Fwd: [Food-news] The dangers of open-cage aquaculture

[Guest guest]

> Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:33:02 -0400

> foodnews <foodnews

> Food News List <food-news

> [Food-news] The dangers of open-cage

> aquaculture

>

> www.foodnews.ca <http://www.foodnews.ca>

> **

>

> *Policy Gap and Confirmation*. This posting

> describes an important piece

> of legislation that would open federal waters in the

> United States to

> aquaculture development, specifically " open cage "

> aquaculture in the

> area three to 200-miles offshore, known as the

> Exclusive Economic Zone

> (EEZ). The importance of this case, from a global

> food policy

> perspective, is that poorly-designed practices of

> industrial food

> production are being replicated in the marine

> environment, putting all

> fisheries at risk. This industrial-style management

> approach can be seen

> in the way business representatives treat the

> resource itself. Fish

> populations are considered raw material rather than

> live communities

> with logics of their own, over and above meeting our

> needs. The

> proponents of open-cage aquaculture downplay the

> risks to wild fish

> populations by putting short-term profits ahead of

> the long-term health

> of fish ecosystems, and by failing to see the need

> for special

> legislation designed specifically for open-cage

> aquaculture. The

> environmental risks associated with open-cage

> aquaculture are also

> relevant to freshwater lakes such as North America's

> Great Lakes. In

> Ontario, for example, 80 percent of the farmed fish

> production is

> open-cage, most of it coming from Georgian Bay.

> Through subsidies and

> other funds flowing to the cage-farm industry, the

> Ontario government

> has supported a move away from land-based fish

> farming, even though

> land-based tank systems pose none of the risks

> associated with open-net

> cages.

>

>

>

>

> PCC Sound Consumer

>

>

> An update to our report in April 2005: Ocean

> aquaculture

> Coming to Washington's coast?

>

> by Anne Mosness

>

> (June 2006) -- The oceans lapping on our shores are

> more vast and wild

> than our country's prairie and our last and greatest

> public asset.

> Legislation to open our oceans to polluting, private

> industry is being

> promoted by speculators, corporate investors and

> bureaucrats who

> envision factory feedlots three to 200 miles

> offshore. Locally, the

> Strait of Juan de Fuca is a target zone for caged

> fish production.

>

> Just as family farms on land are being displaced,

> small independent

> fishing businesses cannot survive if the bad

> practices of industrial

> food production are replicated in our marine

> environment.

>

> The hazards are the same: degradation of natural

> resources, introduction

> of genetically engineered and invasive species,

> concentration of

> ownership, subsidies providing unfair market

> advantage, pollution,

> amplification of diseases and parasites, usage of

> antibiotics,

> pesticides and other chemicals.

>

> Despite these well-known risks, Senate Bill 1195,

> " The National Offshore

> Aquaculture Act, " was introduced last June by U.S.

> Sens Daniel Inouye

> and Ted Stevens, at the request of the current

> administration. It gives

> the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

> (NOAA), within the

> Department of Commerce, broad regulatory power to

> promote and manage

> industrial fish farming, with little or no oversight

> from the public,

> states or fishery management councils.

>

> S. 1195 grants the Secretary of Commerce nearly

> complete discretion to

> fast-track permitting and long-term leasing of

> commercial fish farms. It

> does not mandate any mitigation of harm on wild

> fish, endangered

> species, other marine life, water quality or

> habitat. There are no

> provisions to protect sensitive ecosystems or marine

> sanctuaries, or to

> monitor escaped fish. No bonds or royalties are

> required to use or

> pollute public waters. Industrial aquaculture also

> would be allowed on

> and within one mile of oil and gas rigs.

>

> Before offering this legislation, the Department of

> Commerce/NOAA

> neglected to assess impacts from industrial fish

> farming on ocean

> ecosystems, wild fish and resources, human health,

> coastal economies and

> fisheries-dependent businesses. A legislative

> environmental impact

> statement (LEIS) is required by law and would answer

> most concerns.

> Washington Reps. Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee, along

> with 14 other

> congressional members, called for an LEIS. NOAA has

> ignored their request.

>

> S. 1195 would overturn decades of ocean management

> by allowing

> foreign-owned fishing activities back into our

> federally managed waters.

> Thirty years ago, foreign fleets harvested more than

> 70 percent of the

> fish from U.S. territorial waters: their lights

> could be seen from our

> beaches. In 1976, " The Magnuson Act " (named after

> Washington's senior

> senator, Warren G. Magnuson) was passed, eliminating

> foreign fishing

> operations three to 200 miles offshore, which became

> known as our

> Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

>

> Under S. 1195, foreign operations again would have

> access to our ocean

> commons. Foreign corporations already enjoy greater

> rights under CAFTA

> and NAFTA than domestic companies and are able to

> bring claims against

> nations asserting their right to a " stable and

> predictable regulatory

> environment. "

>

> If the United States later decides that offshore

> aquaculture poses too

> many risks and amends or revokes S. 1195, foreign

> investors would have

> the right to seek damages from the U.S. Treasury

> (U.S. taxpayers) for

> " indirect expropriation " of their investments.

>

> Rep. Maralyn Chase, a member of Washington state's

> Ocean Policy Task

> Force says, " It would be insanely imprudent to open

> management of the

> United States' EEZ to foreign investors. We'd risk

> WTO or NAFTA/CAFTA

> investment-rights challenges to state and federal

> regulation of

> fisheries, marine mammals, ocean recreation and

> coastal shipping.

>

> " Besides, we know the natural system for fisheries

> in the Pacific

> Northwest is incredibly productive if managed

> carefully. Strip mining of

> oceans by huge boats to supply the offshore

> aquaculture industry is a

> major threat to that productivity. "

>

> **

>

> *Ocean cage aquaculture*

> In the journal, " Issues in Science and Technology "

> (Spring 2006),

> Stanford's Dr. Rosamond Naylor writes, " If the

> aquaculture industry does

> not shift to a sustainable path soon, the

> environmental damage produced

> by intensive crop and livestock production on land

> could be repeated in

> fish farming at sea. "

>

> To contain costs, the fish farm industry has

> resisted using closed

> containment systems, so antibiotics, fungicides,

> pesticides,

> anti-foulants and other chemicals flush directly

> into the marine

> environment. Scientists calculate that NOAA's plan

> to expand fish

> farming fivefold would allow the annual discharge of

> nitrogen equivalent

> to the untreated sewage of 17 million people.

>

> Finfish cages already have proven notoriously

> incapable of confining

> farmed fish. More than 613,000 nonnative salmon

> escaped into Puget Sound

> from net pens over a four-year period. Despite the

> abysmal record, a

> bill was introduced to the Washington state

> legislature (S. 5787) to

> " streamline " the regulatory process and allow 50

> black cod farms in the

> Strait of Juan de Fuca.

>

> **

>

> *Ignoring codes of conduct*

> As industrial, corporate-owned food systems expand,

> codes and protocols

> have been developed to protect traditional

> businesses and activities. A

> guiding principle of the U.N. Food and Agriculture

> Organization (FAO)'s

> " Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries " is that

> " aquaculture

> development does not negatively affect access to

> fishing grounds or

> livelihoods of local communities. "

>

> The United States is on the record as a signatory

> and strong supporter.

>

> In 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service

> (within Commerce/NOAA)

> released its own " Code of Conduct for Aquaculture

> Development in the

> U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, " stating that the

> United States adheres to

> the spirit and intent of the FAO Code and that

> " aquaculture development

> in the EEZ will adopt the guiding principle of a

> precautionary

> approach. " It also says " it is necessary to address

> potential economic

> and social impacts on local communities ... and

> their participation [is]

> sought in any decision-making process. "

>

> Senate Bill 1195 ignores NOAA's own code as well as

> the FAO code.

>

> **

>

> *Aquaculture alchemy?*

> From the pages of children's stories to glossy

> government reports, the

> lure of turning dross into riches holds magical

> sway. A Brothers Grimm

> fairy tale, Rumpelstikltskin, describes a miller who

> recklessly bragged

> to the greedy king that his daughter could spin

> straw into gold. She was

> locked in a palace room where a wizard who spun

> golden threads appeared.

> She promised him her first-born child, hoping

> payment never would come due.

>

> With similar hubris, proponents of ocean fish

> farming boast they can

> transform inexpensive, raw materials into high value

> seafoods, creating

> wealth for those who control the process.

>

> Mollusks and plant-eating fish can be farmed

> sustainably, creating a net

> gain of protein. But the fish proposed for ocean

> pens are carnivorous

> species. To meet their needs, oceans are scoured for

> mackerel, herring,

> and other tiny fish that are macerated and made into

> feed.

>

> Thirty-million metric tons of small fish -- one

> third of the ocean

> harvest -- are taken annually from coastlines of

> developing nations.

> These small fish are essential components of the

> ocean food chain and

> meet the subsistence needs of people in poorer

> regions of the world.

> When turned into fodder for fish in cages,

> two-thirds or more of their

> protein value is lost.

>

> Scientists, conservationists and even feed

> manufacturers warn that ocean

> exploitation has a limit. As in the tale of

> Rumpelstiltskin, aquaculture

> alchemists boast that creation of wealth can be

> nearly magical, but the

> costs will be passed on to future generations.

>

> **

>

> *Eat wild*

> PCC Natural Market's sustainable seafood and

> pastured meat programs

> provide a better model for quality and food

> security. PCC has joined a

> growing number of businesses and organizations such

> as the Center for

> Food Safety, United Fishermen of Alaska, Food and

> Water Watch, Pacific

> Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and

> the National

> Environmental Trust in asking Congress to oppose the

> " National Offshore

> Aquaculture Act, " S. 1195.

>

> Even Sen. Ted Stevens, one of the primary sponsors

> of S. 1195, offered

> an amendment so governors could opt out of having

> fish farms in federal

> waters adjoining their state. He noted, " I myself

> doubt seriously that

> we ever would be able to protect wild fish if we had

> aquaculture off our

> shores. "

>

> The chair of the PEW Oceans Commission, Leon

> Panetta, and of the U.S.

> Commission on Ocean Policy, Adm. James Watkins,

> wrote after S. 1195 was

> introduced, " restoring depleted (wild) fish stocks

> would yield

> significant economic benefits " and " increase catch

> levels by 64 percent,

> adding $1.3 billion to the U.S. economy. "

>

> Another ocean advocate, Jean-Michel Cousteau, said

> in describing

> industrial aquaculture, " Many fishermen are the

> victims. I am on the

> side of the fishermen. I do not want them to lose

> their jobs. "

>

> The rush to turn our oceans into corrals and wild

> fish into factory

> animals is a " get rich quick " scheme for early

> players in the game. The

> true costs are not paid by those who profit, and

> Nature has a way of

> making humans look not just foolish but foolhardy --

> especially those

> who spin untruths and jeopardize our environment and

> shared resources.

>

> In his book " Collapse, " Jered Diamond gives examples

> of humankind's

> failure to recognize the perils of unsustainable

> activities, citing

> Easter Island, classic Mayan civilization and Viking

> colonies on

> Greenland. Describing marine fish farming, he

> writes, " aquaculture, as

> commonly practiced today, is making the problem of

> declining wild

> fisheries worse rather than better. "

>

> Several coastal states have passed resolutions

> opposing production of

> genetically engineered fish and ocean aquaculture.

> Yet in Washington

> state, proponents are working quietly to allow farms

> off our shores.

>

> Our elected officials need independent assessments

> of impacts and risks

> of industrial aquaculture clear of the " buzz " from

> fish farm advocates,

> bureaucrats who've come through a revolving door,

> glossy PR campaigns,

> and gullible food writers.

>

> U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell is on the Department of

> Commerce's Ocean Policy

> Study

>

> Subcommittee, and Washington state Sen. Ken Jacobsen

> is chair of the

> Natural Resources, Ocean and Recreation Committee in

> Olympia. Both

> should be reminded that instead of promoting

> short-term gain for a few,

> we have an obligation to future generations to

> protect our oceans, our

> last and greatest public asset.

>

> /

>

> Anne Mosness was captain of salmon fishing boats in

> Alaska and

> Washington for more than 20 years. She directs the

> " Go Wild " Campaign

> and is a consultant on marine and fisheries issues.

>

> /

>

>

------

>

>

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> WHO WE ARE: This e-mail service shares information

> to help more people

> discuss crucial policy issues affecting global food

> security.

> The service is managed by Amber McNair of the

> University of Toronto

> in partnership with the Centre for Urban Health

> Initiatives (CUHI) and

> Wayne Roberts of the Toronto Food Policy Council, in

> partnership with

> the Community Food Security Coalition, World Hunger

> Year, and

> International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture.

>

> Please help by sending information or names and

> e-mail addresses of

> co-workers who'd like to receive this service, to

> foodnews

> <foodnews. To or

> , please visit

> http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/food-news.

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

>

> --

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> WHO WE ARE: This e-mail service shares information

> to help more people

> discuss crucial policy issues affecting global food

> security.

> The service is managed by Amber McNair of the

> University of Toronto

> in partnership with the Centre for Urban Health

> Initiatives (CUHI) and

> Wayne Roberts of the Toronto Food Policy Council, in

> partnership with

> the Community Food Security Coalition, World Hunger

> Year, and

> International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture.

>

> Please help by sending information or names and

> e-mail addresses of

> co-workers who'd like to receive this service, to

> foodnews. To or , please

> visit http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/food-news.

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> >

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________

food-news mailing list

food-news

http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/food-news