News Release vs Actual Sea Lice Study
Submitted to the Vancouver Sun for publication, Feb. 11, 2011
In the story “Fish farms linked to sea lice infestations among wild sockeye,” which ran Feb. 11, 2011, the author shows that he either didn’t read the actual study, or didn’t feel the need to report on it.
You see, while the actual study is peer-reviewed and therefore, held to some standard, a press release can take whatever twist it likes. In this case, it’s only the twist that was reported by Stephen Hume.
While the press release states that sea lice from salmon farms have been “fingered in Fraser Sockeye die-off,” the actual study says “it is unlikely that the average number of C.clemensi (sea lice) observed in the Sockeye (2-3 lice/fish) would cause direct mortality for healthy fish.”
Need another example? While the press release suggests that a processing plant may be the source of an unusual spike in sea lice numbers at one sampling site away from farms, the study says “alternatively, this single location may have been home to a large congregation of resident fishes that were heavily infected with sea lice.”
Research is good – concerned British Columbians both inside and out of the industry need to know more about the environment around them. Not fully reporting on that research however, does a disservice to the whole discussion.
Cory Percevault
Campbell River
