Aquaculture Report
The second item on our agenda is a review of the impact on the Scottish aquaculture industry of European list 1 designated disease infectious salmon anaemia and list 2 disease viral haemorrhagic septicaemia. That title must have taken Maureen Macmillan some time to write, never mind the draft report.
People are always impressed by those words. I trot them out every time schools visit—when they ask me what I am doing in the Parliament, I say that I am studying infectious salmon anaemia and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia.
At the top of the paper, there is a list of organisations that I have visited. I have also had a meeting with a representative of Hydra, a Norwegian aquaculture organisation that has an interest in the aquaculture industry in Scotland.
ISA was first recorded in Norway in 1984 and then in Canada in 1996, although the virus was not quite the same. To begin with, the disease was not called infectious salmon anaemia, because people were not sure what it was. Only later was it given that designation. The first case in Scotland was found in 1998, on a fish farm in Loch Nevis. Evidence for where it came from is inconclusive, and there is not total agreement on whether the outbreak in Loch Nevis was the progenitor of all the other outbreaks that have taken place in Scotland. By June 1999, 28 farms in Scotland were suspected of being infected, although only 11 were subsequently confirmed as having the disease.
The virus does not always develop into the disease; it is suspected if there are some clinical signs. The disease is highly contagious, and is transmitted through water, by blood and faeces coming into contact with other fish. That is much more likely to happen in a fish farm than in the wild. However, there is some controversy about whether ISA exists in the wild. ISA appears to endanger salmon only. Although trout have been known to carry the virus, no evidence exists of them succumbing to the disease. That fact, along with the evidence that the virus cannot survive at temperatures above 25 deg C leads to the conclusion that the virus poses no risk to human health. It is extremely important that we understand that.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency points out that the disease can be spread by effluent from fish processing. That could be prevented by disinfecting effluent, which is done most effectively by chlorination. That involves non-biodegradable organochlorates, which are not good for the environment. SEPA suggests using alternatives to chlorination such as ozoisation and particle screening.
Under EU legislation, the disease is classified as list 1. That means that stringent controls are introduced to eradicate any outbreak and to prevent the spread of the disease. Those measures include a requirement to report any suspicion of an outbreak of the disease. If the disease is suspected, stringent measures must be implemented controlling the movement not only of fish, but of equipment and personnel associated with the farm. Surveillance is also introduced on all farms in the suspect farm's catchment area. If the disease is confirmed, slaughtering and fallowing measures are introduced on the farm.
The EU directive also outlawed the use of vaccines to combat the virus because the EU wanted to eradicate the virus rather than control it; the EU thought that vaccination would send out the wrong signal. However, the report of Ian Stewart Hudghton MEP, as rapporteur to the EU Committee on Fisheries, proposes amendments to the directive. That has paved the way for the introduction of vaccines. The report has yet to receive formal approval from the Council of Ministers, although it has been adopted by the Committee on Fisheries and the European Parliament.
I will now turn to the economic impact of the ISA regulations. About 6,500 jobs in Scotland—mostly in the Highlands and Islands—are dependent on the salmon industry. By June 1999, the cost of the slaughtering policy was £37 million and there were 180 direct job losses. It is estimated that compulsory culling will result in a 25 per cent reduction in production capacity by the end of 2000.
The industry believed erroneously that compensation for loss of stock would be paid from the EC veterinary fund and that that would be match funded—50 per cent from Europe and 50 per cent from Westminster. However, ISA was not included on the list of diseases that could draw compensation from that fund and direct compensation from either source was not forthcoming. Ian Stewart Hudghton's report calls for European Council decision 90/424/EEC to be amended to add ISA to the list of diseases that can be compensated from the EC veterinary fund.
As a result of the compensation issue, insurance is currently not available to the industry. That has an impact on its ability to raise bank loans. The industry's collateral lies in stock; if it cannot insure the stock, it cannot raise loans. Despite the proven lack of danger to humans, there is a risk that consumer confidence in the salmon industry may be lost. Following previous food scares, the public need to be educated that there is no risk from ISA. There is a problem with supermarkets in this country that will not take fish if there is even a suspicion of the virus. That is not helped by press stories talking about killer viruses and so on.
The public naming of suspected farms damages their reputation. The knock-on effect on neighbouring farms is also detrimental and results in a lack of confidence on the part of traders and so on. That is despite the fact that mere suspicion does not—as has been shown—mean that the farm is infected.
Norway is a good comparator for Scotland—it is an excellent control area for ISA. It is the largest producer of salmon and has had the longest experience of the disease. It is not a member of the EU and is therefore not bound by EC directives, although controls are enforced when it trades with the EU. The most obvious point about Norway is that salmon production has not collapsed, despite the fact that the disease is endemic. The Government funds the industry heavily, seeing it as an important part of the local economy. Norway produces 420,000 tonnes of salmon, whereas Scotland produces 118,000 tonnes.
In Norway, ISA is dealt with with a view to sustaining the industry. The Norwegians have a control approach as opposed to an eradication approach. That, in brief, is how Norway manages the disease. On suspicion of the virus being present, the problem is managed by the local farmers, vets and fisheries departments, who hold a sort of conference to decide on the best way of treating the farm. In Scotland, the Marine Laboratory Aberdeen—in other words, the scientists—takes on responsibility for the management and control of the problem.
In Norway, if 25 per cent of the farm is affected—not if the virus is proved to be present, as happens in Scotland—an entire farm stock is eradicated. As the farms are not publicly labelled as suspect, there is no detrimental effect on them and their neighbours, unlike the way in which the situation is perceived in Scotland.
Although EU moneys were not forthcoming, compensation packages to assist the industry in Scotland have been announced. In February 1999, the Scottish Office announced a package of £3 million per annum for three years. That proved unworkable, as it had to be match funded by the industry. The industry, being on its uppers, could not do that.
In 1999, further moves to assist the industry were announced. However, the main hope is that the Hudghton report will convince the Council of Ministers to add ISA to the list of diseases that can be compensated, although that would still be subject to match funding by the Government.
A great deal of short-term hope is placed on the successful adoption of the Hudghton report. If approved by the Council of Ministers, it could pave the way for the introduction of vaccines and compensation. However, the vaccine issue is still to be proved. There are no vaccines at present with which scientists in Scotland are happy. They are difficult to administer and scientists are not sure whether there is a truly effective one.
Compensation is reliant on match funding so, if there is to be compensation, we need assurance that the funds to match those from Europe will be forthcoming. The introduction of effective compensation should pave the way for the insurance industry to insure farmers and so allow them to access capital.
The policy on naming suspect farms needs to be re-examined. Should the Norwegian approach be adopted here? The Norwegian approach of control rather than eradication needs to be further examined; we need to know how effective it is in the long term. The comparison between non-regulated Norway and regulated Scotland is excellent for those purposes.
That concludes the draft on ISA. I have a brief outline on viral haemorrhagic septicaemia, which is an especially virulent disease in white fish. Although it is not recognised as being endemic in UK waters, it was recorded on a turbot farm on the island of Gigha in 1994. There is some controversy about how it got there—whether it came through the seawater inlets or whether it was given to the fish in food. It was a severe outbreak and all the fish had to be slaughtered.
Generally, the UK, along with Finland, Norway, Sweden and Ireland, is recognised as being free of the disease. VHS occurs on the continent, particularly in fresh water. It can be treated chemically, but there are environmental dangers with that. It affects white fish, with which the aquaculture industry is keen to become involved. The industry wishes to develop turbot, halibut and cod as alternatives—or adjuncts—to salmon farming. There is great potential in the marketplace for that.
The extent to which the aquaculture industry involves itself with white fish may be affected by the experience of ISA and the EU regulations. The industry does not want to go down the same road as it went down with ISA. At present, the EU regulations for dealing with VHS are similar to those for ISA. There is still uncertainty about how issues such as compensation, insurance and so on will be resolved. The future development of the industry in Scotland may be hindered, which would be a great shame because it represents a potential boost to the aquaculture sector and to the Highlands and Islands.
It is worth noting that the North Atlantic Fisheries College believes that the EU is moving towards a Norwegian approach to these issues, allowing the industry itself to manage the problem. It is hoped that disease will not prove a major worry, but if problems start to arise, perhaps we should learn the lessons from ISA and VHS.
Thank you, Maureen. Although the report is a draft, it is very detailed and you have obviously done a lot of work.
When the final report is approved, we should send copies to the Rural Affairs Committee and to the Executive and draw their attention to the details. Are there any comments on the draft report?
Heavens, what a flurry of hands. There must be a lot of experts here.
As a vegetarian, I have to admit that I am far from being an expert on this subject. Having read Maureen's report, I am quite glad about that. I congratulate her on the work that she has put in, but I have to say that what she says frightens the life out of me.
In her second-last paragraph, she notes that the EU is moving towards a Norwegian style of dealing with the problem. Has she considered how the new Food Standards Agency might link in with that? Could there be a conflict between consumers and producers?
I have not considered that point. However, there is no danger to the consumer from ISA or from VHS, which cannot affect human beings; they affect only fish. The fish that develop the full-blown disease would always be slaughtered. Because of the BSE crisis, the use of the word "disease" in connection with anything in the food chain scares people off. In this case, those fears are unnecessary.
I am just a seeker after truth, Maureen, and I congratulate you on your work. However, I have one or two wee questions, because I think that tomorrow's story might be, "Parliament says, ‘Eat up your salmon. It's quite safe'." I say that as an old tabloid hack.
I am prepared to believe you, as I have two steaks sitting in the fridge at home and I shall eat them tonight in celebration. I do not know whether they came from Norway or from Scotland. The Norwegian way of dealing with things, as far as I can see, is that if 25 per cent of the stock is affected, it is goodnight to that fish farm. If the diseases are harmless to the consumer, why do we need to wipe out infected fish farms?
That is what happens in Scotland at the moment.
I asked about Norway.
If the fish get the disease, they will die. Those diseases are fatal for fish. I presume that the cull is carried out so that the water does not get too full of infected faeces and blood that would transmit the diseases to other fish.
That is nasty for them, but if it is not going to kill me, why should I worry? I am being blunt about this. That seems to be the hole in the Norwegian way of doing things.
I appreciate that this is a draft report, but what do the Norwegians actually do to contain, rather than eradicate, the disease? We can all understand what is meant by eradication, but how can one contain a disease if there are questions about the application of vaccine and the use of organophosphates?
The Norwegians contain the diseases by selectively bumping off the fish that have become infected. In Scotland, there needs to be only one suspect fish on the farm and that is that. The Norwegians concentrate on managing disease. If it gets out of hand, at 25 per cent, they decide that it has taken hold and act accordingly.
Presumably, there is a case load of research saying what percentage of the fish farms that have had ISA contained in the Norwegian way go on to develop more than 25 per cent infection.
There will be statistics in Norway. It is not easy for us to get hold of them, but we can try.
If we think the Norwegians have got it more right than we have—they are trying to contain rather than eradicate—we had better be able to back that up. From the point of view of a fish farmer, I can see that the Norwegian situation might be attractive but, bearing in mind what Irene Oldfather said, it might be difficult for the committee to convince people of that.
I would hate to taste your salmon fish suppers.
They will be lovely with a touch of lemon juice.
The best selling fish product in Shetland is the salmon sausage. You laugh, but a company has gone into production using the bits of fish that do not make it into the nice little vacuum packs in the supermarkets. I will bring some to the next committee meeting.
I want to make clear the fact that the disease is the fish equivalent of the common flu in humans. There is no danger to human health. Maureen has put a lot of work into this report on the aspects that relate to legislation and regulation, not those that relate to issues of health—that would be the Health and Community Care Committee's pigeon. I suggest that if Margo had no worse than the common flu she could carry on eating salmon and it would do her a lot of good.
I would like several conclusions in the report to be firmed up. The work that has been done is important, but we should deliberate and answer the questions Maureen poses. Margo was doing that a minute ago—she was continuing the discussion on the issue that is raised in the last bullet point in Maureen's conclusions: that the issue of naming suspect farms has to be examined. Darn right it needs to be examined. We need to answer that question and the others.
Maureen made a good point about the Hudghton report. We should note our thanks to Stewart Hudghton and his colleagues, who did a lot of helpful work on the matter in the European Parliament. We should ask the Executive whether, if Europe helps in making infectious salmon anaemia and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia compensatable diseases, the Executive will be able to support that.
With regard to Maureen's last point on VHS, there is an aquaculture and salmon processing business in Ross-shire that is concerned that the VHS regulations would be as bad for its business as the situation with ISA is. I think that the report should suggest measures that should be in place to avoid problems developing.
I know that firm. When I come to give my full report, I will show you a video that the company, Aquascot, has given me about the importance of the white fish aquaculture industry. I agree that we need to consider the VHS regulations carefully.
I presume that Maureen has to come down on one side or the other on the issue of eradication or containment. Containment implies that if infestation is proved, the farm will not be wiped out. How much compensation would be paid in that case? Compensation becomes very important if the strategy is eradication. Does not containment imply something different?
Yes, it does. If someone had to eradicate their whole stock without compensation, they would be virtually bankrupt. If the policy were containment, compensation would not be such a big issue.
I simply want to ensure that we get this right. This is deep water.
I can see that this is beginning to shape up as a perfect Saturday night for Margo—a bottle of Beaujolais, a salmon supper and a video to match. What more could she ask for?
There must be some controls on the disease to ensure that it does not spread to the wild salmon population.
It would wipe out the wild salmon, because there would be no means of containing its spread.
I would like Maureen to deal with the specific issues that Tavish Scott raised. Should we at least ask the Executive about the Norwegian method of dealing with ISA? Will you reflect on that?
Yes. I presumed that when I presented my report the committee would reflect on that issue and that I would take on board what the committee felt, instead of recommending something myself. However, if you would like me to do that, I will.
Could you consider the points that have been made, so that we do not lose sight of them?
I support everything that Tavish Scott has said.
Many issues, such as containment versus eradication, emerge from this report. Maureen makes a number of important points. For example, she points out the dangers of a farm being suspected of having ISA and that becoming publicly known. Other key issues that she mentions are compensation and vaccines. I am more interested in what should be done at the next stage.
We have already talked about the possibility of reaching conclusions on this issue. I have approached the institute of aquaculture at Stirling University, which is an important part of the academic scene in this area, and have been told that its expertise is different from that of the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen. If Maureen has not consulted the institute already—I assume that she has not, because it is not mentioned in the report—it might be worth her discussing the draft report with it so that she can firm up her position on some of the issues that Margo MacDonald and other members have raised.
This may simply be my ignorance, but from debates in the chamber I had gathered that a caging mechanism was used. I do not think that that was terribly clear on the second page of the report.
The fish are contained in cages. I am meeting the professor of aquaculture at Stirling University in about a fortnight's time. I was unable to arrange a meeting with him earlier.
In her report Maureen states:
"Despite, the proven lack of danger to humans, mentioned above there is a danger of consumer confidence in the salmon industry falling—previous food ‘scares' mean that the public need educated that there is no risk from ISA".
That is a fairly definitive statement. It is based on the claim, made on the first page of the report,
"that the Virus can not survive at temperatures above 25 degrees centigrade",
which
"leads to the conclusion that the virus itself poses no risk whatsoever to human health".
I do not know enough about this, but presumably that means that the virus can survive at temperatures below 25 deg C and is therefore present in salmon products that have not been treated to eradicate it. That would seem to be an obstacle to restoring consumer confidence.
The report seems to be written from the producer's point of view. I can understand the reasons for that, but perhaps greater weight could be given to the consumer interest. The best way of strengthening the position of the producer is to restore consumer confidence in the product, if that has been damaged.
I can see the obvious parallels with Norway, but are there no salmon producers in the European Union who are subject to the same controls as we are? Do they deal with the disease differently? You refer in the report to Canada, but you give no indication of how Canadian producers deal with ISA.
I cannot remember how the disease is dealt with in Canada. Tavish Scott might know that.
Basically, the same method as is used in Norway.
I think that an attempt is made to manage the disease. Ireland has an aquaculture industry, but it has not had an outbreak of ISA. I should point out that the report is about the impact of these diseases on the aquaculture industry—it is not about health. However, even if someone ate raw salmon, the heat in their stomach would destroy the virus.
Think what it is doing to the Japanese.
I have been to Japan and eaten raw fish. I am not scared.
I would like to pick up on the point Allan Wilson made about increasing consumer confidence. Maureen Macmillan says in her report that the disease has no effect on humans. In my first question I mentioned the Food Standards Agency, which would be the right body to address this issue. The Food Standards Agency is independent of the producers and has the job of protecting consumers. If it were to take a view on this, we could adopt a more confident position in the report and allay consumer fears. Perhaps we should think about consulting the FSA.
I will not be able to take up Tavish Scott's offer of salmon sausages because I am a vegan—I do not eat any animal produce. I would hesitate to say something that led to headlines such as "MSP starts veggie scare", but some of the stuff on the vegetables we eat would be as frightening to Irene Oldfather as the stuff that is found in animal produce.
I am a wee bit concerned that we are using this report for a purpose for which it was not designed. Although I am always conscious of the importance of ensuring food safety, I understand that the report was intended to deal with particular issues. I have no problem with considering some of the food safety issues that arise from this, but I would like to ask Maureen Macmillan about eradication versus containment. In the report you say that the efficacy of the vaccine is still to be proved. Does that mean that at the moment there is no vaccine? Is one being developed or is one likely to be developed?
As far as I can tell, there is no consumer problem with salmon. If we start talking about that and the Food Standards Agency, we will create a health scare that does not exist at the moment. This report is about the effect on the fish-farming industry. I do not know very much about fish, but as I understand it ISA poses no danger to the consumer. We should leave the safety issue well alone. If the salmon were not safe, I would expect the Health and Community Care Committee to have heard about it, and it has not. I ask Maureen to confirm that there is no danger in humans eating salmon.
There is no danger in eating salmon; it is not a health risk. The problem is that we get headlines such as "Killer disease affects another salmon farm" and Tesco buys Norwegian salmon—which contains at least as much ISA, although it is not perceived as being infected—instead of Scottish salmon.
There is no vaccine at the moment, but people are working on one. Now that a vaccine could be used, the scientists will work on it pretty hard, although concern has been raised that an effective vaccine will not be produced, or that too many vaccines are being used on fish. However, that concern is anecdotal rather than scientific.
Thanks, Maureen. Several valuable points have been made, which I am sure you will reflect on. We look forward to your final report.