PSF Hides Behind Silence as Activists Weaponize Its Flawed Salmon Study

The Pacific Salmon Foundation, which receives millions in taxpayer dollars for conservation and research, is dodging questions about its recent study as activists use the findings to push for the removal of salmon farms in British Columbia.

By Fabian Dawson
SeaWestNews

The Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) has millions in taxpayer funding, a powerful communications machine and a long record of supporting the removal of ocean salmon farms from British Columbia.

What it does not seem to have are answers to basic questions about its latest study, much of it conducted by researchers opposed to ocean salmon farming.

For a month now, PSF has failed to respond to questions about the study it says shows viral heart disease is more common on B.C. salmon farms than previously reported.

The questions are simple and they are important because the study is being used by activists to support the Trudeau-era  federal policy to end conventional ocean salmon farming in B.C. by 2029. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is now reviewing that policy.

Here are the key questions PSF continues to avoid:

The seven per cent claim: PSF highlighted findings suggesting that nearly seven per cent of the salmon examined had heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI). What received far less attention was the condition of the fish used in the study. Of the 749 salmon examined, 616 were already dead or dying.

That distinction must be noted. A study drawing so heavily on dead or dying fish cannot automatically be taken as representative of the wider farmed salmon population. Yet the seven per cent figure was promoted without adequately explaining that limitation.

Questions over the diagnoses: PSF maintained that three independent pathologists had verified its findings. However, the reviewers did not examine every sample, and their conclusions were not always consistent. Only a small number of cases received unanimous support from the outside reviewers.

The disagreements do not establish that the disease was absent, but they raise legitimate questions about how confidently the findings were presented to the public.

The age of the evidence: The salmon used in the research were collected between October 2021 and March 2023, although the findings were publicized in October 2026. Why was the age of the samples not made more prominent, particularly when the research was being presented as new evidence about disease on B.C. salmon farms?

Overlapping research: At least two studies have drawn on overlapping data from the same Broughton monitoring program. PSF has yet to clarify the extent to which individual fish, tissue samples or other research material may have been used across multiple publications.

The question is not whether researchers can legitimately publish several studies using related data. It is how much genuinely new evidence the latest publication contributes, and whether that distinction has been adequately explained.

The unanswered question about wild salmon: Perhaps the most significant gap concerns the study’s relevance to wild Pacific salmon.

What evidence establishes that piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) originating from salmon farms has caused disease, deaths or population declines among wild salmon?

The study did not examine any wild salmon, nor did it establish harm to wild populations.

The presence of a virus is not, by itself, proof of disease. Disease diagnosed in selected farmed fish does not demonstrate that wild salmon have suffered the same consequences. Likewise, detecting viral material in surrounding waters does not establish that infection passed from farmed salmon to wild fish.

These are important distinctions, particularly when research findings are being used to influence decisions about the future of an entire industry.

PSF has not publicly addressed these questions, leaving significant uncertainties about what its latest research actually demonstrates.

Its research is feeding a political campaign that could help determine the future of a major Canadian food-producing industry.

Carney has repeatedly said Canada must be “building at home and diversifying trade abroad.”

B.C. salmon farming already does that. The industry produces food in Canada, supports thousands of jobs, works with First Nations and sells salmon into domestic and international markets.

There is also wider scientific disagreement over earlier research linked to PSF.

In July 2025,   six fish disease specialists published a peer-reviewed paper questioning whether researchers were confusing the presence of pathogens with proof of disease and population-level harm.

That same issue sits at the centre of this latest dispute.

PSF has every right to criticize salmon farming and argue for its removal.

But an organization receiving millions in public funding must be prepared to defend the research it uses to influence public policy.

Otherwise, its claims amount to ideological advocacy masquerading as science.