Letter to the Editor, North Island Gazette, Published: February 09, 2010
The David Suzuki Foundation has a hefty influence on public opinion so its fair to inquire about their funding and reporting of scientific research.
My calculations show that, since 2000, the David Suzuki Foundation has had revenues of $61.3 million. What is the origin of $27.4 million reported as income from other charities and sources? How much came from American foundations for promotion of certified fish, mostly Alaskan?
Where did the Foundation get $1.9 million it granted to First Nations from 2000 to 2002, most of which are not favourable to salmon farming? Where did you get funds for the brochure, Why You Shouldn’t Eat Farmed Salmon?
Why did you falsely report B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins? This claim is based on a study of just four farmed salmon. Studies - including your own - show farmed salmon has less than three percent of what Health Canada considers the tolerable level for PCBs in fish.
Why did you falsely report that your research shows sea lice originate from salmon farms and cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild?
To the best of my knowledge, sea lice levels at salmon farms were never measured in your research. Sea lice are found on many species of wild fish, and there’s no way to tell whether they originated from salmon farms or wild fish. It follows that your claims, that research shows that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of juvenile salmon mortality in the wild and put them at risk of extinction, are false.
In the wake of extensive bad press - generated largely by the David Suzuki Foundation - a “war on fish farmers” was declared. More than 20,000 people have signed Alexandra Morton’s petition to close salmon farms and millions of tax dollars have been spent on sea lice instead of other priorities.
Has the David Suzuki Foundation deliberately manufactured controversy as part of an anti-farming campaign for certified fish? Have you swayed consumers away from farmed salmon because this serves the purposes of your American funders?
Considering the Foundation got funding for sea lice research from the American foundation that funded an “anti-farming campaign,” and that your sea lice researchers had a “research partnership” with the organization that co-ordinated the “anti-farming campaign.”
I find it hard to believe the bad press The David Suzuki Foundation generated about sea lice is not part of this marketing campaign.
In the interest of fairness, please tell the whole truth about your funding sources and your actual findings with regards to research on PCBs in farmed salmon.
Vivian Krause
North Vancouver
