanthin, added to salmon feed to get salmon distinctive red color, was allowed into the United States.

Remember the name astaxanthin. Without the dye, farmed fish is grey. It comes from krill, but in farmed salmon, from oil wells.
[29]

  Look at the two indexes on this site for posts that list the references to what I am saying, in my text. I always have a reference for what I am saying: January, 2016: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/01/key-document-index-2015.html. And here for earlier posts, here: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/index-to-wwwfishfarmnewsblogspotcom.html.

                                                              ***
Now, go see a list of problems in the fish farm/seafood industry. Scan the bold facing for a minute. I think you'll be shocked: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.

Atlantic Salmon Numbers in Canada

Here is a good article on the numbers of Atlantic salmon in Eastern Canada: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestravelguide/2016/03/25/5-reasons-you-should-plan-a-trip-to-denver-right-now/?utm_source=Watershed%20Watch%20Email%20List&utm_campaign=d6db3f3edc-Salmon_News_Mar_23_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-d6db3f3edc-166907249#21aee3362023.

Here are their numbers: "In the 1970s and 80s, there were roughly 1.8 million Atlantic salmon returning to North American rivers to spawn. That number dropped to 418,000 in the 1990s, thanks mainly to commercial overharvest and habitat destruction."

And: "Recent estimates suggest that somewhere around 600,000 salmon have returned to their native rivers to spawn. Much of that success—and the reason for perhaps even more hope for the future—is due to the Atlantic Salmon Federation."

These numbers do not agree with the federal numbers that I have, saying that there are 170,000 adults at sea in total. I will take a look at the two, however, with 73 million salmon in BC, it is safe to say that the east coast and west coast salmon species are in far different numbers, with BC towering over all Atlantic salmon in the entire Atlantic ocean, something that DFO does not get.

Under the Surface - Kjersti Sandvik, Post Three

Here is a post on this new book from Norway about the large environmental damage from fish farms and the industry 'going after' scientists who publish research that does not agree with fish farm interests.

I will have more to say on this soon as well as the posts I have already written. Write a note to Hunter Tootoo and Justin Trudeau to get fish farms out of the water. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/under-surface-kjersti-sandvik-gyldendal.html. This is the Norwegian link, you can have Google Translate render it in English: http://nordnorskdebatt.no/article/oppdrettseventyrets-pris.

By Claudette Bethune (a scientist who published work on the negative side of fish farms, and was given an early 'retirement' in Norway) - on Alexandra Morton's blog:

21 March 2016: "Instead of taking research on the environmental impact seriously, the method is to cast doubt on the scientists' credibility and research results."

The risky cost of Salmon farming

"We need politicians with backbone, who dare to stand up to the powerful economic interests in the Norwegian aquaculture industry.

The aquaculture industry is characterized by denial about the serious environmental problems, and must be subject to stringent political control, writes commentator Skjalg Fjellheim.

Salmon prices are on the whole 55 kroner (NOK) per kilogram. Fish farmers earn big money. And they can look forward to a five-fold increase in production towards 2050, if politicians get their will through. In northern Norway this can be achieved on an even larger increase of biomass. But at what cost?

Famed salmon barons have become so powerful that they rise above all criticism. They are in open conflict with the country's leading research institutions. Instead of taking research on the environmental impact seriously, the method is to try to completely cast doubt on the scientists' credibility and research results.

It is ominous when the directors of the Institute of Marine Research and the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research ( NINA), now feel compelled to defense and tell that the big salmon farming companies are employing smear campaigns against scientists, and that they are not at all interested in technical cooperation to deal with environmental problems.

Along the coast is an increasing feeling that we may be heading for a man made ecological tragedy. The level of conflict increases. But it makes little impression on the major listed companies. There is denial and trivializing no strength.

The Norwegian Seafood Alliance is an organization for the entire industry and has for several years done this job with great persistence on behalf of members. Communications Director Are Kvistad is an example. In Dagens Næringsliv newspaper on 17 March he met criticism of the industry by saying that "this is a large, controlled food production."

It is by no means a credible conclusion. One of the country's premier fisheries journalists, Kjersti Sandvik, has a different story to tell. Recently she released the book "Beneath the surface. A dirty story about the Norwegian salmon boom. " The principle of short-term gain has been guiding and politicians have been absent, writes Sandvik.

This is an independent story we all should take seriously. We should also listen to Sandvik because she questions the glossy tale of salmon as "the new oil."

The reality is , according to Sandvik, the revenue from salmon farming is not taken back to the local communities through either taxes or fees. The big money goes to the owners, who often live themselves abroad.

Along the coast , there is a growing recognition that there is only sewage and sea lice, fish waste and drug residues that remain in fjords there too as the wild salmon and sea trout are gone.

The political environment in the capital has for long had a distant relationship to the issues that are out of their sight. This can not continue. There is now an urgent need for political control of the seafood industry. Lobbyists have for long had free rein in the corridors of power. They have even, until recently, had the pleasure of meeting with fisheries interests in the industry across the board.

The last thing we need is yet more politicians who speak for industry by mouth. But acting independently on behalf of us all. It is obvious that the industry is not able to clean up on their own.

If politicians continue with their uncritical applause, we face an ecological collapse in the Norwegian fjords. No one should say that it was not raised the alarm in time."

Oppdrettseventyrets pris

Vi trenger politikere med ryggrad, som våger å stå opp mot de mektige økonomiske interessene i norsk oppdrettsnæring.

nordnorskdebatt.no

                                                        ***

Now, go see a list of current fish farm/seafood industry problems. Scan the boldfacing, I think you will be shocked: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.

Fish Farm Diseases Caught by Wild Salmon - IHN, 2001 to 2003

Here is a report that should be read: http://www.marineharvest.ca/globalassets/canada/news-pdf/ihnv_report_2003.pdf. Sonja Saksida wrote the paper and has been employed by Norwegian fish farm companies many times over the years. This is how issues of conflict of interest begin.

The way to understand conflicts, you Google the papers of the person of interest, copy the names and then look up their publications. You will find that those who are connected with fish farms end up doing work that is positive to them, while the mainstream scientists are not. How big an influence you ask? Well, Marine Harvest has 90 research projects going at the present time to solve the issue of lice being unkillable, largely because the cocktail of chemicals don't work, in time. See the post two below this one and it tells you the chemicals: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/cancer-causing-chemicals-in-farmed.html.

You will note in the acknowledgements to the Saksida paper that many levels of government were also involved. As you will recall, the most important recommendation in the Cohen report was for DFO to be relieved of the conflict of interest in supporting fish farms and wild salmon at the same time, and for it to just get on with saving wild salmon. The Harper government did not do this. The Trudeau government has not done it either.

One of the real disappointing things in Norwegian fish farms is that in Norway, they spend a very long time criticizing anyone who complains about fish farms, and this has migrated to wherever in the world fish farms go. I will do a post comparing Norway and BC shortly, and you should buy from Glydendal publishers in Norway an e-book of Kjersti Sandvik's book Under the Surface that systematically works through many problems in Norway. Most follow them around the world. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/under-surface-kjersti-sandvik-gyldendal.html.

The Saksida report details the IHN epidemic in farmed fish in BC in 2001 - 2003. Some 12 million farmed salmon caught the disease and died. It ravaged one fish farm after another, many on Vancouver Island, where the capital of BC, Victoria, is located. The premier, Christy Clark, has not gotten fish farms out of the water either.

I will have more to say on this, and for now, see the Table of Contents:

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements                                                                     2

Introduction                                                                                 3

IHN 2001-2003                                                                            5

What is the case definition for IHN in Atlantic salmon?               5

What was the scope (i.e. how many farms were

affected) of the recent epizootic?                                                5

What was the initial source of the infection?                               5

What does the mortality curve associated with an IHN

case look like?                                                                             6

What were the cumulative mortality rates associated 

with the cases of IHN?                                                                 6

Summary of IHN cases during the 2001-2003 outbreak              7

IHN cases in Area1                                                                      7

IHN cases in Area2                                                                      8

IHN cases in Area3                                                                      9

IHN cases in Area4                                                                      9

IHN cases in Area5                                                                    10

What changes  were made at the sites afteran IHN 

diagnosis was made?                                                                  11

What is the status of IHN as of December 2003?                       11

Risk Factors and their management                                           12

Source of Infection                                                                      12

Freshwater introduction or vertical transmission                         12

Horizontal transmission in seawater                                           13

A/ Wild sockeye salmon                                                              13

B/ Waterborne transmission                                                        15

C/ Other fish species that can carry IHNV                                   17

D/ Movement of farmed salmon in and between areas               19

E/ Shared equipment and common boat traffic                            20

F/ Harvest by-products from IHNV infected populations              22

Other Risk Factors                                                                       24

Lag time between suspicion and confirmation of an infection      24

Stress in the Atlantic salmon                                                        25

Lack of an effective IHNV vaccine                                                26

Research Needs                                                                           27

Summary                                                                                      27

Figures and Tables                                                                       29

References                                                                                   36

Here are the Acknowledgements: 

"I would like to thank the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food (BCMAFF) and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) for funding the study. I would also like to thank all the companies (Atlantic salmon producers and suppliers) who participated in the study. They were all extremely cooperative and very willing to spend a considerable amount of time helping me collectand validate the information presented in this document. I would like to thank the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Pacific Salmon Commission, Environment Canada and the District of Campbell River forbeing so prompt in providing me with information.

I would finally and especially like to thank Paula Galloway, Darlene Hanson, Gary Robinson, Garth Traxler and Dr. Craig Stephen for their assistance in editing the document. Their input was invaluable and, I know, increased the quality of the final product."  

Go look them up. Government is in a conflict of interest here and the fish farms paid for them, also a conflict of interest.

Brief Summary

During the outbreak of IHN, 36 fish farms were infected. Smaller fish caught IHN at 70% while larger fish, over 2 kg, were infected at 40%. Take a look at Fig 9 as it shows the prevailing currents in the area north of Campbell River where sockeye salmon smolts travel out to the ocean. Note the sections on viral outbreak being spread to nearby farms, starting on page 7, one of the prime causes appears to be wellboats transporting smolts close to infected sites, particularly through the dense maze of channels north of Campbell River.

See Figure 8 for Vancouver Island infections, apparently Clayoquot Sound. 10 farms were infected only one was not infected. BC also had IHN infections from 1992 to 1996. Origins of infection could be wild salmon returning [those fish that Kristi Miller's work showed had a high viral signatures, however, 600,000 to 1 million farmed fish are by definition stressed and leach out 56 billion viral particles per hour once infected, infecting many sites in its path].

Page 15 quote on transmission: "If the assumption is made that the east coast Vancouver Island isolate originated in Area 1, then waterborne exposure of the smolts, in Areas 2 and 3, to IHNV could have occurred as they were being live hauled through Area 1. In addition, a low titre exposure to the virus may explain why the onset of disease in the population did not appear until several weeks after the last group of smolts had been entered.
 

The presence of an IHN positive population, undergoing an epizootic, could provide a continuous reservoir of virus not only for the infected site itself but also to the 16 surrounding area (i.e. downstream)."

See the recommendations on non-movement of farmed salmon stock (p 19), use of common equipment, wellboats, fallowing and etc. on 16-17 and succeeding pages.  

This report makes no mention that 12 million farmed fish were lost, nor does it mention how much taxpayer money, if any, the federal government paid for diseased dead fish. Nor does it estimate how many wild salmonids were killed by IHN.

Also, if you check the papers sited, you will find that Michael Kent is mentioned. He did work on SLV while working for DFO. He left DFO and recanted his work on the Cohen stand - one of four scientists who made the same disappointing choice. It has to be asked: what does one do with papers from recanted work, and shouldn't all wages and benefits paid to Kent for this work be paid back to the Canadian taxpayer?

Marine Harvest Executives Make the Big Bucks, and Cash in Shares, Workers get Fired, Updateed April 9, 2016

There is a discrepancy in the incomes and share options of senior executives, including CEO Aarskog, and the workers that are the first to get laid off when things go badly, including the algal bloom losses of 20 million salmon, some 100,000 metric tonnes of dead fish in Chile.

Scan the bold faced entries in the following post to find layoffs of workers in the last eight months, including, Chile, Scotland and other countries: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html. 

Here is the share trade-in for $2.69 million (.16 exchange rate, Mar 23, 2016): https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/03/22/marine-harvest-execs-cash-out-shares/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=2b44826f76-Americas_briefing_Mar_22_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-2b44826f76-92426209. 

Senior executives with Marine Harvest have earned a combined NOK 16.8 million ($1.4m) (as noted above, by the current exchange rate this is actually $2.69 Million) by cashing in share options awarded under the firm's remuneration scheme.

On March 21 2016, participants in Marine Harvest's senior executive share option scheme exercised 594,621 options in the company, corresponding to 594,621 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share.

On the same date Marine Harvest purchased 594,621 own shares at a price of NOK
129.30 per share to settle its obligation to deliver the shares.

Alf-Helge Aarskog exercised 105,500 options in Marine Harvest, corresponding to
105,500 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, for a combined NOK 2.99m.

Ivan Vindheim exercised 63,823 options, corresponding to 63,823 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, making NOK 1.8m.

Marit Solberg exercised 56,844 options, corresponding to 56,844 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, for NOK 1.6m.

Ola Brattvoll exercised 46,817 options, corresponding to 46,817 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, for NOK 1.3m.

Marine Harvest's board awarded 1.2m options under its senior executive share option scheme with effect from 2012, to the current participants in the option scheme.

The option scheme forms an important part of its long term remuneration policy for such senior executives, the company said.

                                                                  ***

Now, see a list of problems in the fish farm/seafood industry. Scan the boldface titled for a minute. I think you will be shocked:  http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.

And, here is Marine Harvest's annual report for 2015. Look at the risks to be overcome:  http://hugin.info/209/R/1999866/737534.pdf.

Cancer-Causing Chemicals in Farmed Salmon - Ireland, Updated Mar 23, 2016

Inconsistencies in the presence of organic pollutants in Irish farmed 'organic' salmon and the negative health impacts in humans, including cancer and genetic mutation, are discussed in a recent article from Ireland. You will note that the government body that is responsible for the issue of chemicals in farmed fish, did no testing, and would not comment on testing done by the companies themselves, something that should not happen. You will also find that for each chemical there are contradictory indications.

There is a long history of academic articles on these chemicals; one of them lead me to start this blog:
fish farms discrediting the Hites et al article in the January 9, 2004 issue of Science. Go back to 2011 to find the David Miller spinwatch.org article on the 'neutralizing'. (Or take this link: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2011/10/key-document-fish-farm-tactics.html).

"When asked about the results, The Department of Agriculture consulted the Marine Institute, its scientific advisor, which informed it that as the test results were undertaken for a private company, it would not be appropriate for it to comment – in spite of the fact that the record was created as part of the Marine Institute’s statutory regulatory role, by its own Inspector.

The Minister for Health, who controls the Food and Safety Authority, referred the matter back to the Minister for Agriculture." Hmm.

The ten chemicals used in 'organic' farmed salmon are: emamectic benzoate (SLICE), deltamethrin, tricaine mesilate (MS222), oxytetracycline, oxytetracycline ethoxyquin, ethoxyquin DMK, BHA, BHA butylated hydroxytoluene, malachite green, leuco malachite green dyes.

Doesn't this list just make you want to eat a farmed salmon. Mmm.

Of oxytetracycline, WHO is very concerned: "The World Health Organisation (WHO) classified Oxytetracycline in 2009 as “Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine”. These are defined as “used as sole therapy or one of few alternatives to treat serious human disease” including in this case Lyme disease, brucellosis, and pneumonia. WHO is seeking to restrict the use of this antibiotic on animals “in order to preserve their effectiveness in human medicine”."

 Read the article on cancer-causing and other chemicals in 'organic' farmed salmon in Ireland: http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2016/03/salmon-eile/?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=f9490efb27-Salmon_News_Mar_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-f9490efb27-214661381.

Under the Surface - Kjersti Sandvik, Gyldendal Norway, Updated April 28, 2016

A new book on the fish farm industry in Norway is out in 2016 from Kjersti Sandvik, published by Gyldendal. Sandvik has worked as a fish farm journalist for many years in Norway, and after a long hard look, she has come to the conclusion that there needs to be changes in the country where fish farms are from - Norway.

I doubt Norwegians realize just how bad a name they are getting around the globe for their unsustainable, environmentally damaging industry they are taking everywhere they can for the sake of shareholders only. People who have to live with Norwegian fish farms come to overwhelmingly reject them. 

Norwegians need to wake up that these 'farms' need to be put on land, and to get on with the rest of the world now grappling with climate change rather than polluting the world's oceans and increasing the carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous loading of the most important creator of oxygen that everything on earth depends on. The world needs to say no to movement offshore where no one can keep tabs on Norwegian fish farms. They need to be on land.

In what I have read so far of Sandvik's text - a Google translation - because there is no English translation at the moment - is fair. Do read this. I will have more to say as I read the book.

Do note that at this time, Norway is moving to get fish farms out of the water by offering them a $9- to $ 12-million dollar subsidy in the form of a free license for on land farms. The auction price for an in-ocean license comprises the hefty fee that is foregone. 

Here is the beginning of the book [my boldfacing]. Please note that while this starts slowly it becomes riveting for those of us in the press and fish farm world. The history of fish farming in Norway, right from the beginning has the same problems it does right now, decades later: boom bust industry, mountains of money, high stakes speculation, huge growth, huge catastrophes, diseases, workers getting laid off, bankruptcies, bureaucracy failures, government business conflict of interest, fish 'iceberg' protectionism, fraud, corruption, arguments with the EU and USA governments, tariff to 26%, the realization that there was more money in fish farm feed than the total transport of grain for human consumption in Europe. And it goes on. 

Go to my post on the News Bites problems in fish farms/seafood industry around the globe - more than 400 in less than a year. I think you will be taken aback: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html. 

Read and stay tuned:

Under the Surface - Kjersti Sandvik

CONTENTS

Preface 9

PART I : Adventure champions 13

PART II : Adventure losers 73

PART III : Solution or problem 201

Conclusion 244

PREFACE

Norway is the world's largest producer of Atlantic salmon. Farmed salmon is our ikea, our Ibérico ham, our champagne. Salmon is the only people in faraway countries associate with Norway. The industry produces over 1.3 million tonnes of salmon a year, which is 14 million meals each today sent out to 100 different countries. farmed salmon creates jobs and optimism in rural areas and gives money to the Treasury. If everything goes as planned, production will be increased fivefold by 2050. These are the good version, the story industry itself and politicians likes to tell us. But there is a more nuanced version. We have an industry that is more keen to talk out of environmental problems than to solve them, an industry meetings criticism "either you are with us or you are against us" and accusing all critics to be driven by "oppdrettshat ".

Despite major unresolved environmental problems have we an industry and a government that will have more growth. The premise is clear: The salmon industry will grow and be one of the country's economic mainstays when oil and gas it ends. Some environmental problems, disease and emissions is a reality, but why be so negative, why not just pushing them below the surface and give the industry deserved applause?

As I worked on this book, it became increasingly clearer to me that the authorities have been too cautious to set standards for the industry. Industry associations - As Seafood Norway, formerly the fisheries Norwegian Seafood Federation (FHL), and Norwegian Seafood Association (NSL) - have been important forerunners. For them, environmental hinder growth. Salmon farming adds increasingly occupy commons along the coast. New environmental problems occur, they require

new treatments which could be harmful environment. Shellfish door, wild fish are inedible, sea fishermen are in danger of losing livelihood and other fish species are threatened. The willingness to admit problems and do something about them on hold. When scientists cannot put two hyphens the answer to how much farmed sea environment resistant, used this research-based uncertainty for all theis worth and misinterpreted where possible. Should industry be controlled for the best available scientific knowledge, or by the industry's need for growth and desire speculation about how little they affect the environment? There has been too much of lately. It is so easy to criticize the aquaculture industry, I get hear. Come with me solutions, not more criticism.

My impression is the opposite. The simplest is to cheer industry. Allow it to hear what it most wants to hear. Breeding represents the future. Farmed salmon is Norway gift to the world. If there were a sulky rich man fly fisherman in a river and complaints, we must ask ourselves: What is most important? Obtaining food to the world, or to make sure the hobby fisherman gets a

salmon on the hook? Yes, we have indeed some challenges with lice resistance to treatment lotions, residues of toxic delousing agents, drug residues and large quantities of fish dirt that goes right into the sea, but the challenges we will soon get rid of, is the slogan.

In the environmental debate has climate skeptics. In aquaculture we find environmental skeptics who internalises the knowledge that after all there is. The rhetorical grips coincide. The changes in the environment might as well due to natural fluctuations, or unknown, natural conditions there must be more research on. Other industries are much worse than us, and how should we produce more food in the future if not in the ocean? I have no other motives for writing this book than pointing out what I mean driver industry in the wrong direction. Shall This remains an important industry in the future, and it should it be, production must take place in a different way than Today. That is more environmentally friendly solutions. the public Measures must be tighter. Politicians and public management must hear more on independent researchers than on industry's own lobbyists.