I've hesitated on commenting on many of these threads because I don't feel I have all the information about what makes the most sense for our own health and that of the environment. My feeling is that fish farming may be a necessity to satiate the global demand for seafood; we can't continue to rape the oceans with commercial fleets. That being said, until it can be definitively proven that there is no harm to resident populations I believe they should be limited to closed containment. Why take the risk? I already know the answer, it's money and to me that is unacceptable. There are many farming practices that also follow the same ethic circumventing focus on profitability and I disagree with those as well and believe they should change. Unfortunately, that misuse of livestock and land is ingrained in our culture and will take longer to correct, but salmon farming is still new enough (relatively speaking) that we shouldn't make the same mistakes. Despite assurances from the fish farm spokespeople about the safety of their industry the reality is that we know so little about the marine ecosystem that I ask again, why take the risk? That brings me to this discussion about Morton's "error".
For better or worse, I believe in corporate accountability. I also recognize that I am not the authority on all of the products I interact with on a daily basis. That being said, from time to time despite my uneducated position I feel that if I'm concerned about a product I have the right to ask questions. In my opinion a good company will provide a satisfactory answer, when it comes to food safety this is a must. Many people on this forum seem to feel that Morton's science is questionable and they are entitled to their opinions, but in the case of Kudoa appearing in farmed fillets she was right. She had concern, she asked a relevant question, and I can relate to that.
To me it's disappointing that the pro fish farm users here and the spokespeople for the industry focus on attacking semantics (virus vs. disease, actual photo vs. example) rather than looking at the big picture. I'm not going to drink the Morton Kool-Aid without asking questions, but the same goes for the fish farms. In terms of credibility, Morton could skip the science altogether (I know many think she already does) and just post that she found "gross looking, mushy, fillets" that she doesn't think she be eaten and if she's right, she's right (that's exactly what happened with the linked CTV news story). In fact even if she misidentified the cause completely, having the fish farm spokespeople count that as a win for their camp does NOTHING for their credibility in my opinion. Take it for what you will, but I hold the corporation trying to sell me something to a higher standard than the biologist with the gifted degree. I feel the onus is on them to provide me evidence contrary to the big picture issue Morton or any other consumer has identified.
More concisely I feel like these threads that try to discredit by focussing on the small details are basically like Morton blogging that she has found a horse that has been beaten to death and the fish farmers chalking up a win because they've found that the photo of said horse wasn't the actual horse and further investigation on their part has revealed that in fact it was bludgeoned to death! The horse is still dead and that's really all that matters to me.
Can you imagine if Morton was just a concerned consumer, asking questions without even a hypothesis? What would the pro fish farmers have to pick apart?