Risk vs. Reality in B.C.’s raucous salmon farming debate

The real risks to wild fish stocks on Canada’s west coast are the falsehoods propagated by anti-aquaculture activists about salmon farms in British Columbia.

Commentary
By Fabian Dawson
SeaWestNews

Anti-fish farming activists have long exaggerated the risks of ocean aquaculture in British Columbia, claiming that salmon farms are endangering wild stocks and pushing the iconic species to extinction.

But when the actual numbers are put in perspective, their apocalyptic narrative collapses, once again proving that their campaigns against salmon farming in B.C. are fueled by fear, not facts.

A series of scientific analyses conducted by fisheries experts from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) have consistently found that the risk of farm-related disease to wild salmon is between 0% and 1% per year—a threshold classified as “minimal risk.”

More recently, fisheries professionals analyzed 40 years of data and concluded that removing salmon farms is unlikely to improve wild salmon productivity. Instead, the move diverts attention from the real threats to wild salmon—habitat destruction, climate change, and overfishing.

The detailed study, led by Dr. Gary Marty, a veteran B.C.-based fish pathologist, estimated the effect of farm-related disease on Fraser River sockeye salmon at just 0.00068% per year, an insignificant impact when compared to the real factors driving wild salmon declines.

To truly understand how negligible this risk is, consider something as routine as driving.

In 2023, approximately 2,004 people died in motor vehicle collisions across Canada, translating to 5.04 deaths per 100,000 people. That means the annual risk of a Canadian being involved in a fatal car accident is 0.0000504 (or about 1 in 19,860).

Crunch the numbers, and you’ll find that a Canadian is approximately 7.37 times more likely to die in a car accident than a Fraser River sockeye is to be infected by a farm-related disease.

Foodborne illnesses are far more common. Approximately 1 in 8 Canadians (4 million people) experience food poisoning each year, translating to an annual risk of 12.5% per person.

That means food poisoning is 12.5 times more likely to occur than the maximum estimated 1% risk of wild salmon contracting a farm-related disease.

While activist groups will dismiss these comparisons, the truth is, we navigate risks every day.

Whether it’s stepping into a car, crossing the street, boarding a plane, or even eating a meal, we make calculated decisions that balance risk with necessity and benefit.

We don’t ban cars because accidents happen; instead, we implement seatbelts, traffic laws, and vehicle safety standards. We don’t shut down restaurants because food poisoning exists; we enforce health regulations and inspections.

The same logic should apply to B.C.’s salmon farming industry, which already operates under some of the strictest environmental and biosecurity standards in the world, earning recognition as one of the most sustainable protein producers on the planet.

But this scientific reality is lost on activists, their social-media followers, and a Federal Government fixated on an outright ban on conventional salmon farming—an industry worth over $1.17 billion that supports thousands of Indigenous and non-Indigenous jobs in B.C.

Despite overwhelming evidence showing that salmon farms pose less than a minimal risk to wild stocks, the Federal Government continues to hide behind the “precautionary principle”, using it not as a scientific safeguard, but as a political excuse.

The precautionary principle is a policy tool that advises caution when scientific uncertainty exists. It is meant for situations where data is lacking, not when decades of peer-reviewed research have proven a risk to be negligible.

Yet, Ottawa insists on applying it to salmon farming while ignoring 40 years of research showing no meaningful risk to wild salmon and DFO’s own assessments confirming that salmon farms do not threaten wild stocks.

This isn’t risk management—it’s reckless policymaking driven by misinformation.

If the real goal were to protect wild salmon, banning salmon farms would be the worst possible move. It would increase pressure on already dwindling stocks, undermine sustainable seafood production, and weaken Canada’s food security and resiliency.

A smarter approach would be to invest more in science-based conservation efforts, restoring habitats, addressing climate change impacts, and tackling overfishing and pollution, which are more significant threats to wild salmon.

But that’s not what anti-salmon farming activists want as they double down on fearmongering, demonizing an industry that has already passed the highest levels of scientific scrutiny.

So, here’s the reality when it comes to salmon farming in B.C.: The likelihood that you are being fed falsehoods by anti-salmon farming activists is 100 percent.

(Main image courtesy of DFO shows the Adams Rover Sockeye salmon run)