Marketing Disguised As Science

When a newsletter for the Alaska seafood industry personally thanks the folks at Monterey Bay Aquarium for “a big boost”, one can only conjure up images of back alley deals between a geeky little Californian scientist and a burly frostbitten Alaska fishermen.

So what’s the “big boost” boys?  

Ahhh, you mean the marketing plug that MBA gives you each year. You mean the Seafood Watch program – yeah – the one that omits to give unknowing fish eaters any information about Alaska’s salmon ranching program.

This Blog has uncovered some disturbing information about MBA’s ‘Seafood Watch’ program and their apparent love for anything Alaskan – heck, these guys would probably give the ‘best choice’ rating to processing waste that’s been on the floor for a day – maybe they call it the 8 hour, 15 minute and 45 second rule?

Monterey Bay Aquarium should stick to mating guppies

In a world filled with confusing marketing campaigns and mixed messages, the Monterey Bay Aquarium may win first prize for pulling the wool over our fish consuming eyes.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) produces a report card on fish – what’s apparently good and bad to eat – called the ‘Seafood Watch’. We are now exposing an important and blatant omission on their report card when it comes to salmon.

They give a ‘best choice’ rating to ‘wild-caught’ salmon from Alaska (more on ‘wild-caught’ in an upcoming blog). Only salmon from Alaska get the green light, salmon from Washington and California state, Canada and Europe don’t get the same courtesy. Yep, only Alaska. So why the apparent sponsorship deal for Alaska and what are they not telling us?

What is Monterey Bay Aquarium hiding?

In their rush to sponsor Alaska salmon, it seems as though the 116 page report on the state of Pacific salmon from Alaska has forgotten to discuss the fact that over 40% of the salmon returning to Alaska rivers are actually hatchery raised in plastic trays, net pen reared, pellet feeding, vaccination receiving little guys (and gals). They also forgot to cite in their report the multiple studies that voice concern over the impact of letting go 1.5 billion extra salmon into the ocean’s basin (called salmon ranching). Why is this important information? Well, these cultured salmon do eat small fish, do poop and do have the balls (well, not literally) to breed with natural wild salmon. But more importantly, what do they have to lose by simply admitting that not all Alaska salmon is wild? Lots. The whole marketing game would be up.

So, why would a respectable organization like Monterey Bay Aquarium lie to us (some call it omissions, we call it a lie)?

The Seafood Watch report card is produced with funds from the Dave and Lucile Packard Foundation. This Foundation spends millions of dollars to promote Alaska salmon. When the funding agency has an agenda, you already know the result. Just one example is the $225,000 granted in 2007 to the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR). According to David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation (one of CAAR’s member groups), competing salmon to Alaska’s salmon are “poison”. Wow, ain’t that scientific Dr. Suzuki? Nothing better to promote yourself than by attacking the competition. 

There will be much more on this subject in the near future.  Stay tuned.

Fishy Editorial in the New York Times

A recent editorial in the New York Times (Protein Pyramid, November 10, 2008), weighs in on fish meal consumption by terrestrial and aquatic livestock. Interesting article indeed, but unfortunately lacks some key details. We certainly hope these omissions weren’t on purpose!

Here are some points that will help fill in the blanks;

1. Although 50% of fish meal is used by aquaculture, fish have the ability to convert fish meal into edible protein at a much more efficient rate than terrestrial (land) animals. For example, new diets fed to fish such as salmon and trout have converted into more edible protein – making it a net producer of fish protein (.8 pounds of fish meal convert to 1.0 pound of salmon = .8:1 feed conversion ratio). For comparison sake, poultry at its best will convert feed to meat at a ratio of 2 to 1.
2. The editorial makes no mention of the consumption of fish meal (forage fish like anchovies, sardines, etc.) by the common house cat. The domestic house cat is a very large consumer of fish protein. 
3. While the editorial seems to focus on the ‘farming’ of fish such as salmon, there seems to be an omission of the fact that Alaska salmon ranching is a very large user of fish meal and fish oil. In fact, Alaska salmon ranchers utilize over seven times the amount of fish meal than do salmon farmers on North America’s West coast. While farmers use technology such as camera monitoring for feeding and are replacing fish proteins with vegetable proteins, ranchers simply let their salmon go and forage for food in the wild. No one knows for sure at what conversion rate ranched salmon turn fish protein into body weight, but you can bet that it is less efficient than salmon farming.
4. The global fish meal fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in the world. Despite the growth of aquaculture over the past two decades, the overall consumption of fish meal and fish oil has not increased due to efficencies in conversion rates of aquaculture species.

The New York Times would be well advised to do some homework on the issue of global fish meal usage before attempting to cater to the idealistic views of a few vegans, millions of house cat owners and the Alaska salmon ranching corporations.

May contain…hatchery plastic

Advertising is a tricky thing. How do you walk that fine line of setting yourself apart from the crowd, but still tell the truth? It seems as though a pet food company based in Massachusetts has crossed that line with all four legs.

Purr-fectly Paws-itive this is 100% false advertising!

“Paws-itively Purr-fect Nutrition” advertises ‘Wild Alaskan Salmon Treats’ for dogs as “100% pure wild Alaskan salmon” caught in Southeast Alaska.  Oh, really?  

Well, last year, it seems the salmon catch in Southeast Alaska was not actually made up of “100% pure wild Alaskan salmon”. In fact, on page two of the Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program 2007 Annual Report, it clearly states that up 73% of the annual catch of Chum salmon in Southeast Alaska were actually ranched salmon. Yep; born in hatcheries, fed pellets and released into the ocean to forage for food. Is a hatchery born, pellet feeding, net pen swimming, vaccination receiving little salmon really 100% wild and pure? We think not – and so would the general public – if they only knew!

So, buyer beware of products from Paws-itively Purr-fect Nutrition – 100% pure and wild advertising.

‘Closing in’ on Alaska salmon

Closed containment. Have you ever heard of it? 

A report entitled “Global Assessment of Closed System Aquaculture” recently issued by a narrowly focused ENGO named “Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform” calls for all net pen salmon farmers throw out their nets and put up concrete walls.

Hey, wait a minute! 

As the rest of the salmon producers on the globe have already developed technology to retain salmon in net pens and other enclosures, Alaska is still using the Continents to enclose their hatchery produced salmon. So why does this energy pig called “closed containment” only apply to fish farmers and not fish ranchers?

If ENGO’s were able to break free of their agenda driven funders, Alaska salmon ranchers would be shaking in their mukluks. How can Alaska possibly hope to ‘close contain’ the 1.5 billion hatchery produced, pellet fed salmon they knowingly release into the ocean every year? But a better question may be: why are there no ENGOs asking them to? 

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Truth Test: Tina Wellman, Ph.D.

If a person spends enough time in school to obtain a Ph.D., wouldn’t you assume they’re very good at studying a subject?  Apparently not if your name is Tina Wellman. On this “Truth Test”, Tina gets an “F” (for “False”).

Ms. Wellman recently published an opinion piece in Total Health magazine entitled “Nature’s Ideal Health Food” where she attempts to boost up the image of Alaskan ‘wild’ salmon.

Tina Wellman, Ph.D.

Let’s be clear – we agree with Ms. Wellman that salmon is a superior protein source and high in healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. We also agree that salmon should be consumed once or twice a week. But, that’s about all we agree with. Her opinion then falls into the classic, “I was asked to sponsor a product and this is what I was told to say” piece. Come on Tina – study the damn subject before you make a complete arse of yourself!

Oh, where to start?  Got it! Let’s start at the beginning and we’ll finish at the end.

• Tina Wellman says: “In contrast to farmed salmon, sockeye salmon derived from the pristine waters of Alaska grows unaldulterated by antibiotics, pesticides, growth hormones, synthetic coloring agents and genetically modified organisms”.
• We say: Holy crap Tina, everything in that comment is absolute rubbish. You’d think with that bit of verbal diarhea, you might hit one out of five atleast? Now, the facts;

Antibiotics – up to 50% of Alaska salmon may have been born in a plastic tray in a hatchery and fed pellets in net pens for up to half their life. This is called salmon ranching. If ranched salmon become sick during captivity, they may be fed antibiotics to cure the illness (don’t panic, it’s well regulated and very legal).

Pesticides – no pesticides are used in salmon farming (or salmon ranching).

Growth hormones – no growth hormones are used in salmon farming (or salmon ranching).

Synthetic coloring agents – 50% of Alaskan salmon are ranched (as mentioned above). When cultured in net pens, they are fed a feed that contains a carotene pigment (called astaxanthin).  This is the same beta-carotene that is fed to farmed salmon.  This pigment turns the salmon’s flesh a reddish colour. Whether ranched, farmed or wild – the process of pigmentation is the same. 

Genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) – again, up to 50% of Alaskan salmon will be held in captivity and fed pellets derived from fish meal and other plant proteins. This diet is very similar to what farmed salmon will eat and may or may not include proteins derived from GMO crops – so if you’re accusing farmed salmon of eating GMO’s, then Alaskan salmon may as well.

• Tina Wellman says: “Alaskan salmon are wild; there are no salmon farms in Alaska”. 
• We say: actually, we don’t say anything.  We’ll just show you a picture of a salmon farm in Alaska.

Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, Alaska

Tina Wellman, even though there are another dozen “errors” in your uneducated diatribe, we’ll stop here. But, we’ll be keeping an eye on you to see if we can improve your failing grade in our “Truth Test”.

Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute’s ‘Wild’ Comment

True to this blogs mandate, we’ve uncovered another lovely quote, this time compliments of the spin doctors at the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.

“No shortage of Wild Salmon in Alaska” (April 22, 2008)

We really hate to ruin their party up there in Kodiak country, but we think that beauty of a quote deserves a little more information:

1. The term ‘wild’ is false – up to 50% of ‘wild’ salmon in Alaska have been hatched in a plastic tray, fed pellets and then released from captivity to mix with real naturally wild salmon.
2. Of course there’s plenty of salmon in Alaska – Alaska releases about two billion (yeah, billion-not to be confused with the word million) cultured salmon into Pacific waters every year. By cultured, we mean hatchery raised, pellet fed, vaccinated little salmon.  Heck, they probably have names!  

It’s just as well the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute has an annual budget of 50 million dollars – this might help fight a few lawsuits being filed for false advertising.

To read the full press release, click here.

Dr. Andrew Weil Of Fortune

Dr. Andrew Weil not only looks like Santa Claus, but he also gifts like old Saint Nick too – well, as long as you pay him!

Dr. Weil, the self proclaimed “health advisor” has long touted the benefits of eating salmon.  But apparently not just any salmon will do – you’ve got to “stick to wild Alaskan salmon” he says. Citing no credible scientific data to support this very specific diet, it got us wondering: why would such a well respected health guru (heck, this guy is responsible for keeping Oprah Winfrey’s figure within the frame of your 52″ TV!) blatantly promote a commercial product? Well, the answer is so painfully obvious that even the best prescription from Dr. Weil couldn’t subside the cramps. The answer is…wait for it…here it comes…Dr. Andrew Weil is paid by Vital Choice Wild Seafoods (a wholesale company that sells Alaskan fish) to promote their product.

In 2004, the PEW Foundation (a feverishly protectionist group from the U.S.A. that will spend millions to help promote Alaskan salmon) commissioned a study that looks at the level of contaminants in all types of salmon around the world. The study actually found that all salmon tested was well below international allowable limits of 2000 parts per billion (ppb). Levels for farmed, ranched, enhanced and wild salmon were found to be in the range of between 2 ppb and 50 ppb. But, as your old science teacher probably reminded you over and over again – data can be manipulated to conclude what ever you want. So, the stinkers at the Pew Foundation took the highest farmed salmon results and compared it to the lowest Alaska salmon results and concluded that farmed salmon were ‘multiples’ higher in contaminant levels than Alaska salmon. But, even though the number ‘20′ is “double” the number ‘10′, it’s still only ‘20′.  And when you put ‘20′ on a scale of 2000 it’s still only 1% of the allowable limit. 

“Pew, that really stinks”

So, the same day that this ’study’ is released, Dr. Father Christmas appears on ‘Larry King Live’ and tells America that one of the worst foods to eat is farmed salmon. But he doesn’t stop there. He recommends that the best salmon one can eat is, of course, wild Alaska salmon. He apparently forgot to mention two very important things (hey, money can make a man very forgetful);

1. Up to 50% of Alaska salmon is cultured and not actually ‘wild’.
2. A previous study by Ewald et al. (1998) found that Alaska’s famed Copper River Sockeye salmon were much higher in organic pollutants than any one fish in the Pew Foundations study. Not surprisingly, as bad news makes great news, the Ewald study was quickly promoted in national news outlets. For fairness, we have attached the response to the study released by the Alaska government.

So, the next time Dr. Andrew Weil promotes a product that’s intended to promote healthy living, first ask him – how long’s the term on the business contract?

Note: to read a critique of the Pew Foundation study (January 9th, 2004), click here.

Biodiversity? How y’all spel that?

When Trout Unlimited released a report card entitled “Evaluating Alaska’s Ocean-Ranching Salmon Hatcheries: Biological and Management Issues“, it was assumed that Alaska’s largest agricultural export would get an A+ and a big kiss from the teacher. But, not unlike the time you didn’t study for that grade 12 math test, Alaska’s smug look got wiped of its frost bitten face.

The 2001 report was a wake up call to all those who had ignored the potential impacts of ranching billions of salmon each year. (Heck, many still don’t know Alaska even has an ocean ranching and hatchery program!). If you don’t study it, then there isn’t any impact, right? For the rest of us that manufacture products south of the 49th, we have to consistently perform benefit/impact analysis. We digress…

Here are some stinging quotes from Trout Unlimited;

• “overloading Alaskan waters with hatchery-reared salmon may cause irreversible damage to wild stocks”
• “Alaska’s ocean-ranching salmon hatcheries have been allowed to operate largely unchecked despite mounting evidence and concerns about potential harm to wild stocks-conerns that have dogged the hatchery program since its inception”
• “an appalling lack of data to substantiate the claims of hatchery proponents that hatchery fish pose no risk to wild salmon”

We could go on, but it gets a little depressing.

The report goes on to make some very serious recommendations;

1. No public funding of industrial-scale hatchery production.
2. Publicly-funded salmon marketing programs must distinguish hatchery-produced and wild fish.
3. Shut down Prince William Sound pink salmon hatcheries.

Again, we’ll stop here…you probably get the point by now.

We’ll save the really interesting part for another posting.  But here’s a hint – those that funded this study didn’t like the outcome…so they did something…very bad…stay tuned.

Something fishy (and farmy) going on here…

Have you ever said you won’t do something…but you do it regardless? Some refer to this as lying while others may call it “misrepresentation”. 

Apparently, a whole State called Alaska (that’s the cold one) has forgotten to practice what they preach. Here’s a typical quote from the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute:

“Alaska salmon are wild; there are no salmon farms in Alaska. In order to protect Alaska’s wild fisheries from potential problems, salmon farming was prohibited by the Alaskan legislature in 1990 (Alaska Statute 16.40.210)”   http://www.goldseal.ca/wildsalmon/alaska_salmon.asp

Here’s our response;

Salmon farm in Prince William Sound, Alaska.

So, that’s one hell of a Statute they have in Alaska. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist (or even a kindergarten graduate) to know that this is clearly a fish farm in Alaska. The fact that there is a salmon farm in Prince William Sound, Alaska, isn’t the problem – it’s the plain old ‘misrepresentation’ (a.k.a “lying”) that is a concern.  

If you’ve had enough “misrepresentation” from the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, simply copy the URL address above and send to Laura Fleming, Communications Director for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute at lfleming@alaskaseafood.org