06/13/2011

Tarred by Science

From The Financial Post, June 13, 2011

Cameron Fort Chip Sometime before the end of this month, an expert panel appointed by the Alberta government is expected to unveil recommendations for a “world-class” system for monitoring the environmental impact of oil sands on the Athabasca River Basin. The panel will propose a rock-solid science-based approach that – in the words of its mandate - will cover air, land, water and bio-diversity issues based on “credible data from a science authority, transparent reporting via an information portal, and an exceptional physical monitoring network.”

The question is: Will this costly endeavour satisfy the environmental activists and scientists who have in recent years depicted the oil sands as a carcinogenic scourge and a chemical disaster?

It all began to escalate in 2008 when a team of scientists led by University of Alberta Ecology Professor David Schindler, along with post-doctoral student Erin Kelly, conducted a short-term study to measure pollutants in Athabasca River water and snow. Controversy grew when the paper's findings were featured in a CBC documentary for The Nature of Things with David Suzuki, fuelled in part by a media-hyped visit by Avatar director James Cameron to the Fort Chipewyan native reserve where oil sands chemicals had allegedly caused cancers.

The Alberta government and the oil industry took a beating in the press. Ultimately, both the Alberta government and the federal government appointed scientific panels to review the monitoring of oil sands operations. CBC called this "an extraordinary response for a science paper."

In essence, what we have here isn't a case of bad science. On the contrary, this is a case of how bad media happened to good science, or at least relatively sound science. The heart of the matter is how - and why - the media blew up a small but reasonable study that produced little new information into a major international scandal.

To continue reading, click here.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 07:47 PM | | Comments (1)

|

By Vivian Krause in The Financial Post

Here are links to my articles in The Financial Post:

See also:

Posted at 07:38 PM | | Comments (0)

|

06/03/2011

RE: 23 Press Releases & Web-Pages No Longer On-line. My Response to the David Suzuki Foundation

Mr. Robinson, 

Your article yesterday raises several points. It would have been nice if you would have sent me a copy or somehow let me know that you posted this article.  As it was, I found out on Twitter.

1.  Our Correspondence

You suggest that we have a long history of communication and that last year (eg. 2010), you decided to stop dedicating resources to responding to my correspondence.  Its true that I've been writing letters to David Suzuki for some time, four years, in fact.  However, the only responses that I've received are 1) a brief e-mail from Dr. Suzuki in May of 2007, 2) an e-mail from Jay Ritchlin in June of 2007, and 3) an e-mail from Mr. Ritchlin in June of 2009.

When we met in February of 2010, you said that you would get back to me about the document (46 pages) that I provided. However, I did not receive any response from you.

In light of the above, I don't see how you can say that the David Suzuki Foundation has dedicated much in the way of resources to respond to my inquiries. 

2.  Removed Press Releases & Web-Pages

You say, "all of our formal publications, briefing notes and research remain readily available on our site and are searchable — including our science."  That's not what I find.

As I've said, 23 press releases and web-pages about farmed salmon and salmon farming are no longer on-line at your foundation's web-site. This includes, as far as I can tell, every single one of the press releases that the David Suzuki Foundation issued to publicize research about contaminants in farmed salmon, and sea lice.

If  you disagree that the David Suzuki Foundation removed on-line material about salmon farming, why didn't you say so when I wrote to you about this on January 20, 2011, March 14, 2011,  March 23, 2011, March30, 2011 and May 25, 2011? I e-mailed you specifically to let you know that unless I heard from you otherwise, I would assume that you removed 16 web-pages on Feb. 3 and Feb. 4 of 2010 - the very same day that I posted an open letter to Dr. Suzuki.

Far from broad-siding you, I sent you the entire draft of my op-ed that ran on June 1 in The Financial Post. I sent you that a full week ahead of time so that you could let me know if anything in it was inaccurate. I phoned your executive assistant and spoke with her to verify and ensure that you were indeed receiving my e-mails. If you disagreed with me that your foundation had removed 16 press releases and web-pages on Feb. 3 and Feb. 4, why didn't you ever say so?

You say that web-pages about salmon farming were removed, along with other material, during April and May of 2010.  If so, then I am surprised that six of your press releases about research on farmed salmon and salmon farming were not archived at all, not once, after August 9, 2009. See here, here and here.

You suggest that the Wayback Machine only archives a website every few months. According to my analysis of the archives for the 23 press releases and web-pages that are now no longer on your site, these pages were crawled by the WayBack Machine, on average every 1.3 months.  If, indeed, the David Suzuki Foundation removed these web-pages during April and May of 2010, as you say, then it surprises me that not one of the 16 web-pages that was last archived on Feb. 3 or Feb. 4, was crawled during February, March, or April of 2010.

For a larger version, please click on the image itself:

Tab Way Back Machine Analysis
You say that the David Suzuki Foundation removed web-pages that were more than five years old. As far as I can tell, you also removed your key press release about sea lice research published in the journal SCIENCE, in December of 2007.  That's not five years ago.

With the Cohen Commission ongoing, it seems to me that its not right that your sea lice press releases are now no longer in the public domain, especially since it was largely the alarm over sea lice, fomented by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Farmed and Dangerous campaign, that pressured government into spending more than $15 million on the Cohen Commission. That's money that could have been spent on other priorities.

3.  My Employment with the Salmon Farming Industry in 2002 and 2003

You note that I used to work in the salmon farming industry. That's true. That was in 2002 and 2003, eight years ago. I also did two short consultancies in 2007. For those, I was paid $10,000 and $7,750, respectively.  As I've said many times, since July of 2007 I have not worked for the salmon farming industry in any paid capacity. In January, I was the keynote speaker at the Nova Scotia Annual Aquaculture Conference but apart from my airfare and hotel costs, I was not paid. Over the years, I have also tried to support the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association in small ways but I have not been paid.

To be clear, if anyone has reason to be an adversary of the salmon farming industry, it might be me. After all, I was fired.  And having never supported my research and writing, the industry is now taking advantage of it. The truth is, however, I'm not supported by anyone but my family and personal friends, none of whom are involved in salmon farming in any way.

You refer to me as "hardly an unbiased and self-funded researcher...."  I acknowledge that (despite having been fired!) I am prone to a positive view of salmon farming because of my experience in the industry.  However, in suggesting that I am not self-funded and insinuating that I am working on someone else's dime, you are mistaken. Please take that back.

You say that I regularly misrepresent the work of others.  Please specify or retract that. It is not my intention to misrepresent anyone.

If you would like to know why I am raising questions about the "demarketing" of farmed salmon, and why, perhaps, others aren't, please click here.

In closing, please allow me to re-iterate my appeal to David Suzuki to please clarify that contrary to his claims over the years, the actual research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation:

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

Lastly, please allow me to suggest that we meet again and talk.  It might be worthwhile.

Sincerely,

Vivian Krause

 

Below, here's the correspondence that I've kept. If I've missed anything, please let me know.

2006

2007

2009

2010

2011

  • e-mail March 23, 2011 RE: when the brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon" was taken off-line.
  • e-mail June 7, 2011: Request to please ammend the web-site of the David Suzuki Foundation to note that I am self-funded.  I am not "on the dime" of anyone. 

Posted at 07:43 AM | | Comments (5)

|

David Suzuki Foundation Disagrees That It Removed Salmon Farming Press Releases & Web-Pages

In The Case of the Missing Sea Lice, an op-ed published in The Financial Post on June 1, I reported that according to internet archives, the David Suzuki Foundation removed 23 press releases and web-pages about salmon farming. Of these, 14 press releases and web-pages were last registered in internet archives on Feb. 3, 2010. Two more were last archived on the next day, for a total of 16 press releases and web-pages that have not been archived at the David Suzuki Foundation's website, since February of 2010.  

Feb.3, 2010 is the same day that I posted at my blog, an open letter to Dr. Suzuki. In that letter, I asked Dr. Suzuki whether he and his foundation had, in essence, manufactured the salmon farming controversy in order to please the foundation's pro-Alaskan, American funders - who have funded the foundation to the tune of $US 10 million since the late 1990s.

In an article published yesterday on the foundation's web-site, the CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation disagrees that it intentionally removed web-content that was specific to salmon farming.

For the response from the David Suzuki Foundation, please click here.  For my response to the David Suzuki's response, please click here.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 07:43 AM | | Comments (0)

|

06/01/2011

2nd TV Interview: The Fish Farm Fuss & The David Suzuki Foundation's Pro-Alaskan, American Funders

 

From The Financial Post: The Case Of The Missing Sea Lice

What's behind the fish farm fuss?  Is it science? Is it Alaskan salmon marketing?  Is it a bit of both? These are some of the questions that Ezra Levant began to ask me on his show today.  In response, I began by trying to explain that "wild vs. farmed" is a bit of a false choice, a false dichotomy.  

In North America, more than 90 percent of so-called "wild" salmon is Alaskan.  In fact, about half of so-called "wild" Alaskan salmon are actually born in a bucket, hatched in a plastic tray, fed pellets, grown in tanks and raised in net pens as are farmed salmon. These Alaskan salmon are not "wild." These Alaskan salmon are ranched.  In 2010, ranched salmon accounted for nearly half of the so-called "wild" Alaskan salmon harvest.

Ezra and I began to scratch the surface about the elephant in the room, that is, the marketing perspective, and how the publicity of so-called "science" appears to me to have been used as a marketing tactic to sway consumers away from farmed salmon and towards the alternative product, so-called "wild" salmon, most of which is Alaskan.  As we now know from U.S. tax returns, in fact, shifting consumer and retailer demand is precisely what environmental organizations have been paid to do. 

Ezra mentions that the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid more than $1 million by USA foundations. Actually, that figure is more than $10 million.

In today's interview, I mentioned that the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation has granted $64 million to environmental groups in B.C. and that the Hewlett Foundation and the Packard foundation (two separate foundations), have granted more than $70 million ($42 million from Hewlett and $32 million from Packard).

Here's the kicker.... and yet this is what I did not find a way to mention on today's show. When a highly controversial study of contaminants in farmed salmon and another highly controversial study of sea lice were published in the prestigious journal SCIENCE, the editor in chief, Dr. Donald Kennedy, was a trustee of the Packard foundation. The current editor-in-chief, Dr. Bruce Alberts, is a trustee of the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation.

Below, here's the grant for an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media."  By the way, shortly after I raised concern about this grant for $560,000 from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, this grant and three other grants for $3.6 million were quietly re-written by the Moore Foundation.

SeaWeb's $560,000

Further information:

  • For my open letters to David Suzuki over the past four years, please click here.
  • For my appeal to David Suzuki of May 31, 2011, please click here.
  • For more about the $10 million that the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid by American funders, please click here.
  • For the 46 page document which I outlined my concerns about press releases & web-pages from the David Suzuki Foundation, please click here.
  • For a look back at my meeting in February 2010, with the CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation, Mr. Peter Robinson, please click here.
  • For my first TV interview on the Ezra Levant Show, please click here.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 09:43 PM | | Comments (0)

|

05/31/2011

My Plea To David Suzuki

* DS Face WhyYouShouldn't

    "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:

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.

Seafood Choices Diagram 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:

Related Posts:

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 04:04 PM | | Comments (0)

|

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

DSF REMOVED Plate 1

 

Posted at 03:17 PM | | Comments (1)

|

The Fish Farm Fuss Explained (a bit)

Uncle Suzuki Sam

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.

Posted at 03:16 PM | | Comments (1)

|

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

* DS Face WhyYouShouldn't

"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).

Mac vs. PC 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.

2 logos

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. 

WB DSF WhyYouShouldn't 3Feb2010

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.

Posted at 03:16 PM | | Comments (0)

|

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.

SeaWeb's $560,000

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:

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 10:04 AM | | Comments (0)

|

« Previous | 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