The re-opening of the Cohen Inquiry on ISA virus provided an opportunity to see past the PR machine that protects salmon farms. The events around this virus have been moving so fast there has not been enough time to bury the evidence. Through strong questioning by the Commisson’s own lawyer, Brock Martland, and the lawyers for all the participants the coverup was laid bare. In addition, we could see the crux of the reason wild salmon are dying of politics. In the coming weeks I will provide detailed analysis, but here is the issue as I see it.
While we might think Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) provides protection of wild salmon, I did not find evidence of that in the thousands of emails and other documents I read over the course of the inquiry. And while you might think the Canadian Food Inspection Agency provides protection from animal diseases that is not exactly the case. The CFIA is unsuccessfully trying to walk a line between suppressing pathogens and at the same time trying to ensure commerce opportunities are maximized. And so we now have biological definitions of disease and legal definitions of disease in conflict with each other and this is not going to work.
Dr. Miller’s lab found evidence that salmon testing positive for the ISA flu virus are responding at a cellular level as if they have the flu. Using her powerful genomic profiling, her lab discovered that the characteristic flu-response pathways within cells were up-regulated. However, the legal definition of ISA virus requires a complete suite of different tests to all produce an artificially prescribed set of values. If those values don’t pop up voila we don’t have ISA virus and farm salmon grown in BC can continue to maxime premium values because they have a unique ISA-free certification.
I don’t know what country doesn’t want ISA virus contaminated salmon, but I am guessing its China. There have been over 150 positive tests for ISA virus, but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has rationalized how each one is not a “positive” and they just call them negative! Neat trick, but it has been exposed.
Most serious in terms of the Commission, the federal government, so this means the DFO and the CFIA never revealed the 100% ISA positive tests in 64 Cultus lake sockeye. There was extensive testimony throughout the over one year of the inquiry. We heard about the Cultus Recovery team, we heard questioning whether this run was even worth trying to save because nothing seemed to help. I read 100% of them are dying in some years just before spawning and no one could figure out why. But the federal government did not inform the commission EVER that there was evidence of a very serious virus associated with salmon farms around the world in 100% of these sockeye. Even if the findings are flawed, this evidence should have some forward because Canada was asked to produce documents pertaining to the health of the Fraser sockeye.
We heard again and again that trade partners with the Norwegian salmon farming companies in BC were notified and kept informed about the ISA virus tests, but there was NEVER any mention of informing First Nations and other Canadians. Salmon farmers were in attendance at meetings on this virus, but not First Nations, commercial fishing organizations, NGOs or anyone else!
It was revealed that the FIRST response by the CFIA to the positive ISA virus tests in the Rivers Inlet sockeye was to go on a hunt to find anything they could discredit Dr. Kibenge’s lab with. Dr. Kibenge runs the international ISA virus reference lab at the Atlantic Veterinary College that has met the extremely high standards of the international OIE of, which Canada is a member nation. When DFO discovered Dr. Miller team had not only found ISA virus positives, but also evidence that the infected fish were fighting the flu they intimidated her. She is not afraid of losing her job, the fear she named was losing the thousands of samples going back decades, that she uses to figure out what is happening to wild salmon in BC. She is standing beside our fish.
While we were led to believe last summer that the salmon farmers were going to give Miller samples of Atlantic salmon for testing, we learned that never happened. Insidiously the salmon farmers offered to become her “partner” in her sockeye viral work!!! If she agreed, which would have meant lots of money for her, they said she could test Atlantic salmon at some later date. Miller said “no.” So many groups from environmental to salmon enhancement have been lured by this bait, but not Miller, she did not want the salmon farmers directing her research.
I am going to post much more on this mad hatters tea party, in the coming weeks. I found many on the stand loathsome as they stood by and let viruses enter the Pacific Ocean. They revealed they are at “war” against the truth, the prize being our minds. They are trying to fool us and we have indeed been fools.
My volunteer team and I are going to continue testing wild salmon for disease using the labs we decide to use. DFO confiscates all my samples from the labs I use, so I will see that as free-shipping to their labs as well. An email was flashed up on the screen where Kim Koltins of the CFIA suggested all labs in Canada be told not to test for ISA virus, my name also appeared in the brief email. When asked about this she said it had just been an “idea”. This idea would have prevented Canadians from finding out for themselves about disease in wild salmon.
I never believed in the word “evil,” but anyone on earth today whose work helps viruses spread, mutate and reproduce should realize they are working in aid of powerfully irrevocable forces that cause suffering, death and ecosystem collapse. The world of commerce does not and will not exist without the biological world. Therefore the biology of disease has to come first. The CFIA can call positives, negative, they can redefine ISA virus so that it doesn’t exist on paper – but this effort threatens our world.
If we want wild salmon it is up to us. The BC and Canadian governments cannot be trusted with salmon farms, because they are addicted to commerce at the risk of all that is British Columbia. If you want to know if you have ISA virus in your salmon – contact me and I will help you.
Canadian media has decided largely not to report on these hearings so I suggest the brilliant writing by Damien Gillis and Ivan Doumenic
Dr. Fred Kibenge of the AVC lab, Dr. Kristi Miller of Pacific Biological Station (DFO) and Nelle Gagne of the Moncton Lab (DFO) on the stand.
Comments
3 responses to “Commerce vs Wild Salmon”
When jurisdiction over fish farms moved from the province to the federal government, most people assumed that control would devolve to DFO.
What was startling was the discovery that we have moved from one (provincial) Ministry of Agriculture to a second (federal) Ministry of Agriculture (including the CFIA) with the DFO as the hand maiden and enabler.
Agriculture Ministries have specific mandates, particularly an economic mandate so it is no surprise that wild fish to wild fish viruses are not considered a significant risk.
A mistake we all make is to envisage the fish farms as the equivalent of a farming enterprise. They are global supply chains that have integrated production, supply and marketing under one umbrella. That is their corporate strategy.
Further, if the trends in Europe are anything to go by, the fish farms are dealing with, or propose to deal with fish viruses by a combination of vaccination and selective genetic selection. When salmon eggs are imported into BC, we have no idea if the genetic makeup is akin to wild Atlantic salmon or genetically selected variants.
The long term risk is that we may have developed Atlantic salmon in BC that are or may be virus free but act as incubators of potentially lethal Pacific viruses. Only the fish farms know what is the genotype of imported Atlantic salmon eggs. And likely, if the Cohen Commission testimony is anything to go by, the fish farms may know what is Atlantic salmon reactivity to native fish viruses.
But they have never told anyone as far as I can tell.
We would all have been better served if the fish farming industry had been more forthcoming with information or the CFIA asked more questions – all in the public interest.
They both missed an opportunity as corporate citizens in BC.
-30-
Alexandra;
The overview you provide above with regards to the last few days of the Cohen Commission is both succinct..and scary! Thanks to salmon stalwarts Don, Anissa and others, I was able to follow along via Facebook over the past few days. I was aghast at the subterfuge practiced by authorities mandated to protect the “public” interest. We heard instead a plethora of excuses, denials and outright bumbling instead of honesty. We heard of internicine political games played on the public trust while at the same time “kowtowing” to corporate interests. To sell out ( and put in harm’s way) a natural resource as important to this province as wild salmon are..is nothing short of criminal. I can only hope Justice Cohen will address such reprehensible behavior in his final summation of the hearings…and bring to task those who have dropped the ball or intentionally betrayed the public’s trust. Thanks to you and all the other sojourners in the struggle to ensure the survival of wild salmon..perhaps some good will come from this rather secretive and expensive process!
I was just thinking that the Homalco’s legal action against Marinwe Harvest where the Judge ruled against the Homalco – that it might have played out differently if Marine Harvest had submitted information that has now been revealed in this Commission.
Blaney et al v. British Columbia (The Minister of Agriculture Food and Fisheries) et al, 2005 BCSC 283 Date: 20050302 Between:
Darren Blaney, Chief Councillor, Florence Hackett, Bonnie Wilson, Clyde Leo,
Bill Blaney, Band Councillors, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Homalco Indian Band, and the Homalco Indian Band”
“29] The parties have submitted voluminous affidavits including opinions of various scientists to support their positions.”
and
“A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave damage will accrue to him in the future…. It is a jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution but in the proper case unhesitatingly.”
I was just thinking that the Homalco might want to have this matter reviewed.