AQUACULTURE’S NEXT WAVE THREATENS TO SWAMP COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
MOVING OFFSHORE,
OUT OF SIGHT AND FREE OF SCRUTINY
By Natasha Benjamin
Fishermen’s News December 2002
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is promoting aquaculture, again. But this time it’s not onshore or along the coast, but offshore where the operations will largely be out of the public’s view and outside of most regulators’ purview. Presently, our federal fisheries agency is busily developing a “Code of Conduct on Responsible Aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)” (3 to 200 miles offshore) in this zeal to promote fish farming in the oceans, including in submerged net pens and alongside oil rigs.
Almost all ocean aquaculture today in the U.S. takes place in state waters (the first 3 miles offshore) with salmon and shellfish being the most abundant. And some states, such as Alaska, have banned finfish aquaculture in their waters. But all that may soon change. The move of the aquaculture industry toward developing beyond the 3-mile state water boundary is being driven by a number of different factors including space limitations in state waters and competition with other sectors within state waters, such as commercial fishing.
State coastal regulations also control development in the coastal zone, while in federal waters there is currently no legal framework for developing aquaculture in the EEZ. This is giving the aquaculture industry free reign over these waters. Of course what the industry claims is that moving farms offshore alleviates environmental degradation by “diluting” pollution emanating from the net pens.
In this rush to promote offshore aquaculture, however, is one big question: when did the general public decide it wanted to develop fish farms in our federal water and have our tax dollars pay for research and development of these activities? When did we decide that it was a better idea to spend money subsidizing this industry when we have fisheries collapsing and fishery dependent communities falling apart?
On a global scale aquaculture production is increasing at a rapid rate, outpacing projections from the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO). In addition to developing offshore aquaculture, the inshore salmon farming industry is expanding. Norway is currently the top producer of farmed salmon, but Chile will most likely surpass it within two years or less. There has been a strong trend toward vertical integration of the farms and now at least six companies produce more than half of the global production. In the past decade Atlantic salmon farming has increased by 255 percent in production with over one million metric tons of worldwide production in 2001. It has been predicted that global production of farmed salmon can be increased at least 10 percent annually due to low production costs and higher meat yield. Remember, however, that the lower production costs are coming not merely from technological breakthroughs, but mostly because the farms are “externalizing” many of their costs. Costs for programs aimed at recovery of escaped salmon, for example, are being picked up by the public, as are the pollution costs and destruction of public wild stocks.
In the U.S., farmed salmon production is second to catfish in terms of production pounds. Given the predictions in the increase in global aquaculture, one must ask where we are going to put all these farms? It has been shown that onshore closed systems are not economically feasible, or so the industry claims, thus aquaculture is looking offshore to create business opportunities. Technology is gaining momentum in developing cages that will sustain open ocean conditions (or most of them anyway) to allow for rearing of fish in the open ocean.
In addition there is new technology to grow fish even faster, by genetically modifying them. The first of these “frankenfish” will be the Atlantic salmon, which is currently being reviewed now by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for commercialization approval.
Within the aquaculture industry there are at least three significant threats to wild fisheries. They are: 1) the development of aquaculture in the EEZ; 2) the salmon farming industry; and 3) a pending application to produce genetically modified salmon. All of these activities have ecosystem and market impacts that we are already seeing the effects of.
There is currently no federal framework in place to regulate this aquaculture in the EEZ, even though NMFS is actively promoting fish farms in the open ocean. In August 2002, NMFS announced the availability of its draft “Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ.” This document was not widely publicized and most did not even know of its existence, especially within fishing communities. NMFS’s rationale for aquaculture development in the EEZ is based on the Aquaculture Policy drafted by the Department of Commerce in 1999 calling for a “fivefold increase in the value of domestic aquaculture production by the year 2025, and threefold increase in employment.” In addition, the 5-year Fisheries Strategic Plan for Sustainable Fisheries by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposes a three-pronged strategy for marine aquaculture’s primary producers to: 1) Develop and implement environmentally sound aquaculture technologies and practices; 2) Promote the commercial rearing of at least seven new species; and 3) Identify areas in coastal waters and the EEZ suitable for environmentally sounds aquaculture development.
This Code of Conduct is basically a voluntary set of guidelines which doesn’t actually regulate anything. But it does promote aquaculture. It is stated in the Code that it “can be used to encourage timely investment in aquaculture opportunities in the EEZ…” This is a clear indication NMFS is pushing aquaculturists not to miss any opportunities for development in the EEZ even though there is no regulatory framework in place. NMFS is known for its over zealousness in developing underutilized species and building up the fleet in the commercial fishing industry – and look where that has left us today. Let’s not make the same mistake in farming the open ocean. We do not know enough about escapements and disease transfer to take the risk of offshore aquaculture. The Code also discusses zoning of the ocean to establish aquaculture areas without consideration of assessing fishing grounds and navigation.
There are a number of concerns that have been raised about the Code. First of all, this Code is premature. That is because there has been no public discourse whatsoever on whether aquaculture should be developed within the EEZ in the first place, much less the problems and implications of such development.
Second, as it is stated in the proposed Code, little information is available on this open ocean aquaculture; it is incumbent, therefore, on NMFS to proceed in a precautionary mode.
Third, it is apparent that NMFS is promoting open ocean aquaculture prior to fully understanding the implications and before any regulatory framework is in place. NMFS should have learned from the mistake it made following passage of the Fishery Conservation & Management Act of 1976 (the “Magnuson-Stevens Act”), when it pushed a large build-up of the trawl and longline fleets (“Americanization”) without having adequately assessed the fish stocks to determine what level of fishing effort those stocks could sustain.
Fourth, the ecosystem impacts of aquaculture in the EEZ are far reaching and include the risk of escapes, disease transfer and chemical dispersal into the environment. The Code does not discuss monitoring as a critical part of this type of aquaculture.
Fifth, the siteing of aquaculture systems in the EEZ must include: assessing bottom habitats and sensitive areas including Essential Fish Habitats, reviewing impacts on navigation and important fishing grounds, and reviewing the interactions between farmed species and native species in that area.
The Code also discusses stimulating the development of aquaculture in areas with declining fisheries. We would hope to see NMFS instead use their efforts to restore habitats and work with fishermen in developing more selective gear -- which are most likely the solutions to many fisheries declines. Promoting aquaculture does not help fishing communities, it pushes them out of markets; escaped fish compete with the native fish which communities depend on, and it causes environmental degradation to the ecosystem on which the native fish depend. In addition most of finfish aquaculture depends on small pelagic fish -- caught in the wild -- which the entire marine ecosystem depends on. Fishing out small pelagic fish and grinding them up into fishmeal does not help fishing communities. For more information on the Code of Conduct go to: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture.htm.
A group out the University of Delaware’s Center for the Study of Marine Policy has developed a “Policy Framework for Offshore Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile U.S. Ocean Zone” that assessed federal policy with respect to the development of aquaculture in federally-controlled waters of the U.S. coast. This project was undertaken considering that at present there is no explicit policy framework at the federal level for managing and providing guidance for the development of offshore aquaculture. The Framework was developed by an Advisory Committee composed of representatives from the aquaculture and fishing industries, environmental groups, state and federal agencies, and Congress to define the problems challenging the development of an offshore aquaculture industry in the U.S. and defining policy solutions. The Advisory Committee has held regional meetings with stakeholders to get input on the proposed framework, but which was developed with the understanding and assumption that aquaculture in the EEZ is inevitable. Again the public was never given the opportunity to discuss this development of moving aquaculture offshore in the first place. This framework will be revisited and it is critical that the fishing community be involved. For more information go to: http://darc.cms.udel.edu/sgeez/about.html.
When salmon farms were developed, it was said that they would “feed the world.” However, this was proven wrong when it was realized that it took almost 3 to 5 pounds of small pelagic fish to be ground up into fishmeal to produce one pound of farmed salmon. Most of the smaller fish used in fishmeal is caught off the coast of developing nations who depend on this resource for their own fisheries, and the entire ocean ecosystem is dependent on these “bottom of the food chain” species.
As FN readers are aware, salmon are farmed in floating net cages off the coast where overcrowding has led to the use of antibiotics and pesticides to combat disease and parasites. Antibiotic resistant bacteria, virulent disease epidemics and uncontrolled sea lice infestations threaten marine ecosystems and wild fish all around the salmon farms. In addition pollution from chemicals, uneaten food and fish feces suffocate marine life under the floating enclosures. Sea lions, seals and birds are killed in large numbers to keep them away from the operations. Farmed fish are escaping at a tremendous rate and have established themselves in coastal rivers and are also being caught in Alaskan waters and rivers where salmon farming in prohibited.
The environmental impacts of the salmon farming industry can be devastating but the industry is not paying the true cost. Farmed salmon is available everywhere at very low prices while consumers don’t know where the fish is coming from or how it was produced. In addition, the product is not labeled that it contains color additives, which are needed to turn the gray colored flesh to the more acceptable pink color. U.S. law requires that fish containing colorants must be labeled, on the retail case and on individual packages, with signs stating: “artificially colored” or “color added,” although this rule is not being enforced.
The flooding of the market with farmed salmon has driven the price for wild salmon down and fishermen all along the Pacific coast are feeling the effects of this. This was especially true in Alaska this past season. Retailers want the consistency of delivery of the farmed product, but are not recognizing the loss in nutritional value and the added harmful substances. Wild salmon are rich in omega-3 essential fatty acids, while farmed salmon are higher in unhealthy saturated fats and omega-6 fatty acids. A government study in the U.K. has found that salmon from fish farms is the most contaminated food sold by British supermarkets, beating out all other seafood, as well as meats and vegetables. Every sample of farmed salmon tested in the study contained at least three toxic chemicals. The public deserves the right to know what they are really eating.
The first genetically modified animals to
reach our dinner plates may well be a transgenic Atlantic salmon. This salmon will have a gene from a different
species inserted in order for the fish to grow faster. A company, AquaBounty, is now seeking approval from the FDA to
commercialize these genetically manipulated fish stocks for human consumption. AquaBounty Farms' genetically engineer
(GE) fish contains a growth hormone gene from a chinook
salmon and an antifreeze protein gene promoter from an ocean pout that keeps
the growth hormone active. This transgene is injected
into fertilized eggs. Due to the continuous production of the growth hormone
gene, these GE fish grow as much as ten to thirty times faster than normal
salmon.
The implications of this transgenic fish to our environment and human health are tremendous. The impacts from farming of regular Atlantic salmon can be devastating to wild populations and the additional “supersalmon” threat is frightening. We already have non-native Atlantic salmon swimming and reproducing in rivers in British Columbia. If transgenic salmon are approved and escape, the ecosystem impact could be even more devastating. We do not know enough about the behavior and consequences of rearing these animals to take the risk of escape. AquaBounty claims that their fish will be 100% sterile, therefore alleviating any concern of interbreeding with wild fish, although it is impossible to have 100% sterility. In addition, even if the fish are sterile, once they escape they can still compete with wild native species for habitat and food.
In addition to the environmental impacts, we do not understand the human health implications of eating genetically modified animal products. While no federal laws specifically govern the regulation of GE animals grown for human consumption, the FDA has made the informal decision to regulate GE fish under its authority to review new animal drugs. To receive FDA approval to commercialize GE fish, producers must complete a New Animal Drug Application (NADA) and demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of these fish. However, FDA exempts NADA's from environmental review and the research trials are kept secret from the public. Concerned about the lack of existing law specifically covering GE fish, the state of Maryland passed a law imposing a moratorium on the growing of GE fish in state waterways that flow into other bodies of water. California attempted to pass similar legislation this year and in addition introduced a bill to require the labeling of any seafood products that had been genetically modified.
The fishing industry needs to keep a close eye on what NMFS is up to. This new wave of aquaculture will affect everyone from fishermen to processors. Farmed fish are changing the image of the seafood industry. The government is promoting new technologies that will encourage more farms further offshore and create new species to grow faster. Fishermen are not generally aware of what is going on in the aquaculture sector, and we need to spread the word. Consumers are even worse off, and have no idea what is going on. When ordering seafood, they have no sense of where it came from, how it was caught or farmed, and what it really is. Mislabeling and not labeling at all has created a population of seafood buyers that do not even know how to ask questions. We must promote awareness if we want to influence the buying power of the consumers.
The fishing community must start asking questions publicly, and speaking out publicly on a threat that is every bit as big as any overfishing or massive oil spill. If we don’t pay attention, if we don’t ask questions, and if we don’t demand answers, who will?
Natasha Benjamin is the Southwest Regional Director of the Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR), which is affiliated with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), and can be reached at the IFR Southwest Office at: PO Box 29196, San Francisco, CA 94129-0196, USA or by email at: nbenjamin@ifrfish.org. IFR’s website is at: www.ifrfish.org.