Rethink Campaigns

My Plea To David Suzuki

    "There is good science in the campaign of course.  All campaigns at the David Suzuki Foundation begin with good science."

- David Suzuki, May 2002 

Dear Dr. Suzuki,

RE: Salmon Aquaculture

For many years, the David Suzuki Foundation has been suggesting that farmed salmon is unsafe and unsustainable because of contaminants, sea lice, and other issues.

If sound science shows that farmed salmon is high in contaminants, and that sea lice originating from salmon farms put wild salmon at serious risk, I would agree that farmed salmon should be boycotted and banned. But for the many reasons that I have outlined in my papers and letters, it is clear to me that in both cases, this is not what research actually shows.  Here are my papers, which I have sent to you before:

• Research on Contaminants in Farmed Salmon: Science or Marketing?

• Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing?

The fact is, research shows that contaminant levels are actually lower in farmed salmon than in other fish. Excellent returns of wild salmon in the Broughton Archipelago and the Fraser River suggest that salmon farming does not put wild salmon on the brink of extinction, as the David Suzuki Foundation been saying. Moreover, of the two ways of growing salmon (salmon farming vs. ocean-ranching), farming as practiced in B.C. has important advantages over Alaska's salmon ranching.

On the basis of my analysis as presented in the letters that I have sent to you over the past four years, it is clear to me that in many instances, the David Suzuki Foundation has selectively and inaccurately broadcast some of its own research findings about farmed salmon and salmon farming. I feel that this has falsely reflected some of the actual findings, especially with regards to PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice.

Hundreds of media stories have taken cues from the press releases issued by the David Suzuki Foundation and have echoed the false and misleading information that the David Suzuki Foundation issued in the first place.

I am concerned because it appears to me that the David Suzuki Foundation may have garbled its research findings and exacerbated the salmon farming controversy as part of the "Context-Setting" and the "earned media" of a mulit-million dollar American marketing campaign to sway consumers and retailers towards "wild" fish, most of which is Alaskan. Bad press about farmed salmon being unsafe and unsustainable has provided a foil for differentiating Alaskan "wild" salmon as safe and sustainable.

Under the weight of years of bad press generated by the David Suzuki Foundation and the campaigns in which the David Suzuki Foundation has played a lead role (eg. the Farmed and Dangerous campaign), I believe that the salmon farming industry does not have a fair chance.

Internet archives show that the David Suzuki Foundation has quietly removed 23 of the 26 press releases and web-pages about which I have raised concern.  Most of these were removed merely hours after I posted an open letter to you, Dr. Suzuki, at my blog, on Feb. 3, 2010. I feel that it is unsatisfactory for the David Suzuki Foundation to quietly remove all of this material given that it was broadcast with so much fanfare in the first place.

My hope, Dr. Suzuki, is that you would please acknowledge that in some instances, the David Suzuki Foundation has incorrectly reported some of its research findings about PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice. Its fair, I believe, to request a clarification of the actual research findings and funding sources. In my opinion, this would go a long way towards putting the salmon farming controversy into proper perspective.

In particular, I believe that the David Suzuki Foundation should acknowledge that its sea lice research was partially funded by the same U.S. foundation that paid $560,000 for an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media" and that the sea lice researchers funded by the David Suzuki Foundation had a "research partnership" with this organization (SeaWeb) while it helped to generate hundreds of media items about sea lice. I also believe that the David Suzuki Foundation should publicly disclose that its sea lice research was partially funded by a commercial fishing company, a business that may have an interest in disparaging farmed fish.

In conclusion, I appeal to you, Dr. Suzuki, to please issue a public statement that accurately and comprehensively reports your actual research findings with regards to PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice.  I believe that this statement should make clear that the research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation:

• Does not show and has never shown that farmed salmon is "high" in PCBs, and

• Does not show and has never shown that sea lice originating from salmon farms are causing high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild.

Sincerely,

Vivian Krause

Attachment:

• Letter from David Suzuki, May 2002.  In this letter, Dr. Suzuki says that he uncovered the "fact" that B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins.  He also says that all campaigns at the David Suzuki Foundation begin with good science.

Articles in The Financial Post:

• Suzuki's Fish Story, March 14, 2011

• Suzuki's Funding, April 19, 2012

• The Case Of The Missing Sea Lice, May 31, 2011

Related Posts:

• 23 press releases & web-pages quietly removed by the David Suzuki Foundation

• 16 press releases and web-pages quietly removed from the web-site of the David Suzuki Foundation, Feb. 3 & 4, 2010, according to internet archives

• QUIETLY REMOVED: Why did the David Suzuki Foundation removed its brochure titled, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon," on Feb. 3, 2010?

• Open Letters to David Suzuki Since 2007

• Who funded the David Suzuki Foundation's brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon?"

• David Suzuki Foundation Paid $13 Million by U.S. Foundations

• A look back at meeting Peter Robinson, CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation

• My surprise meeting with David Suzuki

• $92 Million Granted by the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation to B.C. Organizations

• QUIETLY RE-WRITTEN: How the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation RE-WROTE four grants for $3.6 million for campaigns against farmed salmon

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

QUIETLY REMOVED: 16 Press Releases and Web-Pages from the David Suzuki Foundation, Last Seen Feb. 3&4, 2010

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

On Feb. 3, 2010 I sent an open letter to David Suzuki and posted it at my blog (Fish Farm Fuss, my first blog). Internet archives, shown below, indicate that by the end of the same day, the David Suzuki Foundation had removed at least 14 web-pages and press releases.  According to my analysis, most of these web-pages were last registered in the internet archives of the Way Back Machine, at around 5 pm on Feb. 3, 2010. A few were last registered around 7 pm.  On the following day, Feb. 4, 2010, two more press releases were removed before 7 am, according to Internet Archives. Thus, in total, it appears to me that the David Suzuki Foundation removed 16 press releases and web-pages on Feb. 3 and 4 of 2010.

To read this entire post and see all of the archived material for all 16 press releases and web-pages, click here.

Here's the link for the internet archive of the brochure, Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/PSF_Salmon_Brochure.pdf

 

The Fish Farm Fuss Explained (a bit)

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Three articles shed a new light on the fish farm fuss.  All three are published in The Financial Post, one of Canada's top newspapers.

• Packard's Push Against B.C. Salmon.  This article looks at the $88 million dollar program funded by the David & Lucile Packard Foundation to prop up certain commercial fisheries, especially from Alaska, by swaying market share away from the competition, farmed fish.  The "punching bag" is farmed salmon.

• David Suzuki's Fish Story. A look back at questionable studies about contaminants in farmed salmon and their worldwide media coverage that in hindsight, seems to me to have been part of a marketing campaign.

• The case of the missing sea lice. The story about the David Suzuki Foundation's lousy sea lice science and how the foundation quietly removed 16 press releases & web-pages about farmed salmon and salmon farming, on Feb. 3 & 4, 2010.

QUIETLY REMOVED: David Suzuki's brochure called "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon"

"There is good science in the campaign of course.  All campaigns

at the David Suzuki Foundation begin with good science."

- Dr. David Suzuki

 

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

The two questions raised here are are as follows: 

1) Why did David Suzuki's Foundation quietly remove its brochure titled “Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon”?  Internet archives show that this was off-line on February 3, 2010. That's the same day that I posted an open letter to David Suzuki in which I asked whether his foundation had deliberately manufactured controversy over farmed salmon as part of a sophisticated, well-funded marketing strategy for Alaskan "wild" salmon.

2) Was the David Suzuki Foundation's brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon" one of the "market intervention tools" paid for by a U.S. foundation (the David and Lucile Packard Foundation) as  part of its  "Market Intervention" strategy to sway consumers and retailers towards wild fish? As I wrote in The Financial Post, since 2000 the Packard foundation has spent $88 million to prop up the market for commercial fisheries, especially from Alaska.

The David Suzuki Foundation has been asked these questions in a series of letters and e-mails over the past four years. No reply has been received.

For many years, farmed salmon has been the target of a multi-million dollar "demarketing" campaigns, funded primarily by three pro-Alaskan, American foundations: the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts.  The two main components of this "antifarming campaign" are Farmed and Dangerous and the Pure Salmon campaign. The David Suzuki Foundation is a founding member of both campaigns (see here and here).

Demarketing is the opposite of marketing, its getting people to buy less of something rather than more. Depositioning and demarketing farmed salmon sways consumers towards wild salmon - most of which is Alaskan.  Depositioning is instilling fear, uncertainty and doubt, not only in the minds of consumers and the media, but within the competition itself.  A classic example of depositioning and demarketing is the ads that Apple runs about Mac vs. PC.

A key tactic of the depositioning and demarketing of farmed salmon has been the well co-ordinated publicity of research studies, especially about PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice.  About sea lice alone, there have been more than 500 news stories. After a study about PCBs by Ronald Hites and others, bad press about farmed salmon tripled for two years, according to an University of Idaho study.

If research shows that farmed salmon is high in PCBs, and that sea lice originating from salmon farms put wild salmon at risk of extinction - as the David Suzuki Foundation has been saying - I would agree that farmed salmon should be boycotted and banned.  However, on the basis of what I have presented in my papers about research on contaminants and sea lice, it is clear to me that this is not what research actually shows. Nevertheless, the "demarketing" of farmed salmon has had a hefty impact. 

Although it would come as a surprise to a lot of people, especially in Vancouver, farmed salmon is one of the few foods that most of us should actually eat more of, not less.  According to a U.S. Institute of Medicine report, farmed salmon is higher in heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids than any other commonly eaten fish, and is very low in contaminants, especially mercury. That's about as good as fish gets!  But that's not what we've been hearing from the David Suzuki Foundation.

What's gone largely unnoticed is that at the same time that some environmental groups are vehemently "demarketing" farmed salmon, others are enthusiastically promoting wild salmon (most of which is Alaskan), and they're all heavily funded by the same American foundations.  The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, for example, runs two campaigns:  Farmed and Dangerous and Wild Salmon Supporters. This program promotes specific, high-end restaurants that sell wild salmon in major cities of the U.S. and Canada. eg. The Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino in Las Vegas, and the Rattlesnake Club in Detroit. For the list, click here. The logos of the two campaigns of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, are shown below.

One of the tools that has been used in "demarketing" farmed salmon is a brochure produced by the David Suzuki Foundation, titled, “Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon.”  This brochure is posted on-line in various places, including, for example, the public library in Prince Rupert.

According to Internet Archives, the brochure “Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon” was last archived at the web-site of the David Suzuki Foundation, on Feb. 3, 2010. That’s the same day that I sent David Suzuki an open letter to appeal to him to please tell the whole truth about his research findings on PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice - and his foundation’s American funding. I also posted my open letter on the blog that I had at the time, called Fish Farm Fuss. However, that blog didn't have many readers so my open letter to David Suzuki hardly got noticed. 

Back in 2002, David Suzuki wrote that this brochure had quickly zoomed to the top of the list of the foundation's most down-loaded web-pages. That comment was in a form letter that David Suzuki sent to his supporters - including me.

U.S. tax returns show that since 2000, the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid more than $10 million by U.S. foundations - including $762,600 from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. that was specifically for Pacific Salmon Forests, the project that produced, among other things, the brochure titled, “Why You Shouldn’t Eat Farmed Salmon.”

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

For more than ten years, the Packard foundation has been funding a "market intervention" strategy to sway consumers and retailers towards wild fish under the banner of the Marine Stewardship Council.  According to my research published in the Financial Post, the Packard Foundation has spent a staggering $88 million for this "market intervention" program, including $2.7 million for the demarketing campaigns (Farmed and Dangerous and Pure Salmon). Is the David Suzuki Foundation's brochure one of the "market intervention tools" that was funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation?

*     *     *  

For a .PDF file from the Internet Archive showing that the last day that the web-page for Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon was archived, was Feb. 3, 2010, click here. To access this web-page in the Internet Archive, click here. NOTE: the web-pages in this archive can be slow to load. The link: http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/PSF_Salmon_Brochure.pdf

Related correspondence with the David Suzuki Foundation:

• January 20, 2011: e-mail RE: 20 press releases and web-pages removed from the web-site of the David Suzuki Foundation

• January 21, 2011: e-mail RE: Funding for the brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon"

• March 23, 2011: e-mail RE: When the brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon" was taken off-line.

Economic Interests or the Environment? What are the Enviros Really Protecting? The Tommy Schnurmacher Show on Montreal's CJAD Radio, May 31, 2011

Today, I had the privilege of being a guest on the The Tommy Schnurmacher Show, on CJAD radio in Montreal. We talked about the campaign against farmed salmon, the campaign against Alberta oil and the flawed science and the American funding behind these campaigns.  

To listen to the interview, click on the link below: 

Vivian Krause on Montreal CJAD Radio about Foreign Funding Behind Canada's Enviro Groups Vivian Krause Tuesday, May 31, 2011

U.S. Funding for the "Antifarming Campaign"

Below, here's the grant that I mentioned for $560,000 for an "antifarming campaign."  U.S. tax returns say that the purpose of this campaign was "..... to shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon.  To see those tax returns, click here. After I raised concern about this grant with the foundation, back in 2008, this grant and three other grants for $3.6 million for campaigns against farmed salmon were quietly re-written. The American foundation, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, that funded this "antifarming campaign" has poured $64 million into B.C. environmental groups.

For the form letter that I received from David Suzuki in which he falsely said that he had uncovered the "fact" that B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins, click here.

Open Letter to CEOs of U.S. Foundations:

For the letter that I sent to the CEOs of four U.S. foundations that have funded the campaign against B.C. farmed salmon, please click here.  These U.S. foundations have $21 billion in assets and give away about $1 billion every year.

Related columns:

• David Suzuki's Fish Story, The Financial Post

• Packard's Push Against B.C. Salmon, The Financial Post

• U.S. foundations against the oil sands, The Financial Post

• Demarketing Alberta, The Financial Post

• Americans are meddling in B.C. politics, The Vancouver Sun

• The American gorilla in the oil sands, The Vancouver Sun

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

$90 Million Paid to B.C. ENGOs by the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation (2003-2010)

British Columbia is a spectacularly beautiful and our province is one of the last remaining places on earth where there are large, wild spaces and intact ecosystems. It is to be expected that the interest in protecting British Columbia is  global.

However, some American foundations have spent an inordinate amount of money in B.C. compared to other countries that are naturally just as spectacular but in far greater need of resources and expertise for environmental protection. One of these foundations is the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation which was created in 2001 by Gordon Moore and his wife.

Gordon Moore is one of the co-founders of INTEL. According to Forbes, in 2003 Moore was the 29th wealthiest American prior to endowing his foundation with $5 billion from his personal wealth. He is said to be an avid Alaskan wild salmon fisherman.

Since 2003, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation ("Moore") has granted nearly $90 million to environmental organizations operating in British Columbia.

To continue reading, please click here.

$15 Million Granted from the Pew Charitable Trusts to Sea Around Us at UBC

Over the years, the Pew Charitable Trusts has paid at least $15 million to the Sea Around Us program at UBC. The program's director is Dr. Daniel Pauly.

• $US 2,105,000 in 2000
• $US 2,134,000 in 2000
• $US 300,000 in 2002  (for Dr. Daniel Pauly to communicate about PCBs in farmed salmon).
• $US 2,000,000 in 2002
• $US 560,000 in 2004
• $US 401,000 in 2004
• $US 109,000 in 2004
• $US 298,000 in 2004
• $US 150,000 in 2004
• $US 1,650,000 in 2005
• $US 2,500,000 in 2006
• $US 100,000 in 2007
• $US 723,000 in 2008
• $US 1,172,000 in 2008
• $US 1,328,000 in 2009

When the Hites study about PCBs in farmed salmon was published, Dr. Daniel Pauly of UBC told the press that if his daughter was pregnant, he would tell her to avoid farmed salmon.  In 2002, Dr. Pauly likened salmon farms to floating pig farms.  "They make a terrific mess," he told the L.A. Times.  Three days later, the Pew Chartitable Trusts paid Dr. Pauly $300,000 to publicize the findings of the Hites study.  

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Vision Vancouver Speaks Up But Doesn't Answer Questions About Interdependent Investments Ltd.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Since September of 2010, I have been writing to Mayor Gregor Robertson to inquire about campaign finance from several "investment firms" and P.R. companies that are heavily funded by a registered charity, Tides Canada Foundation, and its largest donor, the Endswell Foundation.

Today, months later, I received a response from Ian Baillie, the Executive Director of Vision Vancouver.  In an e-mail, Mr. Bailie writes:

"Dear Ms Krause,

I wanted to address some questions you have raised online about donations to Vision Vancouver. Specifically, you have asked about the company Interdependent Investments and its donations to Vision.

Interdependent Investments is a Vancouver based company that provides investment, real estate and project management support to private businesses, charities, and non-profits. My understanding is that it has been operating for over 15 years. Joel Solomon is the principal of the company and has been a supporter of Vision Vancouver since its inception.

 As for your questions about charitable donations, Vision Vancouver does not receive money from charitable sources, and has said so publicly in the past. As well,  our donations were disclosed several months ago. Vision Vancouver continues to go above and beyond the requirements for reporting and we are the only Vancouver municipal political party to file a comprehensive disclosure in addition to the 2008 election disclosure.  

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely,

Ian Baillie, Executive Director

Vision Vancouver"

*     *     * 

Mr. Baillie says, "Vision Vancouver does not receive money from charitable sources."  No surprises there. I've never suggested that Vision Vancouver was paid directly by a charity; that would be too obvious.  My question is about whether Vision Vancouver indirectly received money from Tides Canada and the Endswell Foundation, money that was passed first through one of a series of "investment firms" and P.R. companies that are, for lack of a better term, a front.

What Mr. Baillie does not mention is that until very recently, one of the long-time officers of Interdependent Investments Ltd., was Martha Burton, the treasurer of Vision Vancouver.  Ms. Burton is also the vice-president of the Endswell Foundation and a sr. advisor to Tides Canada.

As far as I can tell, Ms. Burton's name was removed from the list of directors of Interdependent Investments Ltd., perhaps as of April 13, 2011 -  just one week after I posted an open letter to Mayor Robertson in which I specifically asked Who is Interdependent Investments Ltd.?

The important question that Mr. Baillie does not answer is this:  Does Interdependent Investments Ltd. have any sources of revenue other than the Endswell Foundation?  If not, then it follows that whatever financial contributions Interdependent Investments Ltd. made to Vision Vancouver, must have originated from the Endswell charity.  

Since 1997, the Endswell Foundation has paid at least $1.4 million to Interdependent Investments Ltd.  Of that, $703,409 was paid since 2007.

The $11.4 Million Dollar Question

I also have questions about how Endswell spent $11.4 million over the years since 2003 when Endswell was simply granting 99 percent of its funds to Tides Canada.  This is what I have referred to as the $11.4 million dollar question. During the years when Endswell didn't make a single grant to any organization other than Tides Canada, what were the staff doing?

Considering that the senior leadership at Endswell and at Tides Canada are the same people, including the treasurer - I would have thought that Endswell could grant $8.7 million to Tides Canada without spending $11.4 million in the process.

I also have questions about why overhead at Endswell increased so dramatically, especially considering that Endswell wasn't making any grants to any organizations other than Tides Canada.

First T.V. Interview About U.S. Funding to Canadian Environmental Groups: On The Ezra Levant Show, May 20, 2011

 

Below, here's the grant that I mentioned for $560,000 for an "antifarming campaign."  U.S. tax returns say that the purpose of this campaign was "..... to shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon.  To see those tax returns, click here. After I raised concern about this grant with the foundation, back in 2008, this grant and three other grants for $3.6 million for campaigns against farmed salmon were quietly re-written. The American foundation, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, that funded this "antifarming campaign" has poured $64 million into B.C. environmental groups.

For the form letter that I received from David Suzuki in which he falsely said that he had uncovered the "fact" that B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins, click here.

Open Letter to CEOs of U.S. Foundations:

For the letter that I sent to the CEOs of four U.S. foundations that have funded the campaign against B.C. farmed salmon, please click here.  These U.S. foundations have $21 billion in assets and give away about $1 billion every year.

Related columns:

• David Suzuki's Fish Story, The Financial Post

• Packard's Push Against B.C. Salmon, The Financial Post

• U.S. foundations against the oil sands, The Financial Post

• Demarketing Alberta, The Financial Post

• Americans are meddling in B.C. politics, The Vancouver Sun

• The American gorilla in the oil sands, The Vancouver Sun

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

 

This Long Weekend is the Perfect Time to Visit Butchart Gardens

"A garden can be created and a house can be turned upside down but the setting is made by nature, and though man may have the temerity to intervene here and there, the matter is really out of his hands."  

- Emma-Louise O'Reilly.

Okay, now for a bit of a change of pace from U.S. tax returns....

My Mom and I wanted to go to Butchart Gardens for Mother's Day but it was so rainy that we postponed our trip. Yesterday, we finally got to go. What a great time we had.  Fortunately for us, this spring has been so cold that the tulips are very late and so, as hasn't happened for many years, the tulips will still be in their prime this weekend! The sunken garden is absolutely spectacular.

If you haven't been to Butchart Gardens in a while, this long weekend is the perfect opportunity. The tulips will still be in their prime.  If you will want reservations at the dining room, be sure to call ahead.  They book up fast.  You can even take your dog!

 

The blue poppies - for which the Butchart Gardens are famous - are just starting to bloom.

Anne Krause, my wonderful mom.

"Whenever I feel myself inferior to everything about me, threatened by my own mediocrity, frightened by the discovery that a muscle is losing its strength, a desire its power, or a pin the keen edge of its bite, I can still hold up my head and say to myself...

Let me not forget that I am the daughter of a woman who herself never ceased to flower, untiringly, during all her decades...."

- Colette.