Upload
food-and-water-watch
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
1/28
Fishy Farms:The Governments Push forFactory Farming in Our Oceans
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
-
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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.
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
-
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
6/28
4 Food & Water Europe
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.
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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-
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
8/28
6 Food & Water Europe
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.
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
10/28
8 Food & Water Europe
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
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
12/28
10 Food & Water Europe
Some researchers
73
74
Many of these
-
75
76 -
77 Kona Blue Water
78
-
-
79
-
80 -
81
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
14/28
12 Food & Water Europe
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
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
16/28
14 Food & Water Europe
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
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
18/28
16 Food & Water Europe
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-
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
20/28
18 Food & Water Europe
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
IMAGE COURTESY OF NOAA
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
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.
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
22/28
20 Food & Water Europe
-
money theyve spent in support for the Gulf of Mexico aquacul-
-
-
-
-
-
mental Assessment for Proposed Expansion of Hukilau Foods
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
23/28
Fishy Farms 21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
, February
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Octo-
66
-
-
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
24/28
22 Food & Water Europe
-
-
-
cod,
-
Cod,
Diets of Juvenile Cobia
-
-
-
-
Sep-
88 United States
-
United States District Court for the
-
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
25/28
Fishy Farms 23
-
as a
-
-
-
110 Debruyn, Adrian
-
-
-
133
-
140
-
-
-
143 -
-
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
26/28
24 Food & Water Europe
Janu-
-
in Federal Waters West of the Island of Ha-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Malae Point, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii, by Hawaii Oceanic
170
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
27/28
8/3/2019 Fishy Farms
28/28
Food & Water Europe
+32 (0) 2893 1045
www.foodandwatereurope.org