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) 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.
"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
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"
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