Feds Plan to Subsidize Fish Farms

Anne Mosness was captain of salmon fishing boats in Alaska and Washington for more than 25 years. Her fondest memories are fishing with her father, daughter and son. Anne is West Coast coordinator of the Marine and Fish Conservation Program, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Our region’s fishing families share many similarities with small farmers, often facing foul weather when work has to be done and taking pride in passing skills, traditions and values through generations. Both are hurt by cheap imports, sinking prices and government policies that favor corporate producers and absentee owners.

Just as agribusinesses are transforming the terrestrial landscape from family farms to mega-feedlots and horizon reaching fields of genetically engineered crops, our local waters and oceans are targeted for exploitation. Wild fish and communities that depend on sustainable fisheries are at risk.

Significant sacrifices have been made to rebuild wild salmon populations and environmental groups recognize that harvesters of wild fish are often the strongest voices for conservation and habitat restoration. As the Audubon Guide to Seafood states, “Salmon are most at risk not from commercial fishers—who are the chief economic force behind their protection—but from logging, agriculture and dams.”

On June 8, the chairs of the PEW Oceans Commission and U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released a joint statement stating that “restoring depleted fish stocks would yield significant economic benefits” and would “increase catch levels by 64 percent, adding $1.3 billion to the U.S. economy.”

Local boats are engaged in another season harvesting salmon, blackcod, halibut and other abundant wild fish for consumers to enjoy. Instead of focusing on how to restore wild fish populations, federal legislation has been introduced that poses huge risks to wild fish and the economic stability of businesses and families throughout the Pacific region.

In our state, fish farm proponents have conducted feasibility studies and drafted legislation that opens the Strait of Juan de Fuca to marine feedlot operations.

The waters from three to 200 miles offshore are called the “Exclusive Economic Zone” (EEZ) and the Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wants to open these ocean commons for business.

The “National Aquaculture Act of 2005,” introduced on June 7 would make NOAA the lead agency for promoting and managing industrial fish farms in the EEZ. The legislation provides streamlined “one stop” permitting and allows long-term leases with very little oversight. Written into the legislation is an exemption to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, so foreign corporations can own fish farms in our federal waters. A fivefold increase in the value of domestic farmed fish production is planned by 2025, from $900 million to $5 billion.

A recurrent rationale for government subsidies of industrial aquaculture is that it’s needed for national or food security, based on the myth that a trade deficit in seafood leaves us at the mercy of unstable foreign corporations and countries that grow cheap shrimp, salmon and other farm fish.

Propagandizing that the United States missed the boat by exercising caution and limiting salmon farming because of environmental concerns, aquaculture speculators are rushing back through the revolving door to cash in on this next wave of industrial fish production.

Several kinds of cod, halibut, tuna and a variety of tropical and genetically engineered species are in tanks and labs waiting for the go-ahead from Congress and agencies that should be protecting human health and the environment. Sea Grant, another program under the Department of Commerce/NOAA, is spending millions of dollars on experimental production of genetically engineered fish.

An application to grow genetically engineered salmon is being considered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if approved, would open the floodgates to production of other transgenic animals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is also investing heavily in fish rearing projects.

Tax dollars are funding growth of the fish farm industry in much the way that agribusinesses receive money for research and development, consultants and feasibility studies, and for marketing and product promotions.

Some research expenditures are futuristic. Designs include computerized fish growing operations that are huge cages 174 by 270 feet hitching rides for months on ocean currents as fish fatten inside. Other facilities are 20-ton buoys or submerged spheres as tall as buildings that can be monitored from desks on shore.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an assessment of risks is required and this legislative environmental impact statement (LEIS) also ensures the public receives necessary information so they can comment on issues that directly affect them and commonly owned resources. Although NOAA was asked to conduct the required LEIS by 15 members of Congress, including Representatives Jay Inslee and Jim McDermott, no action has been taken.

By locating operations offshore, local laws and regulations can be subverted. Alaska prohibits fish farms in their state waters, yet under NOAA’s legislation, floating feedlots could be placed as close as three miles to the richest salmon producing rivers in the world. Cordova, near the famed Copper River fishery, has been described by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens as a possible site for fish farms.

Washington, California and Oregon have bans on production of genetically engineered fish that also would be circumvented by placing fish farms three miles offshore. Although production and escapes of genetically engineered fish alarm scientists, NOAA has stated, “priorities to conserve genetic biodiversity should not deter research to improve breeds.” At this time, the FDA is considering approval to raise and sell transgenic AquAdvantage™, a genetically engineered salmon. This would be the first genetically modified animal protein to be foisted on U.S. consumers.

Even if laws of individual states are respected, pathogens, parasites, chemicals and escaped fish are not stationary in a fluid environment. Economic devastation also cannot be contained. Production in one region can collapse fish prices and economies in another, as salmon farming has proven.

The explosive growth of marine fish farming has occurred worldwide because true costs are not paid by the industry. The volume of untreated, non-sterile fish feces flushing from open pens has been calculated by some scientists as exceeding human effluence of nearby cities.

One of the least calculated subsidies is provided by Nature’s finite ability to assimilate biological and chemical waste. Touting that the oceans will not be affected by massive introductions of harmful pollutants is like rationalizing longer smokestacks protect air quality.

The damage from industrial fish farming is largely under the waterline and out of sight, so the industry has gotten away with pollution that would have closed down comparably dirty land-based operations.

From 1996 to 1999, more than 610,000 nonnative Atlantic salmon escaped from salmon farms into Washington waters. These nonnative invasive fish compete for food and spawning territory with local wild fish and carry potentially epidemic parasites and pathogens. In British Columbia, several significant wild salmon populations are facing extinction from sea lice infestations released by farms concentrated along the pathways of migrating juvenile wild salmon.

Arthur H. Whiteley, Professor Emeritus, Department of Zoology at the University of Washington, compared waste generated by four fish farms near Bainbridge Island to that from 830,000 Seattle residents who paid for an expensive sewage collection system to protect Puget Sound waters.

The West Point Treatment Plant cost more than $573 million to build and $80 million per year to operate. It releases around four million pounds of sterilized total suspended solids into Puget Sound annually.

Dr. Whiteley calculated the amount of waste flushing into Puget Sound from salmon farms in Rich Passage, across from Seattle. Based on inputs of feed and numbers of fish permitted by the Department of Ecology, he determined these fish farms produce more than 5,180,000 pounds of feces annually. Fish farm sewage is untreated and non-sterile and the cost to fish farmers for this use of our public waters is zero.

Fish farming is promoted as creating food for a hungry world yet feeding caged animals fish diminishes rather than increases protein available for human consumption. Close to one third of the world’s annual fish harvest is used for production of fishmeal and oil for animal feed. A net loss of fish protein results from aquaculture since two to five times more wild-caught fish are needed for feed than is produced in fish farms.

According to research conducted by Jeremy Brown, Food and Society Policy Fellow and salmon troller, and originally published in Whatcom Watch (see January 2003 issue), the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (established in 2000 by Congress and appointed by President Bush) has conducted its business quietly while it recommends opening up the offshore waters to more industrial activities. The 16-member commission includes “nine with direct ties to the oil, mining, development, aquaculture and waste disposal industries.”

Another piece of Congressional legislation, the “Rigs to Reefs” bill, furnishes a loophole for oil companies to escape from lease agreements requiring removal of offshore oil platforms and site cleanup when oil pumping ceases. By converting to a fish farm, companies can dodge decommissioning costs of up to $30 million dollars while avoiding future liability for environmental disasters.

Despite rosy press releases, the local salmon farming industry is in trouble. Washington’s salmon farms have been owned by a multinational company, Pan Fish, operating farms near Bainbridge Island, Anacortes and Port Angeles. The marine operations and salmon hatchery facility were sold recently to a local company that buys and processes wild and farmed fish.

So while the state has lost an absentee landlord with a shabby environmental record, the new buyer, Smoki Foods Inc. comes with its own dubious history that includes breaking commitments to fishermen and the illegal discharge of industrial waste.

A Department of Ecology news release, November 6, 2003, states that Smoki Foods Inc. received a fine for discharging industrial wastewater without a permit. The company has also received warning letters from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Food and Drug Administration, for repeated violations of seafood processing regulations.

Another news story reports that Smoki Foods backed out of operations with Haines Fisheries in the middle of the summer, leaving a fleet of nearly 20 commercial fishing boats to find alternative markets mid-season.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca has been targeted for industrial farming of several species. A report by the Washington Fish Grower’s Association, funded by a grant from NOAA, stated the strait has “potential for net pen aquaculture and none of them should have significant, site specific resource or shoreline owner conflicts which prevented growth of the industry in Puget Sound.”

Dan Swecker, executive director of the Washington Fish Grower’s Association, admitted in a front page article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on August 23, 2004, that he is a fish farmer first and state senator second. About the plan to place fish farms in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, he says, “If you could do it on a massive enough scale, it could be worthwhile.”

In December 2004, Olympic Aquaventure, LLC, sought permits from the Department of Ecology and other regulatory agencies to grow black cod and ling cod in submerged cages near Port Angeles. The plan calls for a fish hatchery and processing plant at the former Rayonier mill site, despite contamination with PCBs, dioxins, arsenic, lead and other substances from decades of industrial activity.

Senator Swecker now is sponsoring legislation in Olympia (SB 5787) to shortcut the permit process and reduce oversight for placing fish farms in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Moreover, Washington’s fish farmers requested last year, during a closed door legislative meeting, that they be exempted from paying the state minimum wage and providing mandated health care coverage. The committee has not yet acted upon that request.

Despite promises of employment, greater usage of high tech equipment and robotic operations has resulted in a declining number of jobs in the fish farm industry, even as production has increased.

Subsidized, industrial fish products flooding the marketplace can cause devastating economic downturns for once-successful family businesses. There’s a lot at stake. In addition to what’s happened with salmon, wild black cod (also known as sablefish) has a value of more than $141 million annually to local boats. Pacific halibut, another abundant and high value wild fish, brought $168 million to harvesters in 2004, many living in the Puget Sound area.

According to a study by Dr. Rosamond Naylor, Senior Fellow in Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University, commercial fishing incomes and license values dropped dramatically when farmed salmon replaced wild salmon in restaurants and stores. Between 1990 and 2002, the price for many limited-entry salmon permits in Alaska fell by 75 to 90 percent, plummeting in one fishery—Bristol Bay—from $300,000 to $30,000. Thousands of families lost significant income in the last decade because of artificially low fish prices and many face serious debt and bankruptcy.

After several years of extremely poor prices and reduced processing capacity, last winter the Bristol Bay Native Corporation invited oil exploration under the waters of the richest wild salmon producing region of the world. Other remote villages are considering opening up their coastlines to oil, gas and mineral extraction, further jeopardizing wild fish, the natural environment, traditional cultures and economies.

As consumers are becoming more knowledgeable about the environmental and health risks of farmed seafood, they are influencing retail markets and distributors. Albertson’s Inc., the third-largest food retailer in the United States, recently sent a letter to the salmon farming industry and its lobby group stating that it must adopt technologies to eliminate disease transfer to wild stocks and escapes from salmon farms if they want to continue exporting to U.S. consumers.

The Whatcom County and San Juan County councils, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, International Longshore and Warehouse Union and Washington State Democrats have passed resolutions opposed to fish farming or offshore exploitation.

At farmer’s markets, through the slow food movement, in stores such as Puget Consumer’s Co-op (PCC), thoughtful people appreciate and select regional and artisan foods, from heritage turkeys to dozens of varieties of locally grown fruits and vegetables. Wild fish are especially prized for their health-enhancing omega-3 fish oils, high quality protein, diversity of species and flavors. Many consumers also understand that their conscientious purchases help support sustainable family fishing businesses and build strong communities that value and protect the natural environment.

Our oceans and coastal waters should not be for sale. Call your elected Representatives and Senators and let them know we’re counting on them to be wise and courageous and to keep our oceans wild. Tell them no to NOAA’s offshore aquaculture bill. In our state, say no to exploitation of the beautiful Strait of Juan de Fuca and other marine waters. And for your health and the health of coastal communities, “go wild” for wild fish. §

An earlier version of this article was published in Sound Consumer. Reprinted with permission of Sound Consumer, a publication of PCC Natural Markets, a consumer-owned cooperative based in Seattle.

http://www.iatp.org/fish or email eatwildfish@aol.com.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2003news/2003-212.html.

http://www.ufa-fish.org/update/03/072503.htm.

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/m4133n.pdf.