Quantcast
Channel: For Argyll » food security
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5

RSPCA compromised by Freedom Food certification for farmed salmon

0
0

The Salmon & Trout Association has published a report commissioned from Guy Linley-Adams, a solicitor and member: ‘RSPCA / Freedom Food certification of Scottish farmed salmon’.

Freedom Food is the RSPCA’s wholly owned farm assurance and food labelling scheme. The RSPCA’s CEO  describes its relationship to Freedom Foods as ‘ultimate parent and controlling entity’.

Before we look at the detail of the report,  its findings and conclusions; and its worrying demonstration of the extent to which the RSPCA is compromising its own integrity through its revenue generating creation of this particular service, imagine the following scenario.

You’ve passed your driving test – far from a star performer but your driving instructor had a good relationship with the local examiners who didn’t ask you to do the things you were really dreading. Now you’re home and dry with your licence to drive and away you go.

Then Freedom Wheels comes along and, for a fee, offers – on pretty well the same tests you’ve already sort of met – to give you an Advanced Drivers’ Licence.

You go for it and your private chauffeur business advertises the Advanced Drivers’ Licence. Business booms because customers think you must be safer than the competition. They relax and enjoy the ride – little knowing that you’re suffering from double vision and tend not to recognise emergency situations in time.

But hey, you have an Advanced Driver’s Licence so who’s going to question your ability? The clients roll in.

Now swop the lucky driver for a salmon farm operator, with an industry Code of Practice that sets the bar comfortably low and a supportive regulatory regime that believes that the folk who buy your food have no right to know that you may have failed environmentally critical tests – that your production methods may be dirtier than others in a dirty industry.

You thank your lucky stars – and then a bright planet enters your orbit. Freedom Food – whose only shareholder is the unimpeachable RSPCA, born from and driven by concern for animal welfare.

Freedom Food offers you the opportunity to pay them a fee [the report estimates that they make up to £1 million a year from the fees from their Scottish service alone] and, using virtually the same tests as your easy going industry Code of Practice – which you have, of course, satisfied – they will give your produce a Freedom Food certificate, underwriting your sound animal welfare  and  environmentally friendly practices.

In reality, your farmed salmon have had sea lice infestation higher than the limits and tests have shown that your benthic pollution record has been unacceptable. You have failed some key tests and you have not always submitted important data required by the regulator.

But hey, your produce is selling, with the RSPCA’s Freedom Food Certificate on its packaging.  Who’s going to question that. They just relax and eat the fish.

How independent from the industry is RSPCA/Freedom Food?

The Salmon & Trout Association  report sets out at the start the extreme closeness of the Freedom Food Certification business to the salmon farming industry. The extent of this makes Freedom Food look like a sleight of hand in-house industry body.

Of the 19 members of its seawater and freshwater working groups, no fewer than 15 ‘are either fish farmers or from companies with a direct commercial interest in fish farming, for example, fish transport companies. The only members of the working groups not with a financial link to fish farming are Mr John Avizienius who leads on farmed fish welfare for the RSPCA, Ms. Alice Clark an animal welfare specialist with the RSPCA and an unnamed RSPCA Farm Livestock Officer and unnamed Freedom Food Assessor. Mr David Henderson, previously an independent chairman of the groups, is no longer listed.’

Fish farm companies represented on the working groups are:

  • Wester Ross Fisheries Limited (2 members)
  • Loch Duart limited (2 members)
  • Scottish Sea Farms (3 members)
  • Marine Harvest (one member)
  • Lakeland Smolt Limited (one member)

The RSPCA’s Freedom Food certification is run by the UK organisation and is used in marketing and packaging in supermarkets and other retail outlets throughout the UK. Interestingly the SSPCA are not involved at all in any aspect of Freedom Food. In fact SSPCA were closely involved in preparing a case against a Shetland salmon farm where sea lice numbers got completely out of control. The prosecution in this case did not proceed because of a legal error.

What is the Freedom Food certificate actually worth?

An immediate concern is that the S&TA report details how what is presented as an uber-stamp of approval uses tests essentially no different  nor no more stringent than those in the unchallenging industry code of practice. So the Freedom Food endorsement rests only on the assurance that it has been awarded by the RSPCA – and they would be bound to be super-demanding on standards, wouldn’t they?

As the report says: ‘The Freedom Food logo is used extensively on supermarket packaging for farmed salmon and on salmon farming companies’ websites as an indication predominantly of good animal welfare practice, but also of good environmental stewardship.’

But the report notes the failure of Freedom Food to take proper account of the wider environmental impact of the accredited farms. This means that some farms with a dismal record on pollution and parasite control are still granted Freedom Food status.

Guy Linley-Adams, Solicitor to the S&TA Aquaculture Campaign and the report’s author, says: ‘There can be no doubt that the Freedom Food certification for farmed salmon has set the bar very low in terms of the impact of salmon farming outside the farms themselves.

‘The standards that claim to take account of the wider environmental impact on wild fish and the impacts on wild fish from parasites and disease spread from fish farms are simply not rigorous enough.

‘In particular, the standards on the control of sea-lice numbers are no more stringent than the industry’s own Code of Good Practice, which is widely recognised by eminent scientists (including those of Marine Scotland Science) as not necessarily adequate to protect migrating juvenile salmon and sea trout from deadly infestation by huge numbers of juvenile sea lice emanating from the farms.

‘In general, it is not possible to identify any environmental standards in the Freedom Food standards that are more stringent than the industry’s own Code of Good Practice or those required by minimum legal requirements.

‘Over two years, we have alerted the RSPCA to this, both face to face and in detailed correspondence, but sadly they have refused to address the matter’.

The S&TA report says: ‘Overall, it is not possible to discern any environmental standards in the Freedom Food standards that are more stringent than the industry’s own Code of Good Practice or those required by minimum legal requirements.’

So – is this certification of any serious value at all – above that of sleight of hand assurance?

Why the mystery over the certifications?

Mr Linley-Adams says: ‘Freedom Food has declined, on the basis of commercial confidentiality, to say which salmon farms they certify. However, some information has come to light, confirming that some farms operated by Wester Ross Fisheries Limited in the Two Brooms area and The Scottish Salmon Company in the Western Isles are Freedom Food certified.

They have been certified despite a catalogue of seabed pollution and high sea-lice numbers – established as fact by the Salmon & Trout Association [S&TA], using data obtained under Freedom of Information from the public and statutory authorities.’

Hughie Campbell-Adamson, Chairman of S&TA Scotland, says: ‘By certifying farms that fail to meet basic environmental standards, the credibility of the RSPCA is at stake and it runs the risk of being charged with hoodwinking supermarkets and their customers.

‘We urge the big supermarkets to examine the environmental claims associated with Freedom Food certification. Otherwise they in turn will be open to the charge that they are misleading consumers.’

 The issue with sea lice

See lice infestation causes suffering to the salmon  – which is the reason for the welfare concerns, including those of the RSPCA – and the need for humane production practices in salmon farms. This leads to the regulations, such as they are. that seek to limit such infestations – which do not generally affect directly the food produced from the infested fish.

Chemical treatments are used to control infestation levels and, before harvesting, fish are given a chemical drench. During these bath treatments, some ingestion through the gills etc is likely but, as long as the appropriate withdrawal period for the particular chemical is observed – and the length of these withdrawal periods varies according to water temperature – there should be no impact on the food produced.

If the required withdrawal periods are not observed, however, contamination cannot be discounted.

Sea lice are endemic in the farmed salmon industry. They thrive in the well heavily populated conditions in the salmon cages.

The most dangerous time of the year is when young salmonids, with extremely fragile new skin, are leaving their natal rivers on their first migration. Sea lice born in the salmon cages and still in the free swimming stage can collect passing hosts amongst the juvenile wild salmon and sea trout, harming them to potential fatality.

At these time, the regulations for maximum numbers of sea lice permitted in a cage are at their strictest – something like 0.5 gravid lice per fish.

That may sound modest, but in a farm housing 300,000 farmed salmon, this adds up to a lot of sea lice.

The report shows that Scottish Government’s own scientists at Marine Scotland are clear that simple compliance with the industry’s own code of practice is not enough, saying: ‘… there is evidence of an effect of lice from fish farms on sea trout, although the extent to which the fish populations are affected is not clear. It appears that the range of effect of lice is at least 14km from farm source. This range will depend on both movements of lice and trout, which are not well understood. There is no published evidence of an effect of lice on trout at a population level, however, such an effect would be expected in view of the high infestation intensities observed near farms in the second years of salmon production cycles.…the behaviour of sea trout differs from salmon in that they remain in the area of origin for considerable time after migrating to sea leading to increased chance of exposure to infective stages of sea lice. The Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture (CoGP) sets a trigger level for sea lice treatment at different times of year, it should be noted that
this does not set a lice count level that farms have to keep numbers below…. It should also be noted that an ovigerous adult female louse may produce up to 1000 eggs. For example a farm holding 400,000 fish, even if it follows the CoGP, could potentially release 200M nauplii into the local environment significantly increasing infection pressure in the area….. [Ed: our emphasis.]

‘There is evidence that stage of farm cycle relates to level of lice infestation on sea trout with higher levels of infestation during the second year of production when lice numbers are known to be greater on farms. This relationship has been noted in a number of areas and was found to be significant across a 10-year period in Loch Shieldaig and across the Scottish west coast in 2002-03.’

The S&TA report quotes RSPCA/Freedom Food’s required standards, which are hardly reassuring in terms of what the Marine Scotland scientists have said above: ‘Freedom Food salmon must be given more space to swim, good water quality and oxygen levels in every tank they house, even feeding with observation, minimum environmental impact to other wild fish or water life [Ed: the report's emphasis], smooth net pens, gentle and short handling only when necessary and trained and competent farm staff looking after welfare standards.’ [Ed: the emphasis above is that of the S&TA report]

The non-publication of farm-specific sea lice data

It is unarguable that the most potent agent of good practice in anything is high quality public information on operators’ non-compliance with guidelines and regulations and on performance data.

The S&TA  report, however, quotes the RSPCA as defending its opposition to the publication of farm-specific sea-lice data as part of the Freedom Food scheme by saying: ‘…this would be because you could not differentiate data from Freedom Food accredited farms from the data from non- Freedom Food accredited farms simply because the data would be aggregated per region.;

As the report says: ‘This puts the RSPCA out of step not only with every wild fish conservation group in Scotland, but also with eminent fisheries scientists, SEPA, SNH and all west coast local authorities, all of which support the introduction of a legal requirement on fish-farmers to publish farm-specific weekly sea-lice data.’

The report’s conclusions

We see the following as some of the key conclusions of the Linley-Adams report for the Salmon and Trout Association:

9.4 As such, the RSPCA should urgently review the Freedom Food certification as applied to salmonid fish-farms.

9.5 The RSPCA should consider dropping all environmental standards from Freedom Food certification, concentrating solely on animal welfare issues relating to the farmed fish, with the corollary that no certified  farm or retail market outlet may make environmental claims based on Freedom Food certification or use the certification in such a way as to mislead consumers that the certification implies good environmental performance.

9.6 Alternatively, the RSPCA must dramatically improve and make far more stringent those standards in the Freedom Food scheme concerning wider environmental impact and impact on wild fish, in consultation with wild fish conservation bodies.

9.7 The revised standards should include a requirement on all fish-farms to demonstrate complete openness in relation to weekly farm-specific sea-lice data, publication of Environmental Impact Plans (required under EVI 1.1) and other environmental data, prior to any certification by Freedom Food.

9.8 RSPCA and Freedom Food should also publish all certification reports, reports of visits and audits made to both certified or applicant farms and any remedial actions required, in order to allow proper public scrutiny of Freedom Food certified farms and to ensure that the Freedom Food scheme itself enjoys public confidence.

9.9 In any event, the RSPCA and Freedom Food should immediately publish a full list of all fish-farms certified by Freedom Food.

There would be few objective minds that would not support such recommendations.

For the rest of us ‘civilians’, not of the industry, the regulators or bodies with specialist related interests, it is impossible to understand how anyone can justify that we should not know how clean or how compliant with animal welfare and environmental concerns is the food we buy to eat.

Notions of commercial confidentiality ought to pale in the face of the need for well founded consumer confidence and the simple right to know just what you are being given for your money.

The seminal environmental protection organisation, Greenpeace, whose worldwide campaigns and exploits have, perhaps more than any other, recruited support and sympathy for the cause, has previously accepted the RSPCA / Freedom Food brand without question. The Greenpeace website says:

‘Freedom Food standards developed by the RSPCA for farmed fish are also good although the standards are primarily welfare based, the better environment which they provide for the fish not only produces healthier fish, but also reduces the impact on the marine environment around the farm.’

Greenpeace have been sent a copy of the Salmon & Trout Association’s commissioned report. We are asking them if they continue to offer their support for the Freedom Food certificate scheme.

Note: Here is the full report by Guy Linley-Adams for the Salmon & Trout Association: S&TA Freedom Food Report v2


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images