alexandra morton

Won Round 2 Will it Make a Difference?

On Monday February 4, 2019, Justice Strickland of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Minister of Fishery’s policy not to screen farm salmon for the virus piscine orthoreovirus, PRV, is unlawful, a violation of the precautionary principle, and ignores both the critical state of wild salmon in BC today and the high degree of scientific uncertainty around what this virus is doing to wild salmon. In a word I won! Thank you Ecojustice.

Download T-744-18 Decision

We won this already in 2016, but Fisheries Ministers Shea, Tootoo, LeBlanc and now Wilkinson all refused to obey the Federal Court and continued to refuse to screen farm salmon for PRV.

It is against the law to transfer fish carrying a “disease agent” into BC marine waters (s.56 of the Fishery General Regulations).

DFO research Di Cicco et al 2018 showed that PRV causes the red blood cells of Chinook salmon to rupture en masse which means it's a "disease agent".

This means; if the Minister screened for PRV, by law he could not issue a permit to move infected fish out of the freshwater hatcheries into marine net pen farms.  So long as he doesn't screen, he doesn't know.

However, we know some hatcheries are infected.  Marine Harvest provided documents to the court saying all but one of their hatcheries is PRV-positive and that the company would be "severely impacted" if this law was applied to their fish. Marine Harvest submission. 

If that is true, then millions of infected farm fish have gone into BC waters because three Ministers ignored a federal court ruling.

Three days after my 2nd court ruling, DFO issued a press release. A panel of experts had reached consensus: Piscine Orthoreovirus in Atlantic salmon farms poses minimal risk to wild Fraser River sockeye. 

So PRV is not a "disease agent"? However, DFO provides no scientific confirmation, in fact the review is not complete and the experts were not given the opportunity to approve the statement. 

One of these experts spoke up. John Werring senior Biologist and Policy Analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation, reacted saying that the expert panel did not approve DFO’s press release and that given the extremely high scientific uncertainty of harm sockeye, it is impossible to conclude that PRV is a minimal risk to Fraser sockeye.

But then in an interview another "expert" from the panel states:

"When asked directly whether the farmed salmon were infected with PRV in the smolt stage or once they were in the net cages, one expert said it was “highly prevalent in marine net pens” and the fish were picking up the disease once in the sea." Intrafish Feb 8, 2019. 

This is opposite to what Marine Harvest told the court, that all but one of their hatcheries is infected. So presuming theirs is the correct story, by ignoring the court, three ministers allowed Marine Harvest to move millions of PRV-infected fish into marine farms, exposing virtually all wild salmon in southern BC to PRV... a virus that appears to cause Chinook salmon red blood cells to explode, as the southern resident orca starve into extinction for lack of Chinook salmon.

Several First Nations requested that I be on thos expert panel as I am publishing  on PRV in their territories. DFO refused to accept me or Emaliano Di Cicco, who reported PRV is causing Chinook salmon blood cells to explode.

Washington State recently ordered the destruction of a total of 1.8 million PRV-infected farm fish that a Canadian company was trying to put into pens in Puget Sound.   But Canada is moving in the opposite direction dealing with three Norwegian companies.

Meanwhile, indigenous governments of the Broughton Archipelago won the authority to screen farm salmon going into their territory for PRV and will be removing the industry entirely within 5 years.  It took a year of tough negotiations and the 280 day occupation of the farm facilities, but now these nations are assuming DFO's role. 

I don't understand how Wilkinson doesn't realize that the science has gotten away from him.  While he controls many labs and is apparently seconding Dr. Gary Marty from the BC Ministry of Agriculture to oversee farm fish health for DFO, they don't have control over my science. The group I work with are the only non-goverment team working on PRV in BC.  Clearly it continues to be essential to keep some research beyond the influence of government or industry.

The solution remains.  Invite land-based investment if BC is committed to growing farm salmon and use the rapidly developing genomic science to allow wild salmon to inform us where we need us to strategically get out of their way. We could have both.  However, the companies using BC seem unwilling to make the move.

Will I, or someone else have to go to court a third time on this subject?  Will there be any uninfected wild salmon left at the end of that proceeding?  I have four research initiatives underway, that will help make the risk of PRV to wild salmon clearer.

However, one of the unfortunate things that has happened in recent years is the formation of large coalition has meant funds from its members have been withdrawn from my work.  I have reduced costs as much as I can,  living the past 5 years without running water and much more to keep the science on PRV advancing.  If I hadn't published the 1st paper on PRV in BC, would any information on PRV be public today?  I think there has to be non-government work breaking the ice to allow research from inside DFO to make it out into the daylight.

I know I have been at this much too long and should have been able to achieve more progress by now, but I am asking for your help to go the last mile because the evidence suggests that this growing scandal is taking an enormous toll on the BC coast. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Minister of Fisheries - Accept First Nation help

Jan 9, 2019

Dear Minister of Fisheries Jonathan Wilkinson,

Many British Columbians, myself included, felt hopeful when Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a Minister of Fisheries from British Columbia.  

When you accepted the position, you inherited a highly compromising lawsuit from the departing Minister LeBlanc. In September 2018, your lawyers argued to allow Marine Harvest and Cermaq to ignore the law and continue transferring Atlantic salmon infected with the viral “disease agent” PRV into the territory of the Namgis First Nations (decision pending).

Marine Harvest has made it clear that your position benefits them. However, your scientists warn that PRV is a threat to Pacific salmon.  The escalating COSEWIC listings of Pacific salmon stocks in critical decline means whatever your department is doing, is not working and change is required.  Allowing a highly contagious virus, known to harm Pacific salmon, to flow out of most of the salmon farms on this coast is indefensible, especially when it violates the law.

Then on January 7, Chief Bob Chamberlin told CBC that DFO has denied the First Nations of the Broughton Archipelago access a DFO lab, after they had reached an agreement with the Province of BC giving them the authority to test farm salmon.  You were present at the announcement of this agreement.

I have faced the salmon farming industry for 30 years and I know that the fish farm companies that are doing business in BC will to do everything they can to exert control over First Nation testing of the fish in their farms and hatcheries. 

I accept you are in a difficult position. You were sworn in just as your office was defending the transfer of PRV-infected farm fish into Namgis territory, even though your own scientists report PRV causes Chinook salmon red blood cells to rupture and 50% of Chinook salmon exposed to salmon farmed waters are in rapid decline.  Now as the world is watching in horror as 2 more southern resident orca starve to death for lack of Chinook salmon, you are obstructing First Nations, who are testing farm salmon for a virus known to kill Chinook salmon, from using their lab of choice.  The optics of this are disastrous.

After reading 1,000s of emails between DFO, the Provincial Ministry of Agriculture and the salmon farming industry I know the backstory on PRV. I hope someone is making you are aware that the extraordinary effort by these three parties to suppress the impact of the PRV virus on this coast has failed. The Province of BC has stepped away from this in an impressive act of reconciliation and good sense, which leaves just you and the salmon farmers downplaying the impact of their virus.

Minister Wilkinson, I would like to offer that the solution is simple. Demonstrate respect to First Nations, open your labs to them, split the samples and send a set to the lab of your choice. This virus is leaking out of fish farms all along this coast, Washington State has prohibited PRV-infected farm salmon in their farms since early last year and some of us are tracking the different PRV strains from Norway and Iceland that are circulating on this coast.  The science has gotten away from those who sought to downplay the impact of PRV.  What is known is not going to be unknown.

All the Ministers who permitted the controversial growth of the salmon farming industry in Canada have moved on, leaving your government on very unstable ground, presiding over terrible extinctions and disregard for our laws.  Canada's chief scientist recommends 3rd party oversight of your science and federal regulators slammed DFO's failure protect wild salmon from salmon farms.

I am sure that you recognize that the request by First Nations to use a DFO lab to test farm salmon is perhaps the only honourable path out of this highly compromising situation.  I am sure that you recognize that the request by First Nations to use a DFO lab to test farm salmon is perhaps the only honourable path out of this highly compromising situation.  I would suggest not allowing the bureaucrats who got you into this mess to make this decision.

Respectfully,

Alexandra Morton

EXTINCTION WATCH

After 280 days of occupying salmon farm facilities in the Broughton Archipelago and 350 days of talks between indigenous leaders and the Province of BC, salmon farms are leaving the Broughton Archipelago. After a 30-year effort, it is hard to believe that I am writing these words. I have enormous respect for the First Nations who made this happen by occupying the salmon farms in their territories over 280 days through the storms of winter, and for the First Nation leaders who doggedly hammered out this agreement over the past year and also I have a greater respect for the NDP/Green government that showed meaningful respect to these indigenous governments.  As hereditary chief Ernest Alfred, who led the occupations said, "you cannot reconcile with First Nations while killing off their most important food resource."  Of concern however, is that the farms are not leaving all at once and so wild salmon will still suffer exposure to sea lice, industrial viruses and chemicals coming from the farms.  

In response I am launching EXTINCTION WATCH, so we that we can watch over these fish together.  It would be tragic if they went extinct even as the farms were being removed.  While EXTINCTION WATCH can only observe, I think that having many eyes on these fish is their greatest security.

I have been a biologist on the water here for 30 years, and I have researched and documented the suffering inflicted on wild fish by salmon farms for two decades.  I will be updating on the condition of the juvenile salmon this spring, as we count the number of sea lice on them, and document the abundance of the fish leaving Broughton Rivers.

Juvenile pink salmon dying of sea lice from salmon farms photo A. Morton

I will also continue with a technique developed last year to sample farms for viruses by capturing the feces and other waste that pours out of the farms into the surrounding marine environment.  I will update on the status of the farms, document their frequent die-offs and chemical treatments.

We know wild salmon and steelhead in the Broughton are in serious trouble, DFO has not opened a commercial fishery here in years.  The orca that came to feed on salmon, don't come anymore.   Some rivers, like the Embly River are empty now.

This is no surprise, wild salmon are in collapse everywhere there are salmon farms.  Stocks are so low in the Broughton if they go any lower its called extinction.

You can help with a donation by clicking the image on the upper right of this page, you can send me your own observations on the situation in Broughton and follow the progress of this work here and on my facebook page.  A huge step towards protecting salmon and the whales that depend on them has been taken... on paper... now it is time to see it through into the wet wild world of the BC coast.

                                                           Alexandra Morton sampling farm salmon waste 2018 Photo Courtesy of Sea Shepherd Society

 

 

 

 

 

Feds Protect Marine Harvest diseased fish & Profit

Federal Government invested in Marine Harvest,

protects company’s right to farm fish infected with virus killing Chinook salmon.

The Canadian Pension Plan is one of the top 10 investors in the Norwegian salmon farming company Marine Harvest*, as the federal Minister of Fisheries defends the right of this company to ignore Fishery laws of Canada.

In 2013, Marine Harvest and the Minister of Fisheries were sued to stop the transfer of farm salmon infected with piscine orthoreovirus, PRV, from a hatchery near Sayward, BC into marine net pens off Port Hardy. The case was won in 2015, with the court ruling that the Minister of Fisheries must screen all farm salmon for PRV, as a disease agent. As per section 56 of the Fishery General Regulations, fish infected with a “disease agent” are prohibited from transfer into Canadian waters.

However, the Minister refuses to acknowledge this decision (2015 FC 575) and was sued again by Alexandra Morton and the ‘Namgis First Nation of Alert Bay to stop the transfer of PRV into their territory. These cases were heard together in September, decision pending. Marine Harvest revealed that all but one of their hatcheries is PRV-positive and thus their company profits would be “severely” damaged if they were prohibited from farming with the PRV-infected fish.

This means that the Minister is defending Marine Harvest’s right to operate outside the laws of Canada, to protect the profitability of a company that the federal CPP profits from, even as DFO scientists report that the virus at issue is causing acute disease in Chinook salmon and half the Chinook salmon in BC are now in decline.

December 2017, scientists published on the spread of PRV to wild salmon exposed to salmon farms, and one month later, senior DFO scientists, reported that while PRV causes a transient heart wasting disease in Atlantic salmon, it triggers a more acute disease in Chinook salmon causing their red blood cells to rupture en masse resulting in organ failure.  

“It has been hard for the lawyers, scientists and environmentalist to understand why Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson is using our tax dollars to fight DFO science and the law when half of BC’s Chinook salmon are in decline,” says independent biologist Alexandra Morton, “learning that the federal government’s CPP is one of the biggest global investors in Marine Harvest, puts the Minister’s defense of this company in a new light.”

This potential conflict of interest comes as the Provincial Government is two weeks past their deadline to report whether they will renew the 20 salmon farm tenures objected to by First Nations in the Broughton Archipelago.

 

*http://marineharvest.com/investor/share-and-bond-info/shareholder-analysis/

“As we learn at the expense of our wild salmon, that it is not just sea lice or PRV, but rather an ongoing suite of disease impacts that flourish in salmon farms and contaminate the ocean and fish outside the pens,” says Morton. “I think we need to look at Canada’s investment relationship with Marine Harvest and also the disturbing recent news out Norway, where this industry is from.”

 

 

• Norway’s city of Tromsø, announced recently that they would not renew salmon farm tenures and the salmon farming industry lawyers respond saying this is “illegal” due to “political expectations.”

 

• Industry founders wrote to Marine Harvest last week and objected to Marine Harvest changing its name to their family name “Mowi” in advance of Marine Harvest’s extraordinary general meeting. "We do not want to be associated with the way Marine Harvest and most other salmon farmers contaminate our fjords, harm marine habitats and threaten future generations," writes Frederik W. Mowinckel, but on December 4, Marine Harvest took the Mowi name.

 

• On November 23 European Food Safety Authority released a report the persistent pollutant levels in farm salmon associated with declining male fertility. The Norwegian Directorate of Health defends the industry.

 

See links to above articles: https://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2018/12/troms%C3%B8-municipality-lacks-means-to-implement-its-no-to-open-farms-httpsfiskeribladetnonyheterartikkel63737-troms.html

Alexandra Morton - Alexandramorton5@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

News out of Norway

Marine Harvest to Federal Court stating "Severely Impacted" if not allowed to farm PRV-infected fish.

Download Affidavit Erenst Marine Harvest

 

Tromsø municipality lacks means to implement its no to open farms

GOOGLE TRANSLATION BELOW

https://fiskeribladet.no/nyheter/?artikkel=63737

Tromsø City Council decided yesterday to limit farming activities in the municipality to "closed facilities". The decision affects a major industry in the region and has already created reactions.

Comment

Written by

Ole-Martin Lund Andreassen

Lawyer lawyer

SANDS - Advokatfirmaet Steenstrup Storordrange DA

Bjørn-Ivar Bendiksen

Lawyer

SANDS - Advokatfirmaet Steenstrup Storordrange DA

22 November 2018 14:33 Updated:
22 November 2018 14:34

We work with area planning and assist the aquaculture industry in processes for permits for the establishment of aquaculture activities in the sea (location clearance).Our legal assessment is that the municipality does not have the means to follow up its decision.It is the aquaculture authorities, with the county municipality as the allocation authority, which has the competence to determine the framework for business and business-related matters.

Tromsø says no to farming. The salmon industry is stated, nature conservationists rejoice

Prepare legal framework

The municipality will allocate areas to aquaculture, but can not regulate the operating mode.The municipal council's decision appears in this light both unconcerned and surprisingly.There may also be questions in the decision-making process with apparent lack of consultation and investigation.

The decision shows that there is a need to clarify the legal framework the municipality has against the aquaculture industry and why the municipal council's decision falls outside these limits. We emphasize that we do not have and do not want to take any political or professional opinion that whether or not farming should or should not be operated in closed plants.

When the municipality of Tromsø wishes to regulate the operation of such facilities, they will intervene in the authority of the aquaculture authority

To operate aquaculture you must have an aquaculture permit (license), which must be linked to a geographical area (locality). The county municipality in the relevant county is the allocation authority for applications for location. In addition, several other aquaculture authorities will make decisions within their areas of expertise: The Norwegian Food Safety Authority administers fish health and fisheries welfare, the county governor's pollution regulations and the Coastal Administration manages the Port and Water Regulations. In addition to being a consultation body for such applications, the municipalities have a role as planning authority and landlord.

Attorney General Lawyer Ole-Martin Lund Andreassen and Attorney Bjørn-Ivar Bendiksen of Law Firm Steenstrup Stordrange DA (SANDS) in Tromsø.Photo: Private

May violate legislation

It is a prerequisite for site clearance that the municipality has set aside land for aquaculture.By Royal Decree of 12 June 2015, the government has issued an expectation that the municipality "ensures sufficient area for fisheries and aquaculture".The municipality's position could lead to a breach of this political expectation.In our opinion, the municipality will also violate the legislation if they should follow up their decision with a planning process where aquaculture areas are restricted to closed plants.

The role distribution that follows from the site application system limits the municipality's business space. By law this means that the Planning and Building Act (municipality) and the aquaculture regulations must be reconciled to each other. The system is based on the fact that the municipality, through area planning, can decide where to place aquaculture plants. The detailed requirements for the design and operation of the facilities, for example in order to avoid environmental damage, infectious diseases and more, are set by the aquaculture authorities.

When the municipality of Tromsø wishes to regulate the mode of operation of such facilities, they will intervene in the aquaculture authority's authority area. They also set stricter requirements than currently determined by sectoral authorities. In our opinion, this will be contrary to the duty of the municipality and the aquaculture authorities have, pursuant to Section 8 of the Aquaculture Act, effective and coordinated application processing of site applications. The duty implies, among other things, that each authority must adhere to its field of expertise and not acquire authority that adds to the others.

Sets limitations

The Planning and Building Act imposes restrictions on the municipality's regulation of aquaculture mode of operation. The municipality shall in the area plan indicate area objectives associated with the individual area, typical purpose of aquaculture alone or in combination with other purposes. The municipality has a certain opportunity to set conditions for use and protection of the areas, but this should only be done in the "necessary extent" according to the Planning and Building Act section 11-7 and sections 11-9 to 11-11. A regulation in the form of a confinement to closed facilities will in our opinion go beyond what is "necessary" as these considerations shall be assessed by the appropriate aquaculture authority with the ability to make such assessment. A limitation to closed facilities is not covered by the terms of the municipality's compliance with section 11-11. According to Section 11-10, a current condition is to regulate "physical design of facilities", but it follows from the law that this is not a condition for regulation in the sea.

The municipality of the municipality and modernization came in October 2018 with a circular that the municipality will follow and which provides guidance in their area work. The ministry hereby gives a clear message to the municipalities regarding their role as landlord: "The municipalities should be very reluctant to set conditions for aquaculture regulated by other sectoral regulations, in their area plans. Conditions for the approval and operation of aquaculture are determined in the site approval system coordinated by the county municipality. »

Can not interfere with existing business

The conclusion to this is that the municipality in the area plan can not make provisions that are in an operational and nutritional context, such as limiting the area of ​​closed facilities.Regulation of operations applies to the aquaculture authorities' field of competence.

At the time of writing, the municipal council's decision is not published, and its precise wording is therefore not known. In the media it is referred to that the decision includes that "existing licenses are not extended".

If the decision includes such an element, it is noteworthy that the municipality can not interfere with an existing business through a change of land so that it loses its permission or may change its form of operation. Established business will therefore be able to continue (according to plan as applicable at that time of application), but future constraints related to, for example, extensions may occur.

Finally, it must be possible to ask whether the municipality has followed good procedural practice here, in the form of a duty to inform a case as thoroughly as possible and to facilitate participation. Had this happened, one believed Troms County Municipality as a aquaculture authority had announced its view. The municipality's decision is therefore in a legal context forfeited, because the municipality here tries to make decisions in areas that appeal to other public bodies. Moreover, they do not have decision-making skills or "legal tools" to implement their business policy ambition, as the legislation is designed today. This applies in particular to the ambition to intervene in already granted permits to locations.

 

Comments

Interestingly, the lawyers choose not to mention the Sea Resources Act, which goes well before the other laws they refer. Perhaps it is because it establishes that fishermen have rights to the marine resources that go ahead of others, including the breeders' In view of this law and the fact that traditional fishing today is being displaced by farming, one may be tempted to ask whether the current coastal zone plans are unlawful and farming in their present form a crime?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mowinckel family: Will not be associated with Marine Harvest

https://e24.no/naeringsliv/mowinckel-familien-om-marine-harvests-navnebytte-oensker-ikke-aa-bli-assosiert-med-marine-harvest/24510017

Marine Harvest changed its name to Mowi on January 1. It responds family members of farmed pioneer Thor Mowinckel.

Photo: Eric Piermont AFP

GOOGLE TRANSLATION BELOW

• E24

(E24) Published: 06:51 - 05.12.2018 , Updated: 06:55 - 05.12.2018

Family members of farmed pioneer Thor Mowinckel are not pleased with Marine Harvest's name exchange for Mowi on January 1, 2019.

In an email E24 has been given access to the printer Frederik W. Mowinckel that several members of the Mowinckel family at the extraordinary general meeting voted against the name change.

According to Dagens Næringsliv , the statement was read at the general meeting on Tuesday on behalf of a number of members of the Mowinckel family.

Marine Harvest is planning a change of name

"We do not want to be associated with the way Marine Harvest and most other salmon breeders contaminate our fjords, harm marine habitats and threaten future generations," writes Frederik W. Mowinckel in the email.

Mowinckel encourages governments in Norway, Scotland, Ireland, British Columbia and Chile to allow only closed fishermen in the future, and introduce much stricter environmental requirements for existing plants.

For Today's Business , Marine Harvest's Communications Manager Ola Helge Hjertland states that they are familiar with the family's skepticism with the industry, but believes Mowi is a key part of the company's history.

"We also have our own traditional salmon tree called Mowi, which we have further developed since its inception in 1964, and has also been present in the Asian market for many years. We are therefore pleased that our shareholders have joined the name change, "he told the newspaper. 

https://www.cowichanvalleycitizen.com/news/marine-harvest-to-rebrand-as-mowi-but-relatives-of-the-companys-namesake-are-unhappy-about-the-move/

A 70 kilo person has reached a maximum of 185 grams of salmon meal, reaching the maximum value of pollutants she can withstand during a day, according to a recent report from the EU Food Safety Authority EFSA . The Directorate of Health does not agree

https://www.tv-helse.no/article/forebygge/kosthold/miljogifter-spiser-oss-sterile/?fbclid=IwAR0xg5tFwGBSK9Q3SYpWLfF-k0lagAVha5BENahx9-qW5JeMSuMhaHqYrJY

GOOGLE TRANSLATION BELOW

The policy has landed in the middle of the dining room of Ola & Kari Nordmann - at least when oily fish is on the menu.

"We think this report is very important and does not rule out the fact that we can change the dietary guidelines, but not before we have weighed the risk against the health benefits from fish," says Director of Health, Linda Granlund, NRK. She meets resistance from senior researcher Merete Eggesbø at the National Institute of Public Health.

"It is hard to imagine a positive health effect that can compensate for lack of male fertility, in addition to all the other negative health effects we see, Eggesbø responded to the Public Health Institute (FHI)

collision Course

Professor Anders Goksøyr (PHOTO: Private)

The food authorities and the public health perspective are on a collision course as to how much Norwegians should eat of fatty fish. I am afraid that we have consumed too many environmental pollutants even before the first weekly fish meal has been taken, says Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the Department of Biosciences, UiB, Anders Goksøyr for TV Health. Goksøyr is no stranger to the idea that the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and VKM do not want to step up the farming industry on their toes.

"It is clearly a delicate dilemma when the salmon is the theme and a nutritionist, a dietician and a toxicologist will discuss this matter. As a toxicologist, I am genuinely concerned with the environmental issues and what they can cause from our disease, while nutritionists are concerned about having enough of what they think is healthy, says Goksøyr to TV health.

Alarming finds

EFSA's report has lowered the tolerance rate for dioxins, primarily because their studies show that boys get significantly poorer sperm quality later in life. Dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs are environmental pollutants found especially in fatty fish. They have a long breakdown time and it will take hundreds of years before they disappear from the food chain once they have landed there. The substances can also be carcinogenic and weaken the immune system. Studies also show that environmental toxicity can lead to lower numbers of newborn boys compared to girls.

Harmful advice

Eggsbø in FHI refers to several studies that link pollutants in fish to behavioral disorders and overweight in children. In particular, she is critical that pregnant, childbearing and young children get too much environmental toxins with today's dietary advice from the Norwegian Directorate of Health. She believes that the new study can unconditionally have consequences for the dietary advice given. Even a fish meal a week will cause the limit of environmental hazards to be exceeded.

In particular, it is also warned that young men must take care of what amounts they get in until they have got the children they want.

Eat white fish!

Toxicologist Goksøyr shares the views of Eggesvik, but believes that all fish are harmful if you read only headlines.

-Spice white fish! In the past, it has begun to discuss whether Omega-3 is as important as first thought and found in salmon, herring and mackerel. Vitamin D is important, so also iodine. In addition, there are various protein types in white fish that are valuable to us humans. There are population studies indicating that white fish have a positive effect on type 2 diabetes. This means that we should eat more white fish without thinking so much about Omega-3 in that context. It may be taken as a dietary supplement or cure, says the toxicologist.

Is there no environmental toxicity in white fish?

-Torskeleverolje. Is not it the same as crossing the dioxin right on the tear bottle?

-No, the majority are filtered and cleaned away. A straightforward comparison is this characteristic feature found on FHI's own pages: A spoonful contains about 5 grams. In such a case, the dioxin number is 1.5. A meal of 150 grams of salmon gives a dioxin number of 45. There is a significant difference and furthermore a fact that can not be ignored, says toxicologist Anders Goksøyr.

The Health Directorate chooses so far to relate to other numbers and facts in the case, but will consider whether the dietary guidelines should be changed. Gradually.

_______________________________________________________________

"World's Dangerous Fish"

https://nordnorskdebatt.no/article/verdens-farligste-fisk?fbclid=IwAR1Qy1J8tYU-GP_rOFdUNvRKg2KGsaUG_yYOQG7VZXGp0RBXZHWfslOE1G4

• Kåre Nordgård

Harstad

Opinion

December 4, 20181 501

The headline is taken from the prestigious German weekly "Die Zeit" which a few weeks ago had a main report about farmed fish, primarily Norwegian salmon. The article focuses on what is happening in Brazil where soy to Norwegian salmon lamb is grown. In addition, it is written a lot about the environmental contamination contained in lakes and found in Norwegian salmon. The article is bad advertising for the Norwegian aquaculture industry and for the nation Norway. Recently, in Norwegian media there have been several reports confirming what Die Zeit writes about.

What is it that causes a German great-grandfather to sacrifice so much space on a business that would like to appear as a producer of "clean and healthy Norwegian food"? What makes the Norwegian farmed salmon so dangerous in the global context?

Related issues

The fat of escaped salmon reveals how long it has been on the run

Fish diseases as before

Soy Salmon and Rainforest

About 20% of the fish feed consists of Brazilian soya concentrate. With the exception of the ecologically marked fish, all salmon products in Norwegian shelf shelves contain soya from Brazil. The article describes shaking conditions in the soya areas of Brazil with illegal deforestation, the use of illegal pesticides, soy cultivated in indigenous territories and on lands given to landless. Small farmers who grow vegetables and fruit near the soy plantations are either expelled or killed. Some wake up at night to prevent the wife and children from being killed by the guards of the great peasants. Only in the state of Mato Grosso, 22 000 small farmers have been displaced in recent years and it is known that 207 environmentalists were killed in Brazil last year.

The conditions that the article describes are documented by a recent Norwegian report prepared by the Future in our hands and the Rainforest Foundation. Here it is stated that Norwegian feed producers buy soya from three major companies in Brazil. All are linked to the purchase of soya via intermediaries, cheating with certificates for environmentally friendly production and illegal deforestation. The importers in Norway obviously turn their hands and assure that they have contracts with the companies to safeguard the environment, but that it is difficult to control the entire chain from manufacturers to buyers and exporters. And the salmon must have food, so where will the soy be obtained if the Brazilian market is closed? In Brazil, soybean production is so important that it is economical to dare to ask critical questions.

Follow the theme:

salmon lakseed seafood industry

Brazil has the world's largest consumption of pesticides and the soybean industry accounts for almost half. The toxic pesticides lead to a number of serious health problems for locals. In addition, pesticides emit into rivers and affect people, fish and animals that rely on these rivers for food and drink.

Etoxyquin

The salmon is not a pure plant eat and the fish must add some fishmeal and fish oil so that it does not taste chicken. The fishmeal is mainly imported from South America, and the ethoxyquin substance is added to make it not rancid and that it does not explode during transport. Etoxyquin is an antioxidant that was originally developed to bombard bombs. The substance is forbidden to be used in the EU except for fish feed where it will also be banned in 2020. It is a controversial substance that can be dangerous for human and animal use. Norwegian fishery research communities dominated by the aquaculture industry have attempted to conceal negative research results, and researchers have been frozen out of the environment when they have presented unwanted results. This is well documented in an article series in Morgenbladet.

Die Zeit received samples of salmon feed from Skretting (Norwegian feed producer) and examined them. Etoxyquin was found in high concentrations in all samples. In one of the samples, 80 times as high a concentration was found as the allowed limit value for imported meat.

But as long as the money has flowed into it, investing in new types of feed has not been possible, and you still have open cages.Nor do the fishing authorities have been driving in the process that should have taken place.

Seed quality and dietary advice

As if this were not enough, the EU Food Safety Authority, EFSA , has come up with a report showing that "the world's most dangerous fish" is even more dangerous than previously thought. The report is about the environmentally toxic dioxins and dioxin-like PBC . These are environmental poisons that are especially found in oily fish, they have long decomposition and it will take hundreds of years before they disappear from the food chain in nature. The substances can be carcinogenic and also weaken the immune system. It is also documented that dioxins harm the semen quality of men, which means that fewer children may be born for the future.

The report states that the limit for the intake of these pollutants has been set too high and should in future be a seventh of today's limit. This clearly means that the consumption of fatty fish like salmon and halibut must be reduced. The Norwegian Directorate of Health has previously recommended us to eat up to 1.3 kilos of salmon weekly, this must now be reduced to about 185 grams per week if you only eat salmon and if you follow the EU 's recommendations. Furthermore, pregnant and breastfeeding should not eat salmon, as are small children. "Food authorities and the public health perspective are on a collision course as to how much Norwegians should eat of fatty fish," says Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the University of Bergen, Anders Goksøyr.

This is dramatic for the aquaculture industry, which may cause large markets for farmed salmon to disappear both inland and worldwide.

Bad reputation

From before, the farming industry has had a reputation problem along the coast where the facilities are located. People are familiar with the local harmful effects of farming on nature. Destruction of the fjords, harmful effects of lice treatment, destruction of the strains of wild salmon and sea trout and displacement of local fishermen from their habitual fishing grounds are the media in the media.

In addition, when it is shown that Norwegian salmon leads to major environmental problems in Brazil and researchers in the EU find high levels of poison in the salmon, the warning lamps should shine with the breeders. This is awaited development, you have long been familiar with the problems. But as long as the money has flowed into it, investing in new types of feed has not been possible, and you still have open cages. Nor do the fishing authorities have been driving in the process that should have taken place. Over the years, our fisheries ministers have tried to slow down the problems and be more concerned with large volumes of salmon production than on sustainable production of both feed and farmed fish.

This evasion of breeders and the authority can punish themselves in a global market that is increasingly concerned with clean and environmentally-friendly food.

Like Nordnorsk Debatt on Facebook

 

Dear Government of British Columbia

December 5, 2018

Dear Premier Horgan and the Government of British Columbia

As your silence stretches into its second week, past your third deadline regarding renewal of the expired salmon farm tenures in the Broughton Archipelago, we learned that half of BC’s Chinook populations are in decline and that the Canadian Pension Plan is one of Marine Harvest’s biggest shareholders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How are the decline in Chinook salmon and the CPP investment portfolio related?

The federal Minister of Fisheries is ignoring the law and a 2015 Federal Court ruling by refusing to screen farm salmon for the virus PRV, in defence of  their co-defendant, Marine Harvest, who tells the court that all but one of their hatcheries is PRV-positive and so they would be “severely” impacted if they couldn't use PRV-infected fish in their farms throughout southern BC.

This means that Minister Wilkinson is using our tax dollars to defend Marine Harvest’s right to stock farms with fish infected with a virus that kills Chinook salmon, and by allowing Marine Harvest to do this profits the CPP, a federal agency, profits...  You are now part of this unwholesome dynamic as we wait to see if you will bend like the federal government and renew the salmon farm tenures in the Broughton. The city of Tromsø, Norway is also trying to get rid of salmon farms by allowing their tenures to expire, and the industry is suggesting this is "illegal" due to political expectations".

Claire Trevana, MLA North Island, repeated through the election that the salmon farmers were threatening to sue any government that crossed them. Glen Clark, Moe Sihota and Corky Evans put the farms in the Broughton, when the NDP were last in power. I warned them of the consequences and here we are. The profound collapse of wild salmon in the Broughton is linked to salmon farms and this is why indigenous people and their allies occupied the industry’s facilities for 280-days last winter, which brought you to the table with their leaders.

As this drags on, I fear you are going to punt this to the next government, which would make it look like you are holding reconciliation and wild salmon ransom to your re-election. Drug – resistant sea lice, escalating chemical use, PRV and bacterial infections, all point to cataclysmic damage already done. Are you going to gamble that wild salmon will survive this any longer? First Nations are putting everything at risk because runs that once numbered millions can no longer be fished.

We know that the degraded state of our oceans is threatening life on earth, we have 12 years to reverse climate collapse, salmon feed the trees that make the oxygen we breathe and forests are the best tool we have for drawing down the carbon that is about to make our children’s lives hell. Canada is a signatory to UNDRIP and that means you can’t allow destruction of First Nation's most important food resource.

Marine Harvest is suing a lot of us, and exhibiting aggressive behaviour.  We are standing up to them and I am asking that you do the same.

 

There is a solid solution to this mess:

Leave the Broughton tenures expired, which will attract closed containment investment that is springing up elsewhere, and pick up the incredible scientific tools buried in DFO that allow salmon to talk to us, to guide us towards becoming leaders in restoring salmon simply by strategically getting out of their way.

Jobs, reconciliation, abundant wild salmon, technical advancement of Canada and our support are all achieved if you leave the 20 Broughton Archipelago tenures expired and look Marine Harvest in the eye and tell them, they had their chance to get it right, they failed and they need to leave now while a shred of hope exists that there is still time to clean up their mess.

You have to ask the salmon, because they can only live or due, they can't compromise forever.  If there is one thing we have learned during the decades of farm salmon occupation, this industry can’t be trusted, they are in court fighting to use infected fish, because they would be “severely” impacted if they can’t. If there was any place in the world that wild salmon exposed to salmon farms were surviving we would know about it, but there isn’t. Please think hard about that before you renew any of the tenures in the Broughton Archipelago.  People will be there to witness the extinction of the wild salmon.

Join the 35,000 people in viewing my message to you posted on facebook three days ago:

We know what the First Nations at the table want. We await your decision.

Respectfully,

Alexandra Morton

In other recent news:

The EU is concerned that farm salmon consumption is lowering human sperm production: EATING US STERILE

 

The city of Tromsø is trying not to renew salmon farm tenures, but the industry is threatening that this might be “illegal” due to “political expectations.”

Industry founders, the Mowinckel family, angry that Marine Harvest is adopting their name, do not want to be associated with this industry.

 

90 Days - and "political expectation"

On August 24, 2017, a 280-day occupation of salmon farms began in the Broughton Archipelago.  90% of the farms in the Broughton Archipelago were sitting on provincial tenures that were about to expire and First Nations demanded that they not be renewed.

In response, to the uprising the Province of BC initiated a government to government (G2G) process with the nations involved.  On June 20, 2018, the date the leases expired, they announced that beginning in 2022 all salmon farms in BC would require  agreements with First Nations whose territory they proposed to operate.  However, they said they would not make a decision whether or not to renew the 20 expired tenures in the Broughton until September.  In September they said they needed 90 more days, and that date has passed November 25th in silence which speaks volumes.

I trust that the indigenous leaders engaged in the G2G are doing everything they can to get Atlantic salmon which are carrying Atlantic viruses out of their territory and I suspect, with very little evidence, that our current BC government is genuinely trying to respect these leaders.

This brings us to the lump under the carpet, the shadowy monster under the bed, the puppet master, that keeps stalling this decision.

The tenures are expired.  The union of BC municipalities agree with the Broughton nations, passing a resolution to move salmon farms into closed tanks to protect their economies. 75% of British Columbian's want salmon farms banned from BC waters.  So where is the hold up - who wants salmon farms in BC waters? 

The federal Minister of Fisheries, currently Jonathon Wilkinson MP for North Vancouver, has been sued 3 times to stop transferring Atlantic salmon into BC waters without screening for the Norwegian blood virus, PRV, and to follow the laws of Canada which prohibit transfer* of infected farm salmon into BC fish farms.  I sued DFO on this matter in 2013.  I won in 2015. In 2018, I had to sue him again because DFO is ignoring the law and the court and 'Namgis sued him as well.

Marine Harvest says they will be severely impacted if they can't grow PRV-infected fish in their farms.

The Norwegian Salmon Farming industry has caused the federal government of Canada to break its own laws and ignore a federal court ruling so as to allow infected Atlantic salmon into the territories of nations who are suing Canada to stop this dirty practice.  

Interestingly, the same scenario is playing out in the industry's mother country, Tromsø, Norway.

The November 26, article titled The hysterical reactions in the aquaculture industry are erratic reports that recently, the city council for the northern city of Tromsø, Norway, adopted a new coastal climate and environmental plan and banned net pen salmon farming.  The councilors were aware that this was a controversial decision, however, coastal fisherman of Tromsø have lived on the sea for over 1,000 years and the industry is linked to the disappearance of the cod, shrimp, krill, crabs, lobster and salmon. The local government is committed to protecting the environment for the 75,000 citizens in their city.

Marit Bærøe, Seafood Norway’s northern aquaculture manager, attacked the decision, saying "the city’s politicians were not fully aware of the consequences of their decision"... 

Interesting... Consequences to whom?

Similar to BC, Tromsø permits where the farms can operate, while Norway's federal government in Oslo, permits the farms.

Skjalg Fjellheim, points out in his article that the salmon farmers are used to getting what they want, implying the industry's needs typically came before the needs of the local residents until Tromsø.

The  Norwegian Minister of Fisheries characterized as "a marketing tool for the industry," a job he reportedly actually held prior to becoming Minister.

Two lawyers working for the industry say that the Tromsø decision was illegal because it violates "political expectation."

When I read this the rubber hit the road, skid marks, full stop! Isn't that exactly what is happening here?

In Norway the industry claims that political expectations should override local governments and that it is illegal to deny them access to the ocean.

Here in Canada the Minister of Fisheries is:

• breaking the law*
• ignoring a federal court ruling
• violating First Nation rights

And today I have to ask is the federal government of Canada overriding the long-awaited Provincial decision on the 20 expired salmon farm tenures because the three Norwegian companies operating in BC have political expectation of Canada's Minister of Fisheries?

Stay tuned.

In other news Marine Harvest is spending $50 million changing its name to MOWI hoping to distract millennials from discovering the history behind that piece of farm salmon sashimi. 

 

 *(s. 56 Fishery General Regulations)

 

 

 

 

 

Day Five - was the transfer of Atlantic salmon into Swanson farm lawful?

Paul Seaman, lawyer for 'Namgis, challenged DFO's granting of a licence to Marine Harvest to transfer 1,000,000 Atlantic salmon from the Ocean Falls hatchery into the Swanson Island salmon farm sited in 'Namgis territory on the basis that DFO did not test for piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), and that the nation was not consulted despite the clear risk of harm associated with this transfer.

The 'Namgis tried to get an injunction against this transfer and while the court did not grant the injunction, Justice Mason did find evidence of serious and irreparable harm to the rights of 'Namgis.  Why, you might ask did the court allow the transfer?  Apparently only because the injunction was filed too close to the time that the smolts had to leave the hatchery.  Once farm salmon are prepped for transfer into saltwater, they have to be moved over a very short window of time or they can never enter saltwater throughout their life.

However, DFO and Marine Harvest were aware five months earlier that 'Namgis did not want the Swanson Island salmon farm restocked. 'Namgis members were occupying the farm and while council could not be a part of the occupation, they were informing all parties including the Province of BC, that they had very serious concerns with the transfer. They were clear that the Swanson Island salmon farm was a serious risk of impact to their title and rights, including their constitutionally protected right to fish. Wild salmon in 'Namgis territory have collapsed since the arrival of salmon farms, despite self-imposed fishing restrictions.  They communicated very strongly that the disease risk posed by 1,000,000 Atlantic salmon was too great given the ongoing decline in their fish since arrival of the industry.

'Namgis wrote to the then Minister of Dominic LeBlanc, recently convicted of a conflict of interest with another fishery and shuffled out of the position, that this transfer was unconstitutional and requested a meeting. They were ignored.

Marine Harvest claimed that the fish had been tested for PRV and were not infected, but when 'Namgis asked for further details about the tests Marine Harvest would not provide the data.  Apparently this information could not be shared as it was "sensitive information."  This does beg the question how is a disease-free status threatening to the company, shouldn't it be something they are proud of? Or are they afraid other nations will demand the same information?

In Marine Harvest's application to DFO for the transfer licence, the facility manager stated "I hereby attest the stock show no sign of clinical disease."  However, the disease that PRV causes cannot be seen until 5-9 months after the fish enter the saltwater, and in the previous case on this issue that I won, Justice Rennie quashed the use of this language, for this reason i.e. that using lack of visual detection of clinical signs is not a valid test for whether the fish are infected with PRV.  I won this case and DFO still refuses to acknowledge this decision. This is a threat to democracy.

Marine Harvest's application to DFO for the licence to transfer these fish includes attestation that the fish were free of IHN, VHS, ISA and several other viruses, but it was silent on PRV.  So while the company told 'Namgis the fish were PRV-free, they would not put this information on their application to DFO.

'Namgis's expert witnesses Drs. Routledge, Krkosek and Kibenge provided evidence that if PRV is in the farm salmon now in the Swanson Island farm, the virus could spread up Knights Inlet and out into Blackfish Sound for a distance of 30 miles in each direction, and that the state of the wild salmon populations in and around 'Namgis territory were in such a fragile state that they have little capacity to thrive and no ability to absorb further stressors. They stated that the impact of this virus could be expected to have far reaching effect, even to further deprive the southern resident orca of salmon, as Chinook from Puget Sound and the Fraser River swim into and through this area.  This information comes from the head recovery tags.

The most troubling revelation by the 'Namgis lawyer was that these affidavits by scientists studying both PRV and the impact of salmon farms in 'Namgis territory were blocked by the lawyers for Canada from reaching the Minister of Fisheries.  

These affidavits set out the potential for serious harm and provided that factual basis that justice Manson concluded represented risk of irreparable harm. and this evidence of harm triggered the duty to consult as a claim or right was potentially threatened by the transfer of one million Atlantic salmon into 'Namgis territory.  However, there was not consultation.

Cermaq and MH are currently are trying to have these affidavits struck from the record.

Marine Harvest and Cermaq, you have a problem. It appears that you are trying to hide information from reaching the Minister of Fisheries, and that the lawyers for the Department of Justice may also have tried to hide this information from the Minister. 

Lawyer for Canada

The lawyer for Canada got up and for 1.5 hours took the judge to the letters between DFO and 'Namgis.  She was trying to make the point that there had been consultation with the 'Namgis.  In these letters 'Namgis repeatedly state that they do not want salmon farms in their territory, because they are concerned about the impact of this industry on the wild salmon not only in their territory, but also salmon that use their territory, including specifically the risk from PRV-infection from Atlantic salmon.  The validity of these concerns are written into the law in section 56 of the Fishery General Regulations as unlawful.

The judge listened patiently and then asked was there any opportunity for 'Namgis to meet with DFO in regards specifically to the Swanson Island. The answer no. 

Similarly to yesterday, these lawyers tried to make the argument that if there was a duty to consult that they had done so in the form of sending information to 'Namgis.  I can see why First Nation governments are hesitant to attend meetings or even respond to letters as any communication from them is construed as consultation. Surely this is not actually consultation, by any definition.

Marine Harvest

Marine Harvest's lawyer said it is unfair to ask for "mandamus" when 'Namgis have no evidence that the Swanson fish have PRV.  Of course, the 'Namgis are barred access to the Atlantic salmon in the Swanson fish farm, and in the Ocean Falls hatchery for testing.  I get this response from the industry on my research, that I have not tested the fish in the farms, when of course I am prohibited from doing so. However stay tuned on that front...

Marine Harvest asked for a minimum of 4 months to remove its fish from 'Namgis territory if the judge rules that the transfer was unlawful.

 

Day Four - Strike the science, no consultation, Bad Faith?

On Thursday, the lawyer for Canada argued that the Minister of Fisheries, North Vancouver MP Jonathon Wilkinson, is not acting in Bad Faith when he permits farm salmon infected with piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) to be transferred into fish farms in Namgis territory.

One of the lawyer's main points was that DFO is concerned about protecting wild salmon "conservation units" (large groups of salmon which if wiped out will not be able to be restored) and was using the precautionary principle to maintain them. 

It was really hard to hear him say this in a court to a judge knowing that bears in the Ahta and Kakwekian Rivers in the Broughton are currently starving for lack of salmon.  'Namgis councilors attending the hearing have heard from bear tour operators who are going into Broughton rivers daily. As well, I know that almost no young salmon came out of those rivers this spring, as I have done 18 years of counting sea lice on those fish. This year where there should have been 100,000s, there were only 10s. DFO's response has been to stop counting salmon in these rivers. No data, no problem.  The Broughton conservation unit is going extinct and a group of us have been studying and publishing on the impact of salmon farms on these salmon. They are being eaten to death by sea lice from salmon farms and 45% of them are infected with a Norwegian strain of piscine reovirus.

Today, 3 1/2 year old J50 was officially counted as dead, her whole family and all her relatives starving towards extinction for lack of Chinook salmon.  This is not evidence of health salmon runs, this is what extinction looks like.

The 'Namgis and myself, would not be in court if DFO was in reality protecting wild salmon of this coast.

Then he moved on to "Duty to Consult."  Should the Minister of Fisheries have to consult with First Nations about the transfer of Atlantic salmon into their territories?  He said "no." This was an operational decision and besides they met with the 'Namgis in 2012 and they have a long history of working together.  He said DFO gave the 'Namgis lots of information at that meeting, and that was the consultation.  And besides, there is no adverse impact from PRV-infected farm salmon because it has been "shown not to cause disease so there is no duty to consult." 

Wow. All through this hearing DFO and industry act as if only one set of science exists, the science which sort of says that PRV was injected into salmon and did not cause disease, only it didn't really say that, it said the fish got some lesions, but only on the inside, so somehow that didn't count as disease.  However, the research that reports PRV invades the red blood cells of Chinook salmon and causes the cells to rupture en masse, is completely ignored.  In fact DFO threw that paper under the bus, without giving the authors the opportunity to defend their work. Warning: if your science crosses DFO policy, expect your work to be discredited.

The audacity of this approach from government is troubling.  To actually stand in a court of law and say there is no adverse impact from PRV on Pacific salmon is how we are losing every valuable fish stock in Canada including the North Atlantic cod - ignore anything or one who has a different view.

The lawyer for Canada also criticized 'Namgis for not responding to all DFO's meeting requests, but can you blame them?  They walk in the door and bam the consultation box is ticked. See ya next time. Fish farming is good to go.

DFO said they wrote 'Namgis and told them they are doing more research to learn about the impact of PRV which clearly indicates that they don't know everything they need to know, but they even won't screen farm salmon for it before putting them into 'Namgis territory. What's up with that? Are they afraid of the data that says which farms are infected and thus which runs of wild salmon are being exposed. This would give us a better picture of the impact of PRV on wild salmon.

Regarding the question, did DFO act in Bad Faith, the lawyer for Canada said the allegations of bad faith should be struck from the record, 'Namgis have failed to provide the evidence.

Cermaq

Kevin O'Callahan, lawyer for Cermaq told the court he wanted most if not all the 'Namgis affidavits struck from the record.  All the evidence on the concerns about the harm PRV may have on wild salmon that the 'Namgis case depends on, from science experts, should not be allowed to be part of this decision.  In addition, Cermaq wants all the freedom of Information documents on how government scientists found the disease caused by PRV back in 2008, but never reported it, even publishing papers saying he had not seen the disease BC, struck from the record.

Then he took a run at all of the scientists who provided affidavits for the 'Namgis. Basically anyone who associates with me can't be trusted.  Of course that would have to also include all the scientific journals we are publishing in. 

I was surprised that he thought a judge would find this at all credible.  Almost every time this industry gets up in this court they slander me.  He told the judge that I personally pay the lab doing the tests for PRV, as if I was that wealthy.  Actually I raise funds through the Raincoast Research Society where a tax receipt is issued to donors.  Personally, I have lived without running water for the past 4 years, because doing this work leaves no time to make a proper living. 

Where are honour and truth?

Marine Harvest

Chris Watson, lawyer for Marine Harvest said he "stood on the shoulders" of the Cermaq lawyer and agreed the 'Namgis evidence should be struck, but he raised the stakes and said it should be an "all or nothing approach" and suggested the Marine Harvest evidence could be struck too, if the 'Namgis evidence was disposed of.

He wanted 'Namgis chief councilor and hereditary chief Don Svanvik's affidavit struck too.

'Namgis

Sean Jones, lawyer for 'Namgis got 30 minutes to respond to the day. 

He said:

DFO has the duty to consult with First Nations on the policy not to screen farm salmon for the virus because it is a decision that is separate from the licence. 

He pointed out the inconsistencies in what DFO is saying - that we don't need to consult, but if we are wrong and we DO need to consult, then we already did because we sent 'Namgis information on PRV bundled in with other stuff

Because there is an existing decision by the Federal Court (Morton vs Canada) that ruled that the precautionary Principle is triggered, there is a heightened burden that minister has to establish that the science has advanced since this decision to the point that there truly is no concern that PRV is harming wild salmon.

The court already found that not screen farm salmon for PRV before transferring them into Canadian waters is  unlawful. The Minister appealed this decision, then dropped his appeal and just ignored the court ruling.

'Namgis told Marine Harvest that they did not have their permission to restock the Swanson Island salmon farm, but Marine Harvest ignored them and did this.  Today, we hear arguments on whether the Minister of Fisheries should have had to consult with 'Namgis before restocking the farm.

 

In memory of little J50, I am sorry beyond words for what we are doing to your world. RIP little one.

Day Three - the virus that isn't what they say it is

Today the 'Namgis lawyer, Sean Jones, was up. It seems that they have chosen a good lawyer.

DFO has taken the position that PRV does not cause disease in BC and that it is natural to BC.

Sean Jones, lawyer for Namgis, presented evidence that the Minister of Fisheries is acting in bad faith when it comes to permitting PRV-infected farm salmon to enter 'Namgis territory.

At the outset he made it clear that 'Namgis were in agreement with the 2015 Morton vs Canada ruling that all farm salmon should be screened for PRV and subjected to section 56 of the Fisheries General Regulations which prohibits fish infected with a disease agent from being transferred into Canadian waters.

This is the ruling that the Minister does not acknowlege.

Sean Jones walked the court through an unbelievable sequence of events wherein the BC government scientist in charge assessing farm salmon health audits found salmon with the heart-wasting disease, HSMI,  back in 2008, but instead of reporting it, he discussed the finding with the salmon farming industry and together they decided it was not, HSMI. By international standards, all other countries would have called it HSMI.   HSMI is caused by piscine orthoreovirus (PRV)

Download Marty May 21 2016 HSMI.pdf (380.5K)</a>

In 2011, DFO scientist, Dr. Kristi Miller (DFO) was contacted by Creative Salmon and asked if she could help them figure out why Chinook salmon in their farms in Tla-o-qui-aht territory, Tofino area, were turning yellow and dying. Dr. Miller found they were infected with PRV. 

Sean Jones then provided evidence that the BC government veterinarian in charge of farm salmon health, advised Creative Salmon, not to allow her to publish this result. 

This is explosive evidence because as DFO and the salmon farming industry were telling anyone who will listen that PRV does not cause disease in BC, they appear to have known and suppressed information showing otherwise!  Seven years later Dr. Miller persisted and got the research published, showing that PRV is causing red blood cells in Chinook salmon to fill up with the virus and burst, en masse, causing jaundice and organ failure. Because this research was hidden, millions of infected farm salmon poured into pens throughout southern BC. The public were assured that PRV is so harmless government does not have to screen farm salmon for it. 

The Minister of Fisheries is relying on his "PRV Policy" to explain why he doesn't require PRV screening of farm salmon.  DFO claims that he reviewed this policy every time new work was published and got the same result every time.  PRV is harmless, there is no need to test farm salmon for it.

In 2017, a team of international scientists led by DFO scientists diagnosed the disease HSMI in a BC salmon farm in Okisollo Channel in the Discovery Islands (DiCicco et al 2017).  This was a problem because the Minister's PRV Policy relied on the belief that PRV does not cause the disease HSMI in BC, that somehow PRV is harmless to salmon in British Columbia.

However, instead of changing his Policy in response to this new finding and order screening of all farm salmon for PRV, the Minister moved the goal posts.  Now he says PRV is not killing enough fish.  He won't consider PRV a threat to wild salmon unless it kills an entire farm...  PRV generally doesn't kill farm salmon, it only weakens them until they can barely move.  A salmon in a farm can survive lying motionless for weeks in a pen surrounded by predator nets, but a wild salmon would be eaten quickly by a whale, eagle or sea lion.

Every time DFO is confronted with science and has the choice to err on the side of precaution, they choose to be reckless

There are scientists in DFO who are publishing research, sometimes with Marine Harvest, that suggests that PRV is natural and harmless in BC.  Sean Jones brought up some of these papers.

One stated that they had "ruled out" that PRV could have been imported into BC. Jones pointed out that this paper had been "corrected," the authors had to admit publicly in the journal they had "overstated" this result, they had not ruled out introduction of PRV from another country such as Norway. (Siah et al 2016)

In another paper, DFO injected Chinook salmon with PRV and reported there was no sign of disease, no jaundice, no HSMI and so the Pacific coast strain of PRV is not harmful to Pacific salmon (Garver et al 2017).  

However, when the lead author of this paper was examined by the 'Namgis legal team he admitted, that he did not examine the fish for disease in the time range that PRV is known to cause disease in other salmon. As well, 87% of the salmon injected with PRV had internal lesions that are considered a symptom of jaundice.  None of the control fish that had not received the injection had these lesions.

So DFO was relying on a study, that claimed to show no impact of PRV on Chinook salmon, but in fact did show impact on Chinook salmon.

There was a lot more of this type of information revealed.  Hopefully I can post the transcript in its entirety some day.  A lot of the material covered was from Freedom of Information requests that I have made.  It was good to hear this being brought to the attention of a judge, in front of 16 lawyers and members of the 'Namgis council. 

Then the lawyer for Canada got up to address the judge.

He said:

The 'Namgis policy on PRV (that they want to keep infected fish out of their territory) is "unreasonable"

"DFO has the science and the monitoring down"

"The DFO management regime provides comfort - it is not a free-for-all there are rules..."

"PRV is not of concern"

“In 30 years we know there has been no outbreak of disease we are on top of it,”

We will hear more from Canada tomorrow...