Oceans Update - March 2025

The plight of Southern Resident killer whales has only been getting worse as time goes on and Canada keeps approving new projects that impact their critical habitat in the Salish Sea. One of those projects, the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, is now up and running and with it, the number of large vessels transiting the whales’ habitat is increasing. Noise was already a problem in the Salish Sea. Now, it’s even noisier. 

Underwater noise can interfere with the ability of these whales to locate their prey. It’s thought to be one of the reasons why so many of the Southern Residents are in poor body condition. When it approved TMX, the government undertook to put a noise offset program in place to mitigate the tanker traffic. Yet instead of taking mandatory measures to reduce noise to a level that permits the whales to feed and socialize normally, the government introduced only voluntary speed restrictions. There was no target, no timeline or pathway toward achieving quiet waters. 

Living Oceans and colleagues responded, with the help of our lawyers at Ecojustice, by filing a Petition asking for an emergency order to protect the whales. We listed concrete measures that could be taken immediately, such as mandatory speed restrictions and a ban on the discharge of toxic exhaust gas scrubber wastewater. Other measures, including requiring vessels calling at our ports to have a Quiet Vessel Notation and developing a comprehensive underwater noise management plan for the Salish Sea, should be priorities for the medium term. 

The departments of Fisheries and Environment conducted an ‘imminent threat assessment’ in response to our petition and, unsurprisingly, concluded that the Southern Residents do face imminent threats to survival. The Species at Risk Act requires that, when the relevant Ministers are of the opinion that an imminent threat to an endangered species exists, they must must make a recommendation to Cabinet for an emergency order. 

The language alone—‘imminent threat’ and ‘risk of extinction’—suggests strongly that time is of the essence.  Earlier court cases have confirmed that the Act requires timely response by the government. The current plight of the whales makes it obvious that immediate action is needed. We filed our petition in June of 2024.  Seven months later, there was still no recommendation before Cabinet. 

Our lawyers then asked the Court to compel the Ministers of Fisheries and Environment to make the recommendation to Cabinet for an emergency order to protect the whales. Our supporters weighed in by writing key cabinet Ministers to demand emergency measures be approved. Faced with the pressure of a Court proceeding, the Ministers made the recommendation for an emergency order. 

The key step—approving the emergency order—is a discretionary decision by Cabinet. That means that our elected representatives were faced with deciding if they would impose meaningful restrictions on economic activity in the Salish Sea, or condemn the Southern Residents to their current, slow trajectory toward extinction. 

They chose the latter.  

They’ll consult in future on some ‘incremental’ measures—extending the approach distance to 1000 metres, for example—which aren’t in themselves bad things. They’re just not likely good enough, or coming quickly enough, to reverse the whales’ decline. 

But it’s a new day; a new Cabinet since that decision was made. You can still urge the new Ministers to take meaningful action. TAKE ACTION NOW!  

Photo credit: Melanie Schuening 

Beyond the seafood aisles and fresh case, marine ingredients are hiding in a vast array of products across supermarket aisles. From pet food to pantry items such as soups and sauces; from health supplements to cosmetics. 

It is near impossible for shoppers to know whether these products and their ingredients could be contributing to overfishing and/or other negative impacts to our oceans, as well as potential human rights abuses. For example, many pantry style products and pet foods simply list ‘fish’ as the ingredient.  

Things are even trickier for health and beauty products with ingredients listed as: Glucosamine. Guanine. Squalene. Chondroitin. Code words for such things as shark and other fish, crabs, lobster and shrimps. 

Globally, fish oil supplements are expected to grow by 7.5% a year to an approximate value of $4 billion (USD) by 2032. Meanwhile, the global market for marine collagen (i.e., ‘anti-aging’ powders, supplements, serums, etc.) is valued at $1 billion and growing.  

The potential impact on our oceans could be significant. That’s why this summer, SeaChoice’s Seafood Progress platform will be spotlighting the issue and assessing the scope of major Candian grocers’ sustainable seafood procurement policies.  

Is your local grocer addressing or ignoring the various products on their shelves and aisles that contain marine sources?  Stay tuned for the answer!  

Last month Grieg Seafoods canceled their Aquaculture Stewardship Council certificates, leaving zero ASC certified salmon farms in Canada. But the eco-labelling of Canadian farmed salmon continues under an alternative certification, Best Aquaculture Practices. 

Both certification schemes have had their credibility questioned over the years. Most recently, BAP has been the subject of a US Federal Trade Commission petition for potentially misleading marketing claims.  

So how did we get from BC salmon farmers holding the ASC up as the ‘gold standard’ to dropping it like a hot potato? And what does this change to BAP mean for grocers and seafood shoppers? 

Spoiler: despite a change in eco-labels, BC farmed salmon remains on the red list. 

Prior to the creation of ASC, the salmon farming industry, including companies operating in BC, participated in the multi-stakeholder Salmon Aquaculture Dialogues that would eventually establish the ASC Salmon Standard. At the time, Living Oceans and David Suzuki Foundation, alongside other NGOs, also participated in the Dialogues in efforts to prevent the industry creating a weak standard (in the end we voted against the final standard). All up, these Dialogues took nearly a decade. 

In 2014, the Global Salmon Initiative – then 15 salmon farming companies including multi-nationals Mowi (then Marine Harvest), Cermaq and Grieg – had committed to certify 100% of their operations by 2020. The pressure to become ASC certified was on.  

Once the ASC Salmon Standard was operationalized, environmental requirements from the years-long dialogues were quickly eroded – seemingly overnight – at the request of industry and auditors. BC farms were exempt from the Standard’s sea lice requirements, and the number of parasiticide chemicals treatments allowed increased by 350 per cent in some regions. 

In 2015, the first ASC farm in BC was certified – with seven sea lion deaths, dangerously high sea lice numbers that peaked at 23 lice per fish that SeaChoice members Living Oceans challenged in a complaint. Such outrageous practices continued to be certified throughout the decade of ASC in BC and revisions to the salmon standard increasingly reflected business as usual industry practices. Though some credit must be given to ASC for heeding SeaChoice’s calls to include local stakeholders in processes, and a long due commitment to rectify their problematic exclusion of intermediary farms from audits.  

While the number of ASC farms and volumes did multiply rapidly, the GSI companies never did meet the 2020 100% ASC commitment. Then 2020 passed, Mowi left the GSI, and all BC companies started to decrease their ASC volume until no more (though the GSI continues to state companies, including those in BC, are committed to ASC).  

Instead, BC salmon farmers joined their east coast salmon farming counterparts by signing up to the Best Aquaculture Practices – the certification scheme of the industry-dominated trade association, Global Seafood Alliance.  

BAP and its claims of ‘best practices’ ‘responsible’ ‘sustainable’ and the like has received much criticism from civil society groups. Last May, 76 global groups denounced the latest BAP farmed salmon standard as greenwash in an open letter. The letter listed damning evidence of numerous BAP certified farms and facilities associated with environmental damage, illegal activity, and/or negative impacts to endangered species. Examples were found in all major salmon farming regions: the U.S., Norway, Chile, Scotland, Australia – and Canada.  

Alarmingly the BAP certification has also been associated with human rights abuses. A long investigation by Corporate Accountability Lab and a whistleblower exposé by Outlaw Ocean Project detailed forced labor, hazardous child labor, dangerous working conditions and more associated with the Indian farmed shrimp supply chain, including farms and processing facilities BAP certified. Environmental damage and banned antibiotics were also uncovered. The farmed shrimp was tracked back to major grocers in North America. In November 2024, CAL and the Southern Shrimp Alliance submitted a petition to the US Federal Trade Commission requesting action against BAP for false or deceptive advertising.  

Despite these criticisms and serious allegations, a significant number of major grocers continue to rely on BAP as part of the responsible seafood sourcing policies.  

As evident in our Seafood Progress results, all large Canadian grocers happily accept ASC and/or BAP farmed salmon (rare exception: Buy-Low Foods dropped farmed salmon years ago!). Their reliance on questionable certifications leaves them vulnerable to criticisms and brand risk.  

SeaChoice recently highlighted the problem of greenwashing on seafood in the Canadian marketplace in our submission to the Competition Bureau. We call on the Canadian Government to establish tough rules, including those for certifications. 

And finally, our Public Service Announcement:  

ASC. BAP. ‘Responsibly sourced’. Seafood shoppers – don’t fall for eco-labels on farmed salmon. Open-net pen BC farmed salmon remains not recommended by Ocean Wise and on the Seafood Watch red-list (Avoid). 

With government funding at an end, we wondered how we would ever continue the essential work we’ve been doing to protect and restore habitat on Vancouver Island’s amazing northern shores. In 2024, we removed an all-time record of over 60 tonnes of plastic debris from the region—and there’s still more to get! 

Our supporters at Blue Friday came to the rescue again, running their November 2024 campaign to support our work for 2025. Lead sponsor Mustang Survival and dozens of small, sustainability-oriented businesses came together to devote a portion of their sales on the date formerly known as Black Friday to protecting the ocean that we all depend upon. Together, they raised over $30,000 for our work. 

And you, our loyal supporters over the years, have always been generous in your donations for this program. Most years, we’ve been able to add another $15,000 from your donations to support our volunteer teams with the boats, helicopters and trucks needed to find, collect and transport debris from our beaches to the recycling and landfill centre. If you haven’t done so already, I hope you’ll consider making a donation today to ensure our success in 2025! 

This year’s expedition will take place mid-June. We’ll be deciding on target beaches in consultation with our BC Parks supervisor, who will be doing some reconnaissance early this spring. The expedition will likely be seven days, with a travel day on either end. If you’re interested in joining us, please email kwristen [at] livingoceans.org, with a brief overview of your wilderness camping, beach cleaning or other relevant experience! 

We’ve lost count of the number of rounds we’ve gone with salmon farmers in the courtroom. We’ll be back for the nth time later this year, as MOWI tries to appeal a ruling on the Discovery Islands farm closures. 

This one relates to the decision by then Fisheries Minister Joyce Murray, who in February of 2023 declined to re-issue licences for 15 Discovery Islands salmon farms. Her decision was upheld by the Court in June, 2024 and the farms have in fact been closed since December, 2020. Efforts to revive these licences through the courts have dragged on into a fifth year. 

The main issue seems to be the science. DFO continues to base its advice to the Minister on those Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) reports we’ve been so critical about. Independent science has up-ended many of their findings, yet no effort has been made by the Department to synthesize the new work—probably because it would be impossible to continue to advise that salmon farms pose ‘no more than minimal’ risk to wild sockeye salmon. The Minister consulted more broadly on science, speaking to researchers at Canada’s universities and the Pacific Salmon Foundation, who authored the independent work.  

MOWI contends that the Minister can’t do her own research: that she must take her science advice from CSAS. The argument was summarized in the judgment (that rejected it) as follows: 

“The Operators had legitimate expectations that the Minister would rely on the established process for seeking science advice in decision-making. Given that the Minister placed significant weight on “scientific uncertainty” from non-CSAS science, which was largely sought out after the consultation period, the Minister was required to provide notice of and an opportunity to respond to the role of non-CSAS science.” 

Problem is, the process is not “established”, nor were MOWI or other operators unaware of the current “non-CSAS” science. DFO briefed them on that science before it ever advised the Minister of its existence and you can bet that their conversation with industry was a lot more detailed than the cursory briefing note that went to the Minister’s office. In any event, the court had no difficulty rejecting the argument and holding that the Minister’s process for reaching her decision was fair. 

Now, it seems, we’re going to test that conclusion. 

Imagine the repercussions, should it be held that any Minister must confine his or her decisions with respect to science to the advice given by his or her Department. All it would take would be a few bad apples, captured regulators or distracted, overworked scientists to confine the Minister to a potentially disastrous decision. In our own work, we are often bringing new science to the table, papers that regulators have not even begun to consider integrating into their implementation of the law. Bureaucracies are inherently conservative and slow, while new threats to environmental integrity seem to appear at an alarming pace. By the time a bureaucracy gets around to evaluating and acting on a threat, the “pre” in precautionary may have lost all meaning! 

Follow us as we attempt to lay this zombie to eternal rest! 

Photo credit: Alex Morton.

Original article by SeaChoice February 27, 2025  |  Reports

With the threat of trade tariffs imposed by the United States, many Canadian consumers are taking a closer look at where their food (including seafood) comes from. The problem is origin statements on labels can be confusing and sometime difficult to know if a product is of Canadian origin.  

Let’s breakdown the situation. 

Firstly, it’s important to understand that the government doesn’t require an origin label for Canadian products that are produced (i.e., farmed, fished) and/or processed in Canada. However, they do allow companies to voluntarily make a Canadian origin claim and provide guidance on how to do so.  

Some slight differences in the wording for these voluntary Canadian origin claims exist that consumers should be aware of:  

If you see “Product of Canada” on a label, it means that “all or virtually all major ingredients (at least 98%), processing, and labour used to make the food product are actually Canadian. For seafood, this translates to fish or seafood produced or caught in Canada or within Canadian waters and processed in Canada using Canadian ingredients. Also note that if you see the claim “Canadian” the government deems this to be equivalent to a “Product of Canada” claim.  

If you see “Made in Canada”, this only means the last substantial transformation (ie processing) occurred in Canada, even if some ingredients are imported. For seafood, this could look like a fish that is imported from another country but processed in Canada. The guidance for these labels also states that the claim should include a statement to indicate if the seafood was made with imported or both imported and domestic products, such as “Made in Canada from imported ingredients”. However, these types of statements are often in fine print, as shown in the example below. And most importantly, the true origin – where the seafood was caught or harvested doesn’t actually have to appear on the label. In fact, 2023 Seafood Progress results found half the major Canadian retailers profiled don’t label any of their seafood products with the true origin.  

But wait – Canadian seafood could be hiding under the guise of another country of ‘production’.  

Here’s where it gets a bit trickier. By law, any imported prepacked seafood must be labelled with the “country of origin” and by the government’s definition, this refers to where the food was last substantially transformed (i.e. processed), not its true origin. Due to the global nature of seafood trade, fish and shellfish are often caught or harvested in one country/region then processed in another. For example, an Atlantic Halibut caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by a Canadian fishing vessel may be exported to China for processing into fillets, then imported back into Canada with a label that says, “Product of China”. 

This labelling rule makes it difficult to support Canadian fishers and farmers, because the label doesn’t necessarily identify the true origin.  

This is why SeaChoice has been advocating for years for the law to require seafood labels to be more detailed and provide the true origin of seafood. This is the only way we will ever be able to know for certain where our seafood comes from. 

So, how best to support and buy Canadian seafood? 

Apart from looking out for the “Product of Canada” voluntary claim to know that you are supporting both Canadian produced and processed seafood, SeaChoice recommends you buy directly from Canadian fishers and harvesters. Two companies that SeaChoice recommends are Afishionado Fishmongers for those based on the East coast and Skipper Otto for those in central Canada and the West coast.

To help drive change on the water, we invite you to subscribe to our newsletter.

There’s no place for open-net pen farmed salmon on a sustainable menu, be it in a restaurant, market, or at home. 

Open-net pen salmon farms compromise the integrity of marine and freshwater ecosystems on both the west and east coasts of Canada, and around the world. 

Although greenwashing advertisements tote open-net pen farmed salmon as healthy and sustainable, the truth is totally the opposite.  

The toxic stew emanating from the farms contains viruses, bacteria and parasites capable of infecting juvenile salmon and other organisms.   

Forage fish such as herring, mackerel, sardines and anchovies are fished in massive quantities to make feed for salmon farms. Endangering stocks worldwide. 

Farmed salmon are not the nutritional equivalent of wild salmon. They contain more of the Omega-6 (bad fatty acids) and less Omega-3 (good fatty acids). Studies show that farmed salmon have less protein than wild salmon. Depending on where the fish were farmed and what feed they were given, they may have higher levels of contaminants such as PCBs, which are linked to cancer.   

These are only a few reasons why open-net pen farmed salmon is fundamentally unsustainable and unhealthy.  

Help build momentum for the #Offthetable movement. Join Chef Robert Clark, Mitch’s Catch, Gaia Grocery and Shed Restaurant, among others, who have become members and committed to not serving or eating open-net pen farmed salmon! 

Visit offthetable.ca or email info [at] livingoceans.org for more information. 

Help us spread the word on social media. Tag @livingoceans, @ASFSalmon and your favourite chef or restaurant, and we’ll get a message out to them to join the campaign! 

Here are some of the books and resources we have been digging into. Let us know if you have any suggestions to include in future newsletters by emailing info [at] livingoceans.org. 

1. bioGraphic

You can now find your favourite Hakai magazine writers contributing to bioGraphic. This magazine is powered by the California Academy of Sciences, a renowned scientific and educational institution dedicated to regenerating the natural world through science, learning, and collaboration.  

2. The Ocean Actions Index

This is a compilation of input from advocates and researchers who were asked what can be done to better protect the oceans and its workers. This document consists of three levels. The first lists actions that individuals can take. The second itemizes actions governments or companies can take. The third offers broader context.  

3. Sea Change (Edited by Ussif Rashid Sumaila, Derek Armitage, Megan Bailey, and William W.L. Cheung)  

Sea Change reports on the work of the OceanCanada Partnership, a multidisciplinary, multiyear research project to take stock of what we know about Canada’s three oceans, construct scenarios of the future facing coastal regions, and create a national dialogue and vision. Three cross-cutting themes emerge from this impressive synthesis of social, cultural, economic, and environmental knowledge: ocean change, access to ocean resources, and ocean governance.  

4. 11 GOLDEN RULES for TRULY SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL FISHERIES

A redefinition of the concept of sustainability towards a brighter future for the ocean and communities.