Journalism Lost: Exposing Pulitzer’s Hit Piece On Chilean Salmon Farmers
Media Dissection Overview
Far too often the media presents its coverage of aquaculture as objective journalism meant to inform when, in fact, its true purpose is to manipulate public sentiment.
Such is the case with this recent story from Pulitzer titled “Patagonian Paradise Lost? The Environmental Hazards of Farming Fish in a Warming World.”
The report is presented as an impartial exposé of Chile’s salmon farmers, who (so we’re told) wantonly pollute Chile’s pristine coastlines and waters. But the article is neither impartial nor factual.
The story was funded by the Walton Family Fund. This billionaire-backed foundation funnels millions of dollars into anti-aquaculture campaigns and shares staff with other organizations that fund and conduct that same sort of activism.
The story’s author, Jessica McKenzie, has a portfolio chock-full of articles promoting aberrant environmental causes, like this piece asking, “Could fossil fuel companies be charged with homicide?”
When we examined McKenzie’s Pulitzer story on salmon aquaculture, we found that she had misused her sources, presented half-truths and quoted ideological opponents of aquaculture as objective authorities.
These are flagrant violations of basic journalism ethics and they must be publicly corrected. Below are McKenzie’s allegations in italics, followed by our commentary.
“ … a red tide of algae killed approximately 27 million salmon in Chile …The red tide also caused mass die-offs of shellfish and wild fish in places where harmful algal blooms had never been recorded. Fishermen from Chiloé Island blamed the salmon industry, which—with the permission of the Chilean government—dumped 4,700 tons of dead fish at sea … Research later showed this may have fueled a second, devastating pulse of red tide.”
The cited study, which lends credibility to the anecdotal reports, merely concluded that “the salmon dumpings cannot be excluded as a possible fueling source for the extraordinary bloom.”
McKenzie claimed the aquaculture industry and Chilean government tried to blame inclement weather for the algae bloom, though they weren’t the only ones. The very research she cited in the article noted that two independent studies identified strong northward winds and related upwelling episodes as anomalies that “certainly played a role” in the unprecedented bloom.
A third study posited El Niño oceanic conditions as the primary cause of the harmful algae bloom. Citing the Chilean Society of Ocean Science, the US Department of Agriculture agreed, noting that “the red tide and deaths of marine fauna have been caused by ‘El Nino’ effects and variations … All of these factors increased the algae bloom, which consumes oxygen and harms regular ocean fauna present in the region’s coast.”
Thousands of words into her story, McKenzie made a critical admission on this point, quoting a scientist who said “There are no demonstrations that salmon farming is causing algal blooms (our emphasis).” We’re not sure why that observation was buried so deep in the article.
“In theory, increased aquaculture could provide protein without some of the severe climate change impacts of beef production.”
This statement indicates that aquaculture isn’t yet providing sustainable protein on a global scale, which is blatantly false. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) clearly states that “Aquaculture offers [note the present tense] many environmental benefits, relative to other forms of livestock farming.”
Among these upsides to aquaculture the NOAA includes a smaller carbon footprint, reduced land and fresh water use and an enhanced feed conversion ratio–providing more sustainable protein for human consumption–than beef, pork and poultry. “The expansion of sustainable aquaculture is vital to increasing food production in a changing environment,” NOAA concludes.
“Industrial salmon aquaculture began in Chile in the 1970s. Since then, the country has become the world’s second-largest producer of farmed salmon, completely altering the landscape and economy of Chilean Patagonia in the process.”
This is true, but not for the reasons McKenzie mentioned. Salmon aquaculture has reshaped the Chilean economy—by generating nearly seven billion dollars and putting 70,000 people to work. In practical terms, this means many more Chileans enjoying a higher standard of living. As one recent study explained:
“The industry pays relatively well, and it has a societal impact as opportunities created by the industry first reverse outward migration and then lead to inward migration. This is also associated with reduced poverty, a more even income distribution, a higher female labor participation ratio, and higher education levels.”
Escaped fish prey on native species, and compete with native fish for food.
Escapes of farmed Atlantic salmon are exceedingly rare. According to multiple studies published over the last two decades, “there is no evidence that these fish have established self-sustaining populations.” In fact, the risk of escape is lowest “for farmed Atlantic salmon due to their low survival, lower ability to feed themselves following escape into the wild, and their lower reproductive capacity in the wild,” according to a 2023 study.
The rather low escape rate is due to industry compliance with strict regulations implemented by the Chilean government, which is driven by our desire to obey the law and protect our country’s natural resources. US-based journalists and NGOs apparently don’t realize that we live in the same regions where we farm salmon. We care about our local environment more than they do.
Pesticides, antibiotics, and other chemicals given to fish or applied on farms work their way into the ecosystem.
These invaluable and highly regulated tools control the spread of disease, helping us promote animal welfare by keeping our salmon healthy. It is not only appropriate to use them, it is absolutely necessary—and mandated by law in many cases. There is zero credible evidence that our judicious use of antibiotics is driving drug resistance to medically important antibiotics. We also continue to develop innovative non-chemical alternatives to pesticides and antibiotics. These solutions weren’t even mentioned in the Pulitzer story.
Then there is the environmental footprint of producing mass quantities of fish food … When you add it all up, farmed salmon has a larger carbon footprint per pound than chicken.
According to McKenzie’s source (p 22), the difference between farmed salmon and chicken is trivial—a mere 0.2 carbon equivalents per kilogram of edible protein. The same report concludes that “farmed fish is also a climate-friendly protein source,” with a carbon footprint almost 30 times smaller than beef.
Researchers estimate the amount of nitrogen collectively released by Chilean salmon farms every day is comparable to the waste of 9 million people.
This is another theatrical attempt to blame harmful algae blooms (HABs) on salmon aquaculture, but the data doesn’t conform to this sort of scaremongering. “The scientific evidence sustaining this causal link is scarce,” reported a recent review of the relevant science. Ongoing research is needed to monitor this potentiality, but “So far, there is no scientific evidence that salmon farming is or is not affecting the frequency and extent of HABs in Chile,” the review authors concluded (emphasis ours).
The extraordinary high level of chemical treatments, mostly antimicrobials and pesticides, is the primary reason that much Chilean salmon has been classified “Avoid” by the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–the expert regulatory agency charged with protecting America’s food supply– disagrees. They describe Chilean salmon as one of many nutritious foods that “are foundational to a healthy eating pattern and recommended by the Dietary Guidelines.”
In any case, Seafood Watch’s suggestion is mistaken since Chilean salmon is entirely antibiotic-free long before it reaches consumers, as required by the FDA. The agency also enforces strict regulations related to pesticide residues in food. Consumers can be confident that their fish is safe.
The consensus among the activists I met is clear: They think the Chilean government is unwilling or unable to regulate the salmon industry because it’s too big and powerful to take on.
These activists are mistaken, or they are misleading McKenzie. The salmon aquaculture industry strives to comply with every aspect of Chile’s extensive law regulating our operations. This includes rules governing worker safety, environmental protection and animal welfare. Contrary to Pulitzer’s assertion, regulators are not afraid to enforce these laws when they identify violations. In recent years we’ve worked closely with the government to reform Chile’s aquaculture regulations to ensure proper oversight of our expanding industry.