Fisheries experts are warning Ottawa not to justify its plan to ban B.C. salmon farms based on a newly released “flawed study,” saying the findings lack scientific credibility and show no real risk to wild stocks.
By Fabian Dawson
SeaWestNews
When it comes to ideology-driven science about salmon farming in British Columbia, what’s not said often matters more than what is.
That’s the concern now surrounding a high-profile study by the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Broughton-area First Nations, which links open-net pen farms to elevated pathogen levels, while omitting key data gaps, disputed diagnoses, and questions about scientific credibility.
The study, published in Scientific Reports and led by the Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) in partnership with the Broughton Aquaculture Transition Initiative (BATI), reported that pathogen detection rates were 4.3 times higher near active salmon farms compared to inactive sites.
But beyond the headline in the media release by PSF, which is opposed to ocean-based salmon farming in BC, lies a growing controversy over the study’s methods, authorship, and use in government aquaculture policy.
Fisheries scientists and veterinarians say the study omits critical context ranging from poor sample handling and mislabelled data to unverified disease diagnoses that fundamentally undermines its conclusions.
Even more troubling, they argue, is the federal government’s continued reliance on this flawed research to justify its activist-driven push to ban ocean-based salmon farms in BC, especially when its own scientists having repeatedly found that the marine operations pose less than a one-percent risk to wild salmon populations.
“Regulatory decisions must be rooted in credible science,” said Brian Kingzett, Executive
Director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA), which is calling for an independent government review of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the Pacific Biological Station.
The ongoing inconsistencies and data integrity issues involving this research and this lab used in the study require “immediate government intervention”, said Kingzett.
The concerns over the BATI and PSF study were first submitted to former Fisheries Minister Joyce Murray in May 2023, according to documents reviewed by SeaWestNews. A second, more detailed report was submitted in January 2025 to her successor Diane Lebouthillier, highlighting unresolved issues and warning that flawed data was being used to shape federal aquaculture policy.
Both were ignored as the government searched for science to substantiate its Transition Plan for the sector, which would eliminate the province’s top agri-food export and destroy 4,560 jobs. Additionally, the plan is projected to leave taxpayers liable for $9 billion in compensation to existing salmon farmers, suppliers, and First Nations.
The central claim of the new PSF/BATI study states open-net pen Atlantic salmon farms in BC release elevated levels of infectious agents, which may pose risks to wild Pacific salmon.
But when you look deeper into this alarming statement—crafted to generate headlines—you find that it lacks crucial context: the mere presence of pathogens does not mean they are causing infection or disease in wild salmon.
It’s akin to finding bacteria on a doorknob and concluding there’s a public health crisis without asking whether anyone got sick, whether the bacteria were harmful, or whether they were even alive.
According to the BCSFA, other significant flaws identified in the study include:
• Compromised Sample Integrity: Fish were euthanized and stored in communal water, increasing contamination risks, while pooled organ sampling undermined diagnostic reliability.
• Data Management Failures: Mislabelled and duplicated samples, missing raw data, and uncorrected errors raise serious concerns about data integrity.
• Misrepresentation of eDNA Research: Sixteen reports labelled as “eDNA Study Reports” contained no actual eDNA data, suggesting a potential mischaracterization of research efforts.
• Questionable Diagnoses: Diagnosis of Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI) were applied without proper histopathological verification, contradicting independent expert evaluations.
• Delayed and Inconsistent Reporting: Reports were often delivered months or years after sampling, rendering them ineffective for timely decision-making.
In the PSF media release, co-author Emiliano Di Cicco states: “Our research clearly indicates that active open-net pen Atlantic salmon farms in British Columbia amplify infection risks for wild Pacific salmon.”
What the statement avoids clarifying is that the study provides no evidence that wild fish are actually becoming infected or diseased from the detected pathogens in the Broughton area. It also omits that Di Cicco is not a licensed veterinarian, raising questions about the scope of his expertise in making fish health diagnoses.
Dr. Terra MacDonald, a licensed veterinarian with Mowi Canada West who reviewed the study and flagged its flaws to the federal government, concludes that the PSF/BATI findings actually reinforce earlier government assessments showing that pathogens from farmed salmon have no more than a minimal impact on wild salmon in the region.
Dr. Gary Marty, a veteran fish pathologist who spent two decades with the Animal Health Centre of B.C.’s Ministry of Agriculture, agreed.
“The new study does not provide convincing evidence that the risk of farm salmon diseases to wild salmon is more than minimal,” he said.
(Main image shows PSF’s Emiliano Di Cicco in the Broughton Archipelago. Photo: Brandon Deepwell, Pacific Salmon Foundation)