This article was brought to you by The Ferret.
THE multinational salmon farming industry has been pushing behind the scenes for environmental limits on a toxic pesticide to be 100 times weaker than government regulators recommend.
The Ferret can reveal that the pesticide’s US manufacturer, Merck, and the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO) funded an unpublished study arguing that wildlife in sea lochs could withstand high concentrations of the pesticide.
READ MORE: New salmon rules to protect against sea lice net fresh criticism
The industry’s move to relax the limits has been condemned as “beyond belief” by community groups, while environmentalists urge fish farmers to protect wildlife by ceasing to use the pesticide. But the industry insists that it has confidence in its science.
Scottish ministers will ultimately decide the issue. They are being urged by campaigners not to give in to industry pressure as they have done before – and to back tough new limits. The pesticide is called emamectin benzoate, and is marketed as Slice by the £33 billion Merck pharmaceutical company headquartered in New Jersey. It is widely used by fish farmers around Scotland’s coasts to kill the sea lice that plague caged salmon.
A 2016 study by the Scottish Association for Marine Science warned that emamectin was harming crabs, lobsters and other crustaceans around fish farms. As a result, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) proposed a ban.
But in a series of investigations in 2017 and 2018, The Ferret reported that both Sepa and the Scottish Government secretly bowed to pressure from SSPO and Merck and withdrew the proposed ban. Critics dubbed the affair “Slicegate”.
Then a 2018 survey by Sepa around eight fish farms in Shetland found emamectin had spread more widely than previously thought. “The existing approaches do not adequately protect marine life,” Sepa concluded, and introduced interim restrictions.
READ MORE: Scots salmon farms under investigation over chemicals use
Sepa also asked the UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG), which brings together scientists from all of the UK’s environmental regulators, to recommend safety limits for the pesticide. On May 24 it made its findings available for consultation.
UKTAG reports reveal that scientists had received and assessed a study by consultants, WCA Environment, funded by Merck’s UK division, MSD Animal Health, and SSPO. The study has not been published.
According to UKTAG, the industry study concluded that environmental quality standards for emamectin in seabed sediment should be between 1290 and 2580 nanograms per kilogram. That’s more than 50 or 100 times higher that the 23.5 nanograms per kilogram proposed by UKTAG.
UKTAG scientists criticised the “variability” of the industry’s data from around 19 fish farms on the west coast and islands. As a result the study was “questionable” and “inconclusive”, UKTAG said. The Coastal Communities Network, which brings together 16 groups around Scotland’s shores, is worried that emamectin is harming shellfish. It is calling on Scottish ministers to resist industry lobbying to weaken environmental limits.
“It seems beyond belief that a pesticide company can lobby a regulator to be lenient when setting the standards that will govern the use of its products, based on data and analysis which it refuses to make public,” said the network’s fish farming spokesperson, John Aitchison.
“It is hard to understand how the SSPO can justify funding this study while claiming that its members are using the sea sustainably.”
READ MORE: Salmon impact of Tory council's plan puts it at odds with own MSPs
He added: “Surely the industry must see how irresponsible it is to argue that it’s safe to discharge high levels of a persistent pesticide into the sea where many jobs depend on catching crabs, lobsters and prawns?
“Surely it must also see that this destroys the credibility of its PR and advertising, that so often trade on fish farmers rearing salmon in Scotland’s pristine seas?”
Aitchison argued that ministers’ ultimate decision on safe levels for emamectin would be “the acid test” of whether fish farming can expand without harming the environment.
“Behind the scenes the fish farmers and pesticide manufacturers will be doing their best to persuade Scotland’s politicians to adopt their suggestions,” he warned.
THE Scottish Greens also pressed ministers not to bow to industry pressure. “Emamectin is a toxic pesticide which has been shown to devastate marine life,” said the party’s environment spokesperson, Mark Ruskell MSP.
READ MORE: Nine million killed by diseases at Scotland’s salmon farms
“Sepa previously believed there was a case for an outright ban on its use, so at the very least ministers must back the stringent controls now recommended by experts, and resist the inevitable pressure from industry lobbyists and their dubious, unpublished research.”
The National Trust for Scotland pointed to mounting evidence that toxins used by fish farmers were seriously damaging wild crustaceans, including commercially important crabs and prawns.
“We are delighted that UKTAG has followed the lead of Sepa in recommending that the levels of these toxins in the environment need to be reduced,” said the trust’s senior nature conservation adviser, Richard Luxmoore. “The aquaculture industry is recommending hugely elevated levels similar to those that we already know are killing marine wildlife. Accepting the industry’s assessment of safe levels for these chemicals would be like accepting the fox’s advice on chicken farm security.”
Scottish Salmon Watch claimed emamectin was a “serial killer” of shellfish. “Sepa must ban emamectin as they proposed back in 2016 before the industry, Scottish Government and chemical giant Merck successfully lobbied to delay, deny and distract,” said the group’s Don Staniford.
“No ifs and buts and no more delays. Slicegate represents everything that is wrong with the dirty rotten Scottish salmon farming industry.” The wild fish group, Salmon & Trout Conservation Scotland, urged the industry to accept that it must stop using emamectin. “It has a choice now,” said the group’s solicitor, Guy Linley-Adams. “Keep fighting this confidential rear-guard action, trying desperately to hang onto Slice. Or it can find another way to grow farmed salmon.”
Sepa said it couldn’t release a copy of the industry study as it was “commercially confidential”. It had announced proposals for a new interim approach for controlling emamectin in November 2018.
“The interim approach was directly informed by Sepa’s fish farm survey, which found that the existing standards for medicine use did not adequately protect marine life,” said a Sepa spokesperson.
“Sepa asked that the UKTAG considered all available scientific evidence, which it has now done. The UKTAG consultation is due to close on July 5, following which the group will make recommendations to the Scottish Government.”
The Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation didn’t release a copy of the study but promised it would be published “in due course”.
The study covered more regions and used a wider range of tests than earlier research, it said. “We are confident that the study commissioned by the SSPO is scientifically robust and will offer the most accurate results from which UKTAG can derive new environmental standards,” said SSPO director of strategic engagement, Hamish Macdonell.
“The SSPO study investigated impacts on multiple marine species, rather than a sole, freshwater species while the field tests were conducted in many different locations, analysing the impact on different types of seabed.”
He added: “This scope and the subsequent study was wider, deeper and more scientifically thorough than its predecessor – precisely because the SSPO wanted to give UKTAG the most robust evidence possible.”
MERCK’S MSD Animal Health division stressed the benefits of emamectin. “Sea lice infestations represent the most significant disease problem currently affecting sea-farmed salmon around the world,” said company spokesperson, Liezel Tipper.
“Effective control of all parasitic stages of sea lice with emamectin, as part of an integrated pest management approach, including biological control and mechanical treatments, has helped to dramatically increase animal welfare and reduce the economic impact of sea lice on the global salmon industry.”
Tipper continued: “MSD Animal Health takes its environmental responsibility very seriously. We are committed to continuing to work closely with environmental and veterinary experts, and support research to evaluate any potential long-term impact of emamectin use.
“Every veterinary medicinal product undergoes a strict assessment process by the independent regulatory authorities before being issued with a marketing authorisation. This includes an assessment of data on the safety for the animal and the environment.
“We are responding to the UKTAG consultation and are unable to make further comments until the outcome of the consultation is known.” The company also declined to release a copy of the study.
The Scottish Government stressed that UKTAG took “all available evidence” into account. “That process allows for consultation, where additional evidence can be submitted,” said a government spokesperson.
“We look forward to receiving the final recommendations from UKTAG, which ministers will consider carefully before setting a new standard.”
On June 5 the Scottish Government said it would introduce new regulations obliging fish farms to report their sea lice numbers one week in arrears. “The new measures signal a major shift from self-regulation to statutory regulation,” said Rural Economy Secretary Fergus Ewing.
He commended a new regulatory framework brought in by Sepa “which seeks to strengthen protection of Scotland’s marine environment and enable sustainable growth of aquaculture in the right places”. It will enable bigger salmon farms to be sited further off shore.
The Ferret is an editorially independent, not-for-profit co-operative run by its journalists and subscribers. You can find it at https://theferret.scot/ and can subscribe for £3 a month here: https://theferret.scot/subscribe/
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel