Okay, let me see if I've got this one straight. Staniford conducts a campaign against global Norwegian salmon farming, claiming, among other things, that farmed salmon causes cancer (like cigarettes) and suggests, through his use of mock cigarette packs, that salmon companies should be warning consumers of the dangers (like the cigarette companies do). Mainstream Canada and its parent Cermaq are offended by his campaign and launch a civil defamation suit against him, arguing that his claims (like those mentioned above) are false and have caused harm to the company's image. In the proceedings so far (1 week of testimony), the ads shown in exhibits do not mention the company at all (only the Norwegian flag and coat of arms appear in the ads linking the campaign to Cermaq, Mainstream's parent company, which is partly owned (48%) by the Norwegian government), and the defense has presented peer a reviewed article in leading scientific journal that concludes that "In considering cancer risks only from PCBs, dieldrin, and toxaphene, use of the USEPA approach triggered very stringent advisories against frequent consumption" in the amount of 1 meal for every 2 to 4 months, depending on the country of origin, which was at least "an order of magnitude higher in farmed and market samples than in wild Pacific salmon." To which the plaintiff's witness, Dr Gallo admitted there was a "scientific controversy" over the data, and that while he did not agree with their (Huang et al.) interpretation of the data, he admited that "no reasonable scientist would argue with the data."
So tell me, where was the defamation against Mainstream/Cermaq committed?
Huang et al., "Consumption advisories for salmon based on risk of cancer and noncancer health effects," Environmental Research, 101 (2006) 263–274.
BTW - I have not donated anything to his defense, and in reading the complaint against Staniford, and the judge's ruling against his attempts to get the case expanded to essentially put the salmon farming industry on trial, I found it all quite damaging to him. It all seemed to be a slam dunk to Cermaq...if they could prove he lied. Now, I am intrigued that Cermaq would really want all this to come out in court. I mean, what if the court finds that Staniford did not "falsify" information in his campaign? What if the judge finds that there is enough truth in the ads to have a defamation case thrown out? What is THAT going to do to Cermaq's image? All their PR and advertising dollars are not going to fix their image then, is it? I mean, he did not even mention their company by name, but they have now irrevocably tied their name to those cigarette ads. Truly a bizarre move.