Move Fish Farms Out of Clayoquot Sound To Save Wild Salmon - Updated, May 19, 2017

Cermaq Mainstream fish farm, during the IHN infection earlier in 2012, blamed the outbreak on wild salmon passing its farmed salmon. This is highly unlikely for many reasons. It is far more likely that the IHN and other fish farm diseases have been killing wild salmon to the point of extinction.

First, a sound is closed at one end, and thus fish farm diseases do not flush out as they would in open channels. They will stay there for as long as each infected fish farm continues hemorrhaging 60 billion viruses per hour and for three weeks thereafter.In the last big outbreak of IHN, circa, 2002, 36 farms along BC's coastline were wiped out.


Second, there are 22 fish farms in Clayoquot Sound, and that at 500,000 to 1,000,000 exotic Atlantic Salmon, this implies as many as 22 million farmed salmon. Here is a ho-hum map of Clayoquot Sound, showing the 22 fish farms: http://mappery.com/map-of/BC-Salmon-Farms-Map. 


Third, the numbers of wild chinook and sockeye are so low as to be non-existent in the Sound. Non-existent fish cannot pass diseases. Because DFO authorized a new Plover Point fish farm in Clayoquot Sound – a UN Biosphere Reserve no less – I plumbed the Clayoquot Sound Chinook salmon and found their numbers are alarmingly low.

See these DFO links for Clayoquot Sound and West Coast Van Isle wild salmonids:

http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc%20stad/bulletins.htm#WCVI_Chum. And the second set of tables: http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc%20stad/WCVI_escapement/2012-5.pdf

I have summarized the figures as: 2012 counted fish, average number of wild chinook over the past 5 years and  average number of wild chinook over the last 12 years: Bedwell – 93 (5/12 – 60/110); Moyeha – none (120/130); Tranquil – 11 (220/760; Megin – 35 (20/50); Cypre – 362 (no 5/12 figures). No figure for the plummeting Kennedy Lake sockeye. No fish farms should be in these waters as the wild fish numbers are just too low. 

As the Moyeha is 0 and the Tranquil is 11 returned chinook, it is pretty obvious that fish farms, particularly farmed chinook, should not be in Clayoquot Sound. And, while fish farms like to say the source of IHN is wild fish, these numbers are so low - extinction levels - it is far more likely that fish farms are the source of the infection, and they are in fact destroying wild chinook, and sockeye.

DFO has the responsibility to protect wild fish and should have had all Clayoquot Sound fish farms moved to land years ago.

Fourth, the Creative farms - they raise chinook salmon - were shown during the Cohen Commission evidentiary hearings, by Dr. Kristi Miller, to have 25% of all fish with ISA - the worst of all diseases for wild salmon - and HSMI, also lethal, an exotic disease originating in Norway. HSMI cannot be in BC unless it was brought here from Norway and those fish passed it to the Creative farms and one or the other passed it to wild chinook.This means 125,000 infected fish per farm.

Cohen Commission Report Released, Oct. 31, 2012

The Cohen Commission Report into declines in the Fraser River sockeye runs has been released.

Here is the news release: http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/NewsReleases/FinalReportReleased.php.

And this statement from it:  'Cohen emphasized that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) should fully implement and fund both the 2005 Wild Salmon Policy and the1986 Habitat Policy. “DFO should develop and publish a detailed implementation plan as set out in the Wild Salmon Policy and, without further delay, honour its commitment to implementation,” he noted. “The goals of the Habitat Policy and its No Net Loss principle are sound and should be retained.”'

This is a sound recommendation. Anyone who follows salmon issues knows that the Wild Salmon Policy disappeared from view almost immediately after it was written. And the Habitat Policy also contains good information on protecting salmon habitat. It also died an early death. On both issues, DFO has failed badly.

In addition, the Harper government recently gutted the Fisheries Act, the Environmental Protection Act of fish protection as well as began cutting 200 scientists in 2012.

And this statement about fish farms, in the news release preceding the report, states the issue directly and correctly:

'To address the potential conflict for DFO between promoting salmon farms and regulating them, the Commissioner recommended that DFO no longer be responsible for promoting salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product. “As long as DFO has a mandate to promote salmon farming, there is a risk that it will act in a manner that favours the interests of the salmon farming industry over the health of wild fish stocks,” he said.

The Commissioner concluded that salmon farms along the sockeye migration route in the Discovery Islands have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to aggravate endemic diseases which can have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye. “Mitigation measures should not be delayed in the absence of scientific certainty,” he said.

For that reason, Cohen recommended a freeze on net-pen salmon farm production in the Discovery Islands until September 30, 2020. “If by that date, DFO cannot confidently say the risk of serious harm to wild stocks is minimal, it should then prohibit all net-pen salmon farms from operating in the Discovery Islands,” he said. Cohen also recommended that if before September 30, 2020, the government determines that salmon farms pose more than a minimal risk to Fraser River sockeye, the government prohibit their operation immediately.'

Here is the report: http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/. Click on the icon and read the 1200 pages of the three volume report. The third volume contains more than 75 recommendations.

Salmon Farm Activist Acquitted of Defamation - Oct 4, 1012

Salmon Farm Activist Acquitted of Defamation

My guess is the average sport fisher does not know who Don Staniford is. And I venture that Staniford doesn’t know the difference between a bull head and a bull trout, or even how to catch a salmon. But the roughly 300,000 licenced sport fishers in BC owe him their gratitude. That is because he has been fearless in his opposition to in-ocean fish farms, particularly in BC, Scotland, Norway and other countries.

Staniford’s approach to criticizing the industry that has in recent months had well-reported disease problems in BC, Washington, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, is flamboyant in the extreme and often foolhardy. His approach lies somewhere between Monty Python and Darth Vader, with the Energizer Bunny supplying manic energy to his 24-hour a day activism.

Mainstream Canada sued him for defamation in February 2012. Judge Adair has just released her findings. I have excised five pages of relevant clauses from her ruling and you may find it on my blog, www.fishfarmnews.blogspot.com, which also contains the link to her 71 page ruling – really worth reading in its entirety. [Note: the excised comments are the next post on this blog].

Mainstream’s reasons are summarized in clause 10: “Mainstream claims that, in their natural and ordinary meaning, Mr. Staniford’s statements, in context, meant and were understood to mean that Mainstream’s business and products kill people, and that Mainstream is knowingly marketing a carcinogenic product that causes illness, death and harm. Mainstream says that the “sting” arising from Mr. Staniford’s publications is that farmed salmon – like smoking – causes cancer, and that the salmon farming industry is as odious and dishonest as the tobacco industry.”

Pretty damning stuff. And Judge Adair roasts Staniford’s character: “[his] value judgments… [are] prejudiced, exaggerated and obstinate [171].” And, [from 174]: “Mr. Staniford’s judgements have no balance because balance does not exist in Mr. Staniford’s world when it comes to salmon farming. He has dedicated himself to eradicating it.” She also found that his comments were defamatory [118], and that they applied to Mainstream [141].

But at the end, Adair excused Staniford of defamation on the grounds that he believed what he was saying was true. Having read a lot of what he has written, I ignore his inflammatory approach and follow-up his links to the science. They are on the money.

My opinion is that, sadly, the top four problems for ten species of salmonids are: fish farms, DFO, run of river power and Global Warming. The last we can do little about quickly, but the other three can be addressed today with policy decisions. The Cohen Commission into Fraser sockeye collapse reconvened in December 2011 to assess whether fish farm diseases kill wild salmon. Its report is due by October 30, 2012. I’ll let you know what it says.

Sport fishers should pat Staniford on the back – he has withstood being sued three times over the past decade by fish farms, though never successfully – because his bottom line is to stand with wild salmon in BC. In fairness, I don’t see that fish farms need to be eradicated - they need to be on land where their density-related disease amplification affects no other fish or species. I have found more than 8,000 actual on-land farms around the world, so there is no technological or economic impediment. We need wild salmon and so do 37 species of our wild animals like bears and eagles.

560 Words

dcreid@islandnet.com

Don Staniford Acquitted of Defaming Mainstream Canada, Sept 30, 2012

Judge Adair released her ruling in Mainstream Canada's case accusing Don Staniford of defamation. She found that he had defamed Mainstream, but dismissed the case as she reasoned that he truly believed what he was saying. The last five pages are a quite involved argument.

Find her 71 page ruling here: http://donstaniford.typepad.com/files/judgment-28-september-2012-adair-re-mainstream-canada-v-staniford-09-28.pdf.

Here are some of the most relevant sections for those who do not have the time to read the entire ruling:

Mainstream Canada vs Don Staniford - Summary

[10] Mainstream claims that, in their natural and ordinary meaning, Mr. Staniford’s statements, in context, meant and were understood to mean that Mainstream’s business and products kill people, and that Mainstream is knowingly marketing a carcinogenic product that causes illness, death and harm. Mainstream says that the “sting” arising from Mr. Staniford’s publications is that farmed salmon – like smoking – causes cancer, and that the salmon farming industry is as odious and dishonest as the tobacco industry.

[11] Mainstream seeks substantial

[57] Mainstream pleads over fifty particulars of defamatory words contained in the publications. These include the following, many of which appear on mock-cigarette packages (page references indicate the page(s) in the Schedules to the Amended Claim):

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 19 a) from the “Salmon Farming Kills” campaign: “Salmon Farming Kills” (p. 1); “Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Health” (p. 1, p. 27); “Salmon Farming Licenced to Kill” (p. 3); “Salmon Farming Kills Around the World and Should Carry a Global Health Warning” (p. 7); “Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Human Health, the Health of our Global Ocean, and the Health of Wild Fish” (p. 7); “Salmon Farming is Toxic and Poison” (p. 3); “Salmon Farming is Toxic” (p. 4); “Fish Farmers are playing ‘the same game as the cigarette manufacturers did for many years’” (p. 1);

(b) from the “Silent Spring

57, c Put a copy of ‘Smoke on the Water, Cancer in the Coast’ in your pipe and smoke it” (p. 26); “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking” (p. 27); “Salmon Farming . . .

Clause 58: reasonable person as a comment upon true facts, and not as a bare statement of fact: see Ross, at para. 58 (quoting from Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada). In other words, the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognizable as comment.

though the comment satisfies the objective test, the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice. See WIC, at para. 28.

[59] The “Salmon Farming Kills” pages contained several mock cigarette packages with the statement “92% Norwegian Owned.”

[60] Under the heading “Salmon Farming is Toxic and Poison”, Mr. Staniford repeats a quote from an article in the Toronto Star (hyperlink underlined):

“I would never feed a child farmed salmon,” said Canadian scientist David Suzuki (as quoted in The Toronto Star). “It’s poison!”

Clause 74 and 75 about cancer causing chemicals in farmed and wild salmon

Mainstream’s defamation claim clause 99 Mainstreams claims 101, 103

[115] In a number of places in the publications in issue, Mr. Staniford states “Salmon Farming Kills,” and also that “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking.” Mr. Staniford also says that “Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Health.” These are among the many statements that Mainstream asserts are defamatory. Moreover, in the “sting” alleged, Mainstream’s focus is on humans and human health.

[118] I conclude therefore that Mr. Staniford’s words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, as pleaded in para. 22(a), that “Mainstream’s business and products kill people.”

[120] Mr. Staniford’s words “Fish Farmers are playing the same game as the cigarette manufacturers did for many years” are, given the notoriety of the harmful effects of smoking and of the conduct of “Big Tobacco,” capable of bearing the meanings pleaded in paras. 22(d) (“Mainstream has actively misled, deceived, and lied to the public”), (e) (“Mainstream is knowingly marketing a carcinogenic product that causes illness, death, and harm”) and (j) (“Mainstream engages in corrupt and

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 36

immoral behaviour”). Labelling someone as a liar, and asserting the person is knowingly acting in a way that causes illness and death, and otherwise is engaging in corrupt and immoral behaviour, is defamatory.

(iii) Do the words [the defamatory words] in fact refer to Mainstream?

132,

[141] For these reasons, I find, therefore, that Mr. Staniford’s words in fact refer to Mainstream.

[142] In summary, I conclude that Mainstream has proved the essential elements of a defamation claim, namely that: Mr. Staniford’s words are defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower Mainstream’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; the words in fact referred to Mainstream; and the words were communicated to at least one person other than Mainstream.

(b) Mr. Staniford’s defence of fair comment

[144] Statements of opinion – a category which has been described as including any deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof – may attract the defence of fair comment: see Grant, at para. 31. A defendant claiming fair comment must satisfy the following test: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; (d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?; and (e) even

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 42

[146] “Honest belief” requires the existence of a relationship between the comment and underlying facts.

(f) if Mr. Staniford was an honest man expressing his genuine opinion on a subject of public interest then, no matter that his words conveyed derogatory imputations, no matter that his opinion was wrong or exaggerated or prejudiced and no matter that it was badly expressed so that people read all sorts of innuendo into it, nevertheless he has a good defence of fair comment.

[

[154] However, words that may appear to be statements of fact may be properly construed as comment. Binnie J. wrote in WIC, at para. 26:

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 47

mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us."

Mr. Sutherland argues that there is a direct parallel in this case, and that what Mainstream is attempting to do by bringing this action is to silence a critic in the face of scientific controversies.

[166] This is essentially the argument advanced by Mainstream: that Mr. Staniford’s statements are verifiable and capable of proof, and therefore must be found to be statements of fact.

[167] The EWCA did not agree with Eady J. The court explained the flaw in Eady J’s reasoning, and thus also a flaw in Mainstream’s argument, in this way (underlining added):

[168] In order for Mr. Staniford to succeed on his defence of fair comment, it must be shown, with reasonably clarity, that the words are comment and not statement of fact. The test is whether the matter would be recognizable to the ordinary

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 49

[170] However, I have concluded that the statements are comment, not fact. They reflect Mr. Staniford’s value judgments – as prejudiced, exaggerated and obstinate as they are – based on what he has read in the literature and how he has interpreted that literature.

[171] Mr. Staniford’s statements, such as “Salmon farming kills” and “Salmon farming kills like smoking,” although they look like statements of fact, can only be – and must be found to be – statements of opinion. The unexpressed – or not completely expressed – premise is: “based on this peer-reviewed scientific evidence.” They must be statements of opinion because there is scientific controversy about the effect on, and the benefits to, human health from consumption of farmed salmon. The point is illustrated, and, for my purposes, confirmed by the fact that different scientists have reached different conclusions, and by Dr. Gallo’s evidence.

[173] The existence in the flesh of farmed (and wild) salmon of contaminants that can cause cancer has been verified as a fact. However, the consequences and effect on human health of consumption of salmon given that fact is still the subject of debate. In

From 174:

Mr. Staniford’s judgments have no balance because balance does not exist in Mr. Staniford’s world when it comes to salmon farming. He has dedicated himself to eradicating it.

(d) since 2000, scientists have tested farmed and wild salmon and found in the flesh of the fish contaminants that are capable of causing cancer. The existence of the contaminants has been established to be true. Dr. Gallo, for example, accepted and did not disagree with the data used for the Hites Papers;

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 54

(iv) Could any person honestly express Mr. Staniford’s opinions based on the proven facts?

[184] I have concluded the answer to this question must be yes. Mr. Staniford (at least) believes what he says. He expresses his beliefs in the March 23, 2011 letter to the King of Norway, and in “Smoke on the Water, Cancer on the Coast.”

Hill and Knowlton used by tobacco firms

[186] I have concluded that Mr. Staniford is akin to a zealot. Virtually anything that conflicts with his view and vision is wrong, bad, disgraceful and worse. Individuals who work in the salmon farming industry do jobs that are “nauseating.” He is highly suspicious. Neutral facts (for example, that at one time the BCSFA used the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton to do some work for it) will lead him to jump to irrational conclusions. Because Hill & Knowlton at one time also did work for members of “Big Tobacco,” the firm must have been hired because the BCSFA and its members were engaged in a cover-up, just like Big Tobacco.

[189] I have no doubt that Mr. Staniford is severely prejudiced when it comes to salmon farming. His views are exaggerated and obstinate. I express no opinion on whether this makes him an effective campaigner: that is for others to judge. However, I have concluded that he honestly believes the opinions he has expressed.

(v) Malice

[190] The defence of fair comment will fail if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice:

Apart from those exceptional cases, what is required on the part of the defamer to entitle him to the protection of the privilege is positive belief in the truth of what he published or, as it is generally though tautologously termed, ‘honest belief’. If he publishes untrue defamatory matter recklessly, without considering or caring whether it be true or not, he is in this, as in other branches of the law, treated as if he knew it to be false.

[195]

[196] On behalf of Mr. Staniford, Mr. Sutherland argues that Mr. Staniford must be afforded a very broad scope for speech because his purpose is to end industrial aquaculture. He is a campaigner attempting to influence public opinion on legitimate public issues. Therefore, so long as Mr. Staniford’s statements and publications are related predominantly or primarily to that purpose, it cannot be said that Mr.

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 58

Staniford is actuated by malice. Mr. Staniford’s loathing of the aquaculture industry is not unrelated to his purpose, and therefore cannot constitute malice.

[197] I have concluded above that Mr. Staniford honestly believes what he says. This finding is inconsistent with finding that Mr. Staniford said things he knew to be false, or that he was reckless. However, has Mainstream nevertheless demonstrated that Mr. Staniford’s dominant purpose in publishing the statements in issue was to injure Mainstream because of spite or animosity?

The language in his publications – including the mock cigarette packages in particular – is extreme, inflammatory, sensationalized, extravagant and violent. The word “kills” is everywhere.

[200] I have no hesitation, therefore, in finding that the publications in issue were actuated by Mr. Staniford’s express malice towards Mainstream.

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford Page 59

[201] However, I am unable to conclude that this was Mr. Staniford’s dominant purpose in publishing the statements in issue. Mr. Staniford’s main goal is to end industrial aquaculture, and he seeks (albeit in clumsy, crude, irrational or foolish ways) to influence public opinion to that end. That (currently) is his life’s work. His commitment to that cause is illustrated by his self-published magnum opus – “Smoke on the Water, Cancer on the Coast.”

[202] Although I have concluded that Mr. Staniford’s statements are defamatory of Mainstream, I have concluded that he should succeed on his defence of fair comment. I have found that he was actuated by express malice towards Mainstream. However, I have found that he had an honest belief in the statements he made, and injuring Mainstream because of spite or animosity was not his dominant purpose in publishing the words in issue.

[203] In view of those findings, I do not intend to address damages or other remedies.

[204] The plaintiff’s action is, accordingly, dismissed.

Fish Farms Kill Seals and Sea Lions Around the World, Sept 23, 2012

The purpose of this post is to begin making a list of all the countries in the world where fish farms kill pinnipeds, more commonly known as seals and sea lions. No figures are kept for the numbers of sea birds, otters and other animals killed at or by fish farms.

See my earlier post showing than 11,469 seals and sea lions have been killed in BC Canada from 1984 to 2011: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=H-079jkBAAA.RcoTO8mQDOiHL4_fjsIP0Q.AfyGFV8kmoGhfuIWmy-VoA&postId=7900949561164738070&type=POST. 

This post shows the 2012 seal kills in Scotland:  http://www.robedwards.com/2012/09/sites-where-seals-shot-kept-secret-in-fear-of-protest.html. There have been 310 killed so far.

Marine Harvest operates in 21 countries around the world. So as I begin to track down and put the stats and references here, you will see it is a truly staggering number killed, mostly shot in the head.

Fish farms like to make it sound like the seal is at fault, in various jurisdictions calling them 'nuisance' animals or 'rogue' sea lions. But the problem is not the animal, it is the fish farm. If you dangle food in front of a predator, the predator wants to eat it. That is the problem and the solution is to put fish farms on land where their environmental damage can be contained. Zero sea lions would then be shot in the head.

Countries where fish farms operate include: Ireland, England, Norway, Denland, the USA, Atlantic Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Shetland Islands, Faroe Islands and many others. Check back to this post as it tabulates the grim world wide pinniped kills.

Key Document: Fish Farms Damage Ocean Bottoms

This is a report on Shelburne Bay, NS, fish farming in 2012, prepared by Inka Milewski on damage to the bottom of the ocean:http://www.friendsofshelburneharbour.org/uploads/McGregorMilewskiSandyPointApr2012.pdf.

I post this out as it is current report and typical of the damage caused by fish farms to the bottom of the ocean, taking, in some cases more than a decade to recover once fish farms have been pulled out.

Milewski says that: "in her decades of research in the area, she has seen regular outbreaks of infectious salmon anemia (ISA), sea lice infect caged salmon populations in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In February, Cooke Aquaculture was forced to slaughter 700,000 salmon in Shelburne Harbour and last week a firm in Newfoundland was ordered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to slaughter more ISA-infected fish. [July, 2012]

"In April, Milewski sent a copy of the report and her findings to Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Sterling Belliveau, with an invitation to meet with him to discuss her findings. She said that, to date, she has had no response to her offer." See this article:

She also says: "The government must release all environmental monitoring data for all existing salmon farm sites, says Milewski. “If the province can’t publicly produce environmental monitoring data from existing fish farms in a timely manner,” she says, “They certainly can’t be relied upon to act when environmental damage is being done by these farms”." 

The report is a stinging indictment of fish farming, and is typical of conditions found around the world. The issue that has not yet been measured is how the water column is infected with trillions of viral particles for many miles in both directions that the tide flows. This is particularly problemmatic in bays and sounds, like Shelburne and Clayoquot Sound, BC, because they have one closed end and thus to not flush.

Google:Environmental damage under fish farms: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=environmental+damage+under+fish+farms&oq=environmental+damage+under+fish+farms&gs_l=youtube.3...11321429.11332371.0.11332658.74.42.4.8.9.6.242.4296.21j18j2.42.0...0.0...1ac.jxeGnlW81Sc, 

to see how fish farms destroy the ocean bottom with sewage and feed, making them dead zones in many locations. 

Google:Youtube video on sea bottoms under fish farms: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ocean+bottoms+under+fish+farms&sa=X&spell=1&search=Search&oi=spell.There are move videos on sea bottom damage on YouTube, these are just sample videos.  In fairness there are a few, well selected sites, by fish farms.

 

As hard as it maybe to believe, Belliveau has just awarded Cooke Aquaculture $25 million to expand. This at the same time that they are charged with using the lobster killing and illegal chemical cypermethrin to kill lice. These charges may bring millions in fines and jail sentences. Cooke, in its court case, has said it wants to 'study the evidence', and thus has taken the subject out of the news. This is a very typical ploy by charged fish farms around the world, and in this case it is shameful that Belliveau came up with the $25 at a time when Cooke is charged and has had to slaughter. Just shameful.

 

Key Document - Fish Farm Diseases That Infect Humans - July 5, 2012

This post will grow over time, so check back from time to time, as I put the new update date in the title.

Do remember that most cold water viruses do not affect humans, however, the issue is that fish farms, due to their density of fish, cause mutations in viruses. There are also fungal and bacterial diseases in farmed fish, several dozen in total.

1. Google: fish farm diseases that infect humans and you will be reading for days:  https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=fish+farm+diseases+that+infect+humans&oq=fish+farm+diseases+that+infect+humans&gs_l=hp.4...421.6609.0.7472.37.35.0.0.0.0.269.3750.14j20j1.35.0...0.0.zV5g8os4OMk.

2. Kudoa septempunctata. This is not the Kudoa species that has been found in Marine Harvest BC farmed salmon. It is a relative, and has been shown to make more than 1300 people in Japan sick from eating raw fish. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22281845.

3. Fish diseases that infect humans: http://mudiparofarms.com/?p=90.

4. Asian fish product diseases that infect humans. See this for liver flukes and trematodes: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/4/08-1147_article.htm.

5. A long list of diseases that fish transmit to humans:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/3699145/Disease-Trasmitted-From-Fish-to-Human.Note that these are not necessarily from fish farms, just from fish.