British Columbia (BC) farmed salmon could carry a certified organic label if federal aquaculture boosters have their way. The proposal by the Canadian General Standards Board and organic aquaculture working group at Fisheries and Oceans Canada to give the organic stamp of approval to BC farmed salmon raised in open net-pens is nothing short of Orwellian.
Among the many practices that should be considered antithetical to the spirit and intent of organic certification, the fish farm industry in BC relies on the application of the agricultural drug SLICE to their "salmon feedlots" in order to address chronic sea lice outbreaks.
Emamectin benzoate is the active ingredient in SLICE, which is administered in feed. The use of SLICE in farmed salmon is a concern to scientists like Dr. David Carpenter. A professor at the Environmental Health and Toxicology Division at the University of Albany in New York, Carpenter has said "emamectin is one of a class of drugs known to block a major inhibitory neural transmitter in the brain. Animal studies have demonstrated exposure to this chemical during development causes changes in behavior and growth as well as pathological changes in the brain."
Little is known about the long-term impact of SLICE on other aquatic life. Mounting evidence indicates that SLICE may negatively affect crustaceans (e.g., krill, shrimp, etc.). Canadian ecotoxicology research scientist, Dr. Les Burridge, has written that "chemicals used to control infestations of sea lice on cultured salmon have a potential for impacting non-target organisms, particularly other Crustacea. Investigations have focused on lethal impacts, but observations made during these experiments indicate potential for ecologically important sub-lethal impacts."
University of Victoria researcher Dr. John Volpe has related how "fish farms are run feedlot-style and like similar land-based operations, rely on drugs to maintain a healthy population. The inadvertent breeding of 'superbugs' or drug-resistant bacteria is promoted in this way, and the potentially devastating long-term ramifications of such practices are only now becoming fully appreciated."
In addition to SLICE, BC salmon farms utilize colorants, fungicides and disinfectants in the course of production. Salmon farms are the marine equivalent of industrial agricultural feedlots and have been located in some of the wildest ecosystems in the world. The significant impact from open net-pen fish farms on the benthic environment alone is cause for serious concern.
Wild salmon throughout BC are under pressure from a number of factors including habitat destruction from clearcut logging and urban development, overfishing, pollution run-off, changing ocean conditions as a result of climate change, consequences from hatchery and enhancement programs, and fisheries mismanagement. In addition, there are the ongoing threats from the aquaculture industry; disease, parasites, non-native fish escapes, antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals, and fecal waste from salmon farms are among the impacts facing wild stocks in BC.
In 2002, a collapse of over three million pink salmon on BC's central coast was linked to parasites from adjacent fish farms. In Europe, salmon farms are believed to have forced the brown trout onto the endangered species list. Currently, Raincoast Conservation Foundation biologist Michael Price is investigating what role fish farms might have played in the 2009 collapse of Fraser River sockeye salmon in which some nine million fish went missing.
According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), organic agriculture is based on four principles, one of which is the principle of ecology. IFOAM states that "this principle roots organic agriculture within living ecological systems...for example, in the case of crops this is the living soil; for animals it is the farm ecosystem; for fish and marine organisms, the aquatic environment." IFOAM further explains that "organic agriculture should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them and help sustain them."
Approximately 80 percent of farmed salmon produced in BC is exported outside of Canada, with the majority of those exports going to markets in the United States. Promoters of the aquaculture industry are counting on health-conscious consumers flocking to farmed salmon once it is certified organic. But those American consumers might want to think again. Take some pellets with fish meal produced from fish stocks at the base of the food chain in the southern hemisphere's oceans, add a dash of pink chemical pigments, sprinkle with antibiotics, decorate with a startling array of bacteria and viruses, glaze with PCB's and you have your average farmed salmon fillet from your grocer or local restaurant.
At the root of this debate is the fundamental question of whether or not farming carnivorous species such as salmon is actually sustainable. In order to farm salmon, harvesting of wild fish (for example, sardines, whiting, and anchovies) and krill for fishmeal is required to produce the feed. In contrast, farming herbivorous species (like tilapia and carp) requires minimal inputs of fishmeal.
Leading fisheries experts, such as Dr. Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre, have cautioned against "farming up the food web" because of the inefficient and wasteful use of biological resources, all of which are already used by humans and other organisms, and some of which are commercially valuable. Estimates indicate that farming salmon requires anywhere from two kilograms to four kilograms of wild fish to produce one kilogram of farmed fish.
Past and current scientific information suggests that farming salmon and other carnivores is not sustainable, contrary to industry claims. Farming carnivores is inherently illogical from an ecological perspective and layering another risk factor upon BC's salmon with open net-pen aquaculture when our wild stocks are already under a suite of pressures makes no sense at all. Certifying open net-pen farmed salmon as organic would appear equally nonsensical.
A version of this article previously ran in the Vancouver Sun.
Follow Chris Genovali on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raincoast
The oceans are toxic waste dumps. This has been true for several generations. Almost nothing from the ocean is fit for human consumption.
Summary : Don't buy farmed fish. It tastes like crap too.
Trout is a good choice, as are bivalves, and I actually prefer farmed catfish to the wild variety.
(They say tilapia and char are environmentally safe too, but I don't think I've ever tried char, and tilapia has always seemed a bit boring to me.)
We're overfishing the hell out of the oceans, so we've got to figure something out, but cultivating salmon and crustaceans doesn't seem to be it.
Farmed salmon, organic or not. Yuck.
Here's a wonderful story from Business Week about the way big corporations bought up small organic companies, threw out the old managers and methods, and came up with ways to cut cost (and quality) while doing the absolute legal minimum to quality for the organic label. Because consumers have been fooled into believing this organic food is of higher quality, they pay higher prices.
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm
Want to know what's hidden in the small print of the organic label legislation? Here ya go:
www.scribd.com/doc/14079717/The-Seven-Most-Dangerous-Myths-About-Organic
So far, the organic labeling law has mainly operated as a massive welfare program for big food corporations. The same thing will happen - on a bigger scale - if these "organic" corporations succeed in getting a legal requirement to label GMO food. If that happens, you can be sure that prices will go up, quality will go down, and profits will explode.
And that is exactly what has already happened with the "organic" label. Don't be fooled. It's nothing but a big con job pulled on gullible consumers.
Going through the 2nd link. I have always known that organic has some work arounds, but not many, with that said, I have become so clean and my palette so cleansed, that I can easily tell if not smell the difference in the quality of foods even from the next table at a restaurant. My ailments have almost all ceased. So I think that organic is still a giant step in the right direction. Bio-dynamic (Rudolph Steiner) is even a better choice.
While the link has some good info, I question it on many levels. It seems to use some science to draw it's own opinionated conclusions.
It comes down to this, we ABSOLUTELY need to support SMALL LOCAL FARMERS and SMALL BUSINESS. If we want a safe place to live in the next 5 years!
That said, I think you are completely wrong about the value of organic labelled food. Did you read the article that explained that Stoneyfield Farm Organic Yogurt is made from powdered milk shipped all the way from New Zealand? This is not some minor work-around. This is an extraordinary, inefficient, carbon-intensive way to produce low-quality food that sells for top prices.
You are not "cleansing" your system with this ka-ka.
And that's the story with organic. "Not many" work-arounds is completely false. The whole thing is a big work-around.
Want to know who makes your organic food? Here's the results of research at the University of Michigan, which has shown that all those cute organic labels we pay dearly for at Whole Foods are just re-packaged Pepsi, Cargill, Kraft and Conagra same-old-same-old.
www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html
One final suggestion: consider the possibility that bio-dynamics is new-age quackery.
Piperonyl butoxide
Chlorothalonil
Malathion
Chloropicrin
Methyl bromide
Captan
Maneb
Propargite
Iprodione
Paraquat dichloride
Oryzalin
2,4D
Simazine
What kind of axe do you have to grind with this?
I also suspect you have a dog in this fight.
A food 'safety' scientist maybe? Or a grower that has a grudge against controlling chemicals in our food?
Organic labeling is a joke. That's the whole point of the blog. Farmed salmon is just fine according to the organic label.
As usual, Neutralino has the facts on his side. What do you have against facts?
One issue with people being against aquaculture is the fact that without it the wild fish stocks would be in even more danger. People today want to eat more fish than ever before and without fish farming there would be a worse impact on wild stocks.
Farming fish in closed systems is a much safer idea in terms of protecting wild stocks from disease. It is easier to control all the things people are concerned with - farmed fish escaping, disease transmission and feeding issues - in a closed system. It is also easier to keep the fish healthier as if fish does contract something it is much easier to quarantine them. Also - as mention in the article - herbivourous fish are very to farm and the water can be recirculated and used to water plants and gardens.
I even had a friend in college that built his own fish run and stocked it with trout. The fish thrived in his home built pen and we even harvested them. The point being that farming fish can be a good thing but - like farming in most cases - if it gets too big then there will be consequences.
Organic farming does a great job of producing very high-quality food for affluent customers, just as SUVs produce a very high-quality transportation for the affluent. Organic is to farming what the SUV is to transportation.
Organic is great - if you don't care about costs or the environment.
The organic label regulations are a twisted mass of details, loopholes and detours. Saying something is organic is a legal statement that has almost no connection to any significant health, safety or nutrition issue.
This is just one more way for food corporations to charge higher prices. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this is something the government did to help consumers. It is just more corporate welfare.
http://www.organicfoodee.com/sense/tooexpensive/
Rarely is ideological purism even close to a solution.
"At the root of this debate is the fundamental question of whether or not farming carnivorous species such as salmon is actually sustainable."
No, this is not the fundamental question. Overfishing is already a problem and has to be part of the question. So...do we use commercial fishing more if we don't farm? The main question is: how do we feed people who want to eat salmon?
If both salmon farming using "salmon feedlots" is unacceptable AND overfishing is going to get worse, then humans need to stop eating salmon.
We stop eating salmon. Case closed. Next issue.
I think we can all agree the answer is NO.
This is the flaw in the organic labeling law. Folks who qualify for the organic label do so by following a series of arbitrary guidelines that have nothing to do with health.
This kind of salmon is, indeed, legally organic. The same is true of the organic labelled food in the supermarket.
Wake up, people. This is a scam. Do not buy stuff labelled "organic" unless you want to participate in the corporate welfare scam.