Article
Regulators Evade Questions Over Salmon Farm Antibiotics
As we enter the official Christmas break, as a media outlet we have done our best to bring our readers the very latest and most up to date advice on whether there is a current antibiotic issue in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel.
It appears the only conclusion we have come to – is to leave it up to the people – we the recreational fishers and we the families who want to swim in the Channel over the next few weeks or more.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and Department of Health remain at odds over the safety of massive antibiotic dosing in southern Tasmanian waters.
While a “preliminary” EPA report claims the antibiotic Florfenicol disappears almost instantly from the water column, health officials are refusing to lift a 3km exclusion zone for recreational fishers, citing a need for public caution.
Tasmanian Times put a series of urgent technical and safety questions to both departments following the release of the EPA report yesterday.
In a response received this afternoon, the EPA successfully clarified some sampling data but deflected all questions regarding the “3km discrepancy” back to the Department of Health.
Questions Answered By The EPA
The EPA’s latest response provided specific data regarding the sampling of wild fish and the methodology used to detect residues.
-
Wild Fish Data – A total of 344 individual wild fish were analysed from the first three treatment events at Meads Creek, Stringers Cove and Zuidpool.
-
Proximity – Of the 119 pooled samples taken, 95 were caught within 3km of the treatment leases.
-
Species – Analysis included Australian salmon, flathead, wrasse, dogfish, jackass morwong, barracuda and school shark.
-
Metabolites – The regulator confirmed it is testing for both Florfenicol and its primary metabolite, Florfenicol-amine, acknowledging that the metabolite is what is primarily detected in fish tissue.
Questions Evaded Or Deflected
Despite the EPA providing links to the NRE and LISTmap websites for treatment locations, several high-stakes questions remain unanswered by the government.
-
The 3km Discrepancy – The EPA stated that “any questions related to public health need to be directed to the Department of Health.” Neither department has explained why a 3,000-metre exclusion zone is necessary if the EPA’s own testing shows zero water residues beyond 35 metres.
-
The Scale of Use – The government continues to refuse to confirm the total mass (tonnage) of Florfenicol administered across the Channel. Tasmanian Times understands the volume reached approximately 700kg in a single fortnight—a figure regulators have yet to officially verify.
-
Shellfish Safety – Questions regarding the risk to southern rock lobster (crayfish) and abalone remain unanswered. The current health advisory only specifically mentions “wild fish,” leaving holidaymakers uncertain about other popular Christmas catches.
-
Lack of Signage – Neither department addressed why they have refused to install physical warning signs at boat ramps, leaving the task to community groups like the Bob Brown Foundation.
Health Department’s “Stay Away” Paradox
In an update on the Department of Health website, Acting Director of Public Health Dr Scott McKeown reinforced the 21-day, 3km exclusion zone. Curiously, McKeown stated that the residues “do not represent a risk to people eating wild caught fish,” yet still advised the public to avoid the area to “prevent the likelihood” of exposure.
In an update at 18:00 23 December, the Department of Health maintains its current advice as per what is published here – Public Health advice about Florfenicol – recreational fishing and water use | Tasmanian Department of Health.
By framing the exclusion zone as a “recommendation” rather than a ban, the government has shifted the responsibility for food safety entirely onto the individual fisher.
This shift comes as Salmon Tasmania CEO John Whittington told mainstream media that the early results made it “clear” that it was safe to catch fish and swim.
As the NRE and EPA media offices move into their Christmas shutdown period, Tasmanian Times will continue to seek a scientific explanation for why the public is being told the water is “safe” while simultaneously being warned to stay 3km away – but whilst that is looking like important detail to recreational fishers and families wondering about swimming in the channel over this festive period, we will now need to wait until early January 2026.
Attachment 2 – Verbatim Response Received from EPA/NRE (23 Dec 2025)
The EPA has presented the preliminary findings of the water samples collected up to 7 days post treatment. Any questions related to public health need to be directed to the Department of Health. Health information for recreational fishing is available on the Department of Health website.
As per our report, Florfenicol and Florfenicol-Amine are both included in the testing of water, sediment and fish. When measuring Florfenicol in fish, the fish samples are reported as the sum of Florfenicol and its metabolites measured as Florfenicol-amine, this is due to the method required to extract Florfenicol from the fish tissues.
A live map of all current treatment locations with 3km buffer zone is available on the LISTMap website. A full list of marine farms which are currently receiving treatment, or have received treatment in the last 21 days is available on the NRE Tas and EPA websites.
The total number of individual wild-fish sampled and analysed up to 7 days post treatment across all monitoring locations for the first three treatment events was 344 individual fish. Of the total 119 pooled wild fish sampled across the three leases, 95 of these pooled samples were caught within 3 km of the leases. The species caught included a mix of Australian salmon, flathead, wrasse, dog fish, jackass morwong, barracuda and school shark.
Media release – Environment Protection Authority (EPA), 22 December 2025
EPA releases preliminary results from antibiotic residue monitoring
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has released preliminary findings from antibiotic residue monitoring undertaken in response to the use of the antibiotic Florfenicol to treat Piscirickettsia salmonis (P. salmonis) at salmon farm leases in southern Tasmania.
EPA Director, Catherine Murdoch, said Antibiotic Residue Monitoring Schedules were developed and issued to Environmental Licence holders following notifications of intended Florfenicol use.
“The schedules were informed by a review of scientific literature and with support from Tasmania’s Public Health Services and were specifically designed to reflect the intended use of Florfenicol on individual leases, its shorter half-life, and its potential fate in the marine environment,” Murdoch said.
The monitoring schedules require baseline sampling prior to treatment, as well as sampling during and after treatment, to collect data on the presence and breakdown of antibiotic residues in sediments, water, and wild fish.
“This approach ensures the EPA can assess potential environmental impacts associated with the use of Florfenicol,” Murdoch said.
Monitoring programs were issued for the first three Florfenicol treatment events at three leases – Meads Creek, Stringers Cove and Zuidpool, in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and Huon River Marine Farming Development Plan Area.
The EPA’s preliminary report provides an initial assessment of results reported from samples collected at baseline, mid-treatment, and at one- and seven-days post-treatment, summarising laboratory analysis of 286 sediment samples, 104 water samples, and 119 pooled wild fish samples consisting of a total 344 individual wild fish.
The report outlines that Florfenicol has not been measured in sediments within or external to treatment sites during the first three treatment events. Florfenicol was measured in water samples in low concentrations mid treatment but was not present in water samples at a distance greater than 35 metres from treatment sites one day after treatments were completed. Florfenicol has been measured in two of the 119 pooled wild fish samples collected.
The preliminary report indicates that the presence of Florfenicol in the water column would be expected to be limited to low concentrations during treatment and up to seven days after treatment. The report outlines that initial results indicate that concentrations of residual antibiotic present in the environment after the first three treatment events are unlikely to present a risk to the Tasmanian Marine environment.
Murdoch said the findings do not represent a full environmental risk assessment of Florfenicol use in the Tasmanian marine environment.
“A comprehensive risk assessment requires analysis of all environmental samples collected under the entire Therapeutant Residue Monitoring Schedules issued to licence holders.”
The EPA anticipates that a full environmental risk assessment, including the establishment of guideline values for Florfenicol use in Tasmania, will be completed in early 2026 once all laboratory results are received.
A final report for each antibiotic treatment event will be published on the EPA website when monitoring has been completed.
Preliminary results and associated documents can be viewed on the EPA website.
Public Health advice for recreational fishing and water use near florfenicol dosing sites
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has released the preliminary findings from its antibiotic residue monitoring program into the use of the antibiotic florfenicol to treat salmon infected with P. salmonis.
The Department of Health has maintained its precautionary advice to recreational fishers and water users in areas near commercial salmon farms being treated using the antibiotic florfenicol, while further environmental monitoring occurs.
Acting Director of Public Health, Dr Scott McKeown, said that while the preliminary EPA report has indicated that traces of florfenicol were found in a small number of wild fish samples, the antibiotic residue levels recorded to date do not represent a risk to people eating wild caught fish.
“While there is no evidence of harm to human health from consuming traces of florfenicol, recreational fishers could choose to avoid the likelihood of eating a fish with low levels florfenicol residue,” said McKeown.
“Recreational fishers could do this by avoiding eating fish caught within 3km of a treated lease – both during treatment and for 21 days post treatment”.
McKeown also stated that there is no evidence of harm to human health from general exposure to traces of florfenicol in waters.
“Based on the results to date the Department of Health considers that the use of florfenicol to treat salmon at Tasmanian farming sites is unlikely to affect waters at locations frequently used for recreational purposes, such as swimming,” said McKeown.
The Department of Health will continue to assess environmental monitoring information as it is received to inform future public health advice relating to the use of florfenicol.
Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse presentation of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.
Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians.
New initiatives on the way include … what our contributors and readers suggest! Please get in touch with your suggestions.