July 30, 2012 — The following is an excerpt from the Victoria, British Columbia radio program Gorilla Radio:
This week: Human industry, and the greed feeding it, has conspired with agencies charged to monitor the health of humble Atlantic menhaden and other wild fish stocks to keep harvest number levels high. Cooked scientific data in fish stock assessments is nothing new to Atlantic Canadians, and others who may recall when cod was king in the Maritimes. Alison Fairbrother is Director of the Washington, D.C.-based Public Trust Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to investigating and exposing the misuse of science by corporations and government to the detriment of human health and the environment. The Public Trust Project instead, quote: "[P]romotes the findings of independent scientists whose work has not been skewed by powerful interests, through op-eds and media communications." Alison Fairbrother in the first half.
Listen to the full interview on Gorilla Radio
Analysis: In an interview with the Victoria, British Columbia radio program Gorilla Radio, Alison Fairbrother, Director of the Public Trust Project, discussed the current state of menhaden management. She repeatedly criticized the alleged influence of the menhaden reduction industry over the scientific process of determining the health of the stock, and questioned the integrity of the upcoming results of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) assessment process. However, during the interview, she never provides evidence that the industry has violated ASMFC protocol. In fact, chief ASMFC administrators have commented publicly to the contrary.
Ms. Fairbrother mentioned several times that the participation of consultants associated with Omega Protein affected confidence in the independence of the assessment, saying that she is, “frankly worried about whether the results will be biased.” She similarly claims, “there are a lot of opportunities for the industry to provide comment and input, even in the scientific process, which of course is supposed to be insulated from influence.”
These statements overestimate the amount of influence that the reduction fishery has over the scientific process. For example, Ms. Fairbrother expressed concern that scientists consulting Omega Protein on stock assessment science were present at ASMFC meetings, and that, “the language and the concepts that have been presented by [Omega Protein’s] consultants have made their way into the recommendations of government scientists.” Ms. Fairbrother failed to mention that such meetings are open to the public, and public comment by outside experts and interested parties is allowed according to ASMFC rules. Such participation by independent scientists is neither uncommon nor unusual in the assessment process.
According to current ASMFC rules, public participation in ASMFC meetings is regulated by the chair of the committee, and whether or not the level of public participation is intrusive is the decision of the chair. An article from the Public Trust Project quotes Technical Committee Chair, Erik Williams, on the subject of the consultant participation as saying, “ultimately, this is a scientific process, so to the degree that they can contribute to the science, that’s great.” Similarly, in an interview, Bob Beal, Acting Executive Director of the ASMFC, did not feel that industry consultants had been overly influential when they had participated in an ASMFC meeting in May of this year. “Their participation was controlled and allowed by the chair of that meeting. It was really up to the chair, and he felt it was a constructive discussion,” he said. “My understanding is that they weren’t inserting themselves beyond what the chair was allowing at the meeting.”
The goal of fishery regulation is to keep the stock healthy, and the management process involves soliciting input from a variety of stakeholders, including members of the industry and environmental organizations. The ASMFC appreciates and encourages scientific contributions from the public in the fishery management process. However, the ASMFC still has the ultimate authority in making management decisions, regardless of input from outside experts.