Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alwaysfishn]

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?

Works Cited

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.

Sums it up nicely Sandman. Kinda like watching a 2 year old have a temper tantrum.

[absolon]

Interesting...I wonder how "fish farms are a cancer upon the sea" is that different from "fish farms are a stain upon the sea?" Furthermore, the testimony in that first week seemed to be focusing on how his campaign likened the fish farm companies to tobacco companies, which willfully mislead the consumers about the health effects of their products (can the tobacco companies now sue Cermaq because their employees are claiming the tobacco companies are dishonest?).  They do not appear to be approaching the argument from your perspective.  Maybe they need you on their legal team.

The last thing they need is another armchair quarterback. There are more than enough contributing their two cents (more or less) already. And I'll leave deciding the relevance of the arguments to the judge; after all, even if I was there to observe everything, it's his impressions that are the critical ones.

[alwaysfishn]

The last thing they need is another armchair quarterback. There are more than enough contributing their two cents (more or less) already. And I'll leave deciding the relevance of the arguments to the judge; after all, even if I was there to observe everything, it's his impressions that are the critical ones.

It's a her.....   Justice Elaine Adair

[Sandy]

Staniford doesn't claim that eating farmed fish causes cancer. He claims that fish farms are, amongst many other nasty things, a cancer. That is the defamation and a defence that eating farmed salmon increases risk of cancer doesn't really address it.

I guess that's why the judges get paid the big bucks.

I think the argument hinges on Staniford's view that in the past some suspected and accused Big Tobacco Inc's products of causing illness among both the direct and the accidental users of causing all sorts of nasty illnesses; Big Tobacco Inc fought back at first with the help of local to national Governments until it was undeniable anymore. We have all seen the results of that argument.

I think Staniford is using the analogy in his campaign that Big Fish Farm Inc. is using the same tactics, and that history will tell if he's right.

The right of one indusry or another to pollute is a differant issue.

 

[absolon]

LOL!

Staniford isn't waiting for history to tell if he's right.

[StillAqua]

Sums it up nicely Sandman. Kinda like watching a 2 year old have a temper tantrum.

That's a good analogy for Staniford...he does seem to think he can say and do anything he wants....which he amply demonstrated at the Cohen Commission posting stolen evidence from Ms. Morton.

[alwaysfishn]

That's a good analogy for Staniford...he does seem to think he can say and do anything he wants....which he amply demonstrated at the Cohen Commission posting stolen evidence from Ms. Morton.

Yes, some people interpret free speech really liberally......   

[chris gadsden]

http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/girl-who-kicked-hornets-nest-and-girl-who-played-fire

[alwaysfishn]

http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/girl-who-kicked-hornets-nest-and-girl-who-played-fire

Funny how Mainstream has backed down from their original charges, revised the charges and are now focusing on the "sting". I wonder how much longer before they back off on all these silly charges?

[Sandman]

I find it interesting that, given the arguments last week, Mainstream's lawyer did not anticipate that the defense was going to present the same papers on the elevated levels of contaminates in farmed salmon and, therefore, should have been prepared with those papers Ruth Salmon suggested were out there contesting the scientific findings.  It made her argument that the science had been refuted to the point that “We don’t have a controversy now”  seem very weak, especially given the subsequent paper confirming the higher levels of contaminates in farmed salmon.  Very weak.

[alwaysfishn]

It's still early but Mainstream is not looking too bright so far....

[alwaysfishn]

Update on Staniford:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ixYrxeGUMw&fb_source=message

[chris gadsden]

From Alex

In an unprecedented move fishing lodges are challenging other lodges to support the legal costs of the 20-day defamation trial: Staniford vs Mainstream (owned by Cermaq, largely owned by the Norwegian government). Staniford compared the salmon farming industry to big tobacco.

Central to the case is whether the salmon farming industry read the scientific papers recommending limiting farm salmon consumption due to toxin levels and then spent millions trying to convince people to eat more farm salmon.

The trial is ongoing this week. Already $24,000 has come from over 300 donations from the public.  $10,000 came from a group of fishermen in Norway. A Swedish fly-fishing magazine has put out a plea for funding of this case.

The trial is public and ongoing at: Law Courts, Nelson and Hornby entrance 10 am #52.

See the BC fishing lodge challenge: alexandramorton.typepad.com

If we want wild salmon it is up to us.

Alexandra Morton
alexandramorton.typepad.com

[Dave]

Ludicrous!  Skeena steelhead are in far more danger from Babine sockeye commercial fisheries.  Read Bob Hooton's recent book on the mismanagement of these fish   If anything these lodge owners should be pushing for terminal sockeye fisheries on the Skeena system.

[alwaysfishn]

These are intelligent business men and I admire their generosity. They are taking an opportunity to express their appreciation for someone they know is fighting to preserve their lively hood.

Interesting thing is that Don isn't even fighting for their lively hood. He just wants to see the wild salmon survive.