IntraFish say that the news will have come as a shock to BC salmon farmers because a year ago, a draft version suggested they would be awarded a yellow-listing. Whilst BC salmon farmers may be shocked, we at Callander McDowell are not in the least bit surprised. What we are surprised about is that anyone in the seafood industry gives the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch programme any credibility at all. They are simply an irrelevance.
Monterey Bay Aquarium say that they hand out thousands of their seafood guides every year but we suspect that most end up where they belong - in the trash. Consumers are simply not interested. Now before anyone gets down to write to tell us we are wrong, we would like to cite one simple example. According to NOAA fishery statistics, the US imported 280,000 tonnes of fresh and frozen salmon in 2013, which presumably was bought by US consumers. This roughly equates to 1,875 million portions which means that a lot of consumers are completely ignoring the Monterey Bay’s advice to avoid eating farmed salmon and our advice to the salmon industry is that we should follow the example of these consumers and we should not only ignore their advice but we should ignore their existence too, unless anyone wants to take a look around their aquarium as a tourist.
IntraFish say that the draft report they saw had rated the BC salmon farming industry as 4.72 which falls in the yellow category and because there was only one red criterion (disease) and no critical criteria, the yellow ranking was final. IntraFish then say that in the last year something changed but no-one has been able to say what. We, at Callander McDowell, would like to try.
It is amazing how quickly we all forget but it wasn’t so long ago that independent researcher, Vivian Krause exposed how the big charitable foundations used their financial resources to fund active campaigns against the salmon farming industry. Vivian called it the demarketing of salmon. One of the foundations that she exposed as funding 56 different organisations to sway the market against farmed salmon was the David & Lucile Packard Foundation. Details of Vivian’s findings can be found in an article published by the Financial Post in 2011 (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/26/packard%E2%80%99s-push-against-b-c-salmon/).
It is likely that the negative publicity generated by Vivian about these campaigns has helped force the Foundations to be less open about their activities against the salmon farming industry but we are sure it continues, but more covertly. They have not changed their views thus the news that the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme are to retain a red listing for farmed salmon comes as no surprise. We do not believe that the Seafood Watch programme is as impartial as we might suppose.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium was established in 1978 and the $55 million cost of construction was made possible through a one-off personal gift from David and Lucille Packard. The Executive Director of the aquarium is Julie Packard who just happens to be one of David and Lucile’s children. Julie also sits on the board of the David & Lucile Packard Foundation.
In her article, Vivian Krause suggests that the David & Lucile Packard Foundation has been instrumental in boosting sales of Alaskan salmon by helping those who have actively denigrated farmed salmon. The same picture emerges from the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme who list farmed salmon as one to be avoided whilst Alaskan salmon is deemed to be the Best Choice. If Seafood Watch were under the imprssion that anyone followed its advice, then the idea of changing the status of farmed salmon to a better choice might be considered damaging to the Alaskan salmon industry. Consequently, farmed Atlantic salmon must remain red listed and as one to be avoided. Our response to the Monterey Bay Aquarium is to hold up a red card and state quite clearly, that they are definitely one to be avoided. Instead of trying to ingratiate themselves to Seafood Watch, the salmon farming industry should just consider the Monterey Bay Aquarium a complete irrelevance.
Postscript – IntraFish point out that Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch had been benchmarking other certification programmes to see whether they meet their own standards. In the case of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council certified seafood, most have met the Seafood Watch Good Alternative standard but farmed salmon does not. Ken Peterson of the Monterey Bay Aquarium said that ‘as of now, ASC farmed salmon does not benchmark as a good alternative’. We can only wonder if there was, for example, Alaskan shrimp, whether ASC shrimp would have reached this standard.
As we mentioned in a previous commentary, fish and seafood is either sustainable or it isn’t. There is no good alternative.
Related articles:
Of "fairness", balance & equal standards when assessing so-called “wild”, and farmed salmon
COLOUR BLIND? Why was a “Yellow”/”Best Alternative” rating recommendation for BC farmed salmon not released since 2012, and ‘reviewed’-down many times until it became “Red”/"Avoid"???
An Open Letter to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme and to its funder, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation...
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/fairness-balance-equal-standards-when-assessing-so-called-%E2%80%9Cwild%E2%80%9D-and-farmed-salmon
Monterey Bay flip-flops on farmed salmon sustainability
Intrafish, April 23, 2014
A recent draft of Seafood Watch ranking put BC farmed salmon in the 'good alternative' column, but an unexplained change of heart now likely means aquarium will continue to encourage consumers to avoid farmed salmon altogether.
Salmon farmers in British Columbia thought they were going to be the first region listed as a "good alternative" or "yellow" by Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program, but when the report comes out, sources close to process told IntraFish they'll all be seeing "red."...
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/monterey-bay-flip-flops-farmed-salmon-sustainability
