Events at FISH EXPO over World Fisheries Week, in addition to the Highliner Banquet on Friday evening (see Sublegals, 8:13/01) and the talk earlier in the day by U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), include two symposiums on salmon aquaculture and its impact on wild salmon fisheries and the environment. On Thursday, in the North Exhibit Hall of the Washington State Convention & Trade Center in Seattle (1400-1600 HRS), scientists Rebecca Goldburg and John Volpe will discuss the risks of salmon farming and impacts on wild fish. Seattle restaurateur Duke Moscrip will explain how he decided to "go wild" with his seafood choices and the reaction of customers (and the fish farm publicity machine). Finally, Jeremy Brown will describe the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plans for aquaculture in U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters. The discussion follows the "Conference on Aquaculture: Effects on the West Coast and Alaska Fishing Industry" held earlier that week in Seattle.

On Friday afternoon the 21st at EXPO, there will be a screening of the film "Net Loss: The Storm Over Salmon Farming" which examines the impact of the multi-national salmon farms on fishing communities. Filmed in Washington State, Chile and British Columbia, "Net Loss" assesses the risks and benefits of salmon farming, with government and industry spokespersons who are advocates for privately owned fish growing operations in the marine environment, along with fishermen, scientists and consumers. Finally, it looks at harms these operations have caused wild Pacific salmon, coastal ecosystems and local and Native people. More information on the seminar and film will be at the "Go Wild" booth (#345) and additional information is at: http://fishexposeattle.com/conf.asp#520 . PCFFA, too, will be on hand with a booth (#837).

8:18/02. PICKETS SET UP IN FRONT OF SELECTED "GREEN-ORIENTED" NORTH AMERICAN SUPERMARKETS IN DAY OF PROTEST AGAINST FARMED SALMON: On 5 November, demonstrations were held in front of San Francisco's Whole Foods Markets and selected other super-markets across North America protesting the store's sales of farmed salmon despite clear evidence such fish were not sustainable and posed threats to the environment and human health. Organized by the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform's (CAAR) "Farmed & Dangerous" campaign, the action followed on a half-page advertisement in the 31 October New York Times calling on grocery store chains including Safeway, Whole Foods and Albertson's to stop selling farmed salmon. In front of the Whole Foods in San Francisco were volunteers from a number of environmental, consumer and fishing groups waving banners "Think Twice About Eating Farmed Salmon" and "Farmed Salmon: Don't You Think It's Kind of Gross?" together with a singer and choir belting such ditties as "Real Color" with lyrics "Don't try to fool us with your pink-colored dye. Don't try to sell us, what you won't buy. Don't try to fool us with your genes modified. True color comes from the inside."

CAAR has been trying to work with Whole Foods for a year, without any success, attempting to get the grocery chain to stop its suppliers from using open-net pens for salmon farming. CAAR, a coalition of 10 environmental, fishing-industry and native groups in British Columbia, organized the protest at Whole Foods, as well as similar actions in Los Angeles, Seattle, Victoria, and Vancouver BC at Whole Foods and Safeway stores there, as part of its "Farmed & Dangerous" campaign. Targeting California consumers to reform the salmon-farming industry is key for CAAR's campaign, since 80 percent of the fish farmed in British Columbia are exported to the U.S., and much of that is sold in California. "We want consumers to think twice before buying farmed salmon," Sophika Kostyniuk, U.S. organizer for the Farmed & Dangerous campaign told Intrafish. "Grocery stores appealing to buyers who are health and environment-conscious should stop selling farmed salmon until the industry can reform its operations to better protect the environment and wild fish." For more information: http://www.farmedanddangerous.org. Also see "Salmon Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest: A Global Fishery With Local Impacts" in Environment (Vol.45, No. 8, pp.18-39) or e-mail the principal author of that report, Dr. Rosamond Naylor at: roz@stanford.edu.

8:18/03. FARM SALMON PRICES DOWN AS CHILEANS LOOK TO COLOR FISH WITH MARIGOLDS: Intrafish reports farmed salmon prices in the U.S. are at their lowest levels since the beginning of the year, in part due to weak demand. While farmed salmon demand weakened this past year, there are indications of higher demand for wild salmon, although a number of logistical problems remain, especially for Alaska, in preserving quality and getting to market efficiently. In another Intrafish story, the fishery news service reports the "Mexican company Prodemex has begun to commercialize a pigment derived from marigold flower extract as a source for astaxanthin in salmon." Dyes are required to give farmed salmon their pinkish red color to imitate their wild counterparts. Unless more expensive natural foods such as krill are fed farmed salmon, the aquacultured fish flesh has an unappetizing gray color. According to the article, tests have already been done on farmed salmon, trout and shrimp in Denmark, Spain, Norway, Canada, Chile, Japan Mexico and the U.S. The goal now is to introduce the product in Chilean salmon farming, as an "organic" colorant, through the company AquaFarma.

8:18/04. USDA RELEASES COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING (COOL) PROPOSED RULES FOR COMMENTS; SENATE VOTES SUPPORT OF COOL: On 30 October, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published in the Federal Register (Vol. 68, pp. 61943-61985) proposed rules for the mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) program required by the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171) and the Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-206) amending 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. Under the proposed rule, farm raised fish and shellfish, as well as wild fish and shellfish, must be labeled at retail to indicate their country of origin, along with many other agricultural commodities. In addition, the notice of country of origin for fish and shellfish must include and distinguish between wild and farm raised fish and shellfish, as required by the legislation. However, covered commodities are excluded from mandatory country of origin labeling if they're an ingredient in a processed food item. Food service establishments (e.g., restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, food stands, bars, lounges, etc.) are also exempt from the mandatory COOL requirements. Under the law, the labeling requirement will go into effect by 30 September 2004, with compliance until that date voluntary (see Sublegals, 7:15/04; 7:14/14; 5:19/03; 5:17/04; 5:08/03; 5:07/06). Some U.S. states, including Mississippi and Alabama, already have seafood country of origin labeling laws of their own (see Sublegals, 7:17/07).

Under the proposed USDA rule, a covered commodity can only bear a U.S. country of origin declaration if certain criteria are met. Farm raised fish and shellfish commodities must be derived exclusively from fish or shellfish hatched, raised, harvested and processed in the U.S. Covered commodities for wild fish and shellfish must be derived from fish or shellfish harvested in the waters of the United States or by a U.S. flagged vessel and processed in the U.S. or aboard a U.S. vessel. The proposed rule outlines requirements for labeling products of mixed origin, including products produced both in foreign markets and the U.S., together with labeling requirements for blended products. Record keeping requirements for retailers and their suppliers are also outlined.

The USDA has fought the rule, claiming the benefits associated with it are "likely to be negligible." Their estimated first-year incremental cost for growers, producers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers ranges from $582 million to $3.9 billion (only a small part of which is for shellfish and seafood, since many other agricultural products are also included). USDA's alleged cost to the U.S. economy in higher food prices and reduced food production in the tenth year after implementation of the rule ranges from $138 million to $596 million. The federal agency is also asserting there is little evidence consumers are likely to increase their purchase of food items bearing the U.S. origin label as a result of this rulemaking. The Food Marketing Institute and others are using the USDA cost estimates to oppose the COOL law and support Congressional efforts to delay implementation (see Sublegals, 6:18/08). The USDA estimates, however, are considered greatly inflated by independent economic analysts (see Sublegals, 7:20/06). The Government Accounting Office (GAO), for example, weighed in against the USDA cost estimates, noting that the agency analysis relied on questionable assumptions that were "not well supported."

U.S. west coast salmon fishermen could see significant gains in the marketplace when consumers are able to distinguish between wild caught fish and imported farm fish. Farmed salmon products have flooded the U.S. fish markets, driving down the prices of Alaska's wild salmon fisheries in recent years by 77 percent (see Sublegals, 8:15/03). Given a choice, consumers prefer wild caught salmon to farm fish, and much of the reason the provision was inserted in the Farm Bill by U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) to specifically include labeling of farm fish was to protect Alaska's salmon markets.

Comments on COOL must be submitted on or before 29 December and should be addressed to: Country of Origin Labeling Program, Room 2092-S; Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA, STOP 0249, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249, or by facsimile to 202/720-3499, or by e-mail to: cool@usda.gov; refer to Docket No. LS-03-04. Comments received will be posted to the AMS web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool. For a copy of the proposed rules, search the 30 October Federal Register under "COOL," using the index at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

Efforts to delay or roll back the COOL laws in Congress are ongoing. The House of Representatives recently voted to delay implementation by approving a rider in its Agriculture Appropriations bill to suspend the rules for one year, but the U.S. Senate voted 58 to 36 on 6 November in a "Sense of the Senate" resolution attached to its 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill to support mandatory country of origin labeling, both on economic grounds and in the interests of national food security. The resolution, sponsored by Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and with broad bi-partisan support, is nonbinding but will be used by Senate conferees in working out differences in the two bills to support keeping the COOL law intact. For more on the Senate vote to support the Daschle's COOL resolution, see: http://daschle.senate.gov/~daschle/pressroom/releases/03/11/2003B07256.html.

8:18/05. FRENCH EFFORT TO RESTORE AND REESTABLISH WILD SALMON POPULATIONS IN EUROPE: On the eve of the Intrafish report of ISA-infected salmon escaping from one of Vestlak's net pens in the Faeroe Islands, possibly infecting other fish farms and remnant Atlantic salmon stocks, comes news of an effort to establish a European NGO [non-governmental organization] for the protection and economic development of wild salmon. The Fondation Saumon (Salmon Foundation), planned for start-up in 2005, is proposed to be "active in four sectors of activity:

* to re-colonize the whole Loire basin with wild Atlantic salmon and contributing to the restocking of other French and European basins with specimens from the Haut-Allier salmon farm;
* to gain knowledge and understanding of wild salmon and set up adapted rehabilitation programs by means of a scientific section. The aim of the scientific section of the Foundation is to produce, collect and circulate technical data on themes developed by the Foundation and associated bodies involved in similar programs on the protection of salmon;
*to heighten awareness among the public and all those concerned of the environmental issues at stake, the importance of water quality and the protection of this threatened species, and;
* to develop the local economy of the regions involved in salmon rehabilitation programs with the aim of ensuring partial financing of these operations and guaranteeing the sustainable use of this resource."

For more information, go to: http://www.fondation-saumon.org.

8:18/06. RUSSIAN RIVER COHO CAPTIVE BROODSTOCK PROGRAM UNDERWAY, HABITAT GETS CALIFORNIA COURT PROTECTION: On the heels of California's Coho Salmon Recovery Strategy Plan (see Sublegals, 8:17/12), a California court protected coho and other salmon habitat in Marin County (just north of San Francisco) and two reports updated progress of captive broodstock programs for restoring nearly-extinct coho populations in the Russian River. If successful, the Russian River Program protocols could be extended to coho recovery efforts in other parts of the state. Coho, throughout California are listed under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. In Marin County, a Superior Court Judge ordered a halt to construction of a "monster home" along San Geronimo Creek, after the Tomales Bay Watershed Association and SPAWN filed suits, holding the building would violate the state's environmental laws and endanger the fish. To the north, in Sonoma County, progress continues with a broodstock program for coho. The first round of spawning is set for next month of fish that were collected in 2001; their juvenile progeny will be released into the wild.

For more information on the Marin County Superior Court decision, see the 13 November Point Reyes Light at: http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/nov13_03/salmon.html. For more information on the captive broodstock program, see the November issue of the Fishermen's News (pp. 30-31) "Working in the Trenches to Save the Last Wild Russian River Coho - Fishermen Involved in Captive Broodstock Programs" (on the web at: http://www.pcffa.org/fn-nov03.htm) and the 14 November Santa Rosa Press-Democrat at: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/news.html. At upper left corner under "SITE SEARCH," click on "Archive," type in "coho" and you will be directed to a page listing coho-related stories in date order from most recent. The article appeared under Cecilia Vega's byline.

8:18/07. CONGRESSIONAL CJS BILL WITH STEVENS' RIDERS PULLED AFTER FILIBUSTER, HEADED FOR OMNIBUS APPROPIATIONS BILL CONFERENCE AS OPPOSITION BUILDS: The U.S. Senate's Commerce, State, Justice (CJS) Appropriations Bill was pulled off the floor Monday, 10 November, after a filibuster began led by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). At issue are some highly controversial riders attached in the Appropriations Committee, including four by Senator Ted Stevens (see Sublegals, 8:17/01; 8:13/04; 8:10/01) (Title IX of S. 1585). Stevens, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, has managed to anger a number of Senators, including two prominent members of his own party, along with fishing and environmental groups and, it seems, nearly every editorial writer in the nation, even the Wall Street Journal. The most controversial would legalize 90 percent of the Alaska crab fishery quota going directly to processors, which federal officials have said would violate current U.S. anti-trust laws. United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) has broken ranks with their senior Senator on this issue and there's even a question of where the state's other Senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), will come down on the issue. Below is a sampling of editorial comments from across the nation:

"Stevens wants to rewrite regulations that would give processors, not fishermen, control of the market through quotas. Also, he wants to cut studies on fishing conditions and open up waters recently depleted of fish."....San Francisco Chronicle, 13 November 2003

"The unbending senator is used to getting his way on fisheries issues, but there has been considerable bipartisan opposition to his shenanigans. With good reason. Stevens' bill is bad for fishermen, consumers and the environment."............The Tampa Tribune, 12 November 2003

"When there are no ethical standards and when giveaways are the norm, some very preposterous schemes are put on the table. That is proper framework for understanding Senator Ted Stevens' proposal to guarantee fish deliveries to certain processors.".........The Daily Astorian, 12 November 2003

"The fact that Mr. Stevens's son is associated with at least one of the riders' beneficiaries is of less concern than the damage they could inflict on the marine environment and the precedent they could set for fisheries policy elsewhere.".......The New York Times York Times, 11 November 2003

"And in recent years, [scientists] have made remarkable discoveries of cold-water coral beds containing hundreds of species -- coral that bottom-trawling fishing boats can destroy. The bill would stop any effort to protect these ecosystems.".....The Washington Post, 10 November 2003

"[Sen. Ted Stevens] has included a rider on a spending bill that would create an IFQ program for crab fishing - but at the price of handing Alaskan crab processors a monopoly."
....................The Wall Street Journal, 6 November 2003

"Attaching riders to spending bills end-runs the lawmaking process. Stevens' proposals need full scrutiny."
..........Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3 November 2003

"Processors buy crab that is already harvested. There is no public-interest reason to give certain processors what amounts to ration coupons. And nowhere else in U.S. fisheries do such rights exist."
........The Seattle Times, 1 November 2003

"Federal fisheries law is and should remain the product of consensus and deliberation, not one senator's backroom maneuvers.".........Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003

"The government can't micromanage such complex economic consequences and shouldn't even try. The job is just too complicated, the mechanisms too convoluted, the intervention in markets too deep."
........... Anchorage Daily News, 16 September 2003

To avoid the filibuster and a possible fight on the Senate floor, the provisions of the CJS Appropriations Bill, including Stevens' riders, have been put into the Conference Committee for Congress's Omnibus Spending Bill. Action on that is expected to take place prior to the Thanksgiving break. 60 members of the House meanwhile have written U.S. Representatives Bill Young (R-FL) and David Obey (D-MI), Chair and Ranking Minority Member respectively of the House Appropriations Committee, asking them to oppose the Stevens' riders when they are considered in Conference Committee. A copy of that letter is available from sublegals@ifrfish.org. Though faced with a "Hundred Fishermen March" on the North Pacific Council in December (see Sublegals, 8:17/01), Senator Stevens remained defiant as he addressed a national regional fishery council meeting on 13 November and remained intent on pushing ahead with his riders.

NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items, comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office).

"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are reserved to IFR.