Coincidence: Regular readers of reLAKSation will know that I have repeatedly highlighted that Fisheries Management Scotland have failed to upload the 2024 sea lice monitoring data to their website, even though the monitoring programme ended six months ago.
I finally decided, given this monitoring data is to be used in the SEPA Sea Lice Risk Framework to penalise the salmon farming industry, that the time had come to take action to obtain this data so I sent a Freedom of Information request to the Marine Directorate, FMS’s partners, to ask for a copy of the data.
Was it coincidence but within a week, FMS had uploaded the data onto their website as a pdf file. I have complained about the provision of the data as a pdf in previous years as it is impossible to analyse the data from this type of file. I suspect that FMS would rather that the data is not analysed at all, primarily because it is inherently weak. In fact it is disappointing that there is no analysis provided with the data, but previously it has been sufficient for the various fisheries trusts who supply the data to say that the fact that fish caught are infested with lice, to argue that this is proof of the impact of salmon farms, ignoring the fact that there is natural infestation of wild fish by sea lice at above the levels observed.
In total, the 2024 data consists of 664 fish although 8 of the fish have no data. In addition, the 2024 data set includes 49 records from 23rd May 2025, which must be some form of a miracle. Perhaps, this is an indication of the due diligence applied to this data. If the date is wrong, how can we trust any of the data?
Finally, the 2024 data consists of just 333 fish that were sampled during the period of the smolt migration, which is the critical period that the wild fish lobby claim that wild salmon are at most risk. Even when based on this relatively small sample size 70% of the fish are not considered to be at risk. I am unable to conduct a more detailed analysis until the Marine Directorate supply the data in an accessible form, unlike FMS. This may not be until the end of May.
As I have previously pointed out, when those opposed to salmon farming demand data they want it yesterday whilst when it comes to supply data about wild fish, there is absolutely no hurry.
Favouritism: After the Minister presented the white paper at the One Ocean Week event in Bergen, there was a discussion by an invited panel of interested parties. Sadly, my knowledge of the Norwegian language is not sufficient to understand what was said so I thought that there was insufficient reason to make any comment. The only point that I thought warranted any discussion was the makeup of the panel of speakers.
Seven speakers were invited to join the panel. Two from the industry representative organisations. One was the representative of the trade unions The other four were organisations that might be construed as being critical of the salmon farming sector including Norwegian Rivers representing anglers, The Animal Welfare organisation, Bellona environmental organisation and the Association for Nature Conservation who I believe failed to turn up.
As I said I wasn’t going to comment on this obvious imbalance in views, but IntraFish published a commentary from the politician Olve Grotle, which highlighted the fact that the government seemed to prefer to hear the views of those opposed in some way to salmon farming but not from representatives of the salmon faming companies who would be affected by any changes.
Mr Grotle made a point that the representatives of the seafood sector spoke first followed by the critics who were allowed to speak unchallenged. I believe that no time for discussion was allowed between the panellists. This reinforces the observation that I have made regularly over the years, that when critics are allowed to speak, they do so in the knowledge that they won’t be asked questions they can’t answer. This is why the established narrative gains so much traction.
I wrote early this year that Norwegian Rivers attended the Wild Salmon Connections meeting in London and whilst they were very vocal about salmon faming to an audience that was extremely sympathetic to their views, members of the audience like me were denied the opportunity to challenge them at all.
I get the feeling this is exactly how the Norwegian government has operated in relation to the white paper preferring to listen to the views of the critics than showing any willingness to have a proper discussion with the industry.
Why: The Guardian newspaper website recently posted a video titled ‘How the truth about supermarket salmon is being hidden’. The video says that in January 2025 producers of Scottish salmon won a legal battle to drop the word farmed from the front of their packaging and it probably had something to do with headlines about mortality and welfare.
Sadly, the video is nothing more than a rallying cry for critics of the industry as it is riddled with factual inaccuracies but as the critics would suggest, I would say that.
Just before Easter, Landmark Chambers put out a press release that the Upper Tribunal will now hear an appeal against the decision by DEFRA to allow the Scottish salmon farming industry to drop the word ‘farmed’ from its Protected Geographic Indication.
The appeal was initially dismissed on the basis that the name change from Farmed salmon to Scottish salon was not likely to mislead the consumer as to the products true origin because true origin referred to geographic origin. However, permission has been granted to appeal against the Upper Tribunal’s previous decision on an exceptional basis following an application by Animal Equality to appeal.
Frankly, this is the biggest load of nonsense and a total waste of time and money. The original change was due to the fact that there were two PGI’s for Scottish salmon and the change was an attempt to rationalise them. Secondly, this is not about consumers but about the fact that anyone holding the PGI can challenge any attempt to pass off salmon from elsewhere as Scottish, something that has never happened. This change does not affect current labelling legislation, so consumers cannot be misled, except by critics of salmon farming such as Animal Equality.
I suspect that Animal Equality don’t actually care much whether the PGI says farmed or not or whether they win the case or not. This much the same as other campaigning organisations. What is important to them is that such stories appear to be a guaranteed way to get into the news and it is being in the news that is important. Who had heard about Animal Equality before they started to campaign against salmon farming?
The point about this publicity is that it forms the basis of applications for funding, which is essential to keep the relevant organisation functioning. Animal Equality has a central London address, and their website has a picture of their staff who total 43. For argument’s sake, if an average salary is £30,000 then Animal Equality will need £1.3 million in income for salaries alone. I suspect that salmon farming has proved to be a very lucrative money spinner for the campaign groups bringing in more funding than chickens or pigs ever did. It is only necessary to remember that independent Canadian researcher Vivienne Krause identified around $34 million being given by US charitable foundations to fund anti-salmon farming campaigns in the early 2000s. This flow of money undoubtably continues from many misinformed charitable sources.
It is extremely difficult for the industry to fight against this funding which Is why I firmly believe that it is only through showing the narrative promoted against the industry is wrong that the existing narrative can be challenged. In my opinion, the best place to start is with the science. It is worth remembering that the funding for much of the science is aimed at showing the negative impacts of salmon farming rather than being used to show that salmon farming does not have the impacts as claimed.
Wild Fish health: The Norwegian Veterinary Institute has recently published its first report into the health of wild fish in Norway. The report discusses key disease that can threaten the health of wild fish as well as parasites and diseases that are considered normal in wild fish. The report also considers diseases that can be transmitted between farmed and wild fish as opposed to disease that can be transmitted from wild to farm fish such as the parasitic sea lice.
According to the report there are 333 wild fish species in Norway of which 47 are freshwater and 286 are marine. The health situation of most of these species is unknown and will continue to be unknown.
The theme of what is unknown continues with the report stating that there is a knowledge gap about infection from farming with a need for more knowledge about how infections from farming affects wild populations. The report says that the Scientific Council for Salmon Management claims that there are just 400,000 wild salmon left in Norway (the equivalent of two pens of farmed salmon). They say that the repertoire of infectious disease is increasing, and it is the combined infection pressure from these diseases that are a threat to wild salmon, but the truth is that no one really knows. It is just conjecture based on the established narrative that salmon farming must have a negative impact. The graph of risk produced by the scientific committee has such infection firmly marked as an expanding threat but on the scale of confidence of knowledge, such diseases are only listed as a 2. However, these numbers are relatively meaningless as sea lice as listed as a 5 – the highest level of confidence, yet anyone reading my commentary last week will know that the same scientific community have not yet been able to find the sea lice in the water body that are claimed to present the highest risk.
I was hoping this report of wild fish health would present new thoughts on natural infestation of wild fish by sea lice but the section on sea lice is just another account of sea lice and salmon farming.
It is also worth mentioning that other parasites affect wild fish. The report highlights Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae which caused Proliferative Kidney Disease (PKD) on wild salmon and is widespread in Norway. The report say that parasite has contributed to reducing salmonid populations in large parts of Europe and North America but requires high temperature to bring out the disease. However, the disease is present in several infected waterways and as climate change has a greater impact, more outbreak of PKD together with their population reducing effects are expected to be seen in Norway too.
Interestingly, whilst the Scientific Committee rate the threat to wild salmon coming from diseases associated with salmon farming as high, the only other mention of natural diseases is from Gyrodactylus salaris which they rate as stabilised and hence less of a threat. It is clear why the Scientific Committee do not consider natural disease to be a threat to wild salmon because they only consider anthropogenic effects as a threat but even then, they discount angling as a threat although angling is certainly an anthropogenic activity.
Finally, the report highlights that diseases of wild can also affect humans, The parasitic nematode Eustrongylides is found in the viscera and muscles of fish including trout and salmon. These parasites can be consumed by humans if the fish flesh is untreated. In addition, recreational fishermen have claimed significant losses in catches due to the presence of this parasite.
It is not just farmed salmon infestations that require an improved knowledge. Certainly, in the case of sea lice, we need a better understanding of how fish become infested with this parasite in the absence of salmon farms and then we can see how this relates to salmon farming. The concern is that the Scientific Council for Salmon Management appear to claim a high level of confidence in their science that they are totally uninterested in finding out anything new.