"Environmental groups and organizations such as the Pew and Packard Foundations, can spend literally millions of dollars in campaigns to promote wild salmon and disparage farmed salmon, and nowhere in the public debate do you ever see the linkage made between the funding sources and the arguments against farmed fish ... the fact that the Foundations spend millions to discredit farmed salmon merits nary a peep."
- John Sackton, Editor, SeafoodNews.com
Questions about the demarketing of farmed fish are important and fair. Answering these questions is fundamental to understanding - and resolving - the global controversy over fish farming. Analysis of the publicity of science as a tactic to sway market share is particularly important. So why haven't questions about these matters been asked by others?
Here are my thoughts:
To the best of my knowledge, no one has looked at the controversy over fish farming from both a scientific perspective and a marketing perspective. When I worked in the salmon farming industry, I didn't either. There's been a lot of discussion about the alleged environmental impacts of salmon farming but there hasn't been much discussion about the market impacts of farmed fish on the demand for "wild" fish and the livelihoods and the lifestyle which hinges on that. The market impacts of aquaculture on traditional fishing communities (eg. Alaska) haven't been as broadly discussed or addressed as the alleged environmental issues.
Most people who understand the marketing angle wouldn't necessarily understand technical, scientific aspects (eg. sea lice research), and vice versa. Most scientists and experts who are active in the field of sea lice research probably haven't been looking at the sea lice controversy from a marketing perspective. Indeed, some scientists haven't even been aware that sea lice research was publicized as part of a marketing campaign to shift consumer and retailer demand.
American funding behind the campaign to "reform" salmon farming has not been out in the open. Within the seafood industry and the trade media, most people are generally aware that salmon farm "reform" is heavily funded by large, American foundations but to the best of my knowledge, no one knew exactly how much American money has actually gone into this.
The Packard foundation's strategy paper for Market Intervention Tools has been posted on-line for years but, as it seems, few people in the seafood industry know of its existence. Likewise, most people within the aquaculture industry are not aware that the Packard foundation has a $US 40 million aquaculture strategy.
Most people trust environmentalists and scientists to tell the whole truth. When most of us watch the news or read the paper, it doesn't spring to mind that well-respected environmental organizations might selectively or inaccurately report scientific research findings as part of a sophisticated, well-paid, marketing campaign.
Why am I raising these questions now - nearly seven years after having left the salmon farming industry? Summed up in a few words:
1) I'm concerned about the unseen influence of American money on Canadian policy and law.
2) I'm concerned about the lack of scientific integrity in publicly-funded sea lice research.
3) In my opinion, some of the organizations that profess to protect wild salmon are doing just the opposite. Millions of dollars have been spent on sea lice instead of other priorities. I can see how "environmental" organizations are protecting the market for Alaskan wild and ranched salmon (by demarketing the competition) but I don't see that they are protecting wild salmon or the environment.
3) Too many people are getting hurt:
- On the basis of the Hites study published in SCIENCE, pregnant women are being duped into not eating farmed salmon.
- As the growth of salmon farming has ground to halt in British Columbia, some small coastal towns such as Port McNeill have lost a large employer - needlessly so.
- The demeaning portrayal of hard-working salmon farm employees as a bunch of eco-rambos, is unfair. Even children have been ridiculed because one of their parents is a fish farmer.
4) I sense a duty to report the information that I've seen come across as I would feel a duty to report any other situation in which a large amount of public funds is involved and a large number of people are getting hurt.
6) The salmon farming industry is too important to be left undefended. In British Columbia alone, 4,000 jobs hinge on whether this industry can get out of the penalty box.
7) If I didn't raise these questions, who would?
If Canada had a National Agency for Scientific Integrity such as the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, perhaps it would have been asked to investigate why publicly-funded scientists have made flagrantly false reports about sea lice research findings. Unfortunately, the reality is that Canada is one of the only privileged countries that doesn't yet have such an agency.
If British Columbia was in favor of it, fish farming could easily become an even bigger industry than forestry. With the ravages of pine beetle in the interior of British Columbia, it would make sense to develop the coastal economy. Just as it makes sense to grow grain on the prairies, it makes sense to grow fish on the coast.
A Norwegian once said that if B.C. wants a fish farming industry, B.C. needs to "sort out its issues." That holds true even though the largest segment of the Canadian aquaculture industry is in the hands of Norwegian and other foreign investors. If Canada wants a thriving aquaculture industry, Canadians have to build it. We can't expect foreign investors to come to our country and create an investment-friendly environment. Investors - both foreign and Canadian - are not going to be keen to invest in aquaculture if it means going against a Canadian icon bank-rolled by extremely wealthy, American foundations.
Comments