fishy farms

8/3/2019 Fishy Farms

1/28

Fishy Farms:The Governments Push forFactory Farming in Our Oceans


2/28

About Food & Water EuropeFood & Water Europe is the European program of Food

based in the United States that works to ensure t he

-

Food & Water Europe

+32 (0) 2893 1045

www.foodandwatereurope.org

euope


3/28

Fishy Farms 1

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Feedlots o the Sea: Factory Fish Farms and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Why Factory Fish Farming Is Not Environmentally Sound or Sustainable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Escaped Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Sidebox: Genetically Engineered Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Pressure on Wild Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sidebox: Fish to Pellets to Fish Again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sidebox: Vegetarian Carnivores? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Impacts on Marine Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Why Factory Fish Farming Wont Fix Our Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Logistical Dificulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

No Jobs Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Not or Small-scale Entrepreneurs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

What It Would Take to Ofset the Seaood Decit Through Factory Fish Farming . . . . . . . . . 12

Why Factory Fish Farming Wont Benet Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Health Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A Costly Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Contributing to Global Food Insecurity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Lie on Factory Fish Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Snapperarm and Ocean Blue Sea Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Kona Blue Water Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Hukilau Foods, Formerly Known as Cates International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Other Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Recommendations to Policymakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Recommendations to Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Fishy Farms:The Governments Push forFactory Farming in Our Oceans


4/28

2 Food & Water Europe

Over the past decade, people have become in-

creasingly conscious about the environmental,

cultural and economic repercussions o their ood

choices, and a movement has emerged to support

more diverse, sustainable options. This movement

has extended to choices about seaood, as people

take note o issues such as overshing and the

environmental ramications o diferent types o

sh arming.

Despite this, the U.S. government continues to

subsidize the development o open ocean aqua-

culture, a type o actory arming that threatens

the health o our oceans, coastal communities

and consumers. Factory sh arming involves the

production o as many as tens o thousands o sh

in cages of the coastline.

This report revisits the our U.S. taxpayer-sup-ported actory sh arming experiments in

Hawaii, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico that

are described in Food & Water Watchs previous

reports, Seas of Doubt and the rst edition o

Fishy Farms. Because all o these research and

demonstration projects have previously received

government unding to advance the industry, we

have traced the operations histories or lessons

that can be drawn about the easibility o ocean

sh arming.

The results are bleak. This newest update nds

that despite having as many as 13 years to

overcome setbacks,1 the arms have been largely

unsuccessul, acing some combination o techni-

cal, economic or environmental setbacks. They

have experienced sh escapes, equipment ailure

and community opposition. In some cases, the

problems have caused the operations to relocate,

scale-back, sell out to other companies or evenstop production altogether. Operations that have

since been proposed have had dificulty securing

permits and community support.

Even as new inormation about these acilities

continues to demonstrate that their easibility

is uncertain, the data is becoming clearer about

their potential impacts. A leading argument used

to promote actory sh arming is that we need it

to ofset the U.S. seaood trade decit that is, toimport less seaood and produce more seaood or

local consumption. A Food & Water Watch analy-

sis nds that to do this through actory sh arm-

ing, however, would require an almost unimagina-

ble 200 million sh to be produced in ocean cages

each year. This would call or approximately 41

percent o the entire global production o shmeal

to be used as eed, could produce as much nitrog-

enous waste as the untreated sewage rom a city

nearly nine times more populous than the cityo Los Angeles and could lead to the escapement

o as many as 34.8 million sh (i conditions are

unavorable) or 12 million sh (i conditions are

ideal) into our oceans in one year alone.2

Despite years o opposition rom consumers, en-

vironmentalists and coastal communities, as well

as increasing evidence that this type o arming

is ineasible and irresponsible, the ederal gov-

ernment, under the National Oceanic and Atmo-

spheric Administration (NOAA), has continued

to sink resources to support this industry and

develop a policy or it. The government already

has spent over $44 million in support o the

troubled industry.3 During a time when people

are pushing to trim the ederal budget, NOAA

continues to request money to support ocean sh

arming money that could be more wisely spent

supporting job creation and economic growth in

other areas.

Ater more than a decade o setbacks, it is time

or the U.S. government to recognize that actory

IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA

-


5/28

Fishy Farms 3

sh arming is not the solution or increasing

seaood saety and availability. NOAA must stop

taking money away rom improving the sustain-

ability o our wild sheries. Congress should act

to prevent ederal agencies rom ast-tracking the

development o the industry. The international

community already has learned that large-scale,industrial, land-based agriculture cannot solve

all economic and ood security problems. When it

comes to seaood and our oceans, we should take

a lesson and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

The actory sh arming industry has ailed

to demonstrate that it is environmentally sus-

tainable or nancially or technically viable on

a commercial scale. None o the U.S. taxpayer-supported actory sh arming experiments

have succeeded in proving that the industry is

nancially easible or environmentally sus-

tainable.

Open ocean aquaculture is not a solution

to the U.S. seaood trade decit. According

to Food & Water Watch analysis, based on

examples rom cobia, a type o sh currently

in production, the United States would need

to produce 200 million sh each year to ofset

the $10 billion seaood trade decit. Our esti-

mates conclude that:

It would take more than 1.2 million tons o

shmeal or 41 percent o the current es-

timated global supply to eed this many

sh.

Assuming that these sh produce a similar

amount o waste as armed salmon, this

volume o production would lead to as muchnitrogenous waste as the raw sewage rom

a city o over 34 million people nearly

nine times the city o Los Angeles.

I as many sh escaped rom these arms as

escaped on average over the course o three

unavorable years o salmon production in

Washington state, 34.8 million sh could be

released into our oceans, where they could

compete and interbreed with wild sh. This

is over 17 times as many sh as are esti-

mated to escape rom salmon arms in the

Atlantic Ocean each year.

Even i the industry avoided the unavor-

able conditions o storms or equipment

ailure, we could still expect 12 million

sh to be released into our waters annu-

ally, comparable to the quantity o salmon

escapes in the Atlantic that some scientists

believe has contributed to the extinction o

wild Atlantic salmon.

Ocean actory sh arms will not reduce

pressure on wild sh populations. The aqua-

culture industry already is the worlds larg-

est user o shmeal and sh oil, consuming

80 percent o the worlds sh oil and hal the

shmeal each year. Rather than contributing to domestic and

global ood supplies, open ocean aquaculture

acilities will likely produce an expensive

product that is out o reach or many U.S.

consumers and may, in act, contribute to ood

insecurity in populations that are dependent

on the small sh species used in shmeal and

oil or protein.

Like other actory-style industries with the

goal o outputting as much as possible or the

smallest cost, ofshore sh arms will employ

relatively ew people, and the jobs may not be

desirable or sae or workers.

Despite spending many resources and staf

time, neither NOAA nor Congress have suc-

cessully drated a policy that could responsi-

bly regulate actory sh arming.


-


6/28


For example, all o these operations have re-ceived government subsidies, and they have not

demonstrated that they can be protable or

even nancially sel-sustaining without gov-

ernment assistance.4 In one notorious example,

each pound o sh sold in a year by the Atlantic

Marine Aquaculture Center, an experimental

acility in New Hampshire, cost about $3,000

in U.S. taxpayer dollars to produce.5 Kona Blue

Water Farms, operating in Hawaii, is currently

not on the market but has previously supplied aproduct that cost $17 a pound or a llet.6

Further, all o these operations claim that waste

rom the submerged cages is causing little or no

harm to water quality, sea lie or ecosystems in

general.7 But with a maximum o our operating

at any one time in the United States (and the

closest o the two on separate Hawaiian Islands),

the arms represent a tiny raction o the thou-

sands o cages that the industry and its govern-ment backers envision building along U.S. coasts

in the upcoming years. Looking at the impacts o

a ew arms alone does not reveal the ull poten-tial impact o opening the waters to an entire

industry o actory sh arming.

All our o the operations discussed in this report

have made claims o sustainability,8 and the

president o one has strongly encouraged the Na-

tional Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to cre-

ate organic standards or net pen aquaculture.9

But ocean actory armed sh cannot credibly be

considered organic due to the massive amount owater pollution they can cause and the amount

o non-organic eed made rom wild sh (some

that are already depleted) and non-organic agri-

cultural eed constituents like soy that they can

consume. This large-scale industry runs counter

to the spirit o organics and the local and sus-

tainable ood movements.

The government hopes that ofshore sh arms

can help reduce the countrys $10 billion seaood

trade decit.10 Some claim that the industry

could help U.S. consumers eat more domestic

Currently located in Hawaii, and previously located or operating in New Hampshire

and Puerto Rico, none o the U.S. taxpayer-supported actory sh arming experi-

ments have succeeded. Each has been plagued by an assortment o dificulties. From

shark encounters and sh escapes to nancial troubles and lawsuits, these opera-

tions have not demonstrated that they can sustainably meet soaring demand or

seaood and ease pressure on overharvested wild sh populations.



7/28

Fishy Farms 5

seaood and ewer tainted imports. Others even

boast that it could boost worldwide ood sup-

plies and global ood security. But existing and

proposed operations in the United States have

ocused mainly on expensive boutique sh des-

tined or high-end restaurants and sushi bars,

not on varieties with widespread accessibility.11In act, by eeding on smaller sh species, called

orage sh, high-end armed sh could actually

reduce ood security in communities across the

world, many o which depend on smaller sh like

anchovy or sardines (see box on page 10).

In sum, despite receiving more than $44 million

in U.S. taxpayer unding, millions more dollars

in private investment12 and extensive political

support rom agencies within the ederal govern-ment, the open ocean aquaculture industry has

ailed to demonstrate that it is environmentally

sustainable or nancially or technically viable on

a commercial scale.

Fish arming itsel is nothing new. Four thou-

sand years ago, beore written records, the

Chinese were said to have begun arming carp.13

And sh ponds in Hawaii, called loko i`a, may

have been in operation as early as 1200 A.D.

These arms were constructed along the shore

with seawalls and grates to keep in mature,

typically herbivorous sh that were raised in a

complex ecosystem. Hawaiian organizations are

now working to restore the arms to provide local

ood or their communities.14

Many types o sh arming exist around the

world and in the United States to this day

some sustainable, some not. But the type o

aquaculture designed or the open marine waters

most closely resembles salmon net pens, while

replicating the large-scale livestock production

model on land that grows thousands o animals

in a conned environment. Marine sh are

grown in cages or net pens that allow uneaten

sh eed, sh waste and any antibiotics used in

the operation to ow through the cages directly

into the ocean.15 The rst experimental ofshore

cages used in the United States were deployed

of the coast o Washington state in 1989, and

the rst commercial operation opened in 2001.16

Both acilities were in state waters, within three

miles o the coast.

In 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) called or a quintupling

o the nations annual aquaculture production by

the year 2025 rom $900 million a year to $5

billion. The stated goal was to ofset the seaood

trade decit, create more jobs and bring more

high-quality seaood to U.S. customers.17

This has spurred the governments seemingly

relentless push or the development o more

ofshore aquaculture, no matter its human and

environmental costs, specically pushing or the

industry to be allowed in ederal marine waters

(typically between three and 200 miles of the

coast), where it is out o reach o state environ-

mental laws and ar rom other coastal activities:

In early 2004, the Gul o Mexico Regional

Fishery Management Council, the body

charged with advising the ederal govern-

ment on how to manage wild sheries in the

Gul o Mexico, announced intentions to cre-

ate a plan or developing sh arms in ederal

waters of the Gul coast.18 The council de-veloped this plan with input rom a recently

appointed member with a background in

ofshore aquaculture.19

In 2005, pressed by NOAA, Congress intro-

duced legislation in the U.S. Senate that

would specically authorize aquaculture in

ederal waters. It ailed to pass.20 Both the

Senate and the U.S. House o Representa-

tives introduced similar bills in 2007.21 Mem-

bers o Congress introduced these bills as a

courtesy to the Bush administration, and the

measures were opposed by a wide array o

shing, environmental and consumer groups.

None o the bills passed out o committee.22

Foiled by Congress, NOAA turned back to

the regional development o the industry and

hired consultants to help the Gul Council

develop its plan.23

Meanwhile, the Bush administration soughtalternative ways to launch these arms in

our oceans, including a 2008 proposal to al-


8/28


low the ederal agency that regulates of-

shore oil and gas development, the Minerals

Management Service under the Department

o Interior, to grant permits or ofshore

aquaculture acilities attached to oil and

gas structures.24 Ater stark opposition rom

organizations and individuals, the proposalwas dropped.25

In 2009, ater years o debate and opposi-

tion, the Gul o Mexico Regional Fishery

Management Council nalized its regional

plan or ofshore sh arming. It was passed

on to the newly appointed Secretary o Com-

merce under the Obama administration, but

when the Secretary ailed to veto it, it went

into efect.26 The agency said that it would

neither approve nor disapprove the plan,

but that it would instead develop a national

policy on aquaculture by which to assess

aquaculture.27 The Gul o Mexico plan was

challenged in court, but the judge ruled that

the lawsuit could not go orward until the

agency nalized rules to implement it.28

In response to concerns about NOAAs ag-

gressive push or the development o a sh

arming industry, the National SustainableOfshore Aquaculture Act was introduced in

2009.29 The bill would have authorized sh

arming in ederal waters but with some

environmental standards. It did not pass out

o committee.30

In 2010, the Research in Aquaculture Oppor-

tunity and Responsibility Act was introduced

to put the brakes on open ocean sh arming

until urther studies could be conducted. The

bill also contained measures to supplement

wild seaood with sustainable methods o

sh arming.31 The bill was unable to moveorward beore the legislative year ended.32

In June 2011, NOAA announced its nal

National Aquaculture Policy. The broad

policy strongly promotes actory sh arm-

ing, while remaining vague on how the

non-binding policy document would protect

the marine environment and shing com-

munities. The document states that NOAA

supports sustainable aquaculture develop-

ment that provides domestic jobs, products,

and services and that is in harmony with

healthy, productive, and resilient marine

ecosystems, compatible with other uses o

the marine environment, and consistent with

[its] . . . National Oceans Policy.33 However,

as demonstrated in this report, ocean sh

arming may be inherently unsustainable,

both environmentally and economically.

The same day that it announced its NationalAquaculture Policy, NOAA announced that

it would issue rules to implement the Gul o

Mexico Fishery Management Councils very

controversial aquaculture plan.34

Foreseeing that this was a possibility, in Feb-

ruary 2011 U.S. Representative Don Young

rom Alaska introduced a bill that would

block the Department o the Interior or

Secretary o Commerce rom allowing these

operations in ederal waters without specicCongressional approval. Rep. Young intro-

duced the bill out o concern that ofshore

sh arming would damage Alaskan wild

sheries.35

As can be seen, our nation is currently at a

crossroads. NOAA can either heed the advice o

congressional members, shing and conserva-

tion groups and others and halt development o

the actory sh arming industry, or it can con-

tinue to pursue the same tired ofshore policies

o the past to the detriment o the ederal bud-

get, the environment and coastal communities.



9/28

Fishy Farms 7

Untreated sh waste, excess eed and dead sh

empty directly rom cages into the ocean. This

waste has been shown to alter ragile marine

habitats.36 It is unknown how the oceans, which

have already been damaged by industrial and

agricultural pollution, and more recently by the

catastrophic oil spill in the Gul o Mexico, will

respond to yet another source o pollution.

Little is known about the assimilative capac-

ity o the marine environment or these pollut-

ants, concludes a 2007 report commissioned

by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Pollution rom a greatly expanded industry

could have signicant efects locally and region-

ally.37 The most recent edition o the Congres-

sional Research Services report on open ocean

aquaculture makes a similar point, noting that

The present lack o knowledge owing to lim-

ited experience, lack o research unding, and

ew studies ocusing specically on open ocean

aquaculture limits understanding o potential

environmental concerns.38

Although we do not know the ull extent o the

damage that can be caused by ofshore aqua-

culture acilities, what we do know does notpresent a pretty picture. A 2011 study accepted

to the journalMarine Environmental Research

analyzed the impacts o marine aquaculture on

a large scale. Researchers ound that aquacul-

ture acilities were responsible or an increase o

nutrients (or pollutants) in a gul of the Italian

Coast and wrote that of-shore aquaculture may

afect the marine ecosystem well beyond the

local scale.39

Antibiotics, pesticides and the other drugs or

chemicals used in these operations can also be

damaging.40 As with waste, little is known about

how these drugs might afect the ofshore marine

environment, because the drugs that might be

allowed on actory sh arms have not been test-

ed in open ocean marine arming situations.41

Evidence does indicate several serious concerns

associated with the use o aquaculture drugs.

For example, Maine lobsters have been harmed

by pesticides used to control sea lice in salmon

arms along the Maine and Canadian coasts.42

Further, antibiotics can kill benecial seaoor

bacteria and spawn antibiotic-resistant organ-

isms. One study ound that the use o antimi-

crobials on sh arms can lead to the creation o

reservoirs o drug-resistant bacteria. According

to the study, the genes responsible or this resis-

tance may ultimately afect the human popula-

tion through transer to human pathogens.43

Disease

The drugs mentioned above are used to overcome

the increased risk o disease that exists when

sh are packed densely together in operations,

are exposed to pathogens in the marine envi-

ronment and are subject to a number o other

environmental stressors.44

Sea lice is perhaps the most notorious o aqua-

culture inestations, thriving in the presence o

new hosts, such as with the expansion or addi-

tion o a sh arm. According to a 2011 article,

exposure to salmon arms with lice inesta-

tions may result in a sharp decline in wild

pink salmon populations in British Columbias

Broughton Archipelago.45 In addition to sea

lice, Inectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) has been

a major problem or salmon arms. The diseasewas reported rst in Norway, and later spread

to Canada, Scotland, the Faroe Islands and the



10/28


United States.46 Around 2007, the virus wreaked

havoc on the salmon industry in Chile devas-

tating production and putting more than 7,000

people out o work.47

Disease has also been a problem or open ocean

aquaculture acilities in the United States. In

Hawaii, or example, Kona Blue Water Farms

has encountered problems with skin ukes, a

parasite that does not harm human health but

must be controlled due to its negative impact

on the sh.48 The company also has dealt with

streptococcus inections, which it treated with

the antibiotic orenicol, a drug that has not

been tested specically or aquatic use in Ha-

waiis unique marine environment.49

Escaped Fish

Fish escapes are a major problem on open water

sh arms. They can be caused by equipment

ailure, staf error and adverse weather condi-

tions. Fish raised in aquaculture acilities are

bred to thrive in armed, rather than wild, en-

vironments. When escaped sh interbreed with

wild sh, their ofspring may have diminished

survival skills, resulting in a genetically less t

wild sh population.

The recovery o wild salmon populations has

been jeopardized by armed salmon escapes.

These escapees can interbreed with wild salmon

and may harmully alter the genetics o the wild

stocks.50 The international list o escape disas-

ters is extensive: About 2 million armed salmon

escape into the North Atlantic each year, an

amount equal to the number o wild salmon in

the region.51 In six months o 2007 alone, more

than 100,000 Atlantic salmon escaped rom

our acilities on the west coast o Scotland.52

On December 31, 2008, storms caused 700,000salmon and trout to escape rom various arms

in Chile, prompting the leader o the Chilean

Senates Environmental Committee to proclaim

the incidents an environmental disaster.53

In October 2009, 40,000 salmon escaped rom

a arm in British Columbia.54 One year later,

Some of the currently or previously op-

59

that NOAA hopes, however, the industry

a salmon farmers dream, but GE salmon

60


11/28

Fishy Farms 9

70,000 salmon escaped rom a arm

in Norway.55

And not all instances o escape occur so ar

rom home. In 2010, an article revealed that a

research project in the Bahamas, headed by Uni-

versity o Miami researchers, experienced a losso approximately 90 percent o its sh.56 Kona

Blue Water Farms in Hawaii also has encoun-

tered ongoing instances o escapes.57

The negative impacts o escaped armed sh can

be even more serious i the sh are non-native

or have been genetically modied. Caliornia,

Maryland and Washington have addressed this

by banning arming o genetically modied sh

in their state marine waters.58

Although one might assume that arming sh

could take the pressure of wild stocks, this is

not actually true. Farmed sh oten are ed large

amounts o eed made rom shmeal and oil.

These ingredients are derived almost exclusively

rom small ocean sh such as sardines, ancho-

vies and herring, caught in mass quantities in

the Northeast Atlantic and of North and South

Americas Pacic coast.61 The aquaculture indus-try is the largest user o shmeal and oil, and

the amount demanded continues to increase.62

In 2006, an estimated 3.72 million metric tons

o shmeal were consumed, representing 68.2

percent o worldwide production and 0.84 million

metric tons o sh oil, or 88.5 percent o produc-

tion.63 Many species o small sh being converted

to aquaculture eed are being harvested beyond

sustainable levels, not only leading to their

depletion but also jeopardizing the predatorynsh that depend on them or survival, such as

tuna, salmon, grouper and snapper.64

-

65

one pound for every two pounds of

66 Thus, for every

between two and six pounds of wild

Cobia67

68

Red drum69

70

71


12/28


Some researchers

73

74

Many of these

-

75

76 -

77 Kona Blue Water

78

-

-

79

-

80 -

81


13/28

Fishy Farms 11

Open ocean aquaculture acilities could nega-

tively afect the marine animals that requent

these sites, including whales, seals, dolphins,

turtles and sharks. Dolphins have requented

the site at Kona Blue Water Farms (see page

16), and the animals have apparently begun to

exhibit unnatural behaviors, which may con-

stitute conditioning. I the animals have become

conditioned to respond to eeding opportunities

at the site, they may experience reduced survival

skills.82 An investigation o sharks and ocean-

arming cages in Hawaii has ound that sandbar

sharks tend to aggregate around the cages, and

that tiger sharks occasionally visited. Although

the study concluded that the sharks were not

afecting public saety at beaches adjacent to the

cages, the researchers noted that the ecological

efects o aggregating sharks are unknown.83

Due to the challenges o ofshore sh arming,

development o the industry could sacrice envi-

ronmental stewardship with little in return.

As discussed in the ollowing proles o sh

arms, actory sh arming technology comes

with a host o economic and easibility challeng-

es. To date, no U.S. operation has shown that it

can be used to consistently raise healthy crops o

sh and generate income.

The our acilities proled in the originalFishy

Farms report (2007) have aced major setbacks.

The Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center haslost unding and halted its open ocean sh arm-

ing demonstration. The owner o Snapperarm

shut down operations in Puerto Rico ater nd-

ing that it could not expand, which the company

blamed partly on U.S. regulations. Kona Blue

Water Farms, ailing to secure permission to

expand, was orced to cut staf and has sold its

cages in Hawaii to another company, although

it continues to be heavily involved in the opera-

tion. It recently lost two cages that it was test-

ing or production in ederal waters. And nally,

Hukilau Foods, once known as Cates Interna-

tional, has led or bankruptcy.

An article in an industry publication discussing

the dificulties aced by two operations in Hawaii

ound that Hawaii and the U.S. governmenthave been generous with support nancial and

otherwise or both o these edgling ofshore

operations. So youve got to ask yoursel: I of-

shore cant make it there, can it make it any-

where in the United States?84

The international community also has noted the

dificulties o ofshore aquaculture. A report by

the Food and Agriculture Organization o the

United Nations noted that ofshore aquaculture

means higher risk o sh escapes; higher trans-

portation costs; dificulty in approaching cages

during severe weather conditions; deeper [and

more dangerous] operational routines or divers;

and more expensive cages, mooring systems and

nets.85

No Jobs Here

In our current economy, job creation is a prior-

ity. Yet ofshore sh arms are unlikely to cre-

ate many jobs. In 2009, the two open ocean sh

arms operating in Hawaii employed a total o

44 people. At that time, both companies were

planning modications to their business models.

Combined, these modications would result in

an approximate overall 173 percent increase in

production, rom 2.2 million pounds o sh to 6

million pounds, but would lose ve employees

an 11 percent decrease in employment.86 Accord-

ing to Kona Blue Water Farms, the company

needed to reduce the number o divers on staf in

order to achieve protability.87

Furthermore, it seems that the ew jobs that are

ofered may not be sae. Four ormer employees

have led lawsuits against Kona Blue Water

Farms, alleging various ailures to provide a

sae working environment and claiming various

physical and emotional repercussions.88 A much

greater loss occurred when a diver was killed at

Hukilau Farms in 2011.89


14/28


As demonstrated in the proles below, setting up

an open ocean sh arm is a dificult and costly

endeavor, oten requiring government subsidies

and private investment. Even with AOLs Steve

Case as an owner and inusing $4.5 million

into the operation in 2007,90 Hukilau Farms in

Hawaii led or bankruptcy in 2010.91 Clearly,

this industry will not be the domain o small

businesses with limited resources, and i it were

to restrict access to shing grounds or damage

wild sh populations, it could damage the small

businesses o many shermen.

Many commercial shermen are sufering rom

competition with cheap seaood imported rom

other countries, as well as by disasters such asHurricane Katrina and the BP Deepwater Hori-

zon explosion. They ear that the advent o acto-

ry sh arming in the ocean will urther damage

their livelihoods.92 The state o Alaska banned

open ocean aquaculture in its state waters in

1990 as shermen experienced stif competition

rom cheaper, mass-produced armed salmon

grown in Canada and other countries.93 The rise

o salmon arms was dealing a hard blow to sh-

ermen acing competition rom mass-producedarmed salmon.

Proponents o ofshore aquaculture claim that it

could be used to ofset the nearly $10 billion U.S.

seaood trade decit, which is the amount o sh

imported compared to the amount exported.94

According to Food & Water Watch calculations,

the United States would need to produce anastounding 200 million sh per year to close

the decit, based on data rom open ocean cobia

arms. This volume o production would require

an unrealistic amount o small wild sh to be

converted to sh eed and could lead to a right-

ening volume o escapes and pollution.95

To eed this many armed fsh would take

approximately 1.2 million tons o fshmeal,

or 41 percent o the estimated global pro-duction.96 In act, this is a conservative esti-

mate, and the requirements could actually be

much higher i the operations cannot achieve

a eed-conversion ratio o 1.75 or lower, or i

a eed consisting o more than 50 percent sh-based protein is used.

Fishmeal is already demanded elsewhere, and

production is currently decreasing,97 so it is un-

likely that this need or shmeal could be met.

But i this limitation were somehow overcome,

the production o 200 million sh on ofshore ac-

tory arms could produce an astounding amount

o environmental damage. This many fsh

arms would result in approximately thesame amount o nitrogen pollution as the

untreated sewage produced by a city that

is nearly nine times the population o Los

Angeles.98

Further, as discussed earlier, escapement is a

common problem on sh arms. For instance,

over the course o three years in Washington

state, the salmon industry lost approximately

17.4 percent o its sh annually.99

I the armsaveraged this same rate o escapes, 34.8 million

sh could be released into our oceans each year.

This is roughly 17 times the amount o salmon

that escape rom arms in the Atlantic Ocean per

year an amount that some scientists ear is

leading to extinction o the wild species.

Granted, those three years, which are the only

three or which we could obtain records, were con-

sidered to be the product o catastrophic events.

In the unlikely scenarios that the new ocean sh

arming industry consistently avoided adverse

weather conditions or technical ailures and lost


15/28

Fishy Farms 13

only the minimum amount o sh that sh arms

should expect, the industry could still be expected

to release 1 to 2 million sh into the ocean every

single year, approximately the same number o

salmon that escape each year in the Atlantic.100

I this is what it would look like to ofset the sea-

ood trade decit through ofshore sh arming,

it is clear that we must pursue other options,

such as limiting imports and producing sustain-

able, healthy, afordable seaood domestically or

U.S. consumers.

Perhaps the worst news or the ofshore aquacul-

ture industry is that its operations may produce

hazards to human health. A serious public

health concern with actory sh arms is the use

o antibiotics. Antibiotics, which can be applied

by way o medicated baths and medicated ood,101

can enter the environment around cages, where

they may alter the composition o marine bacte-

ria.102 Evidence suggests that these antibiotic-

resistant bacteria can, in turn, pass on their

antibiotic resistance genes to other bacteria,

including human and animal pathogens.103

An increasing number o studies have docu-

mented elevated levels o bacterial antibiotic

resistance in and around aquaculture sites.

For example, beore 1990 in the United King-dom, the disease-causing bacteriaAeromonas

salmonicida were sensitive to amoxicillin. But

ater the antibiotic was introduced to sh arms,

amoxicillin-resistant strains began to appear.104

Evidence o antibiotic resistant bacteria also

has been reported in the Mediterranean,where

a study ound a high percentage o resistant

strains, indicating a widespread antibiotic resis-

tance in the bacterial populations surroundingsh arms.105

At a time when more and more consumers are

moving toward organic meat and milk in order

to avoid ood products rom animals that have

been excessively exposed to antibiotics,106 it is

unclear why we would develop a new, antibiotic-

dependent ood industry.

Additionally, there is cause or concern that ac-

tory sh arms could lead to higher incidence o

ciguatera in both armed sh and surrounding

wild sh populations. Ciguatera poisoning is the

largest cause o nsh-related ood-borne illness

in the United States, and possibly globally. It

causes an array o gastrointestinal, cardiologi-

cal and neurological symptoms. Poisoning is

contracted by consumption o a sh that has

accumulated toxins living in microalgae.107 A

study examining the impacts o ofshore rigs has

parallels to ofshore sh arms, as they both pro-

vide havens or toxins to accumulate. The study

ound that use o these platorms or sheries

enhancement structures could have unintended

consequences or human health, and that these

concerns also extend to proposals or of-shore

mariculture [marine aquaculture] operations.108

In addition, there is the possibility that armed

sh could contain higher levels o certain con-

taminants such as PCBs, dioxins, ameretardants and pesticides than wild sh.

Although this has not been critically examined

or all types o aquacultured sh, one study o

salmon ound that 13 out o 14 organocholo-

rine contaminants are more common in armed

salmon than wild.109Another study has sug-

gested that exposure to sh arms may increase

mercury contamination in nearby wild sh.

Rocksh around a salmon arm in British Co-

lombia were ound to have increased levels omercury contamination ater being exposed to

arm waste and uneaten eed.110



16/28


Further, products produced on ofshore arms

are likely to be out o reach or many U.S. con-

sumers. The most commonly consumed seaood

items in the United States are those that have

become more widely and cheaply available at

grocery stores and inexpensive restaurants:

shrimp, canned tuna, salmon, pollock (used in

sh sandwiches and sh sticks), tilapia and cat-

sh.111 The majority o seaood that U.S. consum-

ers eat is imported, oten rom countries with

less stringent regulations on the chemicals and

conditions that seaood can be armed in, leading

to concerns about the quality and saety o these

sh.112

In order to benet the majority o U.S. seaoodconsumers, we need afordable seaood that is

locally available and locally produced. However,

open ocean aquaculture operators are primarily

interested in growing premium products that

can be sold or a high value. Kona Kampachi,

the brand name

o Kona Blue Water Farms sh, have been sold

or $17 a llet.113 The newest sh arm on the

horizon

in Hawaii hopes to grow bigeye tuna, a popularspecies or sushi.114 Not only are these products

out o reach or many consumers, they are also

likely to be exported to Japan or countries in

the

European Union, where high-quality seaood

can etch a higher price.

As discussed earlier, it can take many pounds o

small wild sh in order to grow the carnivorousmarine nsh armed in open ocean aquaculture

operations. These small sh, such as anchovies

and sardines, may not be in high demand or

human consumption in the United States, but

they are a healthy ood source that low-resource

populations in many parts o the world rely on

or a component o their protein intake. A 2009

article pointed out the dire consequences o

malnutrition around the globe, and the grow-

ing competition or small pelagic sh or direct

consumption, or or reduction into shmeal.115 I

these small sh species are shed out to create

ood or large species o armed sh, we may be

trading many peoples access to a nutrient-rich

ood source or ewer peoples access to morehigh-value, sushi-grade sh.

Since the originalFishy Farms was published,

the our arms proled have not ared well. At-

lantic Marine Aquaculture Center has stopped

production. Snapperarm, in Puerto Rico, has

ceased production, and its owner has moved

production outside o the United States. Kona

Blue Water Farms has sold its grow-out opera-tions and has not had sh on the market in the

past year. And nally, Hukilau Farms (ormerly

known as Cates International) has ceased pro-

duction in the open waters in order to ocus on

its land-based hatchery. Three new operations

have proposed development in Hawaii but have

yet to make it to the operational stage. Another

arm was proposed of the coast o Caliornia

but mysteriously stopped, while complaining

about the permitting process.

In 2006, Richard Langan, director o the Univer-

sity o New Hampshires Open Ocean Aquacul-

ture Project told Congress that one o his cen-

ters goals was to explore the economic viability

o arming nsh.116 In early 2007, Langan

observed: At the University o New Hampshire,

eight years o research and technology develop-

ment have led us to conclude that a commer-cially viable and environmentally sound ofshore

aquaculture industry is an option or the U.S.117


17/28

Fishy Farms 15

Between 1997 and 2007, NOAA gave $19 mil-

lion in support to the Atlantic Marine Aqua-

culture Center. But since 2007, when AMAC

and its various operational and technological

setbacks were eatured in the originalFishy

Farms report, the center does not appear to have

ared well. All o the programs progress reportson nsh aquaculture, updated regularly rom

2000 onward, cease ater 2007.118 A call placed

to AMACs ormer spokesperson, Dolores Leon-

ard, in August 2009, revealed that the project

had lost some o its unding in 2007, leading to

a reduction in staf, and research activities were

thereore greatly curtailed.119

In 2008, however, the center did receive

$474,999 rom NOAA to support the advance-ment and improve the economic viability o

ofshore sh arming,120 as well as $355,000

or research on ofshore cage technology to nd

ways to optimize eeding processes, reduce sh

stress and promote sh growth.121 These hety

grants did not result in new public inormation

on the topics they were intended to explore.

The centers website has not even been updated

since 2007. Although Langan once said that his

operation had made tremendous strides towardbringing ofshore aquaculture closer to com-

mercial reality,122 in the end, it could not exist

without research unding.

In 2003, Brian OHanlon, a young entrepreneur,

put the rst trial cages o cobia of the coast o

the Puerto Rican island o Culebra.123 The com-

pany, Snapperarm, aced some initial growing

pains. A 2010 paper that lists OHanlon as thesecond author details open ocean sh arm trials

that occurred during a previous but unspecied

year in Puerto Rico.124

Between 2007 and 2009, the company ramped

up operations, increasing production and ex-

perimenting with new production technologies,

such as the sel-propelled Aquapod, an enormous

geodesic cage that can roam the ocean unteth-

ered.125

By 2009, the company was growing 50 tons o

cobia.126 OHanlon had hoped to grow his a-

cility up to 750 tons 1,500 percent its cur-rent size.127 Ater struggling through disease

outbreaks in Puerto Rico and the loss o his

ngerling supplier in Miami, Florida, he even-

tually gave up and moved to Panama, where

he launched Open Blue Seaarms in conjunc-

tion with his investor, Aquacopia.128 There he

ound the permitting system to be easier; as he

explained to a reporter in 2010, Panama has

a very small government. Lower labor costs

and the ability to build larger acilities was alsoanother draw.129

OHanlon has acquired another operation, Pris-

tine Oceans,130 and developed what he describes

as the largest ofshore sh arm in the world,

where he grows cobia nine miles of the coast

within a 2,500 acre site.131 Currently, the compa-

ny appears to be the most successul o the open

ocean arms discussed in terms o production

and scale, but it is unclear whether the armcould ever reach the same success in any condi-

tions o the U.S. coastline, or while subjected

to suficiently environmentally and culturally

protective regulations.

The company compares its product to ree-range

bee, poultry and eggs,132 appearing to try to

capture interest rom environmentally conscious

consumers. It claims that its approach lessens

environmental impact, providing a guilt ree,

high quality, sae, healthy and sustainably

cultivated seaood.133 Numbers on the company

eed-conversion ratios, waste dispersal and



18/28


incidence o escape are unavailable to the public,

however. And considering that the arm hopes to

net $20 million in revenue annually using eight

aquapods and has a permit to arm 10,000 tons

o sh on its 3.5 square-mile arm,134 it is hard

to believe that this enormous arm is the type

o operation that consumers o ree-range eggshave in mind when they seek out seaood, clearly

demonstrating that to be protable actory sh

arms must be large and capital intensive.

Located of the western coast o the Island o Ha-

waii, Hawaii, Kona Blue Water Farms (KBWF)

has possibly the most storied history o the open

ocean operations. When Food & Water Watch

proled KBWF in 2007, the company alreadyhad experienced its share o tribulations, includ-

ing killing a tiger shark in 2005 that requented

the site;135 contamination o eed with melamine

rom China in 2007;136 and over 1,000 sh es-

caped that same year when a diver let a zip-

pered entrance to the cage open.137

Since then, the troubles have continued. In 2009,

a Galapagos shark attack released hundreds o

the companys armed sh into the wild.138

Theyear beore, a public oficial raised concerns

about the arms potential or causing impacts

to benthic (seaoor) organisms and its ail-

ure to adequately address these issues during

the permitting process to recongure the cage

site.139 Additionally, concerns were raised about

unnatural behaviors in dolphins that had be-

gun requenting the arm site. The oficial was

concerned that interaction with the arm could

be causing dolphin conditioning, which canbe detrimental to the animals survival due to

altered eeding and social behaviors.140

In 2008, the company applied or a modication

to its permits in order to double the capacity o

its operation.141 However, the arm aced opposi-

tion rom the community. Two challenges were

led against the application, and KBWF with-

drew its request.142 In 2009, the company submit-

ted another application and received approval or

modiying its net pen designs. This modication

didnt enable KBWF to scale up, but it did allow

it to experiment with new cage types.143 KBWF

claimed in its application that changes werenecessary to achieve economic eficiency. The

changes would also allow the operation to mini-

mize its need or divers, shrinking its already

small staf. In its application, the company wrote:

We believe that the only way or Kona Blue to

achieve protability or our Kona operation is by

reducing our reliance on SCUBA divers.144

Meanwhile, KBWF has expanded into Mexico

with an operation in the Sea o Cortez.145

Pre-sumably, KBWF, like Snapperarm, was looking

to avoid the regulatory hurdles it aced in the

United States. Following these various attempts

to overcome nancial dificulty and achieve

protability, Kona Blue sold its operation and

received approval on January 8, 2010 to transer

it to Keahole Point Fish LLC, a company regis-

tered just months prior in Delaware.146

In November 2009, KBWF said that it would

temporarily halt production in Hawaii as it con-

tinued to develop a hatchery in Hawaii and move

its operations in Mexico. Reportedly, sh would

be back on the market by the end o 2010.147

However, as o June 2011 Kona Kampachi was

still not on the market, and any availability o

the product appears to have been ragmented

since November 2009.148

In January 2011, the company was charged or

coral damage ater it had parked an experimen-

tal pen that it was no longer using in the Kawai-



19/28

Fishy Farms 17

hae Small Boat Harbor on the western side o

the Island o Hawaii. Twenty-eight instances o

coral damage were cited. The $13,500 ne was

cut in hal and eventually waived, allowing the

company to use the monies instead to support

coral conservation eforts.149

In November 2010, KBWF applied to the Na-

tional Marine Fisheries Service or a Special

Coral Ree Ecosystem Fishing Permit in order

to conduct an open ocean aquaculture operation

in ederal waters, where it will attempt to raise

sh in a cage towed by a boat largely oating

with natural eddies.150 In June 2011, KBWF

received the permit, the rst o its kind, setting

a dangerous precedent or uture operations. In

March 2011, prior to the issuance o its permit,the company took empty cages out into the ocean

or testing. They quickly lost one and had to sink

the other.151 The permit has been legally chal-

lenged by both Food & Water Watch and KA-

HEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance.152

Cates International, the rst commercial sh

arm in the United States, rst secured its lease

in 2001.153 The company took over operations

rom a demonstration acility led by University

o Hawaii researcher Charles Helsley. Like the

other acilities discussed in this report, Cates

International has aced a dificult path in its

quest or viability. One year into the experiment,

Helsley wrote in a report that 30 percent o the

sh had died rom inections, lack o oxygen and

other problems when they were transerred into

sh cages. He wrote that the experiment was

operating at sub-economic levels, and yet he

optimistically wrote that moi, the species being

cultured, could be raised in an economically vi-

able way.154

From site sampling between 2001 and 2004,

researchers reported that the arm had grossly

polluted the seaoor and severely depressed

some types o sea lie. Despite the open ocean

location and alongshore currents, the efects o

sh eed and waste on the [seaoor] community

were evident. The ecosystem had been drasti-

cally changed, they ound, and the efects hadspread beyond the area beneath the cages.155

That same year, the company entered into

agreement with Visionary LLC, a company

owned by Steve Case o AOL-Time Warner, to

orm a company called Grove Farm Fish & Poi,

LLC. In 2007, Cates Internationals lease was

transerred to this company, and the arm was

renamed Hukilau Foods.156 The company hoped

that this merger would enable it to expand itsoperation and build a large land-based hatchery.

In 2008, a concerned government oficial com-

mented that studies conducted at the arm had

ound a large cyanobacterial mat growing be-

neath cages, which raises concern because the

sandy bottom underneath cage sites is a home

or sea grasses that provide a meadow-like graz-

ing habitat or a wide variety o marine organ-

isms.157 Despite these ndings, in 2009 the com-

pany was granted approval to expand operation

rom 1.2 million pounds a year to 5 million. 158



20/28


However, the arm has not actually been able to

scale up to this size. In June 2010, Randy Cates,

ounder o Cates International, sued Visionary

LLC or what he alleged was mismanagement o

the company.159 Then, in November o that same

year, according to an article in theHonolulu Star-

Advertiser, the company led or bankruptcy with

only $5 million in assets compared to $8.6 million

in debts.160 The company estimated in July 2011

that it would take two-and-a-hal years to raise

the $9.8 million that would return it to protabil-

ity.

Cates has cited mismanagement and low sur-

vival rates o the sh as contributors to the

bankruptcy. According to Cates, the survival

rate or its sh dropped by more than 50 percent

since 2009. The company has not had any sh on

the market since February 2011, and with none

currently being raised in its ofshore cages, the

sh will not likely be back in distribution until

next year.161 The cages themselves are currently

out o compliance with state regulations, since

the company ailed to obtain approval rom state

agencies beore deploying new equipment.162

Hukilau has been nanced in part by American

taxpayers through a $3.8 million secured loan

that the company received rom the NationalMarine Fisheries Service and another, unse-

cured loan o $64,450 rom the U.S. Department

o Commerce.163

Over the past several years, additional arms

have attempted to set up shop in marine waters

around the country. Hubbs-SeaWorld Research

Institute in San Diego, under the leadership o

Don Kent, developed a plan to grow 1,000 metrictons o striped sea bass ve miles of the coast o

San Diego, and to eventually scale up to produce

3,000 metric tons annually.164 The project was

pitched as a demonstration project, a somewhat

dubious claim considering that it was planning

to produce more sh than any commercial arm

operating in U.S. waters is permitted to.165 In

2009, Don Kent submitted a letter asking that

his permit applications or the operation be put

on hold. Ater complaining about dificultiessecuring approval, he indicated that he would

wait until the Obama administrations national

aquaculture policy was nalized.166

In 2009, a company called Indigo Seaood dis-

cussed opening a acility in an area hal a mile of

the western coast o the Island o Hawaii,167 and

another company in Hawaii, Maui Fresh Fish,

LLC, is moving orward in the permitting process

to establish a arm of o the Island o Lanai. 168

Most troubling, however, are developments with

a company called Hawaii Oceanic Technology,

Inc. In October 2010, the company received a

35-year lease rom the Hawaiian Board o Land

and Natural Resources or a 247-acre ocean arm

site 2.6 nautical miles of the western coast o

the Island o Hawaii.169 The company plans to

arm 12 million pounds o either bigeye or yel-

lown tuna in its enormous, patent-pending

Oceanspheres.170 The company boasts that itsoperations are environmentally sustainable and

will represent a more eficient source o ood than

land agriculture or wild sh.171 And yet it also

says itsel that it takes up to 42 pounds o wild

sh to create 10 pounds o marine armed sh.172

Wasting 32 pounds o wild sh that could be

consumed by other marine sh, animals or people

hardly seems like an eficient source o produc-

tion, especially considering the high cost that is

generally associated with sushi-grade resh tuna.

The company plans to deploy its rst ull-scale

oceansphere in 2012.173



21/28

Fishy Farms 19

As the United States emerges rom recession, we

must continue to prioritize the development o

local economies, create steady job opportunities

and spend ederal money wisely. Meanwhile, e-

orts to support local businesses and buy local,

while promoting environmentally sustainable,

community-supportive businesses, have grown.

The local oods movement has gained support

rom diverse sources as people have recognized

potential economic and environmental benets.

In light o these trends, the ederal governments

support o ofshore actory sh arming seems

woeully wasteul and out o place.

Ater over a decade o exorbitant nancial sup-

port rom the ederal government and labor

wasted by government oficials and university

scientists, the open ocean sh arming industry

still has not provided any clear indication thatit can create a signicant number o jobs or an

afordable source o quality sh products. The

edgling industry is not yet large enough to

draw conclusions about the environmental rami-

cations o a ull-scale industry, but evidence

indicates that ofshore sh arms, especially at

the scale imagined by NOAA, will threaten the

marine environment in a variety o ways.

I we want to achieve the goals o strengtheningthe economy, making more sae domestic sea-

ood available, protecting our beautiul marine

environments and ostering a diverse array o

businesses that rely on it, we must stop sinking

money into this troubled industry. Instead, we

must ocus on managing our wild sh resources

responsibly, developing alternative methods o

sustainable sh arming, reducing seaood ex-

ports and limiting imports by turning away more

contaminated seaood at the border.

Support bills to prohibit ederal agencies

rom authorizing commercial nsh aquacul-

ture operations in ederal waters.

Support eforts to increase seaood inspec-

tions, so that U.S. consumers will not be

exposed to unsae, contaminated seaood

imports.

Support research and eforts to sustainably

manage wild sh stocks, and explore other

methods o aquaculture, such as land-based

recirculating systems.

Let your Senators and Representatives know

that you are concerned about ofshore actory

sh arming and its impacts.

Make sae, sustainable choices about sea-

ood. Show restaurants, vendors and oth-

ers that you care about the type o seaood

you eat. For tips, see Food & Water Watchs

Smart Seafood Guide.


22/28


-

money theyve spent in support for the Gulf of Mexico aquacul-

-

-

-

-

-

mental Assessment for Proposed Expansion of Hukilau Foods

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


23/28

Fishy Farms 21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

, February

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Octo-

66

-

-


24/28


-

-

-

cod,

-

Cod,

Diets of Juvenile Cobia

-

-

-

-

Sep-

88 United States

-

United States District Court for the

-


25/28

Fishy Farms 23

-

as a

-

-

-

110 Debruyn, Adrian

-

-

-

133

-

140

-

-

-

143 -

-


26/28


Janu-

-

in Federal Waters West of the Island of Ha-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Malae Point, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii, by Hawaii Oceanic

170


27/28


28/28

Food & Water Europe

+32 (0) 2893 1045

www.foodandwatereurope.org

fishy farms

Documents