My Response to the David Suzuki Foundation - Vivian Krause

Sushihunter

Sushihunter

Active Member
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2011/06/response-to-dsf-3june2011.html

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:

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 any 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
 
Continued:

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

2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
Posted at 07:43 AM | Permalink
 
Bringing fish farming into the modern age

By Jay Ritchlin, Vancouver Sun April 6, 2011Comments (3)












People are looking for seafood that is healthy for their families and the oceans.
Photograph by: Les Bazso, PNG

Salmon farming has long been a controversial issue, especially in British Columbia. But is the tide starting to turn? We think it is.

Many problems with salmon farming have yet to be addressed, but thanks in part to the work of organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation and its allies in the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, consumers, retailers and industry are all paying more attention to seafood sustainability.

We can now envision a future when Canadian seafood, wild and farmed, will provide healthy choices, regional food security, innovation and jobs while allowing us to live in balance with the natural world. We're not there yet, though. Some fisheries and aquaculture systems continue to put too much stress on our water and ocean environments. But with salmon farming, the tide is starting to turn.

The idea of raising salmon in closedcontainment systems that separate farmed fish from wild started as a ripple set off by researchers and environmental groups. It has now gained enough momentum that the question is no longer whether real progress toward sustainability is possible, but rather, how soon can we make it the norm?

People are increasingly looking for seafood products that are healthy for their families and the oceans. Companies recognize that long-term business success requires sustainable seafood sources. This has prompted grocery stores such as Overwaitea, IGA, Loblaw, Sobeys, Metro and Whole Foods to develop seafood sustainability plans, to offer more environmentally preferable choices and to provide better labelling.

The demand has also spurred innovation in salmon farming methods, including closed-containment systems that protect the local ecosystem and ensure that farmers, not the environment, are accountable for the costs of doing business. This year, Agrimarine Industries installed floating closed-containment salmon tanks near Campbell River. Washington's SweetSpring Salmon raises coho in a land-based, closed-loop recirculation system and sells them to Overwaitea in B.C. The Toquaht First Nation in Twin Rivers is planning a 60-hectare land-based aquaculture park with a recirculating tank system that turns effluent into fertilizer for organic agriculture. The Namgis First Nation on Cormorant Island is developing a closed-tank project that will provide local training and jobs. These efforts are bringing research, investment and entrepreneurs to our region.

Meanwhile, environmental groups and industry members are starting to work together.

The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform and Marine Harvest Canada, part of the largest fish-farming company in the world, are working to get interim protection for wild salmon from sea lice and to test commercial-scale closed containment, something that would have seemed impossible even five years ago.

Conservation and industry representatives have also been working in a science-based global process called the Aquaculture Dialogues to develop standards for ecologically and socially preferable farming of salmon and other aquatic foods. Science assessments from organizations such as Sea-Choice in Canada and the Monterey Bay Aquarium in the U.S. also continue to refine our understanding of wild and farmed fish sustainability and to promote better purchasing choices by businesses and individuals.

These new technologies, better practices and wide acceptance of the need to overcome ecological challenges in salmon farming and other seafood production make it difficult for those who choose to swim against the tide. Some are trying to create false arguments, relive old battles or use misdirection to call into question basic facts.
Yes, the nature of the debate has shifted and the science has evolved over the past 10 years. For example, pressure from environmental groups helped reduce the amount of wild fish used in aquaculture feed and the risks from chemical contaminants like PCBs and dioxins -a win for all involved. However, real sustainability challenges remain for salmon aquaculture, including issues around parasites, disease, nutrient wastes, chemical use and escapes -issues being examined by the federal Cohen Commission inquiry into the decline of Fraser River sockeye. Challenges also remain with farming carnivorous fish such as salmon. Efforts to move away from unsustainable wild fish for feed and improve feed efficiency must continue.

Trying to deny and avoid the problems is bad for the environment and for the long-term success of the aquaculture industry. Responsible producers focus on improving their operations rather than attacking their critics.

As the global population demands more from our food system, aquaculture holds great potential to provide healthy food to people around the world. It can also be managed in ways that are economically viable and work within nature's limits.

Sustainability in Canadian aquaculture can go from being "the wave of the future" to being our edge in the growing market if we support the operators using closed containment and ecologically preferable species and practices. We still need governments to implement strong sustainability standards that apply to all aquaculture and fisheries, but thanks to the efforts of first nations, scientists, environmental organizations, fishermen, the aquaculture industry, investors, charitable donors, coastal community members, seafood retailers and conscientious seafood consumers, we're seeing positive signs.

Jay Ritchlin is director of the marine and freshwater conservation program at the David Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Bringing+fish+farming+into+modern/4566983/story.html#ixzz1OIqr1yqa

Everyone has a right to their opinion and I have mine... IMHO, she is really starting to look and sound like - an idiot? Probably the reason she got fired - She always seems to only bring half of the information to light and always late to the party! Does anyone really believe those charitable donors she refers to, really cares if one buys Alaska or BC salmon? It would be ALL about enviromental issues! Kill off the enviroment, guess what you kill "us" off, right along with it! PCBs and Dioxins are found in both farmed and wild salmon!

BTW... I happen to have first hand knowledge of the effects of "dioxin"! And, I am here to tell you, stay away from that ****! After exposed even if there is no immediate effects, you can be removed from that exposure and that stuff can effect you anywhere from two years, up to 740 years after exposure!

Dioxin is a family of chemicals (75 in all) that does not occur naturally, nor is it intentionally manufactured by any industry. The most toxic dioxin is called 2,3,7,8 — TCDD. Dioxins are produced as by products of the manufacture of some herbicides ( for example,2,4, 5—T), wood preservatives made from trichlorophenals, and some germicides. Dioxins are also produced by the manufacture of pulp and paper, by the combustion of wood in the presence of chlorine, by fires involving chlorinatedbenzenes and biphenyls (e.g. PCBs), by the exhaust of automobiles burning leaded fuel, and by municipal solid waste incinerators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't remember the source I read years ago that stated farmed fish had elevated contaminant (dioxins) levels compared to wild fish. If memory serves, they surmised it was diet related as contaminants tended to be more prevalent in the krill/anchovies/herring etc. that is used to make fish pellets to feed farm-stock, which feeds Norwegian shareholders and the greasy Canadian politicians' in their pockets.

Sounds to me like this bag is a might pissed at Suzuki because he couldn't be bought (like the WWF).
 
Actually the dioxin and PCB contaminant issue was raised then quickly dropped a few years back when it was found that wild salmon were actually more prone to have elevated PCB levels. Wild sockeye were also determined to be the source for PCB contamination in inland lakes in Alaska. However none of the salmon wild or farmed were even close to going over the safe levels. Butter and Milk were found to be far worse than any type of salmon.

The lower PCB contamination in farmed salmon is most certainly due to the pellets. Their raw materials can be tested and not used if below standards. Wild fish food is not tested, and so you never know what you are eating, and must trust that the wild salmon made appropriate choices in its eating habits. Kind of like Sex without a condom.

This false info was snesationalised splashed over all the media, and still exists today inspite of it being very wrong.
 
Sockeyefry2,

This is patently not true. Farmed fish contain far higher concentrations of PCB’s than wild fish!!

And totally contrary to your baseless assertion, the higher concentration of PCB’s in farmed salmon is precisely due to the pellets. The weird statement that because it is theoretically possible to measure the level of PCB’s in the concentrated and processed fish meal and fish oil in the pellets, it provides a better quality control on the end product than wild fish is so preposterous as to be laughable.

Here are just a few of the articles which refute your silly statements!!

http://www.nutritionresearchcenter.org/healthnews/farm-raised-fish-not-so-safe/

http://www.psa-rising.com/med/pollution/salmonpcbs82003.shtml

http://www.healthcastle.com/farmed-salmon.shtml

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100425113908AAcDhus

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1663604,00.html

http://www.livestrong.com/article/390598-health-hazards-of-farm-raised-fish/
 
Englishman said:
Sockeyefry2,

This is patently not true. Farmed fish contain far higher concentrations of PCB’s than wild fish!!

And totally contrary to your baseless assertion, the higher concentration of PCB’s in farmed salmon is precisely due to the pellets. The weird statement that because it is theoretically possible to measure the level of PCB’s in the concentrated and processed fish meal and fish oil in the pellets, it provides a better quality control on the end product than wild fish is so preposterous as to be laughable.

Here are just a few of the articles which refute your silly statements!!
Click to expand...

Well, I very seldom agree with sockeyefry; however, I believe he is closer to right concerning PCBs in farmed salmon? PCBs in fishmeal has been closely watched by just about every nation in the world since approximately 2003 2004 timeframe.

If you look, the references for those articles listed look something like this:

http://www.nutritionresearchcenter.org/healthnews/farm-raised-fish-not-so-safe/
Source: Environmental Working Group

http://www.psa-rising.com/med/pollution/salmonpcbs82003.shtml
Links and Credits
The Environmental Working Group (EWG)
Environmental Media Services

http://www.healthcastle.com/farmed-salmon.shtml
Link:
EWG - PCBs in Farmed Salmon
David Suzuki Foundation - Salmon Farming
Note back to the 2003 EWG and the Suzuki article is dated 2001.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100425113908AAcDhus
Answers at Yahoo.com? Not sure I would have listed that one!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1663604,00.html
"I would say cost, the sustainability of resources — pelagic fisheries — and human health concerns have been driving researchers to find replacements for fishmeal and fish oil — and we are doing this to the greatest extent possible," says Dr. David Higgs, a fish nutritionist for the Canadian government who works closely with British Columbia's $450 million salmon industry. (Reducing the fish content in feed also reduces the accumulation of PCBs in farmed fish, though Higgs insists that PCB levels in fish from British Columbia are some 50 to 70 times below FDA standards.) But such improvements have been offset by the industry's explosive growth. In the salmon industry, the largest aquaculture sector, the amount of wild fish required to produce one unit of salmon was reduced 25% between 1997 and 2001, but total industry production grew by 60% during the same time."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/390598-health-hazards-of-farm-raised-fish/
References
• CNN; Is Farm Raised Salmon as Health as Wild?; Melina Jampolis; Jan. 8, 2010
• HealthCastle.com; Farm Raised Salmon vs. Wild Salmon: Which One is Better?; Gloria Tsang, R.D.; November 2004
• CBS News; Wild Salmon Healthier Than Farmed; Bootie Cosgrove-Mather; Jan. 8, 2004

You can see two references are dated 2004 and the CNN; Is Farm Raised Salmon as Health as Wild?; Melina Jampolis; Jan. 8, 2010 and has this statement concerning enviromental damage and then again, goes back to the EWG 2003 article:

“Eating farmed salmon occasionally is not a great health concern, but risks can add up if you eat salmon often. But the long-term environmental damage caused by the industry is substantial. We recommend wild salmon over farmed whenever possible."

“A 2003 report by the EWG showed that farmed salmon in the U.S. has the highest levels of PCBs, toxic man-made chemicals, so Canadian salmon may be slightly better. I suggest that you limit farmed salmon consumption to once a week at most if you are unable to find fresh, wild salmon. In addition, trim the skin and fat as much as possible and use cooking methods such as grilling and boiling to reduce fat, as this is where the toxics are stored.”

I believe those articles referenced are actually all based off of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) test conducted on farmed salmon in 2003, which was the result of studies previously completed in Canada, Ireland, and England. ALL studies found pen-grown farmed fish had higher levels of PCBs when compared to the surrounding wild salmon. ALL studies found the increase was due to the fish food! ALL studies found the limits of both farmed and wild were within limits! DURING THAT TIME PERIOD!

“EWG bought a total of ten fish and determined that their average PCB concentration was 27 parts per billion -- about 1/100th of the FDA's limit. And that's it. That's the news item that has prompted at least 47 fear-inducing stories in major media outlets -- including headlines like "Farm-raised salmon called cancer danger," "High level of contamination in farmed salmon, researchers say," and "Farmed Salmon May Cause Cancer."

“More sober voices place these unfounded fears in their proper perspective. "If the public listened to this, our health would be negatively affected," argues Charles Santerre, a Purdue University professor of food and nutrition. "Any small additional risk of cancer is far outweighed by the benefits of fatty acids in the fish." “

“Meanwhile, the FDA is having none of EWG's antics. "It is important to know that at this point the FDA advice is that the consumer should not alter their consumption of salmon," said Terry Troxell, an FDA official. "Fish is an excellent source of protein."”
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2044-farmed-fish-fears-fall-flat

I don’t believe you will find any high levels of much of anything in fish food from about 2002 to current. You can probably thank The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) for that. It was probably the best study of the bunch and got the industry to start monitoring for PCBs, Dioxin, etc! And the even discusses the difference between “dioxin-like” PCBs and “dioxin”! Big difference there! One is bad and might kill you – the other WILL KILL YOU!

The term ‘dioxins’ covers a group of 75 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) and 135 polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) congeners, of which 17 are of toxicological concern. The most toxic congener is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and other reputable international organisations as a known human carcinogen. The term ‘dioxin-like PCBs’ covers a group of 12 PCB congeners of toxicological concern. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), in line with the World Health Organization (WHO), concluded that the carcinogenic effect of dioxins does not occur at levels below a certain threshold. The SCF also gave an opinion on the risk assessment of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in food.
http://www.fsai.ie/monitoring_and_enforcement/monitoring/surveillance/dioxins_furans_pcbs.html

Just a couple cents worth!
 
Appreciate the thoughtful response Charlie.
Couple of points. While both the wild and farmed salmon PCB results of the Irish study were well under health limits, that is not the point. Sockeyefry2’s assertion was that farmed salmon PCB levels were lower than wild. The Irish study you quoted showed that was clearly not the case, and that is why I challenged it. Now OK this study was done a few years ago – but what has changed? Has there been another study, done by the Irish or someone else to update these results? If so I am not aware of it.
PCBs are concentrated by passing up the food chain – which why the beluga’s in the St Lawrence are in such trouble. Fish pellets are made by processing and concentrating huge quantities of small pelagic fish, mostly from the southern oceans (which is why fish farming is environmentally unsustainable but we’ll leave that one for the time being) and it is this process which is acting like another step in the food chain. Therefore, it is inevitable that farmed salmon at the top of this artificial food chain will have higher PCB levels than wild salmon (whether this is, or is not a health hazard at the levels detected is another question entirely for the human health experts). As far as I am aware, fish farms still feed their fish mostly from fish meal pellets and no “magic” substitute has been found to completely replace them – nor will they as salmon are carnivores and no one is going to convert them to vegetarianism any time soon!
So again, where are the studies that show that PCB’s in fish meal have been reduced since the date of the studies in question and where are the matching studies that show that PCB’s in farmed salmon in 2011 are lower than in wild. I don’t believe they exist……
 
No one has mentioned the chemical that has been given to farmed salmon regularly prescribed by veterinarians, to relieve the farmed salmon of Sea Lice! You cant tell me that is going to pass through the salmon harmlessly. I haven't researched the timeframe that this prescribed medication was first introduced to the BC fish farms, but it could not have been more than 10 years now so very likely it hasn't been shown on previous studies.

With a little more research I have found out the dose of this chemical which is labelled SLICE is something that works similar to an antibiotic and travels through the flesh of the fish to prevent the sea lice from staying on them. But now they have found the sea lice in areas where this SLICE has been used, have built up a resistance just like any other long term chemical used to control pests. Also I found out that the drug company whom has the patent to "SLICE" has not had to declare any publications that it has no adverse effects, or even what the chemical is comprised of. And the Canadian Gov't has waved any and all information pertaining to this drug and long term exposure to it, under the table and just passed it as safe with no independant study!! They refuse to have one done in actuality!

Keep this in mind when eating some of that gross poorly maintained salmon you buy from your grocer. Flavourless, classless, and a true waste of human time and effort to bring to your table. Not that I'm opinionated hahahaha.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IronNoggin
Terry Beech Response
Replies
3
Views
526
IronNoggin
IronNoggin
OldBlackDog
See the problem?
Replies
11
Views
1K
terrin
T
IronNoggin
Petition to the House of Commons
Replies
22
Views
1K
G Gordon
G Gordon
Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
2K
Fishing?
F
B
Yamaha vs Suzuki
Replies
22
Views
3K
kaelc
kaelc
Back
Top