« November 2010 | Main | January 2011 »

December 2010

12/31/2010

Open Letter to the American Association for the Advancement of SCIENCE (the Journal SCIENCE)

Please read: Important Notice & Disclaimer

This open letter asks the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to please clarify the actual research findings of Hites et al. (2007) about contaminants in farmed salmon, and Krkosek et al. (2007) about sea lice, salmon farming and wild salmon in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia.  Both of these papers have been widely publicized.  In my opinion, some of the research findings have been selectively and inaccurately reported - in the scientific literature and in the media - in a manner that falsely reflects the actual findings.

18 February 2010

Dr. Alan I. Leshner, CEO and Executive Publisher of SCIENCE 

The American Academy for the Advancement of Science

200 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC USA 20005 


Dr. Alan I. Leshner, 

RE: Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007) in SCIENCE 

As a third party observer and a member of the public, I am writing to express my concern and my opinions regarding two papers published in SCIENCE, and the controversy over farmed salmon and salmon farming that these papers - and their worldwide publicity - have fomented. As this controversy has become a matter of public interest, this is an open letter.  

By way of background, please refer to two papers that I have written: 

  • Research on Contaminants in Farmed Salmon:  Science or Marketing? (Click here).
  • Sea Lice Research:  Science or Marketing? (Click here).

On the basis of the information and analysis presented here and in the attached papers, the published manuscripts about which I am concerned are:

1. Scientific Merit

Senior scientists and others have noted serious flaws and peculiarities in Hites et al. (2004) and in Krkosek et al. (2007). These peculiarities appear to me to be serious deviations from the commonly accepted, good practices of the scientific community. 

Hites et al. (2004) is criticized for unrepresentative sampling, inappropriate application of guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency, unconventional presentation of the research findings, and a lack of important contextual information. Hites et al. (2004) did not compare contaminant levels in salmon of the same species. In essence, they compared apples to oranges. 

Hites et al. (2004) found that both farmed and wild salmon contain less than 3 percent of what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers to be the tolerable level for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish and yet the authors call for farmed salmon consumption to be limited or entirely avoided. (For information about Hites et al. (2004) from the authors, click here).

According to the media, Dr. David Carpenter, one of the co-authors of Hites et al. (2004) has said, “women should avoid eating farmed salmon at all, from the day they are born through menopause,” “one should avoid farmed salmon like the plague,” and “in farmed salmon, the cancer risk dominated the health benefits,” According to Dr. Carpenter, Hites et al. (2004) indicates "elevated cancer risk from one meal (of farmed salmon) or even less per month.” 

Krkosek et al. (2007) and previous studies by this group were criticized for a lack of adequate baseline data, selective use (“cherry-picking”) of data, flawed assumptions, selective and inaccurate reporting, and unsubstantiated claims. 

Specific concerns include: 1) Sea lice levels at salmon farms are not reported. In fact, during part of the research there were apparently no fish at the farm under study 2) A technique for tracing the origin of sea lice does not yet exist and yet claims are made about "farm-origin" sea lice 3) Much of the data used is correlative and inconclusive, 4) The use of data in the mathematical modeling was highly selective and 5) Some of the biological assumptions on which the mathematical modeling is based, are seriously flawed or reported to be untrue. And yet, Krkosek et al. (2007) claim that the findings indicate that sea lice originating from salmon farms put wild pink salmon at serious risk of extinction in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia. In view of the points raised by senior scientists, it is clear to me that this claim is false. (For more info, click here and here. For the web-site of Dr. Martin Krkosek, click here).

In stark contrast to Krkosek et al. (2007), Brooks & Jones (2008) find that when all relevant data are considered, wild pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia appear to be increasing. Twenty scientists from the U.S., Canada and Europe have endorsed the views of Brooks and Jones (2008). 

In conjunction with both Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued newswires via Eurekalert. The titles and the body of these newswires contain claims that, in light of the above, appear to me to be false: 

2. Editorial Review 

The Council of Publication Ethics states that good editors should adopt processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting. In light of the criticisms from scientists and experts as I have outlined in the attached papers, it appears to me that with regards to Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007), the editorial review process failed in this regard. 

The Council of Publication Ethics states that good editors should ensure that any press releases issued by the journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context. I have no doubt that the press releases issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science reflect the intended messages of Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007). However, in both cases it seems to me that the AAAS's press releases failed to properly put these papers into context. At the time that both Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007) were published in SCIENCE, the Editor-In-Chief of SCIENCE was Dr. Donald E. Kennedy. 

On 12 December 2007 - before Krkosek et al. (2007) was published, I wrote an open letter to Dr. Kennedy to express concern about the sea lice research from the University of Alberta and about how Hites et al. (2004) has been publicized. I did not receive a reply. 

In 2007, I also wrote to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to express concern and to raise questions about the publicity of Hites et al. (2004) by Packard-funded organizations. The Packard foundation replied, "We believe that the peer review process and the ongoing scientific discussion in the published literature is the appropriate way to examine those questions." I also wrote to Dr. Mark Lewis, the senior author of Krkosek et al. (2007). Dr. Mark Lewis replied, "… the research is published in the top international journals where it has been evaluated via rigorous peer review by independent scientists. If you have any concerns about the research or its accuracy, please feel free to contact the journal involved." 

At the time that I wrote to SCIENCE, to Dr. Mark Lewis, and to the Packard foundation, I was not aware that Dr. Kennedy has been a trustee of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation since 2000. 

3. The David and Lucile Packard FoundationPack $2.9 Billion  

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation ("the Packard foundation") states that it is organized and operated for charitable, scientific and educational purposes. With assets of $4.5 billion, the Packard foundation has granted nearly $3 billion since 2000. 

On the basis of my observations, it appears to me that one of the aims of the Packard foundation is to sway consumers and retailers towards Alaskan "wild" salmon, and away from the competition: farmed salmon. 

My observations are: 

a. The Monterey Bay Aquarium - According to my calculations based on U.S. tax returns and the foundation's on-line database, since 2000, the Packard Foundation has granted $407 million to the Monterey Bay Aquarium including $6.5 million for the Seafood Watch program. This program green-lists Alaskan "wild-caught" salmon and red-lists farmed Atlantic salmon. A prominent wall display at the aquarium says, "Farming seafood isn't the answer to saving ocean wildlife." The aquarium sells cards that say, "Farmed Fish Aren't The Answer." An interactive video exhibit disparages farmed salmon while promoting "wild-caught" salmon. In the U.S. market, about 95 percent of "wild-caught" salmon is Alaskan. 

b. The Marine Fisheries Program - As part of its program for Conservation and Science, since 1999 the Packard foundation has a program for Marine Fisheries. This program has a focus on "the U.S. arctic" which presumably is Alaska. According to my analysis and calculations, between 2000 and 2008 the Packard foundation granted $9.6 million to organizations in Alaska and $40 million to organizations in British Columbia - all of which are not favorable to salmon farming. This included at least $346,500 in 2000 to initiate the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR). 

CAAR implements two campaigns: 1) Farmed and Dangerous which includes the Smarten Up Safeway campaign and 2) Wild Salmon Supporters which promotes high-end restaurants that feature "wild" salmon. 2 logos 

 Shown above:  The logos of CAAR's two campaigns.

c. Seafood Choices and the "Antifarming Campaign" Pack Triangular Diagram

As part of its program for Marine Fisheries, the Packard foundation funds a strategy called "Market Intervention Tools to Conserve Marine Fisheries." This includes "Seafood Choices" which has three components: 1) Certification by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), 2) Large U.S. Buyers, and 3) Context Setting. 

According to my calculations based on U.S. tax returns and the foundation's on-line database, since 2000 the Packard foundation has granted $75 million for its Market Intervention strategy. Of that, about $57 million was to support the MSC and promote MSC-certified "wild" fish, $16 million was to "reform" aquaculture and demarket farmed salmon, and $2 million was for related projects. In 2007, 82 percent of MSC-certified fish was Alaskan (by volume) and about 60 per cent of MSC- certified products were Alaskan salmon. 

Calculations based on U.S. tax returns and the foundation's on-line database indicate that since 2000 the Packard foundation has granted about $9 million for Seafood Choices.  Of that, $8.5 million was granted to SeaWeb. Information from the grants database of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (shown below), shows that SeaWeb was also paid $560,000 to co-ordinate an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media."  U.S. tax returns state that the purpose of this campaign was to shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon. SeaWeb's $560,000 
Seafood Choices and the "antifarming campaign" appear to me to be related; one is to sway consumers towards MSC-certified fish - much of which is Alaskan salmon - while the other is to demarket the competition. SeaWeb was paid to co-ordinate both. 

d. The Major Buyer Initiative - According to my calculations, the Packard foundation has granted at least  $12.7 million for projects to get Wal-Mart and other large U.S. retailers to preferentially source "sustainable seafood" (Table 1). Over roughly the same period, the Packard foundation also granted at least $2.8 million for campaigns to demarket farmed salmon (Pure Salmon, and Farmed and Dangerous). When Wal-Mart announced - at the behest of the World Wildlife Fund and other Packard-funed organizations - that it would transition to MSC-certified "wild" fish, 95 percent of the initial volume was  Alaskan. 

On 26 January 2010,  Target announced that in 49 states it would stop selling farmed salmon in favor of Alaskan salmon. This move was praised by Greenpeace and by Ms. Julie E. Packard, a trustee of the Packard foundation. In 2009, the Packard foundation paid Greenpeace  $300,000 "to lead a North American retailer campaign." 

e. Flawed advice about PCBs in farmed salmon and farmed salmon consumption - On the basis of Hites et al. (2004), several Packard-funded organizations claim that farmed salmon consumption should be limited because of high levels of PCBs. This is out of line with the world's leading health authorities. 

f. Packard-funded organizations - According to my analysis, a large number of  Packard-funded organizations and companies appear to to act in concert to sway market demand towards Alaskan salmon and/or away from farmed salmon. In many instances, the value of a single grant from the Packard foundation exceeds the entire annual budget of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association. 

4. SeaWeb and the University of Alberta 

Krkosek et al. (2007) was published under the auspices of the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) at the University of Alberta (UofA). The CMB reported to the UofA that the CMB had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb and that SeaWeb generated 148 news stories following the publication of a sea lice paper in 2005. SeaWeb reports that the international communication of the CMB's sea lice research is one of its "top accomplishments." 

According to my calculations, the Packard foundation has granted a total of about $5.4 million to SeaWeb and the Tides Center for Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) which publicized Krkosek et al. (2007) as well as the CMB's sea lice research in 2005. 

Poster Ingredients for Extinction?

Krkosek et al. (2007) lists "Tides Canada" as one of its sources of funding. According to my calculations, since 2000 the Packard foundation has granted $14,110,239 to Tides Canada Foundation which re-grants to numerous organizations including at least three of the environmental organizations (the David Suzuki Foundation, Raincoast Research Society and the Watershed Watch Salmon Society) which co-funded and publicized the sea lice research by the CMB. 

In addition to funds to start CAAR, the Packard foundation also granted $ 2.7 million for campaigns to get consumers and retailers to not buy farmed salmon (Pure Salmon and Farmed and Dangerous). The CMB's sea lice research findings are the centerpiece of these campaigns. 

On the surface, Krkosek et al. (2007) backs up "Ingredients for Extinction," the tag-line of the Smarten Up Safeway campaign. 

5. Publicity and Media Coverage 

 In the case of both Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007) Packard-funded organizations - including SeaWeb - issued press releases the day before or the same day that these studies were officially published. 

Press releases about Hites et al. (2004):

  • Environmental Defense, Environmental Defense praises new study on farmed salmon contaminants, 8 January 2004.
  • The David Suzuki Foundation, International farmed salmon study supports ground-breaking Suzuki foundation research. 8 January 2004.
  • SeaWeb, Contaminant levels in wild vs. farmed salmon, 9 January 2004

Press releases about Krkosek et al. (2007):

  • Environmental Defense, New study links rapid wild salmon decline in Canada to farmed salmon parasites, 13 December 2007
  • The David Suzuki Foundation, Time running out for some of B.C.'s wild pink salmon. Study finds sea lice from fish farms put stocks at risk of extinction, 13 December 2007.
  • SeaWeb, Fish farms drive wild salmon populations toward extinction. Experts raise serious concerns about the expansion of industrial fish farming, 13 December 2007.

In the newswire published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in relation to Krkosek et al. (2007), the media contact is SeaWeb. 

Since 2000, the Packard foundation has granted at least $19.8 million to Environmental Defense, $20.7 million to SeaWeb and $1.5 million to the David Suzuki Foundation - not including funds granted through Tides Canada Foundation.

Amberg & Hall (2008) found that following the publication of Hites et al. (2004), negative media coverage about farmed salmon increased by three-fold for about two years. Ninety percent of the news items associated farmed salmon with increased risk of cancer. 

Following the worldwide negative media coverage of Hites et al. (2004), farmed salmon imports and sales fell sharply meanwhile the value of Alaskan "wild" salmon increased by 23 per cent in 2004 alone. 

Six years after it was initially published, Hites et al. (2004) is still being widely and inaccurately publicized by a choir of Packard-funded organizations and in many articles. (Example). In his recent book, "The Big Picture: Reflections on Science, Humanity and a Quickly Changing Planet," David Suzuki inaccurately reports "They (Hites, et al., 2004) consistently found high levels of contaminants in farmed fish." In January of 2010, CNN again cited the Hites study and an earlier study by the Environmental Working Group. 

Dr. Krkosek reports that more than 500 news items have reported his sea lice research. In the wake extensive bad press following the publication of Krkosek et al. (2007), a "war on fish farmers" was declared and more than 20,000 people have signed a petition by one of the co-authors of Krkosek et al. (2007), to close salmon farms in British Columbia. 

If the purpose of the publicity of Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007) was to benefit the Alaskan salmon industry and thwart the competition, it appears to have been been achieved. The problem is, in my opinion, with regards to both Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007), the research findings have been - and continue to be - selectively and inaccurately communicated in a manner that falsely reflects the actual findings. In my opinion, this stems from the flawed and misleading manner in which Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007) were written in the first place. 

6. Why This Matters 

a) Controversy Over the Safety of Farmed Salmon 

If Hites et al. (2004) had clearly reported that 1) the level of PCBs detected in farmed Atlantic salmon was less than 3 percent of what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers to be the tolerable level, 2) some previous studies have found that wild salmon from some locations carry higher levels of PCBs than what Hites et al. (2004) observed in farmed Atlantic salmon, and 3) PCB exposure from farmed salmon is insignificant compared to milk, poultry, beef and other common foods, I doubt that consumers would have been turned away from farmed salmon - which is what Dr. David Carpenter has admitted that he hoped Hites et al. (2004) would do. Pure Salmon NY Ad PCBs  

On the basis of Hites et al. (2004) the so-called Canada's Health Guide - produced with funds from the Packard foundation - indicates that regular consumption of farmed salmon poses a "health threat." The Pure Salmon campaign issues a poster (shown to the left) which advises pregnant women to avoid farmed salmon. The Seafood Watch Guide indicates that farmed salmon should be avoided due to concerns about mercury or other contaminants. More than 32 million of these guides have been distributed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium and it is now available on iPhones. 

The fact is, farmed salmon is an important food. A report published under the auspices of the U.S. Institute of Medicine finds that farmed salmon is higher in omega-3 fatty acids than any other commonly eaten fish, and very low in mercury. According to a newswire of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the typical North American diet is deficient in omega-3 fatty acids. Harvard scientists estimate that eating fish weekly can reduce the risk of a fatal heart attack by one third. The American Heart Association, estimates that cardiovascular disease and stroke kill 2,300 Americans every day and will cost $503 billion in 2010. 

Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian and Dr. Eric Rimm of Harvard University warn, “... The avoidance of modest fish consumption due to confusion regarding risks and benefits, could result in thousands of deaths every year due to cardiovascular disease, and the suboptimal neurodevelopment in young children.” 

b) Controversy Over the Sustainability of Salmon Farming 

About 30 percent of Alaskan "wild" salmon is actually hatched in a plastic tray. These salmon are not wild. These are  "ranched salmon" or "ranched-caught" salmon. Ranched salmon are fed pellets, grown in tanks and raised in net pens before they are put into the wild. Two to five percent of ranched salmon are eventually caught by fishers. The other 95 to 98 percent are never harvested. All the feed pellets given to them are virtually wasted. 

Salmon farming avoids the risks of over-fishing, by-catch, ghost-nets, inter-breeding between hatchery and wild salmon, the waste of feed for hatchery salmon, and the strain of ranched salmon on the food chain and the carrying capacity of the Pacific ecosystem. Unfortunately, it is too cold for salmon farming in most of Alaska. A U.S. Senator once  said that Alaska did not allow salmon farming as they would then not know what to do with the fishers. 

In Maine, Washington, and elsewhere, salmon farming sustains thousands of people and their families - most of them in rural communities where jobs are sorely needed. In British Columbia alone, salmon farming creates 6,000 jobs jobs and contributes an estimated $CAN 800 million to the economy. 

If Krkosek et al. (2007) had reported that 1) their group never measured sea lice levels at salmon farms, 2) sea lice are carried by many species of wild fish and there's no way to tell whether sea lice originate from fish farms or from wild fish, and 3) their early studies that found high mortality were not controlled experiments and have not been replicated, 4) their hypothetical, computer-generated forecasts actually included predictions of high SURVIVAL - despite exposure to sea lice, I doubt that 20,000 people would have signed a petition to close salmon farms in British Columbia. I also doubt that millions of tax-payers' dollars would have been spent on sea lice research and so-called "closed containment" technology instead of other priorities. 

7. Conclusion 

On the basis of the information and analysis presented here and in the accompanying papers, it does not appear to me that Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007) were published in SCIENCE on the basis of scientific merit. It does appear to me that both of these papers have been - and continue to be - widely cited and publicized as part of the "Context Setting," "the "science messages" and the "earned media" of a sophisticated marketing campaign funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.  

At the time that Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al. (2007) were published in SCIENCE, I believe that the Editor-In-Chief, Dr. Donald E. Kennedy, may have had competing or conflicting interests. 

8. Request 

In the interest of fairness, I respectfully ask the American Academy for the Advancement of Science to please clarify the actual findings of Hites et al. (2004) and Krkosek et al (2007) in the scientific record, and in the media. 

Sincerely, 

Vivian Krause

c.c. (by e-mail):

  • Dr. Donald E. Kennedy, c/o The David & Lucile Packard Foundation
  • Dr. Ronald Hites, Indiana University
  • Dr. David Carpenter, State University of New York at Albany
  • Dr. Mark Lewis, University of Alberta
  • Dr. Martin Krkosek, University of Washington
  • Ms. Alexandra Morton, Raincoast Research Society
  • Dr. Indira Samarasekera, President, University of Alberta
  • Dr. David Johnson, Special Advisor to the Provost, University of Alberta
  • Ms. Dawn Martin, President, SeaWeb
  • Mr. Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense
  • Mrs. Carol E. Larson, President & CEO, The David & Lucile Packard Foundation
  • Dr. David Suzuki, Founder, The David Suzuki Foundation
  • Mr. Peter Robinson, President & CEO, The David Suzuki Foundation

Related Items: 

  • The so-called "Canada's Seafood Guide" which indicates that regular consumption of farmed salmon poses a "health threat" because of PCBs. 
  • The Seafood Watch Guide of the Monterey Bay Aquarium which indicates that consumption of farmed salmon should be limited due to concerns about mercury of other contaminants. 
  • E-mail from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 18 July 2007. 
  • Letter from the General Counsel of the University of Alberta, 30 April 2008. 
  • Letter to the President of the University of Alberta, 4 November 2009. 
  • Pages compiled from U.S. tax returns (IRS-990-PF) and from the on-line database of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation which show grants for a total of $75,278,176, (124 pages) for projects to influence the seafood market, "reform" aquaculture and demarket farmed salmon.

Posted at 08:53 AM | | Comments (0)

|

Open Letter to the Natural Resources & Engineering Research Council of Canada

This open letter asks the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada to investigate and clear up the miscommunication about the sea lice research conducted under the auspices of the University of Alberta. 

15 March 2010

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) 

350 Albert Street Ottawa, 

ON K1A 1H5 

To the President and Council, 

RE: NSERC-Funded Sea Lice Research by the University of Alberta 

As a member of the public, I am writing to express my concern and my opinions regarding NSERC-funded sea lice research by the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) at the University of Alberta (UofA), and the reporting and publicity of the findings and funding sources. 

In 2008, the University of Alberta awarded the Gold Medal of the Governor General of Canada to Dr. Martin Krkosek for this sea lice research. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Krkosek currently holds an NSERC post-doctoral fellowship with the University of Washington.  For Dr. Krkosek's web-site, click here.

The paper, Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing? and the material posted at this blog presents the information and analysis upon which my concerns and questions are based. As this research is a matter of public interest, this is an open letter.  

1.   Lack of Scientific Merit

Senior scientists and experts have noted peculiarities and serious flaws in this research: lack of adequate baseline data, selective use ("cherry-picking") of data, flawed assumptions, selective and inaccurate reporting, and unsubstantiated claims. These peculiarities appear to me to be serious deviations from the commonly accepted good practices of the scientific community. 

Sea Lice HeadlinesAccording to Dr. Krkosek, more than 500 news stories have publicized this sea lice research. In the wake of this extensive bad press, a "war on fish farmers" has been declared and 20,000 people have signed a petition to close salmon farms in British Columbia. If sound science shows that sea lice originating from salmon farms put wild salmon at risk of extinction, it goes without saying that salmon farms should be closed. However, for the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that this is NOT what the UofA's sea lice research actually shows. 

In stark contrast to the CMB's claim that sea lice put wild salmon at risk of extinction in the Broughton Archipelago, 20 scientists have endorsed the view that wild salmon returns in the Broughton appear to be increasing. 

On the basis of the information and analysis that I have outlined, it appears to me that the CMB may have selectively and inaccurately reported some of its own research findings and funding sources, in a manner that falsely reflects both. 

See: Ten reasons why some claims about sea lice research are FALSE

2. Marketing?

In my opinion based on the information that I have presented, the CMB and others may have manufactured the sea lice controversy as part of the "Context Setting" of a marketing campaign to shore up demand for "wild" fish - especially Alaskan fish - by swaying consumers and retailers away from the competition: farmed fish. According to my analysis, this marketing campaign has been heavily funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and others.  

See: 

Since 2000, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation alone has granted more than $US 75 Million for projects to sway the seafood market, especially with regards to salmon. At the time that the CMB's sea lice research was published in the journal SCIENCE, the Editor-in-Chief of SCIENCE was Dr. Donald E. Kennedy, a trustee of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation since 2000. 

3. NSERC Funding 

According to the CMB, 29 per cent of the sea lice research funding came from NSERC. If so, it appears to me that the CMB may have abused NSERC funds in order to further this American marketing campaign and give this sea lice research a false veneer of credibility. If this is true, I believe that this would constitute a breach of public trust in science and an abuse of NSERC funds derived from Canadian taxpayers. 

See: Questions about sea lice research funding

4. Request 

a) Investigation - In the attached paper and at this blog, I believe that there is more than enough information to warrant a proper investigation. Upon the advice of Dr. Paul Pencharz, I contacted the University of Alberta about this in 2008, and again in 2009. In my experience, the University of Alberta has proven wholly unable or unwilling to investigate itself. As such, it seems appropriate to me that NSERC conducts an external investigation of the University of Alberta's NSERC-funded sea lice research and the reporting and publicity of the findings, and funding sources. 

b) Clarification - In the interest of fairness, I appeal to NSERC to publicly clarify that contrary to the University of Alberta's false claims, NSERC-funded research does NOT show that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild and put their populations at risk of extinction in British Columbia. I also believe that it is appropriate to ask that the University of Alberta acknowledges the origins of all of the research funding - including, if true, the funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and from commercial fishing interests. 

Sincerely, 

Vivian Krause 

c.c. 

  • Her Excellency, The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada
  • The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister for Industry, Government of Canada 
  • The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister for Fisheries and Oceans, Government of Canada 
  • The Honourable Steve Thomson, Minister for Agriculture and Lands. B.C. 
  • Dr. Indira Samarasekera, President, University of Alberta 
  • Dr. Mark Lewis, Professor, The University of Alberta 
  • Dr. Martin Krkosek, NSERC Post Doctoral Fellow, The University of Washington 
  • Ms. Alexandra Morton, Raincoast Research Society 
  • Ms. Jennifer Ford, Ecology Action Center 
  • Mr. John Duncan, Member of Parliament, North Island, B.C. 
  • Dr. James Lunney, Member of Parliament, Nanaimo-Alberni 
  • Mr. Richard Harry, Executive Director, Aboriginal Aquaculture Association 
  • Mayor Bev Parnham, Mayor of Port Hardy 
  • Mayor Charlie Cornfield, Mayor of Campbell River
  • Mayor Gerry Furney, Mayor of Port McNeill 
  • Dr. Paul Pencharz, University of Toronto

Further information:

Related Documents:  

  • A document of the University of Alberta, titled "GFC Academic Planning Committee. For the meeting of 11 October 2006. Outline of Issue. Agenda Title: Establishment of the University of Alberta Centre for Mathematical Biology in the Faculty of Sciences. (31 pages). Note:  This document was publicly available on-line between the end of October 2007 and the spring of 2008.

Posted at 08:52 AM | | Comments (0)

|

Letter to NSERC PART 2: Is sea lice media coverage generated as part of a marketing campaign?

Please read: Important Notice & Disclaimer

This post presents reasons why the negative publicity of sea lice research findings from the University of Alberta appears to be part of the "Context Setting" of a marketing strategy to sway consumers and retailers towards "wild" fish - especially Alaskan fish - and away from the competition:  farmed fish. 

1.  "Research Partnership" with SeaWeb

  • Sea lice research, funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation and Alexandra Morton, was conducted by the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) at the University of Alberta (UofA), in Edmonton. Alexandra Morton is a co-author on this sea lice research and an affiliated researcher of the University of Alberta. 
  • In 2006, the CMB reported to the administration of the UofA that it had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb, an American organization based in Maryland, U.S.A. SeaWeb also has offices in Paris and London. 
  • Two of the co-authors of Krkosek et al. (2007) were Dr. Ransom Myers (deceased) and Jennifer S. Ford of Dalhousie University. SeaWeb lists the Myers Lab at Dalhousie University as one of the links of Seafood Choices.

2.  The Packard Foundation's Market Intervention Strategy

  • As part of its program for Conservation and Science, the Packard foundation has a sub-program for Marine Fisheries. This program has a focus on "the U.S. arctic" which presumably is Alaska.
  • The annual budget is $14 million of which "about half" is for market intervention. 
  • According to calculations based on U.S. tax returns and the foundation's on-line database, since 2000 the Packard foundation has granted approximately $75 Million for Market Intervention. Of the $75 Million, about $57 million was to support the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and promote MSC-certified "wild" fish - including Alaskan ranched salmon. About $16 million was to "reform" aquaculture and demarket farmed salmon, and  $2 million was for related projects.  
  • As of 2007, about 80 percent of MSC-certified "wild" fish was Alaskan (by volume) and about 60 per cent of MSC-certified products were Alaskan salmon. Pack Triangular Diagram  
  • The Packard foundation's strategy, Market Intervention Tools to Conserve Marine Fisheries, includes "Seafood Choices" which has three components: 1) MSC Certification, 2) Large U.S. Buyers, and 3) Context Setting. 
  • The Packard foundation has granted a total of about $5.4 million  to SeaWeb and the Tides Center for Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) which publicized Krkosek et al. (2007) as well as the CMB's sea lice research in 2005. 

3. Seafood Choices and the "Antifarming Campaign"

  • Since 2000 the Packard foundation has granted about $9 million for Seafood Choices. Of that, about $8.5 million was granted to SeaWeb. 
  • At the same time that SeaWeb was paid to co-ordinate Seafood Choices, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation ("the Moore foundation") paid SeaWeb $560,000 to co-ordinate an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media." SeaWeb's $560,000
  • Seafood Choices and the "antifarming campaign" appear to be related. One is to sway market demand primarily towards Alaskan fish and the other is to demarket the competition. SeaWeb has been paid to co-ordinate both. 

4. Sea Lice Research Funding

  • The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has confirmed by e-mail that it granted funds to the David Suzuki Foundation ("less than $100,000") that were then re-granted to the CMB for sea lice research. Thus, not only the Moore foundation funded SeaWeb's co-ordination of an "anti-farming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media," the Moore foundation also funded the University of Alberta's sea lice research itself. Funding from the Moore foundation was not reported in the University of Alberta's published papers nor in press releases. 
  • It seems unlikely that the University of Alberta's sea lice research was partially funded by the same foundation that funded the co-ordination of the "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media" but that the sea lice research and its extensive media coverage was not part of that campaign.  In other words, on the basis of the information presented here, it is not hard to fathom that the sea lice research and its publicity is part and parcel of a marketing campaign to "demarket" farmed fish in favor of "wild" fish - especially Alaskan wild fish.
  • The Moore foundation also granted $710,262 specifically for COMPASS, the SeaWeb program which publicized the University of Alberta's sea lice research in 2005 and 2007.

5.  Media Coverage

  • SeaWeb reports that the international publicity of the sea lice research by the University of Alberta is one of SeaWeb's "top accomplishments" of COMPASS. Sea lice are "one of the largest threats (to salmon) in the Northern Hemisphere," reports SeaWeb. "Even a single louse can spell disaster," says SeaWeb. 
  • The CMB reported to the UofA that in 2005 SeaWeb generated 148 news stories following the publication of Krkosek, Lewis and Volpe (2005). Of that, about two thirds ran in the U.S. 
  • The day before Krkosek et al. (2007) was published in SCIENCE, SeaWeb sent out an e-mail saying, "Good afternoon! As you may know, a group of researchers have a new paper coming out in SCIENCE tomorrow: Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon. We at COMPASS have been working with the authors on media outreach for their paper, and we hope it will get good coverage." SeaWeb also wrote, "We also worked with the authors to assemble a website with photos, video, maps and a summary of the research." SeaWeb provided a link to a password-protected web-page.  
  • In December 2007 alone, Google News listed about 250 news stories that negatively reported the University of Alberta's sea lice research published in SCIENCE. More than two thirds of the stories actually ran the day before the paper was officially published. Sea Lice Media Figures   
  • In the newswire issued by the American Association for the Advancement of SCIENCE(AAAS) which publishes the journal SCIENCE, the media contact was NOT the sea lice researchers at the University of Alberta; the media contact was not the sea lice scientists at the University of Alberta, it was SeaWeb.  

6.  The Packard Foundation's Major Buyer's Initiative

  • Since 2002, the Packard Foundation has granted about $US 12.7 Million to get large U.S. retailers ("major buyers") to preferentially source and sell "sustainable seafood," especially MSC-certified "wild" fish. 
  • The Packard Foundation says that its "major buyer" strategy starts by defining "a consistent and feasible seafood purchasing policy that can be used to coordinate and align the Foundation's support for market interventions." "Promoting and facilitating the implementation of this "coordinated 'Ask'" is the centre-point around which the foundation supports the work of its grantees," states the Packard foundation.  
  • The University of Alberta's sea lice research has been publicized in press releases from SeaWeb and Environmental Defense. Both promote Alaskan salmon and provide recipe cards for Alaskan salmon. SeaWeb calls wild salmon "the white truffle of seafood." Since 2000, the Packard foundation has granted $US 20.7 Million to SeaWeb and about $US 19.9 Million to Environmental Defense. 
  • According to U.S. tax returns, Living Oceans Society, a member of the CAAR was paid $US 453,400 "to educate major buyers of farmed salmon."  
  • CAAR implements two campaigns:  Farmed and Dangerous campaign (which includes the Smarten Up Safeway campaign) and "Wild Salmon Supporters". CAAR also has a program called "Supermarket Solutions"  and reports that the CEO of Safeway has been sent more than 30,000 faxes faxes telling Safeway to stop selling farmed salmon. The program called "Wild Salmon Supporters" promotes high-end restaurants which sell "wild" salmon" in New York, Las Vegas, Miami Beach and elsewhere.  In North American, more than 90 percent of "wild" salmon is Alaskan.  It follows that promoting "wild" salmon is tantamount to promoting Alaskan salmon.  

2 logos

  • Over roughly the same period that the Packard foundation funded campaigns that demarket farmed salmon (largely on the basis of the University of Alberta's sea lice research), the Packard foundation also funded the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to get Wal-Mart to preferentially sell MSC-certified fish. In 2006, at the behest of Packard-funded organizations, Wal-mart announced that it would source from MSC-certified fisheries of which Alaska accounted for 95 percent of the volume.

 

Posted at 08:52 AM | | Comments (0)

|

Letter to NSERC Part 3: Questions About Sea Lice Research Funding

Please read: Important Notice & Disclaimer

This post lists a series of questions about the funding of sea lice research conducted under the auspices of the University of Alberta.  On the basis of the information presented at this blog, it is the author's opinions that these questions are fair: 

1. MITACS

  • According to a document submitted by the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) to the administration of the University of Alberta, the CMB received $467,000 from Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS). Where did the $467,000 originate?
  • Between 6 December 2007 and 13 December 2007, two different versions of the curriculum vitae for Dr. Mark Lewis were publicly available at the web-site of the University of Alberta. The version posted as of 12 December 2007 included the words, "Award sub-amount to Lewis (including industrial matching): approximately $80,000 per annum" but the version posted on 13 December 2007 did not. On 12 December 2007, the author sent an open letter to the Editor-In-Chief of SCIENCE. Dr. Lewis was copied on that letter. Two days later, on 14 December 2007, a sea lice research paper was published in SCIENCE. Did Dr. Lewis receive $80,000 per annum from MITACS? If so, where did those funds originate and was Dr. Mark Lewis's CV re-written to omit mention of $80,000? If so, why? 

2. Tides Canada Foundation 

  • The sea lice paper published in SCIENCE lists Tides Canada Foundation as a source of funds. Where did those funds originate? Did those funds originate from the Packard foundation or the Moore foundation? This question is important because since 2000 the David and Lucile Packard Foundation has granted at least $US 14.1 million to Tides Canada Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has granted at least $9.7 million to Tides Canada. Both the Packard foundation and the Moore foundation have also directly funded the environmental organizations that have supported the sea lice research through MITACS. At the time that sea lice research was published in the journal SCIENCE, the Editor-in-Chief was a trustee of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 
  • In a sea lice research paper (Krkosek et al. 2006), Alexandra Morton acknowledges funding from "Tides Canada." Where did those funds originate? Did Alexandra Morton's non-profit organization (Raincoast Research Society) receive funds directly or indirectly from the Packard Foundation? If so, the University of Alberta's sea lice research has been partially funded by the foundation of which the Editor-in-Chief of SCIENCE is a trustee. 
  • As of 15 February 2010, Alexandra Morton admits on-line that only 2 percent of her organization's funding is from tax-receipted donations, and that funds from both Tides Canada Foundation, and Living Oceans Society, are from U.S. sources. Which source(s)? 

3. Finest At Sea Ocean Products 

  • The CMB reports that six per cent of the sea lice research funds originated from the Canadian Sablefish Association (4 per cent) and Finest At Sea Ocean Products (2 per cent). What are the amounts of funds provided and where did the CSA funding originate? 

4. The David Suzuki Foundation

  • The Moore foundation has acknowledged that it granted funds to the DSF ("less than $100,000) which were then re-granted for the University of Alberta's sea lice research. If so, did funds from the David Suzuki Foundation originate only with the Moore foundation or from other sources as well? What is the amount of those funds? 

See also:

 

 

 

 

 

Posted at 08:52 AM | | Comments (0)

|

Open Letter to Four U.S. Foundations (Hewlett, Packard, Moore & Pew)

Sent in the spring of 2010, the letter below appealed to four, influential American foundations to 1) clear up the misinformation about farmed fish and fish farming, and 2) stop thwarting aquaculture on the basis of flawed science and false claims.  Instead, these foundations could get people to eat more fish in general, without dividing the producers - and their communities - into winners and losers. Shortly after this letter was sent, a note appeared on the web-site of the Pew Charitable Trusts saying that its salmon aquaculture campaign was no longer active.  The Packard foundation also phased out its support to the Farmed and Dangerous Campaign. 

19 March 2010

To:
  • Mr. Paul Brest, President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • Ms. Carol S. Larson, President & CEO, The David & Lucile Packard Foundation
  • Mr. Steve McCormick, President, The Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation 
  • Mrs. Rebecca Rimmel, President & CEO, The Pew Charitable Trusts 

RE: Aquaculture "Reform" Funded By Non-profit Foundations

This letter expresses my concerns and opinions.

By way of background, please see: 

1. Vast Resources and Influence 

Big4 Assets & Grants BudgetsAccording to my calculations, your foundations have a total of $21.5 BILLION in assets and a combined annual grant-making budget of $1.1 BILLION. Indeed, you have a lot of influence. Its important that information provided with your funds is accurate and fair. 

My calculations show that since 2000 your foundations have granted more than $126 million (2000-2009) to organizations in British Columbia - all of which are not favorable to salmon farming. 

 MBA Greeting CardFunded heavily by your foundations, a choir of organizations and campaigns are promoting "wild" fish - especially Alaskan fish - in the name of sustainability while thwarting the competition (farmed fish) in the name of "reform." 

For example, according to my analysis, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation has funded at least 56 organizations and companies that appear to me to act in concert, directly or indirectly, in order to sway the global salmon market towards Alaskan salmon and away from the competing product.  The punching bag is farmed salmon but more broadly, a negative view has been systematically created about farmed fish and fish farming in general.

Since 2000, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation alone has granted more than $75 million to sway consumers and retailers towards "wild" fish. Recently, Greenpeace applauded Target (a major U.S. retailer), for discontinuing sales of farmed salmon in favor of Alaskan salmon. In 2009, the Packard foundation paid Greenpeace $300,000 "to lead a North American retailer campaign." 

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation funded an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages," "earned media" and "co-ordination of media for antifarming ENGOs (environmental organizations)."  According to U.S. tax returns, the purpose of this campaign was to shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon.

In summary, it seems to me that millions of dollars are being spent to decrease the sale of farmed fish rather than to increase the survival of wild fish. In many instances, the value of a single grant exceeds the entire annual budget of aquaculture organizations such as the Washington Fish Growers and the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association. Moreover, non-profit dollars go farther because they are tax-free. 

2. Alaska's Largest Crop: Ranched Salmon

The fact is, about one third of Alaskan "wild" salmon are actually born in a bucket. These salmon are not wild. These are "ranched" salmon, Alaska's largest crop. If Alaska didn't ranch salmon, the 2008 salmon harvest would have been only 88 million fish, not 133 million. The ex-vessel value of the 2008 Alaskan salmon harvest would have been $299 million, not $409 million. 

Just because Alaska doesn't call it farming doesn't mean that Alaska isn't growing salmon.  In fact, as the figure shows below, Alaska grows more than twice as many salmon as British Columbia.

Alaska & BC Salmon 
Unless we are prepared to settle for substantially less salmon for sport fisheries and for food, growing salmon is a necessity - even in Alaska. The question we should be asking is what is the best way to grow salmon in each unique ecosystem.  

In North America, the real dichotomy isn't between "wild" and farmed salmon, its between Alaskan salmon which is wild or ranched, and the competition which is farmed.

Ranched salmon are hatched in a plastic tray, fed pellets, grown in tanks and raised in net pens before being put into the wild. The problem with salmon ranching is that at least 95 percent of ranched salmon are never caught by fishermen. They die in the wild. All the feed pellets given to them are virtually wasted.  On feed alone, Alaskan hatcheries spend $20 Million per year.  On top of that, before they die ranched salmon consume an enormous amount of wild feed which is then not available for the truly wild fish. Some ranched salmon inevitably interbreed with wild salmon, weakening their genetic biodiversity. 

3. Salmon Farming

Salmon farming isn't what it used to be. With experience, hard work and substantial investment in new technologies and new techniques, environmental impacts have been markedly reduced. With underwater cameras, the use of feed has been reduced by half. New vaccines mean that the use of antibiotics is a small fraction of what it once was. Many salmon farms have had no escapes of fish in five years or more. 

Salmon farming avoids some of the worst risks to wild salmon: over-fishing, by-catch of endangered species, hooking mortality, ghost nets and the strain of ocean-ranching on the food chain and the carrying capacity of the Pacific. Unfortunately, its probably too cold for salmon farming in most of Alaska. A U.S. senator once said that the reason Alaskan didn't allow salmon farming is because it would then not know what to do with the fishers. 

4. Demarketing Farmed Salmon on Flawed Science and False Claims 

 F&D Don't EatAccording to my calculations, your foundations have paid more than $28 million to "reform" aquaculture and demarket farmed salmon - not including the funds which the Pew Charitable Trusts has refused to disclose. The problem is, in my opinion, these campaigns to "reform" salmon farming are based on flawed science and false claims - published, nonetheless, in peer-reviewed journals which you have funded.

Your campaigns say that farmed salmon is unsafe and unsustainable because farmed salmon is high in PCBs and because sea lice from salmon farms put wild salmon at risk of extinction.  Both claims Pure Salmon NY Ad PCBs  stem from studies published in the journal SCIENCE, and in my opinion, both claims are flagrantly unsubstantiated. It follows that the basic premise of your campaign to "reform" salmon farming, is false. 

At the time that research on PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice, was published in the journal SCIENCE, the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Donald Kennedy, was a trustee of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

a. Sea Lice, Wild Salmon and the Sustainability of Salmon Farming 

In the sea lice research (Krkosek et al., 2007) published in SCIENCE, mortality forecasts were computer-generated using highly selective data. To the best of my knowledge, sea lice levels at salmon farms and mortality in the wild were never measured. Sea lice are found on many species of wild fish and Russian Think Twicea technique to trace the origin of sea lice simply doesn't exist. It follows that claims about "farm-origin" sea lice are unsubstantiated and false. What your researchers actually predicted was high SURVIVAL in some areas despite exposure to sea lice. Last fall, returns were so good that commercial fishing took place on the very same wild salmon populations that your campaigns say are at imminent risk of extinction - and your campaigns voiced no objection. 

b. Contaminants in Farmed Salmon 

Unfortunately, PCBs are found in virtually all foods. Research shows that both farmed and wild salmon contain less than 3 percent of what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers to be the tolerable level for PCBs in fish.  

According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine, farmed salmon is higher in omega-3 fatty acids than any other commonly eaten fish and very low in mercury. As shown below, wild halibut has 25 times as much mercury as farmed salmon while tuna has about 33 times more. 

Contaminants 2 figs

Organizations that you fund have been saying that the maximum number of safe meals of farmed salmon is only one meal or half a meal per month for adults and older children, and for young children: zero meals. (Click here and here). This is flagrantly out of line with the world's leading health authorities.

5. Why This Matters 

Eating fish weekly is estimated to reduce the risk of a fatal heart attack by one third. Cardiovascular disease kills approximately 2,300 Americans every day, and will cost an estimated $504 Billion in 2010. Harvard scientists warn, "The avoidance of modest fish consumption due to confusion regarding risks and benefits, could result in thousands of deaths every year due to cardiovascular disease, and the suboptimal neurodevelopment in young children."

Obviously it doesn't make sense to discourage people from eating farmed salmon. And yet, on the basis of flawed research that you have heavily funded and publicized, this is precisely what environmental organizations and the media have been doing. (See examples below). 

More than 800 news stories have reported on PCBs in farmed salmon or sea lice. The problem is, in my opinion, in both cases research findings have been selectively and inaccurately publicized in a manner that falsely reflects the actual findings. For example: 

  • A scientist (Dr. David Carpenter) paid $140,000 by the Pew Charitable Trusts has said, “women should avoid eating farmed salmon at all, from the day they are born through menopause,” “one should avoid farmed salmon like the plague,” and “in farmed salmon, the cancer risk dominated the health benefits.” 
  • The lead sea lice researcher told BBC World News that sea lice production from the farm studied was 30,000 times higher than natural and that the probability of extinction is 100 percent. And yet, according to the company that owns the farm, during part of the data collection there were no fish at that farm.

In the wake of bad press generated largely by campaigns that you fund, consumers have turned away from farmed salmon meanwhile the value of Alaskan salmon has tripled. This is good for the Alaskan communities and companies that profit from selling wild and ranched salmon but is this good for the fish? For public health? Since the market for Alaskan salmon improved, at least 863 more boats are fishing for them.

Millions of dollars have been diverted towards sea lice research and so-called "closed containment" technology instead of other priorities for the protection of wild salmon. And with all the bad press and public outrage that the sea lice controversy has created, a "war on fish farmers" has been declared and more than 20,000 people have signed a petition to close salmon farms.  Please recognize that in British Columbia alone, salmon farming provides a livelihood for about 6,000 people and their families in rural areas where jobs are sorely needed.

6. Request

In the interest of fairness, please clear up the misinformation about farmed fish and please stop thwarting aquaculture on the basis of flawed science and false claims. Instead, perhaps you could use some of your vast resources to get people to eat more fish in general, without dividing the producers - and their communities - into winners and losers.

Sincerely,

Vivian Krause

Financial Information:

  • For the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, click here.
  • For the Pew Charitable Trusts, click here. (See page 43).
  • For the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, click here.  For information on grants made in 2008, click here.

Links to the brochures, poster and ads shown above and below:

 DS Face WhyYouShouldn't2 

DSF Toxic Salmon 

Safeway Eat the Packaging 

PIC cropped Safeway Selling Extinction  

Posted at 08:51 AM | | Comments (0)

|

City Council Presentation in Campbell River

Please read: Important Notice & Disclaimer

  • For the slides used in my presentation to City Council in Campbell River, click here.
  • For my notes, click here.  Note: Because of time constraints, some comments weren't made in the initial presentation but most were made in response to questions.
  • For media coverage by the Courier Islander, click here.
  • For media coverage by the Campbell River Mirror, click here.

CRM front page 3 

Thanks to both Grant Warkentin and Dan MacLennan for quoting me accurately!

Posted at 08:51 AM | | Comments (0)

|

Ten reasons why claims that research shows that "farm-origin" sea lice are killing wild salmon are FALSE

As shown below, in October of 2006, both the University of Alberta and the David Suzuki Foundation issued press releases in which they claimed that their research, jointly funded by both institutions, shows that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild, and put their populations at risk of extinction. After concerns about this press release were conveyed to the University of Alberta, it was quietly removed but by then, hundreds of media stories had falsely reported the actual research findings as the University of Alberta had done in the first place. To the best of my knowledge, the University never retracted the inaccurate and misleading information contained in this influential press release.

UofA Press Release 27Sept06

Bit image DSF PR Mortality Caused

Below, here are the 10 reasons why I believe that contrary to the alarming claims of the David Suzuki Foundation and University of Alberta scientists - including Alexandra Morton - their actual research findings do NOT show - and have never shown - that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild and put wild salmon populations at risk of extinction.  Ten reasons:

1. Sea lice levels at salmon farms were never measured. None of the papers published by the University of Alberta report any data on sea lice levels actually at salmon farms. None. Never. As it appears to me, the researchers missed or ignored collecting the very data necessary to test their hypothesis that sea lice from salmon farms harm wild salmon.  A Scottish expert once commented that it is bizarre in the extreme to make claims about the transmission of sea lice from point 'A' to point 'B' without measuring point 'A.'  I agree with that.

2. No fish at the farm during part of the data collection. Dr. Kenneth Brooks, an aquaculture industry consultant, has reported, “… there were no farmed fish containing gravid (egg-bearing) sea lice in this area during their final sample period when Krkosek et al. (2005) again reported peak abundance adjacent to the farm.” (Brooks, 2005). 

3. No evidence of causality. In a public hearing of the government of British Columbia, the lead researcher, Dr. Martin Krkosek, admitted that the research findings are  "all correlative." A correlation does not show causality.  And yet, the University of Alberta and the David Suzuki Foundation falsely reported in the headlines of their press releases, "Wild Salmon Mortality Caused by Fish Farms."

4. Mortality in the wild was never measured. The actual mortality estimates were computer-generated, hypothetical predictions. Senior scientists and experts have suggested that these forecasts lack merit because they were based on highly selective data and flawed assumptions.

In several instances, the wording used by University of Alberta scientists, Alexandra Morton and the David Suzuki Foundation implies that "real-life" observations were made when in fact, the actual research results were hypothetical, computer-generated predictions. 

Data used was highly selective - The University of Alberta's hypothetical forecasts of wild salmon mortality and extinction were based on "cherry-picked" data. For example, data prior to 2000 and data for the largest watershed habitat of wild pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, was excluded. Other scientists (Brooks & Jones, 2008) have found that when all relevant data is considered, wild pink salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago appear to be increasing. 

Early experiments that found high mortality were uncontrolled. Early studies by Alexandra Morton and others found high mortality, allegedly due to sea lice.  The important thing to know though, is that these were not controlled experiments and have not been replicated. Controlled studies by Dr. Simon Jones and his DFO colleagues have found surprisingly low levels of mortality among juvenile wild salmon - despite high levels of sea lice.

Lack of consistency which is fundamental to mathematical modelling -  The "striking consistency" in patterns of sea lice that is reported by University of Alberta scientists - and is fundamental to their mathematical modeling - was not evident in extensive surveys conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the same areas and during the same time periods, according to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO, 2006).

5.  The published research predictions actually include estimates of high SURVIVAL. The actual, computer-generated prediction of wild salmon mortality was a meaninglessly wide estimate of 9 to 95 percent and includes estimates of HIGH SURVIVAL. However, the data that was publicized in media coverage was cherry-picked in the sense that the predictions of high mortality were highlighted but the predictions of high survival were not.

6. Computer-generated predictions of high mortality are contradicted by real life: 

  • In 2000, after 13 years of salmon farming in the area, the return of wild pink salmon to the Broughton Archipelago was the highest on record, eight-fold higher than the historical average.
  • The marine survival of the offspring of 2002 was estimated at 34 percent, an unprecedented high. If 34 percent of the juveniles survived, it is mathematically impossible that 95 percent were killed by sea lice from salmons - as the David Suzuki Foundation and the University of Alberta have claimed.
  • In 2004, the return to Glendale Creek, the largest wild pink salmon habitat in the Broughton, was one of the highest since the 1950s.
  • In 2009, wild pink salmon returns were high enough that commercial fishing was allowed - on the very same stocks that University of Alberta scientists, Alexandra Morton and the David Suzuki Foundation claim are at risk of extinction.
  • In 2010, the return of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River was the highest on record in nearly 100 years. And yet, the environmental campaigns with which the University of Alberta scientists are involved, continue to claim that sea lice from salmon farms are a serious risk to Fraser sockeye salmon.

7. No method for detecting "farm-origin" sea lice. Sea lice are found on many species of wild fish, including herring and rockfish. A technique to trace their origin doesn't exist. It follows that claims about "farm-origin" sea lice are impossible to back up. 

8. The impact of ocean currents was ignored. The David Suzuki Foundation and the University of Alberta reported that "the maximum infection pressure near the farm was 73 times greater than ambient levels."  The fact is, sea lice can not infect salmon until about six days after they hatch.  In the meantime, they are carried away by ocean currents.  If sea lice from salmon farms were infecting wild salmon, it would be many kilometres downstream, not at the farm.

9. High juvenile mortality is normal. Studies from the 1960s - when there were no salmon farms - found that between 59 and 77 percent of juvenile salmon die within the first 40 days after entering the ocean from their natal streams.  If so, it is mathematically impossible that sea lice from salmon farms "commonly kill over 80 percent" of juvenile wild salmon - as the University of Alberta and the David Suzuki Foundation have claimed.

10. Extinction, the death of an entire species, was never a risk.  Even if wild pink salmon were lost from some streams, the death of the entire species wouldn't occur. In some areas of the Broughton Archipelago, pink salmon from some streams can re-colonize other streams without loss of biodiversity. The alarming use of the term "extinction" is, therefore, unwarranted. (See Riddell et al., 2008).

References:

  • Brooks, K. 2005. The effects of water temperature, salinity, and currents on the survival and distribution of the infective copepodid stage of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus Salmonis) originating on Atlantic salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia, Canada. See pg. 182, click here).
  • DFO. 2006. State of Knowledge Presentation for the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture, of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Click here, pgs 25 & 27.
  • Hansard transcripts of Dr. Martin Krkosek's testimony to a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Click here.
  • University of Alberta Press Release, Wild Salmon Mortality Caused By Fish Farms. September 27, 2006, click here.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

NOTE:  This was originally posted at Fish Farm Fuss, on March 11, 2010.

Posted at 08:51 AM | | Comments (0)

|

Why These Questions Are Important And Fair


MBA Greeting Card

Bad press and various campaigns are discouraging consumers from eating farmed fish.

The "punching bag" is farmed salmon but more broadly, a negative view is being systematically created about fish farming and farmed fish in general.  For example, environmental organizations provide seafood guides that unanimously red-list farmed salmon while green-listing "wild" salmon or Alaskan salmon. The world-famous Monterey Bay Aquarium sells cards that says "Farmed Fish Aren't The Answer." The aquarium has a prominent wall display that disparages the cultivation of both finfish and shellfish in one fell swoop. It says, "Farming seafood isn't the answer to saving ocean wildlife."  More than 46 million people have visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium.   

The fact is, fish is an important food.  Fish is a particularly excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids. These nutrients prevent cardiovascular disease which affects millions of people - 80 million in the U.S. alone.  Harvard scientists estimate that eating fish on a weekly basis can reduce the risk of a fatal heart attack by 36 per cent.   The American Heart Association says that cardiovascular disease kills about 2,300 Americans every day and will cost the United States about $US 503 BILLION dollars in 2010.   

   Pure Salmon NY Ad PCBs According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine, farmed Atlantic salmon is higher in omega-3 fatty acids than any other fish and is very low in contaminants, especially mercury (1).   In stark contrast, leading environmental organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Environmental Defense inaccurately claim that farmed salmon is "high" in PCBs and should be avoided especially by women of childbearing age and young children (2,3,4).   This is gravely out of line with health authorities in Canada, the United States, the U.K., and Europe. 

Scientists at the University of British Columbia have found that Vancouver infants of well-educated mothers are born deficient in omega-3 fatty acids because their mothers did not get enough while pregnant (5). This situation is not helped by the organizations which say that there are "health concerns" over farmed salmon.  For example:

 

DSF Toxic Salmon 
Source:  The David Suzuki Foundation. 2001. Finding Solutions Newsletter. Page 5. 

Harvard scientists warn, "The avoidance of modest fish consumption due to confusion regarding risks and benefits, could result in thousands of deaths every year due to cardiovascular disease, and the suboptimal neurodevelopment in young children" (6). 

Salmon farming avoids some of the worst risks to wild salmon such as over-fishing, ghost nets, the by-catch of endangered species, the straying of hatchery-born salmon, and the strain of ocean-ranching on the food chain and the carrying capacity of the marine ecosystem.  And yet, a "war on fish farmers" has been declared (7).  

Senior scientists have raised legitimate questions and concerns about sea lice research by environmental groups and the University of Alberta.  Their views have gone largely unreported and unheeded. Instead, their integrity has been questioned. 

In British Columbia, government officials who have stood up for salmon farming have had their careers hurt. Some of Canada's best aquatic veterinarians and marine biologists have moved to other places (eg. Tasmania) because they saw a grim future for aquaculture in Canada.  The pride and dignity of salmon farmers in British Columbia has been beaten.  

 

No doubt about it, some of the early environmental impacts of salmon farming were unacceptable.  In fact, the Executive Director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association admitted in August of 2009, "We carry a little bit forward, some of the early bad reputation that we did earn" (8).

In its early years, the commercial fishing industry also made mistakes.  Back in the 1950s, over-fishing got so bad that the U.S. president declared Alaska a federal disaster area.  Since then, stocks have been re-built with hatchery fish. Today, about one third of Alaskan "wild" salmon is actually born in a bucket.

The fact is, unless we settle for substantially less salmon for commercial fisheries and for sport fisheries, growing salmon is a necessity.  The question that should be asked is what is the best way to grow them in each unique ecosystem.

Salmon farming isn't what it used to be.  With experience and hard work, salmon farmers have invented new technologies and new techniques.  For example, because of new vaccines, antibiotic usage is a fraction of what it once was.  (More info). Thanks to underwater cameras, the use of feed has been cut by half. The difficulties of salmon farming have been widely publicized but the industry's progress has not.

 

In 2008, British Columbia produced 81,000 MT of farmed salmon for a farm-gate value of $CAN 406 million.  In comparison, the commercial wild salmon harvest was 5,000 MT for a landed value of only $20.3 million. 

Has opposition to salmon farming protected wild salmon? Millions of dollars are being spent on sea lice instead of other priorities.  Ocean-ranching is hardly mentioned and yet it appears to some Alaskan scientists to pose far greater risks to the genetic biodiversity of wild salmon and the carrying capacity of their ecosystem (9,10). 

 

It is sometimes said that Alaska banned salmon farming because of environmental concerns. While that may have been part of the reason, the fact is, its too cold for fish farming in most of Alaska. An American senator once said that Alaska didn't allow salmon farming as it would not know what to do with the fishers.  

If fish farming would flourish in the lower 48 states, in Canada and elsewhere, Alaska's commercial fishing industry would face stiff competition.  Thwarting the fish farming industry - as the David Suzuki Foundation and other "environmental" organizations are doing - helps to stave off Alaska's competition.

Scared away from farmed salmon, more people are eating "wild" salmon.  The value of Alaskan salmon has more than tripled from $125 million in 2002 to $409 million in 2008 (11,12). As prices for Alaskan "wild" salmon have improved, at least 863 more boats are fishing for them (13).

Its fair to ask, why is farmed salmon so vehemently denigrated - by some of the same organizations that enthusiastically promote Alaskan "wild" salmon?  Should farmed salmon be boycotted?  Who's benefiting from the demarketing of farmed salmon and farmed fish in general?  And who's paying for this .... and why?   

For more information:

 

Sources: 

 

 

(1) U.S. Institute of Medicine.  Balancing Choices:  Supporting Consumer Seafood Consumption Decisions.  Fact Sheet.  October 2006. Page 3 of the Fact Sheet. Click here.

 (2) http://www.puresalmon.org/nyt_ad.pdf

(3) The David Suzuki Foundation. 2001.  Toxic Salmon.  Study shows BC's farmed salmon contain high levels of contaminates. Finding Solutions Newsletter, Summer 2001. Pg.5. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/DSF_Summer_Final.pdf 

(4) http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/newsletters/feb2004_food/omega-3.asp 

(5) Innis, S.M. and R.W. Friesen. 2008. Essential n–3 fatty acids in pregnant women and early visual acuity maturation in term infants. AJCN 87 (3) 548-557.  http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/3/548 

(6) Mozaffarian, D. & E.B. Rimm. 2006. Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health.  JAMA  296(15). 1885-1899 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/15/1885

(7) The Vancouver SUN.  1 April 2008. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=9f75125f-c5f7-42c2-91b8-db42f2f8ea27

(8) Winks, C.  Fish farming not the only culprit in salmon decline.  CANWEST NEWS SERVICE.  31 August 2009.

 

(9) University of Alaska Anchorage.  Environment and Natural Resources Institute.  2001.  Evaluating Alaska's Ocean-Ranching Salmon Hatcheries:  Biologic and Management Issues.  77 pages.

(10) Kolmes, S.A.  Salmon farms and hatcheries.  Environment 46(3), 40-43. Click here

(11) State of Alaska.  Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program 2002 Annual Report.  Compiled by Craig Farrington.  http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/pubs/rir/5j03-05/5j03-05.pdf Page 7.

(12) State of Alaska.  Fishery Management Report No. 09-08.  Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program 2008 Annual Report by Bruce White http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fmr09-08.pdf Page 10.

(13) Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.  Silver Anniversary Report. 2006 http://www.alaskaseafood.org/about/reports/documents/annual_report.pdf Page 10.

Note:  This post was originally posted at my first blog, Fish Farm Fuss, on December 6, 2009

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 08:50 AM | | Comments (0)

|

Alexandra Morton's Non-Answers About Her Research Funding

In 2009, I wrote a series of letters to Alexandra Morton and her fellow sea lice researchers. The point of my letters was to appeal to them to please clarify that contrary to their claims, their research does not show that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild.

I also asked Alexandra whether her sea lice research had been funded and publicized as part of the "science messages" of an "antifarming campaign," co-ordinated by SeaWeb and funded, in part, by the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation and other American foundations.

Alexandra Morton did not answer my questions but she had no hesitation to fire back with loaded questions about my reasons for daring to query her findings and funding. Eventually, she also posted funding information for her non-profit, Raincoast Research Society.

Considering that the Moore foundation funded a campaign involving "science messages" and "antifarming environmental groups (ENGOS)" its fair to ask whether Raincoast Research is one of them.

Since 2000, the Packard foundation has granted more than $90 million for projects to sway the global seafood market, especially for salmon.  At the time that Alexandra Morton's sea lice research was published in the journal SCIENCE, the Editor-in-Chief of SCIENCE was a trustee of the Packard foundation.

According to the information posted at Raincoast Research Society as of 15 February 2010, between 2000 and 2008 its total funding was $627,683. This is precisely the same amount - to the dollar - that I reported as of January 7, 2010.  Of the $627,683, Alexandra Morton admits that only 2 percent was from tax-receipted donors.

Since 2000, Raincoast Research Society has reported in its tax returns that it had one paid employee.  Alexandra Morton has not answered my question about whether she is that employee. Wages for that employee increased systematically:

  • $24,000 in 2005
  • $36,000 in 2006
  • $48,000 in 2008

For 2011 and 2012, Raincoast Research reported about $38,000 per year for research costs $38,054 and $37,709. That included funding for consulting.

Nearly one third of Raincoast Research Society's funding was directly from American sources. On top of that, Alexandra acknowledged funding from Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Raincoast Conservation Foundation and "West Coast Environmental Law."  All three of these Canadian organizations have received substantial funding from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation and/or the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation and may have also received U.S. funding indirectly from Tides Canada Foundation.  Since 2000, Tides Canada has been granted more than $60 million by U.S. foundations. 

Below,  here is my e-mail exchange, complete and unedited, with Alexandra Morton, June 11-18, 2009. After that, she did not reply to any of my letters or e-mails.

Krause: Please see the attached letter.

Morton: You ask that I "please tell the truth."  This is what we have been doing from day one on this issue, so I am not sure what more I can possibly help you with.  I would suggest you get out in the field make and your own assessment if you don't believe us. Your funding questions are misguided as no scientific journal would have published our work based on who funded us. I have wasted hours previously addressing each of your concerns and you have gathered them up again and sent them to me demanding I tell the truth. I fail to see the point of going through this again with you. You have heard the truth, your data is out-dated, you fail to notice the increase in Glendale pinks was the generation treated to the fallow route, even DFO has dropped the stickleback argument because no one can find a gravid louse on a stickleback, mortality rates depend on how many farms the fish encounter, sea lice levels are starkly different where there are no fish farms, Broughton is not increasing it failing badly, don't ask 20 scientists look at the enumeration data yourself. Your industry is expanding worldwide, you should be pleased.  Relax.

Krause:  Thank you for taking time to reply. Revenue Canada has sent me the unaudited financial statements for Raincoast Research Society for 2005, 2006 and 2007. According to these statements, revenues were $65,086, $79,823 and $118,661, respectively.  Of the total revenues for these three years, $252,325 (95.7 per cent) was from grants.  Where did this grant funding originate?

Morton:  They are from a range of concerned citizens who want wild salmon to remain on this planet.  Some have been directly to Raincoast and some through the Vancouver Foundation. Recently funding has come to work on bacteria around fish farms.....not a good story there either. Vivian, you seem a very intelligent and resourceful person, I just don't understand why you are trying to make something dark out of the work people are doing to try and protect wild salmon. Have you taken a good look at what the fish farmers have done to themselves in Chile?  That is where they would be in BC if it were not for those of us who are making them accountable. You can dig all you want but there is no alteir (ulterior) motive here. I love my home waters and I want the public to know there is no reason to loose our wild salmon.

Krause: Thanks again for taking time to reply to my questions. I assume that contributions from concerned citizens would be reported to Revenue Canada as donations. For 2005, 2006 and 2007, Raincoast Research Society reported to Revenue Canada a total for donations of $11,033. My question is where did Raincoast Research Society get the $252,325 in grant funding?  How much of that was granted by the Vancouver Foundation? In your paper published in 2006, you acknowledge a grant from "Tides Canada." Did that funding originate with the David and Lucille Packard Foundation and/or the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation?

Morton: The Tides money was from the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, which I left some time ago. Vivian I am not going to go through all my records and detail each funder. There are not enough hours in the day as it is. You are not seeing the big picture here. These large corporations are operating outside the Fisheries Act.  Could you turn your abilities to answering how this is possible? The Orca Chief does not even have a packing license on it.  Night lights are strictly prohibited.  The by-catch of this industry is unregulated. Slice is not approved for use in the water, their nets are painted with a poison and fish sold to people to eat. They brought ISA to Chile and the industry thinks it will arrive here. 67% of the Chilean industry has died of ISA because there were too many farm fish in the water when they accidentally infected themselves with ISA.  Almost every fish farm on this coast is pushing to get bigger. Why are you defending international giants?  Why do they need you, a concerned citizen, when they have entire PR firms working for them. What is your motivation?

Krause:  How much of the $252,325 was from CAAR? Did those funds originate with the Packard foundation or the Moore foundation? Can you tell me roughly how much funding you received from the Vancouver Foundation? My motivation is the same as yours, Alex, protecting wild salmon and coastal communities.

Morton: Explain to me how this is helping wild salmon.

Krause: As we know, about a third of so-called "wild" salmon is actually ranched salmon. Unless we are prepared to settle for substantially less salmon for food and for sport fisheries, growing salmon is not an option.  The question we should be asking is what is the best way to grow them?  Answering this question requires sound science, as does protecting wild salmon in the first place.  By sound science, I mean research that is designed well and that is conducted objectively and impartially and then reported accurately and comprehensively. As it appears to me, both salmon farming and ocean-ranching have pros and cons, and both can probably be done in an environmentally responsible way. Generally speaking, it seems to me that of the two ways to grow salmon, farming actually poses less risks to wild salmon because it is more confined and controllable than ocean-ranching.  Farming avoids the risks of over-fishing and the drain of ocean-ranching on the food chain and the carrying capacity of the wild salmon ecosystem. Now that I've begun to answer your question, Alex, will you begin to answer my questions about your sources of funding?

Morton: I am not ranching salmon, I am trying to restore wild salmon. What you need to do is set up your own research projects and go through the peer-review process and then you will have a basis for your argument. Instead you are wasting your obvious talent digging for things that are not there. You tell me to tell the truth as if I have not been doing so all along. This is not the way to encourage people to truly engage with you. I don't even know who you are and who you work for.

Krause: I am writing to you as a concerned member of the public. Considering the huge influence that you have, I believe that it is fair to ask questions about your funding. My question is what are the sources of the grants that Raincoast Research Society has received for $252,325?

Morton: Who do you work for to make living?

Krause: Last spring, I sold my house.  I have been living temporarily from my savings. My daughter and I are fortunate to also receive some child support from her father. Perhaps what you are alluding to is whether I am in some way connected with the salmon farming industry. As you know, during 2002 and 2003, I did work in the salmon farming industry. In the spring of 2007, I did a brief consultancy for Millerd Holdings Ltd. which has investments in the processing of farmed salmon on Vancouver Island.  I also did a short consultancy for Salmon of the Americas.  For those consultancies, I was paid $10,000 and $7,750, respectively.  I have not worked for the salmon farming industry since 31 July 2007. Does that answer your question?

Morton: So why as an unemployed single mother are devoting time to help very large multi-national corporations? Do you think they need your help? This is all very interesting to me.

Krause: I have answered your question about my financial resources and your earlier question about my motivations. Will you answer my question about the source(s) of grant funding for $252,325 that Raincoast Research Society has reported to Revenue Canada?

Morton: You held and lost several quite high positions with the biggest fish farmers in the world and now as a single, unemployed Mom you are trying to support them as a volunteer concerned citizen?

Krause: If I had held and lost several high positions with fish farm companies, I would say so. The truth is, I held and lost one position at the manager level.  That was in 2002-2003. Please see the attached letter with questions about your funding.

Morton:  No response.

Letters to Alexandra Morton:

For a .pdf file of the exchange of e-mails with Alexandra Morton, click here.

Posted at 08:41 AM | | Comments (0)

|

"Corporate wealth funds anti-oilsands groups," by Paul Stanway, The Calgary Herald

By Paul Stanway, published in The Calgary Herald, 19 October 2010 ....

As a nutritionist, former UN aid worker, and a tireless supporter of Canada's native peoples, Vivian Krause seems an unlikely defender of Alberta's oilsands.

But the B.C. freelance journalist and blogger knows hypocrisy when she sees it, and her investigation of the funding of the anti-oilsands lobby should be must-reading for all Albertans.

Almost a decade ago, Krause worked in corporate development in the farmed salmon industry on the West Coast, apparently attracted by the potential to create jobs for coastal aboriginal communities.

The storm of protest against salmon farming led her do something all good investigative journalists do -- follow the money. She discovered that much of the opposition was funded by something called Tides Canada -- in turn a front for the U.S. Tides Foundation, which distributed tens of millions of dollars to various Canadian environmental groups.

When she was sifting through U.S. tax returns, she also noticed a significant number of grants for a "Tarsands Campaign" aimed at Alberta oil. That piqued her interest and led her to start blogging about the funding of the anti-oilsands lobby. (See her web-site at www.fair-questions.com.)

As I've written before, this lobby benefits mightily from the impression that it represents grassroots opposition to Big Oil and Big Government. But the notion that the green lobby operates on the proceeds from bake sales, kids' allowances and donations from little old ladies is a million miles from the truth -- which is that the bulk of its funding comes from a handful of wealthy and influential American foundations.

From U.S. tax returns and public records, Krause discovered that Tides and other American charities have granted a staggering $15 million US since 2003 specifically for campaigns against Alberta oil and its export through British Columbia. The reasons for these grants were clearly explained in the tax filings.

"For example," writes Krause, "Tides U.S. received $700,000 (US) in 2009 from the Oak Foundation of San Francisco -- 'to raise the visibility of the tarsands issue and slow the expansion of tarsands production by stopping new infrastructure development.' "

She found the Oak Foundation also gifted Greenpeace Canada an undisclosed amount "to leverage the growing interest of ranchers and landowners in limiting unbridled oil and gas exploration and production in southern Alberta." According to the documentation Krause unearthed, Greenpeace was also paid "to conduct specialized opinion research and media work" and to identify messaging for maximum information value among Albertans.

Krause also writes that: "U. S. tax returns show that Tides and Tides Canada have paid $4.3 million (US) for a 'Tarsands Campaign'. The top recipients being the Sierra Club ($909,652), Corporate Ethics International ($750,000), the Natural Resources Defense Council ($520,000), and Forest Ethics ($401,364)."

Corporate Ethics International is of course the lobby group behind the current Rethink Alberta campaign to sink the province's tourism industry by getting tour operators and potential visitors to boycott Alberta. In addition to funding from Tides U.S., Krause discovered Corporate Ethics received US$950,000 from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund "to stem demand for tarsands derived fuels in the United States."

As I've written before, Corporate Ethics won't answer questions about the 70 per cent of its funding that comes from foundation grants. "CEI's policy is to maintain the confidentiality of its funders," is its standard reply to nosy columnists.

But what we do know is that five of the biggest American foundations -- the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund -- have directed a staggering $190 million (US) into Canada's environmental movement over the last decade.

All of which is entirely legal of course, but you can see why insulating such deep-pocketed "funders" from public scrutiny would be part of the deal. If the scale and sophistication of its funding were more widely known it would be difficult for the antioilsands lobby to sustain its image as a group of selfless activists operating on a shoestring -- a popular movement dedicated to opposing insidious "corporate" wealth and influence.

This fiction is essential to the media image of the lobby and its attraction to the political left, but it's clear from the numbers Krause has unearthed that the anti-oilsands movement is in fact heavily dependent on money from a small number of American foundations created out of corporate wealth.

So what are they up to?

It is easy to see who might benefit from increased U.S. reliance on Middle East oil, or continued reliance on coal-powered electrical generation. It is even possible to speculate on who might benefit by preventing Alberta from developing alternative markets for its oil exports -- to China for example -- and keeping us entirely dependent on exports to the U.S.

But to get an answer, you must first ask the question.

The possibility that the National Rifle Association gave some moral support to the movement to eliminate Canada's long gun registry recently sent the CBC and others in the national media into a frenzy.

Yet for a story about the direction of tens of millions of dollars from the U.S. to a campaign to undermine a critical Canadian industry we must rely on a Vancouver mom.

Thank heavens for Vivian Krause.

Paul Stanway is a veteran Alberta journalist. His column runs every Tuesday.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Posted at 08:40 AM | | Comments (1)

|

Next »
Vivian Krause
Vivian Krause

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search

    Basic Info

    Archives

    Categories

    Subscribe to this blog's feed
    Blog powered by Typepad

    Visitors


    Google

    • Google