Lab-grown Salmon: how does it compare with salmon aquaculture?
This report was made by Kat Roger, Charly Phillips, Aaron Aguirre, and Tatiana Chamorro as part of the final case study report for Human Technological Systems (RES 507), a class offered through the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (April 25th, 2023)
Executive summary
The global fish market is in extremely high demand with consumption a seeing steady increase for the past several decades. The industrialized fisheries and aquacultural systems needed to meet this demand have thus resulted in a plummeting wild fisheries stock and extreme loss of ocean biomass. Salmon represents a large portion of the global fish production and in the Pacific Northwest, and salmon populations reflect this global downward trend. Given the demand and profit potential of salmon products, lab grown salmon, or cell-salmon, is being developed as an alternative. With claims of being healthier and more sustainable than its conventional counterpart, we conducted a trade-offs analysis of the current state and potential of cell-salmon against current salmon fishing and farming practices from ecological, socio-economic, health, ethical, and cultural perspectives. Our analysis concluded that cell-salmon provides a much better alternative to conventional salmon in areas of food safety (with the controlled environment in which it is produced having little exposure to contaminants) and production efficiency (the process taking a matter of weeks rather than the months needed to raise a harvestable fish). However, given the early stages of cell-salmon technology and high degrees of uncertainty of the inputs, economic potential, and cost of production, cell-salmon currently does not provide a feasible alternative, nor does it address the greater systemic issues of salmon fisheries. Furthermore, cell-salmon producers have yet to include First Nations voices in the development of this highly culturally important food source. While there is potential for cellular salmon to become the sustainable alternative it promises to be, there still remain massive hurdles beyond refining the process that leave us only to speculate its true impacts.
Introduction
What is the state of salmon and why should we care about it?
Fish accounts for 17 percent of the global population’s animal protein intake being an important source of essential nutrients like omega-3s, iodine, vitamin D, iron, calcium, zinc and other minerals (FAO, 2020). Fish protein consumption has significantly increased in recent decades and plays a major role in food security across the globe (Figure 1, FAO, 2020). It is one of the less harmful sources of protein for the environment, emitting very low greenhouse gases compared to cows (Singh, 2014). However, global fisheries are collapsing due to the overexploitation of fish populations, contamination of the oceans and climate change, among others (FAO, 2020; Worm, 2016). This collapse can lead to environmental, economic and social problems such as decrease in food security or biodiversity loss that can generate a cascading effect with very detrimental consequences (FAO, 2020; Worm, 2016). Furthermore, protein needs of the human population are expected to increase between 32% and 43% due to increases in population size and protein consumption (Henchion et al., 2017). Thus, this problem will be even worse as overexploitation is expected to continue to respond to projected and actual fish demand (Henchion et al., 2017).
Among all fish consumed, salmon accounted for 32% of the world's marine coastal aquaculture production in 2020, making it a very popular protein source worldwide (FAO, 2022) . This is more salient in North America as salmon became the second most-consumed seafood in the United States in 2016 (Kantor, 2016). Salmon also has significant advantages to health given its nutritional values (J. T. Tuomisto et al., 2004). In British Columbia, finfish (of which salmon accounts for a large portion) is the most important fish produced having a critical role in this province’s economy with more than 680M dollars worth (Lafrance, 2021). Besides human consumption salmon feeds countless species including bears, wolves, and eagles and it also keeps the old-growth forest healthy, due to the nutrients it transports from the ocean to poor soils in the mountains near their spawning grounds and all down the water streams being a keystone specie for this ecosystem (Geoff Campbell, 2020; Hyatt & Godbout, 2000). Additionally, salmon has a substantial cultural relevance being at the center of some Indigenous cultures and having interacted with First Nations in the Pacific coast since time immemorial (Geoff Campbell, 2020). Therefore, Pacific salmon are integral to the coastal ecosystems, economies, and communities of British Columbia (BC), Canada.
Nevertheless, wild salmon populations are endangered as they were historically fished unsustainably and have faced multiple stress factors in the past decades. (Geoff Campbell, 2020; Mordecai et al., 2019; Pearsall et al., 2021; Riddel et al., 2018). Recent studies reveal declines of 50%–99% in wild sockeye and chinook populations across Canada's second largest salmon watershed, the Skeena River and the North Pacific Rim (Figure 2) (Heard et al., 2007; Price et al., 2019). As a consequence of the low number of salmon observed during runs, aquaculture or salmon farming started in experimental phases in the 1960s in Norway (Hansen, 2019). After the 1980s aquaculture became a common economic practice being a major source of salmon protein in virtually all countries with suitable cold-water temperatures and sheltered coastlines (Gerwing & McDaniels, 2006). Salmon farming was originally hailed as the hope for the world's ailing fishing industry and a way to reduce pressure on severely depleted fish stocks (Naylor et al., 2003). It has been increasing dramatically through the past decades in the world with a shift from 0.7 mMT produced in 1950 to 90 mMT in 2012 (FishStatJ, 2015; Kumar & Engle, 2016).
However, far from solving the environmental problems or decreasing pressures on wild fish, aquaculture has led to further problems in wild salmon. For instance, the contamination hatcheries put in the natural environment, like feces, parasites, viruses and genes have been demonstrated to have detrimental impacts in wild salmon populations (Kibenge et al., 2016; Morton et al., 2011; Morton & Routledge, 2016; Roscovich & Morton, 2014). Hatcheries are not sustainable in the long term, requiring continual input of money and energy (Meffe, 1992). Thus neither wild salmon fishing nor aquaculture are a sustainable option for salmon production. Given global protein demand on salmon the need for an alternative way of production arises.
What is cell-salmon?
One proposed alternative is cell-salmon or lab-grown salmon, which is a technology that uses the basic principles of cell replication to create complete protein fillets from one single cell extracted from a salmon. The process of its production is illustrated in Figure 3 where stem or stem-like cells are grown into salmon products using scaffolding structures and a bioreactor with supporting growth medium to generate cellular replication (Telesetsky, 2023). The video below, showcasing Wildtype's cell-salmon fillet, illustrates the strong resemblance between cell-salmon and the salmon that we consume currently. Cell-salmon is a very recently developed technology, being only in laboratory phases and not yet available for public consumption (Telesetsky, 2023). Most countries of the world have not approved this technology except for Singapore which is the only country where consumers can purchase lab-grown meat products (Poole, 2023).
This case study will focus on the potential for cell-salmon in the Coast Salish and Columbia River Basin area (Figure 4), a place where salmon has a strong ecological, economic, cultural and health relevance. The closest cell salmon producer is Wildtype, a start-up out of San Francisco (S.-L. Ruder, personal communication, March 28, 2023). According to Wildtype, cell-salmon will decrease pressures on the environment while providing clean meat products for human consumption. In the following sections cell-salmon will be analyzed through the lenses of ecology, economy, culture and health to obtain and analyze the potential risks and benefits of approving this technology in the Pacific Northwest. Given that this technology is extremely novel–leading to a low amount of academic literature or data describing its implications–an overview of the available literature will be given and comparisons with the most well-known analog, aquaculture, will be made. Information from an interview with Sarah-Louise Ruder, a PhD candidate researching the politics of novel food technologies, including projects on cellular agriculture applications for dairy and salmon in the Coast Salish context, will be used to complement published information regarding cell salmon and its industry. At the end of this report, a section analyzing the trade-offs of the potential benefits, risks and uncertainties will summarize the main findings. This will lead to recommendations for policy makers when discussing and analyzing this technology and its regulation.
Ecology
The topic of environmental tradeoffs to lab-grown animal products is widely discussed (Smetana et al., 2015; H. L. Tuomisto & Teixeira de Mattos, 2011). Even in its research stage, lab-grown meat uses significantly less energy, emits far less greenhouse gasses, and uses a fraction of the land and water when compared to conventional meat (H. L. Tuomisto & Teixeira de Mattos, 2011). Furthermore, as the technology becomes more optimized, the comparison to conventional meat will make the technology more competitive (Kools, 2019). Those advocating for the advancement of lab-grown meats often reference these comparisons to make a strong case for the technology. However, much of the existing literature surrounds lab-grown beef as it is the earliest form of this technology and its conventional counterpart is often the center of discussion on the impacts of current livestock practices as a major source of resource consumption and a driver of climate change. Cell-cultured fish (including cell-salmon) is a much newer application of this technology and as a result, many of the start-ups that are on the leading edge of its development (including Wildtype) consider the details of their inputs as proprietary information. Because of this, it is difficult to thoroughly access the environmental impacts of the cell-salmon technology. While the exact environmental impacts of cell-salmon are unknown, the current state of wild salmon stocks as well as the impacts of salmon farming (particularly in the Salish Sea region) is well-studied and inferences can be made about how a cell-salmon alternative may affect these systems.
Salmon in the Salish Sea
Years of industrialized fishing has had a profound impact on our ocean systems with upwards of 80% declines in ocean biomass (Myers & Worm, 2003). Salmon in the Salish Sea have reflected this decline. According to a synthesis report published by Pearsall et al., (2021), the marine survival rates of Chinook and Coho salmon have seen significant declines specifically in the Salish Sea since 1978. Multiple factors, aside from overfishing, are theorized in this report to contribute to these declines particularly during the early marine stage of salmon as this is characterized as the “critical period” where salmon survival into later stages is determined. Predation by harbour seals, which have seen increases in population numbers, is quite common with studies estimating that 5-39% of hatchery and wild salmon migrating out into Puget Sound are consumed by seals (Nelson et al., 2021). For chinook salmon particularly, the timing of hatchery-produced salmon has become less variable, causing short-term peaks in their outmigration which does not coincide with the natural life history of the species and has been correlated to declines in marine salmon survival (Pearsall et al., 2021). Estuaries and nearshore vegetation provide important shelter and food for Pacific salmon but have seen major annual declines due to anthropogenic stressors such as agricultural runoff, restriction of waterways due to dam construction, and rising water temperatures as a result of climate change (Lamb et al., 2011; Pearsall et al., 2021; Welch et al., 2008).
Climate change
As expected, climate change has been observed to be a driving force for several other salmon stressors. Of these, disruption of the food web caused by rising water temperatures is the primary climate-induced stressor to wild salmon stocks (Pearsall et al., 2021). Phytoplankton, an important food supply for young salmon, have seen shifts in composition over the past several decades with cold-water species seeing declines and warm-water species increasing thus creating more varied blooms with seasonality within the Salish Sea region (Mackas et al., 2013). This variation has led to a mismatch between when food is readily available and when outmigration of juvenile salmon into these marine systems occurs (Allen & Wolfe, 2013). Harmful algal blooms have also increased in frequency due warmer water temperatures. When these algal blooms occur, particularly in estuary habitats, it pushes juvenile salmon off of critical feeding grounds (Esenkulova et al., 2022; Pearsall et al., 2021). Furthermore, some of these blooming algae species are toxic to salmon or can cause damage to their gill structures leading to infection (Brown et al., 2020). The link between ocean acidification and salmon decline is understudied but while some studies have found that direct effects are minimal, cascading effects are likely to have an impact as acidification worsens (Ou et al., 2015; Pearsall et al., 2021). Lastly, warmer waters promote disease spread which is exacerbated by the increased risk of exposure from aquaculture (Karvonen et al., 2010; McVicar, 1997). These stressors have resulted in a number of measures from both Canada and the United States to protect salmon populations including restrictions on commercial fishing of chinook in the Fraser River. However, the decline of salmon and more broadly, the Salish Sea ecosystem is outpacing recovery (Zier & Gaydos, 2016). In order to fulfill the increasing demand for salmon products, however, industry has turned to aquaculture.
Aquaculture
The most popular form of salmon aquaculture utilizes net-pens which involves large enclosures made from nets placed in marine systems (Weber, 1997). This technique is linked to a number of environmental impacts. In a life-cycle assessment of salmon aquaculture technologies, Ayer & Tyedmers, (2009) found that the amount of waste generated from captive salmon can cause eutrophication of surrounding waters and captive fish can spread disease and parasites to wild salmon. The same study found a wide variation of impacts across techniques. Land-based solutions (creating a facility where salmon are bred and harvested) addressed some of the environmental concerns in terms of marine pollution but the energy and overall resource inputs are magnitudes higher than net-pens. Land-based aquaculture also has significantly lower yields than marine-based techniques. However, net-pens still require high levels of inputs in the form of feed, requiring 1300 kg of feed per ton of salmon. Organic salmon farming also has significant tradeoffs. (Pelletier & Tyedmers, 2007) found that the benefits of organic practices (in the form of lower impacts of feed ingredients) are diluted by the production and transport of the feed as well as a high degree of variation between crop, fish, and poultry-derived feeds. In addition to these impacts, it is worth mentioning further thatAtlantic salmon, rather than native Pacific salmon, is the most widely farmed salmon in British Columbia and accounting for over 75% of salmon farmed in British Columbia (Noakes et al., 2000; Statistics Canada, 2023). With all of this in mind, it is clear that there is a lot working against the sustainability of wild salmon stocks and a need for an alternative. Whether or not cell-salmon can provide a solution to these ecological problems as a competitive alternative will heavily depend on its inputs, whether or not it will be accepted as an alternative to conventional salmon, and whether or not we should expect people to accept it as such.
Socio-Economic Impacts
Finfish aquaculture, particularly salmon aquaculture, has significant social and economic value in the Coast Salish region. Wild salmon fishing has been an important part of this region’s economic development since the late 1800s, and farmed salmon production has garnered significance since the early 1980s (Naylor et al., 2003). Canadian salmon production is dominated by British Columbia, which contributes 60% of the total production volume (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017). Within finfish aquaculture, salmon is an important player. Finfish production in British Columbia decreased by 7.5% between 2020 and 2021, but the impacts on revenue were largely buffered by salmon prices (Government of Canada, 2022). Most farmed salmon produced in Canada is exported to North America, as shown in Figure 5 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022). Most farmed salmon is exported to the USA, and out of all of Canada’s seafood exports, farmed salmon ranks third largest in terms of value (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017).
Other regions of North America account for most of Canada’s aquaculture imports, followed by East and Southeast Asia, and Central and South America, as shown in Figure 6 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022).
Besides unspecified “Other” species, salmon ranks highest in terms of value compared with all other fish and seafood imports (Figure 7) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022). In the US, more than half of seafood products sold are imported, and top importing countries include China, Thailand, Canada, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Ecuador (Jeans, 2020; NOAA Fisheries, n.d.). It is unlikely that Wildtype will expand its production to Canada for the foreseeable future (S.-L. Ruder, personal communication, March 28, 2023). Since most Canadian farmed salmon is exported to the US, Wildtype cell-salmon could stand to impact Canada’s salmon sector if sold domestically in the US.
Labour
Canada’s farmed salmon industry provides 10,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, most of which are located in coastal and/or rural communities in British Columbia (e.g. Campbell River and the Comox-Strathcona region, as shown in Figure 8) and New Brunswick (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2013; Gardner Pinfold Consultants Inc., 2013). Salmon production in Chile has been linked with infractions of multiple labour standards, mostly health and safety and working hours, where 35% of inspections identified an infraction (Arengo et al., 2010). Analysis found that salmon companies in Chile were deficient in upholding rights to collective bargaining under international labour standards (Arengo et al., 2010). This is relevant given that Chile is the second largest source of salmon imports to Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022). Cell-salmon’s potential benefits in this vein may thus involve reducing reliance on imports from fisheries potentially produced using unfair and exploitative labour. Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing, often associated with human trafficking and forced labour, is also a large concern for aquaculture in general (Jeans, 2020). Products obtained from IUU fishing are imported into the USA, although it is unknown how much (and how much pertains to salmon) (Jeans, 2020). In Canadian salmon production, no written records of labour violations were found, jobs are mostly year-round (not seasonal) and permanent, and wages are approximately double minimum wage (Arengo et al., 2010). On the other hand, some First Nations peoples employed in salmon aquaculture in the Ahousaht, Alert Bay, Bella Bella, and Fort Rupert (BC coast) communities view the enterprise as a threat to the resilience of traditional livelihoods, noting that the dominant position of multinational corporations means that little of the benefits go towards their local economies (Gerwing & McDaniels, 2006).
Labour implications of cell-salmon largely depend on whether future development follows a scale-up approach, involving highly centralized production in an automation- and energy-intensive context, or a scale-out approach, involving decentralized production and several local microbreweries (Ellis et al., 2022). Since lab-grown meat requires energy-intensive facilities (particularly in the scale-up approach), increases in cell-salmon production will likely create jobs in urban settings, but not in rural environments like those that depend on salmon aquaculture (Moritz et al., 2022). The scale-out approach may prove more amenable to rural settings, however. In either case, most of the first batch of jobs in cell-salmon will require time-intensive specialist training (e.g. cell scientists, bioprocess engineers) and automation is expected to occur to some extent, to save on costs and contamination risks (Stephens et al., 2018). These would not be considered occupations into which the current salmon aquaculture workforce could transition, although cell-salmon is not unique in requiring specialized labour—conventional aquaculture is supported by a social infrastructure of scientific research into aspects such as animal health, and fish feed composition (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017). Later in development, however, jobs needed to maintain existing bioreactors (rather than set up new equipment) are likely more plentiful, and these would not require the same level of technical expertise (S.-L. Ruder, personal communication, March 28, 2023). If cell-salmon stood to replace Canada’s exported farmed salmon on US shelves, this could have significant effects on rural livelihoods and rural economies more broadly.
Economic security
Conventional aquaculture is a source of economic security in Canada and the USA (Gardner Pinfold Consultants Inc., 2013; Jeans, 2020). In the US, aquaculture provides 1.7 million jobs and 212 billion USD in revenue, including adjacent industries such as ship and boat-building services and navigational services (Jeans, 2020). However, economic security is at risk due to overfishing, which government subsidies tend to incentivize. Capacity-enhancing subsidies incentivize overexploitation and more fishing effort from large fleets. They include subsidies that cover the costs of fuel, building new vessels or increasing the capacity of current vessels (U. R. Sumaila et al., 2019). Fuel subsidies, which are the most directly linked to overfishing, make up the largest proportion of global fisheries subsidies, while support for rural fishing communities makes up the smallest proportion of the total (U. R. Sumaila et al., 2019).Finally, production costs for cellular agriculture are a central concern; they are steep, estimated at 10,000 to 100 times higher than for traditional meat products (Vergeer et al., 2021). Under current conditions, most costs per kilogram are accrued at the cell differentiation and maturation stage of production. This is mainly due to the high prices of recombinant proteins and growth factors, followed by the costs of bioreactor equipment (Vergeer et al., 2021).
Food security
Food security appears as a central socio-economic impact. Wild capture fisheries’ ability to contribute to food security is limited by the ecological constraints of wild stocks. Also, one-third of global fishery catches go towards feed-grade fish (feed for farmed fish) rather than for human consumption (Watson et al., 2015). Feed-grade fish catches are often juveniles, which affects reproduction rates and contributes to further decline in wild stocks (R. Sumaila et al., 2021). Cell-salmon production does not require fishmeal, so it could potentially reduce reliance on these inputs. Food security is also underpinned by food accessibility (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2008). However, the costs of production for wild capture fishing are high (particularly for labour and fuel), so most of the catch is conducted by larger fleets and is sold at higher prices that are only affordable for citizens in higher socio-economic brackets (Jeans, 2020).
Cell-salmon has the potential for improved production efficiency. It takes a few weeks to get a harvestable cellular seafood product, as opposed to months for conventional aquaculture (Jeans, 2020). This shorter lifecycle may also translate into less input usage per kilogram of salmon produced. Market diversification was also identified as a potential benefit for food security; in the event of climate change negatively impacting conventional aquaculture, for example, cell-salmon could replace that loss (Jeans, 2020). However, the main concern for cell-salmon and food security is affordability, which is the technology’s largest current drawback in this arena. The estimated price of a Wildtype salmon fillet is $100 using current technology, much pricier than the conventional alternative (S.-L. Ruder, personal communication, March 28, 2023). If production costs decrease over time, this price could decline (Vergeer et al., 2021).
Availability, marketability, and consumer attitudes
Jin et al (2019) note that public perception of synthetic biology in general favors medical and environmental applications over agrifood applications, but that there is not a substantial negative bias towards synthetic biology in the agrifood sector. In a 2022 study on acceptance of novel food technology, Krings et al (2022) suggest that food neophobia (fear of new foods) is often trafficked through concerns about “unnaturalness,” and “safety,” with some surveyed finding it “disgusting…linked to the idea that unnatural products are inherently unethical because of the assumed interference with ‘natural processes’”. A survey by Wilks and Phillips (2017) notes that “men were more receptive to [cell-meat] than women, as were politically liberal respondents compared with conservative ones. Vegetarians and vegans were more likely to perceive benefits compared to farmed meat, but they were less likely to want to try it than meat eaters” (Wilks & Phillips, 2017).
Meanwhile, Wildtype recently reposted an article from the Good Food Institute reviewing a nationwide study on U.S. consumer preferences for alternative seafood products– omnivores, pescatarians, and flexitarians surveyed are the most enthusiastic about alternative seafood. Respondents cited taste and texture as the most important criteria in their interest in cell-salmon consumption, followed by food safety. The messaging in favor of cell-seafood that most reached consumers was as follows: good flavor, saving ocean habitats, high in protein, lack of fishy smell, and plastic waste reduction. (Good Food Institute, 2021). These preferences are well-matched to Wildtype’s marketing strategy; Sarah-Louise Ruder has noted that Wildtype’s founders emphasize sustainability and food security while targeting flexitarians or recent converts to veganism/vegetarianism, along with people who don’t have pre-established connections to food (S.-L. Ruder, personal communication, March 28, 2023).
These positive (presumably settler) consumer reactions, along with the synchronies between marketing strategies and (presumably settler) consumer preferences indicate that there might be viable demand for cell-salmon.
Biopolitical implications of cell-salmon
"It's not really as sci-fi as it sounds; our fish [meat] is not grown in a lab," says Aryé Elfenbein, cofounder of Wildtype. Instead, Wildtype markets their production facility as a “neighbourhood microbrewery” and even a “fishery” (Keeve, 2021).
Political ecological and animal studies scholars like Anna Tsing (2012) and Donna Haraway (2013) work to break down the constituents of laboratory spaces, animal agriculture, plantations, and more. Along with many notable Black scholar-activists, like Rashad Shabazz (2014) and Angela Davis (2011), they make claims that such spaces often replicate carceral or chattel slave plantation geographies. Drawing further back from Michel Foucault’s work on biopower–state and normative subjugation and control of bodies–we know that prisons do not always look like prisons, and laboratories do not always look like laboratories; often, it is the liberal geographies which have best masked themselves as something novel which most egregiously replicate carceral, plantation, and settler colonial dynamics (Foucault, 1975; Haraway, 2013).
So, is Wildtype’s production facility a laboratory, a fishery, or a slaughterhouse? Below, we detail some of the ethical and biopolitical considerations which apply both to laboratory spaces and to salmon bodies and subjectivities– arguing that whether or not Wildtype has a “laboratory,” many of the same questions apply. Using appropriate scholarship, we introduce considerations for thought from three areas of biopolitical and ethical focus: 1) the ontology of cell-salmon, 2) the (reproductive) rights of salmon, and 3) DNA governance of salmon.
Ontology of cell-salmon
In her paper on the biopolitics of edibility, Alexandra Sexton (2018) looks at the discursive drivers of consumer acceptance of cellular agriculture. Sexton explores “how things become food,” a crucial question when we think about whether cell-salmon is or isn’t “food” (and is or isn’t animal). Sexton argues that cellular agriculture companies have a deep investment in “constructing” edibility (to combat aforementioned food technology neophobia). These companies, she claims, use a discourse of moral eating rooted in bodily abstraction and/or absenting. Like Sexton, Stephens (2010) argues that “the absence of actual animals in the production process [of cellular agriculture] deems the food environmentally friendly.” Likewise, Galusky (2014) argues that cellular meat embodies a complete form of human control over nature, that “the kind of nature we want is an almost direct expression of our intentions. Its chief virtues are how malleable the components are, how simplified the output is, how controllable the process is…through an orientation that sees the natural world as essentially plastic– manipulatable, changeable, made to reflect, not shape, specific human priorities.” Because cell-meat represents a more dramatic abstraction (than industrial animal agriculture) of the animal body from the edible meat product, these scholars argue argues, cell-meat companies are able to capitalize on a discourse of moral “betterness” and represent cell-meat as the cleanest, most controlled kind of meat consumption for conscious and “ethical” consumers. This question of control is equally relevant to ethical consideration of salmon’s bodily and reproductive autonomy.
(Reproductive) rights of salmon
Greta Gaard (2010) uses an ecofeminist analysis to make the argument that “interspecies justice [is] integral to a feminist and environmental vision of ecological democracy” for animals, women (especially women of color), and queer people. She writes that the aforementioned logic of total control is inherent in “similarities between sexism and speciesism, sexism and racism, or sexism and the oppression of nature,” wherein “the control of female fertility for food production and human reproduction alike uses invasive technologies to manipulate female bodies across the species.” In these processes (which are pertinent to efforts toward an immortal cell line, be they salmon or human), “one must have absolute access to the female of the species.” In her paper on reproductive autonomy, Catherine Mills echoes Gaard’s sentiments and targets state biopower, writing that “technologies that allow an unprecedented control over who is born has generated significant concern about the reemergence of a eugenic ‘quality control’ in reproduction even if this takes a new, more ‘flexible’ or ‘liberal form’.” Mills’ most salient critique in the case of cell-salmon is that “in defending a new liberal eugenics, many commentators rely centrally on the claim that this project is morally distinct from its totalitarian predecessor because it enhances, or at least protects, rather than restricts reproductive freedom.” Here, Mills calls out the discursive moves that projects like cell-salmon make to position hyper-control of salmon bodies and their reproduction as an (almost vegan) moralistic embetterment.
As Gaard (2010) reinforces, this kind of discourse also emerges in state projects to “better” populations of color through coercive and non-consensual control of Black, brown, and Indigenous female bodies (across more or less carceral geographies). The enclosure of female bodies (particularly Black, brown, and Indigenous) and their reproductive rights is inseparable from logics of private property and colonial capitalism (Federici, 2004), which again appear in stark relief with the possibility of maintaining proprietary salmon bodies for cell cultivation, patenting cell lines, and “enhancing” genetic composition for profit– taking away salmon’s autonomy over not just single-generation reproduction, but speciation, too. Pertinently, Ralstin-Lewis (2005) discusses Indigenous women’s right to reproduce in a historical context of (reproductive) genocide on Turtle Island, arguing that the right to reproduce “include[s] the right to natality and the right to choose when to procreate.” The right to reproduce, to choose when and how to reproduce, and autonomy over who to reproduce with (whose genes to mix with) is and always has been intimately connected to population control of Indigenous peoples by settler states (here, Canada and the U.S.) and their techno-scientific limbs (which, to note anecdotally, are often funded by the Department of Defense). Thus, these same technologies applied to salmon bodies must be considered alongside their discursive (human) peers.
DNA governance
Kim Tallbear (Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate) highlights a number of techno-scientific tactics which are used to justify the use and abuse of Indigenous human and kin species DNA for seemingly moralistic aims which shore up the boundaries of the settler state. Tallbear argues that DNA is an incomplete marker for personhood and situated kinship, and that settler moves to “preserve” Indigeneity through a molecularized conservation of the individual serve not to perpetuate Indigenous livelihood but rather to reassert settler control over Indigenous populations and bodies (Tallbear, 2013; Tallbear, 2017). She writes that this discourse of salvation can only occur in a state of ongoing genocide, that “gathering Indigenous biomaterials is about staving off certain death. The narrative calls for preserving remnants of human groups and their nonhuman relations, defined in molecular terms, and archiving those molecular patterns and instructions before peoples or species ‘vanish’ in death by admixture, or actual extinction in the case of nonhuman species.” To draw the parallel: Wildtype and other cell-meat producers make compelling arguments for saving animal bodies from exploitation or overharvesting and preserving animal-as-food for human consumption– a narrative which, for salmon, is generally predicated upon the possibility of salmon extinction. Here, Tallbear argues that “seeing [Indigenous peoples] as fully alive is key to seeing the aliveness of the decimated lands, waters, and other nonhuman communities on these continents. Understanding genocide in its full meaning in the Americas, for example, requires an understanding of the entangled genocide of humans and nonhumans here…Their/our decimation goes hand in hand.”
Drawing on Tallbear’s arguments about a) the interconnectedness of Indigenous and kin species’ survivance (Vizenor, 2008) and b) the common discourse of disappearance and salvation–a politics of eternity/inevitability (Snyder, 2018) which could very well foreclose Indigenous and salmon futures–we argue that techno-scientific moves to “save” or “revive” salmon cannot be dissociated from settler-colonial interventions in the lives of Salmon People along the coast who tend to salmon-as-kin.
Cell-salmon and Salmon People
Ethics, justifications, responses, and consumer preferences for cell-salmon driven by settlers in salmon territory are incomplete; without due attention to agreements with salmon upheld by salmon stewards who have maintained kin relations with salmon since time immemorial, we cannot make claims about what salmon is or should be. From a political ontology perspective (Blaser, 2018), what salmon is differs for settlers and Indigenous folks. Thus, multiple sets of relational ethics–and the interrelationships between those ethics–are at stake when we assess the tradeoffs of producing and marketing cell-salmon.
Because none of our team members are Salmon People or have long-term relations with salmon, we have chosen to relay perspectives of Salmon People here without making interpretive claims about those perspectives. Here, we present a) definitions of salmon and Salmon People kinship, b) perspectives of Salmon People on (non-wild) salmon aquaculture more broadly, and c) perspectives of Indigenous food scholars on cell-salmon specifically.
The meaning of the relationship between salmon and Salmon People differs across national and cultural contexts, but here a number of descriptions give a sense of what salmon is for various Salmon People:
“The salmon was put here by the Creator for our use as part of the cycle of life. It gave to us, and we, in turn, gave back to it through our ceremonies…Their returning meant our continuance was assured because the salmon gave up their lives for us. In turn, when we die and go back to the earth, we are providing that nourishment back to the soil, back to the riverbeds, and back into that cycle of life” (Carla HighEagle, Nez Perce)
“To me, this wild fish is who we are, what we are” (Stan Hunt, Alert Bay, Namgis First Nation)
“Salmon is directly tied to Quinault Indian Nation’s subjective definitions of well-being in ways that include yet transcend material benefits” (Amberson, 2016, synthesizing on behalf of Quinault community members)
“As described by the late Billy Frank, Jr., former Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission: ‘Salmon are the measuring stick of well-being in the Pacific Northwest’” (Amberson, 2016, citing Billy Frank, Jr.)
“Whether they realize it or not, every single person in the Northwest is a Wy-Kan-Ush-Pum. We are all Salmon People. Let us all work together to protect and restore salmon–this fish that unites us” (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission)
With these definitions of salmon in mind, we now consider Salmon People’s reactions to salmon aquaculture (salming farming which almost always takes place on Indigenous territories). We share these perspectives with their cell-salmon corollary in mind, considering that in many cases, lab-grown salmon exacerbates the differences that exist between wild salmon and farmed salmon. In a paper which draws from deep inquiry into Salmon People’s experiences with salmon aquaculture, Schreiber (2003) writes and cites:
“Just as wild salmon are closely intertwined with First Nations as people, so farmed salmon are thought to represent the beliefs and agendas of non-aboriginal people. In fact, Native witnesses often described fish farming as part of a larger program to either exterminate or assimilate aboriginal people. ‘This is all being done, this genocide of a race, being done under the guise of farming, under the guise of economic development” (Schreiber, 2003; Art Dick, Namgis First Nation)
These perspectives from Salmon People and their scholarly interlocutors indicate a largely negative perspective toward salmon aquaculture, which can be cautiously translated to the conversation around cell-salmon. We cite these perspectives here because there does not yet exist public opinion from Salmon People on cell-salmon; this analogous case is what we have to work with for now. Similarly patching together (here from Indigenous food scholars who are not Salmon People), we draw in perspectives from Kat Eschner’s article “Could lab-grown meat ever be Indigenized?”:
[The commercialization of food] prioritizes profit over nutrition and relationships, [Robinson] says. And she is concerned about what might happen if animal genetic materials are patented the way some seeds have been. ‘I don’t want a corporation to patent the moose,’ she says” (Margaret Robinson, Mi’kmaq, correspondence with the National Observer, 2022)
“...cellular ‘animals’ are an example of the violence that can be committed against marginalized peoples when their values are ignored. ‘Moose, salmon, deer are kin, not just food…For Indigenous Peoples, the healthiest food we can eat is food that contains the most relationships…Because moose is in contact with sun, wind, stars, soil, plants, etc., it is full of good relationships. Cellular ‘food’ is devoid of good relationships” (Tabitha Robin, Cree, correspondence with the National Observer, 2022)
Given the novelty of cell-salmon, we are devoid of significant scholarly work on settler or Salmon People’s ethics around salmon grown in a lab; however, these analogous and anecdotal accounts offer a jumping-off point for conversations around whether “we” (whoever we are) should be supporting, developing, and consuming cell-salmon in the territories of the Pacific Northwest.
Health Risks and potential benefits
Health risks of cell-salmon are still largely unknown. However, this section will give an overview of what has been discussed related to health risks or benefits of cell-cultured salmon. As this is a new topic and academic literature is still scarce, this section will use information from our interview with Sarah-Louise Ruder along with the themes discussed in blogs and cell-salmon producer websites.
Regarding the health risks, the biggest concern of salmon consumers is the potential detrimental effects on health of consuming “cancer-like” products (Hanson & Ranney, 2020). Although the information of the specific treatment for cell replication is not disclosed by companies, some patents show that the creation of modified pluripotent cell lines involves the activation or inactivation of various proteins responsible for tumor suppression or the use of growth factors, same mechanism used by cancer cells to replicate without regulation (Hanson & Ranney, 2020). The Center for Food Safety blog states that “it is possible that certain growth factors can be absorbed in the bloodstream after digestion” suggesting potential for cancer risk increase due to consumption of cell salmon (Hanson & Ranney, 2020). During the expert interview, Ruder commented that there is a lot of fear around this, however, there is no scientific evidence that supports that this is a valid concern. When she asked the cell-salmon companies about this, they told her there was no support for these concerns, and that eating cell-salmon would not increase someone’s risk of cancer (S.-L. Ruder, personal communication, March 28, 2023).
Other risks and concerns are related to allergens in cell-salmon as companies are not required to fully disclose the composition of their scaffolding or growth media, potentially exposing consumers to novel proteins and allergens (Hanson & Ranney, 2020). Therefore, the new mixture of ingredients should be reviewed under a full FDA supervised food additive review to guarantee its safety, following the precautionary principle (Hanson & Ranney, 2020).
Also, the possibility that the cell cultures may become contaminated with pathogens is a concern of this technology (Pauwels et al., 2007). Some authors state that cell-salmon will not use antibiotics, decreasing concerns related to antibiotic resistance in aquaculture (Telesetsky, 2023). However, so far it is highly uncertain if antibiotics will be used to keep cell-cultures free of pathogens or not. In contrast, farm salmon is known for having a prime environment for the spread of bacterial and fungal diseases (Morton & Routledge, 2016; Murphy & Robinson, 2022). Currently, these are controlled with antibiotics, nevertheless, there is evidence of increase of bacterial resistance to these treatments that could be transferred to human pathogens generating a big concern in this industry (Murphy & Robinson, 2022). Farmed salmon are also susceptible to parasites and disease for being concentrated in confined areas, in particular sea lice infestations (Lepeophtheirus salmonis and Caligus elongates) represent one of the most significant disease problems currently affecting salmon aquaculture (Morton et al., 2011; Morton & Routledge, 2016; Smejkal & Kakumanu, 2018).
On the other hand, the biggest proposed benefits of cell-salmon are related to low contamination in comparison with current salmon consumed. Cooperhouse, the CEO of BlueNalu a cell-fish company based in Netherlands, notes that cell-based seafood is free from potential contaminants that can be found in its ocean-caught counterparts — like mercury, toxins, pathogens and parasites, and even "micro-particles of plastics (Leschin-Hoar, 2019). In contrast, farmed salmon have been shown to contain higher levels of persistent organic pollutants (Smejkal & Kakumanu, 2018), such as polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, and the organochlorine pesticides dieldrin and toxaphene than in wild-caught Pacific salmon from Alaska (Hites et al., 2004). Therefore, cell-salmon will be cleaner from contaminants when compared to currently consumed salmon (Telesetsky, 2023).
Additionally, it may also be possible to manufacture cell-salmon with better human nutrition objectives including, for example, the introduction of omega-3 fatty acids in lieu of saturated fats (World Economy Forum, 2019). However, the lack of studies related to the possible long-term health effects of cell-salmon leaves high levels of uncertainty and asks for precaution when approving it or not.
Integrated Trade-Offs Analysis
We created a table weighting criteria by potential costs, potential benefits, and uncertainties (Table 1). Overall, aquaculture performed better than cell-salmon (7/12 criteria), largely due to the high uncertainty surrounding many of the potential benefits of cell-salmon. However, cell-salmon scored higher than aquaculture in 5/12 criteria: market diversification, wild salmon stocks, overall sustainability, contamination, and production efficiency, especially the latter two.
As cell-salmon technology continues to develop, key criteria pertain to wild salmon stocks and ecological impacts, as well as Indigenous access to wild salmon (where positive performance here should correspond with positive ecological performance) & Indigenous ontological importance. For wild salmon stocks/ecology, it is crucial to continue exploring whether cell-salmon would actually reduce salmon aquaculture. The technology’s ability to have positive ecological implications is determined largely by affordability and consumer acceptance, so these are also important. Processes of engagement between cell-salmon companies and Indigenous peoples and/or First Nations with cultural and spiritual ties to salmon are paramount, especially since the distribution of conventional aquaculture’s negative implications is skewed towards Indigenous peoples. However, assuming that cell-salmon development will proceed uninhibited by current regulations, some ontological harms towards Indigenous peoples will inevitably be created by this technology as illustrated by earlier quotes, even if some view the technology in a favourable light.
Table 1: Trade-off analysis table
| Criteria | Aquaculture | Cell-salmon | ||||||
| Relative benefit/cost | Uncertainty | Final score | Justification | Relative benefit/cost | Uncertainty | Final score | Justification | |
| Contamination/ food safety | 1 | 2 | 2 | Current practices have some pollutants and contamination concerns | 5 | 1.5 | 7.5 | Cell-salmon will not be proliferating in the contaminated marine environment associated with current pollutant concerns |
| Nutritional profile | 3 | 2 | 6 | Salmon has positive nutritional values | 4 | 1 | 4 | Nutritional values can be enhanced with the technology, however, there is uncertainty regarding this so for now it’s just a potential |
| Consumer acceptance | 4 | 1.9 | 7.6 | It is already a consumed product, but some don't accept it given the environmental and ethical concerns of eating salmon | 2 | 1 | 2 | Willing to try but not commit for cell-salmon, the acceptance in general is still uncertain. It's also being marketed to a limited niche consumer base |
| Affordability | 4 | 2 | 8 | Right now it is affordable, at least more than cell-salmon would be | 1 | 2 | 2 | We know for sure that it is very expensive compared to current fished salmon |
| Production efficiency | 2 | 1.8 | 3.6 | aquaculture: year-round production (not seasonal), inputs (feed-grade fish, etc.), low salmon production per unit time | 4 | 1.5 | 6 | Less time to harvest, less salmon used as biopsies just need to be taken to generate a new cell line (although there is uncertainty around the turn-a-round time for these cell lines) |
| Market diversification | 1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | Doesn't change current market options | 4 | 1 | 4 | Gives new options for consumers, can also compensate for climate-induced losses in conventional aquaculture |
| Cost of production (esp. inputs) | 3 | 1.8 | 5.4 | Requires a lot of inputs including feed and antibiotics | 1 | 1 | 1 | Needs a lot of inputs like the growing medium and also expensive bioreactors and a lot of energy to keep specific conditions that are optimal for the cells. |
| Labour impacts on coastal/rural communities | 4 | 1.3 | 5.2 | Currently most jobs are located in coastal and rural areas | 1 | 1.8 | 1.8 | Jobs are not going to be created in rural and coastal areas (if the more likely scale-up approach is taken), and jobs in these areas are most at risk if imports of Canadian farmed salmon to the US are replaced with cell-salmon |
| BC's economic security | 4 | 1.6 | 6.4 | Salmon aquaculture is currently an important economic activity, but recently salmon stocks have been depleting | 1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | As the main producer will not be in Canada (for now) it might act as competition, reducing BC salmon revenues |
| Impacts on wild salmon stocks | 1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | It is known that aquaculture is bad for wild salmon stocks for the pressure it imposes on wild populations, mainly via contaminants | 3 | 1 | 3 | Very uncertain whether this will replace fished/farmed salmon production. not pulling from wild salmon stocks, however, and not killing fish |
| Sustainability | 1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | It is unsustainable given its need for inputs, and its ecological impacts | 3 | 1.2 | 3.6 | It is very uncertain whether it's sustainable or not given lack of information on the inputs and energy required for its production, however, it could be more sustainable in future phases. |
| Centralization | 3 | 1.6 | 4.8 | A small number of integrated multinational companies dominate global farmed production (Gerwing & McDaniels, 2006). The BC salmon farming landscape is comprised of 11 companies that produce 88% of all farmed finfish (Manning & Hubley, 2016) | 2 | 1.2 | 2.4 | Cell salmon currently is more centralized as only Wildtype is producing it (in the North American context of our project) |
| Perpetuating settler colonialism | * | * | * | Current accounts from Salmon People overwhelmingly include perspectives which mark salmon aquaculture as a settler and even genocidal technology. | * | * | * | Current accounts from Indigenous food scholars and anecdotal accounts from Salmon People indicate a high probability for cell-salmon to perpetuate settler colonialism in salmon territory (for at least some populations) both with and without Indigenous consultation. This probability is especially due to concerns about the hyper-abstraction of salmon bodies and habitats, patenting/proprietarization of salmon DNA, and settler profit off of salmon. |
| Indigenous access (to wild salmon) | * | * | * | Current accounts from Salmon People overwhelmingly do not perceive farmed salmon as a means of freeing up access to wild salmon. | * | * | * | There is some interest from Salmon People in the possibility of having separate salmon economies for settlers and Salmon People (so cell-salmon could be for settlers and wild salmon for Salmon People). However, Salmon People largely do not see cell-salmon as a boon for interconnected people-salmon fisheries/do not view physical population levels as separate from epistemological and ontological significance. |
| Rights of salmon | * | * | * | Salmon have very limited control over reproduction and speciation. Salmon have very limited control over movement/migration and life cycle. | * | * | * | Salmon have no control over reproduction, speciation, life cycle, movement, or migration. |
Relative benefit/cost is ranked on a continuum scale going from most costly (1) to most beneficial (5) according to a qualitative assessment made by the team based on the information reported in this document. Uncertainty is ranked on a continuum scale from 1 to 2 where 1 means totally uncertain and 2 means totally certain. The final score is a calculation that multiples relative cost/benefit by the uncertainty.
*Ontological, epistemological, and cultural factors are numerically incommensurable with other tradeoff factors listed here, as a) we are neither salmon nor Salmon People and thus can’t speak for relative importance and b) epistemological evaluation of tradeoffs for salmon and Salmon People may or may not include quantitative measures. Equally, there is no single, streamlined, or established perspective from salmon or Salmon People on these trade-off factors to use as a proxy.
Conclusion and policy recommendations
Uncertainty in many areas of the analysis is a big concern. For this reason, the main recommendation for policy makers is to enforce cell-salmon companies’ disclosure of information on the criteria of the trade-off analysis table so cell-salmon can be analyzed based on real information. In this sense, companies should share information regarding their energy consumption, inputs, and greenhouse gas emission to evaluate if they are truly ecologically sustainable. Monitoring programs of wild salmon populations and aquaculture fish should also keep going to evaluate their effect on salmon conservation (if any). Prices should be regulated to make this salmon affordable for people. Furthermore, First Nations should be invited to the discussions on this technology, acknowledging their long-term relationships with salmon. Transition opportunities and/or compensation for BC rural/coastal communities involved in farmed salmon production should be considered. Instead of focusing only on how many jobs are created by the cell-salmon industry, considerations on how this technology might change fair pay and working conditions (domestically and in top importers) should be made. Information on the cell-salmon growth medium should be disclosed to check for potential allergens, contaminants and pathogens developing in the culture. The precautionary principle should be taken into account given the lack of knowledge of its long term health effects. Finally, future research and development should be publicly funded where possible to reduce reliance on venture capital and increase transparency.
References
Allen, S. E., & Wolfe, M. A. (2013). Hindcast of the timing of the spring phytoplankton bloom in the Strait of Georgia, 1968–2010. Progress in Oceanography, 115, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2013.05.026
Amberson, Sophia, et al. "“The Heartbeat of Our People”: identifying and measuring how salmon influences Quinault tribal well-being." Society & Natural Resources 29.12 (2016): 1389-1404.
Arengo, E., Ridler, N., & Hersoug, B. (2010). State of Information on Social Impacts of Salmon Farming: A report by the Technical Working Group of the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue. Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue. http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/196/files/original/State_of_Information_on_Social_Impacts_of_Salmon_Farming_SalmonL.pdf?1344876856
Ayer, N. W., & Tyedmers, P. H. (2009). Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: Life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(3), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.08.002
Blaser, M. (2018). Doing and undoing Caribou/Atiku: Diffractive and divergent multiplicities and their cosmopolitical orientations. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 1(1), 47-64.
Brown, A. R., Lilley, M., Shutler, J., Lowe, C., Artioli, Y., Torres, R., Berdalet, E., & Tyler, C. R. (2020). Assessing risks and mitigating impacts of harmful algal blooms on mariculture and marine fisheries. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(3), 1663–1688. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12403
Davis, A. Y. (2011). Are prisons obsolete?. Seven stories press.
Ellis, M. J., Sexton, A., Dunsford, I., & Stephens, N. (2022). The triple bottom line framework can connect people, planet and profit in cellular agriculture. Nature Food, 3(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00619-3
Eschner, K. (2022, August 2). Could lab-grown meat ever be Indigenized? Canada’s National Observer.
Esenkulova, S., Neville, C., DiCicco, E., & Pearsall, I. (2022). Indications that algal blooms may affect wild salmon in a similar way as farmed salmon. Harmful Algae, 118, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2022.102310
FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the Witch. Autonomedia.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2013, January 12). Aquaculture statistics. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector-secteur/stats-eng.htm
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2017). Farmed Salmon. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector-secteur/species-especes/salmon-saumon-eng.htm
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2022). Canada’s Fish and Seafood Trade in 2021: Overview (p. iii + 25p.). Department of Fisheries and Oceans. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/41079486.pdf?
FishStatJ, F. A. O. (2015). Fisheries and aquaculture software. FishStatJ-Software for Fishery Statistical Time Series. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. EC - FAO Food Security Programme. https://www.fao.org/3/al936e/al936e00.pdf
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish. A. Sheridan, Tr., Paris, FR, Gallimard.
Gaard, G. (2010). Reproductive technology, or reproductive justice?: An ecofeminist, environmental justice perspective on the rhetoric of choice. Ethics & the Environment, 15(2), 103-129.
Galusky, W. (2014). Technology as responsibility: Failure, food animals, and lab-grown meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27, 931-948.
Gardner Pinfold Consultants Inc. (2013). Socio-Economic Impact of Aquaculture in Canada. For Fisheries and Oceans Canada Aquaculture Management Directorate. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/40739016.pdf
Geoff Campbell, N. V. (2020, November 16). 7 Reasons Why Salmon Count. Pacific Wild. https://pacificwild.org/7-reasons-why-salmon-count/
Gerwing, K., & McDaniels, T. (2006). Listening to the Salmon People: Coastal First Nations’ Objectives Regarding Salmon Aquaculture in British Columbia. Society & Natural Resources, 19(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500460864
Government of Canada, S. C. (2022, November 29). The Daily—Aquaculture, 2021 (final). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221129/dq221129d-eng.htm
Hansen, L. (2019). The Weak Sustainability of the Salmon Feed Transition in Norway – A Bioeconomic Case Study. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00764
Hanson, J., & Ranney, J. (2020, September 20). Is Lab-Grown Meat Healthy and Safe to Consume? Center for Food Safety. https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/6458/is-lab-grown-meat-healthy-and-safe-to-consume
Haraway, D. J. (2013). When species meet (Vol. 3). U of Minnesota Press.
Heard, W. R., Shevlyakov, E., Zikunova, O. V., & McNicol, R. E. (2007). Chinook salmon–trends in abundance and biological characteristics. Bulletin No, 4, 77–91.
Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A. M., Fenelon, M., & Tiwari, B. (2017). Future Protein Supply and Demand: Strategies and Factors Influencing a Sustainable Equilibrium. Foods, 6(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6070053
Hites, R. A., Foran, J. A., Carpenter, D. O., Hamilton, M. C., Knuth, B. A., & Schwager, S. J. (2004). Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon. Science, 303(5655), 226–229. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091447
Hyatt, K. D., & Godbout, L. (2000). A Review of Salmon as Keystone Species and Their Utility as Critical Indicators of Regional Biodiversity and Ecosystem Integrity.
Jeans, M. (2020). Can Plant- and Cell-Based Seafood Improve Human and Planetary Health: An examination of the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of seafood alternatives. Wildlife Conservation Society. https://library.wcs.org/Scientific-Research/Research-Publications/Publications-Library/ctl/view/mid/40093/pubid/DMX3840800000.aspx
Jin, S., Clark, B., Kuznesof, S., Lin, X., & Frewer, L. J. (2019). Synthetic biology applied in the agrifood sector: Public perceptions, attitudes and implications for future studies. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 91, 454-466.
Kantor, L. (2016, October 3). Americans’ Seafood Consumption Below Recommendations (USDA ERS ). https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/october/americans-seafood-consumption-below-recommendations/
Karvonen, A., Rintamäki, P., Jokela, J., & Valtonen, E. T. (2010). Increasing water temperature and disease risks in aquatic systems: Climate change increases the risk of some, but not all, diseases. International Journal for Parasitology, 40(13), 1483–1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.04.015
Keeve, A. (2021). We tried “cell-grown” salmon that looks, feels, and tastes real. Its makers want it to be the norm someday. Business Insider. Retrieved April 6, 2023.
Kibenge, M. J., Iwamoto, T., Wang, Y., Morton, A., Routledge, R., & Kibenge, F. S. (2016). Discovery of variant infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV) of European genotype in British Columbia, Canada. Virology Journal, 13, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-015-0459-1
Kools, F. (2019, April 11). What’s been going on with the ‘hamburger professor.’ Maastricht University. http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/news/what%E2%80%99s-been-going-%E2%80%98hamburger-professor%E2%80%99
Kumar, G., & Engle, C. R. (2016). Technological Advances that Led to Growth of Shrimp, Salmon, and Tilapia Farming. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 24(2), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2015.1112357
Krings, V. C., Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2022). Food technology neophobia as a psychological barrier to clean meat acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 96, 104409.
Lafrance, D. (2021). Canada’s Aquaculture Industry (Background Paper) (No. 2021-03-E). Library of Parliament. https://bdp.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/202103E
Lamb, A., Gibbs, D., & Gibbs, C. (2011). Strait of Georgia Biodiversity in Relation to Bull Kelp Abundance. Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.
Leschin-Hoar, C. (2019, May 5). Seafood Without The Sea: Will Lab-Grown Fish Hook Consumers? NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/05/05/720041152/seafood-without-the-sea-will-lab-grown-fish-hook-consumers
Mackas, D., Galbraith, M., Faust, D., Masson, D., Young, K., Shaw, W., Romaine, S., Trudel, M., Dower, J., Campbell, R., Sastri, A., Bornhold Pechter, E. A., Pakhomov, E., & El-Sabaawi, R. (2013). Zooplankton time series from the Strait of Georgia: Results from year-round sampling at deep water locations, 1990–2010. Progress in Oceanography, 115, 129–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2013.05.019
Manning, F., & Hubley, E. (2016). Volume One—Aquaculture Industry and Governance in Canada (pp. 1–72). The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/POFO/Reports/2016-06-22_POFO_AquacultureVolume1_Final_E.pdf
McVicar, A. H. (1997). Disease and parasite implications of the coexistence of wild and cultured Atlantic salmon populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54(6), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-3139(97)80014-8
Meffe, G. K. (1992). Techno-Arrogance and Halfway Technologies: Salmon Hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North America. Conservation Biology, 6(3), 350–354. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06030350.x
Mills, C. (2013). Reproductive Autonomy as Self-Making: Procreative Liberty and the Practice of Ethical Subjectivity. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 38(6), 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jht046
Mordecai, G. J., Miller, K. M., Di Cicco, E., Schulze, A. D., Kaukinen, K. H., Ming, T. J., Li, S., Tabata, A., Teffer, A., Patterson, D. A., Ferguson, H. W., & Suttle, C. A. (2019). Endangered wild salmon infected by newly discovered viruses. ELife, 8, e47615. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47615
Moritz, J., Tuomisto, H. L., & Ryynänen, T. (2022). The transformative innovation potential of cellular agriculture: Political and policy stakeholders’ perceptions of cultured meat in Germany. Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.018
Morton, A., & Routledge, R. (2016). Risk and precaution: Salmon farming. Marine Policy, 74, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.022
Morton, A., Routledge, R., McConnell, A., & Krkošek, M. (2011). Sea lice dispersion and salmon survival in relation to salmon farm activity in the Broughton Archipelago. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsq146
Murphy, G. M., & Robinson, S. M. C. (2022). Review of Antibiotic Resistance Genes (ARGs) in Salmon Aquaculture and Empirical Data on Spatial and Seasonal Trends in the Bay of Fundy [Research Document]. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2023/mpo-dfo/fs70-5/Fs70-5-2022-061-eng.pdf
Myers, R. A., & Worm, B. (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423(6937), Article 6937. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01610
Naylor, R. L., Eagle, J., & Smith, W. L. (2003). Salmon Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest A Global Industry with Local Impacts. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 45(8), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150309604562
Nelson, B. W., Pearson, S. F., Anderson, J. H., Jeffries, S. J., Thomas, A. C., Walker, W. A., Acevedo-Gutiérrez, A., Kemp, I. M., Lance, M. M., Louden, A., & Voelker, M. R. (2021). Variation in predator diet and prey size affects perceived impacts to salmon species of high conservation concern. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 78(11), 1661–1676. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2020-0300
NOAA Fisheries. (n.d.). Sustainable Seafood: Seafood Communities. Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/sustainable-seafood/seafood-communities
Noakes, D. J., Beamish, R. J., & Kent, M. L. (2000). On the decline of Pacific salmon and speculative links to salmon farming in British Columbia. Aquaculture, 183(3), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00294-X
Ou, M., Hamilton, T. J., Eom, J., Lyall, E. M., Gallup, J., Jiang, A., Lee, J., Close, D. A., Yun, S.-S., & Brauner, C. J. (2015). Responses of pink salmon to CO2-induced aquatic acidification. Nature Climate Change, 5(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2694
Pauwels, K., Herman, P., SVaerenbergh, B., Do, C. D., Berghmans, L., Waeterloos, G., Bockstaele, D., Dorsch-Häsler, K., & Sneyers, M. (2007). Animal Cell Cultures: Risk Assessment and Biosafety Recommendations. Applied Biosafety, 12, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/153567600701200105
Pearsall, I., Schmidt, M., Kemp, I., & Riddell, B. (2021). Factors Limiting Survival of Juvenile Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon and Steelhead in the Salish Sea: Synthesis of findings of the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project. Pacific Salmon Foundation. https://www.marinescience.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021PSF-SynthesisPaper-Screen.pdf
Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2007). Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? Aquaculture, 272(1), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.06.024
Poole, J. (2023, February 1). Singapore reigns supreme on cultivated meat regulation as tech leaders edge toward commercialization. ..Foodingredientsfirst.Com/. https://fif.cnsmedia.com/a/pYSMd6Tc4U4=
Price, M. H. H., Connors, B. M., Candy, J. R., McIntosh, B., Beacham, T. D., Moore, J. W., & Reynolds, J. D. (2019). Genetics of century-old fish scales reveal population patterns of decline. Conservation Letters, 12(6), e12669. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12669
Ralstin-Lewis, D. M. (2005). The continuing struggle against genocide: Indigenous women's reproductive rights. Wicazo Sa Review, 71-95.
Riddel, B., Connors, K., & Hertz, E. (2018). The State of Pacific Salmon in British Columbia: An Overview (pp. 1–44). The Pacific Salmon Foundation. https://salmonwatersheds.ca/libraryfiles/lib_455.pdf
Roscovich, T., & Morton, A. (Directors). (2014). Salmon confidential. Department of Wild Salmon.
Ruder, S.-L. (2023, March 28). Personal communication with a cellular agriculture researcher [Personal communication].
Schreiber, D. (2003). Salmon Farming and Salmon People: Identity and Environment in the Leggatt Inquiry. American Indian culture and research journal, 27(4), 79-103.
Sexton, A. E. (2018). Eating for the post‐Anthropocene: Alternative proteins and the biopolitics of edibility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43(4), 586-600.
Shabazz, R. (2014). “Walls Turned Sideways are Bridges”: Carceral Scripts and the Transformation of the Prison Space. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 13(3), 581-594.
Singh, M. (2014, June 6). Can Farmed Fish Feed The World Without Destroying The Environment? NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/06/319247280/can-farmed-fish-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-environment
Smejkal, G. B., & Kakumanu, S. (2018). Safely meeting global salmon demand. Npj Science of Food, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0025-5
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., & Heinz, V. (2015). Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6
Snyder, T. (2018). The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Crown.
Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., & Sexton, A. (2018). Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 78, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010
Sumaila, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Teh, L. S. L., Bang, A. H. Y., Cashion, T., Zeng, Z., Alava, J. J., le Clue, S., & de Mitcheson, Y. S. (2021). Sink or Swim: The future of fisheries in the East and South China Seas. ADM Capital Foundation.
Sumaila, U. R., Ebrahim, N., Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D., Li, Y., Kim, H. S., Mallory, T. G., Lam, V. W. L., & Pauly, D. (2019). Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 109, 103695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103695
TallBear, K. (2013). Indigenous and Genetic Governance and Knowledge. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science, 177-204. U of Minnesota Press.
Tallbear, K. (2017). Beyond the Life/Not-Life Binary: A Feminist-Indigenous Reading of Cryopreservation, Interspecies Thinking, and the New Materialisms. Cryopolitics: Frozen Life in a Melting World, 179-202. MIT Press.
Telesetsky, A. (2023). Cellular mariculture: Challenges of delivering sustainable protein security. Marine Policy, 147, 105400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105400
Tsing, A. L. (2012). On Nonscalability: The Living World Is Not Amenable to Precision-Nested Scales. Common knowledge, 18(3), 505-524.
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200130u
Tuomisto, J. T., Tuomisto, J., Tainio, M., Niittynen, M., Verkasalo, P., Vartiainen, T., Kiviranta, H., & Pekkanen, J. (2004). Risk-Benefit Analysis of Eating Farmed Salmon. Science, 305(5683), 476–477. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.305.5683.476
Vergeer, R., Sinke, P., & Odegard, I. (2021). TEA of cultivated meat: Future projections of different scenarios (21.190254.020). CE Delft.
Vizenor, G. (Ed.). (2008). Survivance: Narratives of native presence. U of Nebraska Press.
Watson, R. A., Nowara, G. B., Hartmann, K., Green, B. S., Tracey, S. R., & Carter, C. G. (2015). Marine foods sourced from farther as their use of global ocean primary production increases. Nature Communications, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8365
We are all Salmon People. (n.d.). CRITFC. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from https://critfc.org/salmon-culture/we-are-all-salmon-people/
Weber, M., L. (1997). Farming salmon: A brief book. Consultative Group on Biodiversity.
Welch, D. W., Rechisky, E. L., Melnychuk, M. C., Porter, A. D., Walters, C. J., Clements, S., Clemens, B. J., McKinley, R. S., & Schreck, C. (2008). Survival of Migrating Salmon Smolts in Large Rivers With and Without Dams. PLOS Biology, 6(10), e265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060265
What U.S. consumers want in alternative seafood products. The Good Food Institute. (2021, April 30).
Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PloS one, 12(2), e0171904.
World Economy Forum. (2019). Meat: The Future Series Alternative Proteins. White Paper. Oxford Martin School, Oxford Universit. https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/meat-the-future-series-alternative-proteins
Worm, B. (2016). Averting a global fisheries disaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(18), 4895–4897. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604008113
Zier, J., & Gaydos, J. K. (2016, April). The growing number of species of concern in the Salish Sea suggests ecosystem decay is outpacing recovery. Proceedings of the 2016 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference. https://www.eopugetsound.org/sites/default/files/Zier-and-Gaydos-2016-Salish-Sea-Species-of-Concern-FINAL.pdf