Media release – Neighbours of Fish Farming, 11 January 2024
Tassal seeks backdoor approval to continue use of seal bombs on ASC certified farms
A request to permanently allow Tassal salmon farms to use underwater seal bombs – despite being prohibited by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council certification – was recently quietly published on the ASC website.
The variance request was submitted by auditors, SCS Global, on behalf of their client Tassal, and aims to exempt farms from ASC criteria intended to protect wildlife from harm caused by acoustic deterrent devices. If approved, it will mean Tassal can continue to market their ASC product to shoppers as “responsibly farmed.”
The ASC Standard has a “zero” tolerance use of acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) or acoustic harassment devices (AHDs) during the farming cycle. Seal bombs are explosive pyrotechnic devices that detonate below the surface producing intense impulsive sound frequencies that can cause pain to seals, porpoises, and whales. The ASC considers seal bombs ADDs/AHDs.
The variance request comes after auditors failed to penalize Tassal’s use of seal bombs on ASC farms for nearly ten years; instead audit reports state the farms are “compliant” with the “zero” tolerance criteria. Audit reports dating back to 2014 reveal that auditors relied on written company declarations that ADDs, and AHDs were not used on farms.
Numerous studies find seal bombs can cause hearing loss, bone fractures, soft tissue burns, other physical trauma and potentially death to seals as well as other marine life. A 2018 Tassal report, accessed via Right to Information, detailed the grizzly death of a seal due to a bomb being thrown outside a pen five meters from a seal.
RTI documents (1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4) show Tassal has used nearly 60,000 seal bombs since January 2018. According to Tassal’s website, 1,006 seal bombs were used at Tassal farms from December 2022 to November 2023. Despite these numbers, last month Tassal farms Creeses Mistake and West of Wedge were regranted ASC certification.
The timing of the request also coincides with the upcoming ASC surveillance audit for Okehampton farm which was recently exposed as experiencing mass fish deaths.
Globally, greenwashing exposés and scrutiny of farmed salmon certifications is increasing. Last month, conservation groups lodged a formal complaint to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) over the use of “responsibly sourced” claims made on Tasmanian salmon products linked with the Best Aquaculture Practices and GLOBALG.A.P. certifications in Macquarie Harbour where the industry poses a catastrophic threat to the endangered Maugean skate.
If Tassal’s request is approved, the ASC will no longer hold a higher animal welfare bar for seals than the RSPCA who, despite the many studies demonstrating negative welfare impacts, allows the practice of seal bombs on RSPCA endorsed salmon farms.
Trish Baily, VP at Tasmanian Alliance for Marine Protection, and Tasman Peninsula for Marine Protection representative said:
“Since 2014, stakeholders in Tasmania have engaged with the ASC auditing process in good faith, raising numerous concerns, including the regular use of deterrent devices such as seal bombs on Tassal farms. Yet the auditors have routinely ignored or dismissed stakeholder objections. Despite the globally renowned ASC certification having a zero tolerance on the use of seal bombs, Tassal has consistently received a stamp of approval from auditors and this makes a mockery of the certification process.
Alistair Allan, Marine Campaigner at the Bob Brown Foundation, said:
“This is how certifications become meaningless. Tassal is part of attacking native wildlife and destroying Tasmania’s marine environments, yet it remains certified despite engaging in a practice that is explicitly not permitted by the ASC. With this latest move, consumers can now see that the whole certification scheme for farmed salmon is a sham.
Jessica Coughlan, campaigner at Neighbours of Fish Farming, said:
“We call on ASC to reject the request for Tassal to continue its harm to our native protected seals. Consumers should be outraged that Tassal farms have been allowed to get away with the use of seal bombs for the past ten years despite the ASC prohibiting it. The certificates from the eight ASC Tassal farms should also be revoked so long as the practice of using firearms and explosives in our sensitive waterways continues.
Kelly Roebuck, SeaChoice representative from Living Oceans, said:
“The ASC Standard might look good on paper, but it often isn’t applied as such due to loopholes. From Canada to Chile to Scotland to Tasmania, ASC variances can result in criteria exemptions that enable salmon farms to be certified that would otherwise be ineligible. Shoppers expect certifications to live up to their ‘responsible’ claims, not cater to industry norms.
View the variance request on the Aquaculture Stewardship Council website.
The ASC Salmon Standard states:
Indicator: 2.5.1 Number of days in the production cycle when acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) or acoustic harassment devices (AHDs) were used Requirement: 0
Tassal seal bomb numbers:
- Tassal dashboard – reports 1,006 seal bombs used from December 2022 to November 2023.
- RTI documents (1 ; 2 ; 3) and NRE reporting – shows Tassal has used nearly 60,000 seal bombs since January 2018.
Tassal report (RTI) on seal death due to a bomb being thrown outside a pen five meters from a seal: “After the cracker went off, the seal surfaced. The seal was showing blood and blowing a lot of bubbles before sinking and [was] not sighted again.”
Studies on seal bomb impacts: Kerr and Scorse (2018) details sea lions with “evidence of intra-oral explosion, including traumatic injury to bone of maxilla and mandibles, soft tissue burns and prolapsed eye balls”. The study also lists potential impacts to fish, whales, and other marine life. A Canadian government study found seal bombs “could potentially cause permanent hearing loss in a seal or sea lion at a range of about 10 meters”. Studying the Monterey Bay Harbor porpoise, Simonis et al. 2020 suggests seal bomb noise exposure is a potential threat regarding hearing damage and behavioural effects such as displacement and foraging disturbance. A NOAA study that tested a variety of seal bombs determined they can cause severe to moderate injury to dolphins when detonated within a zero to four metre distance.
Audit evidence of continued ‘compliance’ to ASC requirement despite seal bomb use:
Example from Creeses Mistake audit reports 2014 to date:
| Report date | Type | Assessment | Auditor Evidence |
| 19 Sep 2014 | Initial Audit (final report) | Compliant | “Received written statement from Tassal affirming that the farm’s does not use any acoustic deterrent devices” |
| 21 Dec 2015 | Surveillance 1 | Not assessed | |
| 5 Dec 2016 | Surveillance 2 | Compliant | “The Client has provided a written statement declaring that thy don’t use and are committed to not using ADDs and AHDs.”
“A “Wildlife Interaction Recording and Reporting Procedure” (Document: ES – 113) has been developed, which is aligned with the standard.” “No ADD or AHDs were observed during the site visit.” |
| 25 Oct 2017 | Recertification (final report) | Compliant | “The Client has provided a written statement declaring that they don’t use and are committed to not using ADDs and AHDs.”
“A “Wildlife Interaction Recording and Reporting Procedure” (Document: ES – 113) has been developed, which is aligned with the standard.” “No evidence of ADDs or AHDs were observed or suspected at the farm site. Discussions with the Client’s wildlife officer demonstrated that they were well aware that ADDs and AHDs cannot be used.” |
| Oct 30 2018 | Surveillance 1 | Compliant | “ADDs and AHDs have not been used at the farm site.”
“The Client has provided a written statement declaring that they don’t use and are committed to not using ADDs and AHDs (April 2018).” “A Wildlife Interaction Recording and Reporting Procedure” (Document: ES – 113) has been developed, which is aligned with the standard” “No evidence of ADDs or AHDs were observed or suspected at the farm site. Discussions with the Client’s wildlife officer demonstrated that they were well aware that ADDs and AHDs cannot be used.” |
| Nov 9 2018 | Initial audit (final report) | Compliant | “ADDs and AHDs have not been used at the farm site.”
“The Client has provided a written statement declaring that they don’t use and are committed to not using ADDs and AHDs (April 2018).” “AWildlife Interaction Recording and Reporting Procedure” (Document: ES – 113) has been developed, which is aligned with the standard” “No evidence of ADDs or AHDs were observed or suspected at the farm site. Discussions with the Client’s wildlife officer demonstrated that they were well aware that ADDs and AHDs cannot be used.” |
| Dec 31 2019 | Surveillance (final report) | Compliant | “The Client has provided a written statement declaring that they don’t use and are committed to not using ADDs and AHDs.”
“A Wildlife Interaction Recording and Reporting Procedure” (Document: ES – 113) has been developed, which is aligned with the standard” “No evidence of ADDs or AHDs were observed or suspected at the farm site. Discussions with the Client’s wildlife officer demonstrated that they were well aware that ADDs and AHDs cannot be used.” |
| Nov 2 2020 | Recertification | NA | “NA, Tassal declaration date March 17th, 2020 signed by XXX, in which it is stated sites do not use acoustic deterrent devices and they will not use it on the future” |
| Nov 16 2021 / report revised Feb 11 2022 | Surveillance with scope extension | Compliant | “Tassal does not use ADD or AHDs according to farm staff and there is an statement from Head of Environment; signed March 17 2020 confirming that Tassal does not use ADDs or AHDs” |
| Nov 15 2022 | Surveillance 2 | Compliant | “Tassal does not use ADD or AHDs according to farm staff and there is an statement from Head of Environment; signed April 26th 2022 confirming that Tassal does not use ADDs or AHDs” |
| August 16 2023 | Recertification (draft report) | Major NonConformance* | “This finding has been graded a minor nonconformance because Tassal continues use of seal crackers at certified farms, citing safety concerns for personnel, especially dive teams. Repeat nonconformance, previously a minor, upgraded to a major non conformance during this audit.” |
| Dec 11 2023 | Recertification (final report) | Minor NonConformance (extended until June 2024) | “This finding has been graded a minor non conformance because Tassal continues use of seal crackers at certified farms, citing safety concerns for personnel, especially dive teams.” |
* Downgraded to a “minor” in final report despite ASC rules disallowing downgrading of NCs
Featured image above courtesy of Anna Meyer-Loebbecke.
Chris
January 15, 2024 at 16:25
The use of bombs for the dirty fish farming is OK because some fish can skate away from them.
Does Jeremy’s truth-twisting mob, like the overseas owners of salmon farms along with their waste products, appreciate this practice? Are big fibs published on their use in industry reports, and do the regulators suffer from selective auditing? Will Erica Betz stop this practice when he takes on the mantle of Premier of the new National Socialist party, or will it become a branch of the Lieberal Party?
How much explosive is absorbed in the metabolism of the “pristine” salmon products?
Or as Jessica Coughlan, campaigner at Neighbours of Fish Farming, said:
Karen Righthand
January 23, 2024 at 08:51
Response to Media Release – “Neighbours of Fish Farming” dated 11 January 2024, and “Joint Statement” dated 19 January, 2024
For 40 years, SCS Global Services (SCS) has been a leader in environmental and sustainability verification, certification, auditing, testing, and standards development. SCS has been named in two media releases on January 11 and January 19, 2024 and this response addresses mischaracterization of our work in those published stakeholder opinions and sets the record straight on a few key facts. We’d like to address three specific assertions for clarity:
1. SCS failed to penalize seal cracker use for nearly ten years.
2. SCS erred by recertifying some farms and is obliged to suspend the certificates.
3. The variance request process was carried out in a “backdoor”, “sneaky” way.
Background:
Our specific role in the context of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) requires rigorously assessing aquaculture farms against the ASC’s standards. This task involves extensive interaction with a diverse range of stakeholders, including farm operators, aquaculture industry representatives, laborers, service contractors, government regulators at various levels, retailers, research scientists, the ASC itself, accreditation bodies, and environmental activists, among others. These groups often have differing objectives and views, not only regarding individual assessments but also concerning the aquaculture industry as a whole. Therefore, conducting assessments with conscientiousness, competence, and, above all, impartiality is of utmost importance.
The ASC model encourages transparent participation from all these groups, valuing their collective input for enhancing the quality and integrity of our assessments. This diversity enriches the process, continuously elevating industry best practices.
Point 1:
Until September 2022, seal crackers were not classified under the ASC’s definitions for acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) or acoustic harassment devices (AHDs) so to say that SCS repeatedly ignored use of these devices since 2014 is untrue and inflammatory. = SCS was aware of the use of seal crackers. SCS engagement with ASC contributed to the expanded definition to include seal crackers as ADD/AHDs and prohibit their use. Our responsibility has always been to impartially assess farms based on the ASC’s explicit standards.
Point 2:
Post September 2022, the use of seal crackers became a non-compliance issue. Their use resulted in non conformances in audits after that time. ASC gives farms up to a year from the audit date to implement corrective actions and clear the non-conformance.
Point 3:
The variation request (VR) process is a formal approach characterized by transparency and public input and in no way should be considered a “backdoor” or “sneaky” approach. We proactively engage stakeholders, informing them of upcoming audits, draft reports, final reports, and annual surveillance. All these documents are available on the ASC website for review and comment. We address all written stakeholder submissions. Formal variation requests to ASC is the vehicle available to us as auditors. The specific VR under discussion was published on the ASC website, receiving inputs from various stakeholders, including some signatories of the January 19 joint statement.
SCS remains committed to transparency, accuracy, and impartiality in our assessments. We strive to ensure all parties are properly informed and that our processes reflect the highest standards of third-party certification.