Earlier than I had expected, King Salmon is again in the news – this time for ‘not delivering’ on levels of Omega 3 promised on packaging and ‘delivering copper and zinc levels’ that exceed guidelines in the environment.
This week Consumer Magazine, in their article Salmon Run have revealed that (i) vegetable and abattoir products rather than marine products, make up the bulk of salmon feed, despite the fact that King Salmon claims the diet of the Salmon mimics that of wild salmon. The Consumer investigation also found that (ii) levels of Omega 3 in the fish were much lower than advertised (this was also the case with Signature range and Aoraki salmon) and (iii) that past annual monitoring reports have indicated that copper and zinc levels have exceed guidelines. Monitoring in 2020 also found the Otaneru Bay King Salmon farm to be ‘highly impacted’ and ‘biologically impoverished beyond the point at which wastes can be efficiently assimilated’ and the Forsyth Bay farm had reached the ‘maximum acceptable environmental quality standards.’ Results of the 2020 monitoring reports are currently being evaluated through an independent review sought by the Marlborough District Council. Consumer also notes that (iv) increased mortality rates and deformities occurring in fish in Pelorus Sound, and were first noticed late last year. The abnormalities included skin lesions and spinal malformations; however it is not known what part the fish’s diet play in causing such deformities. Consumer reports that the MPI has recently commissioned King Salmon on behalf of the Salmon Improvement Group $600,000 to investigate possible causes. We question why $600,000 of government funds have been allocated to King Salmon on behalf of an industry group why there is no independent investigation and no promise of a public report. View the Consumer investigation here.
Personally I no longer trust King Salmon. Our experience at the recent Board of Inquiry Hearing, reported here, raises questions over the quality of the evidence presented to the Board, and these recent findings by Consumer only add further weight to these concerns. This brings into question whether the quality of the information King Salmon provided at the public hearing can be relied upon and whether enough due diligence was completed by the EPA. In addition, it raises additional questions over the extent the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) was aware of King Salmon’s misrepresentations before the Hearing closed; where they aware of the extent of non marine feed products, the Omega 3 issue, the copper and zinc levels and the deformities. MPI must operate in the best interests of the public, not in the best interests of King Salmon. We are concerned that independence must not only exist, but be seen to exist. From our understanding there is nothing new about these deformities, so why is MPI concerned now, rather than tabling their concerns at the Hearing late last year. We plan to raise these issues directly with MPI and report back.
See here for Radio New Zealand’s coverage on the story and here for King Salmon’s reply.
Upcoming
(1) The High Court dismissed two appeals against the Board of Inquiry’s decision on the New Zealand King Salmon proposal on 8 August 2020. Since that decision, applications to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court have been made by The Environmental Defence Society and Sustain our Sounds. More information can be found on the EPA’s website here.
(2) I will be speaking about the King Salmon application at the Blenheim Rotary Club on the 29thof October at 6pm. If you are interested in attending please contact John Leader at [email protected].
Congratulations to Jessica Wilson at Consumer, great research.
3 comments
Bev Doole says:
Oct 20, 2020
Thank you Wendy for highlighting the questionable role of MPI in supporting King Salmon and the need for an independent report into the actual environmental effects of NZ King Salmon’s farms in the Marlborough Sounds. The report commissioned by the Marlborough District Council continues to be kept from the public. Meanwhile NZ King Salmon seeks a resource consent to increase the amount of feed (and consequent pollution) at one of its farms and community submitters are denied access to the Council report that contains the science to back up their concerns. It was reminiscent of the Board of Inquiry – community submitters with few resources versus NZKS (two lawyers, three Cawthron scientists and one planning expert.) There must be a more equitable way to ensure the integrated management and a sustainable future for the Marlborough Sounds. More publicly available information and neutral investigations such as the Consumer report would be a good start.
Wendy says:
Oct 22, 2020
Hi Bev,
I couldn’t agree with you more. It is in all our best interests if decisions, especially those that are locked in for 35 years, are well considered – that evidence on the the benefits, risks and costs are in the public arena. This is especially the case where the risks relate to a public asset and the benefits relate to largely private sector interests. Coupled with the level of uncertainty over the magnitude and length of time negative effects may extend beyond 35 years, it is important to make the right decision for the community – now and in the future. MPI has a critical role in providing up-to-date information on the economic benefits of proposals. I hope we see MPI engage with the public more and provide expert evidence at future hearings rather than simply providing lower level submissions. In the Board of Inquiry this meant their opinion could not be cross-examined. We need evidence to be cross-examined so that all options are considered and that the right decisions are made.
Thanks for your comment, best Wendy
John Leader says:
Oct 24, 2020
Without wishing to relitigate the whole EPA hearing, it semes to me to be a general criticism of modern legal action that “expert witnesses’ can extrapolate far beyond the available facts. This often results in victory for the side which pays its experts the most. One solution to this would be to make expert witnesses servants of the court or Board, so that their opinions can be truly and clearly objective. Another, which was a partial solution tried at the EPA hearing, was to enable the experts to caucus and try to reach common ground. Sometimes they did. A final point is that the law and the sciences have a different understanding of probabilities. The law uses the term ‘balance of probabilities’, as in the scales of justice, while science takes a more predictive view. Often this leads to confusion to a layperson.