Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dave]

I was sincere.
Like absolon I don't necessarily agree with all JPW said but it was the way it was presented that made me read it, twice.
I believe this issue is mainly bad marketing and a screwup somewhere along the quality control line, and Ms. Morton, being Ms. Morton,  jumped on it.  Really, she does need a few media points as she still has a way to go to reach her laboratory analysis bill.
Sorry, beating on AM again...but damn, its hard not to.

Ian Roberts was correct imo, when he said this product should not have been delivered to the store, which is also the case of many of Ms. Morton's previously submitted samples.   Do you blame the farmer when you get a rotten tomato, mouldy lettuce, or anything else faulty or untowards in a store?  Would you buy the salmon picured on her blog, the emaciated fish with the lesion? Errors have been made by someone and I bet they are fixed quickly.

[alwaysfishn]

I was sincere.
Like absolon I don't necessarily agree with all JPW said but it was the way it was presented that made me read it, twice.
I believe this issue is mainly bad marketing and a screwup somewhere along the quality control line, and Ms. Morton, being Ms. Morton,  jumped on it.  Really, she does need a few media points as she still has a way to go to reach her laboratory analysis bill.
Sorry, beating on AM again...but damn, its hard not to.

Ian Roberts was correct imo, when he said this product should not have been delivered to the store, which is also the case of many of Ms. Morton's previously submitted samples.   Do you blame the farmer when you get a rotten tomato, mouldy lettuce, or anything else faulty or untowards in a store?  Would you buy the salmon picured on her blog, the emaciated fish with the lesion? Errors have been made by someone and I bet they are fixed quickly.

Good response Dave.

I am sure that you have also figured out by now that we believe the feedlots are harmful both to the environment and the wild salmon. As a result we want them out of our oceans. Unlike land based farming, where environmental contamination and diseases can be contained, it is impossible to do so in the oceans. You can argue as you pro-feedlot boys do, that the feedlots are not killing our wild salmon but you have no proof that is so and there is all sorts of proof of the damage they have caused in other parts of the world. It's an argument no one is going to win.

However a winner will be declared when the consumer decides to either buy the feedlot product or avoids it. News articles like the Kudoa parasite infected salmon sold in the Costco store are sales killers. This particular virus/disease (call it what ever) takes time to make the product mushy. Imagine buying a seemingly quality product and opening the package 2 days later and seeing a bunch of mush. I suggest that not many consumers will be repeat customers.

Then there is the issue of health.....   Are there long term tests on people that have eaten this Kudoa parasite infected salmon? If not how can anyone say that this salmon is not harmful to one's health?

I like the fact that Ms Morton recognizes that the battle to save wild salmon will be won in the minds of the consumer and that's why she is taking it there. If the government was looking out for the wild salmon, there would be no need for her to do so.

[JPW]

I’m torn on this.  Absolon, I appreciate the time you put into replying to my post and respect your opinions,  I also don't simply want to re-state my opinions as counterpoints to yours as I feel that is at the root of these cyclic threads.

That being said, I do feel I owe you the courtesy to at least clarify some of what I wrote.  Firstly, let me be clear that my intent was not to belittle the importance of work being done on both sides of this issue.  Any analogous reference to this being a competition was only to highlight how foolish I think many arguments on both sides are becoming.  To me it’s disappointing that despite the severity of our current predicament so much energy is spent arguing over semantics and methodology.  

That brings me to your valid point about the differences between a virus and a disease not being a small detail.   I believe in most cases you are correct, but not always.  Context is everything.  The majority of my reply was directed to the kudoa discussion and how it was dealt with by the BCSFs.  In my opinion, less work should be focussed on trying to discredit Morton’s process and more attention should be given to the benefits and viability of farming and showing some accountability when a valid observation is made.  If that could happen I would certainly be more open to hearing what the BCSFs have to say.  Dave makes a good point in that I’m not going to crucify a farmer for his moldy lettuce or tomato, but I also doubt the farmer would go to the same lengths to discredit the reality that the produce was bad in the first place and that is the crux of my argument.  In the case of kudoa, regardless of how Morton arrived at her conclusion, the outcome was still the same.  As someone who recognizes the necessity of finding an alternative to commercial harvesting of wild stocks and is therefore open to hearing both sides of the discussion, I was pointing out that BCSFs approach to picking apart Morton’s methodology was a poor choice; especially because she was right.

Ultimately, farmed salmon is like any other product designed to take advantage of our consumerism and like those other products it comes at a cost.  At this point I feel the cost is too high.  I feel the risks are too great, not because I believe one sides scientists over the others, but because I know definitively that they disagree.  If there is even a chance the farms could negatively impact an increasingly fragile wild population, I’m not interested in supporting it.  Absolon, to answer your question, I have many times asked for clarification about a product and changed my buying behavior based on the response.  Farmed fish is no different.  Morton is not my filter, but she is one of many voices that have made me aware there could be a problem.  To that end, I’d like to reiterate that the reason for my post was that I am someone interested in both sides of this discussion and most of what I see from the BCSFs seems reactive rather than proactive and is often missing the point.  To further define what I mean, by “the point”, let me write to another of your thoughts regarding the importance of accuracy versus impact.  

Accuracy is a noble goal and should be the priority of any solely scientific endeavor, but so many people are complacent about serious issues plaguing the environment today and that apathy sometimes needs to be catalyzed into action.  That doesn’t happen with anything but impact.  Companies understand that better than anyone.  Millions of marketing dollars aren’t spent to ensure accuracy.  Fair or not, I think I’m like many other consumers who place the burden of proof on the corporation and when they spend so many resources trying to discredit one person it raises a warning flag for me.  It wasn’t that long ago tobacco spent quite a bit of money to assure the public that smoking was healthy!  Again, I’m not disagreeing that there is a time and place for scrutiny, but quite honestly I worry in the case of salmon, we don’t have the time.  In fact while we worry about whether farming or wild harvesting will kill the fish, they will have gone extinct by way of an oil spill anyway .

I speak with my wallet though and I don’t buy wild fish either.  It’s my opinion that fresh seafood should be a privilege rewarded for exemplary management of the resource, not a right that comes at a cost to future generations.

-Jared

[absolon]

You should have probably removed this comment when you edited your post..... as it has no relevance to how you tried to show how irrational you think JPW is. 

Seeing as how you and Dave seem to agree on everything, I'm now questioning the sincerity of Dave's comment.   

Unlike the usual representations we see here, JPW has managed to string together a cohesive and coherent presentation that isn't based exclusively on what Ms. Morton has told him. He has obviously given it some thought, a rare occurence it seems, and I respect that even if I don't agree with a number of his points.

[absolon]

Jared, thanks for another rational response. Too late tonight to respond and I'd like to give it some more thought, but I'll do so later.

[Rodney]

Unlike the usual representations we see here, JPW has managed to string together a cohesive and coherent presentation that isn't based exclusively on what Ms. Morton has told him. He has obviously given it some thought, a rare occurence it seems, and I respect that even if I don't agree with a number of his points.

X2

[Bassonator]

x3

[alwaysfishn]

What the heck.......   x4

[shuswapsteve]

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jared.  It is refreshing not having to deal with name calling and chest pounding comments that we find on another fish board.

I also believe in corporate accountability, but I also believe in accountability of those in the biological field that attempt to take on roles of expertise in areas where they have no expertise whatsoever.  Personally, I do not have a problem with Ms Morton’s observations of Kudoa in these farmed salmon fillets.  The consumer should be aware of what they are seeing and get answers to those questions.  However, I do take issue with how she portrayed it in her blog with very little context around it which is important to having an informed understanding.  For instance, mxyozoans like Kudoa thrysites and Henneguya salminicola are common parasites found in salmonids in BC, wild and farmed salmon.  Parasites along with other pathogens in BC waters were discussed at the Cohen Inquiry.  These mxyozoans were here even before salmon farms.  Although they are very unsightly and not very appetising they are not associated with any significant, if any, mortality.  The myxozoan that has been commonly associated with mortality in fish in BC, to my knowledge, has been Pavicapsula minibicornis (http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project1-Report.pdf#zoom=100).  She says in her blog:

Kudoa, the white balls in this picture releases an enzyme that liquifies the flesh after death. Salmon farms are almost certainly enhancing this parasite similar to how they enhance sea lice, viruses and bacteria

The first part is true, but the rest is just pure speculation.  It is important to note that Ms Morton has no formal expertise in virology, parasitology, of fish pathology.  She even admitted in her blog that she has never directly worked with Kudoa; yet, she makes a conclusion that salmon farms are enhancing this parasite with no basis.  She then attaches a report about Kudoa septempuncata in raw olive flounder in Japan, but fails to explain how this relates to farmed salmon in BC.  The Wikipedia photo posted in her blog was not even close to being Kudoa.  I have seen Henneguya with my own eyes and have consulted an actual fish pathologist to confirm this.  With Henneguya, the cysts are much larger; whereas, Kudoa grows along the length of the muscle fibres – appearing more like pseudocysts than actual cysts.  If she would have taken her time to get her facts straight before launching an attack on Marine Harvest she would have clearly found this out.  In my opinion, Ms Morton chose to use the Wikipedia photo of Henneguya because it was a good resolution photo which displayed large, unsightly cysts and soft flesh which agreed with her description in the text.  She did not count on the fact that someone would call her on it as most of her followers seldom question her knowledge.  That is why it is not wrong to question her conclusions.  We do it already for other scientists, so she should be no different.

Ms Morton is a Registered Professional Biologist.  With that comes some responsibility and accountability also.  She is not just an average citizen when she comes up these conclusions and criticizes other scientists.  You can check out the rules and policies here:

https://www.cab-bc.org/act-rules-and-policies

Personally, I am of the opinion that we should hold biological professionals to a high standard if they are making conclusions and informing the public of their findings – especially when it comes to public health.  It is clear that Ms Morton should a little more restraint that is becoming of a professional – especially if the topic is not in her area of expertise.
In my opinion, Ian Roberts from Marine Harvest did provide an appropriate response to these fish from Costco.  I agree with Dave that the product should not have been delivered to the store.  Even Mr. Roberts thought that it was unacceptable.  In fact, Marine Harvest has already taken this issue seriously already, but the softening usually happens when the product arrives to the store.  Marine Harvest talks about Kudoa on their website:

http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/blog/tag/kudoa/

Accountability also extends to Costco; however, anyone that has dealt with returns at Costco before realizes that they provide excellent customer service in this area.  When I was with my family was in Maui in May we bought some chicken thighs in Kahului and brought them back to our condo in West Maui.  When we opened up the package it smelled like rotten eggs.  When we returned to Kahului we forgot to bring back the package of chicken thighs with the receipt for a refund, but the Customer Service people at Costco refunded us the money quite quickly.  For field camps, I have bought pork ribs from Save-On which smelled like sulphur when I opened the package.  Do we blame the farmer that raised the pigs and crucify him or do we return the ribs to the store for a refund?  Does this mean I will never purchase pork ribs again or do I realize that out of the many, many packages of pork ribs I buy over a lifetime that perhaps a few of them could have something wrong with them – even the ones I think are the best quality?  Now this may turn a person off of purchasing farmed salmon from a store, but these same parasites can also found in wild salmon.

[JPW]

Fair points Steve.  Perhaps because I take what Morton says with a grain of salt, I'm less critical of her process.  If she was presenting me with a scientific paper I'd hold her to a higher standard, but I treat what she blogs about as the musings of a concerned consumer.  I look at it much like I would a conversation with a lawyer or doctor I'm not seeing professionally.  I expect they have a better understanding of their field then I do, but I'm not about to take legal action or try a new medication based on that conversation alone.  However, if something I'm told concerns me or piques my interest I will go looking for more "official" information and draw my own conclusions.  

I also understand and agree with your concern that many Morton supporters will blindly follow her because they assume she is the authority on all areas of marine biology.  I'll even agree that her flare for the dramatic probably helps with those followers, but I wonder if that says more about her supporters than it does her?  She is campaigning her belief that farms are too great a risk.  The farms are doing the same to sustain and grow their business.  I have no doubt there have been embellishments on both sides, but as I've said before the fact there are multiple polarizing opinions on the risks (or lack thereof) is enough reason for me to be concerned.

Finally, let me say again that the gist of why I posted is that in this specific example my opinion is that Marine Harvest's strategy for dealing with Morton was the wrong one.  From a broader perspective, if salmon farming is as safe and as beneficial as the BCSFA claims it is, then I feel they would be better served focussing their attention on the positives.  Constantly trying to discredit a woman who is passionate about protecting wild stocks  does more to make me think there is some truth in her claims.

-Jared

[absolon]

After giving some consideration to your responses, I have to say I'm having difficulty understanding what it is you expect from the salmon farmers. I wonder if you would clarify the following for me to help me to better understand your perspective:

-You suggest that their response to the discovery of kudoa was inappropriate because rather than acknowledging the problem, they are attacking Morton's methods. I haven't followed this closely and may have missed something, but it seems to me that their response was to acknowledge the problem, explain the relative seriousness of it and how it happened without any reference to Ms. Morton or her methods. I haven't heard of any attempt to duck the problem or deny it's existence or blame it on Morton's shoddy methods. I wonder if you could be a little more specific about where they have attacked her methods and what you think their response should have been?

-You've also suggested that you think the farms should be less reactive, that you think they spend an inordinate amount of time focused on a single person and that makes you wonder if there is truth to her claims. Given that the single person is constantly focused on attacking them with the stated purpose of closing them down, given that the person is responsible for virtually all the attacks on the industry and that those attacks are invariably based on questionable science and carried out through the media instead of direct discussion, what would you suggest their approach to her should be? Given Morton's propensity to constantly circle them looking for what she perceives as an opportunity to attack them, how can they be anything but reactive and how can their focus not be on her? Would you not keep your eye on the jackal circling you looking for an opportunity?

-On the one hand you suggest that the industry should be more proactive in presenting it's case yet on the other you talk about media campaigns by industries such as the tobacco industry that are intended not to ensure accuracy but to actually obscure reality. It appears to me that you have put the industry in an untenable damned if you do, damned if you don't position. In doing so, you overlook the reality that it is actually Morton rather than the industry who is running a guerrilla PR campaign to shape public perception, and that her presentations therefore deserve at least the level of scrutiny applied to the industry. The fact that her representations are based on such shaky foundations and are presented in a manner that circumvents any critical analysis by people with the appropriate tools to scrutinize them prior to them being presented to the public as fait accompli would seem to suggest that it is those representations that are questionable and yet you appear to believe that simply because she made those representations they may well be true and the onus is therefore on the industry to respond rather than on her to better substantiate those representations. Even further, you criticize the industry for questioning the methods she used to arrive at her accusations in spite of the validity and relevance under the scientific method of those very questions.

You appear to justify Morton's tactics on the basis of the importance of impact in rousing a complacent public; indeed you suggest that impact is more important than accuracy. I'm not sure that I see the benefit of having a mobilized public who believe in a cause that hasn't been appropriately justified and substantiated. It's a very gross example, but the recent American foray into Iraq is an example of the consequences of such an approach. The nature of modern society and the refinement of marketing science have led us to a point where we are constantly bombarded by campaigns to create public opinion to suit specific agendas; in such an environment, accuracy assumes a critical role in allowing us to discriminate between those that serve the public interest and those that serve private agendas. The relegation of accuracy and truth to a secondary or tertiary role serves the interests behind those campaigns because it removes from us the most important tool we have to evaluate the validity of the objectives of the campaigns. That isn't to say that Morton's objectives are automatically bad, but neither does it suggest that her representations shouldn't be questioned for accuracy and truth or that an absence of accuracy and truth is excusable. I'm wondering how you reconcile this with what you have stated?

And finally, though this isn't something you've mentioned, I'm wondering about your thoughts on why Ms. Morton chooses to go to the public rather than dealing with the scientists at the regulating agencies who are the people who must be convinced if there is to be a change. Do you believe, as Ms. Morton suggests, that they are willfully ignoring problems, that they are complicit with the industry, that they don't care about the future of the wild fish? Do you believe that the farms have no interest in reducing their impacts and aren't willing to co-operate to resolve valid problems? If you can't answer yes to those questions, can you explain why neither regulating agencies nor the industry is interested in collaborating with Ms. Morton?

[alwaysfishn]

It's interesting to see you soft peddling around the tactics Morton uses....   I find it amusing to see the restrain you are showing, when we know how you really feel about Morton and her ability to draw public attention to the plight of the wild salmon.

Would the feedlots have addressed the sea lice issue if Morton hadn't have brought the issue to the public?? .... not likely. Would CFIA have put in a "monitoring" program, (late as it was) if Morton's lawyers had not of raised the disease issues at the Cohen commission?? ... not likely. There are many other examples of how she has influenced changes in the industry and if it wasn't for Morton taking on this cause, I believe our wild salmon would likely be in worse shape and their future survival would be in jeopardy.

The reason the feedlots can't be trusted is two fold. First, any additional monitoring or application of medications costs the corporation money and in a competitive environment, this means lower profits. Second, it's impossible to believe they would care about the survival of the wild salmon, when the wild caught salmon is a direct competitor to the product that the feedlots are pushing. One of their main arguments is that commercial fishing should be curtailed. This would certainly help their business as it would remove a major competitor but if it is true that the feedlots are impacting the survival of the wild salmon, the survival of the wild salmon would still be in jeopardy.

While DFO is charged with protecting the wild salmon, they are also responsible for growing the feedlot industry. With such an obvious conflict of interest, any reasonable person can see that the wild salmon will lose.

Thank goodness for Ms Morton who appears to be the only one actually looking out for the wild salmon. Given the obstacles and the minimal funding available to her, she is doing what ever she can to make the public aware of the plight of the wild salmon. The public will be the ultimate jury on whether the feedlots will be allowed to continue growing their product in our oceans.

The fact is if there were no obvious negatives to the feedlot operations, Morton's campaign wouldn't have any traction. Suggesting Morton is making "errors" is just part of the feedlot's campaign to try and discredit her and I don't believe it's having any effect.

Here's an article that seems to define Morton quite well.... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018296338_viruslady27m.html

[alwaysfishn]

A good background article on Morton.  http://kickasscanadians.ca/dr-alexandra-morton

[absolon]

Would the feedlots have addressed the sea lice issue if Morton hadn't have brought the issue to the public?? .... not likely. Would CFIA have put in a "monitoring" program, (late as it was) if Morton's lawyers had not of raised the disease issues at the Cohen commission?? ... not likely. There are many other examples of how she has influenced changes in the industry and if it wasn't for Morton taking on this cause, I believe our wild salmon would likely be in worse shape and their future survival would be in jeopardy.

If a person were to tell the whole story, a slightly different picture emerges. The farms responded to the sea lice issue with a fallowing plan to allow safe passage to migrating fish. Ms. Morton disagreed with that plan and by her own admission initiated the court challenge that ended up placing the responsibility for farms with the DFO in order to block it. In spite of that, and although they could no longer obtain regulatory approval to completely implement the plan, the farms went ahead with the parts already approved by the Provincial regulators. The result was a substantial and sufficient decrease in lice numbers such that the risk was averted. The other result was that responsibility for farms now rests in the hands of the DFO, the very agency you suggest is unfit to manage that responsibility. Well done Ms. Morton!

The reason the feedlots can't be trusted is two fold. First, any additional monitoring or application of medications costs the corporation money and in a competitive environment, this means lower profits. Second, it's impossible to believe they would care about the survival of the wild salmon, when the wild caught salmon is a direct competitor to the product that the feedlots are pushing. One of their main arguments is that commercial fishing should be curtailed. This would certainly help their business as it would remove a major competitor but if it is true that the feedlots are impacting the survival of the wild salmon, the survival of the wild salmon would still be in jeopardy.

Your comment betrays your ignorance about the guiding principles of livestock husbandry. You cannot rear animals in conditions that lead to them becoming diseased if you have any intention of anything but substantial losses as your outcome. All those things that will eventually impact on wild stocks will immediately impact on farm stocks and to a much greater degree and therefore cannot be ignored; farms do not exist in a vacuum. I challenge you to provide one instance where farms have suggested wild stock harvests should be curtailed in order to create better market conditions for their product.

While DFO is charged with protecting the wild salmon, they are also responsible for growing the feedlot industry. With such an obvious conflict of interest, any reasonable person can see that the wild salmon will lose.

Even if someone were to accept your interpretation as truth, I would simply point them at the reason farms are now managed by the DFO.

Thank goodness for Ms Morton who appears to be the only one actually looking out for the wild salmon. Given the obstacles and the minimal funding available to her, she is doing what ever she can to make the public aware of the plight of the wild salmon. The public will be the ultimate jury on whether the feedlots will be allowed to continue growing their product in our oceans. The fact is if there were no obvious negatives to the feedlot operations, Morton's campaign wouldn't have any traction. Suggesting Morton is making "errors" is just part of the feedlot's campaign to try and discredit her and I don't believe it's having any effect.

Denying Morton's errors is simply closing your eyes and refusing to acknowledge proven reality. Morton isn't looking out for wild salmon. If she were, she would also be addressing all those other factors that are having substantial and undeniable effects on them. She is exclusively looking to eliminate fish farms and uses saving wild salmon as a justification. The regulating agencies and not a very small sector of the public will be the ultimate jury on the continued existence of the farms. The general public will soon forget the issue as Morton fades into oblivion because she is no longer able to provide the spectacle that keeps them entertained and something more lively and more "feel-good" comes along; the slow pace of her current fundraising effort is testament. The issue has traction with a small group of followers who have already bought into her ideas but outside of places like this forum where 3 or 4 of you vociferously repeat her pronouncements (and even the number of forums where this occurs is in decline), for the vast majority her campaign is simply occasional entertainment in the news. Even the boycott campaign she is currently pushing is irrelevant. The portion of BC production sold in BC is small enough to be inconsequential and any small decrease in that amount not relevant. The rest goes into an undifferentiated, world-wide commodity market that is unaffected by and unconcerned with claims that the sky is falling here.


Bottom line is that you are just repeating ad nauseum the same arguments that have been presented and rebutted time after time after time. Ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.

[alwaysfishn]

I don't expect to change your outlook on the subject, but I appreciate how persistent you are with promoting it. 

You need to reread some of your own posts in order to really appreciate what "repeating ad nauseum" means.