Just like ‘Big Tobacco’ executives were finally hauled into court to testify on the health risks of smoking, executives of ‘Big Aquaculture’ were grilled this week at the ‘Salmon Farming Kills’ lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the health risks of salmon farming.  

Under cross-examination by Mr. Staniford’s lawyer David Sutherland, Ms. Walling (who looked like she’s consumed more than her fair share of farmed salmon) was asked to look at a series of advertising campaigns from the tobacco industry. 

 
“There you see magazine ads used historically by the tobacco industry from the period of time before the US Surgeon General’s ruling to require warning labels on cigarettes,” suggests Mr. Sutherland (legal counsel for the defendant Mr. Staniford). 

“Prior to the warnings, cigarette companies were taking ads out in relation to scientific facts,” suggests Mr. Sutherland referring to ads by Camel, Chesterfield and Phillip Morris.  “I’m going to suggest that at the present time there is a move towards warning labels on dioxins and PCBs in farmed salmon in California – so are we not now in the same situation with salmon farming?”
 
“No, I don’t agree,” replies Ms. Walling.  “PCBs are part of the food chain and they’re at trace levels in other foods.  They can control the levels in our fish.”
 
Mr. Sutherland now asks Ms. Walling to turn to the award-winning book ‘A Stain Upon the Sea’ (co-authored by Alexandra Morton, Stephen Hume, Otto Langer and others) and a chapter written by the defendant Mr. Staniford entitled ‘Silent Spring of the Sea’. 
 
“Yes, I’m aware of the book and Mr. Staniford’s chapter,” says Ms. Walling.
 
“I would like to suggest that the salmon farming industry knew that there were  PCBs in its fish from as early as the 1970s,” says Mr. Sutherland.

“I cannot agree or disagree,” replies Ms. Walling.  “To the best of my knowledge the industry tests fish feed to ensure low levels.”
 
“Prior to 2004, the salmon farming industry knew there were contaminants in their farmed salmon?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“I would say that they were aware of trace levels,” replies Ms. Walling (whose definition of ‘trace levels’ may be as liberal as Christy Clark).  “I’m not a toxicologist.”
 
“Were Mainstream and EWOS (the plaintiff in this lawsuit) aware of contaminants?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“I cannot speak to what they knew,” replies Ms. Walling (who has been a representative for the BCSFA – which includes Mainstream and EWOS as members – since 2002).  “I understand from my members that they had rigid standards.”
 
“Were they at least alive to the issue?” asks Mr. Sutherland.  “Does that include the plaintiff?”
 
“Yes, I had discussions with all feed companies,” replies Ms. Walling.  “Yes, the feed companies would share that information.  I don’t know if this took place prior to the 2004 Hites report.  My understanding via ongoing discussions is that the industry ensures that PCB levels are extremely low and trace levels.  I am not aware of their knowledge since the 1970s.”
 
“Were you aware of an earlier paper by Dr. Michael Easton?” asks Mr. Sutherland (referring to a 2002 paper in the journal Chemosphere – read online here). 
 
“Yes, I can’t recall the exact date,” replies Ms. Walling. “It was before the Hites paper.”
 
“It raised the question of the need for warning on the farmed salmon product?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“It’s been a long time since I looked at that paper but it would not surprise me,” replies Ms. Walling. 
 
“So the questions of warnings have been up in the air since 2002?” suggests Mr. Sutherland.
 
“From the BCSFA’s point of view we would rely on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada,” replies Ms. Walling.
 
“But Canada still permits sales of cigarettes?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“Yes,” replies Ms. Walling. 
 
“And prior to the warnings on cigarettes, persons who had disagreements and would want to quibbles with the assertions of the tobacco industry would have raised questions?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“I’m not old enough to know,” replies Ms. Walling (who clearly has not seen the film ‘The Insider’).  “I’ve never been a smoker.”
 
Mr. Sutherland then turns back to ‘Silent Spring of the Sea’ and shows Ms. Walling a graphic illustrating the significant differences between farmed and wild salmon in terms of cancer-causing contaminants.

“I’m not an environmental toxicologist,” says Ms. Walling.  “I’m not an expert.”
 
“Do you recall a lawsuit in California Vs. supermarkets and companies selling farmed salmon?” asks Mr. Sutherland.

Read in full online here

“Yes, I recall,” replies Ms. Walling.
 
“The lawsuit was going to be a class action about dioxins and PCBs,” suggests Mr. Sutherland.
 
“Yes, I’m aware,” replies Ms. Walling. 
 
“Why did the lawsuit not go to court?” asks Mr. Sutherland.  “Was there an agreement to test?”
 
“My understanding is that the CFIA tests,” replies Ms. Walling.  “Therefore the Canadian Government is responsible.”
 
“Was there an agreement to test as part of the agreement to terminate the lawsuit?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“Yes, I remember now,” replies Ms. Walling.  “I wasn’t leading that.  It was a broader discussion with Chileans, Scots and Norwegians.”
 
“So the whole industry reacted to the Californian class action by agreeing to test?” asks Mr. Sutherland.  “Mainstream was one of the defendants?”
 
“I don’t recall,” replies Ms. Walling.  “I don’t recall the details.”
 
Mr. Sutherland now turns to a bumper sticker from Friends of Clayoquot Sound. 
 
“I don’t remember,” says Ms. Walling. 
 
“It’s nothing new,” says Mr. Sutherland.  “Mr. Staniford does not claim to have have had the bright idea.  Otto Langer said that.”
 
Mr. Sutherland then quotes from a statement by Otto Langer (who is sitting in the public gallery) in the film ‘Farmed Salmon Exposed’.
 
“If the fish farmers want to play the same game the cigarette manufacturers did for many years and live in denial they're welcome to it but it's not going to give rise to any solutions.”
 
Mr. Sutherland now turns to a letter – “Salmon Virus is Not the Problem Some Claim” - by Mary Ellen Walling published in the Nanaimo Daily News in November 2011.  A reply by Derek Spragg – “Simple Evidence is that Fish Farms Cause Harm” – is read out including:
 
“Ms. Walling, I have just finished reading a book entitled, Merchants of Doubt - How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. You fit right in. I am currently reading Silent Spring, again, you fit right in and so does your fish-farming industry.”
 
Watch ‘Farmed Salmon Exposed: The Global Reach of the Norwegian Salmon Farming Industry” online here
 
“I don’t have any awareness of that reply,” says Ms. Walling (who earlier boasted about the BCSFA’s ‘media monitoring’ work).  “If I saw the document then it may come to mind.”
 
Ms. Walling reads from the letter from Derek Spragg (who is sitting in the public gallery).  “Mr. Spragg is saying that I don’t fit in,” says Ms. Walling.  “I don’t know Mr. Spragg and I’ve never had a conversation with Mr. Spragg.  It may have been part of our media monitoring – I didn’t see it.”
 
“Are you familiar with the book ‘Merchants of Doubt’?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“No, I am not,” replies Ms. Walling who bears an uncanny resemblance to Mrs. Doubtfire.

Leanne Brunt from Positive Aquaculture Awareness (PAA) breathlessly and nervously takes the witness stand.  During her evidence led by Cermaq’s lawyer Mr. Wotherspoon, Ms. Brunt refers to a ‘Cut the Crap’ salmon farming protest in Campbell River last year.
 
“Protestors led by Mr. Staniford paraded around Campbell River and threw crap onto the wall of Mainstream,” claimed Ms. Brunt.  “Community members are outraged.”
 
During cross-examination Mr. Sutherland asks Ms. Brunt about a PAA report following the 2004 Science paper by Hites.  “Yes, it disputed the Hites report and claimed a variety of problems,” says Ms. Brunt. 
 
Read the paper online here
 
“It started with the Easton study and attempted to debunk a series of academic papers?” suggests Mr. Sutherland. 
 
“I would be uncomfortable commenting now,” replies Ms. Brunt. 
 
“There was bickering with the science?” suggests Mr. Sutherland.
 
“The author of the paper ha different observations,” replies Ms. Brunt.
 
“You agree that salmon farming is controversial?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“Not to me it isn’t,” replies Ms. Brunt (there are sniggers and scoffing in the public gallery).
 
“You say it is not controversial?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“It generates discussion, yes,” replies Ms. Brunt.  “There’s no debate in my mind.” 
 

Testifying on Tuesday (24 January), Ms. Walling was asked to read an article published in BC Business in June 2011 which reported that the BC Salmon Facts campaign “kicked an online hornet’s nest.”

Read article in full online here
 
“I am going to raise the idea that you did encounter opposition from a variety of sources in reaction to the BCSFA’s BC Salmon Facts campaign?” asks Mr. Sutherland. 
 
“No, the PR company was surprised that there was not more reaction,” replies Ms. Walling.  
 
Testifying on Monday (23 January), Ms. Walling referred to the 2004 Science study on cancer-causing contaminants in farmed salmon and said that sales of farmed salmon dropped 60% overnight (read the paper online here).  Ms. Walling described how the purpose of the BC Salmon Facts campaign was “to increase the consumption of farmed salmon.”  “We’re producing a really healthy food,” claimed Ms. Walling. 
 
Turning to a cartoon featuring Ms. Walling and others including Geir Isaksen of Cermaq and Marine Harvest’s owner John Fredriksen photo-shopped as vampires and zombies, Ms. Walling said that she was upset.
 
“How does that make you feel?” asked Cermaq’s lawyer Mr. Callahan (Mr. Wotherspoon – leading counsel for Cermaq – was taking a break).  “It’s upsetting,” said Ms. Walling.

Ms. Walling was then shown another cartoon of a group of people including herself, Dr. Dick Beamish from DFO, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Queen and DFO’s Dr. Laura Richards in bed together. 

 
“What is your view of smoking?” asked Cermaq’s legal counsel Mr. Callahan.  “Smoking is harmful to your health and causes cancer,” replies Ms. Walling.  “The tobacco industry was unethical.”
 
Under cross-examination by Mr. Staniford’s lawyer Ms. Walling was shown another cartoon – this time an editorial cartoon published in The Province newspaper in September 2011. 

“That’s an image of you?” asks Mr. Sutherland - legal counsel for the defendant Mr. Staniford – who points to the photograph on the desk. 

“Yes, it appears to be,” replies Ms. Walling who reads the cartoon which depicts her as massacring sea lions with a machine-gun.
 
“You have been skewered in other cartoons then?” suggests Mr. Sutherland. 
 
“This appeared in a major daily newspaper,” replies Ms. Walling (appearing to suggest that it is OK for a major newspaper to lampoon her but not OK for Mr. Staniford to do the same thing in his blogs). 
 
“Is salmon farming in British Columbia controversial?” asks Mr. Sutherland.
 
“No, I would say not,” replies Ms. Walling.  “There has been a manufactured controversy.  Mr. Staniford takes it out of context.”
 
“Yes, we hired Hill & Knowlton in 2002 and 2003 to assist with our web-site and publicity materials,” says Ms. Walling.  “Our relationship with Hill & Knowlton ended in 2004.”

For more details on the role of Hill & Knowlton read “Farmageddon and the Spin Doctors” - including:  

 
All the hope in the world however will not alter the fact that the salmon farming industry is blowing smoke on the health of farmed salmon. 

At the end of the day, it looks like it's game over for the salmon farming industry.  Can you hear the fat lady singing?

For a review of previous days in the court case please read:

“The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest and The Girl Who Played With Fire”
 
“Week 1 Review: Cermaq Vs. Staniford”