Money Talks: The Times newspaper reported this week that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has called out Elon Musk for spreading ‘lies and misinformation’. He went on to say that those spreading lies and disinformation as far and wide as possible are not interested in the issues, they are interested in themselves.
Of course, we in the salmon farming industry are used to wealthy individuals criticising the industry based on untruths and misinformation. The problem is that big names generate press coverage and in combination with a long-term narrative against salmon farming ensures that even the most unlikely story about the sector gets widespread publicity.
It is only necessary to look back to Victorian times to see the great philanthropists spending their wealth to help the public good. Now it seems that some of those with wealth for reasons best known to themselves are more intent on destroying people’s livelihoods just because they want to demonstrate what a big influencer they are.
Of course, it is just not those individuals with money that seem determined to destroy the salmon farming sector. When Vivian Krause appeared on the Salmon Farming Inside and Out podcast I was reminded that she uncovered that the large charitable foundations were pouring huge amounts of money into anti-marketing campaigns in the US at the end of the 1990s. I seem to remember that over $33 million was spent on campaigns like Farmed & Dangerous. These campaigns failed as US consumers decided they rather liked to eat imported farmed salmon more than Pacific wild salmon. Consequently, the funding started to dry up, but it would have been wrong to assume that the funds ceased completely. The continual campaigns against the industry are funded in some way or another. By coincidence, the latest issue of on-line magazine Fish Farming Expert includes an article which asks where the funding for NGOs that attack salmon farming in Chile comes from. This is a major issue of the industry however what always makes me laugh is that the industry is regularly accused of tobacco industry (i.e. unlimited funds supposedly covering up wrong doing) type campaigning against the critics.
Perhaps, someone might like to tell me where to apply for such funding.
Damp squib: Intrafish published an opinion piece which suggest that 2025 will be a year of an explosive salmon cocktail. The piece was written by DNB Senior President Dag Sletmo in which he says that three key ingredients and the interaction between them will shape the future of the salmon industry. I am not so convinced.
The three ingredients are a bad reputation, a heavy regulatory agenda and new technology. He says that the first ingredient is a negative factor whilst the new technology is positive.
According to Dag Sletmo, last year the industry took a beating on reputation, and he says that this is not good in a year with a heavy political and regulatory agenda. It is also a year when politicians will consider more environmental flexibility, and more flexibility will inevitably mean more new technology.
Mr Sletmo says that he hears more and more people in the industry calling for a paradigm shift. He says in many ways we have come to the end of the road for how the industry operates today. He adds there is no volume growth, and the so-called Traffic Light System has not worked as intended. He says that at the same time society’s expectations are increasing on many fronts especially on animal welfare. In many industries players can regulate themselves to drive development. In aquaculture it is more complicated because whilst the industry itself has responsibilities, so do the authorities.
And there is the real issue, the explosive cocktail of three ingredient doesn’t really exists. They are all in fact the same. A similar scenario is playing out in Scotland as well as in other salmon producing countries. Salmon actually doesn’t have a bad reputation. Certainly, the demand for salmon shows that consumers are happy to buy it. What salmon has is a number of extremely well-funded groups who are deliberately spreading, as highlighted in the previous commentary, lies and misinformation and have been doing so for many years. These lies and misinformation are based on the individual agendas of various campaigning groups, the largest of which is the wild fish sector who for years have blamed salmon farming for the decline of the wild fish that they want to catch and kill for sport. These groups deliberately refuse to engage with the industry because they don’t want to hear that the lies and misinformation they spread are exactly that, lies and misinformation. Their cause is helped by some research scientists who have recognised the availability of an almost unlimited funding pot that will ensure research intended to undermine the salmon industry will keep them in work forever.
The key new regulations of salmon farming, the Traffic Light System and the SEPA sea lice risk framework have nothing to do with consumer concerns about mortality, welfare etc but about trying to protect wild fish stocks not for protection sakes, but to allow the anglers to continue their sport. A few years ago, one of the angling groups in Scotland realised that consumers didn’t care in slightest that salmon farming might have an impact on wild fish and thus their campaigning to persuade consumers to stop eat farming salmon was a waste of time. They then decided that they would focus on a campaign to highlight one negative aspect of salmon farming and that was mortality. This is why mortality is high on the list of regulatory needs, but it remains of little concern to consumers.
Finally, I suspect that there are few people around today who remember when growing salmon in closed containment was proposed. The idea did not come from the salmon farming industry, who would have naturally adopted such a production method if it made common sense. In fact, it came from the angling sector who believed that if farmed and wild salmon could be separated by an impermeable barrier, then wild salmon would abound. Sadly, their view was misplaced form the outset, not because growing salmon in closed containment is a highly expensive and highly risky business but because even if all the salmon today was farmed in closed containment, wild fish stocks would be in exactly the same precarious position they are in now.
What is needed is that the Government should stop relying on the views of a small group of scientists and the wild fish sector, both of whom have their own vested interest and open the debate to all. Challenging the wild sector, whether it be in Norway, Scotland, Iceland or Canada by getting the debate into the same room might help improve reputation. It might rationalise regulation to ensure it is only used where it is needed and finally, it will cause a question mark over whether much of the new technology is actually needed.
Oxford: This week the annual Oxford Farming Conference took place in Oxford with a programme intended to discuss a wide range of issues concerning agriculture in Britain today. Running in parallel to this meeting is the Oxford Real Farming Conference looking at real food and sustainable farming. Topics for discussion including ‘Doing Dairy Differently, What does an Anti-Fascist farming movement look like? and ensuring a just transition from intensive livestock.
On the second day, there is an hour meeting to discuss ‘Can Farmed Salmon Ever be Sustainable? I suspect that this will be a short meeting because those presenting will simply say no.
The session is described as
Often touted as an environmentally-friendly alternative to other forms of protein, in reality, industrial salmon farming wreaks havoc on the surrounding marine environment, has severe costs for the planet in terms of resources used, and facilitates the suffering of millions of fish. These issues apply to all types of farmed salmon, be it welfare assured, certified ‘organic’, sustainable, fresh or smoked. How do we tackle these issues and make a shift towards more responsible fish…
The speakers are Corin Smith, Rachel Mulrenan, Caroline Bennett &Francois Beyers. The speaker profiles as stated are
Caroline Bennett
Caroline is the founder of Sole of Discretion, a fishmonger based in Plymouth that helps consumers identify and buy fish exclusively from low impact boats, and in so doing helping small-scale fishers thrive. She is also the founder of London sushi restaurant, Moshi Moshi that focuses on ethical, locally sourced catch of outstanding quality. Her knowledge is informed by Slow Fish.
Corin Smith
Corin is a salmon farming investigator and campaigner, working to end the degradation of our marine ecosystems by open cage salmon farming. Through investigations, education, media engagement, campaigning and community empowerment he ensures local voices are heard and fairly represented. He advocates for direct participation and powers in development decisions. He supports industries aligned with an abundance of nature.
Francois Beyers
Francois spent his childhood on the beaches in Cape Town, surfing and diving, fostering an enduring love for the ocean. This passion for the marine world led him to co-found Câr-y-Môr. Based in St Davids, Pembrokeshire, it’s an ocean farm, seafood processing business, and education outreach organisation. It’s also a Community Benefit Society dedicated to enhancing the Welsh coastline and community wellbeing.
Rachel Mulrenan
Rachel is Scotland Director at WildFish, focusing on the farmed salmon campaign (including Off the table) and the organisation’s wider work across Scotland. A trained journalist, Rachel has spent the past seven years campaigning for greater sustainability across a number of industries, from fashion to food. Prior to joining WildFish, she worked at the Changing Markets Foundation and led a campaign highlighting the unsustainable use of wild fish as feed in global aquaculture.
For a farming conference, whether real or not, it does seem rather strange that none of the speakers are fish farmers or have any farming experience of salmon.
The reality is that no-one attending this conference is interested as to knowing whether salmon farming is sustainable or not. This is simply an attack on the industry speaking to an audience that are largely against the idea of commercial farming.
It’s a shame that if someone from the salmon farming sector also offered to speak, (which they did), these listed speakers would probably run a mile.
It’s no wonder that that the industry’s reputation is brought into question, when it proves so difficult to challenge such unsubstantiated negative views,
Not all bad news: Fish Focus has revealed that Mowi Scotland has been granted a Royal Warrant of Appointment of the supply of fresh salmon to His Majesty the King.
The Royal Warrant of Appointment was established in the 15th century by the Lord Chamberlain. Approved merchants who supplied the Royal Household had the right to use the Royal Arms in connection with their business and on their product or packaging.
Mowi Scotland have said that this is an honour to be the only supplier of fresh salmon to His Majesty the King. The Royal Warrant is shown by the Royal Crest on their boxes of salmon.
This is really good news for Mowi Scotland and the Scottish industry as a whole. It shows that not everybody sees Scottish salmon in a negative light as many critics would have the media believe, However, I wonder whether His Majesty has passed this good news onto the Atlantic Salmon Trust of which he is Patron. In their 2024 update sent out in December, The Atlantic Salmon Trust state that:
“The Atlantic Salmon Trust is wholly opposed to unsustainable open pen aquaculture. It is our view that wild salmon must be protected from the risks associated with sea lice from salmon farms in all sea lochs, sounds and coastal waters.”
Clearly, His Majesty the King doesn’t appear to share the AST’s view and is happy to have fresh salmon supplied to the Royal Household.
Strangely, I couldn’t find any reference in the AST 2024 update to protecting wild salmon from being killed for sport.