Fact-free campaigns

The reputation of salmon farming has suffered as a result of criticism that does not have much to back it up, says Martin Jaffa.

The reputation of farmed salmon in Norway is apparently in tatters. The latest survey from Kantar TNS has found that the aquaculture industry’s reputation scored 29 out of a possible 100 points, a significant drop from its long-standing average of more than 40 points. This is not surprising.

It is easy to forget that salmon is big business in Norway and therefore is the subject of extensive discussion in the mainstream press and media, whether it be farm earnings or, as more recently, coverage of mortality or the closure of rivers to anglers in salmon farming areas.

Being exposed to such negative coverage means that the Norwegian public can quickly acquire a very dim view of salmon farming and because the media, like mainstream media everywhere, aren’t very good at providing a balanced view of the issues, the negative image persists, as reflected in this latest survey.

Of course, in terms of the business of farmed salmon, this survey is relatively meaningless. The majority of farmed salmon is exported to overseas markets where the reputation of Norwegian salmon is at a totally different level. This is because much of the debate of salmon farming in Norway is driven by the wild fish sector, supported by a scientific community with a vested interest, who continue to blame the presence of salmon farming for declines in wild fish.

Chris Packham

Claims without evidence
The English language summary of the annual report of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Salmon Management has just been published. Yet again they suggest that sea lice and escapes are the main negative impacts on wild salmon but provide no evidence to support their claims. Like most critics of the salmon farming industry, these scientists refuse to enter into any discussion of the possibility that they may be wrong, but readily share their views with the media anyway.

Critics of salmon farming in Scotland are also equally keen to share their views with the media. Recently TV presenter Chris Packham said that he may quit as President of the RSPCA unless it shuts down the assurance scheme that certifies farmed salmon. His comments received extensive coverage, although it seems that he has yet to enact his threat. However, in my opinion, the RSPCA should not wait for him to quit but should replace him as President as soon as possible. This is because, as President, he should have shown an interest in investigating the claims and even visiting a farm to see what’s happening for himself.

As a confirmed vegan, Mr Packham is simply against farming animals for food. He misses the point that the RSPCA believes that it is better to work with farming communities, and not just those producing salmon, to ensure the highest standards than to simply criticise.

The RSPCA should end its involvement, not because he is a vegan, but because in recent months, he seems to have lost the plot. In August Mr Packham attended an anti-grouse shooting event in Derbyshire to promote “Action for Wildlife Day” and told people that they should not bank with financial institutions that invest in fossil fuels, weapons and poverty. His major criticism was aimed at Barclays Bank, with him suggesting that “anyone banking with the bank should stick your head in a bucket of fuel and set fire to it”.

The reality is that if Mr Packham was not a TV personality, his views would be dismissed as that of an eccentric and never reach the press. In fact, in one of the trials of Just Stop Oil protesters, in which Mr Packham acted as a witness, the prosecutor told him that these activists “just love having you as a public figure”. The same can be said for the NGO “Feedback” which has joined with Mr Packham to promote its campaign urging the restaurant chain Wagamama to stop using farmed salmon.

Whilst Mr Packham has a high profile, it doesn’t mean that he knows anything about the issues on which he campaigns, Certainly, this is very much the case with salmon farming. He just joins in with existing criticism that is already aimed at the industry.

Mr Packham did write about salmon farming in his book Back to Nature in 2020. His lack of knowledge is apparent from the outset when he wrote: “Salmon farming originated in Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century and hatcheries were established a century later and on a significant scale in the 1950s in Japan, the USSR, the United States and Canada. The modern technique of farming salmon in floating sea cages was initiated in Norway in the late 1960s.”

Salmon farming did not originate in Europe in the second half of the 18th century but early attempts to fertilise fish eggs did, as detailed in a 2007 report from the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. Its report highlighted some key points, the first of which states: “The origins of salmon farming can be traced back to fertilization trials in Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century. Hatcheries were established one century later in both Europe and North America. Hatchery-based enhancement programs were introduced at a significant scale only after the 1950s in Japan, the USSR, United States and Canada. The modern techniques of salmon culture in floating sea cages were initiated in Norway in the late 1960s.”

Mr Packham does not reference any of the sources of the information used in his book including the ISER report.

Sadly because of his high-media profile and his association with the BBC, his views are generally taken seriously. In some instances, his knowledge of wildlife may be extensive but not when it comes to salmon farming.

Of course, like other critics, Mr Packham does not respond to any attempt to correct the misinformation he spreads. He doesn’t like the idea of farming animals for food, and it only takes an image of one sick fish, out of many hundreds of thousands, for him to be sufficiently outraged to obtain press coverage.

Meanwhile, similar negative press coverage appears to have undermined the reputation of farmed salmon, especially amongst people in the 30 to 45 age group who live in and around Oslo. These are the part of the population who are most likely to be most divorced from how food is produced and thus are least likely to understand the challenges faced by farmers, irrespective of species.

Consumption of salmon is slower than would be expected in Norway, but this is not because of its reputation. Salmon’s reputation is the least of the problems as consumption of all fish and seafood is in decline. The advisor to the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association has said that when she was growing up, the family ate fish four out of five days a week and now she is likely to eat fish and seafood five times a month. She is not alone in these changes, but that is another story…